Print
Atheism is pretentious and cowardly
by Theo Hobson, Guardian
Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.
Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/theo_hobson/2007/06/atheism_is_pretentious_and_cow.html
God knocking is on the increase but the criticisms levelled at religion by militant atheists are often crude and short-sighted.
For years I wished that the intelligent media would show a bit more interest in religion. Be careful what you wish for. The resurgence of the discussion of religion has come, sort of, but forgive me for failing to rejoice in it. How odd that there seems to be an endless appetite for militant atheism. How odd that anyone over 17 admires these angry ageing men, scowling at us indignantly, and competing with each other in tough-talking God knocking. How odd that they get such an easy press, that their (usually female) interviewers are so fawning. Now it is Christopher "Hitch" Hitchens' turn. Behold the jowly prophet, staring from endless features and book pages, tremendous in his certainty, unflinching in his regard for his own intellectual courage.
Surely Hitchens is a cut above Richard Dawkins - surely his literary mind has more room for nuance? In most things, yes. In religion, no. The same applies to AC Grayling, who is presumably a competent professor of philosophy, but chooses to conceal the fact when in militant atheist mode.
All three are in the grip of an ideology that is pretentious and muddled. Atheism is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does. It claims to know what belief in God entails, and what religion, in all its infinite variety, essentially is. And atheism is muddled because it cannot decide on what grounds it ultimately objects to religion. Does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged falsity? Or does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged harmfulness? Both, the atheists will doubtless reply: religion is false and therefore it is harmful. But this is to make an assumption about the relationship between rationality and moral progress that does not stand up. Atheism is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of "rationality", will make the world a better place. Atheism therefore entails an account of history - a story of liberation from a harmful error called "religion". This narrative is jaw-droppingly naive.
Some will quibble with the above definition. Atheism is just the rejection of God, of any supernatural power, they will say, it entails no necessary belief in historical progress. This is disingenuous. The militant atheists have a moral mission: to improve the world by working towards the eradication of religion.
Let me take a step back, and ask a rather basic question. What is this thing that the atheists hate so much? What is religion? Believe it or not, I don't know the answer. Indeed it seems to me that anyone who does claim to know is underestimating the complexity of the topic considerably. If the atheist deigns to define religion at all, he is likely to do so briskly and conventionally, as belief in and worship of some species of supernatural power. It's a terribly inadequate definition. Dictionaries would do better to leave a blank, to admit ignorance.
In reality, "religion" is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power. This is only one aspect of what we mean by "religion". For example there is surely something religious in the communal ecstasy of a rave, or a pop concert, or a play, or a sporting event, or a political rally. Some would say that these events are quasi-religious, that they echo religious worship, but are distinct from it. But how on earth is one to make the distinction? Is a yoga class "religious"? What about a performance of a requiem? What about Hitchens' own belief in the saving power of literature? In practice, "religion" cannot really be separated from "culture".
The atheist will doubtless call these reflections irrelevant. Yes, there is an affinity between religious worship and various secular cultural practices, he may say, but so what? The issue is belief in the supernatural. Religion, in the full and harmful sense, exists when people cringe under the illusion of a celestial being, and when people propagate teachings that are not true. This leads to superstitious ignorance, and to immoral actions, for example the persecution of homosexuals.
It is here that the atheist ought to tread with very great care, but instead he straps on his clown-sized jackboots, and stomps around. The fact is that the relationship between religion, morality and politics is infinitely various and complex. The critic of religious abuses must be specific, particular. He must focus on particular practices, particular institutions, and explain why they have a detrimental effect on society. But the militant atheist cannot humbly limit himself to the realm of the particular; he necessarily lapses into sloppy generalisation. For he has to insist that religion in general is harmful, all of it, always. He has to show that he has the answer: if people shared his total rejection of God, then the world would be a better place. He needs to believe this. For he finds grounds for hope here. If humanity moves away from religion, things will get better. It's a faith.
So Hitchens calls religion
Never mind that plenty of manifestations of religion are simply not guilty of these charges. Evidence that doesn't fit the system is inadmissible. Likewise he grandly pronounces that there are
Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists; there is no room for such awkward facts in the atheist system. And as for the evil of "sexual repression", well, maybe some day all men will be as liberated as Hitch.
I consider the atheist's desire to generalise about religion to be a case of intellectual cowardice. The intellectual coward is one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty. The militant atheist chooses to uphold a worldview of Animal Farm crudity: atheist good, believer bad. He has to believe this; it is his claim to the moral high ground. Christopher Hitchens sounds like a man who is desperate for a big cause, for an agenda that will give him one last chance of some high significance, a last stab at prophet status. By seeking his grand purpose in atheism he exhibits the sort of intellectual timidity he claims to despise.
Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/theo_hobson/2007/06/atheism_is_pretentious_and_cow.html
God knocking is on the increase but the criticisms levelled at religion by militant atheists are often crude and short-sighted.For years I wished that the intelligent media would show a bit more interest in religion. Be careful what you wish for. The resurgence of the discussion of religion has come, sort of, but forgive me for failing to rejoice in it. How odd that there seems to be an endless appetite for militant atheism. How odd that anyone over 17 admires these angry ageing men, scowling at us indignantly, and competing with each other in tough-talking God knocking. How odd that they get such an easy press, that their (usually female) interviewers are so fawning. Now it is Christopher "Hitch" Hitchens' turn. Behold the jowly prophet, staring from endless features and book pages, tremendous in his certainty, unflinching in his regard for his own intellectual courage.
Surely Hitchens is a cut above Richard Dawkins - surely his literary mind has more room for nuance? In most things, yes. In religion, no. The same applies to AC Grayling, who is presumably a competent professor of philosophy, but chooses to conceal the fact when in militant atheist mode.
All three are in the grip of an ideology that is pretentious and muddled. Atheism is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does. It claims to know what belief in God entails, and what religion, in all its infinite variety, essentially is. And atheism is muddled because it cannot decide on what grounds it ultimately objects to religion. Does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged falsity? Or does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged harmfulness? Both, the atheists will doubtless reply: religion is false and therefore it is harmful. But this is to make an assumption about the relationship between rationality and moral progress that does not stand up. Atheism is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of "rationality", will make the world a better place. Atheism therefore entails an account of history - a story of liberation from a harmful error called "religion". This narrative is jaw-droppingly naive.
Some will quibble with the above definition. Atheism is just the rejection of God, of any supernatural power, they will say, it entails no necessary belief in historical progress. This is disingenuous. The militant atheists have a moral mission: to improve the world by working towards the eradication of religion.
Let me take a step back, and ask a rather basic question. What is this thing that the atheists hate so much? What is religion? Believe it or not, I don't know the answer. Indeed it seems to me that anyone who does claim to know is underestimating the complexity of the topic considerably. If the atheist deigns to define religion at all, he is likely to do so briskly and conventionally, as belief in and worship of some species of supernatural power. It's a terribly inadequate definition. Dictionaries would do better to leave a blank, to admit ignorance.
In reality, "religion" is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power. This is only one aspect of what we mean by "religion". For example there is surely something religious in the communal ecstasy of a rave, or a pop concert, or a play, or a sporting event, or a political rally. Some would say that these events are quasi-religious, that they echo religious worship, but are distinct from it. But how on earth is one to make the distinction? Is a yoga class "religious"? What about a performance of a requiem? What about Hitchens' own belief in the saving power of literature? In practice, "religion" cannot really be separated from "culture".
The atheist will doubtless call these reflections irrelevant. Yes, there is an affinity between religious worship and various secular cultural practices, he may say, but so what? The issue is belief in the supernatural. Religion, in the full and harmful sense, exists when people cringe under the illusion of a celestial being, and when people propagate teachings that are not true. This leads to superstitious ignorance, and to immoral actions, for example the persecution of homosexuals.
It is here that the atheist ought to tread with very great care, but instead he straps on his clown-sized jackboots, and stomps around. The fact is that the relationship between religion, morality and politics is infinitely various and complex. The critic of religious abuses must be specific, particular. He must focus on particular practices, particular institutions, and explain why they have a detrimental effect on society. But the militant atheist cannot humbly limit himself to the realm of the particular; he necessarily lapses into sloppy generalisation. For he has to insist that religion in general is harmful, all of it, always. He has to show that he has the answer: if people shared his total rejection of God, then the world would be a better place. He needs to believe this. For he finds grounds for hope here. If humanity moves away from religion, things will get better. It's a faith.
So Hitchens calls religion
"violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children."
Never mind that plenty of manifestations of religion are simply not guilty of these charges. Evidence that doesn't fit the system is inadmissible. Likewise he grandly pronounces that there are
"four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is the both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking."
Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists; there is no room for such awkward facts in the atheist system. And as for the evil of "sexual repression", well, maybe some day all men will be as liberated as Hitch.
I consider the atheist's desire to generalise about religion to be a case of intellectual cowardice. The intellectual coward is one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty. The militant atheist chooses to uphold a worldview of Animal Farm crudity: atheist good, believer bad. He has to believe this; it is his claim to the moral high ground. Christopher Hitchens sounds like a man who is desperate for a big cause, for an agenda that will give him one last chance of some high significance, a last stab at prophet status. By seeking his grand purpose in atheism he exhibits the sort of intellectual timidity he claims to despise.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, June 6, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 79 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #48052 by Buddha on June 6, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I would recommend that you all go straight to the comments section on the Guardian site. The cavalry are already sticking the boot in to this poor fellow good and proper.I almost feel sorry for him...
