- Joined
- Jul 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,220
- Reaction score
- 721
More from link above.
.....Fundamentalist atheismmarks a turning point in the history of the atheist movement because it seeks togo beyond actively rejecting belief in God.Fundamentalist atheism seeks to
eradicate religion and anoint atheism
as theonly respectable position on the question of religion for three reasons. First, theemerging crusade is built upon an intellectual failure to accurately examinereligious belief and a tunnel vision assessment that sees religion as the principalimpetus for violence in the world. Fundamentalist atheism stereotypes religion asinherently violent, and averse to critical debate, scientific development,tolerance, and social advancement. Secondly, having treated the most extreme,dogmatic, regressive, and fundamentalist forms of religion as the ideal and/or eventual manifestation of all religious belief, fundamentalist atheists developedthe apocalyptical belief that world peace cannot occur so long as religion, theroot of human evil in this view, is not first eradicated. Finally, fundamentalistatheists prescribe intellectual
intolerance
toward religious thought and belief.Indeed, some fundamentalist atheists have called for an actual war on Islam and,more specifically, an attack on Iran. These claims, however, are based on anarrow analysis of the variety of religious beliefs and history of religiousviolence.Despite the incredible diversity of religious thought, even within individualreligions, fundamentalist atheists have undertaken a kind of fallaciousintellectual carpet-bombing of religion. Ignoring or dismissing countercurrents,they base their definition of religion on the behavior and beliefs of a limitednumber of believers who fit their stereotype-ridden model. As if trapped in a timewarp, they actively stereotype modern religious belief as if it had undergone nochange over the last 200 years. One objection fundamentalist atheists have toreligion is what they view as its eclipse of critical reasoning, which they blamefor causing so much global strife and retarding social and scientific progress.This general attitude has allowed fundamentalist atheists to comfortably assaultreligion with broad, inexact critiques which are dismissive of the diversity foundin various religious traditions. Not long after becoming chair of Brooklyn College’s Department of Sociology, Dr. Timothy Shortell fueled the ire of religionists when he unleasheda barrage of ugly stereotypes in his online article entitled “Religion and Morality:A Contradiction Explained.” The Christian news service Agape Press examinedthe article and reported that the atheist professor had therein described religious people as “moral retards” and said, “Christians claim theirs is a faith based onlove, but they’ll just as soon kill you” (Brown 2005). Indeed, the piece was atirade of irrational generalizations brimming with fodder for religiousfundamentalists. One quote in particular stands out:
HUMANI
TY & SOCIETY
266
On a personal level, religiosity is merely annoying—like badtaste. This immaturity represents a significant social problem,however, because religious adherents fail to recognize their limitations. So, in the name of their faith, these moral retardsare running around pointing fingers and doing real harm toothers. One only has to read the newspaper to see the results of their handiwork. They discriminate, exclude and belittle. Theymake a virtue of closed-mindedness and virulent ignorance.They are an ugly, violent lot (Shortell 2005).Shortell’s stigmatization of all religion makes no attempt to differentiatechurches such as the United Church of Christ, which has made very publicefforts to open its doors to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community,or other Christian groups that have disavowed intolerance and hatred. He alsoignores a long list of model examples of civil rights and peace and justiceactivists including the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and former UnitedStates President Jimmy Carter, to name only two. What makes Shortell’scomments so problematic is the generality of the language he uses. A morecredible condemnation would have specified a particular religious group that fithis characterization. For instance, few would argue the validity of applyingShortell’s characterization to someone like Pat Robertson, who once called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, or to the now deceased Jerry Falwell, whofamously blamed gays and feminists for the September 11 attack. Instead,Shortell offers a broad, inexact condemnation of
.....Fundamentalist atheismmarks a turning point in the history of the atheist movement because it seeks togo beyond actively rejecting belief in God.Fundamentalist atheism seeks to
eradicate religion and anoint atheism
as theonly respectable position on the question of religion for three reasons. First, theemerging crusade is built upon an intellectual failure to accurately examinereligious belief and a tunnel vision assessment that sees religion as the principalimpetus for violence in the world. Fundamentalist atheism stereotypes religion asinherently violent, and averse to critical debate, scientific development,tolerance, and social advancement. Secondly, having treated the most extreme,dogmatic, regressive, and fundamentalist forms of religion as the ideal and/or eventual manifestation of all religious belief, fundamentalist atheists developedthe apocalyptical belief that world peace cannot occur so long as religion, theroot of human evil in this view, is not first eradicated. Finally, fundamentalistatheists prescribe intellectual
intolerance
toward religious thought and belief.Indeed, some fundamentalist atheists have called for an actual war on Islam and,more specifically, an attack on Iran. These claims, however, are based on anarrow analysis of the variety of religious beliefs and history of religiousviolence.Despite the incredible diversity of religious thought, even within individualreligions, fundamentalist atheists have undertaken a kind of fallaciousintellectual carpet-bombing of religion. Ignoring or dismissing countercurrents,they base their definition of religion on the behavior and beliefs of a limitednumber of believers who fit their stereotype-ridden model. As if trapped in a timewarp, they actively stereotype modern religious belief as if it had undergone nochange over the last 200 years. One objection fundamentalist atheists have toreligion is what they view as its eclipse of critical reasoning, which they blamefor causing so much global strife and retarding social and scientific progress.This general attitude has allowed fundamentalist atheists to comfortably assaultreligion with broad, inexact critiques which are dismissive of the diversity foundin various religious traditions. Not long after becoming chair of Brooklyn College’s Department of Sociology, Dr. Timothy Shortell fueled the ire of religionists when he unleasheda barrage of ugly stereotypes in his online article entitled “Religion and Morality:A Contradiction Explained.” The Christian news service Agape Press examinedthe article and reported that the atheist professor had therein described religious people as “moral retards” and said, “Christians claim theirs is a faith based onlove, but they’ll just as soon kill you” (Brown 2005). Indeed, the piece was atirade of irrational generalizations brimming with fodder for religiousfundamentalists. One quote in particular stands out:
HUMANI
TY & SOCIETY
266
On a personal level, religiosity is merely annoying—like badtaste. This immaturity represents a significant social problem,however, because religious adherents fail to recognize their limitations. So, in the name of their faith, these moral retardsare running around pointing fingers and doing real harm toothers. One only has to read the newspaper to see the results of their handiwork. They discriminate, exclude and belittle. Theymake a virtue of closed-mindedness and virulent ignorance.They are an ugly, violent lot (Shortell 2005).Shortell’s stigmatization of all religion makes no attempt to differentiatechurches such as the United Church of Christ, which has made very publicefforts to open its doors to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community,or other Christian groups that have disavowed intolerance and hatred. He alsoignores a long list of model examples of civil rights and peace and justiceactivists including the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and former UnitedStates President Jimmy Carter, to name only two. What makes Shortell’scomments so problematic is the generality of the language he uses. A morecredible condemnation would have specified a particular religious group that fithis characterization. For instance, few would argue the validity of applyingShortell’s characterization to someone like Pat Robertson, who once called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, or to the now deceased Jerry Falwell, whofamously blamed gays and feminists for the September 11 attack. Instead,Shortell offers a broad, inexact condemnation of
