Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

Next I'll start compiling the ones about people run out of town on a rail because they requested that there not be an "in the name of Jesus Christ we pray" at the high school commencement. But that's cool, too. They probably should've just shut up.

― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:30 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

for a despised and grievously oppressed minority, atheists seem to have been extremely successful in promoting their agenda, especially when it comes to things like prayer in schools. for the most part, this issue reassures me that atheists are making good progress.

I do think I want to start going by the Balls Test, wherein discrimination doesn't officially count, no matter how pernicious, institutionalized or legally sanctioned, unless someone was killed in a way that makes the national news.

xp right, preventing government-led prayer in school is part of the "atheist agenda" and not, you know, the First Amendment. Cripes.

I mean the fact that in 2011 we still have cases where students are punished for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance and where students who protest school-led graduation prayers or prayers at football games are ostracized and humiliated leads me to think that things are not as rosy as you believe.

for a despised and grievously oppressed minority, atheists seem to have been extremely successful in promoting their agenda, especially when it comes to things like prayer in schools. for the most part, this issue reassures me that atheists are making good progress.

― contenderizer, Thursday, June 2, 2011 1:39 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

Huh? Basically the only hope of atheists w/r/t things like school prayer has been the courts (and the first amendment.) As far as winning that battle politically or socially, I don't see what you're talking about.

If we were making substantial progress, would Bush have had his faith-based initiatives? Would the WH prayer breakfast have become an institution?

the Balls Test,

all balls no cock

xp In the case of corporate regulation, the article of faith is pure free market ascendency and the worship of laissez faire capitalism, not any biblically based commandments.

In the case of global warming resistance, there are some religious dimensions to the arguments floated about, but those are mostly floated by evangelicals who expect the Judgment Day in at most a few more years. The main resistance comes from believers in the rugged individualist mythos, summed up as that "the government can't tell me not to burn fossil fuels if I want to burn them. It's a free country!"

well, you brought up the prayer in schools thing, not i. so you can't "cripes" too hard. point being that we now more clearly enforce the separation between church and state than we have in the past. i.e., forces of enlightenment ascendent, etc.

that went to phil.

the main ~popular~ resistance

the actual resistance in the "halls of power" is from parties that stand to gain financially from ignoring climate change

xp

i'll go by the phil test and tell myself that as a godless scientist living in THE SOUTH, less than a block from a catholic church, a block from a baptist church, and two block from an episcopalian church i'm basically anne frank squared.

mean the fact that in 2011 we still have cases where students are punished for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance and where students who protest school-led graduation prayers or prayers at football games are ostracized and humiliated leads me to think that things are not as rosy as you believe.

― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:44 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

i don't think things are rosy. people differ, and are not always civil in their disagreements. there are far more people of faith in the united states than there are atheists. these two facts can combine in ways that are problematic. again, i would never argue that discrimination against atheists is imaginary. but i simply do not see it as a significant social problem at this time. frankly, given the social climate, it's a much small problem than any rational person should expect - or so it seems to me.

i'm not saying that you're wrong, just that, unlike you, i don't see a problem that demands my attention.

seriously phil you should be raising funds and working undercover of the night to get me out of here (here = america). heed tubman's example.

Which is not even close to what I said, but whatevs. I'll just let you ride on that "who cares about having custody of your own children?" bit and note that Matthew Shepard (not to mention Gwen Araujo and lots of other LGBT murder victims) are hardly dead because of a surfeit of atheists.

That was to "balls" obvs.

well, you brought up the prayer in schools thing, not i. so you can't "cripes" too hard. point being that we now more clearly enforce the separation between church and state than we have in the past. i.e., forces of enlightenment ascendent, etc.

― contenderizer, Thursday, June 2, 2011 1:47 AM (1 second ago) Bookmark

We owe that enforcement to the Warren Court, not the advocacy of American atheists. There haven't been many notable establishment clause victories for secularists in some time.

When the Faith-Based Initiatives were challenged constitutionally, SCOTUS declined to address the issue, ruling that taxpayers don't have the standing to challenge it (who does?)

Basically the only hope of atheists w/r/t things like school prayer has been the courts (and the first amendment.) As far as winning that battle politically or socially, I don't see what you're talking about.

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:45 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

the courts, an arm of government, are not isolated from society. though they are guided by the constitution and other legal precedent, they express social will and understanding. to the extent that legal interpretation runs contrary to the strong will of the people, it will eventually fail, whether or not the underlying thinking seems to be constitutionally supported. therefore, it's not the constitution itself that makes our legal system work the way it does. it's our social engagement with the document. i.e., it's ultimately the will of the american people that interprets and enforces the first amendment.

We owe that enforcement to the Warren Court, not the advocacy of American atheists

This is a false binary.

Also: it predates the Warren Court -- the Hughes Court started applying the Fourteenth Amendment to establishment clause cases in the late thirties.

This is a false binary.

Also: it predates the Warren Court -- the Hughes Court started applying the Fourteenth Amendment to establishment clause cases in the late thirties.

― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, June 2, 2011 2:03 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

contenderizer was referring to school prayer.

"i'm not saying that you're wrong, just that, unlike you, i don't see a problem that demands my attention."

The only time it "demands my attention" is when the monthly revive of this thread comes up so someone can use Dawkins as an excuse to say, "Fuckin' atheists, how do they work and btw aren't they just terrible people?" At which point it behooves me to say, "Uh, actually atheists qua atheists get the shit end of the stick just like a lot of minorities do, and btw, we aren't the ones responsible for screwing this country up but we are often excluded from trying to help fix it." It's not like I'm out being an activist about this or something.

how many of you are afraid of Sarah Palin too?

