Really Dodgy Guardian article comparing Atheists to nutty religious fundamentalists

[nightbreed]

Reading the Guardian the other day I came accross this article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2021296,00.html

Tell me, does anyone know examples of terrorism that atheists use to advance their ideas?(my first thought!!)

I found the article far fetched; written by a journalist who seems to have too much time on their hands.I also thought it typical of the kind of article associated with the Daily Mail.

My view as an atheist is that people like Dawkins dont represent a fudamentalist/extremist viewpoint. I personnally think he is a liberal.

 

[nick1181]

This is a fairly common tactic. Religious people trying to drag rationality down to the level of religion.

Science != Religion
Science != Faith
Atheism != Fundamentalism.

Scientists / Atheists have the freedom to change their minds if suffiently convince evidence to do so ever turns up.

Religion / Fundamentalism never change their minds regardless of any evidence.

 

[shagnasty]

what a pile of shit i am agnostic but dont push my view onto people who have faith as lennon sang what every gets you through the night

 

[AnnaKarpik]

Interesting article but I think you've missed the point.

As Phillip Pullman puts it,

It's vital to get clear in young minds what is a faith position and what is not

Now as I see it, the way in which you believe the world should be run is what shapes your opinions and behaviour. Whether you choose to add weight to this belief by insisting that god(s) are on your side or that this belief is purely rational, scientific perhaps, is not relevant.

And when a person claims to have blown up other human beings because of their religion we do not have to accept this as a genuine reason, particularly when co-religionists find the action abhorrent. This could an example of using religion as a cover for actions which serve a personal or political need.

Examples of terrorism by atheists; Baader-Meinhof is my first thought.

Anyway I'm pushed for time now. Later.

 

[Fruitloop]

"We are witnessing a social phenomenon that is about fundamentalism," says Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark. "Atheists like the Richard Dawkins of this world are just as fundamentalist as the people setting off bombs on the tube, the hardline settlers on the West Bank and the anti-gay bigots of the Church of England. Most of them would regard each other as destined to fry in hell."

Richard Dawkins believes in hell? That is a turn-up for the books.

 

[zoltan]

Interesting article but I think you've missed the point.

As Phillip Pullman puts it,

Now as I see it, the way in which you believe the world should be run is what shapes your opinions and behaviour. Whether you choose to add weight to this belief by insisting that god(s) are on your side or that this belief is purely rational, scientific perhaps, is not relevant.

And when a person claims to have blown up other human beings because of their religion we do not have to accept this as a genuine reason, particularly when co-religionists find the action abhorrent. This could an example of using religion as a cover for actions which serve a personal or political need.

Examples of terrorism by atheists; Baader-Meinhof is my first thought.

Anyway I'm pushed for time now. Later.

The BMG had links with Left wing Catholic priests etc - athisem wasnt really on the agenda - anti capital action yes, anti religion ? likely, but not at the core of their praxis - the fact that were likely athiests doesnt mean they were athiest terrorists

 

[Gromit]

I hate the Guardian. Too many pseudo-intellectuals talking out their arse cause they like the smell of their own guff. Plus sorry to break it to them but the world and the universe doesn't rotate around London.

I tried to read what he wrote, really i did but all i heard was blah blah blah. blah blah blah.

 

[Fruitloop]

Yep, that seems like a pretty spot-on analysis. I mean it is actually possible to offer some kind of new perspective on the whole faith issue but that article could have been written by a computer, to be honest, it's so predictable.

I wish I got paid great whacks of money to write tosh, I'm sure I could make a better fist of it than these muppets.

 

[J77]

Some atheists bang on about not believing in something than most religious people do about believing in something.

 

[nick1181]

I hate the Guardian. Too many psudo-intelectuals talking out their arse cause they like the smell of their own guff. Plus sorry to break it to them but the world and the universe doesn't rotate around London.

I tried to read what he wrote, really i did but all i heard was blah blah blah. blah blah blah.

That's not how you spell intellectuals.

Or pseudo.

 

[Dubversion]

i think people are being a bit hard on the article, tbh - it does raise some interesting points and the writer doesn't equate an atheist position with a faith one, some of the interviewees do.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, the author dosen't take any position at all, just recycles gibberish from cretins like John Gray.

 

[Gromit]

That's not how you spell intellectuals.

Or pseudo.

I have a really bad cold. My spunlink suffers as a result soz.

