About Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris?

Question

Now these people are against any type of spiritual belief, no matter how good it is. I am not a religious person myself , but i find the attitudes of Dawkins and Harris to be no different to any religious extremist. They sound more like Radical Atheists to me.

I dont see how having a nominal belief in some sort of spiritual power can be dangerous unless its taken to the extremes like some do.

What do you think?

Answer 1

Well I haven't read Harris, but as for Dawkins, he doesn't have much problem with people believing whatever crazy ideas they want, as long as they keep those beliefs to themselves.

Problem is, they don't.  Religious believers from time immemorial have tried to (and too often succeeded in) getting their beliefs implemented in gov't, and using gov't to tyrannize others and coerce others into believing and living (or, occasionally, dying) according to the dogma's strictures.

Also, most religions are taught to children at a young age before they have any ability for rational thought or critical analysis, the result being that they grow up believing all sorts of fantastical notions which stay with them into adulthood, when they in turn pass it down to their own children.  It's no coincidence that the vast majority of people are of the same religion as their parents.  Religious memes aren't kept or discarded on merit; they're largely hereditary.

Regarding religious extremists, the difference between an extremist and a moderate is one of degree, not kind.  Moderate religions themselves may not result in crusades and suicide bombers and theocratic dictatorships, but they pave the way for these by laying the groundwork of doctrinal infallibility, god-sanctioned force, and belief regardless of evidence.

Finally, pardon my saying so, but it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of attacks against "uppity" atheists like Dawkins, Harris, etc. are ad hominems--attacks against the person making the argument, rather than criticizing the argument itself.  Militant, radical, arrogant...these are attacks against the man, not what he espouses.  If you think atheists should just sit down and shut up like in the old days when they knew their place (ahem), then you're fine to express that opinion.  But you might find it more productive to engage in criticism of specific points that atheists argue, rather than just critiquing the person.

P.S.  Message to "SithLord":  wow.  You are 100% wrong on every point you made.  Try getting your facts straight next time, assuming that kind of thing is more important than your beliefs.

Answer 2

i concur

Answer 3

You could achieve the  insight shown by their high  level of discourse, but you need to make a start - at the beginning.And this means trying to make a constructive discussion on their views rather that attacking them personally.

Answer 4

And there is the problem"ATHEISTS". I was one myself for a long time,but couldn't deal with one thing- why do I need a position at all? That leads to scientism which is then just another god to serve man.

I am now proud to be a non-theist! God's not coming- science raises more questions than the answers are worth- and me I just am for a while. I have things to do stop talking nonsense.

Answer 5

Dawkins and Harris have simply carried their atheism on to a logical conclusion. If religions are false, why should people waste time believing in any of them? Look at all the time wasted by so many people, from studying the bible as if it were a historically factual and pertinant document, to the hours sitting in pews, to the money spent on so many non-charitable things. Sure, many religions perform many valuable and even noble activities, but why can't those same activities be performed without the religious trappings attached?

   Another issue is that by granting the irrational aspects of religion a special, protected status, one by inference provides support for other, equally irrational non religious beliefs. This can range from homeopathy to remote viewing to alien abduction. These kinds of belief are anti-rational, demanding believers to ignore or dismiss the fact that they fail any sort of controlled testing. This leads to a more superstitious and "magical" world view. And history is replete with examples of how that turns out. Just look at the world today, where people are still killed for "stealing penises" or "being witches".

   So yes, Dawkins and Harris can be considered radical atheists. However, notice one thing about their statements. They have never called for a violent overthrow of religion. They have not called on laws to penalize religious belief. They instead appeal on the basis of historical example and logical arguments for people to agree with them. THAT makes them different from their radical, religious counterparts.

  As to where I stand, I am not altogether in their camp. But as I continue to watch assaults by religious people on the integrity, motivations, and even humanity of non believers, I both understand and appreciate why they have taken such stands, and feel increasing sympathy towards those views. But I'll never support a violent enforcement of anti-religious views. I'd much rather use the slower method of continuing to appeal to people's intellect and rationality to understand that religion is not nessacary for a good, full, and useful life.

