The Evangelical Atheist

There's a difference between rejecting a positive and rejecting a negative.

Back in my example where you hypothetically believe in the teletubbies, etc. etc. I am evangelizing because I am rejecting teletubbies. That's the "Word," if it pleases you to call it that.

What's the difference?
 
There's a difference between rejecting a positive and rejecting a negative.

Back in my example where you hypothetically believe in the teletubbies, etc. etc. I am evangelizing because I am rejecting teletubbies. That's the "Word," if it pleases you to call it that.

What's the difference?

Well if you write a book saying "Teletubbies Delusion", tell everyone rejecting teletubbies will bring them health wealth and happiness and form a group for all teletubby rejectors you're evangelising.
 
SAM said:
I'm sure you can. When you publish your findings let me know.

Any confirmed instance of a supernatural event would disprove atheism. I don't know why you're being dismissive. For instance, what if the first chapter of genesis were incoded in everyone's DNA? That would disprove atheism.

Can you think of something that would prove God doesn't exist?
 
Last edited:
I'm sure you can. When you publish your findings let me know.

Any confirmed instance of a supernatural event would disprove atheism. I don't know why you're being dismissive. For instance, what if the first chapter of genesis were incoded in everyone's DNA? That would disprove atheism.

Can you think of something that would prove God doesn't exist?

Sure. Eating the blue pill. Or is it the red one?
 
Well if you write a book saying "Teletubbies Delusion", tell everyone rejecting teletubbies will bring them health wealth and happiness and form a group for all teletubby rejectors you're evangelising.

What if I simply say Teletubbies aren't true?
 
Well, okay, I think I got the information that I want out of you.

If you think publicly stating the obvious--that teletubbies aren't real is evangelism, then you're twisting words, abusing English--just as you are when you call atheists evangelists.
 
SAM said:
Well if you write a book saying "Teletubbies Delusion", tell everyone rejecting teletubbies will bring them health wealth and happiness and form a group for all teletubby rejectors you're evangelising.
No you aren't. You have to be for something - promoting a belief system or panacea of some kind. Being against Teletubbies (and who isn't?) doesn't specify what you are for.
 
No you aren't. You have to be for something - promoting a belief system or panacea of some kind. Being against Teletubbies (and who isn't?) doesn't specify what you are for.

I am for a teletubby free world of course. Not wanting something around can be a pretty strong motivation. Just ask the Jews.
 
SAM said:
I am for a teletubby free world of course.
Insufficient clue. There's lots of them - infinite number of quite different kinds of them. Asteroid impact wiping out multicellular life, say. If we can't tell what you are for, you aren't evangelising.
 
So Bells Dawkins is your Priest. Halleluaia. Hitler was not a Christian, everything the Nazi's did points to their viewpoint on natural selection. This is diametrically opposite of Christian beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

:bugeye:

And i can show you absolute proof from papers much more involved than that Wiki link. Go search for yourself and you will see what motivated the Nazi's. And these are not Christian sites either but written by Ph.D's who are subjective and not Evangelical Atheist's. The truth is the truth, and sometimes the truth hurts.

If a Christian follows the teaching of Jesus Christ then Hitler was the anti-Christ.

And where did the Catholic church ever take away Jewish and Muslim children? What a load of bullshit.

Firstly, I would advise you to look up 'positive Christianity' and how it pertains to Hitler and the Nazi movement. It is basic and common knowledge John. I am surprised you do not even know this. Whether it served as a motivating factor or not is really beside the point. The Nazi's used 'positive Christianity' as a form of justification to slaughter millions of people. Hitler was in fact a Christian in that he believed in God and Christ. I would strongly advise you to read up on the subject before trying to argue on a subject of which you appear to know little to nothing about.

Secondly, do some reading on the Inquisition. If you want to be a bit more precise, I would advise you to look up the name 'Edgardo Mortara'.

And you claim that you were once a Christian, weather that is true or not is debatable. So Hitler was once a Christian also. Are you still a Christian just because you once were? You should study and read about the Nazi's, you will be surprised when you find out what the truth is.
I am an atheist John. You know what that is, don't you?

As I said before, I would strongly advise you to actually read up on Hitler and his religious beliefs before you enter any discussion on the matter.
 
Insufficient clue. There's lots of them - infinite number of quite different kinds of them. Asteroid impact wiping out multicellular life, say. If we can't tell what you are for, you aren't evangelising.

all of them size color and shape, can't stand the buggers

I will take your response as an admission of defeat.

Thats because you haven't swallowed the pill. /wags finger.
 
Pretty much the same one that the mass media makes every day since 9/11 with Islamofascism, Islamic terrorism, Muslim terrorists, Mohammed cartoons and films like Wilders and van Goghs. Demonising people is not relegated to the west.

