Best Responses to New Atheists

[Czarcasm]

@ITR_champion

Huh? Are you denying that the leaders of the Soviet Union were atheists and were very direct about promoting it? That they took a great many actions towards the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating religion from Russia and replacing it with atheism? How about this:

For nearly two decades, in the first half of the 20th century, an unprecedented mass movement, promoting and enforcing “godlessness,” spread everywhere from Kiev to Vladivostok. By 1932, the movement’s high-water mark, over five million Soviet citizens had joined the “League of the Militant Godless.” Dozens of “museums of religion” occupied former churches, preaching the atheist gospel. Aviators took Siberian peasants on flights high above the taiga, demonstrating that neither god nor angels lived in the sky. An “agit-train” called “The Godless Express” crisscrossed the USSR, its passengers distributing thousands of atheist tracts, desecrating the remains of saints, publicly celebrating a derisive “anti-Christmas.” Atheism became an academic discipline, complete with respected institutes, peer-reviewed journals, and tedious conferences. Filmmakers, illustrators, and painters produced an outpouring of work, blasting belief and superstition. For one season in Moscow, a theater called The Atheist mocked God from the stage.
…
Atheist journals flourished from the early 1920s: The Godless at the Workbench, The Anti-Religious, and Militant Atheism. The Bolshevik faith in print persuasion was boundless: both describing and directing anti-religious work, these publications were by turns incisive and thoughtful, graphically stunning, malicious and hectoring. From the most prominent of them—The Godless, a weekly newspaper established in 1922—would emerge the organization The League of the Militant Godless.

The League was established in 1925, with the stated aim of transforming “Holy Russia” into “an atheistic Soviet Union." Party members, activist youth, intellectuals, and workers were among the members. Possibly the largest atheist organization in history, the League soon had its hand in almost everything: journalism, book publishing, education, supervision of the new atheist museums, policymaking, and more. Special emphasis was placed on opening cells in the countryside, beachheads for the spread of atheist teaching. The League even boasted a few branches outside the Soviet Union.

Ceaseless publishing activity undertaken by the League—massive even by Soviet standards—supplied these local activists: by one estimate, the State Publishing House, working closely with the League, issued 140,000,000 copies of over 1,800 atheist titles between 1928 and 1940, and perhaps as many as 44,000,000 pieces of anti-religious literature in 1930 alone. One of the classics was entitled How Gods and Goddesses are Born, Live, and Die (1923) a didactic work by the league’s tireless founder, Emelyan Yaroslavsky, who was reported to enjoy the confidence of Dictator Stalin himself.

League members vowed to create a new atheist culture, adapted to the needs of building socialism. Atheist study groups, reading circles, and correspondence courses proliferated; self-help guides, such as Teach Yourself to Be Godless, were widely distributed. Soviet schools and workplaces had “godless corners”, informative collections of posters, brochures, newspapers, and photographs which echoed the “icon corners," of Orthodox tradition. (They stood along side the “red corners” and “Lenin corners” of the time.)

It seems you left out the next part, which kind of changes things:

Too soon, the frenetic drive to build an atheist culture was appropriated, and finally overwhelmed, by the new Soviet religion, which swept in with a readymade orthodoxy and a pantheon of glowing communist saints.

[begbert2]

@ITR_champion

@Bryan_Ekers

So it’s not different from the other ideologies? I’d like to be clear on this point, since you invoke the image of the mass-murdering atheist quite a bit.

If I invoke the image of the mass-murdering atheist quite a bit, it’s because atheists have committed mass murder quite a bit. It’s true, of course, that atheism and communism are not synonymous, but neither are they disjoint and historically there’s been strong overlap. Every communist regime that I know of undertook some type of violence against organized religion.

If there atheism and communism were even vaguely synonymous, it would be quite difficult to be an atheist without being a communist. It’s not.

And you invoke the image of the mass-murdering atheist quite a lot because utter falsehoods about what actions atheism drives people to take are as easy an attack to make as any.

@ITR_champion

As for whether religious perseuction has sometimes been in the same lines as that by secular regimes, I’ve never denied it. I may, at some times, have suggested that the tolls racked up by the secular regimes are much larger, as for instance we have frequent mentions of the Spanish Inquisition that killed 1,000 people (give or take) in four centuries, but if we’re so interested in Spanish historical atrocities then why have I never heard anyone mention the 6,832 Spanish clergymen killed in the red terror, which took less than three years. But I’d never deny that at some times extremists of certain religious varieties can act like extremists of the secular varieties.