Other Comments by Buddha
3. Comment #48053 by Phaeonix on June 6, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Oh boy here we go...I don't know where to start..."AC Grayling, who is presumably a competent professor of philosophy, but chooses to conceal the fact when in militant atheist mode."
The being a competent philosopher part is supposedly mutually exclusive to his conclusion that a god simply does not exist? Right.
"Atheism is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of "rationality", will make the world a better place."
A definition of atheism from Theo...
"For example there is surely something religious in the communal ecstasy of a rave, or a pop concert, or a play, or a sporting event, or a political rally."
Eh? A definition (argument for?) of religion from Theo...
I see where this is going.
"Religion, in the full and harmful sense, exists when people cringe under the illusion of a celestial being, and when people propagate teachings that are not true. This leads to superstitious ignorance, and to immoral actions, for example the persecution of homosexuals."
Is there really any other sense?! Has he completely neglected the supernatural aspects of religion, tied it in together with various secular aspects of society and stapled a brand on it that completely hides himself from critical analysis.
The breadth of this article, like most anti-rational arguments, attacks with the emotional feelers of the hard hitting, sore-leaving attack from rational atheism.
He is not saying anything.
"Never mind that plenty of manifestations of religion are simply not guilty of these charges. Evidence that doesn't fit the system is inadmissible."
Oh wait here we go...I think the point here is that MANY do fit the charges. Of course the "religions" that look like everything secular and don't include supernatural invocation do!
That's the real kicker, this guy has been left floundering after making moronic claims on reality, so just attack the attack... it is the only real defense left for them...
Other Comments by Phaeonix
4. Comment #48058 by CJ22 on June 6, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Oh my, I can hardly bear to look! It's not pretty in there. The poor fool - who pushed him into the arena armed only with a haddock?? Other Comments by CJ22
5. Comment #48062 by Dax on June 6, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Atheism is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does.
Hmmm, what was that saying again about one kitchen utensil referring to the other kitchen utensil as not reflecting any visible colored light?
Religion is pretentious for it not only claims to know there is such a thing as a god (or gods), but also what this god is like, how it operates and how it thinks about mere mortal decisions such as what to eat, what to wear and what pleasurable acts people perform and with whom, to just name a view things.
Is a yoga class "religious"? What about a performance of a requiem? What about Hitchens' own belief in the saving power of literature? In practice, "religion" cannot really be separated from "culture".
Ah, the famous "that's not what I believe" defense went before this example of the "bending semantics" approach. The answer is "No, none of those examples are religious". My 5-days a week run feels awesome, "spiritual" (in a Harrisian sense), awe inspiring even*, but is it religion? If these things are religion than anything is religion, including things God forbid such as premarital sex, non-heterosexual or non-procreation focused sex even, or getting drunk with a couple of friends. If that is religion, too, well then we all have to get tax exempt status!
______
* just to think of how all these electrons run down my neurons, releasing neurotransmitters in my synaptic clefts, causing calcium de- and repolarization, signaling to my muscles for the myofibrils to contract and relax, burning ATP in the process, using and releasing chemicals finding its way into complex metabolic pathways. Think of the hormones or the mechanical movement, the evolution that gave rise to this specific means of motion and the physics that gave rise to the chemistry that gave rise to evolution.
Other Comments by Dax
6. Comment #48067 by konquererz on June 6, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I haven't ever read this dude, but I just had to post a response. He is truly an ignorant sort. He presumes atheists don't know what belief is. I lived it for 25 years, stuff it Theo, I know first hand!He says that most christians are not the "crazy" kind and don't take the bible literally. Shut it Theo, over half of all Americans believe in a literal creation story. HALF! Then there is el salvador and all the south american countries that suffer due to self imposed church restrictions, where due to the pope, women go to jail for 30 for getting an abortion.
Then he does some weird relation of parties, raves, and concerts to religion. All I have to say to that is WTF?
Other Comments by konquererz
7. Comment #48076 by GBile on June 6, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Is this 'the arguement from ignorance' :Nobody can say what religion precisely is ... so it must be true ??
Other Comments by GBile
8. Comment #48077 by atheist_peace on June 6, 2007 at 1:46 pm
"How odd that anyone over 17 admires these angry ageing men, scowling at us indignantly, and competing with each other in tough-talking God knocking."Does he have something against old (wise) men? What does age have to do with this? In the same paragraph this ugly, petty man insults the aesthetic appeal of Hitchens and also implies that female interviewers are not fit to do their jobs.
