How have your churches dealt with the "New Atheism?"

[More Than A Feeling]

Have any of your preachers given a sermon about it, or have you had a book group based on any of the multitude of new atheist books? Has this movement been completely ignored?

I'm not a good source of information about my church, since I attend rather infrequently.

[sam sarrha]

1. im a Buddhist, dont go to church and m not an athiest.. tell me more... i havent heard of them

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Some people like to call Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens

"New Atheism." That's who I was referring to, among others.

[Warpy]

103. "New Atheists" are atheists who have broken out of the

"I'm just not very religious" ghetto and started to tell it like it is, that we're atheists, that we don't buy any religion's stories about how the universe came to be and continues to exist, and that we lack a hostile parent figure in the sky threatening us with eternal torment but manage to live ethical and responsible lives, anyway. We work, we pay our taxes, and we're kind to animals, children, and as many believers as allow us to be kind.

I'm an atheist and a bad Buddhist on the jhana path. That ends at the surface of my skin. Who you decide to be is your problem and ends at the surface of your own skin. I will greatly appreciate anyone who stops trying to tell me I'm too stupid to have heard of Jesus and will therefore go to hell and I promise not to proselytize you in return. Really.

Belief or the lack of it is an intensely personal matter. Why believers are so obsessed with the fact that about 20% of us are unbelievers reminds me of the alcoholics who can't stand the fact that one of their bar crowd is on the wagon and going to AA meetings. They will do anything to try to get him to take that first drink. Believers have threatened us with ostracism, loss of our jobs, and constant harassment and have carried those threats out, all in the name of getting our lip service for their beliefs.

"New atheists" are just the people who are speaking out about being treated this way. Perhaps if we were left alone with the dictates of our own consciences there wouldn't be a need for it. We know how uncomfortable you get when somebody doesn't accept your myths and go to your churches, temples or mosques. We'd be quite happy to be left alone and we'd return the favor.

[struggle4progress]

3. I wouldn't attend a church that spent much time discussing the ideas of Dawkins, Harris &c

The remarks of Dawkins, Harris, &c don't seem to address important issues confronting people at my church -- which we do discuss

[More Than A Feeling]

4. Would anyone speak up if they felt that it was an important issue

or do you think that even that would be taboo?

[struggle4progress]

6. I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for anyone but myself

The "work" of the so-called "new atheists" strongly reminds me of the long sophomoric discussions my friends and I had when adolescents: debates about metaphysical matters of little consequence, conducted without much social experience or historical understanding; quibbles about the literal meanings of phrases people use as they search to describe their hopes and failures and experiences; egoistic triumphalism ...

In meaningful conversations with real people, one wants to understand the real issues in their lives and to aid them with usable insights for their struggles

[More Than A Feeling]

7. You attend a church where the existence and nature of gods

you think irrelevant to the "real issues" in the lives of church members. I guess none of those "usuable insights" are thought to come from gods. The church must not use the bible, either. Are you a UU, by any chance?

[theredpen]

9. Was there a clearance sale at Strawman City or what?

I thought struggle4progress brilliantly summarized the weaknesses of the "New Atheist" books in his short post. Your response is just a bunch of strawman characterizations of his church. There is nothing in his post to justify your "challenging questions."

I've met all kinds of atheists; the last self-identified atheist I met was a third-generation atheist and had a daughter in college who was 4th generation. This guy didn't feel the need to either defend his right to be an atheist or attack anyone who wasn't. The "New Atheists" — the militant and vocal apostles of Dawkins and Harris — are typified by a desperate need for validation.

This OP is reminiscent of an "ex" asking a mutual friend, "Does he says anything about me?" So far, I've seen that attempts to establish a dialog between believers and these "New Atheists" usually ends up with the New Atheists stomping off saying, "Oh yeah? Well I broke up with you!"

[trotsky]

11. No, but they certainly had plenty of arrogance in stock for you, huh?

You seem to get more vicious each time the topic of atheism or atheists comes up.

Regarding the OP, there have been several op ed pieces - by believers! - attacking the "new atheists" and warning churches of their influence. And it's certainly a fact that people who feel unfulfilled by their church or its answers can become atheists.

I am sorry you harbor such ill feelings toward atheists. For what it's worth, there are very, very few who fit your distorted stereotype.

[theredpen]

17. You can find an op-ed piece on anything these days

Proves nothing.

The fact is that the "New Atheists" are of any interest in mainstream, non-proselytizing churches, and it's pretty revealing that atheists would care on way or another.

For what it's worth, there are very, very few who fit your distorted stereotype.

:rofl: Yeah, yeah, and you broke up with us.

[trotsky]

18. Revealing in your own imagination only.

Despite your erroneous assumptions about these "new atheists" and people who happen to agree with a lot of what they say, their books have been bestsellers. A few whacked out extremist atheists aren't going to be able to accomplish that. Mainstream religion has been steadily losing the culture war ever since the golden days when they could just kill anyone who spoke blasphemy. Church attendance is down. Church membership is aging. Fewer men are entering the priesthood.

Your church, and others, ignore these trends at your own peril. I hope most of them DO share your attitude, though. That will only hasten their long-overdue demise.

