Why are geeks often atheists?

Not according to Philip Jenkins' The Next Christendom (Oxford University Press 2002), and Lamin Sanneh's Who's Religion is Christianity? (Eerdmans, 2003).

And who the fuck are they compared to ME???
 
And discriminate against them. I'm sure you're familiar with Watsons views on the Black.
Watson's views are at least based in empiricism. He made an empirical claim, and his correctness or incorrectness can be demonstrated.

You certainly can't say the same for someone who claims that Jesus spoke to them in a dream.

I wonder how many athiests (with the HiQ) hold similar views.
Watson speaks for all atheists now? When did that happen?
 
Watson's views are at least based in empiricism. He made an empirical claim, and his correctness or incorrectness can be demonstrated.

You certainly can't say the same for someone who claims that Jesus spoke to them in a dream.


Watson speaks for all atheists now? When did that happen?

Add H.G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, William Keith Kellogg, Margaret Sanger, Alexander Graham Bell, Charles B. Davenport, Harry H. Laughlin, Henry H. Goddard , Madison Grant, Paul Popenoe...

Has there ever been a prominent atheist who was not in favor of eugenics?
 
Here I will try the impossible and educate SAM:

You make 2 logical fallacies:

1. You automatically assume that eugenics is BAD. It might be or it might not. It is question of belief systems, morals etc. The point is that there is no objective standpoint on it.

2. You atomatically assume that just because a few prominent atheists was for it, all or most atheists feel the same. We just don't know...

Using an analogy I could say: Aren't stampcollectors for killing deer? I know a few stampcollectors and they are all hunters....

(I will spell out the analogy: Killing deer per se is not good or bad. And we don't know all the stampcollectors' view on the issue.)
 
Here I will try the impossible and educate SAM:

You make 2 logical fallacies:

1. You automatically assume that eugenics is BAD. It might be or it might not. It is question of belief systems, morals etc. The point is that there is no objective standpoint on it.

2. You atomatically assume that just because a few prominent atheists was for it, all or most atheists feel the same. We just don't know...

Hmm methinks thou protesth too muth. ;)
 
Me thinks you like most theists don't recognize a logical fallacy even if it bites you in the ass....
 
Me thinks you like most theists don't recognize a logical fallacy even if it bites you in the ass....

Don't worry, its just an observation based on the nature of ethnic cleansing promoted by prominent and well educated (and seemingly rational) atheists.

No doubt we can look forward to having our assumptions vindicated or refuted.

Everything after all, begins with an observation. :)
 
Don't worry, its just an observation based on the nature of ethnic cleansing promoted by prominent and well educated (and seemingly rational) atheists.

You're referring to people like Dawkins supporting Eugenics? Even if he does, I somehow doubt he supports it to the point of ethnic cleansing >_<
 
A guy who writes a polemic against the religious, ignores political and social context and thinks religious people are dumb?

Hmm sure. What do you think is his opinion of religious people in science?
 
Add H.G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, William Keith Kellogg, Margaret Sanger, Alexander Graham Bell, Charles B. Davenport, Harry H. Laughlin, Henry H. Goddard , Madison Grant, Paul Popenoe...

Has there ever been a prominent atheist who was not in favor of eugenics?
:rolleyes:

Hang on, let me list all of the Kings and Popes during the crusades and ask if there's ever been a Christian who wasn't in favor of holy war.

What a moronic fucking question.
 
I do not think Eugenics = Ethnic cleansing - I interpret it more like " using science to having healthier progenity" and if any theist has ever had a sonography or ultrasound when they are expecting a baby then they have utilized the tool for practicing Eugenics..does that mean they are Ethnic Cleansers. Somehow the logic is lost to me. I feel there is a truth in geeks being atheist - nothing wrong with it except we are profiling them right now :) . If you analyze the atheist community you will realize that most atheist are progressive people who like to read and are not waiting for some miracle or invisible hand of God to work...and by definition geeks also like to keep in touch with information whether thru technology or other wise ..so I agree if you hit a stone in group of geeks it is highly likely to hit an atheist.
 
:rolleyes:

Hang on, let me list all of the Kings and Popes during the crusades and ask if there's ever been a Christian who wasn't in favor of holy war.

What a moronic fucking question.

There are plenty of Christians who have been against holy war.:)
 
There are plenty of Christians who have been against holy war.:)
...and there are plenty of atheists who don't favor eugenics.

I don't know that any of the people you listed do favor it, or are even atheists for that matter.
 
No. Unless you're adopting the colloquial definition of "religion" that includes fishing and rock music, religion must have a supernatural component, and in its strictest definition it has to specifically postulate supernatural forces that can change the course of our lives capriciously, especially supernatural creatures that can change it to suit their own purposes. To gainsay the existence and control of the supernatural is irreligious, or in its more militant form antireligious. It is most emphatically not religious.

In any case, atheism does not even satisfy your own definition, since it is not a system of ultimate values. Lacking the imposed values of religions, every atheist has to find his own. Our range of choices parallels that of the religionists in breadth if not in proportion, from the occasional genocidal Stalin or Caliph Omar, to the average peaceful hard-working citizen, to the occasional selfless Mother Theresa or war resistor.Gosh, I've been hanging out with atheists for my entire life and I've never met a eugenecist. Life sure must be different in India, but I guess we already knew that.

The only eugenecists I've heard of lately are the light-skinned Asian Muslims who raped the dark-skinned women in Darfur in order to "lighten up" their bloodlines.

I posted the following in another thread, and I thought it was relevant here too.

Religion is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing. For example, some think that the material world is all there is, that we are here by accident and when we die we just rot, and therefore the important thing is to choose to do what makes you happy and not let others impose their beliefs on you. Notice that though this is not an explicit, "organized" religion, it contains a master narrative, an account about the meaning of life along with a recommendation for how to live based on that account of things.

Some call this a "worldview" while others call it a "narrative identity". In either case it is a set of faith assumptions about the nature of things. It is an implicit religion.
 
Like? Could you name a few prominent atheists who oppose eugenics?
I don't know that any of the people you listed do, but sure: Shermer, Randi, Gillette, Dennet, Ramachandran, Hitchens, Harris...

More to the point. For the ones that may have mentioned eugenics, it's quite unlikely that they're referencing eugenics as most people are familiar with it.
 
I am willing to debate eugenics with anyone in a different thread. It is offtopic here...
 
They know there is no "God"... just "God Lite", "God 1.1" and the all-new "God 2.0" with enhanced deity-populace interface.
lisp.jpg
 
Back
Top