Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[asaratis]

Adam Lee - Atheist - Very dishonest in his approach and a hack. I personally doubt he is an atheist. Doesn't actually criticize Dawkins arguments, just calls him sexist.

Michael Ruse - Atheist - Criticizes Dawkins approach and style in his arguments.

Justin Michael - Atheist - but doesn't criticize Dawkin's position or work, just feels he is arrogant with a vitriolic attitude.

Anthony Flew - Deist

Alister McGrath - Angilcan

None of these criticisms are about Dawkins postion. Many atheists criticized Christopher Hitchens because of his position on the Iraq war but they were not critical of his atheist position. Sam Harris had many critics on his Israel stance by atheists, but not his atheist position. Atheist will not always agree with what another atheist is saying but you will be hard pressed to find criticism of their arguments and stance on atheism by atheists. Michael Ruse is the only one I feel that did this but he was really nitpicking and says Dawkins is being simplistic about his arguments.

Changing midstream are you?

"I was trying to find these atheists who were criticizing Dawkins..."

I gave you some and you dismiss them summarily. What a dunce you are. A sheep of the Chief Dunce, Dawkins!
..and, BTW Flew was a fine Atheist for most of his 87 year life.

You, like your idol, suffer from delusions of adequacy. Dream on, sucker!

..keep on kissing your Pope's ass!

Are any of them criticizing his work or his stance on Atheism? As for Anthony Flew he became a deist in 2004. In fact he wrote a book called "There Is A God: How the world's most Notorious Atheist changed his Mind" in 2007. His criticism of Dawkins is from 2010.

What difference do the dates make? The older the wiser, I think!

Anthony Flew also wrote a review of Dawkins' book.

Apparently, you didn't read the review. Read what the master said about the leader of the band.

Antony Flew Reviews Dawkins 8217 8220 The God Delusion 8221 Uncommon Descent

The argument was presented in evidence that Dawkins is the shallow, pseudo-intellectual twit that I claimed him to be....not some Grand Dragon of the All Knowing Atheist Movement. He is a mediocre mind at best....as is the Court Jester, Bill Maher. People that quote either one of them with any sort of pride are good candidates for the Jerry Springer Show.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well I've seen a million post from people like Hollie trying to explain to you the things they say in that video so I thought rather than hearing a little bit about why you are wrong and then you reply with some bullshit and then we explain another reason and another reason and so on as to all the reasons why you are wrong, and you keep coming back with more and more bullshit. So I thought a nice well done 10 minute video on why you are wrong might help. We're certainly getting no where. So listen to it and it'll explain in great detail why you are wrong.

The only thing Hollie does is accuse me of being a YEC and a fundie. if your video is on the same level as that you are even dumber than I thought.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually your website was a Catholic website.

I love it when idiots say stupid things.

FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.

Dawkins Debunked

Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?

 

[Flopper]

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe.

 

[asaratis]

At least I'm open minded about it and I don't believe in it 100% like for example you guys believe that whore Mary was a virgin when she got knocked up.

There you go telling me what I believe again.

By the way, just so you know how stupid it is for you to insist that only someone who has sexual intercourse in order to get pregnant, I present to you the evidence that you are wrong.

It’s possible for you to get pregnant without having sexual intercourse (penetration) if, for example:

• sperm get into your vagina – for example, if you or your partner have semen or pre-ejaculate on your fingers and touch your vagina
• your partner ejaculates near your vagina
• your partner’s erect penis comes into contact with your body near your vagina

Can I get pregnant if I have sex without penetration - Health questions - NHS Choices

Pregnancy can happen when sperm (from cum or pre-cum) gets in the vagina or on the vulva. This usually happens when two people have vaginal (penis-in-vagina) sex.

If sperm comes in contact with the vagina or vulva during body rubbing/dry humping without clothes, there’s a small chance of pregnancy (even if you don't actually have his penis in your vagina).

How Pregnancy Happens Planned Parenthood

In other words, if I do actually believe that Mary was a virgin, which you have no evidence of, at least I would have science on my side admitting that it can happen.

That could happen.

So could this:

The Immaculate Conception

The Immaculate Conception
(words and music by Norman G. Walker © SOCAN)
*chorus melody and a few words are from "Dixie", by Daniel D. Emmett*
Come and listen to a story that was told to me
'Bout May 12, 1863
Such a terrible war between the grey and blue
It's a story about a woman of seventeen years
'Bout a soldier stranger who never came near
It's hard to believe but I swear that it's true
Well the battle was on and the man fell down
From a poorly placed bullet that put him to the ground
He found that his left testicle was gone
Half a second later came a terrible cry
That very same bullet through the air did fly
And pierced the woman low in her side

I wish I was in the land of cotton
Where stories like this are not forgotten
Look away, look away, look away, faint-hearted.

