Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Example? In bold, are you asserting the latter with the former?
In bold, what is it are you trying to assert with what you felt?
Atheist cause? What "cause" are you talking about? Are you an atheist?
If such a "cause" exists for atheists, what would the latter (in bold) have to do with "the cause"?
I'm not sure I understand your questions. I think what I said is pretty clear and the meaning self-evident.
By "Atheist cause" I simply mean "Atheism." Hitchens argues that Atheism is true. I don't know how else to explain it.
Perhaps try rewording your question?
Arq--is this a matter of me not knowing the "secret Atheist handshake" and if so, could you translate?
I'm not sure I understand your questions. I think what I said is pretty clear and the meaning self-evident.
By "Atheist cause" I simply mean "Atheism." Hitchens argues that Atheism is true. I don't know how else to explain it.
Perhaps try rewording your question?
Arq--is this a matter of me not knowing the "secret Atheist handshake" and if so, could you translate?
I'll have a stab. Atheism is just a lack of god - belief. There is no 'cause'.
On the other hand, the strident advocating of atheism as something that would benefit everybody and, indeed, my own utopian fantasies about a rational, science and logic - based globe where religion is a tolerated minority aberration and moral and social matters are approached scientifically and logically, look like a 'cause' to me and must look like a cause to the Theists.
I'll have a stab. Atheism is just a lack of god - belief. There is no 'cause'.
On the other hand, the strident advocating of atheism as something that would benefit everybody and, indeed, my own utopian fantasies about a rational, science and logic - based globe where religion is a tolerated minority aberration and moral and social matters are approached scientifically and logically, look like a 'cause' to me and must look like a cause to the Theists.
Sometimes the actions/lawsuits that atheists bring are simply called causes by the religious folks. I have a grievance pending at my place of employment that some folks think is part of some cause or large effort. It is a cause as far as my issues are concerned, but they are not part of some great nationwide or worldwide cause. I think the religious folks are just reacting to what they infer as a threat.
I'll have a stab. Atheism is just a lack of god - belief. There is no 'cause'.
On the other hand, the strident advocating of atheism as something that would benefit everybody and, indeed, my own utopian fantasies about a rational, science and logic - based globe where religion is a tolerated minority aberration and moral and social matters are approached scientifically and logically, look like a 'cause' to me and must look like a cause to the Theists.
I think it's a misunderstanding of how I was using the word "cause." What I meant was, Hitchens advocates for the Atheistic point of view.
Hopefully that clears things up. It's pretty straightforward.
Oh, I think it is. It is salutary for us to hear how the icons of atheism look to the believers. And I, for one, welcome people to the atheist board. It is a bit embarrassing that the turnover here is a bit slow and we have to infest the religion/philosophy board in order to do our polemics. Here we are just preaching to ourselves.
I know Hitchens more as a commentator on politics and world events so I can probably judge him better.
I really didn't know of Dawkins until I started dealing with some cult-following he had. And I call them that because they would literally say things like "Dawkins does not merely have an interesting scientific hypothesis, he has shown us the truth about how the world really works." And if you disputed or questioned memetics they'd condemn you as a delusional fool or worse. I'd never seen anyone describe a scientist, or get so obsessed on a theory, like that. I mean I like Hawking a lot, atheist that he is, but I'm not going to make him the basis of my entire view of reality. I found it vaguely creepy, like they were going to build temples to Memetics to sacrifice jingles upon, and interestingly this was years before he ever wrote The God Delusion. Pleasingly I don't see anyone quite that cultic about him anymore. The man himself I don't know.
The most common flaw I find in approach of atheist icons is many of them seem to want to appear like a mix of know-it-all professor and bit player on Monty Python. I'm not really sure why they think this would be appealing except that many of them probably are professors and are kind of nerds. Maybe this partly explains the somewhat lower appeal among women with the "New Atheists." They're not exactly Simone De Beauvoir, although looking her up I guess she had pedophilic tendencies eek, or even Ayn Rand for that matter. (Julia Sweeney does alright, but she's just one person and being the voice of female atheists would be a bit much)
Sometimes the actions/lawsuits that atheists bring are simply called causes by the religious folks. I have a grievance pending at my place of employment that some folks think is part of some cause or large effort. It is a cause as far as my issues are concerned, but they are not part of some great nationwide or worldwide cause. I think the religious folks are just reacting to what they infer as a threat.
After a while I start grimacing and thinking of saying:
"Can we stop pointing up what one does't care for in personality and delivery and look at the actual case? We are losing sight of what this ought to be about."
Dawkins ..well, I've never read a single book by him. I have followed a lot of the biological work he's done and it is addressing a lot of the lines of study that ought to be studied scientifically, such as the links between natural selection and morality. Whether a cult is made of that matters no more than the cult that has been made of Einstein.
And you know that I greatly respect Einstein's work but that does not prevent me from seeing that he fell down badly on Quantum physics.
Argument from authority is illogical. I would rather leave the holding up of respected perseon as ipso facto authority to others and keep atheists to the logical view of taking a valid point on board, even if it's put forward by Kent Hovind.