[theredpen]

19. And you'll never get a date for the prom!

"Your church, and others, ignore these trends at your own peril."

Boo hoo.

"their books have been bestsellers."

Oh, so you're hanging with the popular kids! Talk about a need for validation...

Oh, and if credibility goes with bestseller status, what does that say for Ann Coulter?

[trotsky]

24. You are such a great example for your faith.

Such love and tolerance I feel!

Oh, and if credibility goes with bestseller status, what does that say for Ann Coulter?

Well, if you want to bring up Coulter, that's a pretty good counter-example, as her sales only got where they were due to bulk sales to conservative benefactors.

But Al Franken, or Michael Moore, and hundreds of other liberals have had bestsellers of their own, too. Maybe next time you'll have a point!

[theredpen]

26. Cheap shots at my faith. Classy.

Well, if you want to bring up Coulter, that's a pretty good counter-example, as her sales only got where they were due to bulk sales to conservative benefactors.

Good point, that was a bad example. What about Tim LeHaye and his "Left Behind" books? What about Joel Osteen's new "Jesus for fun and profit" book? Those are outselling Harris and Dawkins combined — they outsell the other authors you listed as well. Don't get me wrong, I think they're full of shit, too, but you made this a popularity contest, so there you go.

[trotsky]

28. "Left Behind" books are bought up by the extremists in YOUR gang.

And clearly there are more believers than non-believers in this country.

You over-simplify things (and ignore everything else I said, of course - what a convenient red herring!) by thinking I wanted to make things into a "popularity contest." The point is that the so-called "new atheists" don't just speak to some tiny vocal group of "militant" atheists that exist only in your imagination. Sizeable numbers of regular people found a lot to agree with in the works of Harris, Dawkins, et al. They are not militants, they are not extremists, they are simply non-believers and they don't deserve your continued nasty insults.

And I'll take "cheap shots" at your faith when you so clearly act in opposition to what others insist Christianity is all about.

[theredpen]

40. The poplularity of Harris and Dawkin's view...

...is testimony to the historical and cultural illiteracy of their readership.

I really don't need you to interpret Christianity for me; you obviously don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about — not that that ever stopped Harris or Dawkins.

[TZ]

43. Dawkins talks about evolution and religion...

Just like he talks about evolution and behavior of animals in people in his other books. Gee imagine that..An EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST
talking about the evolution of a social behavior in people.
And while he might not know all the words to your special textbook by heart (the bible) he certainly is MORE than qualified to talk about how he believes religion evolved in society and the roles it played in social groups. And corresponding brain physiology that might explain it.
That is of course predicated on the belief that you understand that evolution happened and man didn't just magically appear 6,000 years ago.

[theredpen]

45. Example: Dawkins interview on "The God Who Wasn't There"

Dawkins speaks at length about the existence of a historical Jesus. This has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution or social behavior.

Furthermore, evolutionary biology is not sociology nor is it anthropology. You are speciously conflating areas of study in which Dawkins has no credentials which the one in which he does. I find it endlessly amusing when the defenders of Dawkins resort to scientific misrepresentations in order to defend his scientific accuracy.

This is me reading your post: :rofl:

[Meshuga]

55. The gospel of theredpen

This is me reading your post: :rofl:

Would this be Jesus' attitude when reading her post?

[skater314159]

54. Evolution of social behaviour is ANTHROPOLOGY

... or SOCIOLOGY if you are dealing with a post-Industrial Revolution Western society.

By the statements he makes in his book, it is clear that he does not know Western History or Cultural Anthropology, including Religious Anthropology... even less is he familiar with things outside the Western POV. He is NOT "more than qualified to talk about" the evolution of religion, social groups or culture - as he continually makes erroneous and unfounded statements. Your support of him in this area is simply a form of fallacy known as "Appeal to Authority". Typing a subject in capitals may make it easier for you to read, but it doesn't increase the valididty of your argument. It makes it sound like you are shouting shrilly... which isn't good for absorption of your message by readers.

Also, you aren't clear on matters of history, religion or culture, or you could differentiate what differing Christian groups believe instead of attacking a Catholic for being an Evangelical Christian (which makes you look dumb) - theredpen's icon is a Jesuit icon if you didn't know that already.

:hippie:

[Meshuga]

58. Asking YOU the question you asked of someone else earlier...

Why so hostile?

[greyl]

88. You suppose humans a few million years ago had no social interactions?

Please clarify.

[HamdenRice]

90. There were no humans "a few million years ago"

A few million years ago there were hominids, not humans.

[Evoman]

92. I suppose that depends if you accept species in the genus

Homo as humans or not. If yes, then its about 2.5 mya. Otherwise, if you consider only Homo sapiens, it's about a quarter of a million year to half a million years ago (if I remember correctly). Either way, there was probably social connections in these early humans.

[trotsky]

47. So evidently you can't argue, only insult.

Clearly you are a model Christian.

[theredpen]

52. Nice ad hominem

Anyway, my point is factual. The works of Dawkins, Harris, and their ilk are rile with historical inaccuracies, and cultural misrepresentations. If those inaccuracies and misrepresentations were not being presented to a readership too ignorant to spot them, they would not be popular.

If you find this point insulting, it is probably because it hits close to home.

