| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
08 Jun 2007 07:10:54 PM |
| Object: |
The New Atheists |
Article on the new militants.
---
Published on Friday, June 8, 2007 by The Nation
The New Atheists
by Ronald Aronson
What began with publisher W.W. Norton taking a chance on a gutsy,
hyperbolic and idiosyncratic attack on religion by a graduate student in
neuroscience has grown into a remarkable intellectual wave. No fewer
than five books by the New Atheists have appeared on bestseller lists in
the past two yearsSam Harris¹s The End of Faith and Letter to a
Christian Nation, Daniel Dennett¹s Breaking the Spell, Richard Dawkins¹s
The God Delusion and now Christopher Hitchens¹s God Is Not Great. The
scandalized media have both attacked and inflated the phenomenon. After
the New York Times Book Review, for example, ran a thoughtful review of
Harris and then a negative front-page review of Dawkins, the daily paper
published two weak op-ed attacks on the writers and a vapid article on
how atheists celebrate Christmas, followed by tongue-in-cheek admiration
in the Book Review for Hitchens¹s ability to promote his career by
saying the unexpected.
Despite such dubious blessings, the four have become must-read writers.
The most remarkable fact is not their books themselvesblunt,
no-holds-barred attacks on religion in different registersbut that they
have succeeded in reaching mainstream readers and in becoming
bestsellers. Is this because Americans are beginning to get fed up with
the religiosity of the past several years? It would be comforting if we
could explain this as a cultural signal of the end of the
right-wing/evangelical ascendancy. Such speculations are probably
wishful thinkingbook buyers are such a small slice of the population
that few sociologists would stake their careers on claiming that book
buyers¹ preferences reflect anything like a national mood.
The success of the New Atheists may, however, reflect something
significant among their audience. In the past generation in the United
States, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists have been a timid
minorityalmost voiceless, often on the defensive, routinely derided,
both warned against and ignored. As Susan Jacoby pointed out in her book
Freethinkers, it is symptomatic of the situation that the most dramatic
presidential address in generations took place in the National Cathedral
three days after September 11, 2001, so filled with religious language
that it sounded like a sermon. It was delivered by a President flanked
by Jewish, Muslim and Christian representatives, a model of religious
inclusiveness, without anyone standing alongside them representing the
tens of millions of nonreligious Americans. At this most important
collective moment in our recent history, it was as if they did not
exist. This is what the polls are telling us: Virtually everyone in
America believes in God.
We know how zealously the conservative Christian denominations have
politicized themselves in the past generation, how the GOP has harnessed
this energy by embracing their demandsopposing stem-cell research, gay
marriage and abortion rights, championing government aid to religious
schools and faith-based social programsand by appointing sympathetic
judges. So effectively have they framed the issues that, according to
the Pew Research Center¹s 2006 report on religion and public life, fully
69 percent of Americans believe that liberals have ³gone too far in
trying to keep religion out of schools and government.²
We commonly hear that only a tiny percentage of Americans don¹t believe
in God and that, as a Newsweek poll claimed this spring, 91 percent do.
In fact, this is not true. How many unbelievers are there? The question
is difficult to assess accurately because of the challenges of
constructing survey questions that do not tap into the prevailing biases
about religion. According to the American Religious Identification
Survey, which interviewed more than 50,000 people, more than 29 million
adultsone in seven Americansdeclare themselves to be without religion.
The more recent Baylor Religion Survey (²American Piety in the 21st
Century²) of more than 1,700 people, which bills itself as ³the most
extensive and sensitive study of religion ever conducted,² calls for
adjusting this number downward to exclude those who believe in a God but
do not belong to a religion. Fair enough. But Baylor¹s own Gallup survey
is a bit shaky for at least two reasons. It counts anyone who believes
in a ³higher power² but not God as believing in Godcasting a vast net
over adherents of everything from spirit to history to love. Yet the
study allows unbelievers only one option: to not believe in ³anything
beyond the physical world,² leaving no space for those who regard
themselves as agnostics or skeptics, secularists or humanists. Contrast
this with a more recent and more nuanced Financial Times/Harris poll of
Europeans and Americans that allowed respondents to declare agnosticism
as well as atheism: 18 percent of the more than 2,000 American
respondents chose one or the other, while 73 percent affirmed belief in
God or a supreme being.
