Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Montrovant]

What are you even talking about?

Good job ignoring the posts I was responding to once again, by the way.

This is the post you responded to:

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

FYI, -ism is not a doctrine.

And keep pretending I am ignoring the post you are responding to, I know it is the only way you can convince yourself that you are actually making sense.

If you weren't ignoring the posts I've been responding to, you would have seen that it was not me who brought up -ism meaning a doctrine. It was PratchettFan. I responded to that. You then inserted yourself into the conversation as though I were the one who started that. I don't know if you didn't bother to read all the quoted text or what.

Feel free to look at post #1473.

PostmodernProf's adoctrinists response also seemed to ignore the fact that I was responding to PratchettFan's post in which an -ism is defined as a doctrine.

 

[Montrovant]

Is there some reason you skipped right over 'or lack of belief'?

Maybe everyone should just admit atheism has more than one meaning and see if some agreement can be reached on which to use.

Did you notice that, in order to skip over the phrase "Lack of belief" I would have to read the definition backwards? In other words, I didn't skip over anything, oh he who thinks he can outsmart the village idiot. You can sit there and try to redefine atheists as being agnostic all day long, it won't change the fact that there is a difference between the two, If you don't have a belief you are not an atheist. If you believe in a generic god you are neither an agnostic or an atheist. I really do not understand why agnostics want to pretend they are atheists.

You are too hard on yourself. No need to call yourself the village idiot.

I am not trying to redefine anything. In fact, unlike you, I have been perfectly willing to admit that the word atheist has more than one meaning. I'm also able to understand that when a definition involves an either/or, one cannot simply choose one option and declare it the only definition.

The definition of atheist you comment on was, "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.". You then posted definitions of disbelief and used that to make your point, despite the fact that it says disbelief or lack of belief. So, yes, you skipped over that phrase. No, there is no reason you would have to read the definition backwards to skip it and I have no idea why you would imagine that to be the case. Tuatara's source clearly stated a lack of belief as an option when defining atheist.

So again, atheism is a word with multiple meanings, both in general use and in dictionary definitions.

 

[Montrovant]

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

If you want to use it then you use it all:

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity .
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

Oxford Reference

atheism
Subject: Religion
The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos". It does not apply it to the suffix "ism". "No god" not "no belief".
The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
ism
noun \ˈi-zəm\ .
: a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism
Full Definition of ISM
1
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god. Which is why I don't like definitions that much. It implies the word creates the thing. It does not. If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:

An Atheist has no god beliefs.
I am an Atheist.
Therefore, I have no god beliefs.

While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration. I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god. In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief. So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong. It can't be both.

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

 

[asaratis]

If you want to use it then you use it all:

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity .
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

Oxford Reference

atheism
Subject: Religion
The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos". It does not apply it to the suffix "ism". "No god" not "no belief".
The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
ism
noun \ˈi-zəm\ .
: a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism
Full Definition of ISM
1
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god. Which is why I don't like definitions that much. It implies the word creates the thing. It does not. If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:

An Atheist has no god beliefs.
I am an Atheist.
Therefore, I have no god beliefs.

While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration. I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god. In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief. So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong. It can't be both.

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Exactly! You're beginning to wake up! It means "without god"....

 

[dblack]

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Exactly! You're beginning to wake up! It means "without god"....

Which still doesn't add up to a religion.

 

[Hollie]

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Exactly! You're beginning to wake up! It means "without god"....

It means "without gods". You're forgetting that your gods are only three of several thousand inventions of gods.

 

[asaratis]

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Exactly! You're beginning to wake up! It means "without god"....

It means "without gods". You're forgetting that your gods are only three of several thousand inventions of gods.

Do some research, little girl. Don't pay attention to the preachers of Atheism.

BTW, Mary is the only woman's name mentioned in the Quran. Jesus is recognized as a prophet by Jews and Muslims...just not as a part of the Trinity as He is by Christians.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

Disbelief.

Webster: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.

Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?

Here's another trusted dictionary definition:

disbelief
noun /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/ us

› the refusal to believe that something is true:

disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

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...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

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.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

If you want to use it then you use it all:

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity .
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

Oxford Reference

atheism
Subject: Religion
The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos". It does not apply it to the suffix "ism". "No god" not "no belief".
The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
ism
noun \ˈi-zəm\ .
: a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism
Full Definition of ISM
1
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god. Which is why I don't like definitions that much. It implies the word creates the thing. It does not. If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:

An Atheist has no god beliefs.
I am an Atheist.
Therefore, I have no god beliefs.

While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration. I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god. In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief. So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong. It can't be both.

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

in a word?.....no......

 

[PostmodernProph]

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

more literally, the "ism" of "a" "theos".......the belief there is no god......

 

[Hollie]

Disbelief.

Webster: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.

Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?

Here's another trusted dictionary definition:

disbelief
noun /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/ us

› the refusal to believe that something is true:

disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

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...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

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.......

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Exactly! You're beginning to wake up! It means "without god"....

It means "without gods". You're forgetting that your gods are only three of several thousand inventions of gods.

Do some research, little girl. Don't pay attention to the preachers of Atheism.

