New Atheism's most polarising figure?
- Thread starter polluted
- Start date
I have watched many Dawkins talks in which he says things that just make me cringe - because a much more aggressive position on the subject was the proper one.
Whoever thinks Dawkins is a militant atheist does not know what the word militant means - the man is the embodiment of the stereotypical English gentleman, with both the positive aspect of the eloquence and manners and the negative one of measuring one's words and not always saying it as it is that go with this
Whoever thinks Dawkins is a militant atheist does not know what the word militant means - the man is the embodiment of the stereotypical English gentleman, with both the positive aspect of the eloquence and manners and the negative one of measuring one's words and not always saying it as it is that go with this
Atheist are starting to sound just as extreme as most other Western religion groups. If it is not a religion, it's a cult. Atheism requires a following just like organized religion. Christians have the bible, Muslims the Koran, Jewish the Torah, and Atheist have a science textbook.
Christians - Jesus.
Muslims - Mohammad
Jews - Abraham,Moses
Atheist - Darwin
Buddhist - Buddha
Hindu's - 200 Gods to choose from
Extreme Christians believe other belief forms are evil and unnecessary.
Extreme Muslims believe other beliefs forms are worth killing (literally).
Extreme Jews believe other belief forms are evil and unnecessary.
Atheist believe all the above is stupid and unnecessary.
I just can't see how you can claim Atheism is a "not a form of belief" when as a whole you are starting to act, talk, and react just like the most popular organized religion groups in the world.
From conventions, to banners, to commercials, radio spots, books, etc......Atheism is proving to be a religion.
Christians - Jesus.
Muslims - Mohammad
Jews - Abraham,Moses
Atheist - Darwin
Buddhist - Buddha
Hindu's - 200 Gods to choose from
Extreme Christians believe other belief forms are evil and unnecessary.
Extreme Muslims believe other beliefs forms are worth killing (literally).
Extreme Jews believe other belief forms are evil and unnecessary.
Atheist believe all the above is stupid and unnecessary.
I just can't see how you can claim Atheism is a "not a form of belief" when as a whole you are starting to act, talk, and react just like the most popular organized religion groups in the world.
From conventions, to banners, to commercials, radio spots, books, etc......Atheism is proving to be a religion.
Atheist are starting to sound just as extreme as most other Western religion groups. If it is not a religion, it's a cult. Atheism requires a following just like organized religion. Christians have the bible, Muslims the Koran, Jewish the Torah, and Atheist have a science textbook.
Christians - Jesus.
Muslims - Mohammad
Jews - Abraham,Moses
Atheist - Darwin
Buddhist - Buddha
Hindu's - 200 Gods to choose from
Extreme Christians believe other belief forms are evil and unnecessary.
Extreme Muslims believe other beliefs forms are worth killing (literally).
Extreme Jews believe other belief forms are evil and unnecessary.
Atheist believe all the above is stupid and unnecessary.
I just can't see how you can claim Atheism is a "not a form of belief" when as a whole you are starting to act, talk, and react just like the most popular organized religion groups in the world.
From conventions, to banners, to commercials, radio spots, books, etc......Atheism is proving to be a religion.
Christians - Jesus.
Muslims - Mohammad
Jews - Abraham,Moses
Atheist - Darwin
Buddhist - Buddha
Hindu's - 200 Gods to choose from
Extreme Christians believe other belief forms are evil and unnecessary.
Extreme Muslims believe other beliefs forms are worth killing (literally).
Extreme Jews believe other belief forms are evil and unnecessary.
Atheist believe all the above is stupid and unnecessary.
I just can't see how you can claim Atheism is a "not a form of belief" when as a whole you are starting to act, talk, and react just like the most popular organized religion groups in the world.
From conventions, to banners, to commercials, radio spots, books, etc......Atheism is proving to be a religion.
1. I'm curious how exactly people can communicate ideas to each other with books and conventions? That's normal part of intellectual discourse
2. Darwin is not the prophet of atheists - first, science is something much bigger than evolution and there are a long list of incompatible with religious claims scientific facts and theories outside of evolution. And even amont evolutionary biologists, Darwin is largely iirelevant - he worked 150 years ago, the science has moved since then and nobody really reads Darwin other than for the sake of studying the history of the field. I myself have tried very hard several times to read The Origin of Species and I just can't get past the first few pages - it is well written but it doesn't tell me anything I don't already know.
3. Science is not equivalent to religions because it is based on a completely different epistemological foundation in which faith and beliefs are a mortal sin. And we have very good reasons to trust those epistemological principles (and distrust religious epistemology which is based on dogma and revelation) because science works and delivers advances in our understanding of the world while religion doesn't
2. Darwin is not the prophet of atheists - first, science is something much bigger than evolution and there are a long list of incompatible with religious claims scientific facts and theories outside of evolution. And even amont evolutionary biologists, Darwin is largely iirelevant - he worked 150 years ago, the science has moved since then and nobody really reads Darwin other than for the sake of studying the history of the field. I myself have tried very hard several times to read The Origin of Species and I just can't get past the first few pages - it is well written but it doesn't tell me anything I don't already know.
