What does faith have to do with it? Atheism is, according to all the evidence we have, correct. That is why it deserves special treatment.
I’m sure devout Christians feel the same.
Regardless of whether or not you agree, you both have the same mindset.
No, it’s not the same mindset. Atheism is not a “faith” or a belief. Absence of an irrational belief is not the same as having an irrational belief. The comparison is bogus, no matter how many times theists try it. It always smacks of sweaty desperation.
To the person holding them, they’re identical. You say you have the truth, they say they have the truth. So there’s really no question as to why a theist would accept mocking with the exact same affront that many atheists react to being mocked. If you want to hand wave that away by saying “sweaty desperation”, more power to ya.
As I’ve pointed out to you numerous times now, it is traditionally defined as the belief that there is no God. That is precisely how most dictionaries and encyclopedias of philosophy present this term.
Admittedly, a great many people choose to use it in a more loose fashion nowadays – saying that it is merely an absence of belief. This is inconsistent usage; for example, when someone says, “I don’t believe in ghosts,” they typically mean an active rejection of ghostly existence, rather than a mere lack of belief one way or another.
Even if we set that aside though, the point remains – it is inaccurate to say that atheism is defined as a mere absence of belief. The most you could say is that this is how some people have chosen to employ the term in more recent times. It’s certainly not how The Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines the term, for example.
Heck, Dawkins himself argues that there is “almost certainly” no God. Despite the “almost” disclaimer, that statement certainly goes far beyond merely lacking belief one way or another.
You have got to be kidding me. Christian beliefs are handled with kid gloves in Amerca. There is nothing universal about that.
I believe the hierarchy of respect in small town America goes something like:
-Protestant
-Catholic
-Jew
-Muslim
-Dogshit
-Atheist
“I don’t believe in Ghosts” means there is no logical or physical evidence for the existence of ghosts, so why should I believe in them?
If I don’t believe in Mighty Mouse, it’s not because I hold a faith-based belief that he doesn’t exist, it’s because there’s no evidence that he does and pretty good evidence that people made him up.
Why is god any different?
Religion is one big argumentum ad populum.
Atheism does not claim to “have the truth.” Atheism contains no positive assertions or beliefs. It’s only (despite JThunder’s protestations) an absence of belief in one particular claim. It does not claim anything at all in itself.
On any question of fact, some people are right and some are wrong; I happen to agree that athiests are right in that there does not exist a God or gods (or indeed any supernatural beings, heavens, hells, etc.) - or rather there is no proof of such things and no reason to believe they are anything more than inherited culture.
However, being right isn’t the same as being persuasive. Persuasion requires certain skills, it doesn’t matter what the topic. Brow-beating, self-satisfied declarations of correctness, implying or stating that people who disagree with you are delusional - these are not the skills of persuation. They are rather the indica of self-affirmation among the like-minded. They play well on the internet (one can anticipate a chorus of “Right on! Well said!” from those who already agree).
In effect, such argumentitive techniques exactly mirror those of true believers, even though ‘atheism’ isn’t a faith or belief. Their purpose appears to be to reaffirm loyalty to a particular self-identified group, and to gain approval within in - rather than to persuade others outside that group that the argument being advanced is correct.
Here we enter into the anthropology of the matter: whether or not something is a “belief” or a “faith” has nothing to do with the way in which people identify with it. A “Christian” is presumably a Christian because he or she believes that Jesus is saviour - that’s a belief. In one sense an athiest is quite unlike a Christian: an athiest has no necessity for “faith”. However, as hominids, we tend to identify in groups with the like-minded, whether the issue is religion or football; and when we do, we tend to want to strengthen group identities and (to an extent) demonize outsiders. Many of the excesses of religion are attributable to this process, and indeed that demonization is built right into some of 'em. Same with stuff that isn’t a ‘belief’, like one’s favorite football team.
The thing that is problematic about Dawkins is that he seems to allege that his work is intended to be a work of persuation. However, it isn’t persuasive - it seems rather to be intended or targeted at the like-minded. As such, his tendancy is to denegrate and demonize his opposition … a tendency which is not unlike that makes certain religious folks problematic.
I don’t know why you waste your time with this. It is very well established in srious philosophical discussions that strong atheism is only a subset of atheism. What do you expect to accomplish by trying to insist that all atheists are strong atheists? Do you think we don’t really know what we believe?
So, assuming you’re an atheist, you prefer to have your (shit… what word is safe to use? Thoughts? Claims? Thinkifications?) treated worse than dog shit because you wouldn’t want any undue deference?
I think the tone of Dawkins’ “delusion” analogy gets mischaracterized, and I wonder how many people who get upset about it have actually read it. He does not come out the gate screaming that all theists are deluded. He draws analogous beliefs, points out that most people would agree that those beliefs would be delusional, then asks why we don’t think of supernatural religious beliefs as delusional when they don’t have any more basis than what we agree would be patently crazy beliefs.
Dawkins does not do this to mock theists, or really even to call them delusional, but to call attention to the oddity of religious belief as a human convention. He is not trying to say that people with theistic beliefs are crazy, he’s saying that most people don’t really think about it that deeply or question why they believe it.
No, I would prefer a different hierarchy. Something like (I’m about to put no more than 3 seconds of thought into this so don’t overanalyze it):
-Strong physical and/or logical evidence
-No evidence either way
-Fabricated, illogical harmless claims
-Dogshit
-Fabricated, illogical harmful claims
Emphasis mine.
Interesting choice of words.
I find it interesting that since religious people can’t win any argument for religion, they resort to reframing it, which includes trying to make other people look bad for having beliefs. Beyond being wrong, it comes off looking like, “You’re just as dumb as us! HAHAHA!”
No it isn’t. We also know what we don’t believe.
Really, all I’m trying to say is – and I know this is groundbreaking – most people want to be treated respectfully no matter where they fall on the religion spectrum. Just as some atheists believe their place on the spectrum places them high enough that they don’t have to treat others with respect, don’t be surprised that others feel the same way about their place.
I’m sure there’s exception but so far I haven’t seen anyone saying they welcomed mockery for their place on the spectrum and deserved no deference.
But Dawkins doesn’t mock. That’s simply not true.
I also disagree that people are entitled to have their beliefs respected. They’re entitled to have their right to believe respected, but not for the beliefs in themselves, and, in point of fact, virtually nobody respects all beliefs.
Again, this sort of argument by analogy only “works” in terms of persuation with people who share the understanding that the analogies being drawn are valid and legitimate. For those who do not, it is of course going to be perceived as mockery, whether such is intended or not. It does not help that Dawkins proceeds to make all sorts of claims which quite explicitly demonize religion (the "imagine … " quote), compare a religious upbringing unfavourably to pedophilia (on his website), agree with Humphrey that religious people have no right to teach their own children (I know you disagree with this characterization but you are incorrect), etc.
To my mind, this is more a classic "us’ vs. "them’ than a work of persuation. It will tend to impress those who agree and anger those who do not.
Personally, I like the opening of Dawkin’s work, where he discusses the “Einsteinian” version of religion. He seems to have some sympathy for that, probably because he knows many people who hold those views.
I quite agree no-one is entitled to have their beliefs respected.
However, a person who wears their lack of respect for others’ beliefs on their sleeve can’t hope to convince others. All they can do, if you will excuse the expression, is preach to the the choir.