A more general issue affects American surveys on religious beliefs,
namely, the ³social desirability effect,² in which respondents are
reluctant to give an unpopular answer in a society in which being
religious is the norm. What happens when questions are framed to
overcome this distortion? The FT/H poll tried to counteract it by
allowing space not only for the customary ³Not sure² but also for ³Would
prefer not to say²and 6 percent of Americans chose this as their answer
to the question of whether they believed in God or a supreme being. Add
to this those who declared themselves as atheists or agnostics and, lo
and behold, the possible sum of unbelievers is nearly one in four
Americans.
All this helps explain the popularity of the New AtheistsAmericans as a
whole may not be getting too much religion, but a significant
constituency must be getting fed up with being routinely marginalized,
ignored and insulted. After all, unbelievers are concentrated at the
higher end of the educational scalea recent Harris American poll shows
that 31 percent of those with postgraduate education do not avow belief
in God (compared with only 14 percent of those with a high school
education or less). The percentage rises among professors and then again
among professors at research universities, reaching 93 percent among
members of the National Academy of Sciences. Unbelievers are to be found
concentrated among those whose professional lives emphasize science or
rationality and who also have developed a relatively high level of
confidence in their own intellectual faculties. And they are frequently
teachers or opinion-makers.
But over the past generation they have come to feel beleaguered and,
except for rare individuals like comedian and talk-show host Bill Maher,
voiceless in the public arena. The great success of the New Atheists is
to have reached them, both speaking to and for them. These writers are
devoted, with sledgehammer force and angry urgency, to ³breaking the
spell² cast by the religious ascendancy, to overcoming a situation in
which every other area of life can be critically analyzed while
admittedly irrational religious faith is made central to American life
but exempted from serious discussion.
This does not make for restraint. Harris displays brash self-confidence,
Hitchens and Dawkins angry intellectual bite and Dennett an
inexhaustible theoretical energy and range of inquiry. Harris excoriates
religious moderates, accusing them of providing cover for
fundamentalists at home and abroad by refusing to contest the
extremists¹ premisesbecause they share them. More upbeat, Dennett is
devoted to creating the intellectual conditions for future discussions,
in which religion will be treated as just another ³natural² phenomenon
and accordingly subjected to critical scrutiny. Dawkins bulldozes his
way through every major argument for religious belief, and a great many
minor ones. And Hitchens endlessly catalogues religion¹s crimes and
absurdities. Each man is at war, writing as if no others had preceded
him, and with a passion that can only be described as political.
Above all, each sees himself as breaking a taboo. This explains not only
the vigor and urgency of these books, their mainstream character and
their publishing success but also the common refrain in reviews that
they have ³gone too far.² Of course they have, because their many faults
are often inseparable from their strengths. Self-indulgence is their
common flaw: Dennett and Dawkins might have considered their readers
more and disciplined their own need to follow out every line of thought,
while Harris is so full of his point of view that he, like Hitchens, is
unable to consider faith as anything but stupid. They show little
understanding of religion or interest in it [see Daniel Lazare, ³Among
the Disbelievers,² May 28]. Still, I am surprised by the hostility and
bemusement expressed toward them by their fellow travelers in The New
York Review of Books, The New Yorker and The London Review of Books. In
attacking religion the four have been breaking the taboo against talking
about it seriously, and they may be forgiven for not being calmer, more
expert or more measured. Doing battle with what they see as the most
pervasive and bothersome phenomenon in American life during the past
generation, Harris, Dennett, Dawkins and Hitchens deserve praise for
their courage and tenacity in shattering its spell.