He repeatedly gets the definition of "atheism" wrong. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. How can our lack of belief be pretentious? The only time a lack of belief can be pretentious is when all the scientific evidence points in the other direction and you choose to (arrogantly) believe and disseminate fictional works of the bronze age.
He calls atheism cowardly? I don't see any religionists responding to Dawkins, Hitchens, et al., with scientific facts to show that any of their claims are even remotely true. Science will beat religion every time, and no, that's not pretentious, it's simply just the truth.
Other Comments by atheist_peace
9. Comment #48081 by Corylus on June 6, 2007 at 1:52 pm
See now this is evidence for my long held theory that anti-theism (as well as atheism) is justified due to the fact that theists tend to make bad facial hair decisions.OK, OK, correlation does not equate to causation (and there are some notable exceptions on both sides), but b*gger me, that's picture is unbelievably scary...
The God Squad meets the Village People. Arrh!
Other Comments by Corylus
10. Comment #48084 by BMMcArdle on June 6, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Atheism is humble and courageous.Other Comments by BMMcArdle
11. Comment #48091 by PeterK on June 6, 2007 at 2:53 pm
This entry is especially clownful.Other Comments by PeterK
12. Comment #48092 by CJ22 on June 6, 2007 at 2:53 pm
His theory is that because some atheists are quite rude about his religion, we' all must be really nasty people and therefore in a just universe can't possibly have anything to say worth saying.This pinhead has the nerve to infer that Dawkins, Hitchens and Grayling are intellectually lacking! Compared to him! His smug assumption of righteousness oozes out of his every word, despite offering nothing but rhetoric and thin ad hominem attacks.
Wanker. He deserves the verbal kicking he's in the process of receiving.
Other Comments by CJ22
13. Comment #48096 by humperdinck on June 6, 2007 at 3:18 pm
This article is by far the dumbest thing I've read today. Awesome. Other Comments by humperdinck
14. Comment #48100 by GodlessHeathen on June 6, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Snide and condescending are the common thread of his articles on that site. He has very little to say and he says it a great deal. Other Comments by GodlessHeathen
15. Comment #48101 by philos on June 6, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I have to agree somewhat with the author. I used to respect Dawkins but not so much anymore - although I do agree with him. There's a way to get your point across but lately and no doubt to get attention for book sales, Dawkins and Hitchens come off as rude condescending asses, frankly. It's worse that they prostitute their minds and skills in elegant language but in such a low way - why not the high road? I'd rather have a Christian as a neighbour, much more likely to be friendly and helpful although a bit looney. Dawkins and Hitchens need to conduct discourse like gentlemen and with class to emulate the Victorian elite they wish to be compared to - same argument - different times - enough shock talk - yawn.
Although I am not religious, I don't mind religion being around as it makes people happy, binds communities and helps others. There are negatives too but I surely wouldn't want to live in a community of atheists - how depressing. Besides, religion will be impossible to eradicate, as it will always be easier not to think and shrug your shoulders and just say there is a higher power that created the world around us. Kind of like there will always be fat people. Or people that are uneducated. Or people that are in debt. Always, always - so enlighten Yourself, but otherwise, don't hold your breath - you are wasting your time.
In addition, atheists really have to work on PR. When was the last time an Atheist organization helped out in the last natural disaster or soup kitchen near you? I guessed right.
Other Comments by philos
16. Comment #48103 by pewkatchoo on June 6, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Who exactly is this guy arguing with. It sounds as if he is arguing with himself. I lost him after the 2nd paragraph. What is my problem with religion? Everything. It insults my intelligence. It holds the human race in slavery to a bunch of charlatans. It is total excruciatingly painful bollox. Will that do? Other Comments by pewkatchoo
17. Comment #48105 by pewkatchoo on June 6, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Philos, you are talking as much nonsense as the original poster. Other Comments by pewkatchoo
18. Comment #48106 by ghostbuster on June 6, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Cuba offered well qualified doctors to help out when Katrina was finished despite that pretensious Christian at the helm. And why do we still need soup kitchens? More of them now with that pretensious Christian at the helm. Secular governments, particularly socialist ones, try very hard to avoid the need for soup kitchens by seeing people as hunam beings with all their faults. In Canada we have a government medical system once promoted by Dr. Norman Bethune--a communist and an atheist--so the natural disasters of disease--prevention, cure or control--are available to everyone, poor and rich. Compassion is not exclusive only to the religious; atheists just haven't been given the press either because it wasn't polite to admit to being one or it wasn't polite to mention that good works do come from those who worship no god.Tagore, always at odds with Gandhi, didn't get much coverage in the public eye did he? Yet he wanted more for India than Gandhi could ever give, Tagore, an atheist.
