[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is there an Atheism 2.0 for Mac, or is it just for Windows?[/quote]
To be honest, I don’t like the “Atheism 2.0” moniker. This particular brand of atheism is not new, but is much less vocal than the Dawkins approach. I wanted to post this as an opposing view to the “hardcore” type that Pat was discussing in the other thread.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Something can be said for people who were raised a certain way, appreciate some of the lessons and community of the Church, but have turned out to be atheist or agnostic.
The thing that appeals to people like myself is the familiarity, if you had a great religious up-bringing and feel your kids will miss out, Atheism 2.0 makes a bit of sense. To someone who say lost their faith and are looking to raise their children in a similar way to the way they were raised might find a lack of secular support in raising their children that would be there if you were part of a parish or other religious community.
Also, maybe we can look at this from an anthropological standpoint? If we are sort of wired to be religious, then wouldn’t it make sense that we go through certain stresses by being atheist or agnostic? Maybe this one is both personal and social? I know it can be for some depending on location. There’s more to this than meets the eye.
An even more interesting caveat is examining people like Dawkins from the anthropological standpoint. Seriously, Dawkins needs to use his platform as a famous scientist to more bash forms of theism, specifically Christianity rather than to promote his platform of Atheism, it’s a weird unabashed prostheletism that sits just like a form of theism, complete with dogma and atheist tattoos, and a book with technical writing which neatly categorizes people into descriptions that nobody agrees with except atheists.
It’s as much about seeing what the atheism side has to offer, which is pretty much Dawkins and the late Hitchens who want to spend as much time insulting as they do promoting how smarter they are/were than everyone else.
I’d find a little justice watching him try to tell a big strong Tita, Samoan or Hawaiian they are stupid for their religion. I’d pay money to watch that.
[/quote]
Hitchens wasn’t near the asshole Dawkins is…
Seriously, you said Dawkins needs to spend more time bashing Christianity? Like it’s not bashed enough? I cannot tell if you were being sarcastic or not. I think bashing it is what has lost him credibility even with many atheists. It seems like the guy in the video seems to take issue with his behavior considering he called him out in every way save for in name.
Such behavior is not good PR and makes it look rather unappealing to a lot of folks. It’s a lot of negative energy and people crave positive energy. Being angry and insulting looks like just plain hate and bias, rather than an intellectual reasoned position.
It’s weird though, it seems like atheists like Christmas carols more than I do. I friggin’ hate Christmas carols. I have heard it several times from atheists how they don’t believe in Christmas, but they sure like the music. [/quote]
When I said at the end I’d pay money to see Dawkins insult a Tita, I’m saying that a hawaiian or samoan Tita would beat his ass, and I’d enjoy watching him get his ass kicked by a large native woman from a culture that uses physicality as an insult rather than words, just so he could see how it must feel. [/quote]
This was the second time you’ve posted a want for violence. LOL…UMAD?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
False[/quote]
What a compelling argument.[/quote]
Equally as compelling as yours I would say.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Atheism doesn’t know, and doesn’t claim to know the ultimate origins of existence. Yours is an assumption, and an extremely large one at that. Now, I realize that you might be a bit put off by that, but the fact remains; claiming that all things were created by a supernatural deity is a large assumption.[/quote]
Atheism makes the claim that there is no G-d. That’s an extremely large assumption based on no evidence.[/quote]
No, atheism does not make that claim; atheism cannot make that claim to 100% certainty. I can’t tell you that there is no god, any more than you can tell me that there is. We don’t know. Atheism asserts that due to the OVERWHELMING lack of ANY evidence for ANY of the gods, that there is no reason to believe in any supernatural deity.
It’s not assumptive to say “I don’t know”, however it’s the beeliever who’s making the claim, and as Hitchens said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Something can be said for people who were raised a certain way, appreciate some of the lessons and community of the Church, but have turned out to be atheist or agnostic.
The thing that appeals to people like myself is the familiarity, if you had a great religious up-bringing and feel your kids will miss out, Atheism 2.0 makes a bit of sense. To someone who say lost their faith and are looking to raise their children in a similar way to the way they were raised might find a lack of secular support in raising their children that would be there if you were part of a parish or other religious community.