Virtually all government regimes and leaders throughout history have had at least as close a relationship with one form of theism or another as communism has had with atheism. Were you intellectually honest on this subject, you would blame pretty much every war and pogrom in history on religion, due to the fact that the kings and rulers have had a marked tendency to be in close with or at least having their rulership and their actions officially sanctioned by their god (when they weren’t the god).

Heck, there was a lot of god-sanctioning going on with Bush’s wars, despite America being pretty officially-secular as countries go in history.

@ITR_champion

For example, just look at what Dawkins says in his introduction:

Now most authors begin a book by trying to strike a friendly, reconciliatory tone, acknowledging to the reader that it’s the author’s responsibility to make their case. So it’s somewhat strange for Dawkins to open up by declaring that anybody who doesn’t read his book and automatically change their life to obey it must be an idiot. But it’s not unique. I can name another author who does the same thing: the Prophet Mohammed.

It’s often said that “great minds think alike.” Richard Dawkins and Mohammed both starting off in the same way is surely proof that lousy minds also think alike.

Whoopy-fricking-doo. Tell me you’ve never heard a christian say that somebody should go read the bible and see the light.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

They don’t start off the same way, and all Dawkins did was acknowldege that he knew he was wasting his time with people like you. He wasn’t saying that “people who don’t read my book are stupid,” or that anyone who did read it would necessarily be enlightened by it, he was saying he knew that adamant theists such as yourself would never open themselves to any rational discussion (not just limited to his book).

You should realize that Dawkins is not your problem. The facts are your problem. The God Delusion is not some kind of manifesto from which all atheists get their marching orders. You can’t refute atheism by trashing Dawkins. You can only do it by proving gods exist.

[Der_Trihs]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

@Gustav

Seriously though, is there any actual difference between the New Atheists and the regular kind?

Not really. Atheists have been called “harsh and disrespectful” for at least 180 years.

And Socrates was executed for “impiety”. Not grovelling properly before the local religious delusion has been something the believers have always responded to with murderous levels of hatred.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Der_Trihs

And Socrates was executed for “impiety”. Not grovelling properly before the local religious delusion has been something the believers have always responded to with murderous levels of hatred.

I disagree. In societies where religion was seen as one of the corner stones of law and civil order, yes, there are many examples where what you say is true. But you’re flat out wrong when you claim that believers always respond with murderous rage to even “harsh, shrill and depraved” criticism. Most believers are moderate people, since most people are moderate. The “problem” is that societies can cast murderous intolerance as usual and moderate, but that’s really not a problem that’s specific to religion, even if religions can be predisposed to that kind of thinking.

[heatmiserfl]

@Bosstone

@ITR_champion

The question we’re looking at here, is whether atheists did, in fact, generally refrain from being confrontational and keep their atheism hidden prior to about 2004–that’s what Stenger et. al. seem to be implying. The fact that atheists murdered a great many Christians in the Soviet Union and other places proves that such a claim is false. The exact reason for the massacres of the clergy is not relevant to what’s being debated in this thread.

So you’re saying we should distrust men with giant moustaches.

I think puffy hair is more common in these mass murderers. The puff can be on the top like Stalin or 'Lil Kim or the side puffs like Mao or Ho Chi Minh. Lenin even had side wisps. Castro is the best. Puffy hair on head and face.

Like SenorBeef, I doubt the honesty of people who say Richard Dawkins is anything other than a polite English fellow who simply states that religion should not be given special status. It should be questioned like anything else. The problem is that even the most innocuous question of religion is considered outrageously rude.

[begbert2]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

@Der_Trihs

And Socrates was executed for “impiety”. Not grovelling properly before the local religious delusion has been something the believers have always responded to with murderous levels of hatred.

I disagree. In societies where religion was seen as one of the corner stones of law and civil order, yes, there are many examples where what you say is true. But you’re flat out wrong when you claim that believers always respond with murderous rage to even “harsh, shrill and depraved” criticism. Most believers are moderate people, since most people are moderate. The “problem” is that societies can cast murderous intolerance as usual and moderate, but that’s really not a problem that’s specific to religion, even if religions can be predisposed to that kind of thinking.

