Atheists use 9/11 as excuse to attack all religions

[Cen0bite]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...religions.html
Former Archbishop of Canterbury: atheists use 9/11 as excuse to attack all religions


Atheists have used the terrorist outrages of September 11 as an excuse to attack all religions, according to the former Archbishop of Canterbury.


By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 3:02PM GMT 12 Jan 2009

Lord Carey said the destruction of the World Trade Center by Muslim fanatics marked the start of a new war waged by “aggressive and strident” writers such as Professor Richard Dawkins.

He claimed the “unpleasant and reactionary” tone of those who dismiss all faiths has widened the divide between religion and science, creating a “dialogue of the deaf”.

However Lord Carey, who was the most senior cleric in the Church of England between 1991 and 2002, conceded that atheists are right to criticise the “pseudo-science” of creationism.

He claimed Christians are playing into the hands of anti-religion campaigners by defending Biblical accounts of the earth’s history, and praised Charles Darwin, the pioneer of evolutionary theory, as “one of the greatest human beings of all time”.

His comments come as Britain’s first atheist advertising campaign launches, with 800 buses taking to the streets emblazoned with posters declaring: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

In a speech to the University of Gloucestershire, Lord Carey said: “We now live in such a divided and dangerous world, that the most urgent challenge facing us all is to build bridges of understanding and hope. The contribution [of religions] is being hindered, not only by deep misunderstanding between the faiths but, more worryingly, by a troubling polarisation between two intellectual worlds – faith and secularism, or faith and science.

“September 11th 2001, is a key date in modern history. It is usually taken to represent a watershed between West and Islam, and this is true. But it is also the date that symbolises a growing split between faith and reason, illustrated in the hostility to all religions by Richard Dawkins and others.”

He went on: “The attacks on the World Trade Centre, Pentagon and the White House woke us all up to a resurgent and militant Islam which remains an active presence seven years on. For some writers, such events are illustrations of the evils of religion – all religions.

“I have no doubt that one can trace a direct link from 9/11 to the aggressive and strident tones of such writers as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and others. The result is a widening gap between religion and science; an unwillingness to engage, concluding in a dialogue of the deaf.”

However the former Archbishop admitted that he could “sympathise to a degree” with the atheists’ attacks on creationism – which teaches that the world was made by God in days just a few thousand years ago – and intelligent design, which holds that the universe is so complex it must have been made by someone.

He said: “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth.

“The argument for intelligent design may have some appeal for many Christians but is ultimately a negation of what science is about, which is to make a hypotheses from what is observable and then conduct experiments in a constant process of testing.”

Lord Carey said it was not true that Darwin’s theories about how life on earth evolved had created a permanent divide between science and religion.

“Many of us accept it, and speaking personally, I have always believed it as a well established explanation of the world we live in,” he said.

He concluded that the devout should engage in a more “positive, respectful and critical” way towards science, but also that atheists must concede that religion can benefit believers and society in general.

Referring to the atheist bus campaign, Lord Carey said: “The inference is that all religions are bad for human flourishing; they are diseased and atrophied vestiges of human life.

“A reasonable and careful conversation is needed for us to overcome the infantile and trivial way matters of ethical behaviour are being discussed.”

The bus campaign raised £140,000 to place adverts on 800 buses around Britain and 1,000 posters on Tube trains.

Following its success, the BBC agreed to broadcast a non-religious version of Thought for the Day for the first time.

Heads of the corporation had previously refused to allow unbelievers to speak in the prestigious “God slot” on Radio 4’s Today programme, restricting contributors to figures from established faiths.

But its founder was given the opportunity to talk on a special version of Thought for the Day, on another show on the radio channel.



So, what do you think?

I'm sure some of you might remember when I ranted against religion. Well honestly, I'm tired of it. I see it all the time. Atheists who are just the opposite end of the extreme.
I have firmly distanced myself from Atheism because of this.

[Maxim_Macabre]

Fuck the church.

[KontanKarite]

So because of a few assholes, it makes a god even more plausible?

[isobel black]

I don't really get why this article would put you off atheism.

Even if you don't agree with the supposed 'aggressive and strident' writings of the guy mentioned (of whom I had never heard before), it's not like the viewpoints of one atheist reflect on your personal atheism.

For me, atheism just means you don't believe in god, no more, no less. IMO, that is the only criterium that makes you an atheist, and only the point of view you share with other atheists when it comes to atheism.

[Cen0bite]

-Kontan

No. It doesn't.

[Tam Li Hua]

I think you need to just accept your own beliefs [or non-beliefs] no matter how many crazy people out there may have similar ones.

[Drake Dun]

Eerrngh, I'm all frustrated now. I just went through like four repetitions of typing a response to this thread and then deleting it after realizing that it wasn't responsive to either "Lord" Carey or the original poster. Finally I realized that the reason I couldn't come up with a substantive answer was that there was nothing substantive to respond to. Seriously, atheists stand accused of... what? Using strong wording? That's supposed to be some kind of parallel to the evils that Dawkins et al. address in their books?

[Necrophagist]

Dawkins is crap. There are plenty of smarter athiests out there.

[Beneath the Shadows]

I believe the proper title for the article would be "Churches use 9/11 as excuse to attack all atheists."

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Cen0bite

Atheists who are just the opposite end of the extreme.

I'm getting annoyed by people that say that; both because I'm an atheist, and because I know most dichotomies are bullshit.

Your saying that atheists are just another extreme implies that there's a linear spectrum of God belief. That in itself takes the existence of God as a priori, and assumes that a moderate belief of it (or weak agnosticism at best) is the proper way to go, which is just not true.

