No rational case for God = increasingly desperate attacks on atheists

[Mudhammam]

He was a Professor of European Though at the London School of Economics before retirement, he is no intellectual lightweight and I would be inclined to check his sources before laughing at him, he has a tendency to be right.

Perhaps you have a little too much faith in Gray. Of course religion is still influential in the US but you're distracting from the claim, which is that we're no less secular today than we were 150 years ago. Do we really have to go into this and start listing the differences between now and then and the progress that has been made in diminishing the influence of religion in the public sphere? (And don't twist my words into saying there's not still a tremendous amount of work to be done).

Example: No one is beaten, put to death, or put in prison for being a homosexual anymore. But I'm sure that has nothing to do with secularism, right?

---

I don't disagree with anything you've said, Simon. But I do think it is okay to criticize the minority atheist view that gods do not exist. There are plenty of 7's around and many of these seem to suffer from the same debilitating symptoms of fundamentalism as their theist counterparts.

A 7 is a person who claims to KNOW there are no such things as unicorns, leprechauns, garden faeries, or supermen/gods in reality? And you're claiming these people are on par with those who say, "I know Jesus is God and that he will come back to rapture the church" or "I know there is one God and Muhammad is his prophet?"

That's ridiculous. Even the atheist who claims to know there is no god in the same way they know the moon is not made of cheese is on much firmer ground to make that assertion than any believer has EVER been.

[Faith No More]

The more I think about it, the more I've started to feel that maybe I only label myself an agnostic atheist in some sort of attempt to maintain a false notion of intellectual integrity. I'm starting to think that things like the incredible weakness of the arguments for god, the illegitimacy of all supernatural claims and the tendency for human beings to make up answers when they can't figure it out themselves is enough to conclude that god does not exist.

Mind you, I'm not completely convinced of this. It does, however, seem more and more convincing, and to compare such a conclusion to that of religious faith, which involves leaping to wild conclusions on terrible evidence, is just disingenuous.

[Dystopia]

The more I think about it, the more I've started to feel that maybe I only label myself an agnostic atheist in some sort of attempt to maintain a false notion of intellectual integrity. I'm starting to think that things like the incredible weakness of the arguments for god, the illegitimacy of all supernatural claims and the tendency for human beings to make up answers when they can't figure it out themselves is enough to conclude that god does not exist.

Mind you, I'm not completely convinced of this. It does, however, seem more and more convincing, and to compare such a conclusion to that of religious faith, which involves leaping to wild conclusions on terrible evidence, is just disingenuous.

I've already said I don't promise to be an agnostic atheist my whole life, I could as well switch to gnosticism, it happens and there are good arguments. But for now agnosticism fits me better.

[ManMachine]

...Christianity today is nothing like Christianity of the 5 century BCE, but they will never be 'out of people'.

Christianity in the 5th century BCE. That's a neat fucking trick.

I blame pope Gregory XIII for that one, sorry, of course I meant AD.

MM

---

Perhaps you have a little too much faith in Gray. Of course religion is still influential in the US but you're distracting from the claim, which is that we're no less secular today than we were 150 years ago. Do we really have to go into this and start listing the differences between now and then and the progress that has been made in diminishing the influence of religion in the public sphere? (And don't twist my words into saying there's not still a tremendous amount of work to be done).

Perhaps I do. You are right there is no point in gainsaying matters of opinion, although I did post some links to research in my reply in support of my opinion.

Your point about homosexuals is perhaps not representing the argument as it introduces the element of what people do in the name of religion. Religion, or at least the prevailing religion in America at the time did not and still does not advocate imprisoning and executing homosexuals, that behaviour (at least in a Western context) is born of 19th century values. In medieval Europe homosexual relationships were largely ignored, King James I famously had a male lover, the worst he suffered was a leaflet campaign.

Let's not be too assured about what we consider to be secular progress, we still suffer from a values-hangover born of pernicious Victorian morality.

The subject is as long as it is broad, which goes back to your point about tit-for tat gainsaying, it would be pointless and not move the debate any further on. Let's agree to disagree.

I will look into what you say, I will also re-read my books by Gray and weigh any new information up against his opinions. A number of people I know who have read his works find his books better as they give him time to frame his arguments, which are quite complex, he has a phenomenal grasp of philosophy, one of the finest I've come across.

