Search This Blog

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Atheism, violence and human rights

Victor Reppert: Atheism, violence and human rights

Here is the final words of a comment on a Debunking Christianity thread:

I long for the day when you people are put into camps and made sterile, so you cannot spread your destructive hate and child abuse any longer.

There you have it. I argued at some length on this site a couple of years back that the logical conclusions of some of Richard Dawkins' ideas about child abuse lead logically to violence against Christians and the forcible denial of fundamental human rights to Christians by the government. I pointed out that even if Dawkins hadn't drawn out those conclusions from his own arguments, some of his followers would eventually do so. People tried to argue that, no, it really doesn't have to come to this, and he was just talking about Christians who frighten their children with hell to get them to be obedient.

Well, I was right. I hope Loftus will post a response saying that he does NOT approve this message. In the meantime, you have to start rethinking the argument that RELIGION leads to violence.
Generally, Dawkins does the thinking for vast numbers of self-identifying atheists, including prominent ones (this is why I sometimes refer to him as "the Pope of Atheism") -- but, regarding this meme, one might well say that Dawkins was the follower, rather than the leader.

I've had this wish, sans the "child abuse" rationalization, "jokingly" tossed in my virtual face years before Dawkins infamously equated a Christian upbringing with child abuse.

The desire to make Christians "go away" is strong within the "reality-based community." If they had the power to make us "go away," they would; if they ever think they have the power to make us "go away," they will use it.

Dawkins merely supplied the rationale to justify (in their own minds) a desire they already had.


AND, by the way, the quote-of-the-day "definition" of faith which leads off the thread in which Mr Reppert encountered that expression of the deepest longing of so many God-deniers is for shit:
Faith is a belief in an unknown or unrealized proposition in spite of evidence that the belief is incorrect. Faith is clearly NOT a belief in an unknown or unrealized proposition that is SUPPORTED by the evidence, because if that belief was supported by the evidence, it ipso facto does NOT REQUIRE Faith. [See on Faith]
... and John Loftus, who posted that quote, *knows* that it, and he, are misrepresenting what faith is.

This "definition" of faith is both tendentiously false ... and a case of atheistic "projection."

8 comments:

leroy said...

Luckily there aren't many people like you; you do deserve to be put into camps and made sterile!

Ilíon said...

Leroy: "Luckily there aren't many people like you; you do deserve to be put into camps and made sterile!"

Leroy was long ago "banned" (such as it is) from posting on my blog; but, I'm going to leave that comment as an example of why fools like he are not welcome here.

leroy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Victor Reppert said...

Yes, I was in that thread because of the problem I saw with people defining faith as irrational, when Christians (the concept of faith is, after all, our concept), have clear definitions, such as that provided by Lewis, which don't entail irrationality. My posts were, of course, ignored.

Victor Reppert said...

The meme picked up steam, though, when Dawkins endorsed it.

Rupert said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ilíon said...

"The meme picked up steam, though, when Dawkins endorsed it."

But, of course: a great preponderance of ‘atheists’ have out-sourced their thinking to Dawkins.

Ilíon said...

"Yes, I was in that thread because of the problem I saw with people defining faith as irrational, when Christians (the concept of faith is, after all, our concept), have clear definitions, such as that provided by Lewis, which don't entail irrationality."

Indeed: 'faith' is our concept; and it was always in opposition to irrationality.

Over the years -- on other people's blogs -- I've written several posts on what the word ‘faith’ means, and what faith is, and how it has no resemblance to the “definition” that “free-thinkers” love to bandy about. I suppose, since I’ve written this post (in which I assert that Mr Loftus’ preferred “definition” is false), I ought to write up and post something explaining what ‘faith’ is.