Where does the work of the New Atheists leave us? I hope they have
roused a significant portion of America from its timidity. But to what
end? Living without God means turning toward something. To flourish we
need coherent secular popular philosophies that effectively answer
life¹s vital questions. Enlightenment optimism once supplied unbelievers
with hope for a better world, whether this was based on Marxism,
science, education or democracy. After Progress, after Marxism, is it
any wonder atheism fell on hard times? Restoring secular confidence will
take much positive work as well as the fierce attacks on religion by our
atheist champions. On a societal level, as Ronald Inglehart and Pippa
Norris point out in Sacred and Secular, living without God requires
creating conditions in which people are free from the kinds of
existential vulnerability that have marked all human societies until the
advent of Europe¹s postindustrial welfare states. Markedly more
religious than any of them, the United States provides a life that is
far more unequal and far more insecure.
The surprising response to the New Atheist offensive should thus inspire
us to think politically as well as philosophically. As a first step this
demands creating a coalition between unbelievers and their natural
allies, secular-minded believers. I am speaking first about many
millions of Americans who nominally belong to a religion but effectively
live without any active relationship either to it or to God, or belong
to a church and attend services but are ³tacit atheists,² living day in
and day out with only token reference to God. And I also include the
many believers who accept the principle of America as a secular society.
These include members of the liberal Jewish and Christian denominations,
who have long practice in accommodating themselves to science and the
modern world and who, as the National Council of Churches website tells
us, may remain inspired by Genesis while not needing to take it in
³literal, factual terms.² Many of these turned up in the most
significant finding of the Baylor survey, namely that more than one in
four American ³believers² does not mean by this a personal God at all
but a distant God who has little or nothing to do with the world or
themselves. This sounds very much like the deist God of ³unbelievers²
Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.
These believers, along with those who think of themselves as
³spiritual,² as well as professed unbelievers, help to explain why
according to the Pew study so many Americans32 percentwant less
religious influence on government. Twenty-four percent say that
President Bush talks too much about his religious faith and prayer, and
28 percent deny that the United States is a Christian nation. Most
dramatically, a whopping 49 percent believe that Christian conservatives
have gone too far ³in trying to impose their religious values on the
country.² This, then, is an unreported secret of American life:
Considerable numbers of Americans, religious and secular, are becoming
fed up with the in-your-face religion that has come to mark our society.
Until now the most vocal left-of-center response to the Christian right,
for example by Sojourners, has been to call for more religion in
politics, not less. In early June the group organized a nationally
televised forum at which John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
testified to their faith, talking about the ³hand of God² (Edwards),
forgiveness (Obama) and prayer (Clinton). Few loud-and-clear voices have
been agitating in the mainstream on behalf of the separation of church
and state, for secular and public education, or demanding less rather
than more political discussion of religion. Yet tens of millions of
Americans worry about such things.
Whether most of them continue to believe in God matters much less than
that they are comfortable with secular knowledge and America¹s secular
Constitution. Barry Lynn, for example, executive director of Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, is a Protestant minister.
Although Harris and Dawkins castigate all believers for sharing the
premises of conservative Christians, the fact is that many believers
could easily be working with out-and-out atheists and agnostics on key
issues.
Such a coalition should take the offensive on behalf of American
constitutional promises of a secular society, increasingly under threat
from Bush¹s Supreme Court appointments. It will gain support in
unexpected places: Judge John Jones III, a Bush appointee, delivered a
devastating blow to the forces behind ³intelligent design² in his
December 2005 decision in the Dover School Board case. The first half of
his impressive decision contains a crystal-clear reflection on what
science is and why intelligent design, a refurbished form of
creationism, is religion, not science. The second half reads like a
whodunit, revealing how a minority on the school board conspired to
impose intelligent design on the district. It should be a rallying point
for the nearly half of all Americans who are disturbed by right-wing
religious attempts to impose their faith on the rest of us. An immediate
goal should be a call for the publication and widest possible
distribution of the Dover decision. It could become another
bestsellerby a conservative judge no less!and a text for civics,
current events, history, law and basic science classes.
A second goal of such a coalition might be a campaign to reorient
American thinking about atheists and atheism. In recent polls, far more
respondents have declared themselves willing to vote for a woman or
African-American for President than for an atheistatheists are more
unpopular than gays. Television news viewers are encouraged to nod in
agreement with such ageless gibes as ³There are no atheists in foxholes²
without seeing just how nasty they are. This obnoxious remark, by Katie
Couric on NBC¹s Today show, drew a few complaints and letters, but no
wider protests or apology. A coalition determined to widen the range of
socially acceptable belief could make a significant difference on such
issues.
A broad secular coalition could also demand more nuanced discussion of
the range of belief and unbelief in America today. Rather than
consciously or unconsciously promoting religious belief, public opinion
research should try to register a full range of beliefs, including the
interesting and perplexing ways in which people live secular as well as
religious lives and their sometimes contradictory combinations. These
are rejected by Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens, and ignored by
the media and mainstream politicians.
Finally, such an alliance could become one place where Dennett¹s goal of
discussing religion openly and criticallyas well as atheism and
agnosticismcould begin to be realized. A number of questions might be
explored: What, for example, is the common ground and what are the
differences between believers and unbelievers? AndI save for last the
touchiest question of allshouldn¹t all Americans be instructed in the
great religious and secular traditions, as well as their greatest books?
After all, achieving literacy in both religion and secularism might
allow us to discuss them more intelligently.
Ronald Aronson is the author of Living Without God, to be published next
year by Counterpoint. He teaches at Wayne State University.
---
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/08/1733/
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
09 Jun 2007 11:39:46 AM |
|
|
In article <jhachmann-750A4D.17105408062007
@news.giganews.com>, johac said...
What began with publisher W.W. Norton taking a chance on
a gutsy, hyperbolic and idiosyncratic attack on religion
by a graduate student in neuroscience has grown into a
remarkable intellectual wave.
And writers are hauling out their metaphorical surfboards
and riding that wave. :)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
10 Jun 2007 01:15:55 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.20d4a1df65cc9c5298a5cc@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <jhachmann-750A4D.17105408062007
@news.giganews.com>, johac said...
What began with publisher W.W. Norton taking a chance on
a gutsy, hyperbolic and idiosyncratic attack on religion
by a graduate student in neuroscience has grown into a
remarkable intellectual wave.
And writers are hauling out their metaphorical surfboards
and riding that wave. :)
I'm sure we'll see many more.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
09 Jun 2007 01:00:41 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:10:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-750A4D.17105408062007@news.giganews.com>
Article on the new militants.
---
Published on Friday, June 8, 2007 by The Nation
The New Atheists
by Ronald Aronson
:
I just posted this!
Dang.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
10 Jun 2007 01:16:56 AM |
|
|
In article <6fgk63lb0c2s2ttr059p0jci1sn84hkm7c@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:10:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-750A4D.17105408062007@news.giganews.com>
Article on the new militants.
---
Published on Friday, June 8, 2007 by The Nation
The New Atheists
by Ronald Aronson
:
I just posted this!
Dang.
Oh, well. Great minds move alike. :-)
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
10 Jun 2007 02:39:45 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:16:56 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-621241.23165609062007@news.giganews.com>
In article <6fgk63lb0c2s2ttr059p0jci1sn84hkm7c@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:10:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-750A4D.17105408062007@news.giganews.com>
Article on the new militants.
---
Published on Friday, June 8, 2007 by The Nation
The New Atheists
by Ronald Aronson
:
I just posted this!
Dang.
