The Trouble with Atheism

[Khandro]

Are atheists neo-Jacobins ?
http://documentaryhea...trouble-with-atheism/

[jno]

quite so. But if you cannot prove then you can only assume.

[Quizmonster]

It was the use of the word, "such", that I queried. Let me explain again...I had just moments earlier referred to evidence OF God's existence...ie what would convince Dawkins to abandon atheism. Then, Sandy immediately spoke of "SUCH evidence" whilst seemingly referring to God's NON-existence. It just doesn't hang together I'm afraid, but let's not allow this to slide into a discussion of grammar. In fact, given that it's largely a waste of time anyway, probably best to leave it alone entirely.

[Quizmonster]

"If you cannot prove then you can only assume." Do we, therefore, assume that there ARE fairies at the bottom of our gardens?

[LazyGun]

@Sandy - Being disengenous again Sandy? Were incontrovertible proof of the non existence of god actually to be found, more than a few believers would reject it,since it would completely negate the fundamentals of their world view - so lets not start placing believers on pedestals, by casting atheists as the "doubting thomas's" hmm?

Most atheists I have met and talked with accept the premise that were strong empirical evidence of gods existence demonstrated, they would change their position.

It is a false equivalence, and one repeatedly offered,often by yourself, to equate non- belief in any deity in the absence of empirical evidence (atheism) with strong faith ( fervent belief in a supernatural creator deity in the absence of any empirical evidence at all).Given the sheer strength of belief exhibited by a sizeable minority of believers, it is far more likely that believers would be the ones struggling to change their world view in the face of incontravertible evidence.

[naomi24]

I can't see how anyone can attempt to answer this question until Khandro gives us his definition of 'neo-Jacobin'. Khandro?

[vulcan]

perhaps this will help Khandro, he might also notice the date published.
http://www.lewrockwel...oberts/roberts11.html

[naomi24]

^^ Khandro?

[Khandro]

Errr.. Neo = New, Jacobin = Jacobin, which bit don't you understand?
If it's the second bit; it was an 18th cent. French political movement which paved the way for the revolution, intolerant to anyone they considered enemies of the state, which included people who didn't share their atheist viewpoint so they slaughtered them in rather large numbers - as one does! I'm sorry you can't watch Rod Liddle's documentary naomi, he is neither attempting to prove or disprove anything, his thesis is, as there are no wholly convincing arguments to either prove or disprove religion, a sensible position for those inclined to wish to avoid religion might be to simply say "There probably is no God". As any form of intolerance tends to end with painful consequences.

[naomi24]

//which bit don't you understand? // Well, since you claimed to have just coined the phrase, I couldn't presume that your definition matched that given in Vulcan's link, so I didn't understand it at all - but thank you for the explanation.

[naomi24]

And to answer the question, no.

[LazyGun]

@ Khandro - so your contention is that atheists wish are intolerant of other views, that atheists consider those of the religious persuasion enemies of the state, and that atheists consider those of faith suitable for extermination? Is that your contention?

It is your considered opinion, having (presumably) watched various Dawkins videos, and those of Dan Dennett et al, that these "shrill, hectoring, neo- atheists" are calling for the deaths of believers? No part of you recognises that this meme about neo-atheists being pugnacious is, in fact, a false myth? That those who are robust in their refutation of "faith" - which, I remind you once again, is absolute belief in the complete absence of any empirical evidence - those who are robust in refuting and rebutting and offering counters to preachy homilies are somehow too militant, too strident?

As for your contention that Rod Liddels documentary is non- contentious, I would beg to differ. Several of those who participated in his documentary complained of being selectively edited, or quoted out of context. His whole point was to make a contentious argument - indeed, if you know anything at all about Rod Liddell you will know that.

To my knowledge, there has never been a mass atheist movement dedicated to wiping out those of faith.It is also noteworthy that those of a religious persuasion always label those who offer robust or trenchant rebuttals of their faith as being "too militant" - as far back as the presentation of Darwins papers on the origin of species, Thomas Huxley was being labelled "Darwins Bulldog" for daring to question the unquestionable, and defending Darwins thesis against hysterical attacks from those unable to seperate what their religion told them from scientific observation.

I think your initial observation is flawed and wrong. Atheists are being labelled as too militant, or too aggressive, or too shrill for standing up and refusing to pander to the automatic deference religion appears to expect. Atheists are being told that they are too simplistic in their criticism, or they are unable to grasp the sophistry of the latest in religious thinking, when, for the most part, it is those Atheists who appear to grasp the essentials of the philosophy and the illogical, irrational, unscientific foundations that underpin the whole rickety,worm ridden monolith that is religious faith. An increasing irrelevance and a danger to people everywhere.

[Elderman]

Interestingly, when the age of scientific investigation in the modern sense was just dawning, Sir Isaac Newton drew similar conclusions. He was moved by his discoveries to write: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

Atheism and evolution common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

[LazyGun]

@Elderman "atheism and evolution common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature" - Apart from a feeling that, once again, this is a cut and paste job, the first part of the sentence makes no sense - which kind of fits with the whole sentence, which parses as nonsense.

You do not get to post drivel without being challenged on it. You question the naturalistic basis of evolution and physics and chemistry and biology, and suggest a supernatural "intelligent designer" is a more plausible solution - but you fail, once again, to offer any evidence, any observations to support such a claim, anything at all in fact other than blind belief in your worldview and the biased claims of your religious tracts.

Your contributions have 0 intellectual content, 0 scientific content, and 100/100 for baseless,religiously inspired antiscientific claptrap.

[DTCwordfan]

Cut and Paste there from Fred Hoyle, reference in http://www.godandscie...ologetics/quotes.html

Yet again, Elderman, yawn......

[seadogg]

There is another quote you might like Elderman

"Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see". C.S. Lewis

and that is also how to present your material if you want to have a shred of credibility.

[jomifl]

Seadogg, would you care to say that in your own words, as it may be too poetic for us unenlightened souls to comprehend.
By the way if there is any real meaning in a quote however poetic, then it can be explained in plain english and it's meaning made clear and free of ambiguity.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Season's greetings, Khandro.

I've read the pre-amble to your video clip and, if I've guessed one of its postulates correctly, the answer to your question is yes (some) and no (most) for reasons which have nothing to with religious belief or its absence, but everything to do with the extent to which we share a common decency.


However, I've sent my avatar off to look at the whole video and I'll pass on her comments.

[Elderman]

Scientists have confidently hunted for evidence to support claims of evolution & atheism. Quite a few men of science, as well as others, hoped that the evidence would destroy belief in a God of creation.

However, in recent years the evidence has done the opposite! It has shattered the basis for belief in the theory of evolution, so that many honest people, including a number of scientists, no longer accept this theory. Those who continue to promote evolution have been forced to retreat from some long-held beliefs.

[MarkRae]

> However, in recent years the evidence has done the opposite!

What utter drivel! Which evidence is this, or have you simply made the above statement up?

[DTCwordfan]

Cut and Paste again - http://www.religiousf...ltimate-thread-2.html