[Evoman]

57. What sort of historical inaccuracies?

[trotsky]

70. Could you name a few of these alleged inaccuracies, please?

Jesus must be so proud of you for your insults!

[Goblinmonger]

76. Hey, It's monday and I'm playing catch-up

Did I miss your list of historical inaccuracies in Dawkins et al?

Didn't think so.

[cosmik debris]

80. Too late.

He left in a huff. He's gone off to pout for a few months because nobody respects his authority on all subjects. You missed all the fun.

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

102. Wait, now I am historically and culturaly illiterate?

:wtf:
Anyone who disagrees with you, and agrees with Dawkins et. al., is illiterate?

Let's see... religion class 3-5 times per week for 12 years... yeah, I guess that makes me illiterate.

Didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now.

[skater314159]

21. Why so hostile?

You seem to be speaking from a place of insecurity here... why does it matter to you (or anyone else in this thread) how many people believe what you do? If you have your own individual life-path, with your own philosophy of life, what does it matter how many people agree with you?

Don't worry so much what the crowd believes or does, do what is right for you and live your own philosophy boldly. If someone disagrees with you, embrace the diversity of belief and ambiguity. It'll save you a lot of frustration and stress in the long run.

Also, just to point out, faith - like philosophy - is an area where multiple views can be "right" or "acceptable" within a culture... in fact, it's better to have a diversity of opinions available within a culture. Exclusivism (or fundamentalism) of any kind is against freedom of thought and personal autonomy... and you don't seem to be against freedom of choice in other areas of life, why are you against it in the realm of belief, faith, and philosophy? Who fucked you over or treated you with disrespect in the name of "religion"? I feel empathy for you and hope that you can work out that anger and frustration and find peace to be who you really are.

After all, if you know something to be true, what the hell does it matter if others agree with you? Do you think resistence fighters in the Lodz Ghetto worried about the fact that Nazism was "more popular" than thier resistance movement? Nope. You need to be secure in *your belief*, and then it won't matter what others believe or don't believe... you'll be cool.

Peace!
:hippie:

[trotsky]

25. Hostility is met with hostility.

If you are to criticize someone's approach to this topic, I suggest you start with the person I was responding to.

No argument with you. Truthfully, I don't care what churches think or say about the "new atheists" (which is such a lame term to begin with). I didn't start the thread. I was simply replying to a nasty person.

[pegleg]

91. The facts are that religion ALWAYS flourishes in the face of adversity

History shows that.

[cosmik debris]

12. Welcome Back!

This group has been getting a bit dull lately. What we really need here is an insulting know-it-all.

Of course, you probably still have me on ignore, but I will enjoy your posts even though you ignore mine.

:)

[More Than A Feeling]

14. This isn't that hard.

When you describe discussions of the existence or not of god as metaphysics of little importances, and contrast that with "real issues" and "usuable insights," the logical conclusion is that you don't think the existence of god is relevant to those issues or has anything to do with said insights.

[theredpen]

15. Did you read the same post that I did?

struggle4progress wrote: "debates about metaphysical matters of little consequence"

Where does he say that these discussions were about the existence of God? Where?! There are zillions of possible "metaphysical matters" that could be considered of little "importances" (sic) that are not repudiations of the divine. If it would help, I could list a few. I certainly didn't see enough information in struggle4progress's that would justify any conclusions about his views on the existence or qualities of God.

Your post was a classic example of a strawman argument... and you have the audacity to use "logical conclusion" in a nsentence.

[struggle4progress]

20. Ontological disputes usually waste time without accomplishing anything.

I am willing to consider that philosophical inquiry may produce some insight.

But in my experience, the insight it typically provides is:

how vague and confused everyone's use of language is.

In forums such as this, it also typically illuminates some general social phenomena, such as:

the tendency to assume that one's own use of language is correct and normative;
the tendency to assume that, when another claims to have been misunderstood, that person must be lying, since oneself cannot could never possibly misunderstand what another says; and
the tendency to regard regard anyone, who disagrees with oneself, as an ignoramus

For most purposes, and for the purpose of this forum, I have essentially no interest in theological inquiries into ontology: zip! zilch!

[skater314159]

22. AMEN BROTHER/SISTER!

As an INTP who is totally anal about language usage, I concur.:silly:

:hippie:

[skater314159]

23. Your "logical conclusion" is different from that of others.

Differening people with different social histories, ethnicities, philosophies, and experiences will come up with different "logical conclusions".

You came to a conclusion that supports what you already believe to be true.

[struggle4progress]

10. You apparently suffer no unwillingness to put words in others' mouths

Instead of attempting to discuss my theological views with you, I will merely sample a few questions I thought interesting to bring to this forum

Marx's Critique of Hegel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=95315&mesg_id=95315

Marx and Engels on the Book of Revelation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=83368&mesg_id=83368

The Christian-Marxist dialogue of the 1960s
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=117452&mesg_id=117452

Atheism in liberation theology
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=31422&mesg_id=31422

Christian atheism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=58846&mesg_id=58846

Atheism and Liberation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=95823&mesg_id=95823

[More Than A Feeling]

13. I'm sorry, I thought I was drawing logical conclusions from what you wrote.

Whatever.

[theredpen]

16. Project much?

Whatever.