   Finally, in regards to your last statement. At what point does belief in spiritual power become dangerous? When the parent refuses medical treatment for a child, relying on prayer?(a protected action in many states). When a business refuses to hire someone who is not of their particular religious faith, or fails to advice or sell them a product, such as contraceptives, that the person believes is counter to their religion? Or that a person living on the edge of poverty regularly gives over a significant percentage of their income to a church or televangelist, even though it means going without things they truly need, whether some new clothes, or food?  So I am a bit more leery about how belief, even if not "extreme", may adversly affect not only society, but the individual themselves.  Fortunately, we do live in a society where we can openly discuss such differening views, without fear or retaliation.

Answer 6

No matter how good it is?  So which criteria are we using to evaluate how 'good' a belief is?  I would have thought that truth would have had something to do with it.  Isn't it acceptable to oppose a position because you know that it's false?  Certainly if something I believe happens to be false I'd prefer for someone to point it out, rather than adopt a superior air and declare that as I'm not hurting anyone I might as well be left to my childish ignorance.

In any case, Dawkins gives your objection quite a bit of attention in The God Delusion.  Basically his answer is that it's the climate of respect for irrational beliefs that allows fundamentalism to appear and flourish.

Answer 7

They don't kill anyone over religion, so they're not dangerous.  Words don't hurt anyone.

They increased awareness of the problems going on related to religion (suppression of scientific thought and discovery, intolerance of homosexuals, etc.), and allowed many closet atheists who were afraid of persecution to come out.

They did much more good than harm.

Answer 8

Atheism is a religion, and it takes faith to adhere to it. They try to shield themselves with science, but no true scientist believes in the big bang theory or the philosophy of Darwin's evolution (which is eugenics, which is racism, which is white superiority).

Answer 9

I don't see how having a nominal belief in some sort of spiritual power has any bearing on it's reality or its falsity.

Though, of course, belief in a thing can be dangerous even it it's nonexistent, it is the ultimate value of a thing that it represents actuality and not merely an attempt to perpetuate fantasy.

Answer 10

"Now these people are against any type of spiritual belief, no matter how good it is."

No, they are against irrational beliefs based in blind faith rather than objective evidence and logic.  They aren't against spirituality, they're against irrationality.

"but i find the attitudes of Dawkins and Harris to be no different to any religious extremist."

Then you must have only heard of some of the mildest "religious extremists" on Earth.  Dawkins and Harris generally try to promote education in science and critical thinking, while most religious extremists I know of do anything from trying to take away others' rights by imposing their religious laws on people who don't share their religion, to blowing other people up in the name of their god.  That sounds pretty different to me.

If you think that people having irrational beliefs is harmless, you might want to check your history books.  Human history is filled with atrocities committed in the name of gods and many other baseless bits of blind faith.

Mind you, nobody expects you to be perfect and always know truth from fiction, but you should always have an open mind and be willing to critically examine your beliefs and discard them if they are baseless or founded in false claims.  Unfortunately, many people are afraid to question their spiritual beliefs and have closed their minds to the possibility that they are wrong.  In fact, some proudly proclaim that they believe things on faith alone, as if it's a positive trait instead of a character flaw.  Once they've done that then their belief system is a house of cards on a rickety table.  All it takes is a wrong tip and they may decide that the rights of others no longer matter since they're doing "Gods work" or something similar.

And if you think that never happens, please refer back to the crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, McCarthyism, Jonestown, the Oklahoma City bombing, etc...

Answer 11

I think that while I agree with the general idea....they cannot be thought of as close to as bad...the reason is they have no gone around and killed in the name of atheism.  They have not banned people from areas or ceremonies because they are not atheists.  They do not threaten theists with violence or death, etc.

All things that theists HAVE done

So they are not as bad...and as long as they live and let live they never will be