The Religious Right and the New Atheism

The Religious Right and the New Atheism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 9:09:16 AM)
Some people believe in God, some don't. Fine. What's for lunch? But some people go farther than that. And when they do, they begin to look a lot alike. The Religious Right asserts, "God is real" (and we know who He is). The New Atheism asserts, "There is no 'God'" (you're delusional). Neither of these assertions can be established as fact. They are statements of doctrine. But both the Religious Right and the New Atheism advance a vision of a better world. And for both the Religious Right and the New Atheism, it is a world that should be, and could be, and would be, if only it wasn't for "them". For the Religious Right, the enemy is Satan: "godless atheists" and believers in "false religions". For the New Atheism, the enemy is Religion: people who foolishly believe in gods, goddesses, faeries, wood nymphs, and colloidal silver. And for both the Religious Right and the New Atheism, these enemies need to be either converted to the cause, or else marginalized, made invisible, and denied access to the corridors of power. But both the Religious Right and New Atheism ignore the most fundamental truth of human nature, namely, that we are imperfect beings; that the temptations of status, prestige, and power are no respecters of persons or ideologies; that scientists are just as capable of self-serving motivations as priests or anyone else; and that scientific knowledge is just as susceptible of serving nefarious ends as religion or anything else. Thus, both the Religious Right and the New Atheism represent non-reality based utopian ideologies, each with its own vision of a better world, each with its own "Us versus Them" fantasy to explain the shortcomings of our present state, and each with its inevitable prescription for what needs to be done -- to who -- in order to fix it. Haven't we been here before? K.

Moonhead -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 9:14:21 AM)
Care to cite examples of a few atheists who've retreated that far into cloud cuckoo land? Not even Dawkins has taken it as far as you're implying, and most atheists find him overly condescending and combative anyway.

kdsub -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 9:20:30 AM)
Hi Moonhead Don't you think pointing to almost any thread on religion right here on CM is proof enough of the cuckoo's... on both sides. Butch

Moonhead -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 9:24:25 AM)
If that's what Kirata's on about, then fair enough. I got the impression was that his op was more about the cheerleaders for both sides in the Big Room, though. Last time I checked, the atheists seemed a bit less flakey than the people who are insisting that fairy stories be given equal time to the theory of evolution in public schools, and that sex education is evil.

flcouple2009 -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 9:29:59 AM)
My problem with the hard core religious right is the idea that everyone needs to follow their rules. if they would stop trying to push their ideas and agenda on the entire rest of the country I could care less what they wish to believe and practice. The cuckoo atheist on the other end I don't really have issues with. Only because they are a lot easier to just ignore and forget they exist.

kdsub -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 9:30:01 AM)
Perhaps... but you are proving his point. Many religions are not pushing for "fairy stories"... or against sex education...but you choose to lump them all together according to your vision of the universe. Butch

kdsub -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 9:33:52 AM)
Agreed...but there is a vast middle...and like most middles they say little just live their lives and wish the fanatics of both extremes would just shut the fuck up...as they say. Butch

flcouple2009 -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 10:14:25 AM)
I talked about the two in his question. I don't care what "fairy tales" or anything else a religious group wants to believe. As long as they're not trying to make me live by their rules I will defend their right to practice their religion in peace. The atheist I feel sorry for.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 10:44:17 AM)
Kirata's point is, I think (he'll correct me if I'm wrong, I trust), about the inherent lack of logic in extreme positions--from any of the extremes. Teaching "fairy tales," as people are putting it, has, yes, been pushed to silly extremes. But when I see some of the silly things the more militant atheist groups are doing, I can't say they exhibit any greater mental prowess. Reactionary, in fact--exactly as the reaction to evolutionary theory.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 10:49:01 AM)
Excellent post, and a good summary of my position for a while. Thanks, k. Firm

Moonhead -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 11:33:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Perhaps... but you are proving his point. Many religions are not pushing for "fairy stories"... or against sex education...but you choose to lump them all together according to your vision of the universe. Butch He's only talking about the extreme elements.

kdsub -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 12:02:59 PM)
And of course you and I are far from extreme...[:D]

Moonhead -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 12:11:33 PM)
Perish the thought. [;)]

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 1:30:21 PM)
Fundamentalism, in whatever guise it takes, sucks. Be it the unquestioning belief in the Free Market, Jesus or Darwinism, it sucks. The only difficulty I have with what Kirata has said is this bit: quote: ...both the Religious Right and the New Atheism represent non-reality based utopian ideologies, each with its own vision of a better world, each with its own "Us versus Them" fantasy to explain the shortcomings of our present state, and each with its inevitable prescription for what needs to be done -- to who -- in order to fix it. I think it is possible to believe in and strive for some vision of Utopia without embracing the suckiness of fundamentalism. In fact, I'd go further, and suggest that some sort of vision of an ideal future and how to get there is essential if we are to avoid cynicism.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 1:39:41 PM)
What about the new atheist right?