3. Science is not equivalent to religions because it is based on a completely different epistemological foundation in which faith and beliefs are a mortal sin. And we have very good reasons to trust those epistemological principles (and distrust religious epistemology which is based on dogma and revelation) because science works and delivers advances in our understanding of the world while religion doesn't
I think Religion vs Science is a completely bunk debate. Plenty of Scientists embrace the idea of a divine creator and plenty of religious people believe in evolution, science, dinosaurs, etc.
Ever heard of Scientism? I think there's a lot of it going around. In my opinion, it's as dangerous or more dangerous than any religion or atheism.
[video=youtube;ZRxxcsNdqkk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRxxcsNdqkk[/video]
Ever heard of Scientism? I think there's a lot of it going around. In my opinion, it's as dangerous or more dangerous than any religion or atheism.
[video=youtube;ZRxxcsNdqkk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRxxcsNdqkk[/video]
Props:
Mixerr
This has been refuted so many times, why do I have to do it again, with the same arguments?
Religion is as comaptible with science as pedophilia is with Catholicism - just because a number of people who do science for a living are religious does not mean they are good scientists, just as just because so many Catholic priests are pedophiles does not mean that a good Catholic priest can be a pedophile.
Believing thing on faith and relying on dogma and revelation are absolutely incompatible with science. Science is not the collection of facts about the world around us that scientists have gathered over the centuries, it is the method through which that knowledge has been built up. That's a very important distinction that most lay people being so scientifically ignorant simply do not get.
And then we still have all the facts that contradict religion - there isn't really a religion that does not make foundational to its doctrine claims that are incompatible with the known facts about how the world works. I doubt you do, but if you want, we can get into a very technical discussion of molecular evolution and population genetics, and I can show you how and why, but suffice to say that you can only think the Christian religion (and really, any religion that involves a creator) is compatible with evolution if you don't understand evolution. That includes a number of prominent people, some of which are even nominally evolutionary biologists, and yes, they do not understand evolution.
Yes, I am well aware of the term. I embrace it wholeheartedly. The amazing thing here is that scientism is used a smear word when in fact it is something that all scientists should get behind and openly embrace. The argument from (supposed) consequences is a very poor argument - for the simple reason that it is irrelevant to the validity of what it tries to refute - just because people don't like it when it is pointed out to them that we have science and only science as a valid way of understanding the world around us therefore it is science and only science (again, in the methodological sense of the word) that shoul be guiding our decision making at any given moment, does not make it any more or less true.
Religion is as comaptible with science as pedophilia is with Catholicism - just because a number of people who do science for a living are religious does not mean they are good scientists, just as just because so many Catholic priests are pedophiles does not mean that a good Catholic priest can be a pedophile.
Believing thing on faith and relying on dogma and revelation are absolutely incompatible with science. Science is not the collection of facts about the world around us that scientists have gathered over the centuries, it is the method through which that knowledge has been built up. That's a very important distinction that most lay people being so scientifically ignorant simply do not get.
And then we still have all the facts that contradict religion - there isn't really a religion that does not make foundational to its doctrine claims that are incompatible with the known facts about how the world works. I doubt you do, but if you want, we can get into a very technical discussion of molecular evolution and population genetics, and I can show you how and why, but suffice to say that you can only think the Christian religion (and really, any religion that involves a creator) is compatible with evolution if you don't understand evolution. That includes a number of prominent people, some of which are even nominally evolutionary biologists, and yes, they do not understand evolution.
Yes, I am well aware of the term. I embrace it wholeheartedly. The amazing thing here is that scientism is used a smear word when in fact it is something that all scientists should get behind and openly embrace. The argument from (supposed) consequences is a very poor argument - for the simple reason that it is irrelevant to the validity of what it tries to refute - just because people don't like it when it is pointed out to them that we have science and only science as a valid way of understanding the world around us therefore it is science and only science (again, in the methodological sense of the word) that shoul be guiding our decision making at any given moment, does not make it any more or less true.
I think it's in response to the extreme actions of religious groups to impose their beliefs on non-religious people. In the US we have many Christians wanting to bring religion into the public education system, in particular Christianity, not Islam or the Hindu religion. They want to ban evolution being taught, and if they can't get that, they want Creationism or atleast Intelligent Design taught along side Evolution. Like Christopher Hitchens said, what's next, teaching Astrology right after Astronomy? Alchemy after Chemistry?
Then in Europe we have religious people murdering cartoonists and murdering innocent people in the belief that they'll go to heaven. I think it makes sense for atheists to be more vocal in rejecting superstition.
Only if you change the meaning of religion. Capitalism, Communism, Socialism not to mention corporations, professional sports...all religions from what you listed constitutes religion.
Then in Europe we have religious people murdering cartoonists and murdering innocent people in the belief that they'll go to heaven. I think it makes sense for atheists to be more vocal in rejecting superstition.
Only if you change the meaning of religion. Capitalism, Communism, Socialism not to mention corporations, professional sports...all religions from what you listed constitutes religion.