What do you make of the trend in atheist proselytizing?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
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.
[/QUOTE]

One of my favorite authors: Robert Anton Wilson writes a lot about people’s ‘reality tunnels’. How their glosses make up their belief systems, that they are largely walking through their models and that this makes them miss inordinate amounts of detail. One experiment he did was that part way through a class he was teaching he put a poster up in the hallway. He left it for a few weeks before asking if anyone had noticed it. No one had, they had already created a model of the hallway that they walked through every day, and in that model the poster did not exist.

62

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
What I’ve seen recently are people quoting you directly then disagreeing with what you’ve said.
[/QUOTE]

Oh really? Please show me where I said that there was anything wrong with the writing of these books. A number of people have argued that I am saying that they are going too far, or that I am implying that there is some kind of grand organization of atheists or anything like that. I never said any of those things. Do you consider that replying directly to what I say and disagreeing?

63

[QUOTE=mswas]
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?
[/quote]
Nope, that was just one example of attempting to convert.

They’re certainly about athiesm, despite your amusing “Oh, so they’re about BEAVERS!” sarcasm. How do you know, for example, until you read “The God Delusion” that it is not a book explaining that in fact the idea that religion is delusional is wrong? And if it does claim that, how do you know what things are being called delusions - i’m guessing you yourself are religious, but I imagine you too might claim that there are delusional religious people. How do you know, without reading it, whether the book addresses all religion, some religion, parts of religion?

Why do you continue to use these huge broad brushes? Aha, one athiest has done this on one occasion! Clearly this may be addressed to all atheists on all occasions!

Besides, i’m questioning your ability to read the books. I’m perfectly willing to believe you’ve read the titles.

Saaaaays the guy who hasn’t read them.

Yes, they are. But they contain elements of each.

Dude, the Bible. “There is one God”. Addresses athiesm right there, in that it says it’s wrong. Addresses religion right there, in that it says there no polytheism. By defining a God, and claiming that God as real, it says that any other religion (or athiesm, or agnosticism) is wrong.

I think you’re jumping to conclusion, in that I didn’t suggest you thought there was anything wrong with it.

Yup. A blurb is a few sentences. Even an interview can’t tell you the whole story - and in an interview, the format of question-and-answers makes necessary a defense of one’s arguments, unless the questions are “When is your book out?”. You can’t get a full understanding of a book until you read the thing.

Look at it this way. You have read blurbs and seen interviews. Other people on the board have read blurbs, seen interviews, and read the actual books. You claim there’s no difference. They claim there is. Surely they are better in the know, having actually read the books?

64

Passively, not actively. We are not talking about books that discuss whether or not there is a God. We are discussing books call ‘The God Delusion’, and ‘God is not Great’. These are negative statements of belief, not positive statements of belief.

I will not entertain any more dishonest arguments that these books are about anything other than what the title says they are about. I have made no arguments as to their content or merit. If you have read these books and disagree that they are arguments against religion, please tell me why. Otherwise whether or not I have read them is irrelevant. It should be rather easy to falsify my hypothesis that they are appropriately named.

Does anyone here who has read any of these books find that they were inappropriately titled?

Revenant Threshold The above question is my answer to any subsequent post you make until you show me evidence that falsifies my hypothesis.

65

mswas, would you mind if I judged the Bible on what others have said about it, or would you rather I read it first?

66

So to sum up: mswas doesn’t have anything to say about anything, other than he’s darn sure he finds us all amusing. The topic of this thread is “What is the title of The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins” and anyone that says its about anything else is a filthy liar.

67

Well, I concur: that certainly is the title of that book. Mod, I guess you can close this thread now?

68

[QUOTE=Apos]
So to sum up: mswas doesn’t have anything to say about anything, other than he’s darn sure he finds us all amusing. The topic of this thread is “What is the title of The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins” and anyone that says its about anything else is a filthy liar.
[/QUOTE]

We’ve also found that mswas is shocked, shocked, to have the author of a book talk about it on the book tour meant to sell copies.

The cause of the trend is obvious, I think. A book about atheism became a best seller, so atheists had included things about atheism in other books thought they could sell a book about atheism to their publishers. The publisher made a business decision, the books got published, and they seem to be making a lot of money.

