A meme that can be used against irreligious opponents of unapologetic atheism
Posted on: August 22, 2010 - 6:07pm
Offline
A meme that can be used against irreligious opponents of unapologetic atheism
It seems to be very fashionable for irreligious people of various stripes to vehemently ridicule Dawkins, Hitchens, and other well-known unapologetic atheists. These individuals use a variety of excuses, ranging from sheer, ugly apathy (they can't be bothered to care about anything serious) to claims that people like us will cause a backlash against irreligious people in general. I just thought of a new meme that can be used against these pathetic cowards: it should be pointed out that they are suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
- Login to post comments
This would be a valid statement only if religion is equal to a terrorist or other outlawed organization. Otherwise, it make no sense, sorry.
100%
I suppose I'm one of your "pathetic cowards", but my reasons for not liking Dawkins, Harris, and to some extent Hitchens is related to the way they present their cases against theism. Would I call it Stockholm Syndrome? No, because I think their are bad arguments from the opposition as well.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Out of the "four horseman," Dawkins and Hitchens are definitely the least informed on topics that tend to be discussed with religious apologists. I consider Harris to be slightly better equipped, and Dennet to be the best, being a philosopher. Of course, Dawkins and Hitchens are quite intelligent, and they are an excellent biologist and journalist, respectively. They are simply outside of their fortes when they debate and write on these topics and, thus, can end up displaying some ignorance. If you've read The God Delusion, you should be able to agree that Dawkins' knowledge of philosophy is slightly lacking in some places, to put it lightly.
Anyways, your OP is simply too assuming and broadly sweeping. Nobody is perfect; nobody should be immune to criticism. I suppose there is a certain crowd which consider themselves to be only 'agnostics' and jeers at theists and atheists, but even then, I think it would be a rather dishonest ad hominem to claim that they have Stockholm Syndrome. Overall, IMHO, it would apply to very few people.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I thought it was a joke.
I found it pretty funny; all through reading the lead-up to the post, I was thinking "this is getting shorter and shorter, how is he going to sum something like that up in just a couple words?"
I think I might use that.
See, people are already siding with their captors!
(just joking, please don't send the social terrorists my way!)
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
DH,
It seems as though you are jealous that atheists are actually getting some resistance in America.
Is your Christian persecution complex feeling deprived?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
jcgadfly, I am an atheist and am objecting to atheists who bitch about unapologetic atheists. That should be evident to anyone who reads the OP.
Thanks for clearing that up. I thought something didn't read right but I hit send while attempting to more thoroughly examine things.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
So you don't care if one is unapologetic about his or her opinion that unapologetic atheists that use bad arguments?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
That depends - are you saying they use bad arguments or that they're "bad atheists"?
You've claimed the arguments are bad but (unless I've missed something) you've based that claim on the way they expressed their opinions.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Well, maybe I overstated that. A little of both I think depending on what were talking about. I don't think I'd call them 'bad atheists". How can one be a bad atheist?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
So it's their delivery style that offends you?
You can't really call anyone a "bad atheist" without being pretentious - "They're not questioning the existence of God in the right way!"
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
"Offends" is probably a little strong. Maybe "disappoints" would be a more accurate description. Like for instance in the Craig-Hitchens debate, I was hoping for little more in terms of substance and style from Hitchens, but was disappointed. Or in the God Delusion, Dawkins appeared uninformed about theism in general...again, disappointed.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
That clears up a lot - thanks. I thought you were wanting to play a similar game to what the Republicans tried to do to the Dixie Chicks, you know, "shut up and sing".
On the individuals, it's almost impossible to win against Craig because the tendency is to use your time to correct his errors. He's also hard to pin down on one topic unless the rules of the debate force him (as in his debate with Ehrman). With Dawkins, I think it was a combination of focusing on the radical theism that wants to legislate the magic man and themselves into power and trying to write for the extreme layman.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I think you're right about Craig. I might also add that Craig is so matter-of-fact and methodical that I think he can mask a lot of the BS he presents. Then when the opposition makes a counterargument, he's dismissive on red herrings...it seems he doesn't actually deal with the objections. Dawkins...yeah...I suppose. I suppose more technical stuff like some of Dennett's work would put a layman to sleep...he's done that with me once or twice.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Well in terms of memes, I am strongly in favor of antimagicsandwichism, gained from this quite amusing vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHa79ODbfcg