222 replies to this topic

[Shakeyhands]

Let me see if I can sum this up.

If you a believer, shout it from the rooftops and start 8 Billion threads on internet forums.

If you are an Atheist, thats fine.... but shut the hell up and keep your opinion to yourself.

[bloodyminded]

Let me see if I can sum this up.

If you a believer, shout it from the rooftops and start 8 Billion threads on internet forums.

If you are an Atheist, thats fine.... but shut the hell up and keep your opinion to yourself.

You got it. That's what "being respectful" means, all nice and selective-like.

[Shady]

I find it funny that when the religious attempt to discredit atheism they call it a religion.

Well, it is a belief with as much proof behind it as any believer in God. What's even more funny is prothletising atheists! Oh the rich, rich, irony!

[bloodyminded]

Well, it is a belief with as much proof behind it as any believer in God.

Only for atheists who believe there is no God. Some of us are perfectly willing to believe in God if He would only present himself in a way amenable to the contemporary respect for verifiable evidence which He himself must have put into motion.

What's even more funny is prothletising atheists! Oh the rich, rich, irony!

I think lots of atheists take issue with the proselytizers.

[Smallc]

Well, it is a belief with as much proof behind it as any believer in God.

Explain that please. There is no proof of God, so you have to prove the existence of God.

[betsy]

Richard Dawkins:
This is slightly more "disrespectful" than an image of Jesus painting his nails.

There were a lot more offensive gestures these people did like driving a stake through a host (appareently shown on the web, pronographic caricatures etc.., all targetting Christianity.

[betsy]

Only for atheists who believe there is no God. Some of us are perfectly willing to believe in God if He would only present himself in a way amenable to the contemporary respect for verifiable evidence which He himself must have put into motion.

Boy, there I was thinking simply atheist or agnostic. Was I ever wrong. There's so many hybrid....."cross-beliefs" if there's even a word....various classifications. There is no longer simplistic "atheist".

[betsy]

Explain that please. There is no proof of God, so you have to prove the existence of God.

No proof that God is non-existent either.

Furthermore, the confusions scientists are in as to origin - not to mention the theory of ID - is a step in that direction, that could actually prove the existence of God/Creator/Designer. Scientifically-speaking of course.

Edited by betsy, 26 May 2011 - 05:23 PM.

[bloodyminded]

There were a lot more offensive gestures these people did like driving a stake through a host (appareently shown on the web, pronographic caricatures etc.., all targetting Christianity.

I suppose "offensive" is subjective: but to say "Islam is one of the great evils of the world" sounds a lot worse than some insulting play-acting.

I hasten to add that I don't oppose any of this stuff: I don't object to Dawkins calling Islam "evil" (it's not the word I'd use, for certain reasons, but I would say it's a messed-up religion in many ways) and I don't object to insulting Jesus.

What's the problem? You don't have to agree with those insulting your religion. Everybody wins.

Edited by bloodyminded, 27 May 2011 - 03:35 AM.

[bloodyminded]

Boy, there I was thinking simply atheist or agnostic. Was I ever wrong. There's so many hybrid....."cross-beliefs" if there's even a word....various classifications. There is no longer simplistic "atheist".

I don't think it's complicated. I don't believe there are faeries in Ireland. With some solid proof, I'm perfectly happy to change my mind on this matter.

[cybercoma]

It's win-win. Betsy goes around insulting people's intelligence and Dawkins goes around insulting people's religions.

[segnosaur]

No proof that God is non-existent either.

There's also no proof that an invisible pink unicorn isn't living in my sock drawer. Just because there's no evidence refuting something doesn't mean that we should accept its existence. Sometimes the null hypothisis is correct.

Furthermore, the confusions scientists are in as to origin...

There is no confusion. There may be elements that are currently unknown, but the vast, vast majority of scientists (>99%) accept the theory of evolution (not to mention the big bang/evolution of the universe)

not to mention the theory of ID...

ID (I assume you mean intelligent design) is not a theory in the scientific sense. To be a "theory" it has to explain observations and make testable predictions. However, you cannot "test" ID, since anything that doesn't make sense can always be explained by "god did it".

- is a step in that direction, that could actually prove the existence of God/Creator/Designer. Scientifically-speaking of course.

Except of course you can never actually "prove" anything in science. Science deals with evidence, validation, and probabilities. (We may sometimes slip in the word "proof" now and then, but strictly speaking proof really only applies to math.) I have confidence that the theory of evolution is correct, because the evidence points that way.

Your claim of "proving" the existence of god illustrates how you don't understand basic scientific concepts.

[cybercoma]

Speaking of confusion on origin, it seems to be that Christians are just as confused about origins:

http://skepticsannot...p/universe.html

There's 5 different interpretations right there (from 20 Billion years to 6000 years ago) of what "In the beginning" means in the Bible and it only gets worse from there.

http://en.wikipedia....Gap_creationism

You have gap creationists and day-age creationists and all other kinds of interpretations in between.

FACT: Creationists don't even agree with each other.

[Tilter]

Evangelists like Swaggart and Robertson just preach to spread the good news of Jesus and salvation. There is respect for others' belief. You can tune them out. No harm done.

Dawkins (and the other 3 or 4 founders of New Atheism) have a very specific goal: to go out of their way to attack religion - specifically the Christian religion. They also put emphasis on dis-respect for religious belief (zero tolerance) - which is outright bigotry.
This is an outright declaration of war.

He's lucky he's just getting all these challenges from Christians to face the Creationist scientists in a debate. Or oppositions showing him as a fraud, a charlatan, a sleaze bag just out to make money out of fundamentalist atheists - most of whom are former-Christians-turned-atheists with an ax to grind or in need of assurance.

Being one of the most influential poster-boy for New Atheism, of course everyone will be focusing on him. I intend to focus on him.

The focus btw, doesn't come from the religious side alone. There's been rebukes about him from the legitimate science field as well.

Evangelists like Swaggart and Robertson just preach to spread the good news of Jesus and salvation. There is respect for others' belief. You can tune them out. No harm done.

The idea that swaggart & robertson

just preach to spread the good news of Jesus and salvation

bull.
Swaggart & Robertson are in the preaching business because they are in the preaching bsinesss .. PERIOD.
To them it is a business to suck all the money they can out of the sheeple who have nothing better to dio with their time than to spend money on religious poppycock these guys are good at spewing. If they manage to get a few of the better looking and more gullible girls ( or boys)into bed --- hey, it's one of the perks of the business along with the white Caddys and the presidential suites the gullible buy for them.

No harm done.

????????????????????/
What about the harm done to the kids that don't have enuf to eat because their parents are shamed into giving the traveling sideshow preacher the grocery money so that the neighbors won't look badly at them for being stingy to god.

Edited by Tilter, 04 June 2011 - 12:40 PM.

[cybercoma]

The business of preaching indeed.