You got something against capitalism, mswas?

69

Hitchens was on TDS last night. He appeared to be either drunk or stoned and made very little sense. He seemed to think he was exceedingly logical and bright. He wasn’t either.

Thing that annoys me about this bunch is that they’re all drunk on the idea of their own brilliance. ‘Looky - I came up with some real smart thoughts about how there can’t be a God’. Yawn. Yeah, but you missed some glaringly obvious smart thoughts that show you ain’t all that and haven’t a scrap of actual proof for your claims.

I’ve yet to be impressed by any of them.

Oh, and Hitchens is under the impression that his book is an argument against religion.

70

Yeah, Hitchens, as I said, is really a total mess. I mean, his book recycles the flat out mythical claim that orthodox Jews have sex through a hole in a sheet.

Your other critiques, though QG, are as content-free as usual. Pretending to have an almost 100% emotional argument in your own mind, and, surprise! winning is not the same thing as having something worthwhile to say about a topic.

71

[QUOTE=mswas]

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

[/QUOTE]

I’d also add Sam Harris’ The End of Faith and Letters to a Christian Nation.

72

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Hitchens was on TDS last night. He appeared to be either drunk or stoned and made very little sense. He seemed to think he was exceedingly logical and bright. He wasn’t either.

Thing that annoys me about this bunch is that they’re all drunk on the idea of their own brilliance. ‘Looky - I came up with some real smart thoughts about how there can’t be a God’. Yawn. Yeah, but you missed some glaringly obvious smart thoughts that show you ain’t all that and haven’t a scrap of actual proof for your claims.

I’ve yet to be impressed by any of them.

Oh, and Hitchens is under the impression that his book is an argument against religion.
[/QUOTE]
Which Dawkins’ book was it that you read again? Oh yeah, none of them. It was an unspecified “essay” and your having written to Dawkins himself. That certainly puts you in a position to say what was so glaringly missing from his books.

73

[QUOTE=mswas]
Right, because ‘going missionary’ is only something the other guys do.

When atheists seek converts it’s only ‘marketing’.
[/quote]
Wait a minute, I have to get rid of these damn Atheists that just knocked on my door. There are two of them, dressed in white shirts and thin black ties, about 19, and they want to talk to me about their Bible. I think they have some propaganda magazines to hand out and they insist I join them at the next service at the temple.

Sure are annoying. I get them all the time, and they keep coming back.

74

[QUOTE=mswas]
2012 :cool:
[/QUOTE]

At 2:30 in the afternoon on June 3.

75

[QUOTE=mswas]
Will atheism bring about the end of Europe because secularists don’t breed at replacement rate?
[/QUOTE]

Please clarify which definition of secularism you are using. You’re not equating atheism with the idea of keeping religion and government separate, are you?

76

LAst night Colbert talked about the rise of Atheism in Europe. Very funny and interesting considering this thread.
He said Celebrity French Philosopher and Atheist Michael Onfray
He spoke of his/their holy book Atheist Manifesto a.k.a. The No Faith Scrolls
Every Sunday Onfray gives a two hour lecture on the glories of non belief.

The National Secular society in England has doubled it’s membership in the last four years and when Christians join they get a de baptism

The word was The UNquisition. He referred to Atheists as Anti-vangelicals. He suggested that as the movement grows atheists will need an official place to meet.
Perhaps they could build the Nihilistine Chapel.

The best part was his sarcastic comment on Onfray’s belief that we are headed for a showdown and a final battle between Religion and atheism and what an improvement the us vs them attitude of religion was becoming the them vs. us of modern atheism.

77

[QUOTE=Musicat]
Wait a minute, I have to get rid of these damn Atheists that just knocked on my door. There are two of them, dressed in white shirts and thin black ties, about 19, and they want to talk to me about their Bible. I think they have some propaganda magazines to hand out and they insist I join them at the next service at the temple.

Sure are annoying. I get them all the time, and they keep coming back.
[/QUOTE]

I hate the ones that stop people on the street and try to convert anyone wearing a Christian symbol. But the worst ones of all are the ones that show up every Sunday at church and constantly interrupt the preacher with cries of “There is no God!” and “Where’s the evidence!?”
I don’t know how Christians put up with it, myself.