"And I broke up with you!"

[John Gauger]

32. Please stop.

You're embarrassing yourself with these vicious little attacks from out of the blue.

[theredpen]

38. Oh come on

Heaven and Earth completely misrepresented struggle4progress' post, and when called out on it answers with "whatever."

If I'm "embarrassing" myself, I'm in good company.

[skater314159]

27. Chaplain's opinion...

The problem with reaching conclusions in a religious or philosophical context is that there are so many starting points, and so many different uses of the same vocabulary words, that people can arrive at conflicting (or even worse, mutually exclusive) conclusions.

I think that is what is happening here.

Heaven and Earth, based upon your posts, and what you have written here on this site, I think you have a true spirituality, but had a bad experience with either Fundamentalist or Evangelical religion. You know firsthand the difference between faith and religion.

I feel empathy for you over this, and I would like you to know that those who hurt you misused faith, belief, and philosophy to abuse you. This abuse, like any abuse, is wrong. I do not condone
ANY abuse - be it in the name of religion, or whatever.

I have noticed that many people on this thread, and in other threads here on DU, have had similar experiences at the hand of "religious" individuals or clergy. The anger and frustration that you guys feel is palpable and understandable. I think that you guys should speak out about what has happened to you, so that others who are undergoing the same events currently can have support and get out of the abusive situation. Speaking out could also help people to not have to go through what you guys did. You guys are abuse survivors, and as such, you guys need to help others who are also in the same situation.

But one thing that it is important for survivors to remember is that abuse can be part of a cycle. Child abuse, spousal abuse and other forms of abuse tend to follow cycles - the person who was abused can sometime go on to become an abuser themself. I am not saying that you guys are like those who hurt you - I am merely stating that survivors need to be sure that they don't persecute people of faith because what "religious people" or "believers" did to them. It is important that you guys allow people to maintain their own belief systems, free of persecution or defamation... that is just ethical, "decent", accepting behaviour. ALso, talking to people of various faiths and beliefs can help you to heal. It can help you to see that not all faith or philosophy is dangerous, that what was done to you was wrong, and that it doesn't have to be that way.

I also just wanted to say that not everyone who is a believer - be it Hindu, Pagan, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Ba'hai, Daoist, Jain, Shaman, or something I didn't list here thinks of "God" as an old white man sitting on a throne on a cloud. There has been a general tendency in the modern era for individuals to see God less as a being or person and more as a force. For those of us who have grown up after Star Wars and the mainstream-ification of Buddhist thought in the American Religious Dialogue, this makes total sense. There are many diverse views of the Numinous in the modern world, and most people have little or no knowledge of these diverse views and instead simply react to Fundamentalist Christianity. For example, my fave Christian theologian is Bishop John Shelby Spong - who is an atheist (or better, non-theistic) Christian. He has written many great books on Christianity's need to move beyond simple theism and biblical literalism, and you might enjoy reading some of his writings, as I think they could help you to see that the beliefs that you hold do not exclude you from Christianity, if you wish to self-identify as such.

I do not mean this post to offend, but instead offer it as a point of view that (hopefully) can help you to relieve some of the tsuris I feel from your posts. If you want to talk about this, I'm always availble via IM.

Peace!
:hippie:

[More Than A Feeling]

33. Well...

"The problem with reaching conclusions in a religious or philosophical context is that there are so many starting points, and so many different uses of the same vocabulary words, that people can arrive at conflicting (or even worse, mutually exclusive) conclusions."

Yes, I've noticed that. What's your opinion on why people use the same vocabulary words, when the concepts behind them are different?

"Heaven and Earth, based upon your posts, and what you have written here on this site, I think you have a true spirituality, but had a bad experience with either Fundamentalist or Evangelical religion. You know firsthand the difference between faith and religion."

I think you are using "faith" and "religion" in ways that I wouldn't.

"I feel empathy for you over this, and I would like you to know that those who hurt you misused faith, belief, and philosophy to abuse you. This abuse, like any abuse, is wrong. I do not condone
ANY abuse - be it in the name of religion, or whatever."

That's good, and I'm glad to hear it. Would you help to change the fact that atheists are the most distrusted minority in America, that people who pander to superstition and supernaturalism can run for office, while atheists have to lie or they have little or no chance? That's my bad experience, that my nation and my society hate and fear me because they are desperate to hold onto the social and personal control that religion gives them.

"I have noticed that many people on this thread, and in other threads here on DU, have had similar experiences at the hand of "religious" individuals or clergy. The anger and frustration that you guys feel is palpable and understandable. I think that you guys should speak out about what has happened to you, so that others who are undergoing the same events currently can have support and get out of the abusive situation. Speaking out could also help people to not have to go through what you guys did. You guys are abuse survivors, and as such, you guys need to help others who are also in the same situation."

That is what we are doing. We are speaking out about the damage done by the superstition, fear, domination, anxiety, insecurity, abuse, and violence that have been part and parcel of religion. This scares some religious liberals because they don't like to hear that the test of whether it is good to believe in god is not how it makes you feel, or whether it causes you to do good or bad, but rather whether there is objective evidence for said god. When they are scared, they call us things like "militant" or "extreme."

