Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheist attitudes.
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 22 of 121 (521878)
08-30-2009 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-25-2009 7:30 AM


Mike,
It only confirms scripture, to me.
How does some people being nasty confirm sripture? I could just as easily quote all the you-tubers that look forward to Dawkin's et al. burnin' in hell & say it just confirms atheism.
Honestly Mike, with logic like this no wonder you are so vulnerable & easy pickings for religion.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2009 7:30 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 30 of 121 (523558)
09-11-2009 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by kbertsche
09-11-2009 2:14 AM


Re: Benevolence
kbertsche,
You words are very eloquent, but are also completely wrong. You describe a moderate atheist who respectfully disagrees with a theist or asks respectful questions. Virtually no-one would call this "militant atheism." The term "militant atheist" is reserved for those who are especially aggressive against theism or specific forms of it, those who are engaged in a verbal battle to wipe out religious belief.
Not so, I've been called a militant atheist because I wear atheist T-shirts. Yet people who indoctrinate others into their religion without their consent are often considered moderate theists. There is a chasm of hypocrisy when theists consider what is militant atheism vs. militant theism.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2009 2:14 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2009 11:04 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-11-2009 11:37 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 45 of 121 (523711)
09-12-2009 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Hyroglyphx
09-11-2009 11:37 AM


Re: Benevolence
Hyroglyphx,
I agree with kbertsche here. Dawkins' is inflammatory and clearly wants to villify all theology as opposed to militant theology.
Nope, Dawkins almost without exception is polite & considered. What he says is considered inflammatory, but frankly isn't. His message is no more inflammatory than this, "there is no evidence for fairies & therefore believing in them is illogical, moreover, the world would be a better place without believing in evidentially vacuous notions."
It's a strange world when a message akin to the above is considered inflammatory, but actually indoctrinating children is moderate. Wierd, eh? Asking people to quote something that Dawkins said that is inflammatory or unreasonable usually draws a blank after a claim that he exhibits this behaviour.
Secondly, believing in ideas that alledly represent reality but are devoid of evidence should be vilified whether it is religion or racial supremacy. In very few other areas of peoples lives do they suspend consistency for emotional satisfaction. This is illogical & pointing it out is correct. The idea is that if people become more consistent they are therefore more logical & therefore the populations reasonability index goes up. This is a good thing.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-11-2009 11:37 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by kbertsche, posted 09-12-2009 7:07 AM mark24 has replied
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-12-2009 8:20 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 49 of 121 (523733)
09-12-2009 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by kbertsche
09-12-2009 7:07 AM


Re: Benevolence
kbertsche,
This is not just a passive a-theistic unbelief, it is an intentionally inflammatory, militant, anti-theistic attack.
It's not supposed to be passive.
So?
and describes God as "the Old Testament’s psychotic delinquent."
And if someone acts psychotically it is not inflammatory to point it out. If someone acts like a delinquent it is not inflammatory to point it out. He's also a murderous mysoginist, & again, it's not inflammatory to point it out.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by kbertsche, posted 09-12-2009 7:07 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 51 of 121 (523743)
09-12-2009 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
09-12-2009 8:20 AM


Re: Benevolence
Hyroglyphx,
It's fairly common knowledge that, even amongst his peers, he's considered a firebrand with completely subjective opinions.
Yeah, but in the same way it was other atheists who consider me a militant for wearing atheist T-shirts, there's a taboo on criticising religion at all, so successful have churches been in surrounding themselves in an anti-critical coat. It's not surprising other atheists consider Dawkins a firebrand. That doesn't make it true once we compare what Dawkins says with what religion gets away with.
I can assure that he's far moderate and certainly not free from bias
If you meant far "from" moderate, I disagree for the reasons I've mentioned.
But let's assume you are right, it stands to reason that so-called "moderate" religious parents (most of them) who indoctrinate their children are even more militant by definition. So complaining that Dawkins is militant when the large majority of theists are even worse seems a pointless position to take.
If you can't see why the freedom of religion or the freedom of irreligion serves a valuable social purpose, then there is no way that you'll be extricated from your narrow thinking in one day.
And if you can't see that accepting any bollocks that someone makes up sooner or later will result in harm, & attempting to correct this is right & good, then neither will you.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-12-2009 8:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 59 of 121 (523772)
09-12-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Hyroglyphx
09-12-2009 10:56 AM


Re: Dangerous Dawkins' Dark Designs for Deity Destruction
Hyroglyphx,
I'm saying that he is planting seeds of hate when he uniformly accuses everything religious as dangerous.
Except that he doesn't. He accepts there are good points to religion. And show me one instance, just one, where he can be considered to be planting seeds of hate.
Perhaps you should take more time understanding what he is actually saying & what he isnt saying before coming to any conclusion. If you haven't read the God Delusion, & it seems you haven't or you wouldn't have made the above comment, I recommend it.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-12-2009 10:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2009 12:46 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 65 of 121 (523884)
09-13-2009 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by kbertsche
09-13-2009 12:46 AM