Aren't those all covered by freedom of expression? Besides, its only the secular educated that blow themselves and you won't find most of those in a mosque. In fact, I believe that of the odd 400 suicide bombers, only two have come from a mosque and both from the same one in SE Asia.
Does Indonesia have 'freedom of expression'? Is it freedom of expression to attempt to incite a crowd to go out and cause harm to others or to kill the infidels as a way to be forgiven from sin? Do you think he is preaching to the secular or those who are more radical in their beliefs? While the bombers may have come from more secular homes or upbringing, the fact that they then turned to the more radical aspects of their religion cannot be ignored or denied.

I mean, he does that, I saw his debate with Collins.
And I was saying you should read the actual book so you can see what he says of his scientist friends who are theists.:p

I must have missed it. Did they put it in the last page in fine print? Cos with all the

TALIBAN DESTROYS BUDDHIST SCULPTURES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never saw an equivalent

US DESTROYS BABYLON!!!!!
After that debacle, they are at least trying to educate their ground troops of what they should be protecting and looking out for.Source

Another source.

A priest calling a nonbeliever a nonbeliver is as political as the western media defining only Muslims by their religion.
Do you think his statement was political?

I can assure you, regardless of his religion, any religious figurehead who makes such a statement is not being solely political or trying to send a political message. Such rhetoric is downright dangerous, especially when one considers it was being given at a youth day event.

And sorry about the Australian embassy, I believe there was some land conflict involved, where a country that has taken its entire landmass by occupying and genocide of an aboriginal population was telling another country they dare not occupy another or something like that.
So you think the embassy was bombed because of a land dispute and those who did the bombing, did so in support for the Aboriginals?

That's a new one.

Apparently one can, because it competes with religion and is mutually exclusive according to Dawkins.
Can "one"? Really? As a scientist, do you pray to the 'scientist gods' for a new discovery? Where is this altar?

Science does not compete with religion. If you read the book, you would see exactly what he means.

And there are no atheist parents who do the same?
I am sure there are. Does not make their actions any less abusive. Dawkins actually mentions the fact that children should be free to make their own choices and not forced into believing as their parents want them to believe and doing so with threats and causing fear.

Do you disagree?

I personally think that children should be brought up to have the freedom to believe or not believe and should not be terrorised either way by their family or community.

I like attending public speaking sessions. I think people are more honest when they don't have time to coach their responses in language. You should hear him speak sometime.
And you should read the book to see exactly what he says and where he leans in the "spectrum" of belief. I'll give you a hint, he grades himself as being someone who "cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there" (page 50 to 51 of the book).

You tell me, I'm the one with teh God Delusion, remember?
Come come Sam.

The first country to officially declare itself athiest was the Soviet Union. They killed over 20 million people in an effort to establish their officially atheist society. If this had been done to form a Christian, Muslim or Jewish society, there would be no argument behind the reasoning.

All the rest who followed this manifesto, repeated the same results. China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea.

And for some reason, militant atheists devolve into eugenicists.

Also a pattern in all of the above places.
Why do you think they killed all of those people, Sam? Could it be in their zeal, they viewed organisations such as religious organisations, as well as clubs and Government ministries and departments which were secular, as being a threat to their rule? Those "atheist" tyrants also banned and destroyed many secular and atheist organisations which they viewed as being a threat to their power base.

I believe Hitler was an athiest. If you read his unofficial conversations its pretty clear that he had no love for the church. But he was a master of propaganda and used words that he knew would aid his cause. Just like the Soviet Union, after realising he needed the Christians to fight a losing battle, he made statements supporting Christianity.
So because he had no love for the Church, he was an atheist? He was in fact a theist, in that he believed in God and Christ.

Hitler was against the Church because it failed to support his ideology and he feared the power they had over the populace, so he wanted a religion free society. But he did believe in God and saw his actions as being a part of God's plan for the Jews.

I don't know. As an indoctrinated member of a 5000 year old religious society, I have no comparison. However I see that rape, murder, pedophilia are not immoral in animals.
So as an atheist, are you suggesting I should somehow view "rape, murder, pedophilia" as being acceptable because is occurs in the animal kingdom?

Sheesh! I better go and sharpen my axe and start going on a rampage.. after I rape a few children of course!

Hate the sin and love the sinner? How did that work out for homosexuality?
You tell me Sam. How are homosexuals treated in Iran these days, as one example? Do you think the Christian anti-homosexual protesters at Mathew Shepard's funeral and the trial for his murderers loved Matthew but hated his "sin"?

You still didn't answer the question...:p
 
SAM:

IOW, educated people are more susceptible to extremism in religion? I see.

You said as much yourself. Review your material on the educational background of suicide bombers.

