Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[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.

you can become an atheists' bishop if you file a law suit to stop a high school football team from praying before a game.....a cardinal if the case makes it to the USSC.....

Typical pointless.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

you can become an atheists' bishop if you file a law suit to stop a high school football team from praying before a game.....a cardinal if the case makes it to the USSC.....

Typical pointless.

however, you're SOL if you want to be the pope......Dawkins has that sown up until he dies......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I am not afraid to proclaim that I believe fairies do not exist, why are you afraid to admit to your beliefs?

 

[Hollie]

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?

What biases? It's been you fundies who have consistently made attempts to equate rejection of your multi-gods as a religion. You have been thoroughly refuted yet you insist on screeching that "atheism is religion" when it has been explained to you that atheism has none of the attributes of religion. In fact, all of atheism is nothing more than a conclusion that your religious claims to magic and supernaturalism are absent affirmative evidence.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you and others have hoped to avoid supporting your specious claims to gods, jinn, a Flat Earth and other absurdities of your religious belief with sidestepping and obfuscation.

That you do not recognize that belief that God does not exist is a bias, driven by your belief that the Atheists with whom you agree are correct, is quite understandable. We have established that the existence of God cannot be cogently proved or disproved. That makes those on either side of the "belief fence" biased.

Fundies have only one God.

I have not been refuted.

It has been explained to you that Atheism has many attributes of religion. You just continue to deny the truth.

Your conclusion that gods do not exist also lacks affirmative evidence. It is simply a belief that you hold.

And...if you still believe Dawkins is a genius, read what Thomas Nagel (another Atheist, but a true philosopher) thinks about the less-than-sophomoric Dawkins....that is if you can refrain from slobbering on your keyboard long enough to actually read a book or two.

Concluding that your three gods do not exist requires no bias. The lack of evidence for your gods is precisely the same lack of evidence that plagues all the human conceptions of gods, angels, jinn, etc. That you are unable to present a cogent argument for your gods places you in the same position as all the other pedestrian and baseless claims for gods. While I think it's important to have mythology in literature; it's good to have stories of heroes and heroines for us to emulate. This doesn't mean we should suddenly worship these characters and claim that they are real.

Invariably, those extremists who hurl the darkest invectives tend to be the most the most chaotic thinkers. There is definitely a strong link between people who believe fervently in their religions (to the point of wishing harm to any and all who disagree) and an appalling lack of even the most rudimentary levels of education. Having read the Bible cover to cover, I'm not surprised at this interlocking phenomenon-- the Bible advocates ignorance, and religions based on the Bible historically have stood in the way of education and literacy. What better way to convince the populace, if not to keep them illiterate?

Secondly, your screeching about atheism having many attributes of religion has derailed many times before. I note with amusement that you still sidestep addressing how little atheism and religion have in common. Once again, you cannot address the practices, rituals, customs, traditions and belief system that defines religion and which are absent in the rational conclusion that your polytheistic beliefs are absent substantiation. Atheism has no customs, beliefs or “ideologies”. There is no atheist asserted philosophy. All of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic/religious assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft substantiation.


What is truly remarkable is your fascination with Dawkins. I understand that for fundamentalists, he does represent an outspoken voice of contention with belief in the supernatural. And it’s obvious that you feel threatened. You should, BTW, since Reason and Rationality as an epistemological path does not account for the existence of gods, fairies, leprechauns, or the supernatural

Therefore, the supernaturalist/religionist is immediately placed into a dilemma from which there is no escape by using faith as a method or tool to gain knowledge. Simply put, faith and reason cannot exist side by side; they are mutually exclusive to one another. If something is believed to be true, and there is evidence for its reality, there is no need for faith; it is rationally a reality. But if something requires faith in order for it to be believed, then it is no longer rational, and if it is not rational, then what supports its reliability? Thus the theist is trapped into an impossible dilemma-- he cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence.

The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.

As I expected, you stupidly insist that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in separate gods. There is one God.

Secondly, if you're going to quote the words of someone else, you should not stoop to plagiarism.

