801. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102492 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 2:28 am

79. Comment #102488 by Steve Zara on December 23, 2007 at 2:23 am
It's ok, Steve. Although my thoughts were prompted by what you'd written, they weren't intended as an argument with them. Just me pontificating to the world at large. Some of us just like the sound of our own keyboard :-)

802. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102491 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 2:25 am

Perhaps not entirely fair. The Anglicans rejected the idea of Hell years ago.

Ah, but did God? ;-)

803. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102490 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 2:25 am

It now includes comment from the National Secular Society

I'm increasingly impressed with the NSS. They seem to get everywhere and are excellent at getting the message across that religion is given far too much prominence in public life. Their measured responses also make the histrionics from the religious quarter look even more laughable.

By contrast, I've just unsubscribed from the UK Brights mailing list, because they don't seem to realise that there are more important issues at stake than what word we use to describe ourselves. Whatever word we use, the theists will throw enough mud at it to make it sound grubby again. It's the arguments we've got to win - not the name game.

804. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102480 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 1:53 am

I have been thinking about this particular point for some time, and I am honestly not sure what evidence for a God could be.

Yes, I've had thoughts along these lines myself occasionally, but an omniscient and omnipotent god must surely be able to find a way, don't you think? ...

Stenger suggests as possible evidence the finding of a biblical message in the background "noise" from Big Bang. Or systematic research, properly controlled, that showed that the prayers of one religon were consistently answered whereas those of another were not. Or, if we're going to give a nod to the liberals who claim that all religions are routes to the same god and that therefore god answers ALL prayers equally, then systematic, properly controlled research showing that prayer works, full stop. And, as others have pointed out elsewhere, the Rapture would be pretty convincing.

But I take your point: it's hard to think of anything for which a natural explanation couldn't eventually be found.

For all that, I don't accept the term "fundamentalist" as applied to atheists. There's only one tenet of atheism to be fundamentalist about, and that's the lack of belief in a god or gods. Since that's actually the definition of atheism, it's hard to see how we could lose it without losing atheism altogether. Which would suit the theists down to the ground, of course.

No, these terms "fundamentalist" and "militant" have only been applied to atheists since we stopped accepting the non-speaking part that theists have assigned to us for millennia. The very fact that we're now speaking up and actively challenging belief, actively highlighting the lack of evidence for it, and challenging its claim to be the source of all that is good and moral and life-affirming, is enough to qualify us as fundamentalist militants in the eyes of those who stand to lose most by our success.

In reality we're no more fundamentalist or militant than any other group of people drawing attention to something they believe in. And we're a hell of a lot less militant than almost any religion you care to mention. If "desire to convince" is to be deemed synonymous with "militancy" and "fundamentalism", then every Christian bookshop you've ever been in is chock full of books by militant fundamentalists.

805. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102396 by Paula Kirby on December 22, 2007 at 3:33 pm

I am going to do a Sam Harris at the AAI, and put forward a controversial proposition:

Ah, you're a brave soul, Steve, I'll give you that!

Maybe the concept of a fundamental atheist is not nonsense. Perhaps it is someone who says "There is no God or Gods, and I am not interested in looking at any evidence for Gods. Even if there was evidence for Gods, I would refuse to believe it: I will stick by the Dogma that There Are No Gods."

Yes, it is possible to imagine such a person ... but considering how often the term "atheist fundamentalist" gets trundled out, I can't say I've met very many of them. Well, not any, actually!

Even the antitheists don't say they wouldn't believe in a god if there were evidence for one - they just say they think it would be better if there weren't.

I also think it's a bit hard to be a fundamentalist without a holy text to consider to be inerrant. Theists have fun suggesting that The Origin of Species or The God Delusion fill that void for atheists, but it wouldn't take more than a pretty cursory glance in any biology lab or this website to see that neither of them is swallowed hook line and sinker or without criticism - which is hardly the hallmark of a fundamentalist's holy text, is it?

806. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102385 by Paula Kirby on December 22, 2007 at 2:59 pm

52. Comment #102381 by Northern Bright on December 22, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Oops, sorry - force of habit led me to log in as Northern Bright again. But I'm not Northern Bright any more ... just me :-)

807. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102365 by Paula Kirby on December 22, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Dr Morgan's Christmas message comes after the general director of the Evangelical Alliance ... compared militant atheists to King Herod in their intolerance of religious faith.

Yes, well, fair point. The number of firstborn I've slayed this year is 20% up on last year's total, and a personal best. And my Christmas dinner wouldn't be complete without my trademark head of local preacher served on a silver platter. Mmm, lovely.

Honestly, these people are so used to making claims based on no evidence whatsoever that they eventually seem to lose all grip on reality. Very very bizarre.

808. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101832 by Paula Kirby on December 21, 2007 at 2:34 am

That's sort of what I was hoping for – suggests this conversation is keeping you open to alternative ideas.

Doh, I looked back in here this morning with no intention whatsoever of posting but found this and just had to. It may not have been intended to sound patronising, but I'm afraid it does to my ears - intensely so.

Have you been scrutinising the posts of the people who agree with you for signs that they're being kept open to alternative ideas too? Or your own, for that matter?

809. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101817 by Paula Kirby on December 21, 2007 at 2:18 am

Steve Zara

I have just realised what this is all about. It is homeopathy!

Brilliant! :-))

810. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101799 by Paula Kirby on December 21, 2007 at 1:58 am

perhaps it would be better if it was discussed academically in another environment

and

Oh, yes, I think it is confusing [for churchgoers]. I agree

A perfect example of the dualist approach to theology. There's the theology taught in academia, which is subtle and open to disputation. And then there's the theology taught in churches, which is basically "Keep it simple, they're not very bright."

811. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101469 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Nothing I'm saying is getting through is it?

LOL! I'm beginning to feel the same way. On the basis that there isn't actually a rule against agreeing to disagree, maybe we should just do that!

812. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101467 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 11:58 am

Paula – those religionists determined to put us down will say and will misrepresent us no matter what we say or do.

They will indeed fight us whichever way they can. But we don't have to hand them their ammunition on a plate.

813. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101456 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 11:37 am

Oh suuuure ..... Fool me once shame on ... you, fool me twice ... yuh caint get fooled again.

Shame on you, Brian - I do hope you're not implying I'm not a woman who keeps her word.

;-)

814. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101440 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 11:13 am

That is what I don't get. Why must a religious work be translated into a "purely secular one" in order that we, as atheists can appreciate?

Bonzai, it doesn't. And I haven't anywhere (intentionally) suggested that it does. I am absolutely NOT talking about what atheists can or cannot enjoy (who would I be to dictate that anyway, even if the very concept weren't meaningless?)

I like Steve's dieting analogy. There's no reason on earth why a dieter by definition shouldn't ENJOY eating chocolate. There may however be reasons why s/he would be better advised not to. (It's not a perfect analogy, I know, but the best I can come up with right now.)

On my drive home this evening I was thinking about the comments that "we're not at war". Assuming we're speaking metaphorically, then I disagree: I think we are. Our worldview is waging war against the religious worldview, and vice versa. Use the phrase "competing with", if you prefer. Either way, we have a "battle" to fight and win.

How long do you suppose we will have to wait in the New Year before we're all in here shrieking about how the Christians have twisted what we mean and have wilfully misrepresented us? Before we're furious with a Christian who claims that RD has said that teaching children about religion is child abuse? You know all those Christians who come in here convinced they know what TGD says, when it is crystal clear that they haven't read a word of it - where do you think they've got their information from? From a concerted campaign of misinformation conducted by the fundies, that's where.

We simply cannot expect the "enemy", the "opposition" - whatever term you want to use to describe the people who are most determined to STOP us getting our message across - to consider the nuances of our behaviour, or to give us the benefit of the doubt. If they see a SINGLE chink in our armour, they will exploit it for all it's worth. And not all the people they talk to about it will stop to consider the nuances either.

I was also thinking about your point about not letting the fundies affect our behaviour. It reminded me a bit of the Blitz spirit - all those civilians refusing to let a few doodlebugs stop them getting on with their lives. And that's all well and good. But they could only do that because at the same time there were armies that WERE actively fighting the enemy, and strategists who WERE actively trying to stay one step ahead and ensure the "home front" was as well defended as possible. In fact, those same civilians would have been pretty hacked off if someone, somewhere, hadn't been actively trying to ensure those doodlebugs were kept to the minimum number possible.

In the "war" on religion (or the campaign to promote atheism, if you prefer), I don't view myself as just another civilian. I see myself as part of the army. I want to advance atheism, not just discuss it. Let's not pretend the Christians won't stoop to fighting dirty. They'll fling all the mud they can - I just don't see the point of giving them more, and gift-wrapped.

Anyway, you'll be pleased to hear I'm not going to post on this topic again ....

815. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101393 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 9:52 am

Michael

Bonzai, in his recent post certainly echos my views on the the beautiful art and music the has been commisioned religious bodies.

And mine :-) Mozart's Requiem would be my "must have" piece of music on a desert island. But there again, that has completed the transition from being a purely religious work to being a purely secular one - with maybe just the very VERY occasional exception. Carols haven't.

Bonzai

I can't care less about PR; we are not at war.

You don't need to be at war to benefit from PR. Or to be left with egg on your face through not paying a bit of attention to it.

Paula Kirby

I'm definitely not going to post on this topic again

Oh, shut up woman, what do you know? :-)

816. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101364 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 9:22 am

there are certain species of sharks, that if kept in captivity, adapt by becoming hermaphroditic and actually produce offspring, so it is not entirely unfathomable that the same could have happened in the human world.

Is the Christian world ready for Mary the Holy Hermaphrodite, do you think? !!!!

817. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101358 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 9:18 am

Vaal

I hadn't realised that about the Scots! Does that mean that I have to crush my Scottish sister in law, or poor Northern Bright, sorry Paula.

No, hands off, I'm English. Though Scotland's my home now.

Bonzai - and others.
Just to clarify that I am not for one moment suggesting that atheists should not throw themselves with enthusiasm into the non-religious aspects of Christmas if they wish to. Or that it's not possible to sing carols without secretly somehow believing them or wishing to believe them. Nor do I feel sniffy about whether it is morally justifiable or not for atheists to sing carols.

My concern is purely connected to whether it is wise or not, whether it is helpful or not, for atheists to take part in a religious carol service.

Anyway, as I've said several times now, I'm definitely not going to post on this topic again ... ;-)

818. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101324 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 8:27 am

Diacanu:

Depends on if the desired action is destructively irrational enough for post-rationalization to matter one way or the other.
I submit that it is/does not.

I know. And I know we'll have to agree to differ on this one. It's just that impressions impress, and I do think that, in order to have maximum impact, we need to think about the impressions we create about ourselves. Even Al-Qaeda are evidently getting media-savvy these days. Like it or not (and I don't, particularly), PR does matter.

But I really will stop now. Unless a new thought occurs to me of course, in which case I don't suppose I shall be able to restrain myself ...

Oh, and Paula, is that the real you in your avatar?

LOL. Yes. Is that the real you in yours? ;-)

819. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101303 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 7:54 am

That's when we explain that what it SEEMS like is happening is not what's really happening. It's something else they haven't thought of before. Make it a teaching moment. Otherwise, we and they fall back to current society's tacit definition("real atheists don't sing carols or set foot in a church") and nothing much has changed.

