Crosswords1 min ago
The Trouble with Atheism
99 Answers
Are atheists neo-Jacobins ?
http://documentaryhea...trouble-with-atheism/
http://documentaryhea...trouble-with-atheism/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@Khandro
Oh dear. You've posted a video that in its first 60 seconds has this to say, “... at its worst, atheism can be as intolerant as the most devout religious belief...”. Thereby accepting the premise that devout religious belief is inherently intolerant. And you think that this shows atheism in a bad light? At its worst, it can be as intolerant as religion.
The presenter then asks, “I wonder if it [atheism] is the answer to our prayers”. Ha ha! Do you see what he did there? Hilarious!
Soon after, Dawkins gets a bashing when Rod Liddle states that Dawkins is, “... forever waging war on religion...”. Liddle describes Dawkins as a, “... brilliant man, a wonderful writer and lest these days we forget, a fairly decent scientist too...”.
How trite. How pathetic. A backhanded complement and a cheap shot. I expected no less.
Liddle continues by saying that Dawkins, “... hates God...”. At this point, I'm not sure whether I should just continue with simple expletives...
We are now less than three minutes in and it is quite clear what the objective of this programme is. It's an opinion piece argued rather pathetically and simplistically by someone who doesn't seem to understand what it is he's talking about.
Oh dear. You've posted a video that in its first 60 seconds has this to say, “... at its worst, atheism can be as intolerant as the most devout religious belief...”. Thereby accepting the premise that devout religious belief is inherently intolerant. And you think that this shows atheism in a bad light? At its worst, it can be as intolerant as religion.
The presenter then asks, “I wonder if it [atheism] is the answer to our prayers”. Ha ha! Do you see what he did there? Hilarious!
Soon after, Dawkins gets a bashing when Rod Liddle states that Dawkins is, “... forever waging war on religion...”. Liddle describes Dawkins as a, “... brilliant man, a wonderful writer and lest these days we forget, a fairly decent scientist too...”.
How trite. How pathetic. A backhanded complement and a cheap shot. I expected no less.
Liddle continues by saying that Dawkins, “... hates God...”. At this point, I'm not sure whether I should just continue with simple expletives...
We are now less than three minutes in and it is quite clear what the objective of this programme is. It's an opinion piece argued rather pathetically and simplistically by someone who doesn't seem to understand what it is he's talking about.
I am not a believer in god but this does not stop attending funerals, etc , out of respect for the person concerned,likewise two of my neighbours who are avid church goers are good friends. i have no idea how mrs owd will dispose of me when i die and i wont be bothered. what im trying to say is respect other peoples views even if you dont agree with them.
As Dawkins pointed out, you could ask any devout believer what it would take to change his/her mind and you'd get the answer, "My faith is unshakeable, so I would never change my mind" or words to that effect.
He, on the other hand says he knows exactly what it would take to change his own mind in the opposite direction...EVIDENCE!
He, on the other hand says he knows exactly what it would take to change his own mind in the opposite direction...EVIDENCE!
Khandro, a couple of points,
1. I have never declared a personal 'belief' in atheism, I just don't believe in 'god' or 'gods'. What a lot of believers cannot get into their heads because of a lifetime of brainwashing is that it is possible to live without 'belief', try it you might find it a cathartic experience.
2. Communist Russia and nazi Germany were not states based on atheism, they were based on political dogma, power and economic expediency. Their atheism was a convenient way of trying to neutralise the influence of the established church, as they saw it as subversive.
3. I am not a 'militant' atheist. Is this another expression you have coined? perhaps you could explain what it means.
4. What do you mean by the word 'trouble' in the title, do you have trouble with the concept, trouble dealing with the points raised by atheists or does it trouble you that you have gone along with all this religion malarkey to no purpose?
1. I have never declared a personal 'belief' in atheism, I just don't believe in 'god' or 'gods'. What a lot of believers cannot get into their heads because of a lifetime of brainwashing is that it is possible to live without 'belief', try it you might find it a cathartic experience.
2. Communist Russia and nazi Germany were not states based on atheism, they were based on political dogma, power and economic expediency. Their atheism was a convenient way of trying to neutralise the influence of the established church, as they saw it as subversive.
3. I am not a 'militant' atheist. Is this another expression you have coined? perhaps you could explain what it means.
4. What do you mean by the word 'trouble' in the title, do you have trouble with the concept, trouble dealing with the points raised by atheists or does it trouble you that you have gone along with all this religion malarkey to no purpose?
Sandy,
you say if evidence of God's existence was found, you would stop believing ?
You then go on to state that "all here would accept it".
Well, yes - in the face of incontrovertible evidence of God's existence, any rationally-minded person would have no choice but to acknowledge the fact and accept it.
You, however, would instantly revert to non-belief...
You are making no sense whatsoever.
you say if evidence of God's existence was found, you would stop believing ?
You then go on to state that "all here would accept it".
Well, yes - in the face of incontrovertible evidence of God's existence, any rationally-minded person would have no choice but to acknowledge the fact and accept it.
You, however, would instantly revert to non-belief...
You are making no sense whatsoever.
"If such evidence existed I would stop believing." I can hardly believe anyone would write that, Sandy. Are you seriously contending that - if incontrovertible evidence of God's existence was established - you'd become an atheist? Rather extreme contrarianism, surely!
Since you don't appear to like the words you claim I've "put in your mouth", why don't you answer Dawkins' question from your OWN mouth? Here it is again...
"What would it take to change your mind?"
Since you don't appear to like the words you claim I've "put in your mouth", why don't you answer Dawkins' question from your OWN mouth? Here it is again...
"What would it take to change your mind?"
J, the evidence I mentioned was clearly a reference to the existence of God...ie evidence that Dawkins would accept. Sandy then referred to (quote) "such evidence", which surely could refer only to the evidence I had spoken of. I'm not sure how it could reasonably be interpreted in any other way, never mind the OPPOSITE way.
But what the hey! As ever, discussing religious faith is just a waste of rational time.
But what the hey! As ever, discussing religious faith is just a waste of rational time.
@Khandro - Once again, and for the record - you seemed quite excited to think you had coined the phrase, neo- Jacobin, although I think it was Naomi who pointed out the phrase has been around a while.
What is your explanation, what is your understanding of the term? Really, its a very simple question, and a bit unreasonable of you to just answer the question by telling people to "watch the video".
Please define your terms.
What is your explanation, what is your understanding of the term? Really, its a very simple question, and a bit unreasonable of you to just answer the question by telling people to "watch the video".
Please define your terms.
sandyRoe's post contained two sentences - as I read it, presenting an opposition: if there was incontrovertible evidence of God's non-existence he would accept it and stop believing; if there was incontrovertible evidence of His existence, atheists would start believing.
Obviously, I could be misunderstnding his intent and will now leave him to speak for himself.
Obviously, I could be misunderstnding his intent and will now leave him to speak for himself.