Also, maybe we can look at this from an anthropological standpoint? If we are sort of wired to be religious, then wouldn’t it make sense that we go through certain stresses by being atheist or agnostic? Maybe this one is both personal and social? I know it can be for some depending on location. There’s more to this than meets the eye.
An even more interesting caveat is examining people like Dawkins from the anthropological standpoint. Seriously, Dawkins needs to use his platform as a famous scientist to more bash forms of theism, specifically Christianity rather than to promote his platform of Atheism, it’s a weird unabashed prostheletism that sits just like a form of theism, complete with dogma and atheist tattoos, and a book with technical writing which neatly categorizes people into descriptions that nobody agrees with except atheists.
It’s as much about seeing what the atheism side has to offer, which is pretty much Dawkins and the late Hitchens who want to spend as much time insulting as they do promoting how smarter they are/were than everyone else.
I’d find a little justice watching him try to tell a big strong Tita, Samoan or Hawaiian they are stupid for their religion. I’d pay money to watch that.
[/quote]
Hitchens wasn’t near the asshole Dawkins is…
Seriously, you said Dawkins needs to spend more time bashing Christianity? Like it’s not bashed enough? I cannot tell if you were being sarcastic or not. I think bashing it is what has lost him credibility even with many atheists. It seems like the guy in the video seems to take issue with his behavior considering he called him out in every way save for in name.
Such behavior is not good PR and makes it look rather unappealing to a lot of folks. It’s a lot of negative energy and people crave positive energy. Being angry and insulting looks like just plain hate and bias, rather than an intellectual reasoned position.
It’s weird though, it seems like atheists like Christmas carols more than I do. I friggin’ hate Christmas carols. I have heard it several times from atheists how they don’t believe in Christmas, but they sure like the music. [/quote]
When I said at the end I’d pay money to see Dawkins insult a Tita, I’m saying that a hawaiian or samoan Tita would beat his ass, and I’d enjoy watching him get his ass kicked by a large native woman from a culture that uses physicality as an insult rather than words, just so he could see how it must feel. [/quote]
How very loving and christian of you, your god must be proud.
[/quote]
I’m not Christian, I’m an Agnostic.
The only reason I’d want to see such a thing is because it’s essentially the same thing Dawkins does to theists. Except rather than bullying people by insulting their intellect, it’s bullying a man via woman’s strength, which is IMO equally insulting and if you get me at all, it’s my idea of something that would be a just response to his endeavors of insult.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Something can be said for people who were raised a certain way, appreciate some of the lessons and community of the Church, but have turned out to be atheist or agnostic.
The thing that appeals to people like myself is the familiarity, if you had a great religious up-bringing and feel your kids will miss out, Atheism 2.0 makes a bit of sense. To someone who say lost their faith and are looking to raise their children in a similar way to the way they were raised might find a lack of secular support in raising their children that would be there if you were part of a parish or other religious community.
Also, maybe we can look at this from an anthropological standpoint? If we are sort of wired to be religious, then wouldn’t it make sense that we go through certain stresses by being atheist or agnostic? Maybe this one is both personal and social? I know it can be for some depending on location. There’s more to this than meets the eye.
An even more interesting caveat is examining people like Dawkins from the anthropological standpoint. Seriously, Dawkins needs to use his platform as a famous scientist to more bash forms of theism, specifically Christianity rather than to promote his platform of Atheism, it’s a weird unabashed prostheletism that sits just like a form of theism, complete with dogma and atheist tattoos, and a book with technical writing which neatly categorizes people into descriptions that nobody agrees with except atheists.
It’s as much about seeing what the atheism side has to offer, which is pretty much Dawkins and the late Hitchens who want to spend as much time insulting as they do promoting how smarter they are/were than everyone else.
I’d find a little justice watching him try to tell a big strong Tita, Samoan or Hawaiian they are stupid for their religion. I’d pay money to watch that.
[/quote]
Hitchens wasn’t near the asshole Dawkins is…
Seriously, you said Dawkins needs to spend more time bashing Christianity? Like it’s not bashed enough? I cannot tell if you were being sarcastic or not. I think bashing it is what has lost him credibility even with many atheists. It seems like the guy in the video seems to take issue with his behavior considering he called him out in every way save for in name.
Such behavior is not good PR and makes it look rather unappealing to a lot of folks. It’s a lot of negative energy and people crave positive energy. Being angry and insulting looks like just plain hate and bias, rather than an intellectual reasoned position.
It’s weird though, it seems like atheists like Christmas carols more than I do. I friggin’ hate Christmas carols. I have heard it several times from atheists how they don’t believe in Christmas, but they sure like the music. [/quote]
When I said at the end I’d pay money to see Dawkins insult a Tita, I’m saying that a hawaiian or samoan Tita would beat his ass, and I’d enjoy watching him get his ass kicked by a large native woman from a culture that uses physicality as an insult rather than words, just so he could see how it must feel. [/quote]
How very loving and christian of you, your god must be proud.
[/quote]
I’m not Christian, I’m an Agnostic.
The only reason I’d want to see such a thing is because it’s essentially the same thing Dawkins does to theists. Except rather than bullying people by insulting their intellect, it’s bullying a man via woman’s strength, which is IMO equally insulting and if you get me at all, it’s my idea of something that would be a just response to his endeavors of insult. [/quote]
Yup, I interpretted your post wrong, and edited it.
And what makes you think that any of us are free from the possibility of insult? Aren’t some ideas worthy of insult?
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Something can be said for people who were raised a certain way, appreciate some of the lessons and community of the Church, but have turned out to be atheist or agnostic.
The thing that appeals to people like myself is the familiarity, if you had a great religious up-bringing and feel your kids will miss out, Atheism 2.0 makes a bit of sense. To someone who say lost their faith and are looking to raise their children in a similar way to the way they were raised might find a lack of secular support in raising their children that would be there if you were part of a parish or other religious community.
Also, maybe we can look at this from an anthropological standpoint? If we are sort of wired to be religious, then wouldn’t it make sense that we go through certain stresses by being atheist or agnostic? Maybe this one is both personal and social? I know it can be for some depending on location. There’s more to this than meets the eye.
An even more interesting caveat is examining people like Dawkins from the anthropological standpoint. Seriously, Dawkins needs to use his platform as a famous scientist to more bash forms of theism, specifically Christianity rather than to promote his platform of Atheism, it’s a weird unabashed prostheletism that sits just like a form of theism, complete with dogma and atheist tattoos, and a book with technical writing which neatly categorizes people into descriptions that nobody agrees with except atheists.
It’s as much about seeing what the atheism side has to offer, which is pretty much Dawkins and the late Hitchens who want to spend as much time insulting as they do promoting how smarter they are/were than everyone else.
I’d find a little justice watching him try to tell a big strong Tita, Samoan or Hawaiian they are stupid for their religion. I’d pay money to watch that.
[/quote]
Hitchens wasn’t near the asshole Dawkins is…
Seriously, you said Dawkins needs to spend more time bashing Christianity? Like it’s not bashed enough? I cannot tell if you were being sarcastic or not. I think bashing it is what has lost him credibility even with many atheists. It seems like the guy in the video seems to take issue with his behavior considering he called him out in every way save for in name.
Such behavior is not good PR and makes it look rather unappealing to a lot of folks. It’s a lot of negative energy and people crave positive energy. Being angry and insulting looks like just plain hate and bias, rather than an intellectual reasoned position.
It’s weird though, it seems like atheists like Christmas carols more than I do. I friggin’ hate Christmas carols. I have heard it several times from atheists how they don’t believe in Christmas, but they sure like the music. [/quote]
When I said at the end I’d pay money to see Dawkins insult a Tita, I’m saying that a hawaiian or samoan Tita would beat his ass, and I’d enjoy watching him get his ass kicked by a large native woman from a culture that uses physicality as an insult rather than words, just so he could see how it must feel. [/quote]
How very loving and christian of you, your god must be proud.
[/quote]
I’m not Christian, I’m an Agnostic.
The only reason I’d want to see such a thing is because it’s essentially the same thing Dawkins does to theists. Except rather than bullying people by insulting their intellect, it’s bullying a man via woman’s strength, which is IMO equally insulting and if you get me at all, it’s my idea of something that would be a just response to his endeavors of insult. [/quote]
And it’s not even close to the same thing. One is violent action against another person, the other is insulting criticism of belief.
Violence that apparently, you are just dying to witness.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
False[/quote]
What a compelling argument.[/quote]
Equally as compelling as yours I would say.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Atheism doesn’t know, and doesn’t claim to know the ultimate origins of existence. Yours is an assumption, and an extremely large one at that. Now, I realize that you might be a bit put off by that, but the fact remains; claiming that all things were created by a supernatural deity is a large assumption.[/quote]
Atheism makes the claim that there is no G-d. That’s an extremely large assumption based on no evidence.[/quote]
No, atheism does not make that claim; atheism cannot make that claim to 100% certainty. I can’t tell you that there is no god, any more than you can tell me that there is. We don’t know. Atheism asserts that due to the OVERWHELMING lack of ANY evidence for ANY of the gods, that there is no reason to believe in any supernatural deity.
It’s not assumptive to say “I don’t know”, however it’s the beeliever who’s making the claim, and as Hitchens said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
[/quote]
You’re making a positive assertion: that G-d does not exist. You have no evidence to conclusively prove that assertion.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
False[/quote]
What a compelling argument.[/quote]
Equally as compelling as yours I would say.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Atheism doesn’t know, and doesn’t claim to know the ultimate origins of existence. Yours is an assumption, and an extremely large one at that. Now, I realize that you might be a bit put off by that, but the fact remains; claiming that all things were created by a supernatural deity is a large assumption.[/quote]
Atheism makes the claim that there is no G-d. That’s an extremely large assumption based on no evidence.[/quote]
No, atheism does not make that claim; atheism cannot make that claim to 100% certainty. I can’t tell you that there is no god, any more than you can tell me that there is. We don’t know. Atheism asserts that due to the OVERWHELMING lack of ANY evidence for ANY of the gods, that there is no reason to believe in any supernatural deity.
It’s not assumptive to say “I don’t know”, however it’s the beeliever who’s making the claim, and as Hitchens said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
[/quote]
You’re making a positive assertion: that G-d does not exist. You have no evidence to conclusively prove that assertion.[/quote]
You’re making a positive assertion that god does exist. You have no evidence to conclusively prove that assertion.
You’re making the extraordinary claim, you provide the extraordinary evidence.
The problem of proving a negative, as presented by James Randi
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
False[/quote]
What a compelling argument.[/quote]
Equally as compelling as yours I would say.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Atheism doesn’t know, and doesn’t claim to know the ultimate origins of existence. Yours is an assumption, and an extremely large one at that. Now, I realize that you might be a bit put off by that, but the fact remains; claiming that all things were created by a supernatural deity is a large assumption.[/quote]
Atheism makes the claim that there is no G-d. That’s an extremely large assumption based on no evidence.[/quote]
No, atheism does not make that claim; atheism cannot make that claim to 100% certainty. I can’t tell you that there is no god, any more than you can tell me that there is. We don’t know. Atheism asserts that due to the OVERWHELMING lack of ANY evidence for ANY of the gods, that there is no reason to believe in any supernatural deity.
It’s not assumptive to say “I don’t know”, however it’s the beeliever who’s making the claim, and as Hitchens said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
[/quote]
But I’m not trying to convince you of anything. You believe whatever you want to believe.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
So he wants to add some structure to atheism and improve it’s methods of delivery.
I think that the thing he is missing is that with organized religions there is not just a communion of the spirit with God, but also with your fellow members. That is the tie that binds congregations and gives structure through out the world- The shared experience and belief of having been through the rituals and sharing ownership of some of the worlds best known works of art an appreciation for their significance within the whole system of belief.
So what do you do when there is no spiritual experience or binding that holds people together or connects them through out the world? It’s a bit of a gordian knot if you can not acknowledge the human spirit or spiritual existence of a group of people because you do not believe in the existence of the human spirit or any other for that matter. Without that most fundamental element- the spiritual experience- all of the art and architecture in the world isn’t going to mean anything. Travel or pilgrimage? To what? A lecture hall? A coffee house? Woo-Hoo! Did you see the earth tone walls of the original Starbucks? Wow. How bout those seats in the lecture hall at CMU? OMG! I could spend hours in those!
Thats why atheism comes off as flat and empty. The snarky, superior tone that some take doesn’t help either. It’s like a lesbian comedy hour.
[/quote]
The question is, what’s the message? Delivery of what, exactly?[/quote]
That there is nothing else. No human spirit, no holy spirit, just the life you have for the time you have it, which is nothing more than a chain of chemical reactions and electric signals in response to your surroundings.
At least that is what I get from atheists. Not that the ones I’ve talked to don’t value and enjoy the life that they have, but as soon as you approach any type of spiritual existence, the conversation changes real quick.
Me and a guy had a running inside joke for a while. He sneezed and without thinking about it I said “God bless you.” He told me he doesn’t believe in god, and that I may as well just say “Hey, you just sneezed.” from a Seinfeld episode. So I did. It was good for a few laughs, but I found it interesting that he didn’t care for the sentiment of the statement, which for me amounts to “Feel better soon.”. Usually just friendly and innocuous, but for an atheist it can be a bit of a land mine.
[/quote]
They can be really touchy. Which is funny since they can bash religious folk with fervor, but can’t take it in return.
…Crap, I am going to shrink this down and fix the quotes. I am not shrinking it to deliberately leave out info, just to make it more readable.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Something can be said for people who were raised a certain way, appreciate some of the lessons and community of the Church, but have turned out to be atheist or agnostic.
The thing that appeals to people like myself is the familiarity, if you had a great religious up-bringing and feel your kids will miss out, Atheism 2.0 makes a bit of sense. To someone who say lost their faith and are looking to raise their children in a similar way to the way they were raised might find a lack of secular support in raising their children that would be there if you were part of a parish or other religious community.
Also, maybe we can look at this from an anthropological standpoint? If we are sort of wired to be religious, then wouldn’t it make sense that we go through certain stresses by being atheist or agnostic? Maybe this one is both personal and social? I know it can be for some depending on location. There’s more to this than meets the eye.
An even more interesting caveat is examining people like Dawkins from the anthropological standpoint. Seriously, Dawkins needs to use his platform as a famous scientist to more bash forms of theism, specifically Christianity rather than to promote his platform of Atheism, it’s a weird unabashed prostheletism that sits just like a form of theism, complete with dogma and atheist tattoos, and a book with technical writing which neatly categorizes people into descriptions that nobody agrees with except atheists.
It’s as much about seeing what the atheism side has to offer, which is pretty much Dawkins and the late Hitchens who want to spend as much time insulting as they do promoting how smarter they are/were than everyone else.
I’d find a little justice watching him try to tell a big strong Tita, Samoan or Hawaiian they are stupid for their religion. I’d pay money to watch that.
[/quote]
Hitchens wasn’t near the asshole Dawkins is…
Seriously, you said Dawkins needs to spend more time bashing Christianity? Like it’s not bashed enough? I cannot tell if you were being sarcastic or not. I think bashing it is what has lost him credibility even with many atheists. It seems like the guy in the video seems to take issue with his behavior considering he called him out in every way save for in name.
Such behavior is not good PR and makes it look rather unappealing to a lot of folks. It’s a lot of negative energy and people crave positive energy. Being angry and insulting looks like just plain hate and bias, rather than an intellectual reasoned position.
It’s weird though, it seems like atheists like Christmas carols more than I do. I friggin’ hate Christmas carols. I have heard it several times from atheists how they don’t believe in Christmas, but they sure like the music. [/quote]
When I said at the end I’d pay money to see Dawkins insult a Tita, I’m saying that a hawaiian or samoan Tita would beat his ass, and I’d enjoy watching him get his ass kicked by a large native woman from a culture that uses physicality as an insult rather than words, just so he could see how it must feel. [/quote]
How very loving and christian of you, your god must be proud.
[/quote]
I’m not Christian, I’m an Agnostic.
The only reason I’d want to see such a thing is because it’s essentially the same thing Dawkins does to theists. Except rather than bullying people by insulting their intellect, it’s bullying a man via woman’s strength, which is IMO equally insulting and if you get me at all, it’s my idea of something that would be a just response to his endeavors of insult. [/quote]
And it’s not even close to the same thing. One is violent action against another person, the other is insulting criticism of belief.
Violence that apparently, you are just dying to witness.
[/quote]
They are the same thing, they are both bullying. To say that words aren’t as harmful as being slapped by a large lady is pretty short sighted. Especially considering it’s Dawkins who is a very intelligent man insulting others intelligence. It’s no different than a very strong person insulting peoples strength by overpowering them.
Also. Your proving a negative thing… Why bring it up when Dawkins is the one fabricating statistics and degrees of certainty when it comes to the existence of any sorts of God? If you have read his positions on theology he asserts he is more than 97% certain there is no God. Those are numbers based on what? NOTHING.
