atheists, please explain yourselves..

[EmeraldAxe]

He also says that most highly educated people like the top scientists and politicians are more likley to be atheists. I'd hate to think what the un-oppressed ones look like. Pol Pot? Kim Jung Il?

Plenty of Jews could have been considered well-off in the 1920s/1930s AND oppressed. Oppressed here does not mean incapable to gain wealth necessarily. I believe he was addressing specifically the inability of atheists to hold any sort of office. He contends that trying to be an atheist and run for office is as difficult today in America as it was for a homosexual before the Gay Pride movement. I suppose he's not the first person to bring up this point. I've read accounts of political leaders after they've held office saying they had to emphasize their 'religiousness' during their campaigns in order to obtain office.

 

[scifes]

This is and since I was a child, has been my problem with most religions. They claim to have the answers to some of the questions we all seem to ask at some point. But the precedent set up by giving people the answer instead of encouraging them to seek the answer themselves (and in the process perhaps unsubscribe from the religion) is downright dangerous.

just like giving you the answer of fire..it burns..most people don't want you to seek the truth and MAYBE end up in a hospital..

You won't see that here. Any theist who has ever commented on Dawkins here hasn't come up with a single argument, but instead they bluster and guffaw till their faces turn blue. That in itself is quite entertaining.

:bravo:try me try me!

 

[TW Scott]

Why? What's more complex: evolving or being created in a single act?

If your argument is that complexity is the signature of God, then it seems to me more likely that God made evolution than made each animal and human separately.

I like this theory and ascribe to it myself. I also believe that at times God has meddled with God's creations. Then at some point God recognized that God was as close to God's intended outcome that the meddling became less. Then there was the perfect being and it's mission. Then God becmae largely hands off with his creation.

Bascially Old testament was God's version of Gramar school for the humans race with New Testament being Highschool and college rolled into one. Now that we have what God wanted us to have it was time to step back and leave us alone.


I can see how atheist would laugh at such a concept. How they would deride me for believing is something i cannot see, measure, touch, weigh, smell, taste, or hear. I don;t hate them. I pity them. For them there will never be anything more than this world. They have nothing to look forward to, ever.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I like this theory and ascribe to it myself. I also believe that at times God has meddled with God's creations. Then at some point God recognized that God was as close to God's intended outcome that the meddling became less. Then there was the perfect being and it's mission. Then God becmae largely hands off with his creation.

Bascially Old testament was God's version of Gramar school for the humans race with New Testament being Highschool and college rolled into one. Now that we have what God wanted us to have it was time to step back and leave us alone.

THIS is how God wanted us? WHAT a mad muddled mess!

I can see how atheist would laugh at such a concept. How they would deride me for believing is something i cannot see, measure, touch, weigh, smell, taste, or hear. I don;t hate them. I pity them.

Save your pity for yourself.

For them there will never be anything more than this world. They have nothing to look forward to, ever.

That is your delusion.

 

[EmeraldAxe]

just like giving you the answer of fire..it burns..most people don't want you to seek the truth and MAYBE end up in a hospital..

If that's the reason that most people don't want you to seek the truth, then most people seem to be cowards. It would hurt (or even burn) to know your wife/husband is cheating on you, but I think most people would still want to know. But this is not directly addressing the point anyway. If religion explains some sort of natural phenomenon with God, then religion is no longer (if it ever was) fostering an environment for discovery. I don't recall precisely, but Dawkins has some examples which illustrate this point (John E Jones with Brehe and Miller over the bacterial flagellar motor in 2005; the Dover case as it was portrayed in the media).

But if you're really sincere about having a discussion on atheism and not just push your point of view, then go read some books. I'd suggest starting with at least one that takes the opposite stance from what you currently have, and simply consider the argument(s) made. The points you've brought up so far are among the first and simplest you'll see in the literature. You'll come across far more complicated arguments and I think you'll enjoy them if given a fair viewing. I am of course assuming you'd be able to read an entire book on something you probably find offensive.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN, a collection of essays, by Bertrand Russell, written very clearly yet simply.

 

[EmeraldAxe]

i still haven't grasped why atheists don't believe in god..

if it's because we can't directly sense him..then it isn't the first thing we believe in that's beyond our direct senses..

so.. i don't know....:shrug:..i'm lost with trying to understand these guys..they say they stick to logic yet they don't show how logic supports them,,just how logic supposedly contradicts everyone other than them...

so please enlighten me..

So you're coming to this forum to find answers to these questions, which seems fair. But there are groups of people who actually write books on this , people who have spent the necessary time and done the necessary research to answer some of the difficult questions (of which yours is not). If you're sincerely looking for answers in this or any forum, it's at best a nice start and at worst, intellectually lazy.

