Richard Dawkins and his New Atheist brigades are behind a new bus placard campaign in the UK, advising people that: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
Nathalie Rothschild, who appears inclined to sympathize with them, finds them to be a pill. Excerpt:
It seems that the New Atheists, their fans at the British and American Humanist Associations, and others who fear the popularity of god, fall back on religion-bashing rather than trying to convince others that there is merit in their own secular values. Really what irks them about the religious is that they have a grand vision and are committed to live by it - something that is sorely lacking in society at large.Sherine, writing in the Guardian, says that 'there's no doubt that advertising can be effective, and religious advertising works particularly well on those who are vulnerable, frightening them into believing'. This assertion really brings out what is behind the atheist bus message: the secularists believe they must take it upon themselves to shine a guiding light and steer the easily-duped masses away from the darkness of unreason. The atheist campaigners, rather than trying to engage with the public, are simply preaching at us.
That's the really interesting thing about some of these atheists. To be sure, I don't at all begrudge them their right to their views, or to proselytize for those views. But their leading lights -- I'm thinking of Hitch, of Dawkins, of Sam Harris, of P.Z. Myers -- are absolutely fanatical in their anti-God fundamentalism.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Really, atheistic persecution is just a fact."
"All of these events tied back to secular and in the case of Communism atheistic ideologies."
Now, I'd be willing to grant that most wars people call "religious" cannot actually be placed entirely at the feet of relgion. But if you are going to hold atheism accountable for things like social Darwinism & Communism, then religion must bear equal blame for northern Ireland, the 911 attacks, etc. The link between the Crusades & religion is no different than the link between Communism & atheism; either they both take the blame or neither do. Personally, I don't see why a Jew, Hindu or even a modern-day Christian should have to answer for the Inquisition, so I don't see why Humanists or other atheists should have to defend the actions of Stalin & his like.
rr writes:
" But “scientific” materialistic atheism was part and parcel of Communism. You can’t neatly separate it from Communism."
Nor can you neatly separate the Czars, as leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church, from the abuse and neglect of the serfdom which lasted much later than in all europe; which in turn caused much more anti-religious sentiments.
rr writes:
"Oh, and I can name one Communist revolution that did not include Stalinism. Tito’s revolution in Yugoslavia. Stalin and Tito were rivals."
Come on now. Stalinism is just a term for the russian brand of totalitarianism.
rr writes:
"Social Darwinists did this in the late nineteenth century. They saw society as based on “survival of the fittest” and believed it was wrong to help the poor and the weak. The Nazis were directly influenced by eugenics and Social Darwinism. I don’t subscribe to Social Darwinism. But if one is somehow going to try and mix science and ethics, the approach of Social Darwinist strikes me as more coherent that Shermer’s."
But even Darwin himself proclaimed his theory was a description of nature, not a proscription. Its always suprising to me that so many people dont even know what "survival of the fittest" means, isnt it? Social Darwinism can only be considered more coherent b/c of its simplicity, prepare to be unstruck by social darwinism after reading shermer's thesis. Even other mammals show more premoral sentiments than any "ethics" proffered by social darwinists.
Well, to perhaps guide these comments back towards the actual article, this is possibly the most hypocritical article I have ever seen. Why would you, of all people, ever, EVER criticize an atheist for preaching their beliefs? You call Dawkins fanatical!?! What is the difference between way he preaches and Christians preach? He is an atheist: Do he not breathe the same air or bleed the same blood, as a christian does? Does the fact he lacks a belief in something cause different rules to apply to him? Can you really say that he or any atheist is in the wrong by being "preachy" while Christians preach all the time?
If you truly believed that atheists have the same right to preach as Christians, you would not title your article "Why are the New Atheists so preachy?" It is so obviously charged and biased to your Christian beliefs that it is embarrassing for you to even say you actually believe that Atheists should have the same right to spreading their ideas as Christians.
I respectfully disapprove of your argument against "preachy" atheists, as it is hypocritical and simply unfair.
- Nocebo
Rod-
I'm having trouble finding the post in your archives where you similarly criticize the religious right (or even religious types in general) for being "preachy." I just figure if a few atheists and atheists signs lead to a blog post, then the 2,342,934 signs exhaulting religion/God and the 100's of millions of evangelicizing (i.e. preachy) adherents evoked a similar response.
Nocebo-
The difference between an Atheist preacher (eg Dawkins) and a Religious preacher (eg Dobson):
One of them thinks your belief system makes you a bit of a moron; the other thinks your belief system indicates your lack of morals, condemns you to eternal torment, damnation, and suffering, and disqualifies you from public office.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.