Well the man recovered though it took some time
To adjust to the assault on his sexual prime
In just a few months his mind was more at ease
But that woman was ill for a month or two
That bullet went in but it never went through
Evenually she was back on her feet
But just two hundred and seventy eight days
From the time that rifle ball went astray
An eight pound bouncin' baby boy was born
That woman swore that she was a virgin
It was verified by a military surgeon
Dr. L.G. Capers was his name

I wish I was in the land of cotton
Where stories like this are not forgotten
Look away, look away, look away, if you have to.

When the baby was only three weeks old
That doctor was called and quietly told
To check the baby's swollen sensitive scrotum
To operate was his medical call
He extracted a battered up rifle ball
"They's no mistake cuz guns, well, he know'd 'em"
That doctor thought til it all came clear
That rifle ball carried sperm so dear
From the wounded man to the womb of that virgin
Now I'm not sure if this is an exception
But it sounds to me like immaculate conception
Please call the pope for me now, I'm urgin'

I wish I was in the land of cotton
Where stories like this are not forgotten
Look away, look away, look away, unfaithful.

This miraculous story doesn't end here
The doctor told that soldier clear
That he was the father of that baby
Of couse he seemed quite skeptical at first
But a doctor is a doctor, and it could have been worse
So he consented to visit the young mother
A friendship ripened to a happy marriage
Three more kids and you can't disparage
That none looked more like dad than the first one
On more thing I'll tell you true
That soldier was my great grandpa too
And she of course was my great grandmother

I wish I was in the land of cotton
Where stories like this are not forgotten
Look away, look away, look away,........ unbelievers.

 

[Tuatara]

Actually your website was a Catholic website.

I love it when idiots say stupid things.

FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.

Dawkins Debunked

Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?

That is not the link I was responding to. Go back and find the correct link.

 

[asaratis]

Actually your website was a Catholic website.

I love it when idiots say stupid things.

FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.

Dawkins Debunked

Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?

That is not the link I was responding to. Go back and find the correct link.

Read that link...word by word...from beginning to end...

It is not up to him to do your research. Go back and bring up the link to which you refer. To which one were you responding?

Read this one first....
Dawkins Debunked

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is not the link I was responding to. Go back and find the correct link.

Hey, stupid, I do not care what you think we are talking about, all I care about is what I am talking about. If you look you will see I said that I posted a link that listed all the fallacies that Dawkins used. You then claimed that that link was from a Catholic website.

Now, go back and read the thread and discover that I actually posted this link and admit you made a stupid assumption. Unless, that is, the site you claim we were talking about actually addresses the logical fallacies in Dawkins book.

 

[dblack]

That's not my point and you know it. And your dishonesty isn't appreciated. All you've succeeded in doing in this thread is to prove that some people treat atheism like a religion - something I don't think anyone here disagrees with. But instead of saying that atheism can be approached as a religion (as can just about any other belief), you've repeatedly claimed that atheism IS a religion, that calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism. And that is just a chickenshit lie that you've provided exactly no justification for.

You have misstated my claims. Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist. That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist. That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not. That is why I haven't made the claim.

Sure you have, in so many words. Your whole game here is equivocation, banking on blurred meanings and sophistry. Dodging valid criticisms with little diversions, etc, etc...

Blurred meanings? That I rely on established, well respected dictionaries instead of the idiotic Dawkins' scale to define Atheist as one that believes God does not exist is not blurring. That I believe that to believe either way takes faith is not blurring. That I believe that faith regarding a deity (whether it exists or not) could be classified as a religious belief is not blurring. That I believe any person belonging to any religion does not have to be considered religious is not blurring. That I believe that any person acting on the doctrine of his/her religion is being religious is not blurring. That I believe Atheists have their own set of "church elders" in Dawkins, Hitchens and others is not blurring. That I believe the Atheists leaders are proselytizing is not blurring. That I believe there are Atheist churches available for you to join is not blurring. That I believe the courts have defined Atheism as a religion is not blurring.

I leave the sophistry to your idol, Richard. Even his own brethren have accused him of simplistic, less-than-sophomoric argument.

I don't have any use for Dawkins or Hitchens. And I've given you know reason to insinuate I do. This is really all you're here for, isn't it?

Good for you! That's commendable.

You've given me no reason to think it other than your occasional parroting of the "let's attack the Christians" wolf pack, as suggested and recommended by Dawkins and Hitchens to win the war against the "non-scientific religious" folk that are "threatening to ruin our quest toward infinite knowledge for all". It is such a worthy goal...with exception of its being 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% unlikely to happen.

God forbid that I should say you are like the others.

I'm not here to label anyone. Just here to argue against the OP posit.

