Is anyone else tired of Evangelical Atheism?

[_Some Schmo]

Mere semantics, Runtu.

Actually, religion does have its uses... We need a place for the special ed kids to go, right? Where would Wade go on Sundays to color and stuff?

Thanks, -Some Schmo-

[_The Nehor]

Mere semantics, Runtu.

Actually, religion does have its uses... We need a place for the special ed kids to go, right? Where would Wade go on Sundays to color and stuff?

Thanks, -Some Schmo-

And still the other thread is the Arrogance about the "Church being True".

[_barrelomonkeys]

Mere semantics, Runtu.

Actually, religion does have its uses... We need a place for the special ed kids to go, right? Where would Wade go on Sundays to color and stuff?

Thanks, -Some Schmo-

Oh! Schmo! That hurts me! Seriously.

:(

[_wenglund]

Mere semantics, Runtu.

Actually, religion does have its uses... We need a place for the special ed kids to go, right? Where would Wade go on Sundays to color and stuff?

Thanks, -Some Schmo-

Oh! Schmo! That hurts me! Seriously. :(

Please don't be too negatively affected by Schmo. I am guessing that when he left the Church he, like Mercury and PP, lost his sense of propriety and social graces (assuming he ever had them to begin with), having traded them in for bigotry, and is now floundering in an unwittingly desparate and failed attempts to be funny. He really doesn't know any better. But, give him time, and some warranted feedback (like what you just did), and maybe he will at some point in the future actually get it and ironically see a need to grow up.

I say this not so much for your sake (since I believe you already understand this), but for his. I value your healthy sensitivity, your sense of fairness, and human kindness.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I haven't read Hitchen's book and doubt I will do so. I have always found his personality to be somewhat obnoxious. I read Dawkins and found it very thought-provoking, although at the end of the read I was still not completely convinced by him. I think it's clear religion serves evolutionary purpose, and unless we find something to substitute for that purpose, religion will continue as is. (I do have to mention that the majority of arguments I've seen believers offer for the existence of god tend to actually be arguments that religious is useful.)

But I'm certainly not tired of them. Good gravy, our culture is saturated with religionists who have aggressively pedaled their own beliefs for centuries. It's about time some atheists start pushing back. Whether or not I agree with all their points is a separate issue.

[_guy sajer]

Canucklehead

Richard Dawkins recently did a televion show entitled "The Root of All Evil?", and I should very much like to see the portion of the transcript wherein he states, "there is no evidence that religion is the root of all evil, and much evidence that it is not".

Hi Tal,

I have never seen the show in question, so I can't comment on it or whether Dawkins explicitly says what you're hoping for. Have you seen the show?

Based on Dawkins' book and the many question and answer sessions which he has undertaken (many of which are posted on youtube), I can't imagine that he would make the claim that religion is the root of all evil. That claim goes contrary to much of what he argues in his book. Dawkins doesn't make many blanket statements about relgion ... The explanation that marg referenced from wikipedia seems like a likely explanation as to how the show got its name.

In regard to the main point of your thread, I don't see how anyone could be so dreadfully tired of having atheism supposed preached to them as you claim to be. It's not like atheists are going around bashing on people's doors, trying to convert them now, is it? So a couple of books have been published... so what? Nobody is forcing you to read them. Neither is anyone being forced to sit and watch Dawkins' televised program. Hell, I read Dawkins' book, thoroughly enjoyed it and then went out and bought Hichens'. Therafter I heard more about the kind of book Hitchens' wrote, and decided that I'll probably disagree with much of it. Yet, even though I OWN the audio file of this book written by a so-called "horseman" (it's sitting on my hard drive right now), nothing has forced me to listen to it. Once I get around to it, I expect that I'll disagree with much of it. Yet, that certainly won't make me overly weary of the promotion of rational atheism.

Religion has been spread by the sword for millenia; a US president has publicly stated that atheists don't deserve to be citizens; every US politician has to kowtow to the religious fundamentalists in the south in order to not be written off entirely; yet, a couple of books promoting atheism get written and suddenly everyone is oh-so weary and enirely worn-out from atheism being "shoved down their throats"?

I don't get it.

Amen to this. After several millennia of true believers' forcing their particular brand of superstitious thinking on others, a few books by a few polemicists hardly evens the score.

Like others, I found Dawkins to be fairly reasonable and Hitchens to be highly polemical. I enjoyed both, and I am capable of separating rhetorical excess from reasoned argument.

The solution to avoid being the vicitim of evangelical atheism is pretty simple: don't read the books out on the market; don't log onto or debate of certain discussion boards, and don't watch the programming on tv or Youtube.

Now, if it were only that simple to avoid being the victim of evangelical theism, then perhaps people like Hitchens wouldn't be so compelled to write the books that offend the believers so much.

[_wenglund]

I thought that "evening the score" went out in junior high, along with the mistaken notion that tearing others down (particularly their beliefs) will somehow build oneself up. But, apparently some of our godless friends, like some religionists, didn't get the memo. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade,

You are so reliably clueless.

The topic is whether or not people are sick of evangelical atheists. How can one be sick of them when they are such a minority, so outnumbered by evangelical believers of hundreds of different stripes? Atheists could not even begin to "even the score".

[_Tal Bachman]

Okay Canucklehead, I hear your point.

In response to others, I never thought of this as "evening" any scores; I just think it doesn't make much sense to finger religion, if the real problem is uncritical/dogmatic thinking, because uncritical/dogmatic thinking doesn't necessarily require any religious cover at all; and in its non-religious form, was the cause of the deaths of many millions of people literally within only the past 80 years. So why focus on religion? It's like writing a book fingering Snickers bars, when what you really mean is malnutritious food in general.

What am I missing?

[_beastie]

I haven't read Hitchen's book, so can't speak to that, but what I think you're missing from Dawkins is that he disagrees with you on a very basic point. Dawkins thinks that religion does harm because it teaches people to ignore the rules of logic and science in favor of what he sees as superstition. You don't agree with him. It's as simple as that. He doesn't believe the good that religion does outweighs this particular harm, particularly since the same good could be achieved without religion.

I actually agree that religion does do harm in this way, but I tend to think human beings are so wired to be this way that it's probably useless to fight against it.