Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Tuatara]

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.​

What does a criticism look like to you?

First of all the quote I put up was a criticism of John Moore's criticism of Dawkins. I was trying to find these atheists who were criticizing Dawkins as Moore is an Anglican.

 

[Tuatara]

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

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

eg. You believe such & such does not exist.

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

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

do you have evidence or facts to support that these things do NOT exist?....if so, you should choose to believe they do not exist......

the question is whether you have chosen not to believe certain things where you do NOT have evidence or facts to support your choice.....

No one ever needs to prove a negative. If you don't believe in leprachauns how would you ever prove of their non-existence? As for the legitimacy of a god the facts and evidence favour it being non-existent.

 

[asaratis]

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

That all seems pretty unlikely to me. I don't see any reason to believe the gods of human beings exist independent of, nor predating, human minds.

Then on that we differ. I think God started evolution and all that was produced from it, including we homo sapiens.

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.

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.

why do you mistake criticism for panic?......

Because she is a petty little girl, afraid that her hero, the pseudo-intellectual mentor she follows will be shown to be what he is....mediocre and full of flawed logic. Even some greater Atheist philosophers are scoffing at him today concerning his childish attacks on religion. It hurts little Hollie's feelings so she claims detractors are frothing at the mouth when in actuality, it is she that is visibly moved...like a woman scorned.

She's has also exhibited a tendency to plagiarize. If you see a post that actually makes sense, it's likely stolen from an adult.

 

[Tuatara]

How do you establish which supernatural phenomenoms you accept or deny?

its called choice.....many people know how to do it......

Accepting or denying is a choice. You are rewording my question but you are not answering it. Did you miss where I asked how?

inherent in the statement....by choosing to accept or reject what you consider to be evidence......I have accepted things which I have experienced or that people I have confidence in have experienced which you would never consider to be valid evidence......that, however, does not make me wrong and you right.....it merely means we have made different choices.....

First of all, thank you for answering the question although it was directed at PostmodernProph. You say you accept supernatural phenomenoms because you and people you trust have experienced them. Do I consider this valid evidence? No, I don't. Many people claim to experience supernatural phenomenoms from UFO abductions to predicting the future through Tarot cards. You are welcome to believe in what you believe but never tell me it's the truth without evidence. Once you have evidence it stops being a supernatural phenomenom.

 

[asaratis]

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.​

What does a criticism look like to you?

First of all the quote I put up was a criticism of John Moore's criticism of Dawkins. I was trying to find these atheists who were criticizing Dawkins as Moore is an Anglican.

Try these:
Richard Dawkins 8217 Reasonable and Proportionate Response to Criticism

Hello I 8217 m a staunch atheist and I hate Richard Dawkins. Generalissimo

Adam Lee





Atheist Criticisms of Richard Dawkins Thomistic Bent

Michael Ruse





Hello I 8217 m a staunch atheist and I hate Richard Dawkins. Generalissimo

Justin Michael



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

Anthony Flew



Oxford Atheist Calls Richard Dawkins Coward for Not Debating William Lane Craig PopScreen

Dr Daniel Came



...and here is some spot-on criticism of the Pope of Atheism:
RICHARD DAWKINS REBUTTALS CRITICISM

"After reading a great deal of this bombast, I have come to the conclusion that Richard has never assumed the duties of a Professor of the Public Understanding of Science - a position he holds due to the patronage of a zillionaire from Microsoft. He seems to lack the intellectual confidence to say anything of substance, so he sticks to the very safe path of appealing to materialist prejudices."

"To give an example:The God Delusiontrumpets the fact that its author was recently voted one of the world's three leading intellectuals. This survey took place among the readers ofProspectmagazine in November 2005. So what did this sameProspectmagazine make of the book? Its reviewer was shocked at this "incurious, dogmatic, rambling, and self-contradictory" book. The title of the review? "Dawkins the dogmatist."

"This is the only context that can explain Dawkins's programme, a piece of intellectually lazy polemic which is not worthy of a great scientist. He uses his authority as a scientist to claim certainty where he himself knows, all too well, that there is none; for example, our sense of morality cannot simply be explained as a product of our genetic struggle for evolutionary advantage."

 

[Tuatara]

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

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

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

Anthony Flew - Deist

Alister McGrath - Angilcan

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

 

[Hollie]

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

That all seems pretty unlikely to me. I don't see any reason to believe the gods of human beings exist independent of, nor predating, human minds.

Then on that we differ. I think God started evolution and all that was produced from it, including we homo sapiens.

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.

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.

why do you mistake criticism for panic?......

Because she is a petty little girl, afraid that her hero, the pseudo-intellectual mentor she follows will be shown to be what he is....mediocre and full of flawed logic. Even some greater Atheist philosophers are scoffing at him today concerning his childish attacks on religion. It hurts little Hollie's feelings so she claims detractors are frothing at the mouth when in actuality, it is she that is visibly moved...like a woman scorned.

She's has also exhibited a tendency to plagiarize. If you see a post that actually makes sense, it's likely stolen from an adult.