Oh, well. Great minds move alike. :-)
So do ours, it seems.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
10 Jun 2007 06:02:37 PM |
|
|
In article <9lan635eei8msq4a10uh0na87o7f61e69r@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:16:56 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-621241.23165609062007@news.giganews.com>
In article <6fgk63lb0c2s2ttr059p0jci1sn84hkm7c@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:10:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-750A4D.17105408062007@news.giganews.com>
Article on the new militants.
---
Published on Friday, June 8, 2007 by The Nation
The New Atheists
by Ronald Aronson
:
I just posted this!
Dang.
Oh, well. Great minds move alike. :-)
So do ours, it seems.
Yeah. What happened?
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
10 Jun 2007 09:32:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:02:37 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-52F0D2.16023710062007@news.giganews.com>
In article <9lan635eei8msq4a10uh0na87o7f61e69r@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:16:56 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-621241.23165609062007@news.giganews.com>
In article <6fgk63lb0c2s2ttr059p0jci1sn84hkm7c@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:10:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-750A4D.17105408062007@news.giganews.com>
Article on the new militants.
---
Published on Friday, June 8, 2007 by The Nation
The New Atheists
by Ronald Aronson
:
I just posted this!
Dang.
Oh, well. Great minds move alike. :-)
So do ours, it seems.
Yeah. What happened?
"Grate" minds think alike sometimes, too.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
10 Jun 2007 11:34:19 PM |
|
|
In article <91dp635bf7pag1aptlh1qr0cdu4jcadm5o@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:02:37 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-52F0D2.16023710062007@news.giganews.com>
In article <9lan635eei8msq4a10uh0na87o7f61e69r@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:16:56 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-621241.23165609062007@news.giganews.com>
In article <6fgk63lb0c2s2ttr059p0jci1sn84hkm7c@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:10:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-750A4D.17105408062007@news.giganews.com>
Article on the new militants.
---
Published on Friday, June 8, 2007 by The Nation
The New Atheists
by Ronald Aronson
:
I just posted this!
Dang.
Oh, well. Great minds move alike. :-)
So do ours, it seems.
Yeah. What happened?
"Grate" minds think alike sometimes, too.
Sometimes I feel like mine's been put through a grater.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
08 Jun 2007 09:21:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:10:54 -0700, johac wrote:
Article on the new militants.
Since when has writing books been "militant"?
Sheesh...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"What the hell is an aluminum Falcon?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
08 Jun 2007 10:09:43 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in
news:pan.2007.06.09.02.21.35.346500@com.mkbilbo:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:10:54 -0700, johac wrote:
Article on the new militants.
Since when has writing books been "militant"?
Sheesh...
Remember in "xian speak" militant means anyone who doesn't blindly accept
their god fantasy.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
12 Jun 2007 02:53:29 PM |
|
|
On Jun 8, 11:09 pm, Woden <w...@charter.net> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote innews:pan.2007.06.09.02.21.35.346500@com.mkbilbo:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:10:54 -0700, johac wrote:
Article on the new militants.
Since when has writing books been "militant"?
Sheesh...
Remember in "xian speak" militant means anyone who doesn't blindly accept
their god fantasy.
Not quite: Militant is anyone who actually raises an objection The can
be heard or read.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
09 Jun 2007 01:51:16 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2007.06.09.02.21.35.346500@com.mkbilbo>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:10:54 -0700, johac wrote:
Article on the new militants.
Since when has writing books been "militant"?
Sheesh...
That's what the press has been labeling them. They are speaking out,
and there's nothing wrong with that.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
10 Jun 2007 12:08:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 00:51:16 -0700, johac wrote:
In article <pan.2007.06.09.02.21.35.346500@com.mkbilbo>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:10:54 -0700, johac wrote:
Article on the new militants.
Since when has writing books been "militant"?
Sheesh...
That's what the press has been labeling them. They are speaking out,
and there's nothing wrong with that.
Funny thing, people get to beat on my door and bug me about their religion
but they're not "militant."