MM

[Ravenshire]

He tells this little anecdote in the first chapter:

After [a lecture]. I was confronted by a very angry young man. The lecture had not been particularly remarkable. I had simply demonstrated, by rigorous use of scientific, historical and philosophical arguments, that Dawkins's intellectual case against God didn't stand up to critical examination. But this man was angry--in fact, I would say he was furious. Why? Because, he told me, I had "destroyed his faith." His atheism rested on the authority of Richard Dawkins, and I had totally undermined his faith. He would have to go away and rethink everything. How dare I do such a thing!

(Italics in the original)

I'm not sure I believe in this angry young man.

While I may question if this particular "angry young man" is real, I have no doubt there are some out there that take their atheism as a matter of faith because Dawkins (or some other prominent atheist) says so. There are stupid people everywhere.

[ShaMan]

There are stupid people everywhere.

[Jenny A]

He tells this little anecdote in the first chapter:

(Italics in the original)

I'm not sure I believe in this angry young man.

While I may question if this particular "angry young man" is real, I have no doubt there are some out there that take their atheism as a matter of faith because Dawkins (or some other prominent atheist) says so. There are stupid people everywhere.

There certainly are and you certainly can be atheist for stupid reasons. But I have a hard time believing in this confrontation. I imagine the disillusioned young man going home with his tail between his legs.

[Mudhammam]

Your point about homosexuals is perhaps not representing the argument as it introduces the element of what people do in the name of religion.

What else are we to evaluate religion by if not by its holy texts and the resulting behaviors of its adherents???

Religion, or at least the prevailing religion in America at the time did not and still does not advocate imprisoning and executing homosexuals, that behaviour (at least in a Western context) is born of 19th century values.

You should look up the case of Alan Turing or Bertrand Russell and City College, both exemplary of discrimination against homosexuality (Russell was accused of writing in support of it), both the result of the Christian religious mob that was very influential in legislating their morality, no doubt as they still do today, but with decreasing effect. Homosexuality is one example among many behaviors that Puritans sought to eradicate from society--are you seriously saying that wasn't and isn't connected with religion? Even today, this goes on in Christian and Muslim cultures, and the push back, which has been ongoing for over 150 years, has indeed become far more mainstream than ever before; that is the secular influence I'm talking about, which Gray appears to ignore or write off.

Another thing, even the atheist community is larger and more vocal than it was 150 years ago. This is not really a matter of opinion as it is historical fact. Some have even suggested that we are now living in the dawn of the age of atheism.

In medieval Europe homosexual relationships were largely ignored, King James I famously had a male lover, the worst he suffered was a leaflet campaign.

Sure, this may have been true of THE KING, but not the average person whose entire career and reputation, if not their actual flesh, would have been destroyed.

Let's not be too assured about what we consider to be secular progress, we still suffer from a values-hangover born of pernicious Victorian morality.

The subject is as long as it is broad, which goes back to your point about tit-for tat gainsaying, it would be pointless and not move the debate any further on. Let's agree to disagree.

I will look into what you say, I will also re-read my books by Gray and weigh any new information up against his opinions. A number of people I know who have read his works find his books better as they give him time to frame his arguments, which are quite complex, he has a phenomenal grasp of philosophy, one of the finest I've come across.

MM

I totally agree with you here.

[ignoramus]

I love the way they make belief in god the "natural" default for life on earth and if you oppose it you must have an opposing belief.

Their gullibility and ignorance to the natural world around them is breathtaking!

[Whateverist]

I don't disagree with anything you've said, Simon. But I do think it is okay to criticize the minority atheist view that gods do not exist. There are plenty of 7's around and many of these seem to suffer from the same debilitating symptoms of fundamentalism as their theist counterparts.

A 7 is a person who claims to KNOW there are no such things as unicorns, leprechauns, garden faeries, or supermen/gods in reality? And you're claiming these people are on par with those who say, "I know Jesus is God and that he will come back to rapture the church" or "I know there is one God and Muhammad is his prophet?"

Nope. I said many of them suffer from the same fundamentalist habits. It makes a difference. I haven't equated them. I haven't said that every 7 will have these issues. I've said many do. My impression is that both groups have a blindness to shades of grey and no ear for nuance. There also seems to be an over eagerness to diminish the best points made for the opposite side, almost a fear of taking them in. Both utilize critical thinking to defend settled positions rather than to follow new leads where they may go.

After all, when it comes to fundy gods I am a 7 myself. I believe those do not exist. I remain open to finding out what else they may be from the perspective of those theists who do not impose a nonsensical, literal interpretation on their experience.

That's ridiculous. Even the atheist who claims to know there is no god in the same way they know the moon is not made of cheese is on much firmer ground to make that assertion than any believer has EVER been.

You're using hyperbole to overstate your case and fend off what you don't want to hear. Why do that?