Yes, yes, I know I said I wasn't going to say anymore on this topic. I lied, ok? ;-)

I just wanted to ask the people who are taking such pains to defend the carol-singing - are you really, truly, definitely sure you're not actually just post-rationalising your position? Actively wanting to find justifications for continuing doing something that you want to do anyway?

Feel free to consider it a rhetorical question - I'm not accusing, just raising the possibility. It is not unknown for humans to fix on the desired action first and create the good reasons for doing it afterwards - and I don't for one moment claim to have never done it myself.

Just a thought!

820. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101262 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 6:49 am

Stars simply don't behave like that, he told the BBC during an interview.

Whereas, obviously, dead people return to life at the drop of a hat. It's hard to keep the bodies in their coffins round my way. We've had to reinforce the lids.

821. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101193 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 4:45 am

I don't really have a lot to add to what I've said already, and I really can see whether those who don't agree are coming from - so one final post from me on this topic and then I'm going to submit with as good a grace as I can muster :-)

The campaigns against sexism, homophobia and racism, although still ongoing and still having a lot of work to do, have been around longer than the concerted campaign against religion which has only really emerged in a high-profile way over the last couple of years.

In years to come, hopefully our message will have begun to gain more acceptance, as the messages of those other campaigns have. But we are still in our infancy and we still have an enormous way to go. I just don't think we can afford to be complacent or to score own-goals.

The CEO of Mercedes Benz doesn't allow himself to be photographed driving a Ford.

And with that, my lips are sealed. Unless someone's offering a little glass of something, of course ...

822. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100905 by Paula Kirby on December 19, 2007 at 3:01 pm

I know I owe you. Do you accept American Express, or are you going to ask the impossible, like asking me stop being snide, cantankerous, supercilious and sneering?

Good heavens, no, Richard Morgan. There are only so many shocks I can cope with!

823. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100902 by Paula Kirby on December 19, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Steve Zara

I do think there is a difference between singing religious songs as part of a religious service, and singing them in, say, a concert, or with friends who know what your beliefs are.

Yes, I tend to agree with this. It's carols in the context of a religious service or other religious setting that I would be uneasy with.

I don't think the hypocricy is in the singing of religious songs when you are a known atheist; it is in attempting to gain comfort from religion.

I hope this isn't another instance of my being unclear. I'm not accusing anyone of hypocrisy if they choose to sing carols. I'm just flagging up that it will be presented as hypocrisy by the opposition.

By the way, I have been inspired by your change of user name to ditch my "Northern Bright" alias as well. So it's Goodbye Northern Bright, hello PK :-)

824. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100899 by Paula Kirby on December 19, 2007 at 2:53 pm

You (and RM) told us that you used to be a fundamentalist

No, Bonzai, if you've got that impression you've either misinterpreted something I've written, or I've expressed myself unclearly somewhere. I was never a fundamentalist. I was an extremely liberal Christian. I never believed in hell, for instance, or the virgin birth, or "In the beginning ...", or or or or .... I believe I wrote that I used to truly believe the words of the carols - and I did: but in that infuriating metaphorical sense of the word "believe", so beloved of Christians everywhere :-)

As I believe I said earlier, I can well understand how atheists would feel able to sing Christmas carols.

My problem with it is that it will be used against us by "the opposition". And I think we shouldn't be lulled by the supposed "season of goodwill" into thinking that hostilities between us and the opposing camp have been suspended. They are still on the look out for every weapon they can use against us. They'll find some anyway. We don't have to hand them another on a plate.

To me it's not just a question of what I would like to do. It's whether what we do is helpful, unhelpful or just neutral to the cause I espouse.

At best, atheists attending carol services is neutral - it doesn't advance and it doesn't obstruct our cause. At worst, it actively hinders it. I'm trying hard to think of ways in which it might possibly actively help it - I suppose it would be possible to argue that it shows we're not as rabidly anti-Christian as they like to paint us. But I don't honestly think I'd buy that one if I were still a Christian. I think we have to remember that Christians don't actually WANT to give us the benefit of any doubt there may be.