Atheist publishes a book and they're "militant."
<snork>
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"What the hell is an aluminum Falcon?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
10 Jun 2007 07:16:34 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2007.06.10.17.08.01.214254@com.mkbilbo>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 00:51:16 -0700, johac wrote:
In article <pan.2007.06.09.02.21.35.346500@com.mkbilbo>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:10:54 -0700, johac wrote:
Article on the new militants.
Since when has writing books been "militant"?
Sheesh...
That's what the press has been labeling them. They are speaking out,
and there's nothing wrong with that.
Funny thing, people get to beat on my door and bug me about their religion
but they're not "militant."
I consider them PITAs.
(That's pains in the *****.)
Atheist publishes a book and they're "militant."
I think that refers to the confrontational style of atheists like
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, in particular during interviews and
speeches.
<snork>
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pt. Lurk Pt." |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
10 Jun 2007 07:36:21 PM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-C8CCA5.17163410062007@news.giganews.
Atheist publishes a book and they're "militant."
I think that refers to the confrontational style of atheists like
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, in particular during interviews and
speeches.
Dawkins has a 'confrontational style'...?!?!?
Kindly watch:
http://cosmicafterthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/05/richard-dawkins-on-hour.html
L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
11 Jun 2007 06:55:16 PM |
|
|
In article <9O0bi.12784$J15.8137@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>,
"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. Lurk@renvcom.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-C8CCA5.17163410062007@news.giganews.
Atheist publishes a book and they're "militant."
I think that refers to the confrontational style of atheists like
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, in particular during interviews and
speeches.
Dawkins has a 'confrontational style'...?!?!?
Kindly watch:
http://cosmicafterthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/05/richard-dawkins-on-hour.html
Dawkins is usually politely calm and reserved. However, when the
occasion arises he can be quite devastating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0Y7lhqkiig
From a speech given at Randolph-Macon University Virginia, also home of
Falwell's Liberty University and no doubt some of its students in the
audience.
L.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
11 Jun 2007 05:34:43 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:16:34 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I think that refers to the confrontational style of atheists like
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, in particular during interviews and
speeches.
Like "If you don't accept Jayzus as your savior, you'll burn in hell
forever" *isn't* confrontational?
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
11 Jun 2007 11:57:44 PM |
|
|
In article <aejr631f4nhk3sgpgava6eh8n5bp31hig6@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:16:34 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I think that refers to the confrontational style of atheists like
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, in particular during interviews and
speeches.
Like "If you don't accept Jayzus as your savior, you'll burn in hell
forever" *isn't* confrontational?
Sure. And I have no problem at all with atheists giving an appropriate
response.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
12 Jun 2007 07:41:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:57:44 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <aejr631f4nhk3sgpgava6eh8n5bp31hig6@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:16:34 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I think that refers to the confrontational style of atheists like
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, in particular during interviews and
speeches.
Like "If you don't accept Jayzus as your savior, you'll burn in hell
forever" *isn't* confrontational?
Sure. And I have no problem at all with atheists giving an appropriate
response.
Well ...
"It's your hell, you burn in it" is okay, but helping them get there
might be frowned upon by some.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
12 Jun 2007 06:52:27 PM |
|
|
In article <k25t63952unq3mstcv1p8aqnkdk577pnup@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:57:44 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <aejr631f4nhk3sgpgava6eh8n5bp31hig6@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:16:34 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I think that refers to the confrontational style of atheists like
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, in particular during interviews and
speeches.
Like "If you don't accept Jayzus as your savior, you'll burn in hell
forever" *isn't* confrontational?
Sure. And I have no problem at all with atheists giving an appropriate
response.
Well ...
"It's your hell, you burn in it" is okay, but helping them get there
might be frowned upon by some.