Other Comments by ghostbuster
19. Comment #48107 by mintcheerios on June 6, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Another moderate shielding religion from the proper criticism it deserves. He washes the blood off the hands of religion by playing with semantics. He finds it impossibly hard to find a distinction between the performance of a requiem and a religious belief, but I find it rather easy. Could it be that the performance of a requiem doesn't advocate a dangerous ideology?It is now astoundingly clear that people like this guy, Aslan, and Hedges are giving shelter to fundamentalists by making it taboo to criticize religion for what it is. However, Theo Hobson is worse than the rest because on top of everything, he pretends he is Webster and defines atheism as a belief system.
Other Comments by mintcheerios
20. Comment #48109 by Arcane Viper on June 6, 2007 at 4:09 pm
wow, sometimes I think it will be hard to improve our world with people like this. Other times I'm hopeful. I wrote some of this last night while listening to The Chemical Brothers.When all rights are reversed the change will come; when we see life from the other side. Push these thoughts into thick air and pull your mind off mount improbable. We will rise upon the sun and gaze upon the moonset, while we sit underneath the earth and see the stars below us. Black is a little lighter, and white a little darker. The lines are blurred as they're erased. Rethink everything. Redo the work. Rework the shapes. Reshape your life.
All Rights Reversed
A new truth will come
And we will agree
A change will come
And set us free
Religion is gone
And we're not afraid
We know the answers
In shades of grey
Beauty will evolve
And alter our minds
Hatred will disappear
And violence in kind
It never stops
It's always flowing
The entropy of life
Is always going
Heaven's down
And hell is up
Driven by planetary movements
The primal chaos never stops
Embrace the opposite
And hear our words
Behind descent
Lies another world
It never stops
And no one's stopping
Time keeps moving
We keep evolving
We are the night
Our reality is an improvement
We are dark without light
Proven by the planets and their movements
They say it can't be done
They say it won't be done
They don't want it to be done
Until it has begun
Then they hope it can be done
And they see it can be done
And then it is done
And disproves everyone
In this new world
With all rights reversed
We will begin anew
And forget the worst
Other Comments by Arcane Viper
21. Comment #48114 by blods on June 6, 2007 at 4:53 pm
In an article full of crazy logic and diatribe I'll pick another two examples. Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists; there is no room for suchawkward facts in the atheist system.
Surely this isn't an argument against atheists!! Isn't 'evolution' the
And as for the evil of "sexual repression", well, maybe some day all men will be as liberated as Hitch.
I'm completely lost on this one. His best defence for the 'sexual repression' of women is to make a snide remark about Christopher Hitchens.
Other Comments by blods
22. Comment #48119 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 5:21 pm
blods, Apparently Hobson's editor removed the bit where Hobson mentioned Hitchens leaving his wife when she was pregnant. Other Comments by Logicel
23. Comment #48121 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 5:23 pm
This article is a rant. I hope it made Hobson feel better after writing it. Other Comments by Logicel
24. Comment #48122 by Zaphod on June 6, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Philos you seem like just another pussy atheist who thinks we should cow to religion and show it some kind of deserved respect which in fact it doesn't deserve.The fact is that if Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and co where talking about politics and not religion you wouldn't be making your comment.
Many secular charities exist. Did you search for long? A list:
http://atheistvolunteers.org/
http://www.hollows.org/
American Red Cross
The American Red Cross, a humanitarian organization led by volunteers, guided by its Congressional Charter and the Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross Movement, will provide relief to victims of disasters and help people prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies. The USA's premier emergency response organization, over 91% of Red Cross spending is on charitable services.
United Nations Children's Fund
UNICEF mobilizes political will and material resources to help countries, particularly developing countries, ensure a "first call for children" and to build their capacity to form appropriate policies and deliver services for children and their families. UNICEF provides emergency and disaster relief.
Doctors without Borders
Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an international independent medical humanitarian organization that delivers emergency aid to people affected by armed conflict, epidemics, natural and man-made disasters, and exclusion from health care in nearly 70 countries.
Oxfam International
Oxfam International is a confederation of 12 organizations working together with over 3,000 partners in more than 100 countries to find lasting solutions to poverty, suffering and injustice. The Oxfams operate in over 100 countries worldwide working with local partners to alleviate poverty and injustice.
Council for Secular Humanism
Provides secular support services to non-religious people throughout North America. Look to it for help with plans for weddings, funerals, conferences, speaking events, etc.
The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy is a leading international, nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving the diversity of life on Earth. An environmental group that protects natural habitats and the wildlife within them. Focuses on "science-based" initiatives.