joether -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 1:50:42 PM)
Not to 'diss' your thoughts there, Kirata. But isn't this a widely held understanding of many political elements in the country at current? Simply replace 'Religion Right' for 'NRA Members' and 'Atheists' for 'Gun Control Advocates', and you get the same concept? NRA members & Gun Control Advocates are generally at the extreme ends of the 2nd Amendment. Or replace 'Religion Right' for 'Tea Party member' and 'Atheists' for 'Democrats'. Those two groups are at odds on a wide range of issues. We could do this for a number of issues, not those already mentioned, like Abortion, Border Control/Immigration, Economic Stablity, Foreign Policy, etc. And so we can readily find the extreme views, but also, the 'saner' views of their respected sides. They all push the idea, that if Americans simply listen to their cause as 'whats best for America', things will improve. Given conditions in the country, its not to hard to guess, that there are people who are vunerable to unscruplous ploys by groups/individuals seeking one or more agendas. There is a concept, that is not used anymore. If Republicans gain control of either the House or Senate (or both, in the extreme unlikely event), its fair money, we wont see this concept for at least another two years. The concept is 'give & take'. Two groups sit down, and agree on middle ground, and THEN, argue passionately for things they want in the bill. They are trying to convince the moderates, the other side is much more insane then their position. For a long time, Democrats & Republicans operated under this idea, and goverment generally moved forward. During the late Clinton Administration, is really when the 'give and take' started to disappear. It didn't disappear over night, but over the course of 12 years (my opinion only, folks). There has to be a middle ground. Not one that is forced at gun point. THAT, is what America is about (or at least, one of its core ideas). Groups of individuals, sharing freedoms given to us under the Bill of Rights, sitting down at a table, and argue passionately their points. But, to do it in a civil manner. If one person is speaking, the other side remains quiet and as least distracting as possible. Their arguements are based on agreed facts, and kepted to an orderly manner. Every man (or women, given its 2010, not 1776), given a chance to speak on the issue of the day. And then vote on the manner to push the bill forward; and tackle the next problem on the on the list. I personally, do not hold much confidence the Tea Party will bring civil order, maturity, or wisdom to the table. I have no confidence in their choice of candidates, nor the minimal level of maturity needed to serve in a position such as 'Representative' or 'Senator' for the state they represent. No, I believe these individuals, are the representation of more extremists views on one side of the arguement (or set of arguements). That they give example, to the sort of people we, as Americans, can NEVER allow in to a position of power. While a Republican could be expected to represent their Democrat constituents some of the time, these Tea Party canidates will ignore them at every chance. Lets just say I was a Democrat. If I'm pretty sure the Tea Party will not 'give & take' as reasonable, rational, mature adults; why should I 'give and take'? What is in it for me, if the other side is just 'take' and no 'give'?

Nslavu -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 2:50:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Some people believe in God, some don't. Fine. What's for lunch? But some people go farther than that. And when they do, they begin to look a lot alike. The Religious Right asserts, "God is real" (and we know who He is). The New Atheism asserts, "There is no 'God'" (you're delusional). Neither of these assertions can be established as fact. They are statements of doctrine. But both the Religious Right and the New Atheism advance a vision of a better world. And for both the Religious Right and the New Atheism, it is a world that should be, and could be, and would be, if only it wasn't for "them". For the Religious Right, the enemy is Satan: "godless atheists" and believers in "false religions". For the New Atheism, the enemy is Religion: people who foolishly believe in gods, goddesses, faeries, wood nymphs, and colloidal silver. And for both the Religious Right and the New Atheism, these enemies need to be either converted to the cause, or else marginalized, made invisible, and denied access to the corridors of power. But both the Religious Right and New Atheism ignore the most fundamental truth of human nature, namely, that we are imperfect beings; that the temptations of status, prestige, and power are no respecters of persons or ideologies; that scientists are just as capable of self-serving motivations as priests or anyone else; and that scientific knowledge is just as susceptible of serving nefarious ends as religion or anything else. Thus, both the Religious Right and the New Atheism represent non-reality based utopian ideologies, each with its own vision of a better world, each with its own "Us versus Them" fantasy to explain the shortcomings of our present state, and each with its inevitable prescription for what needs to be done -- to who -- in order to fix it. Haven't we been here before? K. I think this is why we sleep 8 hours a day. [:D] It isn't going to go away.

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 4:01:00 PM)
Incidentally, where do the extreme agnostics fall into this mix? You know the kind who believe that even if the details of a claim are all demonstrably false the claim could still be true.

DomKen -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 4:17:24 PM)
Actually as someone who has read a lot by the "new atheists" and considers himeself at least a fellow traveler I object to the characterization of the movement. there is nothing utopian about it. And the "new atheists" are most definitely quite closely attached to reality. In the most basic terms the "new atheists" are simply tired of having religion nonconsensually shoved down their throats. We live in a society where a non christian much less a non believer has zero chance of being elected President. Where the last month of the year (with the creep of the "season" before Thanksgiving it is approaching a full tenth of the year) is a ridiculous display of faux faith over a myth that got set on the date in question simply for PR purposes. Where Pat Robertson and Graham schmooze the powerful as a matter of right while Dawkins and Myers are reviled and shunned. Where the canard "no atheists in foxholes" can be repeated ad infinitum without anyone ever laughing or pointing out the absurdity of the claim. Finally the "new atheists" aren't exactly new. Samuel Clemens and Colonel Ingersoll said the same things we're saying today over a century ago.

Louve00 -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/25/2010 5:02:22 PM)
I like your post...your observation...your opinion on this, Kirata. I also think a lot of people "take it too far". A lot of people think 'they' know what's good for everything and often their rants kick off the other side of it all. Next thing you know you're at extreme ends. This doesn't only happen with religion, but with everything, IMO. If everyone could just calm down, try to see things from their opponents POV (possibly?), they might be able to relate. They might not, either. As your last words stated.... "Haven't we been here before?" Its my opinion that no matter whether you're talking religion, politics...or anything people get passionate over, it will be taken to its extreme. The job I give myself (or personally try to) is to try to see past everyones opinions, no matter how loud and irate they get, and to form my own. Quietly. Doesn't mean I won't voice my opinion either. It also doesn't mean that someone's opinion won't change my opinion. But I try not to get too extreme...and try to see the difference. [:)]

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625