Re: Dangerous Dawkins' Dark Designs for Deity Destruction
kbertsche,
Dawkins does uniformly accuse everything religious as dangerous.
No he doesn't, he is on record as admitting there are good aspects to religion.
My message to you is the same as Hyro's, learn your subject before commenting. How can you have read The God Delusion and not seen this?
And I believe this does promote hatred toward God and religious faith. How can you have read The God Delusion and not seen this? It is frequent in the book!
How does pointing out that religion has a net negative effect equal promoting hatred? Your argument falls flat when you consider how impossible it is to hate something you don't believe exists.
"I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."--reference unknown??
This isn't promoting hate. Just saying negative things about your beloved evidentially vacuous position that has indocrinated, enslaved, & murdered for thousands of years doesn't equal promoting hatred.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:"--GD p. 31
So not liking someone who according to Judeo-Christian scripture assuredly IS the most unpleasant chacter of all time & saying so is promoting hate now?
"I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."--GD p. 36
Verbally attacking the notion of belief with no evidence in anything isn't peomoting hate.
God described as "the Old Testament’s psychotic delinquent"--GD p.38
This is true, he far worse than this quote states, but again, pointing out the truth of it isn't promoting hate.
"I have yet to see any good reason to suppose that theology ... is a subject at all."--GD p. 57
Sigh... This hatespeak to you?
"Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument."--GD p. 308
Again true. Is saying the 9/11 bombers were evil hatespeak?
It seems to me that you think that merely vocalising a negative opinion of something equals promoting hate.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.
Edited by mark24, : spelling

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2009 12:46 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2009 3:52 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 73 of 121 (523980)
09-13-2009 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by kbertsche
09-13-2009 3:52 PM


Re: Dangerous Dawkins' Dark Designs for Deity Destruction
kbertsche,
mark writes:
It seems to me that you think that merely vocalising a negative opinion of something equals promoting hate.
Absolutely not. See Re: Sewing the seeds of hate (Message 67).
from msg 67 writes:
I haven't found a very good analogy to convey this yet, but perhaps this rewording of Dawkins will illustrate the point
A "rewording" of Dawkins? Good fucking grief. Is that the best you can do?
Either show Dawkins is involved in hate mongering or retract your accusation.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : drunken misspelling, if that's how it's spelt.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2009 3:52 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by kbertsche, posted 09-14-2009 10:45 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 85 of 121 (524078)
09-14-2009 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by kbertsche
09-14-2009 10:45 AM


Re: Dangerous Dawkins' Dark Designs for Deity Destruction
kbertsche,
I have never accused Dawkins of "hate mongering."
In message 61 you said:
And I believe this does promote hatred toward God and religious faith.
The words "hate mongering" are mine, but since "promoting hatred" & "hate mongering" are the same, I'd like you to go back to my previous post & respond properly, please.
Thanks,
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by kbertsche, posted 09-14-2009 10:45 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 99 of 121 (524387)
09-16-2009 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2009 9:33 AM


Re: Sanctimony
Hyroglyphx,
We all know the evangelical type who do no favors to their position by angrily and uncompassionately get their message across. It has the opposite effect on the desired outcome. I see Dawkins in that same arena. Again, I think he makes a lot of interesting points, but he needs to work on his method of delivery, as he sounds antagonistic.
Even non-evangelicals see it as perfectly OK to indoctrinate the most vulnerable section of society; children. Dawkins doesn't do this, nor have I ever seen him angrily prosetylising atheism, neither to children or adults. What religion gets away with in society is outrageous compared to the standard any other strongly held ideal is held to.
Dawkins isn't in the same city, let alone the same arena.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 9:33 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 10:55 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 101 of 121 (524415)
09-16-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2009 10:55 AM


Re: Sanctimony
Hyroglyphx,
Your all-encompassing condemnation of all things religious make it seem as of you've lost all objectivity on the subject and are therefore, in my opinion, in the same arena and city which Dawkins resides.
The last refuge of a flimsy argument. What a silly thing to say!
Please show where you garnered the opinion of my "all-encompassing condemnation" of all things religious.
I've lost objectivity? The example I've consistently come up with where religion gets a free pass compared to anything else is in it's legal indoctrination of minors. Please show how I have lost objectivity in this observation.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 10:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 12:32 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 109 of 121 (524443)
09-16-2009 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2009 12:32 PM


Re: Sanctimony
Hyroglyphx,
hyro writes:
Any number of your posts in this thread to point to your blanket statements.
This doesn't even make sense. Either I made a blanket statement or I didn't. I ask again, please show where you garnered the opinion of my "all-encompassing condemnation" of all things religious. Be specific or please be prepared to say you were wrong.
You say "religion" as if there some insidious plan for all its adherents.
No I don't.
I've lost objectivity? The example I've consistently come up with where religion gets a free pass compared to anything else is in it's legal indoctrination of minors.
On another more pertinent thread, I am condemning those that do indoctrinate children. You seem to be making sweeping allegations, as does Dawkins, as if indoctrination is a pre-requisite for religion. I'm simply clearing the air.
I never said indoctrination was a prerequisite for religion. Nor is your opinion on indoctrination relevant to me losing objectivity. Non-sequitur.
That's just my own personal opinion. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You were asked to show where I lost objectivity. Either do it or admit your "opinion" is wrong.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 12:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024