Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?

[GeoffP]

Avoidance strategy

Not a-voi-dance, but legitmate question. Got evidence of God? Why can't say "no God", when guy with orange tan and even less evidence got big TV show where talks to God alla time?

Why wait for crap? Rubbish in, rubbish out.

Amazing! That what Dawkins say about God! Why a-nal-o-gy good here, no good there?

I represent the plaintiff, who does not believe that the defendant exists?

Hmm, thats a new one.

I represent defendant, who not show up to trial? What kinda trial that?

 

[S.A.M.]

Not a-voi-dance, but legitmate question. Got evidence of God? Why can't say "no God", when guy with orange tan and even less evidence got big TV show where talks to God alla time?

Das why is called faith, dummy

Amazing! That what Dawkins say about God! Why a-nal-o-gy good here, no good there?

See, jes like da fundies. Too much fisting with head wrist.

I represent defendant, who not show up to trial? What kinda trial that?

is call trial in absentia in fancy lawyers lingo, you nevva heard dat?

Though I hear that trial in absentia not acceptable, as dem being der civil rites of the defendant and creddy-bility of courts

 

[(Q)]

Hmm so basically you are directly opposed to something you don't think exists.

Very rational.

Are you saying religion doesn't exist? Hilarious! :roflmao:

Exactly. As I remember, there were similar sentiments about the genetically inferior, the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals not so long ago. And everyone shook their heads sagely in a certain part of the world and proceeded to do something about it; in other places, they just made laws for forced sterilisation.

So, your finely tuned brain, working at maximum output, has led you to compare a book review against the vacuous claims of theists with that of Nazi genocide?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :bravo:

 

[S.A.M.]

Are you saying religion doesn't exist? Hilarious! :roflmao:



So, your finely tuned brain, working at maximum output, has led you to compare a book review against the vacuous claims of theists with that of Nazi genocide?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :bravo:

book review? I'm talking about RD's polemic. Why do we always need a genocide to understand where discrimination leads?

 

[(Q)]

Why do we always need a genocide to understand where discrimination leads?

What does genocide have to do with anything? Sam, your imagination knows no limits.

 

[S.A.M.]

What does genocide have to do with anything? Sam, your imagination knows no limits.

Can you tell me any instance of organised discrimination in history that did not lead to genocide?

 

[(Q)]

Can you tell me any instance of organised discrimination in history that did not lead to genocide?

This is just getting too silly.

Leaping from genocide to discrimination in one bound of delusion.

What? Cannibalism next, Sam?

Too funny.

 

[S.A.M.]

This is just getting too silly.

Leaping from genocide to discrimination in one bound of delusion.

What? Cannibalism next, Sam?

Too funny.

Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

Personally, I have no intention of promoting anything of the kind.

Everything looks incredible until it happens, after which it looks merely inevitable.

 

[(Q)]

Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

Personally, I have no intention of promoting anything of the kind.

Everything looks incredible until it happens, after which it looks merely inevitable.

Your biased, hypocritical opinions have been noted.

They are relatively meaningless to the discussion and don't help your position in any way.

Nonetheless, they have been noted.

Don't worry sam, someday, just someday, you may indeed form an argument.

It wasn't today, though.

 

[S.A.M.]

Thanks. I hope you do consider them.

I've said all I wanted to, on this topic, so I'll merely add this:

Just because some of us can read and write and do a little math, that doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the Universe.
Kurt Vonnegut, 'Hocus Pocus'

 

[(Q)]

Thanks. I hope you do consider them.

No one can take those opinions seriously, sam. They are well beyond the scope of reality. Complete nonsensical drivel.

The REAL issue you have is that YOU are the epitome of that review, and you know it. That's why you're tongue-tied now and have got your panties in a knot.

 

[Atom]

This is just getting too silly.

Leaping from genocide to discrimination in one bound of delusion.

What? Cannibalism next, Sam?

Too funny.

I think you need to grow up, Q.