[exacerbatedpoet]

I don't get how this argument would make either view the other side in a different light. Atheists will believe there is no God and religious people will still believe in their God. As for 9/11 being an excuse to attack all religions, I don't agree with this. 9/11 just bought "extremists" to the forefront of the public's minds. People aren't saying all religions are bad, they are saying that religions that aren't there own are wrong and house extremists. Atheists are just going to believe in no God no matter what. Oh, and as for the supposedly "strong wording" that the atheists used. Religious people use wording that is just as strong.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I'm getting annoyed by people that say that; both because I'm an atheist, and because I know most dichotomies are bullshit.

Your saying that atheists are just another extreme implies that there's a linear spectrum of God belief. That in itself takes the existence of God as a priori, and assumes that a moderate belief of it (or weak agnosticism at best) is the proper way to go, which is just not true.

No it doesn't Jillian. This type of thought can exist easily in a world where you assume that there is no God, like I do.

There are "atheist fundamentalists" (ie: Positive "Hard" Atheists who are dicks about it) just like there are christian fundamentalist (who are dicks about it).

It has nothing to do with the existence of God or not, the veiwpoint is about human psychology.

And honestly, if you want to be logically consistent and never make faith-based statements negative "weak" atheism/agnosticism is really the only position you can hold.

Now, more on topic:

He concluded that the devout should engage in a more “positive, respectful and critical” way towards science, but also that atheists must concede that religion can benefit believers and society in general.

Referring to the atheist bus campaign, Lord Carey said: “The inference is that all religions are bad for human flourishing; they are diseased and atrophied vestiges of human life.

“A reasonable and careful conversation is needed for us to overcome the infantile and trivial way matters of ethical behaviour are being discussed.”

I thought that this post was going to be flamebait, but honestly, it was a very well-reasoned and reasonable argument from the former Archbishop, and I really can't say that I disagree with any part. Atheists often DO use 9-11 as an example when they attack religion in general, and I believe that you do need a reasonable, respectful dialogue between atheists and theists.

I think it says allot about Gothic.net when someone posts such a calm, objective article which takes into account both views and pays them both their due respect while stressing tolerance and understand, and the first response is:

Originally Posted by Maxim_Macabre

Fuck the church.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Despanan

It has nothing to do with the existence of God or not, the veiwpoint is about human psychology.

Exactly. Dicks are dicks. It's not that there is a dangerous extremist side of atheism in the belief spectrum.

[Drake Dun]

Yeah, there's a qualitative difference. Basically this all comes down to some whine that atheists are wording things too strongly, or at worst using unfair and inflammatory arguments. Comparing that to what we see from religion is a farce. Actually, even comparing the things these atheist authors are saying to the things religious folks are saying is a joke. I'll back that up if anyone here actually doubts it, but I won't have to, now will I? We all know how true it is.

Notice how Mr. Carey hasn't even attempted to rebut the arguments of Harris and crew that the WTC attack reveals a fundamental problem with religion generally. All we have is belly-aching about how unfair those arguments are, as if it goes without saying that they are in fact unfair. It's business as usual with religion. Actual thinking and, worse yet, open communication are anathema to it (pun intended), so all it can do is try to shut down the dialog. Once we took away its torture wheels, flaming posts, and dank cells, it was only a matter of time until it started pulling out the pity card.

[Saya]

The only offense I see is that its tactless. Remember that guy that got decapitated on a bus? PETA apparently had a campaign that compared that to cow slaughter. While technically correct, that was insanely insensitive and tactless. While this isn't as bad as that was, its still insensitive to use any major loss of life for a petty theological debate.

And yeah, some athiests can be pretty extreme, but I never take them to represent all athiests. And at the same time, like I don't take the Chinese intolerance and peresecution of religion to be a fair picture of atheism, I don't take the Spanish Inquisition to be a fair picture of Christianity.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Atheists don't use 911 to justify attacks on religion. Religions themselves give plenty of justification for attack without any help.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Saya

The only offense I see is that its tactless. Remember that guy that got decapitated on a bus? PETA apparently had a campaign that compared that to cow slaughter. While technically correct, that was insanely insensitive and tactless. While this isn't as bad as that was, its still insensitive to use any major loss of life for a petty theological debate.

Keep in mind, PETA are unconscionable douche bags and most of us vegans try not to associate with them.

[Saya]

I know. Did you see their sea kittens website yet? O.O

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Saya

I know. Did you see their sea kittens website yet? O.O

The only time I go to PETA's website is to get videos for propaganda or find out what companies test on animals, as they've got an extensive list of that.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Saya

I know. Did you see their sea kittens website yet? O.O

This shit's hilarious.

[Albert Mond]

I dun made myself a Sea Kitten!

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

The only time I go to PETA's website is to get videos for propaganda or find out what companies test on animals, as they've got an extensive list of that.

Same with me, but Sea Kittens was in the news and I wanted a laugh.

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

This shit's hilarious.

I thought that was a little trauamtic. "And she went insane and plotted revenge agaisnt the land kittens."

And your sea kitten looks suspiciously like my punk rock sea kitten.

[Albert Mond]

I say we create an army of Sea Kittens Against PETA. You with me, Saya?

[Saya]

The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'save us from the Sea Kittens!'...and I'll look down and whisper 'no.'

[Despanan]

I gotta say as many problems as I have with most organized religion, it seems the argument here is that atheism is not responsible for mass atrocities like religion is.

For the record, that argument is ridiculous, not only because of the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, and the Chinese Communist Party, but by the sheer fact that atheism has not had the power that religion has commanded for so long.

As Jillian said, people are dicks.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that atheists are just as capable of doing horrible things as theists. A person's creed is a tool, nothing more. John Q. atheist, given ample power and time, is just as likely to become a mass-murdering fuckhead as any theist.

Honestly, claiming that atheism is somehow morally superior to theism is as silly as Christians claiming atheists can't be ethical without the ten commandments.