 

[King Biscuit Time]

Atheism is as much a religion as 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby.

 

[bouncer_the_dog]

I hate the Guardian. Too many pseudo-intellectuals talking out their arse cause they like the smell of their own guff. Plus sorry to break it to them but the world and the universe doesn't rotate around London.

I tried to read what he wrote, really i did but all i heard was blah blah blah. blah blah blah.

Yes.

I can't stand it when an Aethist starts preaching at me...

 

[likesfish]

Atheism is as much a religion as 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby.

I love it as an atheist I spend no time bothering about what other people belive or really caring at all

 

[TAE]

Britain is dividing into intolerant camps who revel in expressing contempt for each other's most dearly held beliefs.

That is true - those who do not believe can be extremely abusive and intolerant.

 

[nightbreed]

The BMG had links with Left wing Catholic priests etc - athisem wasnt really on the agenda - anti capital action yes, anti religion ? likely, but not at the core of their praxis - the fact that were likely athiests doesnt mean they were athiest terrorists

You cant say atheism is a type of fundamentalist movement in the same way as the christian right is in the US or the muslim religion is in the middle east or Indoneasia. Atheism doesnt inspire passion in the same way so in my view ,is very unlikely to inspire terrorism. I agree that the Baader Meinhof gang or Brigade Rosso were anti capitalist individual terrorist groups. While they might have been atheist it wasnt a driving force.

 

[nick1181]

That is true - those who do not believe can be extremely abusive and intolerant.

The reason there is an increasing amount of distaste for religion, is that every time you turn on the news, there's something really fucking stupid and violent going on, and more often than not, the grounds for it seem to be religious.

You don't get this with yoga. People who aren't into yoga, generally don't have a problem with other people being into yoga because there's a lot less fuckwitery involved than there is with religion.

Atheistic intollerance doesn't come within a million miles of religious intollerance. We don't burn embassies, we don't threaten to cut people's heads off. We don't kill people because someone said something bad about something we "believe" in.

 

[Tom A]

I don't mind people having their individual beliefs as long as they don't continously preach them to me. That goes for atheism as well as any of the religions. Also I have encountered an "holier than thou" attitude among a lot of the atheists (mostly on t'internet, mind) who consider their religious counterparts weaker and inferior to themselves. As long as they aren't stoning to death homosexuals, consider women the personal property of their families/husbands, use force and coercion against those who "stray from the rightous path" and so on, I really don't care what people believe.

 

[nightbreed]

I don't mind people having their individual beliefs as long as they don't continously preach them to me. That goes for atheism as well as any of the religions. Also I have encountered an "holier than thou" attitude among a lot of the atheists (mostly on t'internet, mind) who consider their religious counterparts weaker and inferior to themselves.

I dont agree that this is as bad as the 'holier than thou' attitude of the religious fundamentalist. Most Atheists , as already said , couldnt give a monkey's . They just dont want to be preached to and told about this constant obsession with the UK being 'a christian country,so therefore blah, blah, blah...........'
If the churches were full there might be a different argument but as only 3% of the population go to church (often quoted, dont know source) ,the christian church at least havent got the basis to dictate to the majority in the UK.

 

[militant atheist]

I don't mind people having their individual beliefs as long as they don't continously preach them to me. That goes for atheism as well as any of the religions. Also I have encountered an "holier than thou" attitude among a lot of the atheists (mostly on t'internet, mind) who consider their religious counterparts weaker and inferior to themselves. As long as they aren't stoning to death homosexuals, consider women the personal property of their families/husbands, use force and coercion against those who "stray from the rightous path" and so on, I really don't care what people believe.

But Tom the point being missed here is that atheism isn't a belief! It's the absence of belief in sky pixies of any kind. It's the theists who have the belief, atheism is simply the negation of the beliefs of theists.

 

[fogbat]

Atheism is as much a religion as 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby.

That's a lovely comparison
Is it your own work, or a quote from someone?

 

[kyser_soze]

We had a VERY long thread about this some time ago, specifically about The God Delusion where I made basically the same point - that there are some atheists out there who are as intolerant of faith-based viewpoints as some religious types and while I don't necessarily agree that at present you'll see rationalist NLC actions, that's not to say that in 20 years time secularists and atheists (who are a very tiny global minority in comparison with Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism) won't feel sufficiently threatened by the continuance of what seems to be a resurgance in religious belief around the world that some of them take some form of action. Hell, if you'd caught me 10 years ago I'd have happily discussed the idea of DA against some of the more dubious/extreme faith groups (like that gay-bashing anglican priest or the 'Soul Centre' on Peckham High St that claims to be able to cure cancer and HIV).