Population Connection
Population Connection is the national grassroots population organization that educates young people and advocates progressive action to stabilize world population at a level that can be sustained by Earth's resources. Works against faith-based policies that are supported by the Religious Right.
Earth's Atheist Resistance To Holy Wars And Religious Devastation - A growing atheist charity, EARTHWARD is a nonprofit, nonpolitical, nonmembership public-benefit charity organization that provides humanitarian relief aid to civilian victims of religiously motivated violence.
Not a charitable organization, but a 501(c)3:
Internet Infidels Support
The Internet Infidels is the world's only nonprofit educational organization to use the Internet exclusively to promote agnosticism, atheism, freethought, secular humanism, and metaphysical naturalism. The Secular Web is a warm refuge to our core community of atheists, agnostics, humanists, and freethinkers.
Other Comments by Zaphod
25. Comment #48123 by Zaphod on June 6, 2007 at 5:27 pm
The Guardian is just getting worse and worse. Other Comments by Zaphod
26. Comment #48134 by Zaphod on June 6, 2007 at 6:02 pm
The whole debate comes down to a dichotomy in thinking. Atheists like myself believe and accept things because reason and rationality and because our beliefs are backed up by evidence. We accept our beliefs even if they make us feel bad. Even if certain truths about reality aren't comforting. This is because they are backed up with evidence and rational thought. Not faith.Atheists care if what they believe is true.
Theists believe what they want because it is comforting. This is what it comes down to when you have eliminated the lack of education factor, the ignorance factor and defeated all the arguments. They use the faith card so no further discourse can occur. Religious people believe in sky daddies and the afterlife because it is comforting to them.
On a side note atheists don't know 100% that a god doesn't exist. We have a lack of belief in gods because we generally don't believe in things that have we no evidence for the existence of.
Other Comments by Zaphod
27. Comment #48152 by troodon on June 6, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Theo is accurate on one point:"What is religion? Believe it or not, I don't know the answer."
Other Comments by troodon
28. Comment #48181 by petermun on June 7, 2007 at 1:24 am
The Guardian used to be my newspaper of choice - but when they print stuff like this from Hobson it suggests choice no longer comes into it.Other Comments by petermun
29. Comment #48182 by jaf on June 7, 2007 at 1:42 am
Basically this person has nothing whatever to say, merely a ramble about the definitions of words, and an example of how many people use the wrong definitions, or make up their own to suit their point of view..Other Comments by jaf
30. Comment #48186 by bitbutter on June 7, 2007 at 2:02 am
A bunch of thinly camouflaged strawmen. I made a short summary of this article, trying to remove the waffle to be able to see what the points actually were.--
I don't like discussion about militant atheism. I don't think the 'new atheists' deserve the column inches they're getting.
Hitchens has written a new book. Like the other militant atheists he's not nuanced enough when talking about religion.
Atheism pretends to know more than it does--what belief in god entails and what religion is. Atheists object to religion because its false and harmful--it is harmful because it is false. It is naive to think that spread of rationality, and disappearance of religion, will make the world a better place.
Some will say that atheism is really just a rejection of God or any supernatural power. But this is disingenuous because the militant atheists have a mission to eradicate religion.
Religion is difficult to define. The atheist's definition is inadequate.
There are aspects of the religious experience in all kinds of cultural arenas (like pop concerts, plays, sport, politics). Religion can't be separated from culture.
The atheist's objection is that the important issue is belief in the supernatural and subservience to a celestial being--which leads to immoral actions.
The relationship between religion and morality is very complex. Atheists make unwarranted generalisations about the detrimental effects of religion and insist that it is always harmful. Atheist have a faith that things will get better if we get rid of religion.
The militant atheist chooses to uphold a worldview of Animal Farm crudity: atheist good, believer bad.
--
I consider Hobson's desire to generalise about atheism to be a case of intellectual cowardice. Theo says nearly nothing. And what he does say is mostly unsubstantiated wining.
His picture of the 'Militant Atheist' seems to be completely based on Hitchens' outlook and the generalisation: 'religion poisons everything'. I think Hitchens does greatly overstate the case with this subtitle--unnecessarily handing ammunition to apologists.
Other Comments by bitbutter
31. Comment #48187 by the great teapot on June 7, 2007 at 2:06 am
bitbutterI think reading all that once was enough, no, too much for anyone.
Other Comments by the great teapot
32. Comment #48189 by Russell Blackford on June 7, 2007 at 2:11 am
My definition of intellectual cowardice is making ad hominem attacks (e.g. on your opponents' age, appearance, presumed psychological motivation) in the pages of a national newspaper. We can all define words however we want, right?What a pity, though, that we can't all be as young and attractive as Mr Hobson (evidently imagines he is). It's a pity that he's not getting the interviews he wants with all those hot, fawning female journalists, but I guess he can at least dream.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
33. Comment #48196 by JoeK on June 7, 2007 at 2:41 am
people are complicated. Truth is not.So : "atheist good, believer bad" is false. And if anyone ever said that I would heartliy condemn them. But they don't.