"But one thing that it is important for survivors to remember is that abuse can be part of a cycle. Child abuse, spousal abuse and other forms of abuse tend to follow cycles - the person who was abused can sometime go on to become an abuser themself. I am not saying that you guys are like those who hurt you - I am merely stating that survivors need to be sure that they don't persecute people of faith because what "religious people" or "believers" did to them. It is important that you guys allow people to maintain their own belief systems, free of persecution or defamation... that is just ethical, "decent", accepting behaviour. ALso, talking to people of various faiths and beliefs can help you to heal. It can help you to see that not all faith or philosophy is dangerous, that what was done to you was wrong, and that it doesn't have to be that way."

That's right, it can be different. Religious ideas could compete in the marketplace of ideas without the protectionism that they have enjoyed through the marginalization of atheists or the handwringing that occurs when atheists speak up that never seems to happen when religious people sell their ideas via every form of media, even door-to-door.

"I also just wanted to say that not everyone who is a believer - be it Hindu, Pagan, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Ba'hai, Daoist, Jain, Shaman, or something I didn't list here thinks of "God" as an old white man sitting on a throne on a cloud. There has been a general tendency in the modern era for individuals to see God less as a being or person and more as a force. For those of us who have grown up after Star Wars and the mainstream-ification of Buddhist thought in the American Religious Dialogue, this makes total sense. There are many diverse views of the Numinous in the modern world, and most people have little or no knowledge of these diverse views and instead simply react to Fundamentalist Christianity. For example, my fave Christian theologian is Bishop John Shelby Spong - who is an atheist (or better, non-theistic) Christian. He has written many great books on Christianity's need to move beyond simple theism and biblical literalism, and you might enjoy reading some of his writings, as I think they could help you to see that the beliefs that you hold do not exclude you from Christianity, if you wish to self-identify as such."

I agree. The numinous for me is the natural universe, and everything in it, because in addition to being an atheist and a Humanist, I'm a pantheist. I like these labels, and I have no need to self-identify as a christian again. I do not regard the story of jesus as any more compelling than that of buddha, or prometheus, or krishna, and I wouldn't label myself after any of those. I'd rather fight for my own labels, than hide behind the dominant one, in order to get respect.

"I do not mean this post to offend, but instead offer it as a point of view that (hopefully) can help you to relieve some of the tsuris I feel from your posts. If you want to talk about this, I'm always availble via IM."

I think it was Churchill who said that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. That's why I don't listen when people wonder why I as an atheist would still interact with christianity and other religions. I guess they expect me to hide from religion, but I won't.

[theredpen]

41. Perhaps religious liberal would like to follow their own hearts, not your dictates

This scares some religious liberals because they don't like to hear that the test of whether it is good to believe in god is not how it makes you feel, or whether it causes you to do good or bad, but rather whether there is objective evidence for said god.

This is your value judgment. You're free to decide what is "good" and "bad" in your own view, but we are equally free to tell you to sod off and stop imposing your narrow viewpoint on us.

My religion doesn't have to pass your test.

I get the impression that you would like us all to smack our foreheads and go, "Shit! You're so right!" and drop out of our churches, tear down our altars, and start doing whatever it is that you think is sane and rational.

V-A-L-I-D-A-T-I-O-N

[More Than A Feeling]

42. I'm not a relativist, but if I were, I'd tell you to stop imposing your narrow

viewpoint (that your religion doesn't have to pass my test) on me. Oh, but that would ruin your lovely double-standard, where when I judge you wrong, I'm imposing on you, but you judging me wrong gets a free pass.

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y. A-R-R-O-G-A-N-C-E.

(And for the record, I'm not the one who needs validation, if you are willing to sacrifice judgment on the alter of "yeah, well, that's just your opinion" just to continue to think well of your beliefs.)

[theredpen]

44. That is the most incoherent thing that you have ever written

I say this with confidence despite not having read everything you've ever written.

Telling you that I have the right to reject the dictates you place on the terms of my belief system is me imposing strictures on you?!

I hope that whatever you're on isn't terribly addictive because you need to cut waaaaay back.

[cosmik debris]

46. Your temper tantrums are SOOOOO amusing.

But you will have to start behaving like an adult if you want to be taken seriously.

But don't let me discourage you. You are cuter that a puppy chasing its tail.

[More Than A Feeling]

50. Are you naturally this obtuse, or did you have to study for it?

Either way, the value of talking to you has already dropped to zero.

[theredpen]

51. This must be why you have the icon of someone throwing up their hands "I give up"

:P
I'm the editor of the Wikipedia page on obtuse; why do you ask?

Acutally, maybe the problem is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misunderstood_word#Misunderstood_Word">Misunderstood Word. Time for more auditing.

[Geezus]

93. It's people like this that

give the rest of us atheists such a bad rep. I will never understand why someone who decries religion as a bastion of intolerance and uses this as a base for their non-theistic views, would turn around and bash anyone who disagrees with their point of view. they end up being just as intolerant as the radical fundamentalists they rail against. That, is the height of hypocrisy.

(And for the record, I am an atheist, but unlike certain other people, I can respect other people's points-of-view and even disagree with them without acting like an asinine 10-year old.)

[trotsky]

95. Tell me, oh tolerant one...

Why do you mock Christians with your user name? Seems like something an asinine 10-year-old might pick.

[Geezus]

96. I use that screen name because

that has been my nickname for the last five years. I am called that by both my friends and family, and so I like to use it as a screen name. Secondly, I don't see how being called and in turn calling myself Geezus is mocking Christians. Last time I checked nobody seems all that upset over hispanic people naming their kids Jesus. Lastly, ad hominim attacks such as the one you just posted against me, is just a tactic used to dodge the actual topic being discussed. It also indicates that your argument is incredibly weak, and you have no actual legitimate counterpoint to make.

[More Than A Feeling]

97. Because calling people "asinine ten-year-olds"

is a valid argument, right? No, that's not an ad hominem attack at all.

[trotsky]

98. LMAO

Yeah, because the spelling of "Geezus" clearly brings to mind the Spanish pronunciation. Ad hom? Take a look at your own post for a better example.

If all atheists were to take tolerance lessons from you, I fear things would be far worse. Get your own house in order before you start attacking others.

[Geezus]

101. I thought perhaps you might actually like a definition

of ad hominem since it appears that you don't really know what it means.

ad hominem <(ad hom-uh-nem, ad hom-uh-nuhm)>
A Latin expression meaning “to the man.” An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance.
Source: www.dictionary.com

The only two people I have seen making such attacks are Trotsky and Heaven And Earth. Please use logically sound arguments in the future, as the ones you are using now make you look asinine.

[trotsky]

104. Nice try!

Try not looking like such a hypocrite in the future.

[Silent3]

29. It's a shame so many people don't reach your lofty levels...

...of spiritual wisdom and theological maturity, and are mired in a quibbling, adolescent morass. What can you do but pity there narrowness and ignorance? :eyes:

[struggle4progress]

30. Oh, pfffbth!

[Silent3]

37. That does pretty well summarize...

...the substantive advantage you have over those you disparage.

[theredpen]

39. Very witty, Oscar n/t

[Evoman]

56. What does your church discuss?

What sort of metaphysical matter are of consequence? What does your preacher preach about?

[knitter4democracy]

5. Never mentioned. Not an issue.

Our priest is more concerned with the people in our parish and how we're doing in our faith. I've never heard anyone talk about Dawkins, et al, at all. Instead, people are furious with Bush and the GOP (many union members in our church), Father is concerned with people not getting to confession and making sure we have enough funds for heat, and everyone's more worried about the local economy and families in our parish that need help.

[Marrah_G]

8. Yikes- doesn't really apply since we don't have churches and don't really bother with other beliefs

Live and let live, believe and let believe- unless they cause harm to us or to others.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

61. Ditto. That's why I love being pagan! n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. My clergy haven't mentioned the atheist bestsellers at all

Why should they?

[More Than A Feeling]

35. Well, because they might want to give suggestions

about how religious people should think and feel about atheists. Or maybe people have questions about the issues raised in those books that deserve a whole sermon. A bunch of reasons.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. The only message we get about people of different worldviews is

mutual respect and learning from one another. As far as questions that members of the parish might have, we have book study groups, but it would be odd for our clergy to devote a whole sermon to a single book or even group of books.

[Dorian Gray]

49. We should think and feel about atheists like we should all human beings...

we are taught to believe that we are all God's children and that we should treat every human being with dignity and respect.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

63. Nice!

I like your view.

How would you define your "faith"? (I'm just wondering, not trying to pry)

[Dorian Gray]

72. I'm Roman Catholic....

I attend a very community oriented Catholic church in Brooklyn. :)

[JerseygirlCT]

69. Well, I suspect we should feel about atheists the way

we're encouraged to feel about everyone. Why any difference?

And while we've mentioned Dawkins, etc. briefly during adult ed, to be honest, their work just doesn't interest us much, nor their arguments make much of an impression.

[EvilAL]

34. Wasn't there atheism before this new God too?

wasn't there always atheism, just undefined and/or severely punished?
I'd say not everyone believed in god(s) all the way through mans time on this earth, even though we read "The Egyptians believed this.." "The Mayans believed this.." All of them?

[Hellenic_Pagan]

64. Yeh

That's what got Socrates, Aristophines, and soem other ancient Greeks and Romans in trouble.

Powers that be have always not liked people saying fuck the system. This isn't anything new.

[Dorian Gray]

48. Not mentioned

Most Catholic parishes focus on the readings during the homilies. They may bring real life situations into the discussion to demonstrate a point, but there are no sermons about fighting atheism or anything of that nature. It's largely ignored as we focus on the community we are in.

[Evoman]

53. These books are best-sellers.

They may not be discussing them in the churches, but somebody is reading them.....

[Hellenic_Pagan]

60. Dude, americans read crap...

... look at the books that are about revelations at your local barnes & noble or borders. Really... Americans buy some crappy reading materials. I don't trust the public to make good choices. (Bush *cough cough*)

That said, i think i know what you're getting at.

[Evoman]

62. Lol..is that why the bible is such a big seller?

I knew there was a reason.


Fuck, the bible is so shitty that people have to give them away for free.

