Dawkins cannot be left to represent Atheists?

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7697
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: ON A GIF: HUNT

PostFri Aug 09, 2013 3:03 pm » by Fatdogmendoza


I read this article today and thought that there may be one or two of you out there who might also find it interesting...Its too long to post so I will post just a small paragraph to give you a taste...It is worth a read whether or not you agree with it :cheers:



''As a non-believer, I want the atheist case to be made. I want religious belief to be scrutinised and challenged. I want Britain to be a genuinely secular nation, where religious belief is protected and defended as a private matter of conscience. But I feel prevented from doing so because atheism in public life has become so dominated by a particular breed that ends up dressing up bigotry as non-belief. It is a tragedy. And that is why it is so important that atheists distance themselves from those who undermine our position. Richard Dawkins can rant and rave about Muslims as much as he wants. But atheists: let's stop allowing him to do it in our name.''

The Full article can be read here: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 54183.html
Canubis wrote:slith dont b A noob.. u r my no 1 mo fo

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1096
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:21 pm
Location: "In life's litter tray......"

PostFri Aug 09, 2013 6:18 pm » by Webcat


No I suppose he shouldn't - but maybe its because only a select few get to air their views on Atheism, because TPTB use organised religion as a control mechanism and 'Atheism' has always been unpopular with them!

I've always been amused by the 'Is there? - Isn't there?' debates on the entity known as 'God'.

One credit for Atheists is, I cannot recall an incident, where a group of them beheaded or burnt at the stake, a group of 'religious believers' because they believed in their 'God'.

But, for non-believers, it has been so.

Even in these 'modern times'.

If debate is subject to killing and murder, for voicing a different view, then its no debate.

Just a witch hunt. And we know, how many of them ended! :mrgreen:

Its Friday night! Its Vodka time! :flop:

:cheers:
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1728
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:12 am
Location: The loving arms of Christ Jesus

PostFri Aug 09, 2013 6:23 pm » by Bleever


Uhhh....Atheism is a religion, and I feel Dawkins best represents the lead on this. :cheers:
Jesus died our death so that we may receive His life.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5292
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:59 am

PostFri Aug 09, 2013 7:54 pm » by Constabul


Unfortunately the disciplines of science becomes the victim of ignorant peoples are are trying to finalize their belief with an exclamation point.
These are 95+ %Abrahamic in origin.
Which should inform you into something right there.

Christianity, satanism, islam, Judea, all hing on one another and lend to one another. Atheism, as commonly portrayed has joined this group, and some ways bleever is correct as it becomes apart of that Abrabamic realm. As you have varying degrees of Christians or what have you. You, so too, have differing degrees of atheist.

While there objective is to prove the non existence of a god, it is more so to prove the non existence of a christian god. They are feeding the overall bullshit that gets no ones anywhere..

Dont get me wrong, Christians Muslims and Jews have a corner on the market of bullshit, more so their bullshit becomes fanatic and kills others to make their point stick even more.

Ultimately, despite if you wanna site communist who took the non belief mantel (atheist route), they were still apart of that abrahamic curse our species has allow, and willing imposed on ourselves.

While dawkins can have a point at times, and uses a good bit of science to fuel is argument, he is a victim of the same fallacy that believers more often then not fall into.
Trying to fit it all into a nicely shaped box, and claim it is done.

This is how science in its many forms becomes a victim of personal, and group think interest. Science is an open book. Religion based from the Judaic sources (and that is what they are) are closed books.

All the info you need is right there. Contained with in it's pages and teaching...

When you modify that, then you are just making shit up.

No one was present when it was written, nor when the characters were claimed to have lived. To quote one, you are talking a shot in the dark as to if there is really what was said, the circumstance it was said, or the meaning it is meant to convey.

You are in the theoretical realm.. and are a theoretical christian. Cause none of us Really know.
Isn't that what we get with some levels of quantum physics? That is just theoretical.. in essence they are guessing... I know i heard that from more then one, or ten christians...
Well that is exactly what people do when they read a two thousand ish (more like 1600) year old book.
An try to equate those words(data) to their life.

At least with quantum physics there is more to it then just words.. but that is another discussion.
Image
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7697
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: ON A GIF: HUNT

PostFri Aug 09, 2013 9:13 pm » by Fatdogmendoza


Im not interested in proving there is not a God, I just personally dont believe in an all seeing all knowing creator of the Abrahamic variety...And I do agree that Atheism has all but become an Abrahamic like religion of sorts...
Canubis wrote:slith dont b A noob.. u r my no 1 mo fo

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5292
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:59 am

PostFri Aug 09, 2013 9:36 pm » by Constabul


Fatdogmendoza wrote:Im not interested in proving there is not a God, I just personally dont believe in an all seeing all knowing creator of the Abrahamic variety...And I do agree that Atheism has all but become an Abrahamic like religion of sorts...