However, if you’re willing to argue that that atheism turned communism to evil, then clearly Christianity is a force of undiluted violence and evil that in the moderate people is only barely mitigated by people’s inner non-religious morals. Presuming you’re not applying some kind of double standard, anyway.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@begbert2

@Superfluous_Parentheses

I disagree. In societies where religion was seen as one of the corner stones of law and civil order, yes, there are many examples where what you say is true. But you’re flat out wrong when you claim that believers always respond with murderous rage to even “harsh, shrill and depraved” criticism. Most believers are moderate people, since most people are moderate. The “problem” is that societies can cast murderous intolerance as usual and moderate, but that’s really not a problem that’s specific to religion, even if religions can be predisposed to that kind of thinking.

However, if you’re willing to argue that that atheism turned communism to evil, then clearly Christianity is a force of undiluted violence and evil that in the moderate people is only barely mitigated by people’s inner non-religious morals. Presuming you’re not applying some kind of double standard, anyway.

Maybe. But I happen to think Der Trihs and ITR Champion are both spouting bullshit with no evidence to back up their claims, and I don’t particularly want to work very hard at understanding their mind set. They should offer some decent cites that I can’t easily refute from my knowledge and experience and then I’ll consider their views.

[CurtC]

@ITR_champion

Every communist regime that I know of undertook some type of violence against organized religion.

You seem to be repeatedly missing the point here. Communists didn’t violently oppose religion because they were atheists - they were atheists because the system they set up was threatened by religion.

Think of it this way - a Venn diagram. Inside one large circle represents theism. Everywhere outside that circle is not theism, so it is atheism. Now there’s another, smaller circle, disjoint from the first, that represents communism. That communism circle does not overlap with the theism circle, therefore the communism circle represents a set that is also atheistic.

What you’re doing is taking the misdeeds of that small communism circle and tarring the rest of [everything outside the theism circle] with them.

[begbert2]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

@begbert2

However, if you’re willing to argue that that atheism turned communism to evil, then clearly Christianity is a force of undiluted violence and evil that in the moderate people is only barely mitigated by people’s inner non-religious morals. Presuming you’re not applying some kind of double standard, anyway.

Maybe. But I happen to think Der Trihs and ITR Champion are both spouting bullshit with no evidence to back up their claims, and I don’t particularly want to work very hard at understanding their mind set. They should offer some decent cites that I can’t easily refute from my knowledge and experience and then I’ll consider their views.

In all honesty, I wouldn’t want to defend either of them. I mean, ITR has the causal thing between atheism and communism completely backwards, but Der speaks in such broad sweeping overgeneralizations that he makes his position indefensible too, despite there fact that he could in theory defend the claim “religion causes evil” much better than ITR is able to do for his side.

Regardless. Putting aside the question of which group of people is more statistically likely to take their ideaology and kill you over it, it seems eminently clear that the characteristics and behaviors that are considered typical of the so-called New Atheists are 1) not in any way comparable to communist atrocities, but despite that 2) have still managed to pop up in individuals now and then for hundreds of years past.

[Der_Trihs]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

@Der_Trihs

And Socrates was executed for “impiety”. Not grovelling properly before the local religious delusion has been something the believers have always responded to with murderous levels of hatred.

I disagree. In societies where religion was seen as one of the corner stones of law and civil order, yes, there are many examples where what you say is true. But you’re flat out wrong when you claim that believers always respond with murderous rage to even “harsh, shrill and depraved” criticism. Most believers are moderate people, since most people are moderate.

And for most of history, killing unbelievers has been what passed for the moderate position. Violence in most countries is treated as a monopoly of the state, and the state prevents mobs of believers from running around killing people in order to maintain civil order. That doesn’t mean the believers are more tolerant, it just means that they have the government keeping them from indulging themselves.

And religion is much weaker in the world than it used to be; weakness isn’t tolerance, either. Someone like the Pope can’t just have whole cites of people killed for not being Catholic anymore, so they pretend that their religion is a peace loving one.

[Lobohan]

@CurtC

@ITR_champion

Every communist regime that I know of undertook some type of violence against organized religion.

You seem to be repeatedly missing the point here. Communists didn’t violently oppose religion because they were atheists - they were atheists because the system they set up was threatened by religion.

Think of it this way - a Venn diagram. Inside one large circle represents theism. Everywhere outside that circle is not theism, so it is atheism. Now there’s another, smaller circle, disjoint from the first, that represents communism. That communism circle does not overlap with the theism circle, therefore the communism circle represents a set that is also atheistic.