[Dorian Gray]

73. Lots of people are reading them...

If I read more non-fiction, I'd probably pick one up. (I'm a voracious fiction reader. Not so much into the non-fiction, though every once in awhile I may pick up a historical book out of curiosity.) Maybe there is a place in religious circles to talk about the books, but at Catholic Mass we do three readings from the Bible, a homily about the readings, and then the Eucharist. There is no time for denouncing or worrying about atheistic lit. I'm sure that somewhere there are Catholic groups that are riled up about the books, but nobody I knows has even heard of Dawkins or the rest of them. The only reason I have is that I post here in R/T and there are many topics about them. And their books are in the Barnes and Noble down the street from me, prominently displayed in the non-fiction section in which I rarely meander.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

59. Why are the New Atheiests so insecure?

Why do you care what another faith says about you guys?

I swear, it's like when you have a friend convert to Xianity and they wanna know what you think about their change of faith.

As far as i am concerned, what's it matter to me? If you are happy and it works for you - then rock on wit' your bad self.

I guess since i've always been a punk pagan weirdo, i've thought "fuck the mainstream", it's easier for me to ignore what right-wing xians say about my faith.

Question - were you a member of one of those churches that preached about atheists pagans and gays?

I can see where if you came from something like that you might be insecure/unsure, but really, what the fuck do you think those people know/believe that really affects who you are? Seriously.

Cool christians, jews, wiccans or whatever will be glad people are being themselfs; if somebody is all obsessed with "those people" - talking smack or attacking their belifs, then they suck. I mean, i think most churches and temples would be too busy teaching and living their own faith to worry about what other people are doing...

[Evoman]

65. Meh...it's a curiosity.

Personally, I could give a shit what happens in the churches. I've been to church....the shit going on in those places is so inane, that it boggles my mind that people could waste a morning like that.

Seriously...when it boils down to it, the preacher might as well be talking about which colour is Jesus' favourite. That's about how much connection to the real world christian "discussions" have.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

67. Ah, ok. And dude, its purple.

He REALLY looks good in purple. }(
But then I think Jesus was gay - I mean come on!
A Jewish dude over thirty whos unmarried!
He's always hanging out with twelve dudes! No chicks!

Hmmmmmm...

Mebbe its really a pink triangle that is his fave.

[Evoman]

68. Hehe.

What is there to be said about Jesus that hasn't been said. Jesus is a dead end. Even discussing what colour he likes gets boring after awhile.

Next week in church: What is Jesus' favourite anime?

[Goblinmonger]

77. God you're dumb--It's Superbook, idiot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superbook

[Evoman]

79. Shut up, fundie.

I was talking about JESUS, numb nuts, not God. God may like superbook (his taste fucking sucks), but Jesus is a Naruto man, with a little Sailor moon on the side when he wants to wank it.

[Chovexani]

99. Oh now you've done it.

Now I have to get my fan artist friend to draw Sailor Mary Magdalene and Tuxedo Jesus.

[John Gauger]

87. "...disappointed not to find two modern children and a talking robot

in the real bible...." Fucking hilarious.

[theredpen]

66. Validation

In another response, I pointed out the desperate need for validation shown by the "New Atheists." The subsequent torrent of incoherent caterwauling indicates that I hit a pretty raw nerve. Methinks they doth protest too much.

One of the most substantive — and I'm being generous here — responses was to challenge my assertion that was any substantial faction of "New Atheist" who has exhibited this "need for validation." I would think that the OP and the overwrought responses to my observation would prove sufficient evidence, but I decided to do a little research and come up with some actual examples.

In 2005, a guy named Brian Flemming produced a film entitled "The God Who Wasn't There." Did it make a splash in theological circles? Yeah, much like a turd landing in the commode. A fair and succinct http://ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=6182">review from the Baptist Council on Ethics ends with this:

Which is worse: willful misrepresentation or incredibly sloppy research? Either way, it’s hard to attach much credibility to the filmmaker, even if he makes a few valid points along the way.

Swapping reliability for entertainment has never been and never will be a path to greater illumination … even if you, like Flemming, question the very nature of what lies on the other side.

The films structural and factual shortcomings are discussed in much greater detail at other sites. Among many examples is the movie using an image of a amulet known to be a hoax. The film's maker responds that any claims about the validity of this artifact do not affect the overall truth of the movie. That may or may not be true, but they certainly affect the credibility of the movie. Obviously, if the film-maker had any clue that the artifact was a hoax, it wouldn't have been included, but the only thing Brian Flemming needs more desperately than a clue is VALIDATION.

After "they" came, "they" saw, and "they" ripped this shoddy film to bits, the religious community went back about their business — particularly since Flemming has steadfastly refused to engage any theologian or Biblical scholar in a dialog or debate (two years running!). Frustrated that his film wasn't getting enough attention, in 2006 Flemming announced his "war on Easter" which involved distributing 666 copies of the film (I get it! 666! That's awesome, Beavis!) to churches. Fans of the film were instructed to go into churches and leave copies of the film in the pews.

This puerile taunting produced no results. The people watched the films, consulted with knowledgeable clergy and scholars on the contents, discovered is was a load of Blavatsky and went on with their lives.

