Enmos
Valued Senior Member
All of them, of course
:bugeye:
Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?
- Thread starter francois
- Start date
:bugeye:
All of them, of course
Ah, so you also have little or no understanding of that particular subject matter?
I'm shocked!
"Atheists are arrogant because they're so sure they're right.
Listen to any atheist expound; he is characterised by his views on the superiority of atheistic rationality (also a propensity to piss people off, but I sort of take over there)
Evolutionary biology, and therefore atheism, is responsible for eugenics.
Eugenics was first proposed by Galton, a nephew of Darwin.
Some enlightening thoughts he had included:
This illustrious work was further expanded upon by Darwin's son, Leonard.
Very impressive rational thinking there.
Not to miss out on one of their closest fans:
And the maestro himself
Atheism lacks morality.
Morality or the sense of good and bad, right and wrong, virtue and sin, is by definition a theistic construct. Atheism, does not by definition, have a creed.
Atheism is as guilty of massacres as any religion.
Just add up all the above and you can tell that compassion and empathy are not compatible with an atheistic credo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZDCwp_MxE
Maybe it only appears that way because they're the most loud about dictating morals. I think morals actually come out of plain normal logic. Of course, there is a good Darwinian explanation for morality, which I'm sure you know something about if you've read a few of Dawkins's books.
Do we need religion to tell us that the Golden Rule just plain makes sense?
The golden rule seems as obvious an invention as the line (wait your turn).
Perhaps, but how well does that correlate with "survival of the fittest"?
After all, a "line" indicates that:
1. there will be enough for everyone to get his turn
2. If not, the others will be willing to share.
3. Everyone will take just enough for himself, keeping in mind that others have turns.
In truth (or reality) how does it work?
Although most people don't see it that way, religious ideology is an attempt to override biological instincts and cooperate for the common good.
Last edited:
Atheism is a lack of belief in the claims of theists. Atheists are NOT wrong to have a lack of belief in the claims of theists considering theists cannot demonstrate their claims, by any means other than blind faith. Appeal to Emotion.
One down.
No argument in favor for the claim that atheism is responsible for eugenics has been presented. Red Herring.
Two down.
Once again, atheism is a lack of belief in the claims of theists, hence the concept cannot encompass morality. It is not moral or immoral to have a lack of belief. Appeal to Belief. Strawman.
Three down.
Atheism is as guilty of massacres as any religion.
Just add up all the above and you can tell that compassion and empathy are not compatible with an atheistic credo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZDCwp_MxE
No argument presented whatsoever demonstrating that atheism is as guilty of massacres as any religion. Compostion.
Four down.
That's your best shot? :spank:
See, they are even unwilling to accept their faults. All these are a direct consequence of atheism but yet, atheists refuse to accept it.
Sam, did you look at that poster?
"Ad paid for by Christians against FSM"
:bravo:
By definition !?You are taking leave of reality, there. You can define a hummingbird as a pig, but it won't stay in your pen.SAM said:
The very people you list as atheistic evildoers - Stalin, Mao, etc - had creeds, and quite rigid senses of right and wrong, good and bad - even sin, if you pay attention to the Marxist sense of "history" (which IMHO calls the "atheism" of Marxists into question, but hey - - ).
A billion atheistic, sin-ignorant Chinese children play, share, argue over what's "fair", and grow up as decent human beings with firm - often very constraining - morals. A hundred million reds in North America likewise.This has been true for thousands of years. And you claim it does not happen, "by definition" ?
Human beings teach - raise, nurture, bring up in wisdom - by telling stories. The stories don't have to be about gods - although gods have proven handy, in the doing.
Almost every religious person (the vast majority of people in our culture) sees it that way - including the atheistic religious persons. So do most non-religiou people. It's the common, standard way of seeing it. Even most critics of religion see it that way. What are you talking about?SAM said:
Nothing in there but criticism of particular Christianity - some of it in the name of the Godhead ! - and an interesting note of the similarities between Marxism and Christianity. Hardly anti-religious. Theistic sectarians complaining about the evils of each other's beliefs and getting into bloody fights is hardly news.SAM said:
Last edited:
All these are a direct consequence of atheism but yet, atheists refuse to accept it.
You make a false conclusion based on fallacy from another group of false conclusions, also based on fallacies.
Congratulations! :worship:
SAM:
Cute comic, but you didn't answer the question of how athiesm somehow is responsible for the rise and excesses of both communism and capitalism. Especially considering that modern capitalism begins in the (strongly religious) 17th century Netherlands, and modern communism owes a lot to Christian monastic ideals and the writings of Saint Thomas More, your argument that athiesm is responsible for both is.....well it's amusing.
Your main argument against athiesm as a concept seems to be that its adherents are arrogant - beyond the obvious logical flaws of the ad hominem, you're being quite the hypocrite. Several people have pointed out possible flaws in your reasoning, and you reply with flip remarks and jokes. Are you too good to evaluate their arguments? Isn't that arrogant?