For the purposes of theological debate, it is a easier opponent to face, one that hold similar ideas as to your own.
In such atheism is 'fath tized'.
Image
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2382
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:16 am

PostSat Aug 10, 2013 7:10 am » by mediasorcery


Webcat wrote:No I suppose he shouldn't - but maybe its because only a select few get to air their views on Atheism, because TPTB use organised religion as a control mechanism and 'Atheism' has always been unpopular with them!

I've always been amused by the 'Is there? - Isn't there?' debates on the entity known as 'God'.

One credit for Atheists is, I cannot recall an incident, where a group of them beheaded or burnt at the stake, a group of 'religious believers' because they believed in their 'God'.

But, for non-believers, it has been so.

Even in these 'modern times'.

If debate is subject to killing and murder, for voicing a different view, then its no debate.

Just a witch hunt. And we know, how many of them ended! :mrgreen:

Its Friday night! Its Vodka time! :flop:

:cheers:


actually, you may want to look into the early days of communist russia and the overthrow of the tsars etc, millions were killed in the name of atheism, not the only place either.
the story of life is quicker than the blink of an eye, the story of love is hello and goodbye, until we meet again my friend.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7697
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: ON A GIF: HUNT

PostSat Aug 10, 2013 11:38 am » by Fatdogmendoza


mediasorcery wrote:
Webcat wrote:No I suppose he shouldn't - but maybe its because only a select few get to air their views on Atheism, because TPTB use organised religion as a control mechanism and 'Atheism' has always been unpopular with them!

I've always been amused by the 'Is there? - Isn't there?' debates on the entity known as 'God'.

One credit for Atheists is, I cannot recall an incident, where a group of them beheaded or burnt at the stake, a group of 'religious believers' because they believed in their 'God'.

But, for non-believers, it has been so.

Even in these 'modern times'.

If debate is subject to killing and murder, for voicing a different view, then its no debate.

Just a witch hunt. And we know, how many of them ended! :mrgreen:

Its Friday night! Its Vodka time! :flop:

:cheers:


actually, you may want to look into the early days of communist russia and the overthrow of the tsars etc, millions were killed in the name of atheism, not the only place either.


I dont agree with all of this article but some of it is relevant..

http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismda ... Killed.htm

:cheers:
Canubis wrote:slith dont b A noob.. u r my no 1 mo fo

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostSat Aug 10, 2013 12:41 pm » by Spock


Constabul wrote:While dawkins can have a point at times, and uses a good bit of science to fuel is argument, he is a victim of the same fallacy that believers more often then not fall into.
Trying to fit it all into a nicely shaped box, and claim it is done.

This is how science in its many forms becomes a victim of personal, and group think interest. Science is an open book. Religion based from the Judaic sources (and that is what they are) are closed books.



That is the key right there, and the reasons for wars - not the spirituality of religion - the dogma of it, and that includes the religion of atheism, which is faith based, being they can not prove their stance.

If all faith's, religions, understood that our realities can not nicely fit into a box, and that each persons walk is individual, that would be a more compassionate approach, and the approach Jesus preached. Walking a mile in someone else's shoes.

Wars and slaughter are not the products of religion (though they may be fought in the name of religion), but the products of ego and dogma, tribalism; my group is right and your group has no right to exist.

There is no tidy box. The box itself is existence as a whole, incorporating all experience. Wars are fought over the definitions of these experiences - silly, horrific and vain.

As far as Dawkins, he dealt a massive blow to atheism, in my opinion, when he admitted on camera, that he could not prove there is no god, and that he was in fact agnostic. Atheism prime agenda is to harp on the subject, there is no god, regardless of what faith they attack, and in so doing, they have created a their own god, their intellect, which is just as brutal as anything ever to come out of the Old Testament.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:39 pm

PostSat Aug 10, 2013 1:15 pm » by Middleman


It's a false premise, propagated by the conflict obsessed media and the evangelists (like Dawkins) who participate in that conflict.

The opinion that something does not exist needs no representation outside of the individual who holds it. That is as true for a belief in God as it is for belief in a comic book character, or a naturally occurring blue rose, or the monkeys currently flying out of my arse.


Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook