I wanted to post this here in case it doesn't get posted on the FCOS forum. I am still waiting for my username to be approved, so this whole process may take a while. Anyway, here is what I intend to submit on the "Expelled" thread once I have been (if I am) approved:
David,
If I may join in on this discussion:
1) I do not regard all atheists as being followers of Dawkins. Nor everyone who posts on his website. However I do think that there are some who act as though they are his followers. Indeed one of the strange things about RD net is just how sychophantic it is.
I would like to reply to you in detail about this. First of all, I would like to say that I think the lens you are viewing the situation from is a bit clouded by your personal conflicts with Richard Dawkins. Please hear me out. It would be easy for you to project this sense of sycophantism onto the posters at RD.net simply because you have a general distaste for Richard himself and by association, you have a distaste for those who agree with him (although, those who agree with him on some points, disagree on other points). That being said, I think that you are mistaking simple appreciation for being sycophantic. Most people in the world are affiliated with a religion of some sort. Among those that don’t identify with any religion, many still believe in a god or supernatural being of some sort. Atheists are a minority. Fortunately, we are a growing minority, but that is beside the point. The point is that many people who are atheists feel somewhat isolated by their atheism depending on the situation and the religiosity of the people who surround them. There are tons and tons of books about Christianity and other religions, but only a small number of books (comparatively speaking) about atheism or to do with atheism. So when someone like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Michael Shermer, etc comes out with a book about atheism, what I and I assume many other atheists feel is appreciation that someone has spoken out about our positions (even if all atheists don’t agree on everything, which they don’t) and that we have a small, yet powerful representation in the sea of representation for the religious. Perhaps we are simply happy not to be isolated any longer.
To make an additional point, this is the definition of sycophant from the American Heritage Dictionary: n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people. So what makes you think that anyone on RD.net or who happens to agree with Richard is a sycophant? It is a fairly strong word to use when it implies that we are agreeing with Richard in a self-serving manner. Who’s to say that we can’t agree with Richard? Why does agreeing with Richard mean that we are doing it blindly? I know that when I agree with Richard, it is after deep contemplation on the matter, not just because I’m a “follower”. Also, I post on RD.net because I enjoy reading the articles and the discourse, not because I’m hoping Richard will recognize me in some manner.
2) …Dawkins in his letter wants to make out that atheism had NOTHING to do with Hitler and the holocaust…
I am usually pretty good at figuring out emotional responses and I think that your entire number two is an emotional response. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that the reason you are upset and had an emotional response to Richard’s statements about Hitler and the Holocaust is because you feel that he is attempting to shift the blame from the atheists to the Christians. This is where I diverge from Richard a bit (as I do and have on many other issues, as well). There is no denying that Hitler manipulated the Church for his agenda, but this is the biggest game of “hot potato” I’ve ever seen a bunch of adults play (I’m assuming the children in the
Sorry for the lengthy first post. Feel free to chop it into two posts if you would like.
The other posts appear here: http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=26.msg296#new
11 comments:
Good post. I've noticed in your discussions with theists that you tend to be very diplomatic, whereas I think I'm a little more confrontational.
And your user name should be approved without too much trouble, it just might take a while for them to get around to it!
Thanks, Quetzathan. I suppose I am a little more diplomatic than I might like to be in hopes that the words I use won't elicit an emotional reaction that might cause them to react to my choice of words rather than the meaning behind them. Sometimes my efforts are futile and sometimes I lose my patience and am not so diplomatic anymore.
Especially appreciated your comment about RD.net serving as a kind of refuge for us from the smothering influence of religion in the wider world!
It has been just incredible to see the over-reaction (all the 'flea' books for starters) by the faithful to the handful of atheist tomes that have come out over the past 4 or 5 years.
For goodness sakes, how many christian bookshops devoted to proselytising the word are there out there in any largish city in the west. How many TV show/hours devoted to exclusively to religion do they need? And, as RD points out, how often do the religious get a monopoly on comment in the media on moral and ethical issues?
Surely a few inocuous little anti-religious screeds wouldn't matter to them. Would it? Would it? Or maybe they really are getting a lttle scared that these books, websites and blogs will incite a sudden outbreak of reason and rationality in the population at large. Can't have that, now, can we?
Anna-
your post still hasn't appeared on FCOS. Obviously DR has decided that you are too much of a troublemaker ;-)
Annabanana
You have an...um...starsign up on your profile. Astrology bad. What gives?
Quetzathan,
I never registered because they wouldn't let me use Anna Banana and I decided I didn't want my real name tied to that, even though it's probably easily attainable. I just didn't feel comfortable with it.
Peace,
Oh, I think it was an automatic thing...I suppose I could remove it. I wouldn't be silly enough to believe in such nonsense even though lions are pretty cool kittehs, srsly.
I think it is incredibly dishonest of Robertson to lay Hitler on atheism. He has been rebutted so many times, but never takes the overwhelming evidence on board. He seem s hell bent to lie for jesus and demonise atheists. Whether Hitler was an atheist or not is not as important as the fact that he got the christians to do his work for him. There was even a concordat signed by the vatican in 1933 that legitimised Hitler and the Nazis to the catholics
Anna.. Great insight, ditto Jonathan and Paul on the FCOS site. Robertson's arguments about Dawkins can just as easily be turned against him. Their collective followers are probably no different, made up of different cross sections of society, all with a point of view.
That Robertson likes playing the gamesmanship card is unfortunate, and lessens his argument, and credibility. Someone with his obvious insight into people should know better, and seems to go against the teachings of his holy book. jcw aka kaiserkriss
anna, I just notice your post STILL has not appeared on the FCOS site. Has the flea gien you a reason? jcw (kaiserkriss)
But Anna, we do know more than this about Hitler and atheism/Christianiy.
Yes, he manipulated the Church - but do not forget that the German Catholic and Lutheran Protestant churches (including catholic student fraternities, the main catholic political party, the conferences of the bishops of these two churches) openly supported Hitler, willingly. They preached about Hitler in the Churches - in a positive way, and about nationalsocialism. Without the catholic "Zentrums-Partei", the NSDAP (Hitler's Party) would have never gotten to power. At the "Gleichschaltung", the educators, those who teach in schools and univsersities were bound to nationalsocialist policy, and those who didn't comply were fired or arrested straightout.
So, the German Churches officiently approved of and supported Hitler - in Eastern Europe under Hitler, Jesuit-Monks acted as overseers of concentration camps, the military bishops who blessed the troops, their missions and their weapons were acting in as official representatives of the churches.
This goes so far that catholic bishops even supported and aided one other of the greatest mass-murderers of the second world war. Look up the connection between Stepinac and Pavelic, the forced conversions with executions of those who didn't want to convert as part of the strategy of the radically catholic fascist rulers.
So whatever the personal convictions of Hitler, however he manipulated the Churches in Germany supported his reign strongly, as well as the overall nationalsocialist policy - willingly and actively.
-Michael(MPhil)
MPhil,
"So whatever the personal convictions of Hitler, however he manipulated the Churches in Germany supported his reign strongly, as well as the overall nationalsocialist policy - willingly and actively."
That was what I was getting at, though. I was speaking more of his personal convictions than what he fooled everyone into believing him to be. I'm sorry if my logic or writing seems faulty. I am not nearly so eloquent and articulate as you are. :-)
Post a Comment