Allahu Akbar - Not?:(
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
GeoffP has his problems.
Well, it was you who just made the demographic argument, not I, Sam. Is or is not demography a justifiable rationale for religion?
LOL - at least I know how sedimentation bloody occurs, IAC. According to you we should all be living in the ocean by now. Maybe in little bubble houses.
Yeah, that's why I supported it with an appropriate example.
When Hitchens comes up with things like, the war in Iraq is not the reason there were limited resources to aid Katrina victims; yeah right, true Internationalists, like Hitch, knew that those helicopters and trucks were more urgently needed to build democracy in Iraq and the unfortunates huddled in the Superdome should stop complaining and take comfort in the fact that the National Guard was receiving crucial emergency training in Iraq.
hehe.
Yeah, that's why I supported it with an appropriate example.
Dooon't bother with that rot. You dug your pit, and fell in it.
And where the hell did Iraq come from in that?
It's in Wiki.
How so?
On the one hand they espouse freedom of thought and on the other they cannot conceal their disdain for theists.
All they do is replace religious dogmatism with atheistic dogmatism.
Besides, isn't it an oxymoron, to be engaged in attempting to prove the absence of something?
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
ALLAH AKBAR....
and to hell with all who disagree..
mind you... i didnt say... Allah wah Akbar.
-MT
and to hell with all who disagree..
mind you... i didnt say... Allah wah Akbar.
-MT
On the one hand they espouse freedom of thought and on the other they cannot conceal their disdain for theists.
All they do is replace religious dogmatism with atheistic dogmatism.
Besides, isn't it an oxymoron, to be engaged in attempting to prove the absence of something?
1. Distain for a particular idea does not contradict that freedom of expression is a treasured principle.
2. I disagree that they are simply presenting another kind of dogmatic faith. They seem to be very careful to present rational arguments for their positions. Since the rational basis of religion is lacking, I am not very surprised that religious people cannot recognize a rational argument.
3. They aren't attempting to prove that God doesn't exist. It is sufficient to show that the idea was a human invention, one in a long line of attempts to make sense of the world through storytelling. I have not read Hitchens' book (yet), but Dawkins has explained your fallacy clearly using the teapot metaphor. Can you prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit between the Earth and Mars? I'm sure you can't, but does that mean it is reasonable to assume there is? No, it doesn't.
1. If you are for people having the freedom to choose, calling them stupid or delusional or irrational is not indicative of it.
2. It is a dogma. Since atheists use false analogies while claiming to support free inquiriy and openmindedness.
3. See 2.
1. Freedom of expression means freedom to express that an idea seems stupid or irrational. My expression doesn't prevent your expression.
2. DOGMA,
-A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
-An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
But that's not what most atheists I have read are doing. They don't speak in absolutes, but in probabilities. Most will acknowledge the tiniest possibility that there is a God, but there is little evidence to support this. The atheist conclusion is not a religious or dogmatic one, it is the endpoint of a rational process of exploration.
2. DOGMA,
-A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
-An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
But that's not what most atheists I have read are doing. They don't speak in absolutes, but in probabilities. Most will acknowledge the tiniest possibility that there is a God, but there is little evidence to support this. The atheist conclusion is not a religious or dogmatic one, it is the endpoint of a rational process of exploration.
If they can admit that there's a chance that there's a God, then they're not Atheists.
False.
You only say that because you are used to the rigid linear definitions and dogmas of religion. Dawkins himself admits that there is a small possibility there is a God, but there is also a small possibility that the Roman Gods, or Thor also exist. There is a small possibility that all of reality is but a computer matrix. There is a small possibility that the dolphins are really in control. So you see, acknowledging the small possibility of something is rational. Believing in such a thing with 100% faith is somewhat less than rational (but of course I fully support your right to hold irrational ideas).