But the idea that atheists couldn't become radicalised enough, or reach a point where they felt threatened enough, that they wouldn't engage in violent action is absurd. Dawkins is famously intolerant of religious faith as are many people on this board - there are a few very open theophobes on Urban, a position that I have a lot of sympathy for but recognise as being a form of fundamentalism - not in the religious sense, but certainly conveying the contempt and intolerance for religious belief that fundamentalist religious types have for atheists and science - similarly polarised views (you're an idiot for believing in a God/Because you have no God you have no moral centre)...

Oh, and anyone who wants examples of atheistic terror, I'd suggest looking at the USSR, Cambodia and China - all countries where faith based religion was displaced by State worship, and which were all as bad as anything the Inquisition or Sharia states can offer.

 

[Aldebaran]

The reason there is an increasing amount of distaste for religion, is that every time you turn on the news, there's something really fucking stupid and violent going on, and more often than not, the grounds for it seem to be religious.

So you say that the religion of the leaders of the US and the UK was the incentive for them to order the invasion of the sovereign nation Iraq (I don't even speak about Afghanistan), causing the death of hundreds of thousands, wounding much more, leading to the greatest distruction and havoc imaginable, leaving us with a situation nobady can even imagine how to get under control. Right?

Atheistic intollerance doesn't come within a million miles of religious intollerance. We don't burn embassies, we don't threaten to cut people's heads off. We don't kill people because someone said something bad about something we "believe" in.

I can only advise you to study recent history.

salaam.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, the neo-con junta are 'Christians', although the exact nature of their belief is pretty questionable.

 

[kyser_soze]

Bush is a Rapturist - one who believes that we are in Final Days and that they will be taken up when the big fight happens so they can watch us all burn from Grandstand seats - and I've always viewed his religious convictions as holding more sway over him personally than something like PNAC, which is more Cheney's device.

I'd argue possibly that Bush' unwavering support for Israel, coupled with the basic distrust of any faith or ideas system that isn't his, has/had a significant bearing on how he's approached foreign policy - not just TWAT, but the whole coupling of aid to DevWorld nations with things like anti-abortion rules for example.

In Blairs case he is very much a 'liberal hawk', and again I think that his actions are driven by the conviction that what he is doing is right, regardless of the human cost, and that this is derived from his faith as an Anglican verging on converting to Catholic.

So yeah, religion plays a deep part in both their lives, and while I suspect that Iraq was approached and thought about in VERY different ways by both - Blair I think actually believed in the rightness of invading to depose Saddam, irrespetive of WMD, whereas the reasons for the US going in were more a combination of wanting to avenge Daddy and grab the oil.

 

[Aldebaran]

kyser_soze, we are in agreement on something.

See? Miracles do exist

salaam.

 

[nightbreed]

Oh, and anyone who wants examples of atheistic terror, I'd suggest looking at the USSR, Cambodia and China - all countries where faith based religion was displaced by State worship, and which were all as bad as anything the Inquisition or Sharia states can offer.

That is state terror not atheistic terror. Just because religion was outlawed/semi legal in these states doesnt mean that their terror acts were based on atheism.

 

[Azrael]

Oh, and anyone who wants examples of atheistic terror, I'd suggest looking at the USSR, Cambodia and China - all countries where faith based religion was displaced by State worship, and which were all as bad as anything the Inquisition or Sharia states can offer.

Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are dodgy. Hitler and Stalin had moustaches, therefore ...

More seriously, the personality cults surrounding Hitler and Stalin bore all the hallmarks of religion: sacred texts, rituals, icons, and most pertinent of all, a being at the apex whose word lay beyond all question. If we define "religion" as belief in a sky-god, they were not religious. But, if we stretch our criteria for "religion" beyond the most semantic definition, Hitlerism and Stalinism were bona-fide religious cults. Dictators don't abolish God: they become Him.

All dictatorial regimes ruthlessly persecute dissenters and depend on an apparatus of thought that mirrors fundamentalist religious faith exactly. That's what blows this spurious "X dictator was an atheist" argument out the water (and indeed, heavens).