Cringeworthy Christmas Cinema

(Hat-tip Dale from Faith in Honest Doubt) Although I intensely dislike the rabid intolerant atheism of people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, it’s certainly no worse than the propaganda of some of the more cretinous American God-botherers:

OTO I really love this song about Christmas by Kate Miller-Heidke, although it doesn’t quite capture the Christmas our blended family has in store … (hat-tip Values Australia)

About Ken Parish

Ken Parish is a legal academic, with research areas in public law (constitutional and administrative law), civil procedure and teaching & learning theory and practice. He has been a legal academic for almost 20 years. Before that he ran a legal practice in Darwin for 15 years and was a Member of the NT Legislative Assembly for almost 4 years in the early 1990s.
This entry was posted in Religion. Bookmark the permalink.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Julia
Julia
11 years ago

God, don’t those Christians love to stereotype an atheist.

FDB
FDB
11 years ago

I do wish people would stop lumping Dawkins and Hitchens together.

Ken – can you quote for me some ‘rabid intolerant atheism’ from Dawkins?

Alphonse
Alphonse
11 years ago

False equivalence.

God botherers drive Dawkins mad but Dawkins does nothing to add to their insanity.

Stephen
Stephen
11 years ago

In this new found spirit of intolerance I’ve decided to hate (sorry “intensely dislike”) rabid, intolerant Dawkins and Hitchens haters.

Enjoy.

Julia
Julia
11 years ago

The thing that annoys me about the Dawkins / Hitchens mindset is not to do with the non existence of God or the winning position of science, or spurious connections that ascribe evil acts to the existence of a belief. Its their complete non recognition that what they themselves subscribe to is a belief. It might be a well founded belief, but it is still the ultimate in foolishness to say “I have the facts, you have a belief”.
None of us could possibly function without a comprehensive belief system that gives us a shorthand answer to how the bits of the world that we don’t really understand, work (like say how plasma TV’s work, or whether gene sequencing turns up valid results, or what politicians should do to stop aboriginal violence). We tend to think, especially with reference to technology that the explanation must be scientific, but that’s an act of faith. Given what I empirically know about the innards of my iPhone, it may as well be a ouija board making the connections. At least Christians have the decency to call what they do a belief or an act of faith.

Stephen
Stephen
11 years ago

I was really just commenting that being intolerant of people for being intolerant of other people being intolerant was a bit silly but I’m happy for anyone else to be intolerant of me for saying so.

@Ken – You think saying you want someone arrested for facilitating child abuse is extreme?

I’m not especially familiar with the details of the claim but I understand he was personally responsible for the appalling handling of priests who had committed these acts and preventing them being brought to civil justice.

In what world is saying you’d like to arrest someone for this more extreme than saying he should be immune to prosecution?

@Julia – you honestly can’t see the difference in believing something on the basis of theory and tested hypotheses with evidence evaluated sceptically vs. because it was dictated by an iron age bloke with a migraine/schizophrenia/on a drug high?

FDB
FDB
11 years ago

What Steven said.

Arresting the Pope seems to make some people freak out – but to an atheist he’s just a man. One who personally protected known child molesters from the consequences of their crimes, and facillitated further crimes.

Alphonse
Alphonse
11 years ago

Ken, Dawkins says that the spur to his radical atheism is the immense harm done by scientifially disproven fetishism of literalists and church bureaucracies. A subsidiary point is that the harm is perpetuated when respect for faith bleeds into respect for said fetishist bureaucracies (not to mention the US fundies you single out to the unwarranted near-exclusion of the wider problem).

Science can’t disprove the supernatural – it is rigorously and modestly only about the natural, as Dawkins points out – but it sure can tell the fetishists where to get off. As it should.

This from an agnostic (ok this ‘teapot agnostic’ – I’m sure you’ll catch the reference) who HAS read The God Delusion and who sings in a church choir. I might add that plenty of my fellow choristers, regular churchgoers, are every bit as caustic about some of their primates as Dawkins is, even if they don’t go to his step 3 – Ockham’s Razor.

Central point – religion gets too much respect. Part of the antidote is disrespect a la Dawkins and Hitchens – even if they do create the odd antibody. They could be more nuanced, but that’s no reason to caricature them, Dawkins especially.

And please explain why you think the reason I gave for perceiving false equivalence is invalid. Because you haven’t yet.

derrida derider
derrida derider
11 years ago

Ken @5, GK Chesterton pointed out that agnosticism comprises two quite separate positions – (1) “I do not know whether god exists; or (2) no one can know whether God exists.

If you combine (2) with your line that “application of Occam’s Razor might well lead many to conclude that the non-existence of a God is the more likely proposition” then your position is in fact indistinguishable from that of the so-called “dogmatic atheist” Dawkins. Because you are actually saying god is an unecessary hypothesis.

One could, for instance, write “application of Occam’s Razor might well lead many to conclude that the non-existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden is the more likely proposition“, because one can always multiply auxiliary hypothese to maintain the possibility of fairies existing in the face of disproving evidence of each individual hypothesis (eg “fairies are capable of warping perceptions so that only believers can see them” – comparable to the common position of believers in ESP that ESP “signals” are interfered with presence of negative sceptical energy). But those of use who don’t believe in such fairies do not consider ourselves agnostic about them – we consider ourselves non-believers.

FDB
FDB
11 years ago

Rabid intolerance done proper.

Col
Col
10 years ago

FDB and Stephen, the lies presented against Pope Benedict have been clearly exposed. You might need to broaden your pool of media sources.