RE: New Atheism in the UK
March 16, 2012 at 11:06 am
(This post was last modified: March 16, 2012 at 11:20 am by NoMoreFaith.)
(March 16, 2012 at 9:57 am)pgrimes15 Wrote: To continue the caravan analogy (before it starts to get a bit silly) your aim is to come to a complete stop, so you must keep breaking. Inappropriately hard breaking would be like having a confrontational Hitchenesque debate with your elderly aunt at a family Christening. Not breaking enough would be like . . . er . . . I think that's enough of this analogy.
Regards
Grimesy
Don't stop, it works fine. In small scale, rampant braking is excessive to means, and inappropriate. Got it in one.
When you are still in the process of gradually reducing speed, it is equally inappropriate to stop braking.
(March 16, 2012 at 10:07 am)mannaka Wrote: Exactly! Proportionate breaking I'd call it.
It is of my opinion however that New Atheist views are the equivalent "jerkily hard breaking" in this analogy.
Your initial position was that there was a decline in the opening post, not a substantive drop.
Am I to understand your definition of decline is a sudden crashing drop?
If that were the case I'd agree that militant atheism is overkill. However, it is demonstrably a gradual decline, so I think we've got the balance right so far. People need time to adjust to new ways of thinking.
(March 16, 2012 at 10:07 am)mannaka Wrote: Perhaps there are other pedestals in the UK we should be corroding?
Such as? Religion has been on a pedestal where you must not criticise or point out the flaws because its 'offensive' to do so.
This concept of 'New Atheism' is largely linked to the TED talk Dawkins gave about a decade ago where he called upon atheists to stop allowing religion to take this position of being immune from criticism, and to actively point out the problems and flaws as you would with ANY other irrational belief.
I absolutely agree with you. Any position on a pedestal that demands respect without earning it, that demands you simply accept it without questioning SHOULD be challenged.
Last I checked, illiteracy was not on a pedestal that you shouldn't try and make people more literate...
So whats your point?
EDIT: The study looked at reasons why they identified themselves as Christian, being "born into it", or "baptised" but with little in common with the belief structure itself. The point was that you can't claim this is a christian nation merely on the tag people put on themselves.
I'm reminded of a saying when learning about contract law; A contract is what it is, not what it says it is.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