Not having sufficiently been an attention-seeking dick, Brian Flemming then launched to retarded "blasphemy challenge" in which people with similar emotional problems could taunt Christians via YouTube. Using a distorted interpretation of a single line of Scripture (always the hallmark of the intellectually bankrupt), he invited people to "blaspheme the Holy Spirit" on video, offering a copy of his "hit" film (which he seems to give away an awful lot of copies of) to the first 1001 contestants. Currently on the project http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/">site is a video of a guy wearing a T-shirt that says, "Fuck Jesus." What a rational adult. :eyes:

You might be tempted to declare Harris and Dawkins to be above this circus, but, in fact, they contributed to Flemming's film, support it and promote it. Flemming has is also associated with the "Rational Response Squad," an organization promoted to "eliminating religion" — the site seems to imply that this will be done by harassing theist with more desperate attention-seeking behavior. One of their promotional images:

Another suggested "link to us" boilerplate offers the text, "The Rational Response Squad is my favorite atheism and religion site! It's got atheist radio and atheist forums and they know more about Jesus Christ and God than Christians do!" If this knowledge was gained from the widely debunked claims in "The God Who Wasn't There," then this claim is clearly false.

Some of you may claim that "I just live my live according to my own beliefs (or lack of beliefs) and don't care what the theists think of me." You can't claim that honestly, however, unless you haven't already posted in this thread with a shrill, emotional ad hominem-heavy attack on my observations that the "New Atheists" seem bent on defining themselves by their desperate need for a reaction from theists.

Well, my ill-advised foray into the cesspool of R/T is done. Later.

[trotsky]

71. Of course, sometimes when you generate a reaction...

it's because you deliberately, offensively, rudely, and immaturely insulted a large group of intelligent people who will defend themselves when they are misrepresented.

Or maybe your intense participation in this thread and the overwhelming need to post one more "Eff You" before supposedly signing off must mean that the "new atheists" hit a pretty raw nerve with you, huh? :rofl:

[Dorian Gray]

74. Never heard of Flemming.

Personally, I think that's a lot of time and effort for someone who doesn't believe, but then I put a lot of time and effort into some pointless things myself. Some may even say posting on DU is one of those things. Especially during the GD candidate wars. ;)

[cosmik debris]

75. Again???

You are going off to pout and feel sorry for yourself AGAIN?

I never know whether it is because you ran out of bile and venom, or just because you were not given enough respect for your pseudo-credentials as an expert on all subjects.

But it really doesn't matter. When you get through pouting, I'm sure you will be back.

Hasta luego.

[Goblinmonger]

78. Did somebody learn a new word this month?

Good for you. Studies do show that the best way to make the new word a part of your permanent vocabulary is to use it in everyday discourse.

But it's getting a little old, now.

[Evoman]

82. Thanks for the comments, redpen.

This forum has been DEAD the past couple of weeks....it almost lost it's cesspool status. We sorely needed somebody to bring it back.

:evilgrin:

[trotsky]

83. I feel VALIDATED, don't you?

:rofl:

[Evoman]

84. If everybody would contribute as much "cess" to the "pool" as theredpen,

this place would be a stinkin' pit of hell that we could really be proud of.

[cosmik debris]

85. It's all your fault.

I've warned you before that if you play rough with your toys they won't last long.

I hope you learned your lesson.

:)

Remember, catch and release! catch and release! catch and release! catch and release!

[Tor_Hershman]

81. ¶¶¶___The Less Than Worthless Facts___¶¶¶

Some Atheists turn Atheism into a religion, BUT.....I don't, as my
films/(re)discoveries, that follow, show.

A great many of The Old Testament’s stories come from earlier tales (e.g., Gilgamesh, etc) and the style is, mostly, a direct rip-off of The Egyptian Book Of The Dead.

To discover much more of TOT times than you learned in Sunday School, view this YouTube film

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7iQRFP_e90

The New Testament, well . . . . . to learn more than enough of TNT’s creation, view this two part YouTube film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzY2bVsZK5s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sckuqPulRGk

And, as a special Humbug surprise, the hit parody song
“The Little Bummer Boy”

http://www.soundlift.com/band/music.php?song_id=82930

Stay on groovin’ safari,
Tor

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. FWIW, Dawkins was mentioned in the sermon at the church I went to in Christmas 2006

(I tend to go to church once a year, at Christmas, if I'm spending Christmas with my church-going mother - and I like singing carols, anyway). It was just after The God Delusion had come out. I can't remember exactly what the (Church of England) vicar said, over a year ago, but I thought he'd either misunderstood Dawkins' position, or had ignored a major part of it on purpose. It wasn't the basis of the entire sermon, but it did serve as the usual "bring in something about this year" bit that Chistmas sermons seem to get.

[Mark Twain Girl]

89. I don't do religion, but the from the people I know that do

they've heard it brought up in a list of challenges that are facing them. As in, "we have to deal with eroding values, war, secularism and atheists," that kind of thing. These are all Protestant Christians in the US. I'm not sure if that was in the context of a sermon, or more informal settings, like a book club or internet boards. I get the impression that it's part of a patchwork quilt of general distress, but that's only anecdotal evidence.

[ZombieHorde]

94. It is not important what people believe, religiously speaking.

It is important how they act on these religious beliefs.

[anon504]

100. No

Hasn't come up at all in my Church