Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Quantum Windbag]

Only by those who believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and a worldwide flood.

I can prove you wrong without even trying.

Richard Dawkins has lost meet the new new atheists The Spectator

But I am pretty sure facts won't affect your opinion.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.

why?......are you incapable of making choices about what you believe?......

Interesting comment in terms of religious belief. It is almost exclusively a function of geography and familial circumstances. You christian fundies, had you been born in the Islamist Middle East, would be the suicide bombers and head choppers of ISIS. There is a certain personality type that is susceptible to mind control techniques that religions employ.

/shrugs.....and if you have been born in the ME you would already be dead.....be that as it may, we have examples in the form of frequent posters who have made choices, either for or against, the religion of their family......this merely proves that what you post is not true......we have to take it for granted that the things you post that we can't disprove are likewise untrue......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Try this. When you state you believe in something do not use the words no, non or not.

Example, instead of saying I believe pigs do not fly, say I do not believe pigs can fly.

Why the **** would I say that? I know for a fact that pigs do not fly, there is no reason for me to pretend that I need room on that issue.

Maybe you should try not being afraid.

 

[Hollie]

Certainly among the fundie crowd, he's seen as a vocal critic of claims to supernaturalism, also spelled gawds. It's interesting how it it the fundamentalist component of the board who are the ones feeling most threatened by Dawkins.

I am actually talking about what atheists who are not idiots think about him.

Dawkins criticized again for arrogance and evangelical militancy Why Evolution Is True

You are actually talking about those evilutionist atheists and their blasphemous ideas of heliocentrism, an ancient universe and that gawd-awful Ark which you cannot produce.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.

Dawkins is widely viewed as a running joke. The fact that you are unaware of that shows why you are unqualified to judge his intelligence against that of anyone else.

Only by those who believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and a worldwide flood.

There's actual evidence for a worldwide flood

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have to think that evolution, which contradicts core elements of the bibles, makes it important for you folks to vilify Dawkins.

If you converted to the religion of Muhammad, you could do an Islam and go on your own personal jihad.

There you go arguing with the voices in your head again.

I know evolution is real, therefore I have no need to vilify Dawkins for believing in it also.

Want to try again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are actually talking about those evilutionist atheists and their blasphemous ideas of heliocentrism, an ancient universe and that gawd-awful Ark which you cannot produce.

Those voices are getting bad, seek help.

 

[Tuatara]

Certainly among the fundie crowd, he's seen as a vocal critic of claims to supernaturalism, also spelled gawds. It's interesting how it it the fundamentalist component of the board who are the ones feeling most threatened by Dawkins.

I am actually talking about what atheists who are not idiots think about him.

Dawkins criticized again for arrogance and evangelical militancy Why Evolution Is True

From your own Catholic source

"
Meanwhile, Moore’s Torygraph review, “How dare God disagree with Richard Dawkins?” is mostly about Dawkins’s “self-centerdness.” That’s an odd way to criticize an autobiography, especially since, if you’ve read it, you’ll find An Appetite for Wonder no more solipsistic than any other autobiography (less, in fact, since it dwells considerably on science):

Unlike [John Henry]Newman, however, [Dawkins] quickly discarded the idea of God. Which left only one absolute and luminously self-evident being – Richard Dawkins.

. . . Dawkins has a generous self-centredness. Everything associated with him is blessed – his parents for giving birth to him, Ali, the ”loyal’’ family servant in colonial Africa, and Balliol College, Oxford, which had the good fortune to admit several generations of Dawkins men. When he admires others, one is made to feel how lucky they are.

All I can say to this is, “read the damn book.” I didn’t get that impression at all. The nastiness that pervades this piece extends even to my beloved fruit flies:

At one point, when describing his researches on the self-grooming behaviour of flies, Dawkins writes: ”Flies are not normally seen as beautiful, but the way they wash their faces and their feet is rather dear.’’ There is something rather dear about the self-grooming behaviour of Richard Dawkins, too.

That’s simply a gratuitous slur. In fact, I found the passage about flies endearing, and I’ve often admired their grooming behavior, which is thorough and, yes, a bit like our own. Why drag in another insult?

Finally comes the inevitable accusation that “Dawkins acts like a religious evangelical.” And again, there’s no sense of irony that these people are implicitly criticizing religion at the same time. But you won’t see them arguing, say, that Pope is “acting like Richard Dawkins.” That’s because it’s okay for the faithful to “know that they’re right.”


Doesn't look like a criticism.​

 

[Hollie]

Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.

why?......are you incapable of making choices about what you believe?......

Interesting comment in terms of religious belief. It is almost exclusively a function of geography and familial circumstances. You christian fundies, had you been born in the Islamist Middle East, would be the suicide bombers and head choppers of ISIS. There is a certain personality type that is susceptible to mind control techniques that religions employ.

/shrugs.....and if you have been born in the ME you would already be dead.....be that as it may, we have examples in the form of frequent posters who have made choices, either for or against, the religion of their family......this merely proves that what you post is not true......we have to take it for granted that the things you post that we can't disprove are likewise untrue......

/shrugs.... how lucky I am that in the Infidel West, I'm protected from people like you.