 

[(Q)]

He also says that most highly educated people like the top scientists and politicians are more likley to be atheists. I'd hate to think what the un-oppressed ones look like. Pol Pot? Kim Jung Il?

We all know you haven't read Dawkins. Your post accurately confirms that.

 

[(Q)]

:bravo:try me try me!

Go right ahead. Feel free to refute Dawkins at your convenience.

 

[S.A.M.]

Plenty of Jews could have been considered well-off in the 1920s/1930s AND oppressed. Oppressed here does not mean incapable to gain wealth necessarily. I believe he was addressing specifically the inability of atheists to hold any sort of office. He contends that trying to be an atheist and run for office is as difficult today in America as it was for a homosexual before the Gay Pride movement. I suppose he's not the first person to bring up this point. I've read accounts of political leaders after they've held office saying they had to emphasize their 'religiousness' during their campaigns in order to obtain office.

You mean they are surprised that the people want representatives who represent them? Gee, how...odd :bugeye:

 

[GAY!]

He also says that most highly educated people like the top scientists and politicians are more likley to be atheists. I'd hate to think what the un-oppressed ones look like. Pol Pot? Kim Jung Il?

Yah cuz religion has totally been guilt free you know the Crusades...The Dark Ages...Iraq War...none of that really means much. ....why don't you argue the argument instead.

 

[(Q)]

I can see how atheist would laugh at such a concept. How they would deride me for believing is something i cannot see, measure, touch, weigh, smell, taste, or hear. I don;t hate them. I pity them. For them there will never be anything more than this world. They have nothing to look forward to, ever.

You're free to wallow in myth and superstition and attempt to rationalize it with your 'holier than thou' attitude of pity, but you're also free to demonstrate that the fantasy world you believe in offers anything different than what the world offers anyone else.

You can't, ever.

 

[(Q)]

....why don't you argue the argument instead.

A newbie. Soon, you will learn why Sam never argues the argument.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yah cuz religion has totally been guilt free you know the Crusades...The Dark Ages...Iraq War...none of that really means much. ....why don't you argue the argument instead.

I already have.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=88540

Or if you don't want to go through that ^^ torture, ask the long suffering atheists here.

 

[(Q)]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=88540

Or if you don't want to go through that ^^ torture, ask the long suffering atheists here.

That would be the torture of trying to explain to Sam that her nonsense is exactly that; nonsense.

 

[EmeraldAxe]

You mean they are surprised that the people want representatives who represent them? Gee, how...odd :bugeye:

Odd indeed.

The Guardian, world fact files:
~16% self-identified atheists or non-religious/agnostic in the US, and at the federal level, 1 congressman atheist.


"Legal and social discrimination against atheists in some places may lead some to deny or conceal their atheism due to fears of persecution. A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota involving a poll of 2,000 households in the United States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities, more so than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other groups. Many of the respondents associated atheism with immorality, including criminal behaviour [sic], extreme materialism, and elitism. However, the same study also reported that, “The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation — with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Southern counterparts.”

^ a b "Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study". UMN News. http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=rel...ewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find. Retrieved on 2006-03-22.

 

[EmeraldAxe]

He also says that most highly educated people like the top scientists and politicians are more likley to be atheists. I'd hate to think what the un-oppressed ones look like. Pol Pot? Kim Jung Il?

Politicians? Either my memory fails me (very possible), he didn't actually say this, or he said it outside God Delusion (which you would need to qualify).

 

[S.A.M.]

It was in one of his interviews:

Dawkins looks forward to the day when the first US politician is honest about being an atheist. "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists," he says. "Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying. And have they got a motive for lying? Of course they've got a motive! Everybody knows that an atheist can't get elected."

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

Of course, he is biased by his assumption that highly intelligent people are 'mostly' athiests. Which if applied retrospectively puts paid to a lot of his theories on the history of 'religious' violence.

Ironically, Dawkins is quite comfortable with the notion that highly intelligent atheists lie to get into office.

 

[(Q)]

Ironically, Dawkins is quite comfortable with the notion that highly intelligent atheists lie to get into office.

Really? Where does he state that? Oh yes, he doesn't. That's just your propaganda agenda peeking out again.

 

[S.A.M.]

Really? Where does he state that? Oh yes, he doesn't. That's just your propaganda agenda peeking out again.

Right here babe, shudh angrezi mein likha hai :

Dawkins looks forward to the day when the first US politician is honest about being an atheist