BTW, Mary is the only woman's name mentioned in the Quran. Jesus is recognized as a prophet by Jews and Muslims...just not as a part of the Trinity as He is by Christians.

Do you find anything unusual about the above? Much of islam was stolen from Christianity as much of Christianity was stolen from judaism.

Are you suffering from short man complex?

 

[Hollie]

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

more literally, the "ism" of "a" "theos".......the belief there is no god......

Because belief has no requirement for religious customs, traditions, practices, etc., you have confirmed the failure of the religionist argument that atheism is a religion.

Thanks.

 

[PratchettFan]

If you want to use it then you use it all:

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity .
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

Oxford Reference

atheism
Subject: Religion
The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos". It does not apply it to the suffix "ism". "No god" not "no belief".
The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
ism
noun \ˈi-zəm\ .
: a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism
Full Definition of ISM
1
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god. Which is why I don't like definitions that much. It implies the word creates the thing. It does not. If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:

An Atheist has no god beliefs.
I am an Atheist.
Therefore, I have no god beliefs.

While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration. I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god. In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief. So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong. It can't be both.

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Not if you want to strictly follow the rules of English. Words change with usage and that might add new meanings to a definition, which is what is happening here. That is why I don't think using a definition is worth spit. Either a position is supported by objective evidence or it is not. If it is not, then the only thing that position can be is a belief. Thus, unless someone has some evidence somewhere they are not showing, any position on this question save neutrality is a belief. Are you neutral?

 

[PratchettFan]

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Exactly! You're beginning to wake up! It means "without god"....

Which still doesn't add up to a religion.

No, it doesn't. I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed. These are them:

A group to which members identify themselves. "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
Belief is the basis of the group. As I have argued elsewhere, unless you have evidence to support your position it is a belief.
Dogma.

It's that last bit where you all shoot yourselves in the foot. Dogma is a doctrine which must be accepted without question. You establish that Atheism is a lack of belief, or a non-belief, or a rejection of belief, but it most certainly can't be a belief. Despite the fact that it is a belief. The definition must be changed to meet this dogma. Contradictions to it must be ignored. I have pointed out that Dawkins list shows a strong Atheist as being certain there is no God (a most definite belief), but every time I have pointed this out it is just ignored because it is a contradiction to the dogma which cannot be reconciled. It is the last attribute of dogma which makes Atheism a religion and the only people who can do that are the Atheists themselves.

You can prove me wrong by showing it is not a belief. The only way to do that is to show you have objective evidence to support your position. Do you?

 

[Hollie]

Disbelief.

Webster: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.

Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?

Here's another trusted dictionary definition:

disbelief
noun /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/ us

› the refusal to believe that something is true:

disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

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...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

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.

 

[asaratis]

Here's another trusted dictionary definition:

disbelief
noun /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/ us

› the refusal to believe that something is true:

disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

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...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

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.

Try reading Answering The New Atheism available at Amazon in paperback form. Please read it entirely before your next post in this thread.

 

[asaratis]

Here's another trusted dictionary definition:

disbelief
noun /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/ us

› the refusal to believe that something is true:

disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

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...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

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.......

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Exactly! You're beginning to wake up! It means "without god"....

It means "without gods". You're forgetting that your gods are only three of several thousand inventions of gods.

Do some research, little girl. Don't pay attention to the preachers of Atheism.

BTW, Mary is the only woman's name mentioned in the Quran. Jesus is recognized as a prophet by Jews and Muslims...just not as a part of the Trinity as He is by Christians.

Do you find anything unusual about the above? Much of islam was stolen from Christianity as much of Christianity was stolen from judaism.

Are you suffering from short man complex?

Not at all. But I do see that you're catching on to the fact that you are less educated than you claim to be.

 

[Hollie]

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

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...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

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.......

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Exactly! You're beginning to wake up! It means "without god"....

It means "without gods". You're forgetting that your gods are only three of several thousand inventions of gods.

Do some research, little girl. Don't pay attention to the preachers of Atheism.

BTW, Mary is the only woman's name mentioned in the Quran. Jesus is recognized as a prophet by Jews and Muslims...just not as a part of the Trinity as He is by Christians.

Do you find anything unusual about the above? Much of islam was stolen from Christianity as much of Christianity was stolen from judaism.

Are you suffering from short man complex?

Not at all. But I do see that you're catching on to the fact that you are less educated than you claim to be.

Not at all. I've managed to refute your specious claims which has left you you to offer nothing more than childish attempts at insult.

I've never made any claim to be more or less educated than any other poster. So yet again, your specious claims and juvenile sniping are false and are refuted.

 

[Hollie]

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

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...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

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.

Try reading Answering The New Atheism available at Amazon in paperback form. Please read it entirely before your next post in this thread.

You're suffering the same debilitating disease of pointlessness that afflicts so many fundies. Consider taking some night courses in the basic earth sciences and an introduction to biology. You will discover that there is a world of knowledge outside of your madrassah.

 

[asaratis]

Here's another trusted dictionary definition:

disbelief
noun /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/ us

› the refusal to believe that something is true:

disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

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...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

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.

(Envision loud laughter!!!!!)....and you Atheist sheep are not parroting one another with herd mentality in defense of your biases?