Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CJ1145]

Oh, he (Richard Dawkins) is not, but he seems to think that's what he is.

And to be fair some people make that assumption of the Pope as well.

[Siquo]

What, Dawkins is the pope of the Atheists?!

[chaoticag]

Some people like to make him out as such. I respect him as a biologist, but not as an atheist spokesperson.

[CJ1145]

Once again, I'm not saying he is. But some people make him out to be.

EDIT: Occasionally, Dawkins himself is among those people.

[Pathos]

I'M AN ATHEIST, AND I ABORT AND EAT BABIES.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO WORSHIP OUR LORD AND MASTER, RICHARD DAWKINS?

[Siquo]

EDIT: Occasionally, Dawkins himself is among those people.

Hehehe 

@Pathos: Now I've got Emperor Palpatine on my retinas when I think of Dawkins...

[chaoticag]

Regardless, telling people what they should believe or disbelieve is repulsive. I can tell you what I believe, I can give you a reason why I believe so, and I might ask you if you took facts into consideration, but I won't single you out for not conforming with my beliefs. Variety is the spice of life.

[CJ1145]

I'M AN ATHEIST, AND I ABORT AND EAT BABIES.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO WORSHIP OUR LORD AND MASTER, RICHARD DAWKINS?

I AM MICHAEL J. CABOOSE, AND I HATE BABIES!

[TheDarkJay]

The Selfish Gene is fascinating, I do like some of his quotes, and The God Delusion *is* a nice read ^^ Logical debate of any subject is only ever healthy, challenging beliefs is nothing but positive. Disagreement and fear of debate only benefits the status quo, stasis, stagnation =P You either leave the debate with a stronger more refined argument, or with a completely destroyed and wrong argument. Change, growth, improvement, all undeniably positive forces ^^

Of course the process is hindered by people who employ a combination of logical fallacies, and "Lalalalalala I can't hear you" in such debates which is like knocking the pieces off a chess board, shitting on the board, and then running off claiming victory -,,,- Which of course could possibly be attributed to fear of debate and change/growth...

Personally I do lump religion with homeopathy, faeries, horoscopes, spiritualism, alien abduction and so-forth in my head ^^

[Kebooo]

The problem is with people who seem to think that there is really anyone who's arguing that a God does not exist, at least in this thread.

I, and no atheist I know will ever claim that God does not exist. The lack of evidence is all I need to say that I do not believe that one does exist. Under MY definition of the word Atheist, it merely means the negative of belief in a god, rather than the positive belief that there is no god. The two are entirely separate ideas and do not share anything between them philosophically. I agree with Jay in that one cannot defend a position of actively believing in the non-existence of something without proof that it doesn't exist, BUT that has never been what Atheists in general have tried to support. There are definitely morons out there on the internets who will spout off without thinking, but this just demonstrates one thing:

There is no central dogma that defines what an Atheist is. It is a label of exclusion, not inclusion. You can only tell what a person does NOT think if they call themselves an Atheist, not what they DO think. The idea that you can twist a person saying that they don't believe in a god into they believe that there is no god is asinine.

Is it moronic for someone to positively believe I am not a billionaire, or positively believe the universe isn't a simulation?  Does someone have to doubt all of reality and make no positive beliefs to avoid being a moron?  I'd like a clear, explicit answer from anyone that takes your position.

[chaoticag]

No it is not moronic to believe you are positively not a millionare untill you support your claim. Likewise for the simulation. At some point, you need to draw the line where you suspend your disbelief.

[smigenboger]

Honestly, it seems like god just doesn't like dopamine

It would also appear that god takes delight in you taking delight in not taking delight.

Unfortunately, if you take delight in not taking delights, you are still taking delights, so you must take in at least some delights so you aren't deliberately taking delight in a lack of delight.

[chaoticag]

Eh, certain kinds of delight are okay by certain gods.

[TheDarkJay]

Besides, everybody knows the Ancient Greeks had the greatest religion =P Piss of one of their gods, he turns into a duck and sleeps with your mother, what's not to love?

[Kebooo]

No it is not moronic to believe you are positively not a millionare untill you support your claim. Likewise for the simulation. At some point, you need to draw the line where you suspend your disbelief.

Then until god has support, why is it moronic to positively disbelieve in him?  Is it moronic to positively disbelieve in fairies and unicorns and magic, how about miracles or ghosts?  Why is god somehow the exception to the rule?  I'd argue a simulation could be as likely as a divine creator.  So it must be moronic to positively disbelieve in the universe being a simulation.  It seems to me the line is fairly arbitrary, so those that call someone a moron for positively disbelieving in something should first look to themselves.