More Bryan Patterson Faithworks stupid...

[rayne]

Originally Posted by Middle-aged-grump

I have found that this kind of hypocrisy is prevalent with a lot of Christians these days. They will happily acknowledge skeptics and empiricism when they debunk such things as clairvoyants, psychics, new age beliefs, astrology, etc. When the same skeptics use their methodologies and techniques to criticize Christianity, they will invariably state that they are unqualified to judge and that there is a history and ‘evidence’ behind their particularly brand of theism.

The odd thing is that spiritualism, astrology, psychics, etc also have a long history and many books written on the subjects. They also have a vast number of people that ‘believe’ them.

Adherents of these things will cite a number of reasons that the skeptic was incorrect in his findings, Christians give identical reasons that skeptics are wrong about their beliefs.

What is the difference?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has witnessed this. A christian friend recently said to me "Scientology has some weird beliefs". I laughed.

[Middle-aged-grump]

I have noted that Bryan is again spending a substantial amount of his time berating atheism. His blog is entitled ‘Faithworks’. One would expect that the majority of the posts by this learned and patient gentleman would be about theism (mainly Christianity). Members of the AFA would also think that they would spend their time in ‘group hugs’ and telling each other that they have the correct interpretation of a work of nonsensical historical fiction that was written by a minor Bronze Age tribe that wandered around the Levant over 2,000 years ago?
What he is superb at is baiting atheists by writing extremely biased anti- atheist posts that are bound to get a response. He then resorts to ridicule, ad hominem attacks, and then riling up his ‘acolytes’ to do the same.
This does make a kind of twisted sense; since the atheists that do write on his blog are more interesting and add a bit of contention and spice to an otherwise ‘mutual appreciation society’ .
Since he has decided not to answer ‘any’ of my questions or accusations and has stated that I am not worth debating, I have decided to post here –

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/faithworks/index.php/heraldsun/comments/new_atheists_adopt_the_zealots_garb_an_atheists_ve w/#commentsmore

NOTE: He does monitor this site often. Why? I have no idea. He has stated that I should get a life and not complain so much about his blog. Bryan, if you are reading this. The same could be said of you mate!

[Goldenmane]

My response:
---------------------------------
I have no idea about anything to do with the author of this piece, and don't care. It's enough to dissect it and show it to be vacuous.

THOSE on the lunatic fringe who live in fear of a Muslim invasion have a new threat to keep them up at night.

And this one is real.

There’s a new “religion” on the rise whose band of non-believers is becomingly increasingly bold, some would say militant, in not only pushing its own belief system but actively trying to shut down dissenting views.

Well, that's an interesting claim. On of the things I have become active in is working to counter the development of a form of dogmaticism in atheism. It's not overarching, and it's pretty much not driven by any of the 'leading lights' of the atheist community (for want of a better term), but it does show up occasionally. Alas, humans are prone to dogma, as we are prone to so many forms of irrationality.

However, there are several problems with the above contention. Firstly, I've not seen any evidence of militance. Unless that was a pointless attempt at hyperbole, it was a stupid thing to say. Militance involves the use of violence to impose one's will, and I have yet to see any evidence of atheists rioting in the streets and killing people en masse in the name of a lack of belief.

Further to this, is the awareness that atheism arises from the examination of ideas, not the suppressiuon of same. It would seem that the author mistakes the rise in secularism - the removal of religion from governance - for the imposition of atheism upon the populace. A common error, most often made by those of a religious persuasion. It is curious to see a professed atheist make it, but then no-one ever successfully contended that atheism is the exclusive preserve of those who examine what they say before they say it.

Atheism is no longer just a quiet and personal celebration of reason, it has grown into a movement that is employing some of the tactics used by traditional religion to increase its following and influence.

Which tactics?

And, the only reason atheism was 'quiet and personal' is the very real fact that for much of history there were serious negative consequences for the average person should they stand up and publicly announce a lack of belief.

The move in recent history toward a society of empowerment and egalitarianism, in which social justice has become important - and the Information Age - has allowed the average human being to become educated and protected beyond any point in the past. In short, you are now less likely to be victimised for not believing.

This new brand of aggressive atheism has been inspired by people such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett, and its aim is to drive religion out of public life.

That's a false contention, and a conflation of vocal non-belief with active secularism.

It's also intellectually lazy.

Certainly, vocal atheists will often admit to having been inspired by the likes of those listed above. Also by any number of other people - philosophers, scientists, teachers, tinkers, tailors, soldiers, thieves. The fact that those above publicly condemn the negative effects of various aspects of religion does make it more likely that the average person will speak out.

That many vocal atheists are also secularists is no surprise - people can advocate more than one position, especially when those positions are compatible. Secularism is, however, not an expression of the desire for supression of religion, merely the position that religion does not deserve to have a privileged role in the development and implementation of public policy.

This is another stupid argument generally made by those of a religious persuasion. One common form of it is often brought up in rhetoric relating to the 'religion in schools' issue. Preventing the imposition of prayer and other religious practices upon students in State run schools is often presented as 'banning prayer in schools' - a fatuous claim. Similarly, preventing the imposition of religious practice - or, importantly, the diversion of government money towards such activities or the excusing of tax responsibilities is not the same as the supression of religion. It is simply the removal of unwarranted privilege.

Figures released last week revealed that a quarter of England and Wales’s population identified themselves as having no religion, a figure that has doubled in the past 10 years.

As an atheist, I can only celebrate this trend as a triumph of logic and critical thinking over centuries of irrational propaganda. It is instructive that the most religious corners of the world are the most impoverished with the lowest levels of education.

However, one cannot ignore the fact that the rise of atheism has come at a cost. The new breed of fundamentalist atheist has claimed an intellectual high ground where believers are ridiculed and their religion mocked.

Fundamentalist militant atheists? And all they do is mock?

Prepare for mockery.

If people laughing at ludicrous ideas and those who espouse them is a cost - as opposed to centuries of oppression for any who didn't fall into line with the prevailing religiosity being tormented and often killed - then it is a price I'm willing to fucking pay. And so should you be.

The irony that such intolerance is normally displayed by religious zealots is lost on militant atheists.

It's not intolerance, though, is it? It's the clash of ideas, and involves no militancy whatsoever.

I don't advocate ridiculing people, by the way. I do advocate - strongly - ridiculing bullshit in all its myriad forms. Like this bullshit right here:

Comedian Ricky Gervais sums up this attitude succinctly in a tweet he sent earlier this year: “We shouldn’t even need the word ‘atheism’. If people didn’t invent ridiculous imaginary gods, rational people wouldn’t have to deny them.”

As much as I adore Gervais’s comedy and identify with his atheism, there is something distasteful about an arrogance that fails to recognise any virtue in belief systems that provide comfort to millions.

Comfort is a stupid argument in favour of religion. There are any number of things to find comfort in without the notion of deities, or the imposition of ridiculous ideas upon others.

I know a woman, a highly accomplished and intelligent woman, who lost her child in a car accident two years ago.

If it were not for her faith and an unshakeable belief that she’ll see her boy again, I don’t know if she would have survived.

So? If she didn't have that notion in her head, she'd have had others. You put the cart before the horse when you assume that it is her faith in that particular idea which got her through - I contend that she would likely have gotten through some other way, seeking solace in something else, if she didn't harbour a belief in an afterlife. It's just a variation on 'no atheists in foxholes', which is another bit of drivel that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

By this logic, no-one who didn't believe in such nonsense would ever manage to survive tragedy and grief. Fucking idiotic on the face of it.

Atheists might call that false hope or a reluctance to face reality, but what is gained by questioning a faith that helps a grieving mother cope with her loss?

Where exactly do you see any large number of the godless who are advocating proselytising to the grieving - a tactic, I note, which has been employed by any number of religious motherfuckers throughout history? My experience is that most atheists (one cannot paint us all with the same brush) are, like most other humans, not complete arseholes. Especially if they have reached a position of being godless through a process of contemplation and consideration. Such things often correlate with an examination of such things as ethical questions.

Atheists are particularly keen at showing their disdain for Christianity, particularly the Catholic Church.

Well, this shows a very limited experience. The religious cults which have the greatest impact on most people living in Australia are the various forms of Christianity. Those cults are the ones with the most privilege, and the greatest influence, and draw by far the greatest morally illicit amount of public funding. So it is unsurprising that the majority of the criticism you see if you take a parochial view will be that directed at Christianity.

It’s easy to be critical of the sexual abuse scandals and the sheer absurdity of a Pope who has embraced social media but condemns the use of condoms in African countries riddled with AIDS.

What is not so easy is to be consistent with that criticism when considering other religions.

With a few notable exceptions, such as Harris and the courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali, most atheists shy away from any real criticism of Islam.

Only in two ways:
1) Most people deal primarily with what affects their own lives, and Islam has little impact in Australia and the US;
2) You're looking in the wrong places. Amoungst the extended atheist community world-wide, there is routine condemnation of almost any aspect of religious arsehattery, including Islamic.

Simply, you don't know what you're talking about.

We can’t even be sure about the level of atheism in the Muslim world, given that non-belief is punishable by death in some Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and Sudan.

One would hope that fact alone will eventually earn the contempt of fatwa-dodging atheists.

The word fatwa doesn't mean what you think it means. And you might want to look into the activism that is going on to counteract the bullshit that is blasphemy law throughout the world. Recently, there was attempt to impose blasphemy law through the UN - an attempt driven by Islamicists, and roundly and extensively condemned by vocal atheists worldwide.

And Christianity can hardly be held divorced from violent and deadly activities - I speak here not of the Crusades from history, but the very real present locations in which children are, for example, torched for alleged witchcraft.

Whoever the author of this article is, they display a palpable ignorance.

Frankly, it was one of the more religiose pieces I've ever seen penned by an alleged atheist.

[EvilDRMike]

Nice breakdown and response. I suspect that this atheist is honing his skills to be a professional atheist at fox news.

EDM

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by EvilDRMike

Nice breakdown and response. I suspect that this atheist is honing his skills to be a professional atheist at fox news.

FTR, the author of the piece critiqued by GM is female.

[Praxis]

I read this the other day, it's Rita Panahi's article IIRC. I was pretty surprised when I read it as it seems that she's bought into the 'militant atheist' meme and that she still has some ?residual guilt about speaking up about her non-belief when we all know the religos just want us to STF up about it.

Then again, she is writing for the Herald-Sun

[EvilDRMike]

Originally Posted by Logic please

FTR, the author of the piece critiqued by GM is female.

Thanks LP showing my sexism there. I often default to assuming toolish behaviour implies man. I will try harder to be more considered or just use gender neutral pronouns.

EDM

[Logic please]

@EDM: that wasn't the thinking behind my post. More along the lines that it might've been incorrectly attributed to Bryan, given it appears on his blog.

No worries, in any event.

[EvilDRMike]

Originally Posted by Logic please

@EDM: that wasn't the thinking behind my post. More along the lines that it might've been incorrectly attributed to Bryan, given it appears on his blog.

No worries, in any event.

Yes I had assumed it was he as it was his blog. I know little of these blogs and newspapers that are spoken of, back to my rock :-).

EDM