Oh my, aren't you the angry fundie. Your lashing out is typical for extremists. You demand special dispensations for your appeals to supernaturalism and magic. When others dismiss your ravings, you do tend to become incensed. Its a childish pattern of behaviour but one that you exhibit in multiple posts, like this one.

 

[Hollie]

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.

not to mention, his book would have been a lot shorter.....

Not to mention, you're pointless.

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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

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

actually we aren't talking about evilutionist atheists, we're talking about the ignorant ones.....

Actually, you're just babbling.

 

[Hollie]

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.

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.

why do you mistake criticism for panic?......

Why do you mistake your babbling for coherent commentary?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.

I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion. I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma. Without dogma, you don't have religion.

Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion. They just seem to be the three basics to me. However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion.

For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile? We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle. Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.? Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

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

eg. You believe such & such does not exist.

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

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

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

 

[PratchettFan]

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

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

eg. You believe such & such does not exist.

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

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

do you have evidence or facts to support that these things do NOT exist?....if so, you should choose to believe they do not exist......

the question is whether you have chosen not to believe certain things where you do NOT have evidence or facts to support your choice.....

No one ever needs to prove a negative. If you don't believe in leprachauns how would you ever prove of their non-existence? As for the legitimacy of a god the facts and evidence favour it being non-existent.

The facts and evidence for a god not existing are also non-existent, or perhaps I should say unknown. There is no evidence to support either pro or con, thus either position is equally supported. 0 = 0. Therefore, any conclusion which favors either side has equal standing and can only be belief. It cannot be anything else.

 

[asaratis]

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

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

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

Anthony Flew - Deist

Alister McGrath - Angilcan

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

Changing midstream are you?

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

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

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

..keep on kissing your Pope's ass!

 

[asaratis]

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

That all seems pretty unlikely to me. I don't see any reason to believe the gods of human beings exist independent of, nor predating, human minds.

Then on that we differ. I think God started evolution and all that was produced from it, including we homo sapiens.

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.

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.

why do you mistake criticism for panic?......

Because she is a petty little girl, afraid that her hero, the pseudo-intellectual mentor she follows will be shown to be what he is....mediocre and full of flawed logic. Even some greater Atheist philosophers are scoffing at him today concerning his childish attacks on religion. It hurts little Hollie's feelings so she claims detractors are frothing at the mouth when in actuality, it is she that is visibly moved...like a woman scorned.

She's has also exhibited a tendency to plagiarize. If you see a post that actually makes sense, it's likely stolen from an adult.

Oh my, aren't you the angry fundie. Your lashing out is typical for extremists. You demand special dispensations for your appeals to supernaturalism and magic. When others dismiss your ravings, you do tend to become incensed. Its a childish pattern of behaviour but one that you exhibit in multiple posts, like this one.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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

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

eg. You believe such & such does not exist.

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

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

do you have evidence or facts to support that these things do NOT exist?....if so, you should choose to believe they do not exist......

the question is whether you have chosen not to believe certain things where you do NOT have evidence or facts to support your choice.....

No one ever needs to prove a negative. If you don't believe in leprachauns how would you ever prove of their non-existence? As for the legitimacy of a god the facts and evidence favour it being non-existent.

I don't have to prove a negative....I merely need to make a choice about whether I believe or not.....that is the point......I only have to "prove" something if I need to convince someone else......trying to "prove" to someone what they should believe is a waste of time.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

How do you establish which supernatural phenomenoms you accept or deny?

its called choice.....many people know how to do it......

Accepting or denying is a choice. You are rewording my question but you are not answering it. Did you miss where I asked how?

inherent in the statement....by choosing to accept or reject what you consider to be evidence......I have accepted things which I have experienced or that people I have confidence in have experienced which you would never consider to be valid evidence......that, however, does not make me wrong and you right.....it merely means we have made different choices.....

First of all, thank you for answering the question although it was directed at PostmodernProph.

????.....okay.....thank you for thanking me even though I thought I was answering Tuatara......

You say you accept supernatural phenomenoms because you and people you trust have experienced them. Do I consider this valid evidence? No, I don't.

proving my prediction to be accurate.....

Many people claim to experience supernatural phenomenoms from UFO abductions to predicting the future through Tarot cards. You are welcome to believe in what you believe but never tell me it's the truth without evidence.

again, you have confused "proof" with "evidence".....I'm not telling you its the truth without evidence......I am telling you of the evidence.....you may choose to reject the evidence and not believe......that doesn't make it untrue.....

Once you have evidence it stops being a supernatural phenomenom.

apparently your belief is that the supernatural could not possibly exist, as your requirement of "evidence" of the supernatural is a demonstration that it is really natural instead of supernatural....

 

[PostmodernProph]

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

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

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

Anthony Flew - Deist

Alister McGrath - Angilcan

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

Oh my, aren't you the angry fundie. Your lashing out is typical for extremists. {playfully plagiarized}.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

not to mention, his book would have been a lot shorter.....

Not to mention, you're pointless.

heavy, blunt objects are better suited to dealing with you than points.......

 

[dblack]

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.

Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.

I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion. I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma. Without dogma, you don't have religion.

Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion. They just seem to be the three basics to me. However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion.

For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile? We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle. Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.? Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.

Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere, arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.

The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.