Looks like religious fanatics are running out of things to attack Dawkins

Society is the problem…and can correct nothing.

Dawkins should not be held responsible for his ancestors owning slaves…if he does not condone it. Now if he is pro-choice on issues like he is with abortion…then owning slaves for him should be legal…even if he would not own a slave himself.


Dawkins said in "River Out Of Eden", "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

What a worldview….but then what would we expect from a moral relativist.

No good or evil…..no control…..no purpose…..

Then slavery isn't so bad is it?

 

So the ancestors of Dawkins are no excuse for his provocating antichristian attitudes. Is this better? Why do you think is he such a fanatics? And is he not also producing a collateral damage in natural science?

http://youtu.be/QdPEb7AH5yA

 

Um....... if he condemns slavery, then he does. Whatever branches off of moral relativism are irrelevant. He did however, state that he enjoyed Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape. I would assume that with such a comment he would atleast be open to the idea of morals that are based science and not moral relativism.

 

Nope.

He is he a fanatic? An atheist agnostic? Fanatic?

Laughable.

 

And what does science say about morals? Please list a few.

 

Interesting he finally caved in….there can be no such thing as an atheist.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html

 

Of course Dawkins is a fanatic. You must be blind not to see it. Who else but a fanatic would head a chapter "The Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists"? Only somebody who wants to declare war on all religion. I call that fanatic.

But as said before: maybe he was just clever enough to realize that only sensationalism and a simple black and white view will produce bestsellers. Doesn't make his rants any less fanatic though.

However, those who are described as "Neville Chamberlains" are duly indignated:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/richard-dawkins/19567

By the way: Michael Ruse, who wrote this, is an atheist.

 

Read his work. Read "The God Delusion".

This is old news.

Not even really news. Just the obvious.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g"]Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape - YouTube[/ame]

 

So..... Dawkins writes a book, and he is now a fanatic? lol



Yes, I once read a book on household wiring, so I guess that author is a fanatic as well.

 

Obviously you either didn't read "The God Delusion" or you're fanatic enough yourself, not to realize how fanatic it is. It's devoid of any intellectual integrity, one-sided to say the least and promotes a non-existent war between evolution and all religion. All in all an irrational rant.

 

I have already read and own The God Delusion.

So what is fanatical about wishing people to use reason over faith, reject what is morally objectable, and claiming that agnosticism is the most reasonable position? Something fanatical about that? Writing a book? Would blowing up markets or shooting doctors be better?

It is not Dawkins who creates the war between creation and evolution. It is the theists.
There are no grounds in evolutionary theory to remove god from the process of evolution, there are however theological grounds for removing evolution from religion.

 

I think the point of the book is to wake people up and let them know it's ok to be an atheist. I know lots of people who don't believe in a God but don't consider themselves an atheist. I think it's just because they aren't aware it is even an option.

 

What kind of world do you live in? It's been ok to be an atheist for decades. I'm surrounded by atheists on a daily basis. Quite a lot of them are my friends. If anything I'm the odd one out for actually openly admitting that I believe in God.

It might be slightly different in the USA, but even there you're not burned at the stake anymore for being an atheist, are you?

 

*Sigh* read the book again. Especially the chapter I've mentioned. The problem is that Dawkins abandons all reason himself. He does actually want to remove God from the process of evolution and pretends that it's not possible to be a religious believer and an evolutionist, when it's clearly been done by all major churches for decades and decades. He'll attack any scientists who profess to believe in God as traitors and will manipulate numbers to make you think there are next to none. And if fellow atheists don't join in in his unreflected slandering of all religion he treats them as traitors too. It's ludicrous.

 

reductio ad absurdum.

We're not Kenya. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080521153625.1ijzzvn1

 

Really? Evidence of treating people like traitors?

He does not believe that a person can be a scientist, basing conclusion on observations, and faithful at the same time, a belief that is not based on observations. I do not see anything fanatical about this. Simply applying the logic here to there and being constant.

