Richard Dawkins worth checking out?

[JewishPhysics]

It really is the blind faith that is the problem, and Dawkins does suffer the same problems in this regard as many Christians.  They share at least the assumption that we can know certain things that simply lie outside our realm of knowledge.  Big bang or Garden of Eden... were you there to see either?

People don't have blind faith in the Big Bang; they believe it happened because of the overwhelming amount of evidence.

Anyway, Dawkins has openly admitted to being a "cultural Christian."  So he's just proof that Nietzsche was right.

[p4er57809e4587o96e4j5]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0206mapresults.html

[Chains]

It really is the blind faith that is the problem, and Dawkins does suffer the same problems in this regard as many Christians.  They share at least the assumption that we can know certain things that simply lie outside our realm of knowledge.  Big bang or Garden of Eden... were you there to see either?  And yet you base your understanding of everything outside yourself around various texts upholding either theory and use them as the basis for their arguments.

I have never seen the rainforests or Australia, should I start questioning my blind faith in them?

[N0thing]

It really is the blind faith that is the problem, and Dawkins does suffer the same problems in this regard as many Christians.  They share at least the assumption that we can know certain things that simply lie outside our realm of knowledge.  Big bang or Garden of Eden... were you there to see either?  And yet you base your understanding of everything outside yourself around various texts upholding either theory and use them as the basis for their arguments.

I have never seen the rainforests or Australia, should I start questioning my blind faith in them?

That is a little different, since you can go on google and find images of it, wikipedia for information, etc. Dawkins and other radical atheists don't only say that "god" probably doesn't exist, they say that god does not exist, which implies some sort of knowledge that humans do not have, ie. a belief. In reality they are anti-theists, while the real atheists most incorrectly identify themselves as agnostics. Everyone is an agnostic since no one really knows, its just whether you're brave enough to admit we don't have all of the answers.

I agree with Conservationist, if you are for whatever reason anti-religion, then just ignore it and move on with your life. Focus on what you believe the truth is.

[Cargést]

Agnosticism is more somewhere between "I don't want to know" and "I don't care", given that it is the inverse of Gnosticism, which is a desire for knowledge/understanding of God.

[Chains]

That is a little different, since you can go on google and find images of it, wikipedia for information, etc. Dawkins and other radical atheists don't only say that "god" probably doesn't exist, they say that god does not exist, which implies some sort of knowledge that humans do not have, ie. a belief. In reality they are anti-theists, while the real atheists most incorrectly identify themselves as agnostics. Everyone is an agnostic since no one really knows, its just whether you're brave enough to admit we don't have all of the answers.

I agree with Conservationist, if you are for whatever reason anti-religion, then just ignore it and move on with your life. Focus on what you believe the truth is.

But that's silly. To cite a popular and perhaps somewhat tedious example, is it necessary to state that we don't have proof that the  flying spaghetti monster does not exist and that we should remain open to the possibility?

Not that I'm a particular fan of Dawkins, mind you. Replacing fundamentalist christianity with secular egalitarian humanism doesn't seem like that much of an improvement to me.

[nothingnowhere]

That is a little different, since you can go on google and find images of it, wikipedia for information, etc. Dawkins and other radical atheists don't only say that "god" probably doesn't exist, they say that god does not exist, which implies some sort of knowledge that humans do not have, ie. a belief. In reality they are anti-theists, while the real atheists most incorrectly identify themselves as agnostics. Everyone is an agnostic since no one really knows, its just whether you're brave enough to admit we don't have all of the answers.

I agree with Conservationist, if you are for whatever reason anti-religion, then just ignore it and move on with your life. Focus on what you believe the truth is.

But that's silly. To cite a popular and perhaps somewhat tedious example, is it necessary to state that we don't have proof that the  flying spaghetti monster does not exist and that we should remain open to the possibility?

Not that I'm a particular fan of Dawkins, mind you. Replacing fundamentalist christianity with secular egalitarian humanism doesn't seem like that much of an improvement to me.

I think the real confusion here (and in many religious debates) is the difference between god as 'some dude who made everything, especially humans which are the best thing he made' and 'the universe/the nature of reality/everything/cosmic consciousness/something'

[Arctic Sun]

That is a little different, since you can go on google and find images of it, wikipedia for information, etc. Dawkins and other radical atheists don't only say that "god" probably doesn't exist, they say that god does not exist, which implies some sort of knowledge that humans do not have, ie. a belief. In reality they are anti-theists, while the real atheists most incorrectly identify themselves as agnostics. Everyone is an agnostic since no one really knows, its just whether you're brave enough to admit we don't have all of the answers.

I agree with Conservationist, if you are for whatever reason anti-religion, then just ignore it and move on with your life. Focus on what you believe the truth is.