"...apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance,...."

comes from:
http://bb.islamww.com/index.php?showtopic=3910

I can imagine that most of your post is nothing but plagiarism. When you use the work of others, give us a link.

You are a disingenuous, pathetic little girl.

BTW, I am not at all fascinated by Dawkins. I simply find him to be of mediocre intellect and dependent on flawed logic and childish analogies....much like the dummy, Bill Maher.



Check out Anthony Flew, the world's most notorious (former) Atheist.

Uh, sorry. There are many gods. Christianity alone has three.

How strange that you claim not to be fascinated by Dawkins when you reference him so often. It's true that he is the boogeyman that haunts the world of you fundies. He strikes terror to your every waking minute, else, why spend so much time in abject fear of his challenges to your religious beliefs.

The comments at the link were well written, no? I wrote that years ago. Would you like to provide additional links?

 

[Tuatara]

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.......

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

You cannot prove either of those claims.

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.

Proving that some claims made by those that believe in God does not prove the non-existence of their God. It merely proves that they do not completely understand how God works. They explain the existence and origin of things in terms they can understand. Most modern day Jews, Christians and some Muslims will agree that the earth is millions of years old.

You are simply full of yourself.

Did you actually read what I said. I said anyone can refute a certain claim about a god but it still doesn't disprove the existence of that god and that is exactly what you state in your first line. I should also state that this applies to every other god, fairies, and leprachauns. As to understand how god works I've even heard believers state that no one can understand him which would also counter any claim about him. Let's look at this from another perspective. You cannot disprove the existence of the Flying Sphagetti Monster even though you can refute some of the claims made about him. Does that mean you do not completely understand how the Flying Spagetti Monster works? According to your own logic it does. When it come to the FSM, any explanation of it's existence or origin by you will be only in terms we can understand. Did you see what I did just there. I took your exact argument and used it on another "god". I know most modern christians, jews & muslims believe the earth is millions of years old. I used an example of a different "god" to prove a point, but there are many examples in the bible that have been refuted and it is the only source one can use for the validation of this decribed god.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[asaratis]

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

What biases? It's been you fundies who have consistently made attempts to equate rejection of your multi-gods as a religion. You have been thoroughly refuted yet you insist on screeching that "atheism is religion" when it has been explained to you that atheism has none of the attributes of religion. In fact, all of atheism is nothing more than a conclusion that your religious claims to magic and supernaturalism are absent affirmative evidence.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you and others have hoped to avoid supporting your specious claims to gods, jinn, a Flat Earth and other absurdities of your religious belief with sidestepping and obfuscation.

That you do not recognize that belief that God does not exist is a bias, driven by your belief that the Atheists with whom you agree are correct, is quite understandable. We have established that the existence of God cannot be cogently proved or disproved. That makes those on either side of the "belief fence" biased.

Fundies have only one God.

I have not been refuted.

It has been explained to you that Atheism has many attributes of religion. You just continue to deny the truth.

Your conclusion that gods do not exist also lacks affirmative evidence. It is simply a belief that you hold.

And...if you still believe Dawkins is a genius, read what Thomas Nagel (another Atheist, but a true philosopher) thinks about the less-than-sophomoric Dawkins....that is if you can refrain from slobbering on your keyboard long enough to actually read a book or two.

Concluding that your three gods do not exist requires no bias. The lack of evidence for your gods is precisely the same lack of evidence that plagues all the human conceptions of gods, angels, jinn, etc. That you are unable to present a cogent argument for your gods places you in the same position as all the other pedestrian and baseless claims for gods. While I think it's important to have mythology in literature; it's good to have stories of heroes and heroines for us to emulate. This doesn't mean we should suddenly worship these characters and claim that they are real.

Invariably, those extremists who hurl the darkest invectives tend to be the most the most chaotic thinkers. There is definitely a strong link between people who believe fervently in their religions (to the point of wishing harm to any and all who disagree) and an appalling lack of even the most rudimentary levels of education. Having read the Bible cover to cover, I'm not surprised at this interlocking phenomenon-- the Bible advocates ignorance, and religions based on the Bible historically have stood in the way of education and literacy. What better way to convince the populace, if not to keep them illiterate?

Secondly, your screeching about atheism having many attributes of religion has derailed many times before. I note with amusement that you still sidestep addressing how little atheism and religion have in common. Once again, you cannot address the practices, rituals, customs, traditions and belief system that defines religion and which are absent in the rational conclusion that your polytheistic beliefs are absent substantiation. Atheism has no customs, beliefs or “ideologies”. There is no atheist asserted philosophy. All of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic/religious assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft substantiation.


What is truly remarkable is your fascination with Dawkins. I understand that for fundamentalists, he does represent an outspoken voice of contention with belief in the supernatural. And it’s obvious that you feel threatened. You should, BTW, since Reason and Rationality as an epistemological path does not account for the existence of gods, fairies, leprechauns, or the supernatural

Therefore, the supernaturalist/religionist is immediately placed into a dilemma from which there is no escape by using faith as a method or tool to gain knowledge. Simply put, faith and reason cannot exist side by side; they are mutually exclusive to one another. If something is believed to be true, and there is evidence for its reality, there is no need for faith; it is rationally a reality. But if something requires faith in order for it to be believed, then it is no longer rational, and if it is not rational, then what supports its reliability? Thus the theist is trapped into an impossible dilemma-- he cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence.

The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.

As I expected, you stupidly insist that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in separate gods. There is one God.

Secondly, if you're going to quote the words of someone else, you should not stoop to plagiarism.

"...apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance,...."

comes from:
http://bb.islamww.com/index.php?showtopic=3910

I can imagine that most of your post is nothing but plagiarism. When you use the work of others, give us a link.

You are a disingenuous, pathetic little girl.

BTW, I am not at all fascinated by Dawkins. I simply find him to be of mediocre intellect and dependent on flawed logic and childish analogies....much like the dummy, Bill Maher.



Check out Anthony Flew, the world's most notorious (former) Atheist.

Uh, sorry. There are many gods. Christianity alone has three.

How strange that you claim not to be fascinated by Dawkins when you reference him so often. It's true that he is the boogeyman that haunts the world of you fundies. He strikes terror to your every waking minute, else, why spend so much time in abject fear of his challenges to your religious beliefs.

The comments at the link were well written, no? I wrote that years ago. Would you like to provide additional links?

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

What biases? It's been you fundies who have consistently made attempts to equate rejection of your multi-gods as a religion. You have been thoroughly refuted yet you insist on screeching that "atheism is religion" when it has been explained to you that atheism has none of the attributes of religion. In fact, all of atheism is nothing more than a conclusion that your religious claims to magic and supernaturalism are absent affirmative evidence.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you and others have hoped to avoid supporting your specious claims to gods, jinn, a Flat Earth and other absurdities of your religious belief with sidestepping and obfuscation.

That you do not recognize that belief that God does not exist is a bias, driven by your belief that the Atheists with whom you agree are correct, is quite understandable. We have established that the existence of God cannot be cogently proved or disproved. That makes those on either side of the "belief fence" biased.

Fundies have only one God.

I have not been refuted.

It has been explained to you that Atheism has many attributes of religion. You just continue to deny the truth.

Your conclusion that gods do not exist also lacks affirmative evidence. It is simply a belief that you hold.

And...if you still believe Dawkins is a genius, read what Thomas Nagel (another Atheist, but a true philosopher) thinks about the less-than-sophomoric Dawkins....that is if you can refrain from slobbering on your keyboard long enough to actually read a book or two.

Concluding that your three gods do not exist requires no bias. The lack of evidence for your gods is precisely the same lack of evidence that plagues all the human conceptions of gods, angels, jinn, etc. That you are unable to present a cogent argument for your gods places you in the same position as all the other pedestrian and baseless claims for gods. While I think it's important to have mythology in literature; it's good to have stories of heroes and heroines for us to emulate. This doesn't mean we should suddenly worship these characters and claim that they are real.