You're getting very tiresome with your 'can you prove God, this, that and so on'. You don't seem to be able to understand that one belief system is merely substituted by another - usually inferior one. Dependence on rationality and scientism has led us nowhere. In fact it has resulted in more deaths than all religions put together.

Odd theories like Eugenics may excite racist oddballs like HG Wells and Mengele but have no place in a truly spiritual society.

 

[S.A.M.]

No one can take those opinions seriously, sam. They are well beyond the scope of reality. Complete nonsensical drivel.

The REAL issue you have is that YOU are the epitome of that review, and you know it. That's why you're tongue-tied now and have got your panties in a knot.

Tongue tied? :shrug:

 

[mountainhare]

S.A.M:

Originally Posted by (Q)
To be anti-theistic means to be in direct opposition to a belief in a deity. ”

Hmm so basically you are directly opposed to something you don't think exists.

Very rational.

Holy shit! Do you make an effort to feign obtuseness?

[size=] "To be anti-theistic means to be in direct opposition to a belief in a deity." [/size]

Are you saying that beliefs in deities don't exist, SAM?

 

[S.A.M.]

S.A.M:


Holy shit! Do you make an effort to feign obtuseness?

[size= "To be anti-theistic means to be in direct opposition to a belief in a deity." [/size]

Are you saying that beliefs in deities don't exist, SAM?

Read the definition properly. Both are beliefs. Actively opposing a belief with a belief is, uh, what?

 

[Enmos]

I think you need to grow up, Q.

You're getting very tiresome with your 'can you prove God, this, that and so on'. You don't seem to be able to understand that one belief system is merely substituted by another - usually inferior one. Dependence on rationality and scientism has led us nowhere. In fact it has resulted in more deaths than all religions put together.

Odd theories like Eugenics may excite racist oddballs like HG Wells and Mengele but have no place in a truly spiritual society.

Please say you were kidding... !
:roflmao:

 

[S.A.M.]

Please say you were kidding... !
:roflmao:

Einstein makes the most sence here

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

 

[francois]

Einstein makes the most sence here

You've read the God Delusion, haven't you? Most of the time when he used the word religion, he didn't mean it as talking about Christianity or Islam. He was expressing his deep sense of wonder and appreciation for how elegant and beautiful the universe is. Einstein was likely an atheist, agnostic, or daoist--in any case, the one thing he was not was religious. He wasn't very clear with his words.

Here is a direct quote from him:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

 

[mouse]

Why is it that some feel compelled to align atheism with inhumane regimes and ideologies?

Atheism is the absence of a belief in a deity. That's it. End of story. It doesn't make me hate the Jews nor does it make me want to euthanize those less fortunate. It simply has no bearing on those things.

That's why atheists can even approach religion itself differently. Some of the them may actual favour religion if it would support their own personal agenda. For example, I doubt that all of those rather well-to-do T.V. evangelist are deeply regilious. Some of them may be atheists out to earn a quick buck by fooling about others.

Other atheists, like Dawkins I suppose, may find that the increased influence of religion in the political arena could threaten a few ethical values some of them hold dear.

So you see, it's all rather slipperly. Aside from their shared disbelief, you can't generalize atheists.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why is it that some feel compelled to align atheism with inhumane regimes and ideologies?

Atheism is the absence of a belief in a deity. That's it. End of story. It doesn't make me hate the Jews nor does it make me want to euthanize those less fortunate. It simply has no bearing on those things.

That's why atheists can even approach religion itself differently. Some of the them may actual favour religion if it would support their own personal agenda. For example, I doubt that all of those rather well-to-do T.V. evangelist are deeply regilious. Some of them may be atheists out to earn a quick buck by fooling about others.

Other atheists, like Dawkins I suppose, may find that the increased influence of religion in the political arena could threaten a few ethical values some of them hold dear.

So you see, it's all rather slipperly. Aside from their shared disbelief, you can't generalize atheists.

Can you apply the same logic to theists? Are they all the same? Should one generalise against theists?