Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Majorie]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113889251

Last month, atheists marked Blasphemy Day at gatherings around the world, and celebrated the freedom to denigrate and insult religion.

Some offered to trade pornography for Bibles. Others de-baptized people with hair dryers. And in Washington, D.C., an art exhibit opened that shows, among other paintings, one entitled Divine Wine, where Jesus, on the cross, has blood flowing from his wound into a wine bottle.


Thoughts on new atheism??

I don't recently understand this need to answer one dogma with another.

[Mez]

Sounds a lot like the old atheism, but with more of a party spirit.

But I think the added insults are caused by more and more people getting pissed off with fundamentalism, of any stripe.

[Crux]

They look like the religious equivalent of communists today.  People desperate for some rebellious sounding cause they don't understand because it lets them pretend to be doing something worthwhile without going to the effort of doing something worthwhile.

[Bookworm.]

New Atheism?

Fuck, there's no need to be rude about it. You can believe what you want to believe, but there's no need to insult people.

But maybe that's just my usual perspective of everyone should be nice...

You put it well Msj, it is just replacing one dogma with another.

[Majorie]

Sounds a lot like the old atheism, but with more of a party spirit.

I think it seems a lot harsher and fuelled by a lot more contempt.

For example, Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair and author of the book God Is Not Great, told a capacity crowd at the University of Toronto, "I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right." His words were greeted with hoots of approval.

[Thaluikhain]

Fuck, there's no need to be rude about it. You can believe what you want to believe, but there's no need to insult people.

But maybe that's just my usual perspective of everyone should be nice...

It seems likely.  The idea that we shouldn't criticise people's religions is absurd.  If you must, you can keep the distinction that you can attack the dogma, but not the faith, but "it's our culture, so it must not be villified" is bullshit.

Mind you, it looks like the distinction was lost on these people.

[Bookworm.]

See, that's wrong. It's just like discrimination on a race based on unfounded assumptions. It will not lead anywhere beneficial.

Thal, I made that disctinction. It's not the criticism that's bad. It's the fact that their criticism is bordering on unfounded belief.

[Crux]

And since discrimination on unfounded assumptions is unfair we must also ban discrimination based on proven facts.

[Mez]

It's not the criticism that's bad. It's the fact that their criticism is bordering on unfounded belief.

Yes, and two wongs don't make a white.  But really, Books, how can you criticise their criticism of your unfounded beliefs by calling their beliefs unfounded?

Beliefs are by definition unfounded.  If they weren't, they'd be indisputable facts.

   Skexis, let's just ban everything.

[Majorie]

It seems likely.  The idea that we shouldn't criticise people's religions is absurd.  If you must, you can keep the distinction that you can attack the dogma, but not the faith, but "it's our culture, so it must not be villified" is bullshit.

I agree to an extent.

Any aspect of religion that is harmful to others and doesn't allow different groups their fundamental rights (gay marriage etc) fully deserves to be denegrated and not protected under 'cultural sanctitiy.' But if it's not harming anybody then leave it alone.

[Bookworm.]

It's not unfounded. There is proof that a man named Jesus lived 2000 years ago and that man changed many things in society. I believe in his message of love and peace, irrespective of whether his divinity can be proven.

What they're doing is spiteful and vindictive. A witch hunt type thing (yes, I realise witch hunts were instigated by catholics...which is why I know what to look out for )



Exactly Msj. There is no issue. There are issues with what individuals are doing in the name of religion and they can and should be dealt with. But if nobody's getting hurt, where's the harm?

[Mez]

That's the problem, though.  People ARE getting hurt, by fundamentalists.  That is why there is such a nasty backlash.

[Bookworm.]

People are getting hurt by fundamentalists of every religion. But you shouldn't persecute all because of the actions of a few.

[Majorie]

That's the problem, though.  People ARE getting hurt, by fundamentalists.  That is why there is such a nasty backlash.

Understandable but you don't need to become a monster to defeat a monster. Do you think having things like Blasphemy Day does anything for the Atheist Cause?

[Thaluikhain]

Any aspect of religion that is harmful to others and doesn't allow different groups their fundamental rights (gay marriage etc) fully deserves to be denegrated and not protected under 'cultural sanctitiy.'

Oddly enough, that sort of thing almost always seems to dogma which evolved after the core beliefs and generally isn't at the heart of the religion, but it's where all the fighting occurs.