The Evangelical Universalist Forum

On militant atheists and their intellectual strengths

Theology Philosophical
#1

I had the immense privilege to interview historian, sociologist and Christian apologist David Marshall on militant atheists and their arguments. I truly hope you’ll appreciate it!

Have you ever wondered if Richard Dawkins and his followers might have conclusively demonstrated that all religions are dangerous delusions?
For discovering this, there is only one thing you can do. Click in and find out! :smiley:

lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/201 … -marshall/

Oh, and if you are an inborn warrior, feel free to join forces with me if the blog post comes under attack.

#2

While some atheists are no doubt of exemplary intelligence, I’ve yet to encounter any personally. The several long conversations I’ve engaged in haven’t been all that impressive. I don’t think it’s terribly praiseworthy to be amazingly intelligent. We all get what we get, and if we develop the mind – well, as Paul says of developing the body, that’s a good thing to do and of some advantage, but not nearly as important as developing the spirit. That said, it has been my experience that atheists while touting their superior intelligence have very often not taken the trouble to develop the intelligence they so highly value.

No one needs to tell me that I am only of average intelligence. This doesn’t trouble me. I do the best I can with what I have. In engaging in discussions with atheists it’s been my (limited) experience that they usually know less about the things they profess to care about (science, etc.) than I know. I come into the discussion expecting to be challenged and perhaps even embarrassed, and the end is that I’m usually just disappointed. They don’t read my arguments and instead toss back one-liners. If they do read, they manifestly do not understand (and this is talking what is supposed to be THEIR language of science and philosophy – not “Christianese”). I’m still open to being impressed, but with the rank and file, who are likely the ones who would be willing to talk with me? Not yet. So far I feel I’ve wasted my time.

#3

Talking to the “militant” of any belief system is often like that, unfortunately.

Sonia

#4

I tend to find the debates and conversations with atheists pretty tedious and unimaginative for the most part. :frowning: I took a look at the site Cindy was (is?) moderating and the conversation was pretty dismal from the atheist side. Not my cup of tea, I suppose… :confused:

#5

WAS, Steve. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: One can only take so much. There was seldom a trace of real discussion there in the end. :frowning:

#6

I wouldn’t want to generalise atheists because as with any ‘group’ who holds a certain belief, people have come to their beliefs for very different reasons. There are those whose only reason for not believing in a god is a simple and possibly understandable ignorance and I don’t want to lazily shove them into a criticism that is aimed at a certain strand of atheists; nor would I want to include those who don’t believe because they’ve found faith in god or the things surrounding that (almost certainly people who do profess belief) to have caused them hurt. I’d only want to ‘target’ the militant, empty rhetoric of the atheists we tend to generally think of.

The primary issue that frustrates me personally, and is mentioned in that interview Marc posted, is the quite incredible misunderstanding of how religious people use the word ‘faith’. There’s an amazing chasm of difference between what the word should mean and how some atheists (and also believers) understand it. Lazy, ignorant, arrogant, condescending; whatever word you want to use. If anybody uses it in the context of believing in something with absolutely no evidence, it’s pretty much pointless having a debate - it’s not remotely representative of what it is.

#7

Hello Cindy.

I do think you’re much more than only of average intelligence but this is only my fallible opinion. :wink:

I entirely agree that developing intelligence is certainly not as praiseworthy as developing a moral character, that is love, patience, charity, humility, altruism, forgiveness, faithfulness and so on and so forth.

And militant atheists often lack both love and intelligence.

Sonia: yeah, the New Atheists are akin to religious bigots and in many cases they themselves come from fundamentalist Churches, as I have argued here.
lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/the-link-between-religious-fundamentalism-and-militant-atheism/

Jonny:

“I wouldn’t want to generalise atheists because as with any ‘group’ who holds a certain belief, people have come to their beliefs for very different reasons. There are those whose only reason for not believing in a god is a simple and possibly understandable ignorance and I don’t want to lazily shove them into a criticism that is aimed at a certain strand of atheists; nor would I want to include those who don’t believe because they’ve found faith in god or the things surrounding that (almost certainly people who do profess belief) to have caused them hurt.”

Neither would I. This post concerns entirely militant folks such as Richard Dawkins, while completely leaving aside the other kinds of intelligent and respectful atheism out there.

#8

Oh I wasn’t suggesting that it was generalising, it was merely a disclaimer at the start of my post to keep the discussion along that specific line. I found the interview interesting

#9

As for faith, they indeed completely misrepresent what most religious believers take it to be.

I examined different concepts of faith before giving my own one: faith doesn’t mean knowledge but hope in things you can’t prove.
lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/faith-richard-dawkins-and-peter/
Giving this, it is my contention that all human beings walk by faith.

#10

Now I’m dealing with militant Christians who seem to be advocating** the use of (lethal) violence against abortionists**:
lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/201 … terrorism/

Obviously “militant” might mean many things and in Continental Europe it is used for both violent and non-violent activism aiming at destroying a group or worldview.