What you’re doing is taking the misdeeds of that small communism circle and tarring the rest of [everything outside the theism circle] with them.

That’s actually a very smart way to phrase it. I don’t doubt that ITR will be unable to understand it, so I took two minutes and made a visual aid.

[Valteron]

Tell me if I am following the logic of this thread correctly. . . . . .

a) If atheist regimes killed more people than theistic regimes, then that proves God exists.

b) But if theistic regimes killed more people, then that proves God does not exist.

I am not too smart, so someone may have to explain the cause-and-effect link in that reasoning.

[begbert2]

@Valteron

Tell me if I am following the logic of this thread correctly. . . . . .

a) If atheist regimes killed more people than theistic regimes, then that proves God exists.

b) But if theistic regimes killed more people, then that proves God does not exist.

I am not too smart, so someone may have to explain the cause-and-effect link in that reasoning.

Well, if one actually wanted to presume that the idea was to make an argument, it would probably be that the fact that the godless heathens are all murders and the pious Christians are all saints proves that morality is given by God. (Not just religion, the Christian God specifically, because the dirty muslims and the confucionists are all sociopathic murderers too. But being a little bit goddish helps you a little anyway so even the infidels are at least a little bit better than the atheists.) And of course if morality comes exclusively from the Christian God, then the Christian God exists.

Or, the theists just like slandering those doodyhead uppity atheists who keep saying things that make them feel less good and certain. Especially those New Atheists - they just won’t shut up.

[Guinastasia]

How about we just agree that everyone is an asshole, and then sit down for pie and coffee?

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Der_Trihs

And for most of history, killing unbelievers has been what passed for the moderate position.

Cite please. And I realize that “unbelievers” is a term that can be stretched.

Violence in most countries is treated as a monopoly of the state, and the state prevents mobs of believers from running around killing people in order to maintain civil order.

Ok.

That doesn’t mean the believers are more tolerant, it just means that they have the government keeping them from indulging themselves.

As far as current, western civilization is concerned, I don’t believe that.

And religion is much weaker in the world than it used to be; weakness isn’t tolerance, either. Someone like the Pope can’t just have whole cites of people killed for not being Catholic anymore, so they pretend that their religion is a peace loving one.

I can agree with this. But the history of the catholic church - for example - is quite muddled with regards to the goals. The RCC for centuries operated as an opposite or at least independent power to the “secular” kings, emperors and states, who also used a fair amount of indiscriminate violence to back up their legitimacy and sustain their position. IMHO that is one of the reasons the RCC is as strictly hierarchical as it is today (which is a strength and a weakness). But the immediate use of all that power has mostly not been as straightforwardly violent as you posit.

[Der_Trihs]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

@Der_Trihs

And for most of history, killing unbelievers has been what passed for the moderate position.

Cite please.

I already pointed out the historical example of Socrates, and how “impiety” was a capital offense even that far back.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Der_Trihs

@Superfluous_Parentheses

Cite please.

I already pointed out the historical example of Socrates, and how “impiety” was a capital offense even that far back.

You said “for most of history”.

[Guinastasia]

Actually, Der Trihs, I’ve seen more people killed for not following the “correct” set of beliefs, rather than just not beliefs period. Or at least, that’s been the throughout history. It’s not about “religion vs. atheism” so much as seeing someone’s who’s different, and thus they’re evil. I’m not saying that there haven’t been great attrocities in the name of religion – but the way I’ve seen it, it’s usually because people just can’t stand non-conformity. If it isn’t religion, it’s something else.
Note: I’m not saying religion is good, and atheism is evil, or that in our society atheists don’t get a bad deal (at least in the U.S.) But you tend to paint everything black and white.

[Larry_Borgia]

Actually ITR Champion has shown the best response theists can use against new–or any–atheists. Their best move is to shift the question from “Does the Abrahamic god exist?”–to which the answer is a clear no–to “Are Atheists jerks?”–to which the answer is a clear “well some of them are, I guess.” No one likes to be insulted, and this move will cause a lot of fruitless discussion about Stalin or Dawkins. Questions about the existence of God will soon be forgotten.

For the record, even if all Atheists were baby raping monsters and all Theists were benevolent saints, it wouldn’t make a whit of difference to the question of whether the Abrahamic god actually exists.