Religion takes many forms. Tribal religion is religion nonetheless. Religion can be animistic. Tribal peoples often believe in spirits who live around them. They do certain things to appease the spirits, or at least not to anger them. This is religion as much as Islam is religion.

Did these tribals do that? Or are we generalising what we believe again?

Not sure what you're getting at, again. I haven't said anything that is incorrect, have I?

According to Dawkins, yes. And look where you are now - convinced that Islam is the One True Religion, and unwilling to consider seriously why you dismiss all other faiths as nonsense. Your indoctrination worked well.

Like you've decided all of it is nonsense, you mean?

You haven't asked me what I think or believe. We're discussing Dawkins.

Oh wait the atheists position is the more intelligent one, so of course, one is not allowed to have an opinion on their beliefs.

This is a straw man.

Because organised religion is very distinct from theism.

I'll ask again: why is the difference important to you?

I see no reason to wade through 400 pages of the rhetoric that he continually makes in his articles and lectures.

So, you're content to spend pages and pages posting here on something you have no direct knowledge about.

Do yourself a favour and actually read Dawkins' book from cover to cover. Then, you may have some credibility when you criticise it. It's not a difficult read. It won't take long.

Or are you afraid that it might challenge your firmly-held beliefs? Are you worried that your faith won't be able to stand up to Dawkins' flimsy arguments?

From what I have heard him say, although he kindly sets aside Einsteins metaphorical God, ascribing metaphorical explanations for all that Einstein and the like ever said about God (its ALL in the interpretation), he seems to believe that he has the right to decide what religious scholars have debated for thousands of years and make judgments of all people on the basis of his opinion of what people should think.

Do you think his assessment of Einstein's religious views is incorrect? Do you think Einstein was actually a closet follower of a mainstream religion, or believed in the big man in the sky? Do you think the distinction Dawkins makes is unsustainable? Or what?

I know that you most likely can't answer these questions, since you haven't read the book, but I just thought I'd put them out there.

I don't think anybody has ever set out with the explicit aim to create an atheist utopia. The same cannot be said for religious utopias. There are hundreds of religious cults, but not one atheist cult, as far as I know.

Perhaps you would care to look up Stalins Five Step plan for Atheism or ask any Chinese person what declaring themself as religious entails in their country.

Your response is a non sequitur.

I hear he does not consider it necessary to study the religions he rants against.

He explicitly addresses this point in the book you have not read.

Clearly, calling people stupid and delusional because their beliefs are unlike yours, given that neither is falsifiable is a new form of tolerance.

Straw man. Dawkins hasn't called anybody stupid.

Would there have been destruction and massacres without the communist leaders being atheists? Who knows? You can't easily disentangle one part of an ideology from the rest. What is clear, however, is that communist oppression has never been carried out solely in the name of atheism. The same cannot be said for religious pogroms.

Because of course, all religious pogroms have NOTHING to do with power equations or conflict for land or resources.

Ok. So we're even on this. You drop the silly argument that atheism naturally leads to mass murder, and I'll drop the silly argument that theism naturally leads to mass murder.

Deal?

I think in India we have managed to get more mileage out of communist theory than the Soviets. The lack of a 5 step program to wipe out God perhaps.

You'll need to support that hypothesis with evidence. Got any?

All socities today. Regardless of differences in outlook and random acts of unkindness, most societies today are comprised of compassionate people looking out for each other.

You need to establish that this is an effect of theism. Can you?

So, you'll agree that atheism is not immoral, per se. Right? There's no particular lack of morality attached to atheism.

Its what I have been saying all along. Atheism is amoral.

Then we are agreed. Atheism is amoral, not immoral. Right?

I did not imply they were brain surgeons, merely the connection between religion and scientific curiosity.

Religion, on the whole, stifles scientific curiosity rather than encouraging it. Questioning is usually a bad thing in religion. It is almost always discouraged.

(Q) can speak for himself. I don't know whether he would call himself a secular humanist or not. If he does, then he is one example who supports my point that you can be both atheist and a secular humanist.

Or call yourself that. Anyone can.

You seem to have drifted off on a tangent again.

Will you now retract your silly claim that an atheist cannot be a secular humanist? Yes or no? Or will you simply pretend you didn't make that claim, and ignore this?

Because of the disconnect between words and actions maybe. "I am a secular humanist" means nothing to me when its accompanied by " you're a delusional liar for having beliefs that differ from mine"

You appear to be confusing secular humanism and atheism. As I have already carefully explained to you, secular humanism is a moral philosophy. Atheism is a position concerning belief in supernatural deities. One can be an atheist without being a secular humanist. Also, one can be a secular humanist and call somebody a delusional liar.
 
James:

I think I've reached the extent of debate based on Dawkins arguments from speeches etc. I can see I need to read the book to marshall further arguments. So I'll concede that I need more information and get back on this.
 
Back
Top