Invariably, those extremists who hurl the darkest invectives tend to be the most the most chaotic thinkers. There is definitely a strong link between people who believe fervently in their religions (to the point of wishing harm to any and all who disagree) and an appalling lack of even the most rudimentary levels of education. Having read the Bible cover to cover, I'm not surprised at this interlocking phenomenon-- the Bible advocates ignorance, and religions based on the Bible historically have stood in the way of education and literacy. What better way to convince the populace, if not to keep them illiterate?

Secondly, your screeching about atheism having many attributes of religion has derailed many times before. I note with amusement that you still sidestep addressing how little atheism and religion have in common. Once again, you cannot address the practices, rituals, customs, traditions and belief system that defines religion and which are absent in the rational conclusion that your polytheistic beliefs are absent substantiation. Atheism has no customs, beliefs or “ideologies”. There is no atheist asserted philosophy. All of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic/religious assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft substantiation.


What is truly remarkable is your fascination with Dawkins. I understand that for fundamentalists, he does represent an outspoken voice of contention with belief in the supernatural. And it’s obvious that you feel threatened. You should, BTW, since Reason and Rationality as an epistemological path does not account for the existence of gods, fairies, leprechauns, or the supernatural

Therefore, the supernaturalist/religionist is immediately placed into a dilemma from which there is no escape by using faith as a method or tool to gain knowledge. Simply put, faith and reason cannot exist side by side; they are mutually exclusive to one another. If something is believed to be true, and there is evidence for its reality, there is no need for faith; it is rationally a reality. But if something requires faith in order for it to be believed, then it is no longer rational, and if it is not rational, then what supports its reliability? Thus the theist is trapped into an impossible dilemma-- he cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence.

The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.

As I expected, you stupidly insist that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in separate gods. There is one God.

Secondly, if you're going to quote the words of someone else, you should not stoop to plagiarism.

"...apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance,...."

comes from:
http://bb.islamww.com/index.php?showtopic=3910

I can imagine that most of your post is nothing but plagiarism. When you use the work of others, give us a link.

You are a disingenuous, pathetic little girl.

BTW, I am not at all fascinated by Dawkins. I simply find him to be of mediocre intellect and dependent on flawed logic and childish analogies....much like the dummy, Bill Maher.



Check out Anthony Flew, the world's most notorious (former) Atheist.

Uh, sorry. There are many gods. Christianity alone has three.

How strange that you claim not to be fascinated by Dawkins when you reference him so often. It's true that he is the boogeyman that haunts the world of you fundies. He strikes terror to your every waking minute, else, why spend so much time in abject fear of his challenges to your religious beliefs.

The comments at the link were well written, no? I wrote that years ago. Would you like to provide additional links?

Wrong again. Christians believe in a three-part God..the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Jews believed in the same God in slightly different form. Muslims believe in the same God in slightly different form. Still all believe in the same God that created all that we see.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Here is something Dawkins said that Hollie disagrees with......

Yet scientists are required to back up their claims not with private feelings but with publicly checkable evidence. Their experiments must have rigorous controls to eliminate spurious effects. And statistical analysis eliminates the suspicion (or at least measures the likelihood) that the apparent effect might have happened by chance alone.

Hollie believes that we should all believe that humans evolved from single celled organisms despite the fact there is no publically checkable evidence, no experiments with rigorous controls or statistical analysis that eliminates the suspicion that the apparent effect may have happened by chance alone.....in fact she insists it happened by chance alone.....oddly and contradictorily, so does Dawkins......

 

[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.

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.

Threatened, my ass! I laugh at the silly bastard daily. He is a pseudo-intellectual, acrimonious twit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Atheism is like Islam, there's a radical Fundamentalist part that is out to convert the entire world to their insane beliefs

 

[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.

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?

 

[Tuatara]

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.

 

[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?......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

I am not afraid to proclaim that I believe fairies do not exist, why are you afraid to admit to your beliefs?

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.

 

[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

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.