You can always rely on the Groan’s comment is free for sheer idiocy. This pile of poo complaining about Richard Dawkin’s somewhat vigorous brand of atheism is from Theo Hobson. True, Richard Dawkins is an extreme atheist voice and one that grates even with other atheists, but Theo proves himself a match when is comes to sheer fuckwittery:
I have been chided in the past for referring to the “militant” atheism of Dawkins and his like. But the desire for one’s creed to spread, in order to make the world a better place, surely merits the label. Atheists reply that there is nothing dangerous or sinister in the desire to see more rationality, less superstition.
The Abrahamic religions relied upon people such as Paul and Muhammad to spread their creed (by the point of a sword if needs be) – these, therefore, by Theo’s definition were militant. And, frankly, there is nothing whatsoever dangerous or sinister in the desire to see more rationality and less superstition. If the world was a more rational place, it would certainly be a more friendly and civilised one. However, Theo’s idiocy culminates at the end of his petty little foot stamping exercise with this outburst:
As I have tried to explain before, atheism is not neutral, nor is it merely negative, an opting out of religious belief. It is the positive belief that the world would be better off without religion, that religion ought to be eliminated. It is intrinsically self-righteous, for its proponents think that they have the key to the radical improvement of the world. The definition of an atheist, as opposed to an agnostic, is someone who has the chilling arrogance to say that the world would be a better place if I ceased to say bedtime prayers with my children. And Dawkins wonders why such people are disliked. May God save us from such people.
No, Theo, you rabid little fuckwit, atheism is none of these things. Atheism is merely the non-belief in god(s); nothing more, nothing less. Being an atheist means taking a philosophical position on the matter of the existence or not of god(s) – the relationship between atheists consists of no more than an agreement on that philosophical position; no other connecting relationship can be assumed from this whatsoever. Being an atheist does not mean that I seek to eliminate religion, because I do not, and the assumption that I do because I do not believe in the existence of god(s) is both arrogant and wrong; nor do I claim to have any keys to radical improvement of the world. I simply do not believe in the existence of god(s); nothing more, nothing less. It really isn’t that difficult to grasp. As one commenter points out:
…it is perfectly possible to be an atheist but still believe that on balance the world is a better place if people are allowed to say prayers with their children as they wish.
Succinctly put. That some atheists are intrinsically self-righteous is neither more nor less true than saying that some theists are intrinsically self-righteous. It doesn’t mean that all atheists or all theists are intrinsically self-righteous; such an assertion is absurd. If Dawkins gives atheism a bad name, then bigots such as Theo Hobson do likewise for the religious. Theo Hobson is an idiot; but, then, what should I expect from Comment is Free?
It strikes me that most anti-Dawkins whinges are based on the fact that he won’t go quietly. Thiests are allowed to waffle on and on about their relationship with God and whatnot but for a heathen even pipe up is, like totally, annoying.
For some top notch atheist porn, please check out Pat Condell’s videos on YouTube, the man is a living legend.
You are of course absolutely correct and Theo is an incredible fuckwit who should try learning the subtleties of the English Language. I happen to agree with Dawkins though, the world /would/ be a hell of a lot better off without ANY religion. I suppose that makes me a militant atheist, a label I quite like actually!!
Incidentally every time I’ve posted recently the question has been 2+2, I think something must be broke?
No, I decided that it only needed one question to work and people complained about how difficult some of the questions were…
Personally, I agree, the world would be better without religion; it isn’t needed for morality, nor does it necessarily teach us anything that cannot be learned otherwise. That said, I take the live and let live approach. And there’s no guarantee that strife and atrocities wouldn’t occur without religion – it is merely a convenient excuse. If people take comfort from their faith, who am I to argue?