However what people _do_ say is "rational enquiry good, belief bad" which leads to "atheism good, religion bad" specifically in the context of "things to build your world-view upon". Anyone who disagrees with that is wrong. Not bad or evil, just wrong.
Other Comments by JoeK
34. Comment #48198 by rokort on June 7, 2007 at 2:58 am
I never knew one could write an article where every sentence is just wrong, false, untrue, and bollocks. Poor guy. Other Comments by rokort
35. Comment #48207 by Hip_Priest on June 7, 2007 at 3:45 am
In reality, "religion" is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power.
Show me one official holy man in the religious establishment of your choice who preaches these 'wider' aspects but is openly skeptical to the notion of a supernatural power, never mind the specific dogmas of the church. (It doesn't count if they've been condemned to the stake!)
Other Comments by Hip_Priest
36. Comment #48208 by Macque on June 7, 2007 at 3:49 am
Oh dear me.Poor man.
Come on people, be gentle.
This person thinks that arguing over the definition of the word "religion", and poiting out that no codified agreement exists as to the ultimate definition somehow renders atheism "pretentious".
To this I merely suggest we eradicate the word and simply use the term "god" when approaching subjects such as this with people who have suffered such powerful conditioning. This will possibly make it easier for him to understand.
No matter which words you use, if you take religion to mean the following of a sporting event, the performance of music etc, then you are simply agreeing with us atheists. Music, sport, politics, god...all creations of mankind.
Other Comments by Macque
37. Comment #48218 by Mat on June 7, 2007 at 4:33 am
@ Philos: "When was the last time an Atheist organization helped out in the last natural disaster or soup kitchen near you?" My company is an non-God-based organisation. Although we are not an "Athiest" organisation, in the sense of overtly rejecting god/s, the company does not "believe" in god/s. It lets its employees believe in whatever religion they like - but we DO manage development projects around the world. We also put some of our profits into a fund to help out community projects. We helped out with the recent tsunami in the Solomons. We provide support to AIDS projects in South Africa. We help other communities recovering from natural disasters and civil war through assisting with, for example, raising chickens for food and barter. I am an atheist, and I have committed my life and work, every day, to try to help developing countries. I don't do this because there is (or isn't) a god. I do it because I believe it to be the right thing to do.Other Comments by Mat
38. Comment #48224 by Luthien on June 7, 2007 at 5:43 am
I posted this on the Guardian site:WOW, what a great parody of all those aggressive rants against atheism that The Guardian has been printing recently. I particularly loved this little gem:
"Atheism is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does."
Priceless eh? ;-)
Other Comments by Luthien
39. Comment #48248 by BillySands on June 7, 2007 at 7:36 am
Yaaaaaaaawn!!!!!!!! Why dont we step into the ring with baseball bats dipped in burning tar and covered with broken glass and we'll see who is the coward.(awaits comment from stupid theist taking that literally)
Other Comments by BillySands
40. Comment #48252 by CJ22 on June 7, 2007 at 7:42 am
I never really understand why people find the Prof and Hitch personally objectionable. I find the characterisation of RD that the christians object to (that he's rude, agressive, fundementalist) to be a product of their fevered imaginations, and more a product of their resentment than of anything real and rational (hmmmm). Likewise, I would cheerfully have Hitch as a neighbour. I find him puckish. I don't agree with everything he says, certainly not on Iraq, but so what? He's one of the good guys, in my mind. I can only assume that RD is correct - christians have gone so long being immune from criticism, that even polite, reasoned analysis seems like fundementalist ranting to them. Yet put, say, RD up against, say, Falwell, and who's the most rabid? It would be like putting Daffy Duck up against the evil queen from Snow White (hmm, don't ask me where that analogy came from - RD = Daffy? Clever but faintly irritated? Anyway...)
I think they loathe the message and can't resist the impulse to shoot the messenger, and it's really not very christian of them to impune two such fine fellows.
Other Comments by CJ22
41. Comment #48254 by BillySands on June 7, 2007 at 7:47 am
I can onyl assume that RD is correct - christians have gone so long being immune from criticism, thatt even polite, reasoned analysis seems like fundementalist ranting to them.
