There are 5 choices, 6 votes for Alexander Hine's debate

Should I be worried about this Dawkins thing.

Well, not Dawkins as such, but the (seemingly) growing popularity of a certain form of atheism. Now, atheism as such does not worry me - I don't believe it is true, but I don't think it is irrational or damaging to believe in it. There is even a certain nobility in the idea. What worries me is the growing demand by many atheists that religion be gotten rid of and that it is somehow the 'root of all evil'. Religion is, obviously, a cause of many problems in the world (and I mean A cause, not THE cause) but no moreso than apathy, corporatism, nationalism, racism and all those other isms. My worry is that, by attacking the religious so strongly, atheists may become just one more force for dogma and intolerance in the world rather than fulfilling what has often been their historical role (eg. Bertrand Russel) of clear-eyed fighter's for peace and tolerance.
Perhaps i am way off the mark here, but reading Dawkins diatribes and viewing sites like BetterHuman.org, I think it is worth discussing.

Just to emphasize, this is not an attack on atheism nor a defence of theism. My interest in this is sociological and ethical - that is, can the oppression of any group - whether 'rational' or not - lead to human betterment?

K. F.

  • Oppression cannot lead to good
    Oppressing a group of people for the sake of a belief or for the beliefs of the people causes problems. To put it simply, it pisses people off. It can only cause harm.

    Religion is not the cause of problems in the world: money and power are. The 'men behind the curtain' so to speak. People in power use religion to control people. Just like how 'logic' and 'reason' are used. Everyone else is just a pawn thinking that they are fighting for their beliefs.

    A society's logic and reason can be changed in a few short years. This is fairly easy to accomplish when you have the resources(think Rupert Murdoch). Religion is a bit trickier. But if you think about it, the 'one world religion' is coming quickly. After the Vatican II ecumenical council; the Catholic church was drastically changed. Now it is no longer "no salvation outside the Church" it is "everybody of all religions are saved". So the Popes of the Vatican II sect get together with Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists and worship with them. And the current Pope calls for a new world order. People are much easier to control when they all believe the same thing.

    Oppression is a tool of the elite to control the masses.
    33%  Voted for by Carpool, zink.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • Well, I'm not sure.
    Evidently I am not sure, if I was I wouldn't be honest or posting this. My intuition is that atheists (and theists and everyone else for that matter) would be better off encouraging people of all beliefs to be ethical and rational, rather than 'yelling' at them or insulting them. The reason I believe this is because, quite simply, people find it hard to hear someone properly who is provoking them emotionally.

    I feel that it is more constructive to emphasise, not that religion is evil, but that public discourse on politics, ethics, legislation etc. should be rational and conducted on even ground. As such, religious views, while they may affect a person's decisions, cannot be their sole reason for doing something or arguing for something in the public sphere. This is because not all people are religious, and those who are follow different traditions, and so to use religious reasons in public discourse is simply useless.

    That's my thought, anyway
    K. F.
    Voted for by Alexander Hine.
    View 14 comments
  • :

  • No
    "that is, can the oppression of any group - whether 'rational' or not - lead to human betterment?"


    When Hitler oppressed the Jews, and the handicapped, he created the "superior race".
    Which also helped to contribute to the growing numbers of fanatics, and cult leaders.
    Voted for by Lost to Apathy.
    View 1 comment
  • :

  • there are different kinds of atheists
    there are the simple atheists, those who just do not believe in god. period. they do not care what you believe, they understand that theirs is not the majority view, they just simply are unconvinced of the existance of a supreme diety, and let it go at that...

    then there are the political atheists, those who see atheism as a political movement, and want to see laws changed in favor of it

    then there are the chip-on-the shoulder atheists, who are out to pick a fight with anyone who believes in god

    then there are the religious fanatic atheists, who treat disbelief in god as a religion in itself, and will do anything short of thumbscrews (and sometimes even that) to convert you to their way. these are the ones who want to outlaw christmas trees, and ten comandments displays, and anything that upsets their religion.

    some people are many of these things at the same time.
    Voted for by NeferMaatNetjer.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • If Religion Should Be Allowed, It needs to get its act together
    From the atheist perspective, religion plants a seed in the person's mind that allows their religion to control their thoughts. The nobility of atheism generally is that atheists believe the changing, questioning world of science where you question assumptions, doubt your intuitions, and seek the 'truth'.

    Many religious people (though perhaps not all) have beliefs that are wildly inconsistent with current scientific knowledge (ie evolution).

    Should we allow anyone to believe what they want?

    If so, what about the possibility that they believe *You* are pure evil and *must die*?

    There are good religions too, but a line should be drawn. When should we not 'respect' an individuals beliefs? Only when they may hurt us? How do we know when that will happen?

    Voted for by ExpensiveThinker.
    View 2 comments
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →