The Trouble with Atheism

[Khandro]

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

[ChuckFickens]

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

Nope, they copied and pasted it from here.

http://www.religiousf...ltimate-thread-2.html

[naomi24]

//many honest people, including a number of scientists, no longer accept this theory.//

Who are these people?

[naomi24]

On second thoughts don't answer that. I don't want to encourage you to hi-jack yet another thread. Stick to Khandro's question.

[Marijn]

Atlanta, I just want to say, I appreciate what you've written too (on the first page). It makes sense and it's reasonable.

[jomifl]

Very funny 2SP!

[Elderman]

DT:.......<< http://www.religiousf...ltimate-thread-2.html
>>


Wrong again. I have just had a look at this link – so sorry to disappoint you. This is not a site I have ever seen before now. Just what are you hoping to achieve? IMO you are just a nasty person – I’d much rather you did not bother posting on my threads. Plus the odds are rather uneven – I’m one against about 20 – but I think you are the worst.

[jomifl]

First prize goes to DT. do we have a decision yet on 2nd and 3rd?

[jomifl]

Elderman is following the normal christian behaviour pattern and getting personal, I expect DT will be called a pygmy very soon.

[jomifl]

Elderman..your opinion of DT doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things, only your god's so perhaps it would be better if you did the christian thing...

[Quizmonster]

Are Khandro and Elderman one and the same, then? I ask because - four slots above this - the latter chides DT by writing, "I’d much rather you did not bother posting on MY threads" despite the fact that the thread was apparently started by the former!
Whichever, he/she is seemingly unaware that plagiarism is relatively easy to establish. Just highlight an original-looking piece of text in the suspect writing and put it - within inverted commas - into the Google search-slot. If you get a 'hit' that's very probably where the text came from.

[Khandro]

I noticed that too, but I let it pass. To your question; absolutely negative, I have no idea who Elderman is, though I do admire his indefatigability.

[jomifl]

^His cloven hooves do occasionaly peep out from under his cloak of sanctimony decorated with pearls of ignorance.

[naomi24]

Back to the subject.

If anyone asked a similar question replacing the word 'atheist' with the name of a religious group, there would be howls of 'offence', but I suppose it's acceptable to insult non-believers - or perhaps even obligatory in some instances. Just an observation.

[beso]

2shortplanks //The only trouble I have with Atheism is that (some, not all) Believers will insist on telling me that I'm wrong and pray for my soul. //

I won't tell you that. However I do object to the assumption of the faithful that their delusions aught to be taken seriously when designing public policy.

I also object to the notion that religious views warrant automatic respect and their proponents allowed to present their philosophy free from all criticism. It is an utterly ludricous presumption.

[Quizmonster]

Khandro, the last time I can recall someone admiring someone else's "indefatigability", it was George Galloway speaking to Saddam Hussein. (I make no further comment!)

[naomi24]

Khandro, in an effort to move the conversation on, you've headed your question 'The Trouble with Atheism', so what, in your opinion, is the trouble with atheism?

[Khandro]

naomi, It's not my title - and should really be in '...', it is Rod Liddle's title of his documentary, which I hoped you could have watched.

[jake-the-peg]

I think I saw this when it aired a few years back.

I think one of the key points was the dogmatic way that atheists can behave which tends to look like belief.

In my opinion however that's a misunderstanding of the way that Science aand rationality work.

There is this nice "Baconian" model of Science where theories are postulated and experiments are done and everybody assess the data and goes with the data that fit's the experiment.

In my exprience this is Hogwash

What happens is that people take opposing views, sometimes out of reasoned argument and sometimes out of irrational beliefs.

Then experiments and observations are assessed and there's a big shouting match and slowly but surely opinion gravitates to the side that is gaining better data.

You can see this nicely with Fred Hoyle sticking to his steady state theory long after the background radiation evidence made the Big Bang model a "shoe in".

In short Science is not Baconian - it's Darwinian

So from the outside it can look quite religious and there are certainly enough Athiests tat approach their position with that same fanatical zeal - but they are the athiest "fundamentalists" and don't represent free thinking any more than Ian Paisley repesents Christianity

[LazyGun]

@ Khandro - Would you describe the documentary as impartial, factual, measured, rational and uncontroversial?