I know I said this already, but you’re making a mistake by treating Hitchens and Dawkins, who probably have nothing in the world in common other than being atheists, as a movement or a group. They’re two people, and as far as trends go, neither one is new on the scene.
Your assumptions have little to do with reality. I said I was bemused. What part of bemused says that I think there is anything wrong with them proselytizing? They have every right to be missionaries if I want.
I find the righteous indignation in this thread kind of comical.
The titles of the aforementioned books are:
The God Delusion
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
These are NOT books that are merely about atheism. To claim that they are anything but attacks on religion is dishonest.
I used my words properly. They share in common that they are atheist proselytizers. Any assumptions of further depth to the statement says more about the observer than it does about what I said or the relationship of the authors.
So you’re not only mistaking a couple of atheists for a movement, you’re judging a book by its cover?
:rolleyes:
You said there was a “trend” in atheist proselytizing, which does imply there’s a relationship. You also referred to “Atheism” like it’s a religion.
Has anybody actually said that Hitchens speaks for all atheists? 'Cause, I never got any notice. Not even a shareholders proxy vote notice. I would have voted for Kodos.
Well, okay, Dawkins.
No, you are the one saying things about a movement. I talked about a trend. You do understand the difference between a trend and a movement right? A movement has a greater level of organization, a trend does not necessarily. However, it is not just three people writing three books. It is three people writing three books and millions of people buying them.
You are abusing context and putting words in my mouth. I take no responsibility for your assumptions.
Since when does a book proseylatize anyway? Bibles are sold every year. Plenty of people own them and read them. It’s only when people go door to door, or actively try and push their beliefs onto you, that it’s proseylatizing. And I don’t know about anyone else, but i’ve never been doorstepped by an athiest.
You’re making too much of a big deal out of my use of the word movement where you prefer “trend.” You’re saying right here that it’s a large number of people. My point is that there isn’t a trend. You mentioned three people, a small number, and at least two of them have been saying the same things for a very long time.
I’ve abused no context, and since you missed the question, I’ll ask this again: have you actually READ the “attacks on religion,” or are you making judgments about the content based on the titles of the books?
:rolleyes:
Please show me where in the definition of proselytization it includes door to door solicitation.
pros·e·lyt·ize /ˈprɒsəlɪˌtaɪz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pros-uh-li-tahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -ized, -iz·ing.
to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.
Do you think books saying that religion has a negative impact on society, are not seeking to influence opinion on the subject matter they are about.
Again, it is dishonest to claim that these books are simply explanations of atheism. They are attacks on religion.
Three people modified by an audience of millions.
I’ve read a bit of the Dennett one. Never finished it. The only judgment I have made is that these books exist and that they seem to be coming out more frequently. You are abusing context by acting like I judged any deeper than that.
Who ever said they weren’t attacks on religion? Making arguments against and critiques of various claims and social institutions is not exactly some dramatic or out there practice by the way.
::rolleyes::
By the way, did you really mean that you found it “bemusing”? That word is commonly mistaken to mean “amused” but it actually means “confused.” Which did you mean?
You called all three attacks on religion, and yet you only read part of one of them. Pardon me, but it sounds like you are a bit more than “bemused”.
Where does it include it? Well, right there. “Convert or attempt to convert” - that certainly includes door-to-door solicitation. Did you perhaps mean something else?
First you’d have to prove that these books are indeed saying that. Which have you read in which this occurs? Could you point out any particularly egregious examples?
Let’s imagine one does, though (and i’m perfectly willing to accept that there may be books on athiesm that attempt to convert). The problem with descriptions of athiesm are that they do tend to be based around problems with religion. It’s not a question of “I believe this” but “I don’t believe this” - and to write a book about it, you do need to describe what you think the problems with religion are. I would say that a book on athiesm that doesn’t cover typical objections to religious beliefs would not be a book on athiesm, just as any book on religion that doesn’t cover agreements with particular beliefs wouldn’t be a book on religion. I suppose my definition of proseylatizing in books differs from yours - I wouldn’t consider the Bible, the Koran, etc. on their own to be proseylatizing. With books, the only active component of conversion comes from the reader.
On the other hand, your point seems more to be that these books actually attack religion beyond the point that is necessary. I’d need some cites for that one, though; can’t refute vague notions.
I agree. And the Bible is not an explanation of Christianity; it’s an attack on all other religions and atheism. But I don’t consider the book on it’s own proseylatizing.
Oh, and it’s dishonest to claim things about books which one has not read.
Yeah, I am sure the titles have nothing to do with the subject matter, and that the interviews I have seen with the authors had nothing to do with the books they were trying to sell. Dennett was selling a book on kitten photography, hitchens was launching a couture line, and Dennett was writing an autobiography of Cicero.
Oh, so if you are attempting to influence someone’s opinion, it is only an attempt to convert if you are knocking on their door?
So these books are not about what they claim to be about? Why is it that anytime an atheist feels that you have somehow slighted their beliefs they immediately jump to questioning your ability to comprehend what’s right in front of your face?
These books are not about what they believe, they are about what other people believe erroneously.
A book explaining Christianity and a book attacking Atheism are different in character, do you understand how? I have never read a book on a particular religion that even addresses atheism.
My point was that I was interested to see what people think of them. You are jumping to conclusions. I don’t think there is anything wrong with what they are doing. I just find it interesting that they carry so much currency suddenly.
Even when their title, the publisher’s blurb as to what they are about, and the interviews with the authors say that’s what it is about?
Sorry, as far as bemusement I meant a sort of perplexed amusement.
So you want to be taken seriously, but the most you can muster on your part is “perplexed amusement”? I think we are being more than fair with you.
I think the anti-religious polemic in the books will have the opposite effect that they want. They just end up preaching to the choir, so to speak.
I think that Carl Sagan’s Demon-Haunted World does a better job of conveying what needs to be conveyed about critical thinking and that Sagan always managed to get himself across without sneering at faith. Teaching people to examine how they arrived at their beliefs is more effective than simply attacking their beliefs and calling people stupid for believing them.
No one has genuinely asked for my opinion. I’ve only been stating what my opinion is not, as people have been furiously putting words in my mouth. I don’t care particularly if I am taken that seriously there are thousands of internet message boards, and at this point I take very few of the people putting words in my mouth terribly seriously.
What I’ve seen recently are people quoting you directly then disagreeing with what you’ve said.