Atheism

It was meant to be fa. We can't have you failing Art again.

Or can we? On second thoughts, with my opinions on art courses, I suppose failing art might be considered a sign of promise. Not necessarily mind you. Only might be. There are other reasons.

Passing is a sign of teacher validation and as teachers are one generation, at least, behind their students such validation is art slamming the brakes on. And that will never do.

I agree with you on the Hitchens of old. The pre-9/11 Hitchens. I think the post-9/11 Hitchens is much more in line with Dawkins.

I also don't read Hitchens' views on religion/atheism. I think he and Dawkins are of interest to persons in flux or who like to argue. Certainly of no relevance to me.

It is precisely that kind of arrogance which makes me contemptuous of both militant atheists and militant religionists. I've never participated in atheist groups because such attitudes are offensive to me. I'm not an atheist because i consider it a superior intellectual stance, i'm an atheist because there is no god in my life, and because i can't see any good reason to believe that there are such things as gods.

Getting societies and cultures up and running and maintaining them is presumably an insufficiently good reason to overcome Setanta's aesthetic tastes which are admitted in the post to be limited to those within his range. If he "can't see any good reason" does not mean there are no good reasons.

I also don't understand why these two guys get inserted into every atheism thread. I feel it distracts the focus, in that people spend all their time criticizing Hitchens and Dawkins' stance on religion and everything else comes to a standstill. I don't mean to be an old fussbucket criticiser exactly, just voicing my opinion.

You're right, they don't need to be inserted. They are because they have given a public voice to atheism. Whether you agree with them or not, they have been significant voices. More are to come, and I'm sure they will have more or better insight... and perhaps less incite.

A
R
T

A discussion on atheism without Hitchens and Dawkins is like a discussion on Christianity without Jesus. They aren't the first, by any stretch of the imagination, to give atheism a public voice, but they preach a modern day atheism in the same vein as Jesus in his day preaching a modern Judaism.

I think you are rather overestimating them JPB. They rank nowhere near the Marquis de Sade, Julien Offray de La Mettrie and Charles Bradlaugh as preachers and livers of atheism. And for attacking Christianity they are as nothing compared to Madame Blavatsky.

The writings of all these, and many more, are still extant and can be read by anybody who takes a little trouble.

Jesus is a giant among men. There is no comparison.

Hitchens and Dawkins are famous because Media chose to make them so. You can hear what they say in any pub.

Why Media so chose is much the most interesting aspect of the matter.

I disagree totally. There is no hierarchy of atheists. Nobody nominated and voted these guys the voice of anything. To concentrate on them like this is to bypass the real atheists out there, who don't feel allegiance to any 'voice of atheism.' My main objection to keeping them in a discussion is that every poster zeroes in on, "They don't give enough respect to the religious." Then everybody chimes in, "Oh I hate militant atheists." "oh, me too. I hate millitant atheists." "I hate militant atheists." Ten pages later we get past it. Then somebody else says, "Dawkins is a militant atheist. I hate militant atheists." Then everybody chimes in, "I hate militant atheists." "Oh, me too. I hate militant atheists." Meantime, atheists are sitting back, going, "WTF? Is that a code for "Atheists are walkin a thin line with me?" Is there a resentment behind it, just waiting a signal to explode?

I agree ed. I can't see why atheists even want to discuss atheism.

ok, point made. But, just as there are all shades of believers, there are numerous shades of atheists. The squeaky wheels do tend to get the grease and these two are the modern day squeaky wheels.

Yes, egb. They are the point of a pimple that mostly isn't going on.

First, Jesus (if the dude ever actually existed) was not preaching a modern Judaism, he was preaching strict adherence to the law, with no interpretation--he was a conserative, and very likely an Essene. That's why he (allegedly) lambasted the Pharisees. Look up the Pharisees sometime, they weren't a club of arrogant, wealthy men who hung out at the Temple, howling for the blood of anyone who differed with them, which is the BS story, essentially, in the gospels.

Second, atheists are not the equivalent, but polar opposite "sect" to christianity. If you want to make such a comparison, you'd need to compare atheists as the equivalent, but polar opposite of all religious creeds for all time. You can no more compare Hitchens and Dawkins, a couple of self-important flakes, to Jesus than you can compare Washington only to people who have held the title of President--when he held the office, he was the only one in the world, but he was not the only head of state in the world.

Your analogy fails miserably, and atheists are not obliged to "own" jerks like Hitchens and Dawkins. I do very well with my lack of belief without subscribing to their nonsense, thank you very much.

gee... 0 for 3 on both sides of the messiah spectrum. I kinda liked it. oh, well.

The squeaky hinge of the door to the parlour in Shandy Hall never got greased despite Walter Shandy resolving to grease it everytime he heard in squeak. Which was a lot of times.

All things must pass.

ed - I don't like the preachy stuff either, but I also think there are social pressures to be a "reasonable atheist." Disturb the water too much and all of a sudden you're some uppity skeptic with an ego.

I think that these men stand out very much for the fact that they are unreasonable. Lots of atheist fear social rejection and feel that they have a lesser right to express their views openly and with the comfort that others do. That's not okay with me.

I remember in college, there was a common situation that played out. I'd be referring to some animal or plant and then I'd finish with some statement about evolution. Then from across the room somebody would say "if you believe in evolution." Now there is conflict. Now I can handle conflict, but after enough time, it becomes cumbersome to have to deal with it so frequently. It becomes easier to simply not voice my views and avoid conflict all together. It seems to me that people like this are important (not more important) to normalize people of faith to the fact that their ideas cannot go unchallenged and should be tempered with some restraint.

If their is not public secular voice, then it is only that much easier to advance religious agendas.

A
R
T

I understand why you write that. I have done my share of ducking. But for every atheist thread to revolve around those two guys is tiresome and ridiculous. There is greater dimension to being an atheist than that. The original intent of this thread is to have atheists share from their own experience, not chant incantations to ward off the potential ill will of others. If it makes everybody happy to bring Dawkins in, though, I will be silent and just read along.