Yeah. Too much trouble.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
21 Jun 2007 11:03:50 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:41:30 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:57:44 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <aejr631f4nhk3sgpgava6eh8n5bp31hig6@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:16:34 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I think that refers to the confrontational style of atheists like
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, in particular during interviews and
speeches.
Like "If you don't accept Jayzus as your savior, you'll burn in hell
forever" *isn't* confrontational?
Sure. And I have no problem at all with atheists giving an appropriate
response.
Well ...
"It's your hell, you burn in it" is okay, but helping them get there
might be frowned upon by some.
1 Thess 5:18 is all the 'authority' you need.......
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
21 Jun 2007 04:35:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:03:50 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ba8l73hvgo0kvemctqvce4th5ca3n8drf5@4ax.com>
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:41:30 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:57:44 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <aejr631f4nhk3sgpgava6eh8n5bp31hig6@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:16:34 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I think that refers to the confrontational style of atheists like
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, in particular during interviews and
speeches.
Like "If you don't accept Jayzus as your savior, you'll burn in hell
forever" *isn't* confrontational?
Sure. And I have no problem at all with atheists giving an appropriate
response.
Well ...
"It's your hell, you burn in it" is okay, but helping them get there
might be frowned upon by some.
1 Thess 5:18 is all the 'authority' you need.......
En panti euxaristeite touto gar thelema theou en xristo iesou eis
umas?
What is that about "panti"s?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
24 Jun 2007 11:12:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:05:36 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:03:50 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ba8l73hvgo0kvemctqvce4th5ca3n8drf5@4ax.com>
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:41:30 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:57:44 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <aejr631f4nhk3sgpgava6eh8n5bp31hig6@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:16:34 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I think that refers to the confrontational style of atheists like
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, in particular during interviews and
speeches.
Like "If you don't accept Jayzus as your savior, you'll burn in hell
forever" *isn't* confrontational?
Sure. And I have no problem at all with atheists giving an appropriate
response.
Well ...
"It's your hell, you burn in it" is okay, but helping them get there
might be frowned upon by some.
1 Thess 5:18 is all the 'authority' you need.......
En panti euxaristeite touto gar thelema theou en xristo iesou eis
umas?
What is that about "panti"s?
Xanth is all you need to know.
Yesterday on a Russian site I came across pics of a lady literally in
flames. People are always pulling all sorts of stunts. So, I had the
text machine translated. It indicated self-immolation, but that 'self'
could mean the person was set afire. Machine translations are quite
flakey. I didn't get the impression of self-immolation from the
pictures so I had the one word comment from a person translated. Their
comment was; "Horror!"
One, possibly two, people tossed flammable liquid on this lady and
ignited it. She ran off screaming which only fans the flames. Yeah, it
was the Human Torch, only not the Fantastic Four. :\
The last shot was her running fully engulfed. :\
I was very sorry I had the text translated. I would have been better
off with my stunt thoughts.
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
12 Jun 2007 08:51:24 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:57:44 -0700, johac wrote:
In article <aejr631f4nhk3sgpgava6eh8n5bp31hig6@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:16:34 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I think that refers to the confrontational style of atheists like
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, in particular during interviews and
speeches.
Like "If you don't accept Jayzus as your savior, you'll burn in hell
forever" *isn't* confrontational?
Sure. And I have no problem at all with atheists giving an appropriate
response.
Given the vicious assault that is "you're going to hell if you don't think
exactly the way I do", I think the atheist response is pretty measured and
calm...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
12 Jun 2007 06:51:13 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2007.06.12.13.51.24.501288@com.mkbilbo>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:57:44 -0700, johac wrote:
In article <aejr631f4nhk3sgpgava6eh8n5bp31hig6@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:16:34 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I think that refers to the confrontational style of atheists like
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, in particular during interviews and
speeches.
Like "If you don't accept Jayzus as your savior, you'll burn in hell
forever" *isn't* confrontational?
Sure. And I have no problem at all with atheists giving an appropriate
response.