Please don't take that as an insult, I hate it when this type of debate goes down that toilet.
Cute comic, but you didn't answer the question of how athiesm somehow is responsible for the rise and excesses of both communism and capitalism. Especially considering that modern capitalism begins in the (strongly religious) 17th century Netherlands, and modern communism owes a lot to Christian monastic ideals and the writings of Saint Thomas More, your argument that athiesm is responsible for both is.....well it's amusing.
Your main argument against athiesm as a concept seems to be that its adherents are arrogant - beyond the obvious logical flaws of the ad hominem, you're being quite the hypocrite. Several people have pointed out possible flaws in your reasoning, and you reply with flip remarks and jokes. Are you too good to evaluate their arguments? Isn't that arrogant?
Please don't take that as an insult, I hate it when this type of debate goes down that toilet.
also worthy of comment:
That's just screwed up. But it amused me when, ten minutes later, fark.com linked to this:
http://www.christianfaithandreason.com/metcalf.html
Highlights:
hey call for a secular America that mimics the "least religious societies on earth," such as Norway, Denmark, Belgium and most Western Europe, believing that the "end of religion" is an achievable goal. Yet, Western Europe has undergone an unprecedented decline in population that threatens its very existence. Conversely, the Middle East and Africa saw the greatest population growth during the 1990s, in nations that are predominantly Islamic. Osama Bin Laden was one of 53 children and has sired at least 27 of his own, due to Islam's "progressive" view of polygamy.
Breed! Breed! Breed or the dirty Muslims will get you!
Notwithstanding, he has a point about population decline - but the idea of eugenics, of using reproduction as a means of warfare is at least as old as the rape of the Sabine women and I daresay, Richard Dawkins was not around to give those Romans dirty ideas.
The alternative to evolutionary theory is to discard scientific fact because you and Godwin don't like where some people might take it. Man the frack up.
That's just screwed up. But it amused me when, ten minutes later, fark.com linked to this:
http://www.christianfaithandreason.com/metcalf.html
Highlights:
hey call for a secular America that mimics the "least religious societies on earth," such as Norway, Denmark, Belgium and most Western Europe, believing that the "end of religion" is an achievable goal. Yet, Western Europe has undergone an unprecedented decline in population that threatens its very existence. Conversely, the Middle East and Africa saw the greatest population growth during the 1990s, in nations that are predominantly Islamic. Osama Bin Laden was one of 53 children and has sired at least 27 of his own, due to Islam's "progressive" view of polygamy.
Breed! Breed! Breed or the dirty Muslims will get you!
Notwithstanding, he has a point about population decline - but the idea of eugenics, of using reproduction as a means of warfare is at least as old as the rape of the Sabine women and I daresay, Richard Dawkins was not around to give those Romans dirty ideas.
The alternative to evolutionary theory is to discard scientific fact because you and Godwin don't like where some people might take it. Man the frack up.
I go by their anti-religious attitude and the fact that they destroyed several churches. And their sense of right and wrong was based on reason remember? Eliminate the weak and those who "bring down" society.
Eugeneics had strong supporters in prominent people like Alexander Bell and G B Shaw. It was the reason for the human experimentation of the Nazis.
And a lot of atheists are brought up in religious households, does that make them less atheistic?
The reds were atheist? The Chinese are atheist? That will be news to them. Last I heard they were both religious. The Chinese of course suffered under an oppressive anti-religious system, but that does not make them atheists.
Very nice, but fantasies are not the realm of the atheists; they are rationalists remember? The FSM? The IPU? .
They do? You mean all the theists are trying to deliberately override their biological instincts?
I think you'll find there was plenty of anti-religionism.
And yeah, fanatics all look the same, even the ones, that are a-theistic.
And that goes for the cognitive dissonance as well.
You're right, evolution (and hence evolutionary biology) is the field of theists. It is the theists who in their irrationality have done lots of studies on the genetics of people. Darwin was a theist. His ideas revolutionized religion; if he was an atheist, he would have said nice things about people instead of wanting to weed out the sick and disadvantaged. Its obviously the irrationality of theists that resulted on the crackdown on religion under the communists. They were using negative psychology to make people more religious.
After all you are an atheist, so I must be wrong. :bawl:
In my opinion, atheism is a cult without a creed, so its proponents inevitably grab hold of an alternate ideology (living in faith being the default state of people), unfortunately, those ideologies tend to look to replace God in the community and hence end up becoming systems of power and oppression (since religion is not something that people will give up easily); hence the way I see it, all systems that stem from atheism are based on ridicule and suppression of the religious majority, which happens to be the one thing all atheists have in common (ie anti-theism); its interesting to see, for example, on this site, how the arrival of one "nutter"(devout theist), will bring all the atheists together in a group to "examine" their faith. This is something that Dawkins and Co indulge in on a larger scale (under the presumption that no theists would ever examine their faith, being brainless dodos until brought to enlightenment by the rationalists); it is arrogance to presume that, don't you think?
:crazy: