Around the time that Richard Dawkins got together with Mrs Garrison, one of the regulars posted something about Dawkins being a bit of an idiot. I'd never actually heard of him at that point, but I downloaded a lecture a couple of weeks ago and found it very amusing and educational.
Over the weekend, I watched five DVD's of Dawkins and I now reckon he's wonderful. It was all "retarded fish-frog" stuff and everything seemed to make perfect sense.
Does anyone here like him or loathe him sufficiently to comment?
If you loathe him, is there a particular reason why?
On Aug 2, 9:31�pm, "Lawrence�Logic" <lawrence-OmitThisBit-lo...@amd- p.com> wrote:
He's as nutty as any other Bible-thumper or jihadist, and the idea that the world would be better without religion is just as realistic as the Easter Bunny.
You see, there is no real reason to "loathe" Dawkins unless one is a member of your typical "real American" redneck who is hopelessly unable to think for himself and has to rely on what he believes are "news" sources such as Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Kristol, Beck, as well as the endless procession of religion peddlers of all sorts. Combine this constant crypto-fascist propaganda with the rampant and ever increasing anti-intellectualism in today's USA and the result is the endless assault on reason, education, intellect, academia and science, that is primarily conducted by attacks on persons, as opposed to attacking their positions and opinions. In the case of Dawkins, who like many other prominent atheists seems to be a constant thorn in the religious fanatics' paws, they will inevitably throw in a completely idiotic misrepresentation of atheism as "religion", so that they can then proceed to burn that straw man as well. After all, it would be utterly ludicrous to accuse someone of being a fanatic for a non-belief, but if you "clevelry" reclassify his non-belief into the polar opposite of what it is, you can then fling your arguments like a retarded monkey flings turds and none is the wiser. None with an IQ of more than 10, that is.
For a case in point, see a response from Reaper G in this newsgroup.
Apparently, Dawkins is "as nutty as any other Bible-thumper or jihadist", but of course, we'll get no arguments whatsoever to justify how he is "as nutty", why, in what respect, not to mention the sheer absurdity of comparing one of the leading British intellectuals to a horde of Islamic fanatics. We'll just have to accept that he's nutty - after all, South Park says so, and like Jesus is G.W.Bush's favorite philosopher, South Park is the same to some people here. Welcome to America's culture.
Then he'll follow it up with what is either a complete lack of understanding of how ideas work or a shitty but sly attempt to debase his position on religion: "the idea that the world would be better without religion is just as realistic as the Easter Bunny"
The "idea" of the World being better off without religion has nothing to do with reality - it is a claim that can either be argued or taken at face value. Whether it can ever be implemented is irrelevant to its premise. But don't tell Reaper G that - why confuse someone with facts? Why bother arguing something with a person who declares Dawkins "nutty" without having a decency to maybe first read some of his books on the matter and then form an educated opinion? Would it make any difference to those people to point out the sheer body count that resulted in all the religious and pseudo-religious wars throughout history, as well as the constant suppression of thought, science and progress that continues to this day, from "Intelligent Design" peddlers in the US to the utter illiteracy and general backwardness of every Muslim country where church rules the state? No, Dawkins nutty, four legs good, two legs bad, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
Oh yes you will, Mr. Can't Respond to Me Directly.
How exactly is Dawkins's desire for worldwide atheism any different from what Christians, Muslims, etc. have wanted for millenia, and how exactly would he go about achieving that?
Jacobins, Bolsheviks, the Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot.
There's no thought, science, or progress in mocking the beliefs of others. Science, reason, and logic are wonderful things, but they're not the *only* things. Science won't bring one comfort at the bedside of a dying relative. It hasn't turned around the lives of gang members and drug addicts. It hasn't motivated people to help the poor and homeless. How many atheists have won the Nobel Peace Prize?
And atheists are smarter and better than religious people.
I don't know if you and Mr Ford have tangled previously. Perhaps the amount of froth can be verified by scientific investigation (I'd so a smiley face here if I was a fan of emoticons).
Maybe it was you that I was inadvertantly referring to when I said that someone here didn't like him. I'm probably more in the Dawkins camp than the God camp. You may be less in the God camp than seemed to be the case in your post, and merely object to Dawkins being an activist as much as the next religious crackpot. In a way, he's very similar.
But I think that a scientific approach makes better sense to me. "2x=y" makes more sense to me than anything that advocates that x can equal 3 and y can equal 5, and that the incongruence can only be explained by faith.
Add the notion that there is a single God, "each" backing those that pray to it, yet religious wars are still going on? If there's only one God, and He protects those who do His will, it's kind-of funny that there are so many of them, and that all of His followers aren't similarly protected. If there is really a single entity governing our world, what the heck are all those bomb-clad nutters thinking?
Perhaps the fact that certain religions fear scrutiny should point to the relative integrity of the particular religion. Islam, for instance, seems very intolerant of scrutiny. People who follow Christ are generally less inherently-stoopid than their Islamic counterparts, and usually try to reason with dumb Moslem people. That's why Moslems somehow commit worse atrocities than those that go the other way - they're usually more extreme, and their targets try to make friends with them, making them easier targets.
Doesn't it seem strange that Christianity and atheism don't mind a bit of ridicule?
I'm fast becoming an atheist. The Christians aren't bad neighbours though.
On Aug 4, 7:43�am, "Lawrence�Logic" <lawrence-OmitThisBit-lo...@amd- p.com> wrote:
I'd hardly call what I wrote a tirade. Mr. Ford's (who, since you asked, I've never encountered before) post more strongly resembles that word.
That's exactly it, and it's my main problem with militant atheists like him. I have no problem with someone not believing in God, but I have a problem with hypocritical know-it-alls who act like the very people they say they dislike. Dawkins is no different from Ted Haggard or Osama Bin Laden in that regard.
There is no reason that science and religion cannot coexist. Even many of Dawkins's colleagues feel that way.
Everyone has their version of the truth, whether it's religion or government or economics. The problem is with people who take issue with those of different beliefs, not the beliefs themselves.
They handle it better than the Church of Scientology, that's for sure.
Cool with me. Just don't be a dickweed about it. What you believe is less important to me than how you believe.
Huh! So Dawkins, much like Haggard, actively advocated denying civil rights to the same minority that, it turns out, he himself belongs to? He waged war and is responsible for killing thousands of people who do not share his narrow interpretation of which god and how has to be followed? Yes, Dawkins is exactly like Haggard and Bin Laden. If you're a moron.
What's that? Oh, I see, Dawkins is a "know-it-all"? This is the best you can come up with?
Try to wrap this thought around whatever passes for your brains:
The only reason any atheist ever bothers to respond to the ever-increasingly pushy, aggressive, illiterate, socially, morally and scientifically backwards claims of religionists and theists is in response to the highly detrimental effects that religion has on the whole society, from overt and covert work against human rights to religiously inspired wars and genocide and enormous waste of resources. If theists and religionists of all sorts learned to keep their beliefs confined to their homes and churches, no one would give a flying fuck about them. Religion would be just another exhibit in the interesting, yet somewhat morbid exhibit in the curiosity shop that is human civilization.
??? What the fuck does have to do with anything? This is a totally banal statement and irrelevant to anything that's been said so far.
There is also no reason that astronomy and synchronized swimming cannot exist either.
Your phony refutation of an imaginary false dichotomy notwithstanding, science and scientists have no problem with religion, as long as it doesn't interfere with their work. Unfortunately, religion has a long and sorry history of interfering with the scientific thought, from way before Bruno and Galileo to Darwin to stem cell research.
??? How old are you? Jesus Fucking Assballs Christ, discussing anything with you hurts more than being kicked in the balls. Shit, I hate the deliberately stupid people. Go read a book or two instead of just watching stupid shit like South Park.
Old enough to know that I dont' want to act like the people I find disagreeable.
How many of your friends and family does that include?
I just did -- "I Don't Believe in Atheists" by Chris Hedges. Actually, it's rather repetitive and negative in Hedge's view of human nature, but it also makes the points that I've been making all along. And to clarify, Hedges has also written a tome condemning the Religious Right, so he's smart enough to treat both sides equally.
If SP was stupid, I wouldn't watch it. It's the best satire on TV, with or without fart jokes, and the way they treated atheism like any other religion is proof of that. You must be a fan, or you wouldn't be here, right?
The only difference is that both sides are not to be treated equally. Do you treat equally neo-nazis and those opposed to neo-nazism? Do you treat equally chemists and alchemists? Communists and anti-communists?
It is one thing to listen to arguments from both sides and then form an informed opinion based on respect of the fundamental principles of human interaction, and it is another thing to insist from the start that both sides of an issue deserve the same treatment no matter what. Theism and especially its ugly form of organized religion deserves no such respect because it is undermining those fundamental principles of civil and human rights, respect of privacy, quest of knowledge, pursuit of happiness if you will.
No, you are sadly mistaken. South Park is not a satire by any stretch of imagination. At its best moments, SP is a cartoon show that bases its humor on shock value, absurdities, exaggerated stereotypes and on what seems to be increasingly passing for "funny" today, namely that something is funny because it's stupid (see Tom Green, Pauly Shore, Adam Sandler, MTV Jackass, as well as dozens of reality shows). Satire requires wit and SP has little of it. For the example of this, look at the way celebrities are portrayed in SP: Streisand, Gore, Oprah, Affleck, Dawkins, etc. How is any of those examples satirical? Putting a gun in the "hand" of Oprah's vagina and having it talk? Having Gore endlessly repeat "I am serial"? Having Dawkins have sex with Mr.Garrison? How is this satirical in any sense of the word? It is fucking retarded, but that doesn't magically make it funny, let alone satirical.
I can't stand either Bill O'Reilley or his doppelganger Keith Olbermann, if that's what you mean.
Can you say you've done that?
All that *and* satire.
As overinflated idiots.
Worst episode ever.
No, by substituting his global warming paranoia with ManBearPig paranoia.
No, by showing his followers 500 years in the future killing each other over who has the best interpretation of his beliefs. Where have we heard that before? Catholics vs. Protestants? Sunnis vs. Shiites?
Being retarded doesn't make it funny, making it well-written does. Some shows are too complicated for some people.
"Alan Ford" wrote in message news:h5ngvb$voa$[email]...
I must apologise for apparently planting a seed and then running away. That wasn't my intention, although the to-and-fro between you and Reaper G has been entertaining and very interesting.
Just out of curiosity, how did you find this thread? I'm presuming that you aren't a South Park fan.
I find South Park to be almost sophisticated by virtue of its deliberate non-sophistication at times. Most of the shows have multiple concurrent story lines, and they're much more complex than what they appear at face value. It seems to be more in line with English humour, which is understandable when you consider the creators' affection for Monty Python (and, ipso facto, Spike Milligan). Some of it is absolutely fucking retarded, and much of the humour is wide of its mark (the Oprah episode that you mentioned, for instance), but I generally feel it to be the most enjoyable show on TV.
While my views on Dawkins are more aligned with yours rather than Reaper G's, I have much respect for Reaper due to his regular participation in this group. I'm not suggesting for a moment that you should go easy on him. I'm just meaning that I'll still like him even if I don't necessarily agree with him. It troubles me to a degree, though, that I seem to have opened a bit of a hornet's nest and that the debate has become more than heated (and there are still half a dozen more posts to get through - Lord alone knows what they contain, so to speak).
It pleases me that you found this thread, although civility seems to have flown out the window. In no way am I blaming you for that; I just figured that I'd chime in now with an opinion and your post is merely the vehicle for that.
I couldn't see the need for the thread to degenerate the way that it did. Alan was maybe a bit agitated and his tolerance for you seemed to take a hit or two. Without meaning to be disrespectful to Alan (and it appears that he isn't here to defend himself), articulation seemed to take a back seat to emotion. I liked much of what he said but it had pretty well gone beyond "healthy debate" and became more of a slanging match (which isn't necessarily unusual around here anyway).
On the evolution side of things, I'm assuming that you have one foot planted firmly in that camp. The success of artificial selection appears to lend plenty of weight to the idea of natural selection. It doesn't prove a non-existence of God, and maybe God created a very dynamic environment that facilitated evolution. I don't believe that, however. The origin of actual life, though, is very mysterious.
You can tell me to mind my own business, but are you a practising Christian? By that I mean do you go to church and worship and all of the other things associated with devoutness to a faith?
One of the things that I have trouble coming to grips with is the fact that there are so many religions. I used to have an idea, based on nothing in particular, that they were all just different versions of the same thing. Perhaps Jesus appeared in some manifestation in India and other places, and that "Christian-like" religions sprang up as a result. I no longer hold that view.
I'm now of the opinion that religion sprang up at a time when we'd crawled out of the mire and started to think about where we came from. Without the benefit of knowledge and science, superstitious beliefs flourished unchallenged. The idea that the evidence against God was created by God to ensure faith in Him, as I've heard people say, grates on me more than a little.
Statistically, people of relatively low intellect are more inclined to believe in a deity. You're obviously not intellectually challenged and I hope you didn't construe that remark as an insult. Conversely, my intelligence is probably slipping a bit due to getting old and senile, yet I probably believed in God more when my brain was truly the size of a planet. My more compact brain, though, is armed with the fruits of scientific research.
One thing that gets me annoyed is the intolerance of some faiths to scrutiny. Moslems, for instance, seem to want to kill anyone who challenges their belief. Integrity invites scrutiny. If looking under the hood is frowned upon, I'd then consider that integrity has gone flying right out the window.
Note: I have a very very good friend who is a Moslem. He's very easy going and a wonderful person, and I've dropped him off at the mosque for his Friday lunchtime worship on a few occasions. He can believe what he wants and I'll support him, as long as he doesn't try to apply it to me. Despite Dawkins saying something similar himself, I perceive that you're not a fan of his because he doesn't appear to practise what he "preaches". Is that it in a nutshell?
On Aug 11, 9:19�pm, "Lawrence�Logic" <lawrence-OmitThisBit-lo...@amd- p.com> wrote:
You're very welcome.
Some people can't stand to hear their beliefs or their heroes challenged. Alan represented two things that I find irrational and illogical -- behaving like the very people you're opposed to, and visiting newsgroups dedicated to people and shows you don't like. You'll never see me in a "Jon & Kate" forum.
I'd say I have both feet in the evolution camp. I've been a dinosaur fan since pre-school, and everything I know and read and studied leads me to believe that the world was created in a hell of a lot more than six days. At the same time, when I look at all the beauty and miracles on Earth and the universe, I find it hard to believe that it's simply all a big accident. You're right, it's all very mysterious.
Actually, I spent the last two Sunday mornings at the liquor store (I rarely drink, I just wanted wine pairings for my homemade dinners). I don't go to church, except for weddings and funerals. My uncle is a reverend and an Air Force chaplain, and he's a good man to have around in difficult times.
See, it's the whitewashing of anyone who believes in something that I don't like (which I see you're not doing). I believe that people brought up in an atheist lifestyle will be just as smart or dumb as anyone from any other culture. It's how you use your brain that's important.
There you go. Not everyone with the same beliefs have the same attitude. There are people like him even in the most repressive, fundamentalist countries. They're the ones who need to be supported.
I watch the show most of the time. As a matter of fact, I primarily watch animated shows on TV and an occasional sitcom. I don't watch dramas and I am probably the only person in the US who hasn't seen a single episode of any reality show ever. All together, I spend less than 60-70 minutes a day in front of that wasteland that is TV. Still, SP suffers from lazy writing. The writers will occasionally come up with a brilliant episode, but that happens less and less often, and most of the time they will shovel out garbage based on off-the-wall bullshit and what sometimes smells of some inside joke that the audience has no background story of (see the Kanye West episode - what the fuck was that about?). The smugness and the hypocrisy of the writers is starting to be a major turn-off as well. They are all so allegedly "libertarian" (you really have to live in the US to understand this fucking canard, but suffice it to say that the US is the only country in the Western hemisphere where the word "liberal" is slung as an insult), so we get treated to this show's anti-liberal share of nonsense, while in the meantime the same writers feel free to enjoy all the benefits of liberalism and liberals they are so quick to spoof. As a result, any social commentary in SP is necessarily stilted, widely off target and therefore culturally and socially irrelevant. For a perfect example, see that abortion of an animated movie Team America.
Last, but not least, some people seem to be mistaking certain TV show newsgroups for the place where only fawning and groveling sap is allowed as posts and where any negative comments are met with disbelief by the "fans" who would think the show was the greatest thing on Earth even if it consisted of nothing but 30 minutes of white noise or color bars.
Well, there's little point debating personal preferences and taste, so I'll just point out that SP is to Monty Python what bestiality porn is to art cinema. Also, like I already said in one of my previous posts, I am really disgusted by this trend in comedy (or "comedy" to be precise) where something is supposed to be funny just because it's stupid. I fail to see the connection, but more and more writing relies just on that. Examples are abundant.
That's OK. After all, the Usenet is not meant to be a Barney the Dinosaur playground. I am certainly not an innocent daisy when it comes to posting, but if there is one thing I can't stand it's the people who mistake an endless repetition of slogans, bumperstickers and mindless chants for a rational and logical argument. This is an increasing phenomenon in today's semi-literal, uneducated and anti-intellectual culture where people don't read anything other than celebrity gossip magazines, don't watch anything other than Hollywood gossip "news" and form their opinions by listening to pseudo-journalist blowhards on FoxNews and AM radio. You really have to live in the US to understand what I'm talking about. I lived in Europe half of my life, then in Canada for some time, and then I wound up in the US in the late 90's, so you could say I've seen my share of socio-political systems, but I have never seen this level of divisive political and quasi-political garbage that is being thrown around in this country. Some of the things that you hear ostensibly adult, intelligent and functional people saying is simply beyond belief. The main reason, like I pointed out before, is that in this country anti-intellectualism is not only not considered abnormal, it is celebrated and praised as patriotic! Thus, for example, a politician who is able to form a full sentence is considered "elitist" and hence not a "real American", and the one who boasts of not reading anything but the Bible and whose literacy and erudition is on the level of a 7-year old is elected. Twice. Just look at some 90% of the comments under any Youtube video. The level of "writing" there makes me wonder if those people are the same species as the rest of us.
"We hate conservatives, but we really fucking hate liberals."
While they do attack the left more often than the right, it would be unfair to say that nobody is safe from their ridicule, and that's what I appreciate about them. At the same time, they can often find the positive message behind the ridicule while attacking the target (see the Gary the Mormon Kid episode). As for "Team America", you can't say they didn't take on both sides there, either. Sure they made fun of semi-intelligent Hollywood nitwits who show their dislike for our leaders by siding with even worse despots, but mindless jingoism and the United States' reckless foreign policy were targets as well.
That people would be me, and you've gone from posting about a show you don't like to watching a show you don't like. Either way, it leaves me scratching my head.
Like "Religion is Evil" and "Jesus Never Existed?"
You'll get no argument from me. Eighty-four years ago, we had a famous religion vs. science debate between two distinguished gentlemen who, as heated as their debate got, retained a high level of respect for one another. The 2009 equivalent would be Sarah Palin and Bill Maher calling each other doodieheads.
We've learned so much about life on Earth and the vastness of the universe. We have the power to destroy the Earth 100 times over, we've put a man on the moon, and we've put a black man in the White House. We can learn so much about the diversity of life at the push of a button, either on our computer or on the remote control for our cable and satellite TVs. And yet, we become dumber and dumber, and more intolerant of others, and stupidity knows no religious, political, or national boundaries. Martin Luther King has been replaced by Al Sharpton, Barry Goldwater by George W. Bush, Edward R. Murrow by Keith Olbermann, and William F. Buckley by Glenn Beck.
1. Religion itself is not inherently evil and no one is claiming that, but then again, nothing is inherently evil by extension, including national-socialism, fascism, communism, and so on. It is the application of those ideologies that make them evil and religion has a long history of that.
2. Are we to assume that in the time from your previous post to this one, you have come into possession of the first ever evidence of the historicity of Jesus as described in the Bible (not your feeble and vague description of him as "a normal man with superpowers attributed to him")??? Because this would be somewhat big, as you can imagine, maybe even bigger than the Beatles. Btw, your "Jesus a man with attributed superpowers" is most definitely *not* what millions of people have died as a result of. Try again, Reaper G-spot.
The funny part is that the vast majority of people are functionally atheists, but they just don't know it. They think if they paint some eggs around Easter, that qualifies them as Christians. Hell, most of the so-called Christians haven't even read the Bible. Of course, that won't stop some of them from thumping it, just like Reaper over there thumps the anti-Dawkins pamphlets without actually reading one word the man has written.
There is little reason to respond to any of your nonsense because your debating techniques and reasoning skills are on the level of an elementary school kid. I'll illustrate below.
They are different in the respect that Dawkins is advocating a rational, logical and scientific approach to all aspects of life, including to the so-called "spirituality" (a bullshit term if I've ever seen one), as well as insisting on the strict and non-negotiable separation of the church and the state. The key word is *advocating*, i.e. promoting a view by peaceful means, as opposed to what the religious fanatics have been doing for millenniums now - religious genocide, the Inquisition, the pogroms, torture, murder, rape, wars, Crusades, forced conversions, suicide bombings, etc. How is Dawkins different from all this??? Well, I suppose he isn't, if you're a moron.
First learn to differentiate between crimes committed by people who happen to be atheists and crimes committed in order to promote/achieve atheism (hint: there aren't any). All the people you named above also drank water and wore shoes. I suppose drinking water and wearing shoes make you a mass murderer. Accusing Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot of crimes on the basis of their atheism makes as much sense as accusing Hitler of crimes based on his Christianity.
How is this relevant to anything Dawkins, or even I said?
Yes, and?
It isn't supposed to, but then, neither is religion.
This is getting better and better. After scraping the bottom of the barrel for something, anything he can find in his desperate search for the defense of religion, the best he can find is dubious conversions of fanatics who hit rock bottom and substituted one addiction with another.
And this is precisely why debating anything with you isn't worth the trouble.
1. Nobel Peace Prize is the least prestigious of all Nobel awards and since it's reason d'etre is mostly political, it's merit is shaky even without examining its recipients
2. The list of the recipients includes such humanitarians with blood on their hands as Arafat, Rabin, De Klerk, Mother Teresa, Al-Sadat, Begin, Kissinger, Le Duc Tho, as well as mostly irrelevant and/or impotent people and organizations such as Gore, IPCC, IAEA, UN, Annan, Sato, Dalai Lama, UN Peacekeeping Forces, Mott and others
3. Since the prize has been awarded to organizations (UN, MSF, ICBL, UNPF, IPPNW, UNHCR, AI, ILO, UNCF, Red Cross...) in addition to individuals, the list of recepients symbolically, at least, extends to literally hundreds of millions. How many of those millions are atheists? I don't know. Why is this relevant to begin with? Is the measure of a philosophical worldview valued by the number of its proponents?
Yeah, yeah, you're so much superior to people who believe in something that you don't. We get it.
Can he and his followers do it without the elitism and arrogance?
including to the
I guess not.
If that means getting upset about non-Judeo-Christian children praying in school to a Judeo-Christian God they don't worship, I agree with that. If that means getting upset about a Nativity scene in front of City Hall, get a life.
Jesus never supported all those above misdeeds, and depending on who you talk to, neither did Mohammad. If an over-exuberant Dawkins fan hijacked a plane and crashed it into the Vatican, I wouldn't be surprised.
The above governments actively targeted religion, places of worship were razed and priests murdered. They also went after intellectuals and free-thinkers, the very thing Dawkins says he is.
Hitler found the church to be a useful tool, but he had about as much use for God in his own life as those other dictators.
It's the biggest problem with the modern atheist movement. Atheists need an MLK-type leader, not the Jacksons and Sharptons they have right now.
Religion does exactly that. Take it from one who's been there.
I don't care. If it stops them from destroying themselves and others, I'm all for it.
Okay, take out the actual award, and you'll see that most of the great humanitarians and people who have tried to make the world a better place, even at the cost of their own lives, have believed in God and in many cases have been religious leaders -- Jesus Christ, Francis of Assisi, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Martin Niemoller, Martin Luther King, Oscar Romero, and Desmond Tutu, among others. How many atheists fit that description?
Sure there are many atheists in these organizations, but many more are believers. There are also very many faith-based charities that bring aid to the poor. If there are any atheism-based charites like this, I'd be genuinely supportive of them. Why is it relevant? Because so many in your camp talk about how bad religious people can be. I'm pointing out how good they can be as well.
supported all those above misdeeds, and depending on who
But then again, you *are* an idiot, so this masturbatory fantasy is not surprising, while meantime in the real world the rest of us live in, actual fanatics, zealots, bigots and fundamentalists kill people for real, from those who they consider infidels to doctors who perform medical service they disagree with, etc.
Ah, I was wondering when you were going to hit the True Scotsman fallacy.
[yawn] I've been posting to atheist newsgroups for years now and this type of tripe is something I've heard dozens of times already: when you're unable to answer direct questions, present logical and rational arguments and otherwise make your case, resort to completely irrelevant bullshit, smokescreens, red herrings, strawmen to burn, appeals to emotion, attacks on a person and so on.
Like who gives a fuck? Millions of people killed in the name of one religion or another, billions of dollars wasted annually on religious crap that ends up filling the pocket of the few, thousands of children molested, raped, abused and turned to suicide bombers by religion peddlers, whole civilizations exterminated, scientific and philosophical advancement stifled for centuries, etc, and for what, so little Johnny can feel warm and fuzzy when his puppy gets run over by a bus?
Millions. Of course, the fact that they are atheists is never trumpeted because it is mostly irrelevant to them and to the people who they helped. Your question is idiotic. People come in all varieties and generally do not fit anyone's stereotype no matter how hard the bigot wishes his bigotry to fit any given group. Btw, way to include imaginary characters like Jesus on your list of people who "tried to make the world a better place".
You asked how many people were given a Nobel Piece Prize. I answered. The horse is dead and there's no need to beat him further.
There are no "atheism-based charities" for the same reason that there are no charities comprised of people who don't believe in UFOs, or charities comprised of people who don't collect stamps. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. Period. Anything more that is ascribed to atheism is a red herring generally coming from the pulpits of religion peddlers who fear atheism because it empties their churches' coffers, which I understand is totally inconvenient because they would then have to go out and look for a real job instead of being social parasites.
Once again - any reaction you get from atheists and secularists today is just that, a reaction to the increasing religious interference with all our lives, from Islamic lunatics sending children to blow themselves up to Christian lunatics shooting abortion providers. Learn to keep you religion within your homes and churches and stop shoving it down our collective throat and no one will give you a second thought.
Another atheist fairy tale. Jesus simply being a normal man with superpowers attributed to him (the most likely scenario) isn't enough for you. By your "logic," since George Washington never chopped down the cherry tree as a boy, he never existed, either.
And atheists are capable of fanatacism, zealotry, bigotry, and fundamentalism as any believer. You're proving it.
There's nothing logical and rational about the militant atheist attitude. Lawrence started this thread wondering why people wouldn't like Dr. Dawkins, I explained why, I'm still explaining why, and therefore my argument is still relevant. How many of the above inabilities to answer questions have applied to you in this discussion?
Yes, we know all that, and I'm not arguing with you on that. But while I can acknowledge the bad, you can't acknowledge the good.
And I can't answer your questions? I've never doubted there are good atheists, I'm just looking for a prominent one.
A hundred Gospels written within striking distance of Christ's lifetime vs. jaundiced revisionists 2,000 year later. Who am I supposed to believe
Someone should start one. Atheism could use some good P.R. Getting upset about two easy-to-not-say words in the Pledge of Allegience isn't doing them any favors.
Most people who believe in God do just that, including myself. Most atheists are the same way. It's the crackpots who ruin it for everyone.
Lucky for me that Ripper G is around as the ultimate arbiter of attitudes in people, huh?
??? Who gives a fuck if some man named Jeshua existed somewhere in Judea and if he preached some superstitious nonsense? People like that were a dime a dozen at that time. The Christian claim is not that there was such a man, but that he was a god, a extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence (none offered so far). Either way, this is a Christians' delusion and the rest of the world should not be subjected to the phony, dubious and largely hypocritical "morality" that this religion forces on everyone else. At lest the Jews have a decency to state that they are the chosen people of their god who cares about no one else, but the Christians can't stop there. No, *everyone* in their path has to share in their delusion and its "morals".
George Washington was an ordinary man whose existence is well documented in numerous historical documents. Jesus' alleged existence is documented only in the Bible, i.e. the whole religion is a circular argument: the Bible says that there is God/Jesus and the Bible is right because God/Jesus says so. There is absolutely nothing that proves the Judeo-Christian god anymore than any of the other tens of thousands of gods imagined and invented by people ever since the first hominid tried to explain what makes thunder and lightning.
Keep repeating it. Eventually you'll convince yourself. It's called FoxNews effect.
The amazing thing is that you are able to "explain" this so well without ever having read a word what Dawkins ever said. Your "explanations", if you haven't noticed so far, consist of repeating your claims over and over and over again without once bothering to offer a rational argument. This is precisely one of the symptoms of the American anti-intellectual culture today: no one bothers with rational and logical thought. What is offered instead are simplistic slogans, bombastic bumperstickers, mindless chanting and instant "solutions" that sound as if they're written for a kindergarten class. You are a perfect example of this culture - you actually and honestly believe that you are "arguing" something in this thread.
It is irrelevant and this example of personal comfort when faced with loss certainly does not require religion. At best it requires faith or belief in a god or in afterlife. Religion proceeds to hijack that need and cash in on it, which is the fundamental motive behind its existence.
Are you serious? No, really, I am speechless. If you really want to find a "prominent atheist", why ask me? Google it and a good place to start is your list of Nobel prize winners. It is a well documented fact that religiosity is reversely proportional with a person's education and intelligence, so the higher you browse through a list of PhDs, scientists, academics and intelligencia, the less religious they tend to be. It is no coincidence that the strongest and the most fanatical religious adherence is found primarily in the most backward countries on Earth. Why do you think the fanatical Islamic madrassas forbid any education of girls, while the sole "education" that the boys get is restricted to the endless and mindless repetition of the Koran verses? Like I said, a strictly personal faith or belief would present a problem for no one because it would not interfere with anyone's life. Unfortunately, organized religions abuse this need for spirituality that seems to be ingrained in most people and use it for their own purposes, most of which include monetary gain without doing any work. Organized religions are a legalized form of the Ponzi scheme.
I assume you read all those gospels, all of which were written long after Jesus' alleged life, and most of which were rejected from being included in the Bible at the congress of Nicea for various reasons (some of those gospels portrayed Jesus as a snake-god)? Then I assume you also applied such scrupulous method to all other existing and defunct religions and their scriptures as well? Or, more than likely, you simply inherited the belief and the religion of your parents, much like the 99% of the people, by being indoctrinated into it at a young age (see my note on Islamic madrassas above), taking it for granted, never once questioning it and more or less living your life in the way your parents raised you, while completely disregarding the "teaching" of your Bible that condones and encourages slavery, slaughter, genocide, rape, selling of one's daughters and religious intolerance while condemning such triviality as working on Sunday, wearing clothes made of two fabrics, eating certain food and of course inevitably certain forms of sex, because those gods always seem to be obsessed with fucking. Strange, much like people who invented them.
Again with a strawmen. Aside from the fact that the original PoA contained no mention of God (which got inserted during the McCarthy era of fascistoid paranoia), this is a minor point in the beef atheists and secular people have in today's USA. If that was the biggest and the most egregious example of the religionists' intrusion into the lives of people and the separation of church and state, we atheists would be singing in the streets. It is not, by any stretch of imagination.
Consider the following:
Education
- Intelligent Design nonsense peddlers are theists/religionists who are attempting to prevent the theory of evolution from being taught in schools and instead offer their own non-scientific "alternative"
Medical research
- it is theists/religionists who consistently try to ban, stop and prevent all sorts of medical and scientific research and progress ever since Pasteur to stem cells today
Culture
- it is theists/religionists who are constantly calling for boycott, bans and outright burning of books, music and sometimes of people whose work they don't approve of
Sexual freedoms
- this most basic of human needs has been under constant attack for millennia and religions have tried to ban almost any imaginable sexual act except for strictly procreational purposes; today this is evidenced in the gay marriage issue (not banned by the Bible, although homosexuality is punishable by death) and abortion (not once mentioned in the Bible)
End of life
- even this most elementary of personal decisions, how and when to end one's life in order to prevent needless suffering, is under attack by the religious asses who feel free to impose their own personal views on this issue
Wars/military
- it is a well known fact that the religious right, being on the far right of the political spectrum, has a disproportional influence over the American politicians and, contrary to their preaching, is always the first to condone and promote military intervention for bullshit reasons and the subsequent loss of life
Other examples of religious intrusion into the strictly secular spheres of people's lives abound, and I haven't even addressed the Islamic idiots and their obsession with their religion dictating every single step in their lives and lives of those who are unfortunate enough to live next to them.
Just trying to help. You want to get people to stop believing in God? You won't accomplish that by insulting them. And thanks for the Ripper nickname, it's pretty badass.
Okay, you've gone from "He didn't exist" to "He was based on a real person." Now we're getting somewhere.
And you know this, how? Because you got in a customized Delorean with a flux capacitor and learned this for yourself? Neither of us knows what happened back then, the difference is that I know that I don't know what really happened.
Actually, it's called human nature.
Um, I have read Dawkins, and I disagree with him. You know, thinking for myself and all. And if I were an atheist, I'd still disagree with his anti-religious sentiment.
Religion, faith, belief, whatever you want to call it. If you don't want or need it, fine. Just don't take it away from those who do want or need it.
Believe it or not, there are intelligent, college educated believers, and backwards, empty-headed non-believers. Cut the generalizing crap.
Yes, I was brought up believing in God and Jesus. We were never churchgoers, we just believed and said our prayers at night and left it at that. I highly question the Bible's accuracy, especially Genesis, but after that I believe that the people and events were at least based on fact, albeit exaggerated.
Ah, I see now where the problem is. You actually think that atheists, and especially the militant ones, are out to convert theists. Nothing is further from the truth. The vast majority of atheists simply do not care one bit about any of the religious beliefs, or about any other superstitious and paranormal nonsense as long as it doesn't negatively impact everyone else's lives. Sadly, we all know this is not the case, particularly in the example of the American fundamentalist religions that meddle into every pore of the society and people's personal lives. How much do you think any atheist gives a fuck about Zoroaster and his followers? Zero, because this ancient religion is practiced by a small group of people who are not bothering anyone. Now, if Christians can learn to do this and check their religious beliefs and the associated "morality" at home, we as a civilization we'll make a huge leap forward. That doesn't require anyone renouncing their belief - just the ability to practice cognitive dissonance where it counts for other people, not just for them. How about that and I'll leave this thread die?
What is Dawkins's goal if not trying to convert people? Of course, for many, insulting people for believing in something that they don't is much easier.
I agree. The majority of atheists don't have a bug up their ass about believers and have friends and family who have different beliefs. They're not the noisemakers.
Cool with me. And again, most Christians are cool people, it's the noisemakers who are the problem.