I have often found that when christians find out I used to be one of them, they attempt to reconvert me. When I then try and deconvert them, they take offence at the fact I believe they are wrong, despite the fact that is what they are essentially saying to me. Seems they want it all their way
Other Comments by BillySands
42. Comment #48255 by Russell Blackford on June 7, 2007 at 7:48 am
My comment on the Gruniad's site:
So, what I got out of this article is that the author believes that Dawkins and Hitchens are ageing and unattractive ... and yet, inexplicably all those female journalists just will hang around "fawning" over them. To make matters worse, Hitchens is plainly a sexually-liberated cad and a bounder. You never know what he'll do to one of those poor female journos, if he gets half a chance! Alas, the author of the article evidently doesn't have any such luck. "What's wrong with me?" he asks plaintively, before engaging in some last fanciful speculations about Hitchens' motives. "Where are my fawning females?"
This is all very interesting and revealing, at the level of jealousy, gossip, and scarcely-veiled sexism, but maybe The Guardian could choose a slightly less transparently spiteful piece of work next time it decides to print something about Dawkins and Hitchens. This one truly reached a new low. I mean, everybody has their highs and lows, but whenever this subject comes up you folks just seem to go from a low low to an even lower low.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
43. Comment #48259 by Peacebeuponme on June 7, 2007 at 8:00 am
I just want to say "hoisted by your own pertard". He saysAtheism is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does. It claims to know what belief in God entails, and what religion, in all its infinite variety, essentially is."I say then, Sir, that you are pretentious for claiming to know the mind of the Atheist. Your article clearly shows you do not. And please, get rid of that awful facial hair.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
44. Comment #48274 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 7, 2007 at 9:16 am
I buy the Guardian almost every day but I never manage to get one featuring such rubbish as this, despite the long sad list of crappy articles I know they've had recently.Not that I need to get any more wound up at work than I normally do.
And just for ad-hominem purposes - this guy looks like a twat.
Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood
45. Comment #48275 by BillySands on June 7, 2007 at 9:18 am
And just for ad-hominem purposes - this guy looks like a twat.
He has a face only a jack-boot could love
Other Comments by BillySands
46. Comment #48276 by icanus on June 7, 2007 at 9:25 am
I'm really getting sick of all this talk of "militant atheism".Strident? yes.
Forcefully stated? yes.
Impolite? on occasion.
Militant? not at all. Militant implies some sort of call for violent action against theists. The worst any of the "militant atheists" mentioned in the article have done is suggest that they *think* a bit.
Other Comments by icanus
47. Comment #48277 by balliolboy on June 7, 2007 at 9:25 am
What is this thing that the atheists hate so much? What is religion? Believe it or not, I don't know the answer.Which is why atheists can't criticise it, but enables him to defend it.
I know, I know stating the bl***ing obvious.
Other Comments by balliolboy
48. Comment #48278 by balliolboy on June 7, 2007 at 9:25 am
What is this thing that the atheists hate so much? What is religion? Believe it or not, I don't know the answer.Which is why atheists can't criticise it, but enables him to defend it.
I know, I know stating the bl***ing obvious.
Other Comments by balliolboy
49. Comment #48279 by NoLongerHaveBelief on June 7, 2007 at 9:29 am
Hi Billy! Long time no hear!I tried to read this article, but got rather bored. The last paragraph, was all that was needed to be read. In short: We can't prove God exists, so we'll come after Atheists.
Sad. Very sad. By the way, Billy, how's your training going? I've had to cut back seriously recently, due to work pressure and a shoulder injury I can't seem to shake. Lost no size though :-)
Oh! Yeah! The above article was a bore. I fed the birds in my garden today and it was a damned lot more interesting than reading Mr.Believer above.
YAWN!
Warm regards, to both believers and non-believers. Even boring ones. Everybody is entitled to their viewpoint, I suppose.
Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief
50. Comment #48281 by BillySands on June 7, 2007 at 9:45 am
Hi NLHB,Good to hear from you again. I must admit I couldn't finish the article either, it was so brain dead. I couldn't believe the atheists dont understand faith line. We are both ex christians, we understand very well - it is a delusion!
Started taking creatine - it has caused an inprovement in performance, but no weight gain - cant stand the stuff though. Once it runs out, I wont try any more.
Shame about the shoulder. Took me over a year for mine to get better. Had to give up kick boxing because of it - been too busy to take it up again - just as well, I was crap my previous karatae indoctrination kept surfacing and confusing my technique.
You notice faith keeps resurfacing as you are losing it. Now it never resurfaces - even when you are in dodgy situations on icy mountains. Interesting analogy though
Other Comments by BillySands
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
Mark Twain
Other Recommended Reading
Breaking the Spell
Daniel C. Dennett
Against All Gods
A C Grayling
Before the Dawn
Nicholas Wade
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #48051 by bruno_burned on June 6, 2007 at 12:08 pm
*yawn* Is there any originality left in the world?
Other Comments by bruno_burned