This merely proves that you are a danger to yourselves and others. Society as a whole is protected by keeping you lovely cultists on a short choke collar.

 

[Tuatara]

Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.

Dawkins is widely viewed as a running joke. The fact that you are unaware of that shows why you are unqualified to judge his intelligence against that of anyone else.

Only by those who believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and a worldwide flood.

There's actual evidence for a worldwide flood

Move along. Adults are talking here.

 

[Tuatara]

Try this. When you state you believe in something do not use the words no, non or not.

Example, instead of saying I believe pigs do not fly, say I do not believe pigs can fly.

Why the **** would I say that? I know for a fact that pigs do not fly, there is no reason for me to pretend that I need room on that issue.

Maybe you should try not being afraid.

Did everyone read that? Please everyone read what he just wrote to my response.

 

[Hollie]

You are actually talking about those evilutionist atheists and their blasphemous ideas of heliocentrism, an ancient universe and that gawd-awful Ark which you cannot produce.

Those voices are getting bad, seek help.

You're the one who hears, sees Dawkins with every step you take.

It only takes the uttering of a mere slogan to join the Islam. Those Islamists know how to get the job done when it comes to silencing critics. Since the Inquisition, you Christians have lost your edge.

 

[percysunshine]

Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods? No problem. I haven't. Certainly not here. Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief.

Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.

The epistemology of science limits science to the description and theory of the observable natural universe. Any possibility and probability calculations of science pertaining to the existence of any super-natural beings are irrelevant, by the definition of the word 'science'.

.

Well if any of these claims are not observable then how could anyone make claims about the validity of them in the first place. Unless they were told as a child that this was how it is and don't let anyone else tell you different. Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.

People can claim anything they wish to claim. Science and religion are two separate epistemologies which are internally consistent. None of this bothers me one bit. I certainly do not, as a scientist, feel a need to accept every single supernatural phenomenon ever described. Nor do I feel a need to deny every single supernatural phenomenon ever described.

Also, I did not come up with the definitions. The definitions predate me.

.

 

[Hollie]

Try this. When you state you believe in something do not use the words no, non or not.

Example, instead of saying I believe pigs do not fly, say I do not believe pigs can fly.

Why the **** would I say that? I know for a fact that pigs do not fly, there is no reason for me to pretend that I need room on that issue.

Maybe you should try not being afraid.

I have to think that evolution, which contradicts core elements of the bibles, makes it important for you folks to vilify Dawkins.

If you converted to the religion of Muhammad, you could do an Islam and go on your own personal jihad.

There you go arguing with the voices in your head again.

I know evolution is real, therefore I have no need to vilify Dawkins for believing in it also.

Want to try again?

Just be honest. It's ok for you to vilify Dawkins. As much as he is a vocal opponent of religious fear and superstition, he's also a proponent of the many science disciplines that support evilution. How fortunate for you, you can expand your horizons of hate.

 

[Hollie]

Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.

Dawkins is widely viewed as a running joke. The fact that you are unaware of that shows why you are unqualified to judge his intelligence against that of anyone else.

Only by those who believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and a worldwide flood.

There's actual evidence for a worldwide flood

No. There is not.

Problems with a Global Flood 2nd edition


But if it's flood tales you want, everybody has one.

Flood Stories from Around the World

 

[PratchettFan]

Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods? No problem. I haven't. Certainly not here. Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief.

Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.

I am not talking of proof, only of evidence which would support a position. We can, if you like, start laying out every specific deity man has ever conceptualized, but it would take quite a bit of time. But you mentioned one and I am willing to go with it. What evidence can you present which counters the belief in Allah?

 

[PratchettFan]

Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods? No problem. I haven't. Certainly not here. Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief.

Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.

The epistemology of science limits science to the description and theory of the observable natural universe. Any possibility and probability calculations of science pertaining to the existence of any super-natural beings are irrelevant, by the definition of the word 'science'.

.

Agreed. I'm not sure how it is relevant to this discussion though.

 

[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?

 

[asaratis]

Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.

Dawkins is widely viewed as a running joke. The fact that you are unaware of that shows why you are unqualified to judge his intelligence against that of anyone else.

Only by those who believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and a worldwide flood.

Quite not so. He's ridiculed by several if not many intelligent Atheists. Read more...type less...enlighten yourself.

 

[asaratis]

Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack of skepticism.

Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.

Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian

I agree with Vladimir...

What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.

dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......

Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.

Scott Hahan and Benjamin Wiker do. Check out their book, Answering The New Atheism.

...and speaking of herd mentality, Atheists appear not to be immune from it, despite their claim to be "free thinkers". All you Atheists are doing is traveling mentally in packs like wolves, or in herds like cows.

Unfortunately, you've been herded by "Listen America" by Jerry Falwell.

You don't need to harbor such anger and frustration at those who reject your gods. While you Falwell groupies are little more than a laughable joke among even the Pat Robertson crowd, you're free to believe as you wish. What you can't do, however, is press your religious agenda where it doesn't belong.

Would the gods of your religion approve of your behavior?

I don't listen to either one of them.

..and you still delude yourself in thinking I'm angry in the least. Amused, to say the least, but angry? Not a bit.