« Ping Pong Proselyting | Main | Viewer Mail: The First Child »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Where I see the new atheism heading is prejudice, war and religious oppression in the name of atheism. I guess Dawkins will then have to admit his atheism is then a de facto religion.

In a class I am taking for school this came up. We were discussing cultural barriers and how the impede geocentrism. One student suggested that "religious fundamentalism" was the primary cause. After much discussion, it seemed like the cause was really intolerance for difference. It seems like to me that Harris, Dawkins, and others are simply pushing for a new form of intolerance.

Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists," he says.

Reminds me of a scripture or two...

Careful Connor, we as LDS often pride (A sin, I know) ourselves on the fact that Activity in the LDS church actually increases as education increases, as opposed to most religions.

see here for an example.

Interesting articles.

I think my favorite quote is "Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance that we could turn out to be wrong."

So true, so true.

I think Thomas Jefferson would fit more under the title of a deist than atheist (I am not insinuating that he was not accused of being an atheist).

Atheism would become much more accepted if it wasn't linguistically and idealistically opposed to something, in this case, belief in God. Most communists or socialists (I'm choosing "taboo" or "formerly taboo" U.S. examples) are going to define themselves by what they do believe, not by what they do not believe

I have read all these books and the one thing that bothers me the most about them is the fact that none of them, Dawkins in particular, believe that atheism itself can be a source of violence and oppression.

They dismiss communism as a kind of religion, and do not mention any other instances of anti-religious violence, (French revolution, Spanish civil war, civil war in Mexico, just to name a few off the top of my head). This is not to belittle the many examples of religious hate out there, but it makes me a little nervous that they do exactly what the most dangerous religious believers do, divide up the world into two camps, and demonize the opposite side.

The New Atheists just seem a bit too sure of themselves and too sure of the evil of religious people for my taste. I would not want them in power, not because of their atheism, but because of their closed minds.

I'm with you, Topher. Maybe we can call them secular non-humanists rather than new atheists.

I agree with Topher to a large extent. I used to think that atheism could not kill in the name of God since they did not believe in God. This, however, is a bit of a misconstrual. What matters in killing in the name of an ideology.

There is, however, a difference between the two. Namely, theism commits (hypothetically) crimes in the name of not only an ideology but by following the commands of an external agent which is beyond criticism, investigation, etc. Atheism does not really go beyond the committing crimes in the name of an ideology. I'm simply not sure what this difference really amounts to.

an external agent which is beyond criticism, investigation, etc.

Deity is not beyond criticism or investigation. There is obvious evidence to support the fact that many investigate and criticize their "external agents"

The comments to this entry are closed.

Now Reading

General Books 09-12

General Books 06-08

General Books 04-05

About This Site

Mormon Books 2015-16

Mormon Books 2013-14

Science Books

Bible Books

Mormon Books 2012

Mormon Books 2009-11

Mormon Books 2008

Mormon Books 2007

Mormon Books 2006

Mormon Books 2005

Religion Books 09-12

Religion Books 2008

Religion Books 2004-07

DMI on Facebook

Blog powered by Typepad