Does "contemptuous and dismissive" count as "afraid?"

therefore, it's not the constitution itself that makes our legal system work the way it does. it's our social engagement with the document. i.e., it's ultimately the will of the american people that interprets and enforces the first amendment.

― contenderizer, Thursday, June 2, 2011 2:02 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

The Court often goes against the will of the people to protect unpopular liberties of minorities. School prayer is a good example. The reason they can do so is that the First Amendment is very potent.

one thing i always wonder w/ dawkins is if he has two completely separate audiences the way chomsky does. seems impossible (esp since evolution and religion are more easily entwined than linguistics and foreign policy) but who knows.

the monthly revive of this thread comes up so someone can use Dawkins as an excuse to say, "Fuckin' atheists, how do they work and btw aren't they just terrible people?" At which point it behooves me to say, "Uh, actually atheists qua atheists get the shit end of the stick just like a lot of minorities do, and btw, we aren't the ones responsible for screwing this country up but we are often excluded from trying to help fix it." It's not like I'm out being an activist about this or something.

― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 7:08 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

okay, but i think you're overreacting a bit. i mean, i suspect that most of the people posting in this thread are atheists. atheists who dislike dawkins. like me. i don't get the sense that anyone here is criticizing atheism or atheists in general, but rather the condescending, simplistic, and combative version of atheism that has recently been popularized. similar to the distaste religious moderates often feel for fundie radicalism.

i will say that whenever i am annoyed by atheist persecution complex i'll remind myself that atheists are to some extent actually persecuted and that they are far far outnumbered by xians whining about being persecuted, which hasn't been true of any block of xians in america since god knows when.

The Court often goes against the will of the people to protect unpopular liberties of minorities. School prayer is a good example. The reason they can do so is that the First Amendment is very potent.

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 7:10 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah, i know. tried to clarify my point by framing things in terms of "the long run," but i'll agree that there's an insoluble chicken/egg tangle at the heart of the equation. courts interpret laws, legal interpretations interact with the public will, public will is expressed in elections but changes over time, etc. would agree that absent protections like the establishment clause, atheists might have had a much harder time of it in the american 20th century.

As a nice atheist I'm sick to death of being bundled in with militant atheists. Not all of us are going around hassling religious people ffs.

atheists are to some extent actually persecuted and that they are far far outnumbered by xians whining about being persecuted, which hasn't been true of any block of xians in america since god knows when.

oh hell yeah

see also: painting anti-bullying campaigns as the return of gay indoctrination and some quasi orwellian nightmare.

Jesus, I regret bringing up the "most hated minority" thing now. As I said before, the only reason I mentioned it was to point out how silly it was for people to worry about what Dawkins might be doing to the reputation of atheism since its reputation really can't get any worse. I don't actually have a persecution complex.

(on Scientology)

This isnt that far off organized christanity, guys. Actually, its pretty much the same.

good luck usa

lol challops classics iirc

which hasn't been true of any block of xians in america since god knows when.

black churches used to get bombed iirc

anyway lol this thread, the gift that keeps on giving

Yeah I'm sure those churches got bombed because they were Christian. Nice catch there.

Well, some people try to claim that the Nazis were atheists, so might as well make the KKK atheists now too.

Yeah I'm sure those churches got bombed because they were Christian. Nice catch there

well they were a block of xtians that were persecuted, I don't really see how that's deniable. I didn't know that one block of xtians persecuting another block of xtians didn't count.

see also: painting anti-bullying campaigns as the return of gay indoctrination and some quasi orwellian nightmare.

The big problem is when it gets to the political sphere, where a political group is quoting the Bible to justify some position. Who should get the blame for being close-minded: the group? or the religion as a whole? What if the group is misrepresenting the religion, or does that matter?

Seems to me much of what Jesus is for in the New Testament is peace and helping your fellow (poor) man, neither policies of which are actively pursued by the 'God-fearing, Christian' right. Does this mean Christianity is still to blame for anti-poor, pro-war policies? I just feel like it's a little too easy to tie religions to bad real world results because of its overuse/missuse as a propaganda tool.

You're kidding, right? Can you really not understand the difference between "People who are persecuted for a particular reason who also happen to be Christian" and "People who are persecuted BECAUSE they are Christian?" I know you're not dumb, so I can't quite figure out your angle here unless it's just pure tendentiousness.

Maybe you should ask some Muslims about the subject of religious persecution.

it's just pure tendentiousness.

I prefer the term "fact-checker"

(on Scientology)

This isnt that far off organized christanity, guys. Actually, its pretty much the same.

― if i could fly this place would be a mid-90s r kelly jam (history mayne), Thursday, June 2, 2011 4:23 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Dumb

lol

As a nice atheist I'm sick to death of being bundled in with militant atheists. Not all of us are going around hassling religious people ffs.

Who is doing this?

dawkins

He goes around militantly hassling religious people? Seems more like he goes around giving talks wherever he's invited and religious people show up to hassle him. Unless I'm missing something. Does he show up uninvited at churches or something?

oh i didnt realize

Ppl are gonna do what they're gonna do, and they're gonna justify it with whatever they have. Dawkins just seems to be another voice playing the blame game. Which is fine if you enjoy juvenile football-style games of "My team's better than yours!"

I only give him slightly more cred than "Videogames make kids become mass murderers" people.