P.s and I think I forgot your point. Yes, it's inevitable that opponents can see the introduction of some argument they had hoped would either go out of fashion or remain at a comfortably minor 8% (TM) as symptomatic of some 5th Gollum conspiracy to overturn the Decent Ordering of Life and Things (TM again). This is a common paranoid reaction, similar to Dawkins' against faith schools and mine about the teaching of Creationism in schools.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-22-2010 at 08:40 AM..
Reason: P.s
No, he only argues that atheism is justified. Perhaps he argues that it is more justified than theism. But he does not make the absolute assertion that no gods exist. It's typical for a theist to not understand this position, in my experience.
After a while I start grimacing and thinking of saying:
"Can we stop pointing up what one does't care for in personality and delivery and look at the actual case? We are losing sight of what this ought to be about."
Dawkins ..well, I've never read a single book by him. I have followed a lot of the biological work he's done and it is addressing a lot of the lines of study that ought to be studied scientifically, such as the links between natural selection and morality. Whether a cult is made of that matters no more than the cult that has been made of Einstein.
And you know that I greatly respect Einstein's work but that does not prevent me from seeing that he fell down badly on Quantum physics.
Argument from authority is illogical. I would rather leave the holding up of respected perseon as ipso facto authority to others and keep atheists to the logical view of taking a valid point on board, even if it's put forward by Kent Hovind.
P.s and I think I forgot your point. Yes, it's inevitable that opponents can see the introduction of some argument they had hoped would either go out of fashion or remain at a comfortably minor 8% (TM) as symptomatic of some 5th Gollum conspiracy to overturn the Decent Ordering of Life and Things (TM again). This is a common paranoid reaction, similar to Dawkins' against faith schools and mine about the teaching of Creationism in schools.
I'm no book critic, most of the books I read are about musicians (guitar players mainly) and music, but I found Dawkins book the god delusion very informative and interesting. He wove science and psychology together very well in explaining his viewpoints regarding religion. It is the first book I have read on this subject, I have Hitchens book, havent started it yet, I'll read the new Johhny Winter biography before I start that one.
You seem to draw all kinds of inferences about people's motives based on your emotions and not on facts. You also seem to think (or at least are pretending that you think) that nearly all Christians are un-intelligent and uneducated which is simply not the case.
Quote:
Hogwash, and never stated. I have, I'll admit, become somewhat jaded by the responses of the select few who have engaged many of us on a predictable and reliable level. If you are indeed not just a rehash, a re-name, then you are truly one of the few new bloodlines to arrive here, and may actually have a point, despite your grating demeanor.
Maybe the individuals on this site who you claim disrespect you and your work are reacting to your condescending attitude toward them, which is on display once again in your response to my good faith question above. It seems to me that this has very little to do with religion and a lot more to do with your tendency to take offence where none is intended.
Quote:
You of course have it reversed, but then you didn't bother to go back and read anything, now did you? You've arrived late to the battlefront, apparently, and yet you choose to make a number of incorrect and inaccurate pronouncements and evaluations. You assume, perhaps because of a deeply ingrained dislike of some self-assumed atheist "position", that it was, of course, my attitude or approach that has resulted in the "monster" you see before you.
But what if, just what if, OMG, it was truly bad behavior on the parts of (OMG X 2...) so-called rational, always polite, ever-considerate, well-educated, scientifically literate Christians, those who are always open to new ideas and alternate viewpoints, who set the tone for many discussions you now see here?
OMG #3...
Or.... you may be, in fact, the archetypal "Johnny-Come-Lately", but with the assumption you have us all correctly pegged. funny, on it's face.
Some of these individuals you talk about may even have been winding you up deliberately.
Quote:
Well if so, shame on them, huh? That's hardly how to dialogue with respect. but then, as they are logically cornered with scientific facts, yes, they do tend to get a bit offensive.
Q: how can they honestly discuss scientific facts when they admit to having not even attended Grade 8 science (or higher), but then openly refuting everything on topics of geology, biochemistry, genetics, astrophysics, mathematics, engineering... and on and on.? How? Tell me how?
When they say they'll admit to Evolution when their pet cat gives birth to a dog overnight? huh? That shouldn't generate a snorting harrumph response? Really?
(Did you hear the one about the CIA and Homeland Security recently discovering that both the OT and the NT were written by Hitler, and then sent back in a time machine? It's true, I tell you. Why don't you believe me? I read it!)
In those areas, can you admit that someone, possibly even myself, might have a bit of a technical advantage on some of them? Maybe even on most of them? and yet, they rant on, their only response being "how biased, predictable and dishonest: all or most scientists and educators all are? How science is great only if you're designing a toaster or laptop or auto, but it all falls apart when it looks at, say, the molecular physics of the sun or he gentic heritage of a deep sea creature just recently discovered?
That in those specific cases, and only those cases, it's all easily and fully explained by some "Insta-Poofism" nonsense? (I mean, really... You're too smart to go for that Insta-Poof stuff yourself aren't you? Tell me you're smart enough...)
And you claim that I'm arrogant or quick to judge? Funny. Really! Quite funny.
