Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't listen to either one of them.Unfortunately, you've been herded by "Listen America" by Jerry Falwell.Scott Hahan and Benjamin Wiker do. Check out their book, Answering The New Atheism.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.dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......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.
...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.
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?
..and you still delude yourself in thinking I'm angry in the least. Amused, to say the least, but angry? Not a bit.
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.
I wasn't ignoring anything, I was pointing out that your interpretation of the word atheism as a lack of doctrine is stupid. I am not the only one that pointed it out, but since you seem to be able to ignore posts that contradict your lack of understanding of English, you cannot apply a prefix to a suffix and totally ignore the root word that they both apply to. If we apply the doctrine definition to ism the way you attempted to we would see that atheism is the doctrine that there is no god, not that there are no doctrines.
Want to tell me how smart you are again? Or point out that I am ignoring a post you responded to when I am not?
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.
I wasn't ignoring anything, I was pointing out that your interpretation of the word atheism as a lack of doctrine is stupid. I am not the only one that pointed it out, but since you seem to be able to ignore posts that contradict your lack of understanding of English, you cannot apply a prefix to a suffix and totally ignore the root word that they both apply to. If we apply the doctrine definition to ism the way you attempted to we would see that atheism is the doctrine that there is no god, not that there are no doctrines.
Want to tell me how smart you are again? Or point out that I am ignoring a post you responded to when I am not?
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.
Neither your opinion nor your evaluation of my general attitude affect me at all. I have dealt with many a persistent twit as you appear to be...and have not felt the least bit of guilt or anger by it. I expect you to repeat yourself incessantly as you seem to think it disturbs me...and you erroneously hold to the mistaken belief held by thousands of other idiots...that the last post wins! Have at it, little girl...and don't forget to wash behind your ears.I don't listen to either one of them.Unfortunately, you've been herded by "Listen America" by Jerry Falwell.Scott Hahan and Benjamin Wiker do. Check out their book, Answering The New Atheism.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.dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
...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.
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?
..and you still delude yourself in thinking I'm angry in the least. Amused, to say the least, but angry? Not a bit.
Not angry?
That's odd as your posts are little more than slathering diatribes putting a world of hate (and a bizarre fascination), with Dawkins or anyone else who challenges you specious claims to gods, magic and supernaturalism.
Wallowing in self pity will not help your condition.. Try some introspection and that will help you understand why your cycle of hate causes you such angst.
You're under no requirement to maintain yourself as a slave to ignorance and retrogression.
Did everyone read that? Please everyone read what he just wrote to my response.
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.
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.
I'll point out that you seem to be unable to understand the difference between saying that if theism is a doctrine, atheism would be without that doctrine, and saying atheism is without all doctrine. In other words, I said that atheism is being without the doctrine of theism.
Want to point out how something I did not say is stupid again?
Not angry? Here you are as usual, unable to defend your specious claims so you're left to childish name-calling.Neither your opinion nor your evaluation of my general attitude affect me at all. I have dealt with many a persistent twit as you appear to be...and have not felt the least bit of guilt or anger by it. I expect you to repeat yourself incessantly as you seem to think it disturbs me...and you erroneously hold to the mistaken belief held by thousands of other idiots...that the last post wins! Have at it, little girl...and don't forget to wash behind your ears.I don't listen to either one of them.Unfortunately, you've been herded by "Listen America" by Jerry Falwell.Scott Hahan and Benjamin Wiker do. Check out their book, Answering The New Atheism.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.
...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.
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?
..and you still delude yourself in thinking I'm angry in the least. Amused, to say the least, but angry? Not a bit.
Not angry?
That's odd as your posts are little more than slathering diatribes putting a world of hate (and a bizarre fascination), with Dawkins or anyone else who challenges you specious claims to gods, magic and supernaturalism.
Wallowing in self pity will not help your condition.. Try some introspection and that will help you understand why your cycle of hate causes you such angst.
You're under no requirement to maintain yourself as a slave to ignorance and retrogression.
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"
Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery. You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.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.
Dawkins vilifies himself, I see no need to assist him.
You cannot prove either of those claims.Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......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.Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack of skepticism.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.
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 said: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.
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.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.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.
I'll point out that you seem to be unable to understand the difference between saying that if theism is a doctrine, atheism would be without that doctrine, and saying atheism is without all doctrine. In other words, I said that atheism is being without the doctrine of theism.
Want to point out how something I did not say is stupid again?
Except that is not what you said, is it?
Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
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"
Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.
Thank you for being honest. I meant to say:You cannot prove either of those claims.Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......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.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...
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.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.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.
I actually agree with you here. And this is why I say that I'm not, technically, an atheist, even though I'm a naturalist and reject the idea of magic and the supernatural. It's obvious that gods exist. The only question is: what is their true nature? Are they physical entities who occupy a yet undiscovered dimension? Are they memes? Commonly held metaphors? Are they distributed 'minds', living in the networked brains of believers?
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"
Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.
Of course Atheists identify as a group. Atheists join in groups all of the time. Here is just one web site of many that will tell you how you can join a group How to Find an Atheist Support Group Atheist Revolution. People put up billboards, organize holiday displays, etc.
I'm not certain what shape (if any) God takes on. I think God works in ways that we do not and likely never will understand. I believe God existed prior to the Big Bang...and was the creator of all we see by His having set it in motion. I believe that the intricacies and interdependency of certain flowers and insects are evidence of nature's design driven by something other than accidental happenings or chance.
One outstanding example is that of the bucket orchids and euglossine types of orchid bees.
This is a good read from top to bottom.
epiphytes varieties of orchids bucket orchids bucket orchid
Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery. You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
Actually, while it may have seemed I was saying atheism is being without any doctrine in post #1475 (I worded it quite poorly) I clarified with this in post #1486 :
Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
So, yes, that is in fact what I said. You actually quoted that very post, for some reason thinking it makes me a religious fanatic.
Sorry, but you fundies spend inordinate amounts of time scurrying around like lab rats in response to anything Dawkins says. Just look through thIs thread to see how many times he causes a panic among you fundies.Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery. You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.
By the way, since I have made no claims myself, I am under no obligation to defend any claim you try to shove down my throat.