 

No, however you can be socially shunned.

It is quite a bit different in the US,

 

Atheism does not address the bigger question, why is there something instead of nothing.

Knowing the mechanical processes of solar system formation, life emerging in the very narrow parameters that can sustain it...and evolution leading to a life form that can contemplate the processes...still doesn't explain the larger philosophical question of why it does.

There may or may not be a "God"..but Atheism proffers no more a satisfactory explanation as to purpose than the precepts of Religion that it despises.

Sorry..."it just is"...is intellectual laziness.

 

Because atheism is only the position on whether one belives in a god or not.

 

Far less lazy than "god did it".

Reading one easy book is a lot easier than reading a bunch of hard ones I suppose.

Atheism is not suppossed to answer any of those questions, those are questions left for the sciences. The sciences are always progressing, we learn more everyday, and find new questions that need new answers. The scientist has no issues with saying "I don't know", something that religion does not claim.

 

Yeah, it is.

Otherwise all you have is a massive cop out.

If there is no God ... then there is still a reason that this universe exists, and still people who want to know why. And since atheists are utterly convinced there is no God ... then they should have alternate explanations, which they do - until they realize that their theories are ... inconclusive. Well, then the burden shifts, they have no thesis - why, they fact that you offer up a reasonable explanation can just be dismissed by any means necessary! Actual problem solving?

I guess, to be an atheist, all you really have to do is run around telling others how stupid they are. That makes YOU smart.

Do we see why theologians classify atheism as self worship?

 

And here is the crus of the issue.

Dawkins admits that he might be wrong, but his observations are crack solid and only a delusional idiot would be wrong ... and Dawkins is, as others have said, at best a weak atheist.

The fact that his observations are not accurate? Are misleading? Inconclusive? That even other atheists think his treatment of religion is shobby and unprofessional at BEST?

Nah, is all fact driven observation that is beyond reproach ... Dawkins personifies the ******** nature of modern atheism. All talk about evidence and observation, everyone else is delusional ... but when we actually examine that evidence? Well, ow he's a weak atheist or an agnostic atheist, and merely has an opinion that might be wrong.

Atheists do not need to behave like this, and only zealots defend someone behaving like this guy simply because of his religion. All the things atheists say they hate in religion are found in Dawkins many times over. Yet they love him?

Science drives atheism? There is not faith to atheism? And yet we see threads like this constantly.

 

If someone writes on busses something like "be happy because god's propably not existing" then he's in my eyes a fanatic man. Someone is only able to be happy if something what is negative for his life is not existing. "Be happy that the devil is dead" would perhaps be a comparable christian sentence - what would be a danger to say so - it would be also a sentence full of negative emotions. "Jesus lives" or "Jesus loves you" are much more easy sentences full of hope.

I became very angry about Mr. Dawkins when I imagined different people in different situations who are reading such sentences - and I saw that's there's indeed a gigantic difference between sentences like "Jesus loves you" or "be happy beause god is propably not existing".

If a mother lost her child for example the sentnce "Jesu loves you" gives her perhaps some hope - perhaps she becomes angry on god - but "be happy because god is also dead" is only a depressing sentence leading to frustration and death. Not even an atheist likes to live in such ways.

I remember in this context for example an atheist - a friend - who was married with a christian woman. They had three little children and suddenly she got cancer without any chance to survive this form of cancer. But she had time to prepare herselve and her family to her death and never her man made only a little against her will or he thought only with a half thought that her belief could be wrong for him and his family so he had to fight against her. He just simple believed not in god - that was all. As far as I know he's still not believing in god. Nevertheless I am sure that his wife is happy to watch from heaven that her children found a new mother and he got a new wife. She will forever stay in the hearts of lots of people while she rests in the love of god.

http://youtu.be/JwvLiROLJf0

 

So a man that pays for bus ads is a fanatic?

Laughable.

I suppose the people who pay for "Jesus loves you" are probably fanatics as well?