He also attempts to re-define things by categorizing people like myself as Agnostic atheists, which would put me in the same crowd as himself. He is short sighted in this sense considering the study of etymology, and basic facts like the way the word Atheist was used in the past. It was actually used to describe people of Christian belief who didn’t believe in the same Gods as the Romans. The same technical language asserts that the majority of Christian theists would be considered agnostic theists, in that they have faith rather than certainty about their God.
Dawkins asserts he doesn’t quite have certainty, but a 95+% probability that God doesn’t exist. On this, he is no different than a theist. His version of Atheism doesn’t follow the logic he so proudly insist he takes on. To boot he’s an asshole about being a non believer in that he likes to insult people who don’t agree with him.
Do you get it? Do you get why I’d like to see him get slapped by a big lady? Lol. It would only be an insult, I’m not calling for him to be battered and beat up in a hospital. It would only be for the sake of giving him some of his own medicine.
peace!
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Where do you think he’s wrong on what religious people believe?
[/quote]
Things like religions think you are all children and in desperate need of help.
The idea that you get the same moralistic teachings in Plato and Jane Austin as you do in the Gospel of John. While I do not disagree there is some crossover, it’s not the same as they function on completely different premises.
That a sermon wants to change your life. While there are sermons that have that aim, that’s not the whole purpose and reason for sermons.
I don’t disagree with you here.
This is a bit of a slippery slope I think. While you don’t want to be a religion, you want to employ the sense of community and unification and such that religion employs.
As long as you are loose group of rugged individualists who are only united in the agreement that there is no God. You can be considered a non-religion. You start unifying and coming together of spreading the ‘word’, you start to get dangerously close to religion. Preaching a united message with fervor, a sense of community, you are starting to get dangerously close to acting religiously in non-belief.
But isn’t it the common belief that life has no meaning, no purpose, no reason. It just is what it is, by sheer accident of the universe? How then do you have and lead a meaningful life when you believe it has no real meaning?
To me that seems to be assigning life properties it does not have and essentially living a lie.
Either life has a meaning or it doesn’t. It doesn’t make any sense to assign an arbitrary meaning to something that essentially has none. That’s like living a lie…
I have found the opposite. We’re used to being bashed, insulted, maligned, etc. I can see this perhaps in the olden days where politics and religion were intermingled. No toleration of anything that might disturb the status quo, but these days you have the media and such who are secular in nature and very much on the side of secularists.
Careful, gonna have to grease up the stake to throw some non-believers on the fire. You wouldn’t believe how fast they burn! Like a dry shrub… 
I enjoy these dialogs. Regardless of belief it’s always good to learn more about each other.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You can’t make a case for atheism. You can certainly make a case for agnosticism but what evidence exists that G-d doesn’t exist? And for every paradox you can provide for non existence an equally compelling paradox can be made for existence. For example, the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy can’t be lost or created. Matter can be converted to energy and energy to matter but the amount must always remain the same. So where did matter/energy come from if someone or something didn’t create it in the first place? Someone or something that is able to break the first law of thermodynamics.[/quote]
I prefer atheists over agnostics. I don’t like fence sitters. Agnostics are always ‘waiting’ for more info. I guess they haven’t been to a library before. There’s reams and reams of info for both sides of the argument. We’re more in danger of information overload, than a lack of info.
Pick one, have some balls!
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Something can be said for people who were raised a certain way, appreciate some of the lessons and community of the Church, but have turned out to be atheist or agnostic.
The thing that appeals to people like myself is the familiarity, if you had a great religious up-bringing and feel your kids will miss out, Atheism 2.0 makes a bit of sense. To someone who say lost their faith and are looking to raise their children in a similar way to the way they were raised might find a lack of secular support in raising their children that would be there if you were part of a parish or other religious community.
Also, maybe we can look at this from an anthropological standpoint? If we are sort of wired to be religious, then wouldn’t it make sense that we go through certain stresses by being atheist or agnostic? Maybe this one is both personal and social? I know it can be for some depending on location. There’s more to this than meets the eye.