But that's silly. To cite a popular and perhaps somewhat tedious example, is it necessary to state that we don't have proof that the  flying spaghetti monster does not exist and that we should remain open to the possibility?

No, but understanding how that belief came about and what role it plays in the here and now (why it persists) does suggest importance given the remarkable influence it still plays.

[Nimbostratus]

I think the crusade for atheist is in fact a march to death... if nothing else, ignore religion and focus on truth. Making religion "what's on the menu" is a sidestep.

Well said, that's what smart atheists do.

On the other hand, dumb atheists place themselves at the same level of dumb believers, this is, denying the anthropological value of scriptures. As example, the Old Testament is a quite complex text, at least, it is providential History and it is full of the feelings, values and cosmic visions of the Jewish. Liberal atheists can't understand this, they want biblical History to be scientifically factual (like dumb believers), and being liberal, they see God as a evil-dictator which is a product of evil minds to keep the populace under control, thus, dethroning God means "freedom", because God is bad and kills sinners and makes people cry. And very often, the compassion that comes from this text is overlooked by liberal's resentment, while they focus in the "hate" of God.

[Antihuman]

People don't have blind faith in the Big Bang; they believe it happened because of the overwhelming amount of evidence.

A Christian would present you with what he considers to be evidence for the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the literal 'truth' of Biblical poetics.  As others have since pointed out, the mainstream acceptance of the Big Bang theory relies on similar 'evidence' which is little more than popular opinion.

Not that I'm a particular fan of Dawkins, mind you. Replacing fundamentalist christianity with secular egalitarian humanism doesn't seem like that much of an improvement to me.

Exactly.

Dawkins is an idiot.

[JewishPhysics]

A Christian would present you with what he considers to be evidence for the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the literal 'truth' of Biblical poetics.

No, they wouldn't.  They'd present arguments for those things.  Maybe, they'd try to provide evidence of the literal truth of the bible.

the mainstream acceptance of the Big Bang theory relies on similar 'evidence' which is little more than popular opinion.

If by mainstream acceptance you mean the mostly scientifically illiterate public, then you probably have a case.  If you mean mainstream acceptance in the scientific community, then you simply have no clue what you're talking about.

[Conservationist]

Atheism is pointless. Even black metal at its most extreme reacted to the MORALITY of modern Christianity, not the concept of belief itself. In fact, black metal bands were far more religious than the norm -- just not a religion where everyone is equal and must be tolerated no matter how insane.

[Nimbostratus]

Atheism is pointless.

Well, I think that atheism is ok, but anti-theism is pointless.

Even black metal at its most extreme reacted to the MORALITY of modern Christianity, not the concept of belief itself. In fact, black metal bands were far more religious than the norm -- just not a religion where everyone is equal and must be tolerated no matter how insane.

"If we can get the christians to become more extreme, then we have done a good job" - Euronymous

hehe

[JewishPhysics]

Atheism is pointless.

Not to knit-pick, but I think it's more accurate to say that Atheism is meaningless because it's a negative position.  Therefore, promoting it, like any negative position, is (mostly) pointless.  Usually, whenever I see other atheists attempting to promote some positive position or vision it's either 1) Trying to teach high school science to fundamentalist Christians (which is a waste of time) or 2) Promoting some philosophy like Humanism, or the Bright movement, or some other stupid kumbaya bullshit.  In fact, the only reason I ever even identifiy as atheist is for purely practical purposes.  Whenever I meet other atheists, they usually want me to engage in some circle jerk acknowledgment of how we're so smart and all the "religionists" are so stupid.  Everytime this happens, I get the almost uncontrollable urge to bash their skull in with a blunt instrument.

[Chains]

A Christian would present you with what he considers to be evidence for the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the literal 'truth' of Biblical poetics.  As others have since pointed out, the mainstream acceptance of the Big Bang theory relies on similar 'evidence' which is little more than popular opinion.

Are you denying that there is evidence for big bang theory here? Or are you saying that there is litlle difference between scientific evidence and religious conviction? Because in both cases, I think you're horribly wrong, but one requires a different argument than the other.

If by mainstream acceptance you mean the mostly scientifically illiterate public, then you probably have a case.  If you mean mainstream acceptance in the scientific community, then you simply have no clue what you're talking about.

Actually, I disagree with that. I do not know the evidence for DNA, yet I still 'believe' it is true. Why? Because I understand the scientific method, and I believe that the biologists telling us it's there adhere to it, so I'm sure that, if I were to look it up, I would find something that would indeed be convincing experimental evidence.


I do not understand all the atheism hate here. Shouldn't atheism be a default for nihilists?