141 replies to this topic

[Will]

Al...

Definition of Faith:
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially: a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith

Definition of Delusion:
1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
2 a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also: the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

Definition of Dickhead:
1: Richard Dawkins

[al-x]

Hello:

So, Will, you don't like Dawkins?

I can understand that...



Al...

[Arjan Dirkse]

Definition of Dickhead:
1: Richard Dawkins

Ah excellent debating skills.

[Jim Ohara]

Dawkins chastises one form of faith by popularizing another. Saying there is no God is as reliant on faith as saying there is a God. But he can't sell books by saying he has no idea, nobody does, so let people live in peace to believe what they want because it's not your right to tell other people how to live. He's another snake oil salesman, selling people reinforcement of their own ideas. No different from Joel Osteen or any other televangelist.

[brucegray666]

Yeah, militant atheist are just as bad (if not worse) than militant church types.

[Nicholas Taggart]

Saying there is no God is as reliant on faith as saying there is a God.

No it isn't. Dawkins believes that if someone tries to teach you that something is true then they should have supporting evidence to back it up. Not feelings or wishes or traditions, but actual evidence. Dawkins emerged as being this atheist figure that he is now in reaction to attempts to take fact out of the classrooms and put religion in. Which is a real battle that is happening.

There is no faith involved in not believing in something there is no evidence for.

[Will]

Yeah, militant atheist are just as bad (if not worse) than militant church types.

I agree that they're just as bad, not worse.

Have no use for either.

[Arjan Dirkse]

The militant atheists just use words. When theists become militant people die.

[Henry Blanco]

The militant atheists just use words. When theists become militant people die.

[Arjan Dirkse]

Dawkins chastises one form of faith by popularizing another. Saying there is no God is as reliant on faith as saying there is a God. But he can't sell books by saying he has no idea, nobody does, so let people live in peace to believe what they want because it's not your right to tell other people how to live. He's another snake oil salesman, selling people reinforcement of their own ideas. No different from Joel Osteen or any other televangelist.

Dawkins doesn't say there is no God, he says there is no proof that there is a God.

Well, hard-line communists excluded of course. But they killed everybody that didn't agree with them.

Modern "militant" atheists are, in fact, not militant at all. I don't think Dawkins has ever held a gun. Their militant behavior is pretty much limited to handing out flyers.

Edited by Arjan Dirkse, 02 May 2012 - 06:35 PM.

[Nicholas Taggart]

Richard Dawkins is an elderly biologist who writes books and appears on talk shows and documentaries where he argues we should believe in things that there is evidence for but still enjoy all the wonderful things about our universe and the world we live in. He also takes part in campaigns against things like putting religion in science class and descriminating against people on religious grounds. He rubs some people the wrong way when he does it but he doesn't hurt anyone. He doesn't stand outside funerals yelling abuse at people. He doesn't think people should be descriminated against based on religion or race or gender or sexuality or any other thing.

If that were actually far worse than what militant church types do the world would be a much better place to live in.

[Henry Blanco]

Modern "militant" atheists are, in fact, not militant at all. I don't think Dawkins has ever held a gun. Their militant behavior is pretty much limited to handing out flyers.

Not every modern religion advocates violence, so shouldn't the idea that religion leads to violence -- as it has happened many times in the past -- be similarly re-evaluated?

As a Catholic, I am not comfortable with the currrent flavor of atheism because it seeks to browbeat and belittle people of faith. In essence, the idea presented is that any religious person is inherently stupid. The "militancy" that has developed in recent years seems to be targeted towards evangelical Christians in the US and other groups around the world with a similar point of view. The Catholic Church is often conflated into that group because they share similar teachings on reproductive rights, homosexuality, and so on. But militant atheism of the present day merely does what many evangelical groups have done for years.

[Nicholas Taggart]

I have never heard Dawkins (I am sticking with Dawkins because he is who is being most discussed and I legitimately can't really think of another notable public atheist along those lines off the top of my head other than maybe Stephen Fry) say that religious people are inherently stupid.

[Henry Blanco]

I have never heard Dawkins (I am sticking with Dawkins because he is who is being most discussed and I legitimately can't really think of another notable public atheist along those lines off the top of my head other than maybe Stephen Fry) say that religious people are inherently stupid.

The tone I often hear is that atheists use their reason to arrive at their beliefs, while religious people do not.

[Arjan Dirkse]

As a Catholic, I am not comfortable with the currrent flavor of atheism because it seeks to browbeat and belittle people of faith. In essence, the idea presented is that any religious person is inherently stupid. The "militancy" that has developed in recent years seems to be targeted towards evangelical Christians in the US and other groups around the world with a similar point of view. The Catholic Church is often conflated into that group because they share similar teachings on reproductive rights, homosexuality, and so on. But militant atheism of the present day merely does what many evangelical groups have done for years.

Of course the belittling and browbeating may be annoying, debating should ideally be done with some standards of behavior. But it is still very different from what militant theism is guilty of. I don't think many Catholics or evangelical Christians in the US receive death threats from atheists.

[Henry Blanco]

Of course the belittling and browbeating may be annoying, debating should ideally be done with some standards of behavior. But it is still very different from what militant theism is guilty of. I don't think many Catholics or evangelical Christians in the US receive death threats from atheists.

I can't recall making death threats against anybody since high school, but those were not based on religion, just exasperation with asshats.

[al-x]

I have never heard Dawkins (I am sticking with Dawkins because he is who is being most discussed and I legitimately can't really think of another notable public atheist along those lines off the top of my head other than maybe Stephen Fry) say that religious people are inherently stupid.

It may not be said but implied. There are atheists who are into
the scientific method of proving things and so on who look down on
and feel they have one over on the religious who believe in a
higher power. In doing so, they are no better than some religious
zealot who believes in God and looks down on atheists.


Al...

[Jim Ohara]

Dawkins doesn't say there is no God, he says there is no proof that there is a God.

He needs to say there's no proof there's not a God a bit more too. And that you should believe in whatever you like without having biologists tell you you're wrong because you want to believe in something you can't observe or prove. I can't observe or prove I have a soul, but I don't want some asshole telling me I'm soulless because there's a lack of proof.

He rubs some people the wrong way when he does it but he doesn't hurt anyone. He doesn't stand outside funerals yelling abuse at people. He doesn't think people should be descriminated against based on religion or race or gender or sexuality or any other thing.

That's not exactly a high bar though, is it? He doesn't kick puppies or steal lollypops from babies, but that doesn't mean he's ok. You can't judge the value a person adds to society by comparing them to terrible people and saying they're not as bad. Dawkins tactics and message are upsetting to an awful lot of people, and you can't say all those people are the same ones who want intelligent design taught in schools or persecute gays. That's just using a radical stereotype to paint over the legitimate emotions of everyday people.

[Arjan Dirkse]

For all the talk about atheists doing the belittling and browbeating, the only insults flying around here like asshole and dickhead are directed at an aging biologist who does nothing but try to engage others in an intellectual debate.

Henry, I know you don't send around death threats to atheists, but some militant theists do, and that is in fact the meaning of "militant". Hence the difference between militant theists and quasi-militant atheists.

In a visual representation:

Edited by Arjan Dirkse, 02 May 2012 - 07:38 PM.

[Henry Blanco]

Henry, I know you don't send around death threats to atheists, but some militant theists do, and that is in fact the meaning of "militant". Hence the difference between militant theists and quasi-militant atheists.

I feel that being a murderer or trying to control people using the law can go both ways, and for that reason assuming that an atheist can't do harm because of their ideology doesn't work for me.