An even more interesting caveat is examining people like Dawkins from the anthropological standpoint. Seriously, Dawkins needs to use his platform as a famous scientist to more bash forms of theism, specifically Christianity rather than to promote his platform of Atheism, it’s a weird unabashed prostheletism that sits just like a form of theism, complete with dogma and atheist tattoos, and a book with technical writing which neatly categorizes people into descriptions that nobody agrees with except atheists.
It’s as much about seeing what the atheism side has to offer, which is pretty much Dawkins and the late Hitchens who want to spend as much time insulting as they do promoting how smarter they are/were than everyone else.
I’d find a little justice watching him try to tell a big strong Tita, Samoan or Hawaiian they are stupid for their religion. I’d pay money to watch that.
[/quote]
Hitchens wasn’t near the asshole Dawkins is…
Seriously, you said Dawkins needs to spend more time bashing Christianity? Like it’s not bashed enough? I cannot tell if you were being sarcastic or not. I think bashing it is what has lost him credibility even with many atheists. It seems like the guy in the video seems to take issue with his behavior considering he called him out in every way save for in name.
Such behavior is not good PR and makes it look rather unappealing to a lot of folks. It’s a lot of negative energy and people crave positive energy. Being angry and insulting looks like just plain hate and bias, rather than an intellectual reasoned position.
It’s weird though, it seems like atheists like Christmas carols more than I do. I friggin’ hate Christmas carols. I have heard it several times from atheists how they don’t believe in Christmas, but they sure like the music. [/quote]
I think Hitchens was more a real free thinker, but he never shied away from bellicose bashing, insulting people on grounds he was much smarter than them, much like Dawkins. The reason I bring it up is because in reality, that IS the common thing most Atheists of their ilk have as community… It’s that sort of I’m smarter than you sort of insult towards anyone and everyone whose ideas don’t marry up with their own. When I said at the end I’d pay money to see Dawkins insult a Tita, I’m saying that a hawaiian or samoan Tita would beat his ass, and I’d enjoy watching him get his ass kicked by a large native woman from a culture that uses physicality as an insult rather than words, just so he could see how it must feel.
[/quote]
True, but he seems to have an aire of ‘all in good fun’ to his insulting. Hitchens was at least honest and had a sense of humor about things.
[quote]
What Skyz says is true. There isn’t anything that holds that sort of communal atheism together other than a sort of asshole-ish, elite intellectualism. I mean, the thing that holds them together is talking shit about others. It’s like hearing Christians talk shit about Muslims, it’s just like another religion in that sense and no better. [/quote]
I don’t disagree with you here…
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I’m not Christian, I’m an Agnostic.
[/quote]
Chicken! Pick a side.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You can’t make a case for atheism. You can certainly make a case for agnosticism but what evidence exists that G-d doesn’t exist? And for every paradox you can provide for non existence an equally compelling paradox can be made for existence. For example, the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy can’t be lost or created. Matter can be converted to energy and energy to matter but the amount must always remain the same. So where did matter/energy come from if someone or something didn’t create it in the first place? Someone or something that is able to break the first law of thermodynamics.[/quote]
I prefer atheists over agnostics. I don’t like fence sitters. Agnostics are always ‘waiting’ for more info. I guess they haven’t been to a library before. There’s reams and reams of info for both sides of the argument. We’re more in danger of information overload, than a lack of info.
Pick one, have some balls![/quote]
My view is exactly contrary.
Agnosticism is the only correct and only reasonable conclusion.
Theists are lying, either to other people or to themselves, when they say that they “know” God exists. They don’t know it, they cant prove it.
Atheists are lying, either to other people or to themselves, when they say that they “know” God not to exist. They don’t know it, they can’t prove it.
If you don’t know something, and you can’t prove it, and it’s a question of unfathomable import, then you should say that you neither know it nor have the ability to prove it.
That’s my view, anyway. Of course, this doesn’t preclude religious faith–many believers, especially the really smart ones, understand what “faith” means and why it’s relevant–but it does preclude philosophical certainty, which is entirely unjustified.
[quote]
Atheists are lying, either to other people or to themselves, when they say that they “know” God not to exist. They don’t know it, they can’t prove it.[/quote]
So we can’t know that Azathoth and Cthulhu do not exist.
So… They may be real after all.
Cool !
[quote]kamui wrote:
So we can’t know that Azathoth and Cthulhu do not exist.
So… They may be real after all.
[/quote]
I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Anyway, so far as I know, there are no strong logical arguments for Cthulu.