Hitchens is dead. Dawkins will die. Hatred of religion will someday die. Every living thing will someday die. What's the sense in promoting anguish and scorn for each other in the living time? Live and let live. You want to believe in God?...good for you! You wanna believe God doesn't exist?...good for you. Just don't consider your thoughts suitable for all peoples....else you'll be pushin' your own "religion" (set of beliefs---doctrine----dogma---rules to live by---philosophy) on others. Science is alive and well in the Judeo-Christian world. Evolution is a fact of life. If millions of people do not want to accept that, so be it. They and their indoctrinated offspring will someday die.....and so will you! Life goes on best when it's left alone!

BTW, Atheism is a religion.

Heh....

 

[Hollie]

Well I've seen a million post from people like Hollie trying to explain to you the things they say in that video so I thought rather than hearing a little bit about why you are wrong and then you reply with some bullshit and then we explain another reason and another reason and so on as to all the reasons why you are wrong, and you keep coming back with more and more bullshit. So I thought a nice well done 10 minute video on why you are wrong might help. We're certainly getting no where. So listen to it and it'll explain in great detail why you are wrong.

The only thing Hollie does is accuse me of being a YEC and a fundie. if your video is on the same level as that you are even dumber than I thought.

When your views represent nothing more than the unsupportable dogma spewed by religious zealots, how else would one describe you?

 

[Hollie]

Actually your website was a Catholic website.

I love it when idiots say stupid things.

FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.

Dawkins Debunked

Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?

No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.

None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.

 

[PratchettFan]

I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.

I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.

eg. You believe such & such does not exist.

A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief. What else could it be?

My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.

Are you neutral on this subject? Do you consider that the probability of fairies existing is equal to the probability they do not? Because that is what having no belief means, unless you have facts or evidence to support it. If you consider the probability higher that they don't exist, what evidence or facts do you have to support that conclusion?

No I am not neutral on the subject of fairies. I don't believe they exist. As for the probability of fairies existing being equal to the probability that they do not exist I quite sure any sane person would disagree witrh this. Also no belief does not mean you think the probability of something existing is equal to the probability of it not existing. If I were to state I have no beliefs in preminissions it means I do not belive in preminissions. It is really that simple. As for having facts or evidence to support it you can't have evidence to support a negative. Facts would be there has been no DNA samples of a fairy found, no photographic or video evidence found, and no actual fairy ever presented, dead or alive. These are some of the facts to support my position. Does this mean this is suffiecient evidence to rule out any evidence of fairies? Of course not as the onus of eviedence is on the ones who claim they are real. Anyone cam make a claim about anything but if you can't provide evidence to back your claim then why should others believe you?

I want you to read your last sentence and answer it for me. What evidence do you have to support your position? Saying you can't have any evidence does not mean you are now absolved from the obligation of supporting your position.

Any conclusion made in the absence of supporting evidence is a belief. It can be nothing else. The real question is, why is having a belief such a horrifying concept?

 

[asaratis]

Actually your website was a Catholic website.

I love it when idiots say stupid things.

FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.

Dawkins Debunked

Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?

No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.

None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.

You'd make a good sci-fi writer...maybe get on the staff at Twilight Zone...

 

[Tuatara]

That is not the link I was responding to. Go back and find the correct link.

Hey, stupid, I do not care what you think we are talking about, all I care about is what I am talking about. If you look you will see I said that I posted a link that listed all the fallacies that Dawkins used. You then claimed that that link was from a Catholic website.

Now, go back and read the thread and discover that I actually posted this link and admit you made a stupid assumption. Unless, that is, the site you claim we were talking about actually addresses the logical fallacies in Dawkins book.

This is the one I quoted and responded to. Michael Faraday would find Richard Dawkins terrifying CatholicHerald.co.uk

 

[Tuatara]

I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.

I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.

eg. You believe such & such does not exist.

A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief. What else could it be?

My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.

Are you neutral on this subject? Do you consider that the probability of fairies existing is equal to the probability they do not? Because that is what having no belief means, unless you have facts or evidence to support it. If you consider the probability higher that they don't exist, what evidence or facts do you have to support that conclusion?

No I am not neutral on the subject of fairies. I don't believe they exist. As for the probability of fairies existing being equal to the probability that they do not exist I quite sure any sane person would disagree witrh this. Also no belief does not mean you think the probability of something existing is equal to the probability of it not existing. If I were to state I have no beliefs in preminissions it means I do not belive in preminissions. It is really that simple. As for having facts or evidence to support it you can't have evidence to support a negative. Facts would be there has been no DNA samples of a fairy found, no photographic or video evidence found, and no actual fairy ever presented, dead or alive. These are some of the facts to support my position. Does this mean this is suffiecient evidence to rule out any evidence of fairies? Of course not as the onus of eviedence is on the ones who claim they are real. Anyone cam make a claim about anything but if you can't provide evidence to back your claim then why should others believe you?

I want you to read your last sentence and answer it for me. What evidence do you have to support your position? Saying you can't have any evidence does not mean you are now absolved from the obligation of supporting your position.

Any conclusion made in the absence of supporting evidence is a belief. It can be nothing else. The real question is, why is having a belief such a horrifying concept?

What evidence do you have to support your position? I don't need evidence to support a negative and I will prove this. I'm quite sure you don't belive in the god Zeus. Can you give proof he does not exist. Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".
Saying you can't have any evidence does not mean you are now absolved from the obligation of supporting your position. Did you not watch the video Sealybobo put up? Please watch it will explain everything.
Any conclusion made in the absence of supporting evidence is a belief. It can be nothing else. The real question is, why is having a belief such a horrifying concept? I never said having a belief is a horrifying concept. Your first statement is wrong and here's why. A person may have beliefs or non beliefs whether or not there is evidence to support it or not. There are a few individuals alive today that still feel the earth is flat. Evcidence suggests otherwise but that is their belief. Many fundies today don't believe in evolution despite their being ample evidence.

I think the whole concept of belief is confusing you. You feel an absense of belief it the same as belief.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".

that is not an accurate quote.....I stated I didn't have to prove anything......

 

[Tuatara]

Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".

that is not an accurate quote.....I stated I didn't have to prove anything......

Post 1716 page 86, your exact words " I don't have to prove a negative"

 

[PratchettFan]

A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief. What else could it be?

My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.

Are you neutral on this subject? Do you consider that the probability of fairies existing is equal to the probability they do not? Because that is what having no belief means, unless you have facts or evidence to support it. If you consider the probability higher that they don't exist, what evidence or facts do you have to support that conclusion?

No I am not neutral on the subject of fairies. I don't believe they exist. As for the probability of fairies existing being equal to the probability that they do not exist I quite sure any sane person would disagree witrh this. Also no belief does not mean you think the probability of something existing is equal to the probability of it not existing. If I were to state I have no beliefs in preminissions it means I do not belive in preminissions. It is really that simple. As for having facts or evidence to support it you can't have evidence to support a negative. Facts would be there has been no DNA samples of a fairy found, no photographic or video evidence found, and no actual fairy ever presented, dead or alive. These are some of the facts to support my position. Does this mean this is suffiecient evidence to rule out any evidence of fairies? Of course not as the onus of eviedence is on the ones who claim they are real. Anyone cam make a claim about anything but if you can't provide evidence to back your claim then why should others believe you?

I want you to read your last sentence and answer it for me. What evidence do you have to support your position? Saying you can't have any evidence does not mean you are now absolved from the obligation of supporting your position.

Any conclusion made in the absence of supporting evidence is a belief. It can be nothing else. The real question is, why is having a belief such a horrifying concept?

What evidence do you have to support your position? I don't need evidence to support a negative and I will prove this. I'm quite sure you don't belive in the god Zeus. Can you give proof he does not exist. Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".
Saying you can't have any evidence does not mean you are now absolved from the obligation of supporting your position. Did you not watch the video Sealybobo put up? Please watch it will explain everything.
Any conclusion made in the absence of supporting evidence is a belief. It can be nothing else. The real question is, why is having a belief such a horrifying concept? I never said having a belief is a horrifying concept. Your first statement is wrong and here's why. A person may have beliefs or non beliefs whether or not there is evidence to support it or not. There are a few individuals alive today that still feel the earth is flat. Evcidence suggests otherwise but that is their belief. Many fundies today don't believe in evolution despite their being ample evidence.

I think the whole concept of belief is confusing you. You feel an absense of belief it the same as belief.

No, I can't prove Zeus does not exist. I believe Zeus doesn't exist. And you are wrong, if you claim a negative you have to prove it. If you can't prove something, then you shouldn't make the claim at all.

It is perfectly possible to prove a negative. I claim there is not a bottle of soda on my desk. I have looked at my desk, felt around it, brought people in to confirm it and have demonstrated objectively there is not a bottle of soda there. Very easy.

I do not feel an absence of belief is the same as belief. I am just fascinated that people who clearly have belief are so adamant that it is something else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When your views represent nothing more than the unsupportable dogma spewed by religious zealots, how else would one describe you?

My knowledge that evolution is true is unsupportable dogma spewed by religious zealots?

Dayam

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.

None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.

Dawkins is a pretentious idiot that only scares people who do not understand science.

Wait, I just described you, no wonder you think I am afraid of him, you cannot imagine that anyone is not afraid of him because of your own fear.

By the way, given the fact that science is slowly coming to accept the theory that other universes exist, and only a complete idiot would ever think that a randomly created universe would have the exact same parameter as this one, any being from a universe with different natural laws would, by definition, be supernatural to us, just like we would to them.

Then again, I actually think about things like that because ideas do not scare me.