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

[S.A.M.]

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:

Did he say "my religion"?

 

[(Q)]

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.

Go back to sleep.

 

[GeoffP]

Ahem.

Geoff reiterate previous question: why ok to prosetlyize for religion, but not against?

 

[S.A.M.]

Ahem.

Geoff reiterate previous question: why ok to prosetlyize for religion, but not against?

Cause you cannot defend a negative.

 

[GeoffP]

Cause you cannot defend a negative.

You can't disprove a theory? That's a negative.

News to me.

 

[S.A.M.]

You can't disprove a theory? That's a negative.

News to me.

Is that what I said? Try again. Or explain falsifiability of belief.

 

[GeoffP]

Is that what I said? Try again.

That's exactly it. From "Blind Watchmaker" on upwards, evolutionary theory has demonstrated no need for the assumption of any deity in the formation of the world or the living beings in it. There is no evidence for any god in the very construction of that element of reality in which his existence is taken to be paramount: creation.

I appreciate this is a topic very near to your heart, but there isn't any rational or moral difference between advocating theism or atheism.

 

[S.A.M.]

That's exactly it. From "Blind Watchmaker" on upwards, evolutionary theory has demonstrated no need for the assumption of any deity in the formation of the world or the living beings in it. There is no evidence for any god in the very construction of that element of reality in which his existence is taken to be paramount: creation.

I appreciate this is a topic very near to your heart, but there isn't any rational or moral difference between advocating theism or atheism.

Except faith.:shrug:

 

[GeoffP]

Is that what I said? Try again. Or explain falsifiability of belief.

Yes: belief is not falsifiable. Neither is disbelief. Ergo, they are logically and morally parallel. And, thereby, there's nothing worse about prosetylizing atheism than theism.

 

[GeoffP]

Except faith.:shrug:

And disbelief.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes: belief is not falsifiable. Neither is disbelief. Ergo, they are logically and morally parallel. And, thereby, there's nothing worse about prosetylizing atheism than theism.

As long as the atheists recognise that, I agree.

Do they?

 

[S.A.M.]

And disbelief.

Disbelief without evidence is also faith.

 

[GeoffP]

As long as the atheists recognise that, I agree.

Do they?

Do theists recognize that there's nothing worse about prosetylizing atheism than theism? Jerry Falwell? The Ayatollah? The President of al-Ahzar?

Disbelief without evidence is also faith.

Ah - so it's not any more wrongful to prosetylize atheism than theism, then. Is your objection more that Dawkins et al are strident about their atheism? What then should we say about the preaching classes of theism? I think your objection is more the insult to your character and beliefs than any imagined unfairness of aggressive atheism.

 

[S.A.M.]

Do theists recognize that there's nothing worse about prosetylizing atheism than theism? Jerry Falwell? The Ayatollah? The President of al-Ahzar?

There's not much difference between fundies on any side; at least the theists are honest about their faith.

Ah - so it's not any more wrongful to prosetylize atheism than theism, then. Is your objection more that Dawkins et al are strident about their atheism? What then should we say about the preaching classes of theism? I think your objection is more the insult to your character and beliefs than any imagined unfairness of aggressive atheism.

Why would I care?

My problem is when they misrepresent themselves. The ones who are honest about it, I have no problems with.

 

[GeoffP]

There's not much difference between fundies on any side; at least the theists are honest about their faith.

And honest about their inherent bias?

Why would I care?

My problem is when they misrepresent themselves. The ones who are honest about it, I have no problems with.

Well, the atheists have reasonability and investigation on their side. I think they're entitled to their opinions.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, the atheists have reasonability and investigation on their side. I think they're entitled to their opinions.

Confusing atheism with rationality is what made the Stalinists so dangerous.

 

[mountainhare]

S.A.M:

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

What the hell are you babbling about?

This is the comment of yours that I was responding to:

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.

Your comment makes no sense. It's clear that anti-theists are opposed to a belief in God, not God per se. Beliefs are far from being imaginary.

 

[GeoffP]

Confusing atheism with rationality is what made the Stalinists so dangerous.

Atheism has a rational basis, grounded in evolution and cosmology. Theism does not. You would have them deny objective truth because it offends?

 

[Atom]

His latest programme is a must see simply for the way Dawkins manages to get himself all hot and bothered about a few old women at Ye Mystic Fayre.

Oh what bravery to tackle these eccentric old women?

One sits back in amazement at the sheer courage of the man.


Er..Dickie Old Boy...have you ever considered a small fact. There are far worse things that happen in the World than the traditional entertainment one gets from visiting Gypsy Petulengro at the seaside.

Its as traditional as the Punch and Judy Man..but Dawkins is nothing if not a nannying interferer.

He should join the Labour Party..he'd fit in well...ban smoking (in open air!)..hey why not ban EVERYTHING you don't happen to agree with.

I feel sorry for the poor chap...is there NOTHING that this man cannot get angry about..now stop frothing at the mouth and worry about something worthwhile..what about the way we are scammed by the Drug Industry, Dickie?

What about all those Nuclear Weapons being built around the Globe, Dickie?

Are we supposed to thank the scientists for bringing these new wonders into existence.

Are we supposed to thank you for allowing OAPS to get IVF treatment?

In short..get a life!

 

[Atom]

Confusing atheism with rationality is what made the Stalinists so dangerous.

There speaks an oasis of rationality entwined with wisdom...in a desert full of scientific fundamentalism.

Always on any forum I can spot the talent..a kind of mystic Simon Cowell..SAM is a true Star..head and shoulders above the rest.