You think that approach is warranted or admirable in them? And that, over a period of at least two years in my case alone, it wouldn't perhaps generate a rather generalized response with us atheists, not just myself? Especially when we see the same dumb key phrases or arrogant denials or attacks such as you have similarly engaged?
hmmm...
.
In the world at large, Atheists don't "have the corner" on maths and sciences.
Quote:
Actually, you'd probably quite wrong here, though I didn't make that claim. Those technical types tend towards logic, proofs, evidence and thus atheism, since God's so danged hard to "prove"...
It would benefit you greatly to get out more and meet some Christians who are accomplished in the sciences.
.
Quote:
See my comment below. Wildly assumptive on your part, and incorrect at that...
Like I said on my other post, perhaps your character traits have alienated you from Christians who are scientists, which would explain why you spend a lot of time at City-Data spinning your wheels by talking down to Christians here instead of engaging with your "intellectual equals."
Quote:
You looking for alternate explanations here? You know, other than what's really happening? understandable, but denialist for sure....
Quote:
But the statistical fact is (no, I'm not going to go and find it all again. You need to go back and read all the past posts you've obviously missed, that fully support this statement with credible stats) that by far the huge majority of scientists, engineers, doctors, geologists, and other scientists (i.e.; trained in rational, logical step-wise Q&A processes) are, in fact, atheists.
Hell yes, you can cite the odd one (or even 100+ let's say. Oh wow!) conversions, but by that same methodology, I can provide recent stats that show the literal hundreds of millions of post-grad, professional, and annual new grads in all those mature, logical strictly purist disciplines that are, de facto, atheists.
It's a natural and logical follow-on to any lucid evaluation of there increasingly more absurd postulations of the bible., as you well know. Noah's Ark? Walking on water? Water into wine? Those were meant as metaphors, old chap, not as the literal truth. And yet.... many still "believe"... even when shown to be wrong, wrong wrong.
BTW, don't assume or "state" that I have either no friends, or that none of them are educated Christians. (I used to be a Christian myself, but I got help.... through education and independentcritical thought Again, you didn't bother to watch those videos did you? I know; they're scary to be sure....
The difference is, an educated open-mined Christian happily acknowledges the areas where science, for instance, has provided irrefutable, unambiguous proof of certain things (the earth's round, not flat; the universe is expanding, the earth and universe are very old, we evolved from lemurs, dinos dies out long before man, etc. etc.). Heck; even your Catholic Church, not wanting to appear to be completely uneducated and intransigent, has "admitted" to evolution as a fact! But still, some won't....
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
I did once watch a video of Craig 'flooring' Hitchens.
The problem with Craig's debates is that he always starts from an a priori position that the existence of Jesus is a historical fact when it isn't or from a position that the Bible is true. You will often hear him saying things like 'the Apostles mentioned X, therefore, Ymust be true'. Or, prophecy B was fulfilled so that can only mean that A was true.... but he presents no verifiable evidence to back up his claims. It's BS!!
BS is, according to DrSp, purely in the eyes and mind of the "decider". What you and I say is, apparently, BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maia160
Regardless of what I may have missed you cannot claim the high ground when you are guilty of engaging in the same manner. Your posts read, to me, as condescending and insulting.
You really need to go back and re-read your posts with a dose of self awareness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maia160
You don't get to determine what I choose to discuss. I find that attitude a bit grating. You can choose not to reply, obviously, but all that tells me is that you are unwilling to look at your own actions while condemning others.
Your opening pitch was insulting towards atheists and implied that we did not have the intelligence to refute the arguments made on the video. I'm just really surprised that you refuse to acknowledge your role in the fighting. But, I can see that you will continue to excuse yourself.
Don't ask for apologies when you offer none for your own behavior. It takes two to tango and you've been dancing up a storm.
I know Sans from around the forum but don't know him that well. I'm just a bit astounded at the hypocrisy of calling atheists out on the same behavior that you've engaged in.
Maia160: Apparently there are those here who do not see their own arrogance, nor can they admit their own technical lack of expertise in certain areas. Their predictable response is, as always, to do the oldAd hominemSide-Step, the Dirty-Deflection Dance, the Denialist's Polka. Well, do dance on, fellows!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Rude to you? That is funny coming from you...Lets get back on topic
In whatever kind of a “race” life may be, I have very abruptly become a finalist.
Topic of Cancer | Culture | Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/09/hitchens-201009 - broken link)
Agreed, sanspeur. Hmmm....what was the OP's point again? What about those offhanded cruel remarks or inappropriate "Oh he'll convert! just you wait until he's truly demented, on drugs or spiritually desperate!!" statements by theists?
Hey: I know: let's discuss that topic! Tiresome, insulting thread hijacking is, after all, a capital offense!
I'm no book critic, most of the books I read are about musicians (guitar players mainly) and music, but I found Dawkins book the god delusion very informative and interesting. He wove science and psychology together very well in explaining his viewpoints regarding religion. It is the first book I have read on this subject, I have Hitchens book, havent started it yet, I'll read the new Johhny Winter biography before I start that one.
Good for you. When I say I haven't read his books it isn't because I don't approve or agree, but I'm an atheist and I don't need to be convinced by him. I actually spend more time looking at the questions aimed at non - belief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pots and Kettles