Given the vicious assault that is "you're going to hell if you don't think
exactly the way I do", I think the atheist response is pretty measured and
calm...
True.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
13 Jun 2007 09:12:48 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-4FBE6A.16511312062007@news.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2007.06.12.13.51.24.501288@com.mkbilbo>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:57:44 -0700, johac wrote:
In article <aejr631f4nhk3sgpgava6eh8n5bp31hig6@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:16:34 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I think that refers to the confrontational style of atheists like
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, in particular during interviews and
speeches.
Like "If you don't accept Jayzus as your savior, you'll burn in hell
forever" *isn't* confrontational?
Sure. And I have no problem at all with atheists giving an appropriate
response.
Given the vicious assault that is "you're going to hell if you don't
think
exactly the way I do", I think the atheist response is pretty measured
and
calm...
True.
Hearing "You're going to hell!" doesn't really bother me, however; I was
once told that I should have the witchling taken away from me because I
wasn't raising her christian. You could say that pissed me off a mite >:{
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
13 Jun 2007 05:46:14 PM |
|
|
In article <5daca3F331i6eU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-4FBE6A.16511312062007@news.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2007.06.12.13.51.24.501288@com.mkbilbo>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:57:44 -0700, johac wrote:
In article <aejr631f4nhk3sgpgava6eh8n5bp31hig6@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:16:34 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I think that refers to the confrontational style of atheists like
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, in particular during interviews and
speeches.
Like "If you don't accept Jayzus as your savior, you'll burn in hell
forever" *isn't* confrontational?
Sure. And I have no problem at all with atheists giving an appropriate
response.
Given the vicious assault that is "you're going to hell if you don't
think
exactly the way I do", I think the atheist response is pretty measured
and
calm...
True.
Hearing "You're going to hell!" doesn't really bother me, however; I was
once told that I should have the witchling taken away from me because I
wasn't raising her christian. You could say that pissed me off a mite >:{
If something like that happened to me, I'd be a lot more than 'pissed'.
:-(
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
14 Jun 2007 09:09:37 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net>
wrote in message news:jhachmann-34B2D0.15461413062007@news.giganews.com...
In article <5daca3F331i6eU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
snip\
Hearing "You're going to hell!" doesn't really bother me, however; I was
once told that I should have the witchling taken away from me because I
wasn't raising her christian. You could say that pissed me off a mite
:{
If something like that happened to me, I'd be a lot more than 'pissed'.
:-(
Well, thankfully it was in here and not to my face out in the real world :P
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
14 Jun 2007 06:55:11 PM |
|
|
In article <5dd0g4F335jkrU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net>
wrote in message news:jhachmann-34B2D0.15461413062007@news.giganews.com...
In article <5daca3F331i6eU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
snip\
Hearing "You're going to hell!" doesn't really bother me, however; I was
once told that I should have the witchling taken away from me because I
wasn't raising her christian. You could say that pissed me off a mite
:{
If something like that happened to me, I'd be a lot more than 'pissed'.
:-(
Well, thankfully it was in here and not to my face out in the real world :P
Too bad you can't reach through the computer screen. I think I remember
bits of that exchange.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Atheists |
14 Jun 2007 08:39:40 PM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-4164CD.16551114062007@news.giganews.com...
In article <5dd0g4F335jkrU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net>
wrote in message
news:jhachmann-34B2D0.15461413062007@news.giganews.com...
In article <5daca3F331i6eU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
snip\
Hearing "You're going to hell!" doesn't really bother me, however; I
was
once told that I should have the witchling taken away from me because
I
wasn't raising her christian. You could say that pissed me off a mite
:{
If something like that happened to me, I'd be a lot more than 'pissed'.
:-(
Well, thankfully it was in here and not to my face out in the real world
:P
Too bad you can't reach through the computer screen. I think I remember
bits of that exchange.
I was absolutely furious. Any one that attacks you through your children is
the ultimate scumbag.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