78

[QUOTE=mswas]
The only judgment I have made is that these books exist and that they seem to be coming out more frequently.
[/quote]

This is the first time you’ve said they only “seem” to be coming out more frequently, as opposed to “fact that Atheism has gone missionary.” Since you don’t read them in the first place, I don’t think you’re in a position to offer a solid opinion on that topic.

You did, sorry. Quit saying everyone else is putting words in your mouth. You said atheists are proselytizing, which is your opinion (not a totally unsupportable one), you said it’s a trend (which you are having trouble backing up), and you do seem to have a problem with it.

79

Marley23 I backed up my assertion that it’s a trend quite easily. If three Hollywood movies come out about the same subject, then it’s considered a trend. If three popstars of a similar aesthetic come out it is considered a trend. So, if three atheists write attacks on religion, I consider it a trend. I am not interested in arguing about the definition of ‘trend’ with a bunch of oversensitive people who have made wild assumptions about my opinion. I said that my opinion was that I was ‘bemused’, not as Voyager claims ‘shocked’ that they would go on tours talking. I never thought of proselytizing or seeking converts as particularly shocking. I figured I would get the reaction I’ve gotten because proselytizing is something the ‘other’ guy does.

Czarcasm When God or the thousand rabbis and priests go on a talk show and give a quick synopsis of the bible then maybe there is a basis for comparison. I am basing my hypothesis on three things:

  1. The titles of the books seem to imply they are attacks on religion
  2. The synopsis of the books put out by their publishers claim they are ‘critiques’ on religion.
  3. The authors claim they are ‘critiques’ of religion.

As far as the Dennett book goes, I read about a quarter of it, part of the first quarter ironically was the introduction where he tells us what he is trying to accomplish by writing the book. It’s remarkably in line with how I have characterized it. And by the way, I didn’t stop reading it because I was disinterested. I stopped reading it because I was more interested in ‘War and Peace and War: The Life Cycles of Imperial Nations’ by Peter Turchin. I simply haven’t gotten back to it.

It’s funny that everyone jumped on my case thinking I was somehow insulting atheists by mentioning these things. I thank FriarTed for adding evidence to the hypothesis that this can be considered a ‘trend’.

BrightnShiny I was just paraphrasing a popular argument on a religious message board that is obsessed with demographic decline. I don’t actually believe that, I usually argue against it. However, for many devoutly religious people a true secularism cannot exist. As religion is the moral foundation, trying to make law that is absent of that is untenable.

Apos Did your appeal to emotion and ad hominem laden post accusing me of appealing to emotion make you FEEL good? I didn’t offer a single critique of the books, I just asked people what they thought about them. Thus far I have offered no opinion other than:

  1. Enough people have released books that have sold well for me to consider it a ‘trend’.
  2. It is bemusing.

Any other critique beyond that is pure speculation. None of the speculation has come even close to the mark as far as reflecting my actual opinion.

Voyager I have no problem with capitalism, I made a quick analysis of market trends and casually started a message board post about it. Thus far it’s gone rather well, I have learned far more from the hysterical defenses telling me that I can’t possibly judge the content of a book by it’s title and synopsis, than I have from the people who just calmly stated their opinion.

This book: Iraq Since 1958 I believe is a history of Iraq since 1958, but I can’t be sure, I’ve only read the first couple of chapters. I would ask those of you who’ve read it if I am correct, but I can’t trust what you tell me because that would only be hearsay.

80

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Hitchens was on TDS last night. He appeared to be either drunk or stoned and made very little sense. He seemed to think he was exceedingly logical and bright. He wasn’t either.

Thing that annoys me about this bunch is that they’re all drunk on the idea of their own brilliance. ‘Looky - I came up with some real smart thoughts about how there can’t be a God’. Yawn. Yeah, but you missed some glaringly obvious smart thoughts that show you ain’t all that and haven’t a scrap of actual proof for your claims.

I’ve yet to be impressed by any of them.

Oh, and Hitchens is under the impression that his book is an argument against religion.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting. I saw the same episode and found Hitchens very lucid and quite sober. What did he say that you thought didn’t make sense? I can probably explain it for you.