Split from pedophile priest thread

[~nobody~]

Dawkins, the pope, what's the difference?

Dwakins needs to take a rest. He's as fanatical and dominating as any religionist. He's just a fundamentalist evangelical atheist, is all. As dangerous as any zealous religious fanatic IMHO.

While I agree with most of what you say I'd have to disagree with your last sentence. I don't think fundamentalist atheists (inasmuch as that phrase has any meaning) are anywhere near the danger that religious zealots are, at least in our current society. In the face of the institutions of established religion people like Dawkins are just a voice shouting in the wind, if they have to resort to hyperbole it's generally just to make themselves heard.

Fundamentalist Evangelicals sacrifice children in countries in the african continent, as dangerous or even more then religious zealots

If I shout in the wind, the person next to me will hear it, they shout to and the person next to them hear it

Sorry but you're confusing me now. Are you suggesting that the 'fundamentalist evangelicals' that you refer to are not religious zealots? My point was simply that atheists are not a danger to anyone in the same way that those with fundamentalist religious beliefs are.

[~nobody~]

I don't think fundamentalist atheists (inasmuch as that phrase has any meaning) are anywhere near the danger that religious zealots are

I think they may be worse, actually.

Really? How so?

[weed_G]

Atheists do not practice belief and faith

fail...

I think the generally accepted definition is a collection of beliefs as in christianity.

....or other group.

maybe in your head ..the definition of a doctrine is not reliant on any specific group, as indicated by your Oxford definition

a group with a belief in 1 or more principles

[Guest Logik]

Atheists do not practice belief and faith like theists, conspiracy theorists, etc..

Mmmkay.

But I beg to differ.

I don't think fundamentalist atheists (inasmuch as that phrase has any meaning) are anywhere near the danger that religious zealots are

I think they may be worse, actually.

Fundamentalist Evangelicals sacrifice children in countries in the african continent

Source material, please. That's a truly massive claim/accusation, and needs real substantiation, not just chatter.

One of those quotes are broken

Mirror to the Church - Resurrecting Faith after Genocide in Rwanda, Is about the genocide that took place in Rwanda as a result of the breakdown in the churches, Christians killed each other, Rwanda became the most christianized country in africa and one of the worst places of genocide.

Most people I speak to about religion and are from Africa mention the Evangelical sacrifices that took place in Africa, which is when I became aware of this issue

Edited April 15, 2010 by Logik

[ramblingmadman]

Atheists do not practice belief and faith like theists, conspiracy theorists, etc..

Mmmkay.

But I beg to differ.

I don't think fundamentalist atheists (inasmuch as that phrase has any meaning) are anywhere near the danger that religious zealots are

I think they may be worse, actually.

Interesting Mr Layne , I'd be interested to read why you think in this way .

IMHO the big difference between 'theists' and 'atheists' be they evangelikal or not is that an evangelican religious-ite can always justify her/his actions by an appeal to the 'higher' or 'god's' will/law. This justification seems to me to be at the heart of the difference , what 'external' justification can a rabid atheist claim???

(This isnt an attempt to troll, simply to get a greater understanding)

peas

rm

[troy]

Atheists do not practice belief and faith

fail...

I think the generally accepted definition is a collection of beliefs as in christianity.

....or other group.

maybe in your head ..the definition of a doctrine is not reliant on any specific group, as indicated by your Oxford definition

a group with a belief in 1 or more principles

You've lost me again, please explain, cheers

[Boojum]

One of Dawkins' ket objections to religion is the way children are indoctrinated into faith by their parents. To illustrate the point he lists: Jewish child, Muslim child, Catholic child, Protestant child, Communist child, Nazi child. Why are the last two any more shocking than the first four in this list?

can I ask what happens when you add Atheist child and Materialist child to the list?

It seems to be the same deal, in that a child can't be any of the above until s/he has the faculties and information to figure out where s/he's at.

Regarding parents with a faith and parents who are atheists, neither is a problem as long as the parents don't try and force whatever beliefs they have on their children (and atheism is a belief not a lack of it, it's a belief that there is no God, the lack of a belief in a God is agnosticism). A faith (or lack of it) in no way reflects on how good a parent one is.

And as an aside, weed_G, I think you'll find that there are as many materialists who claim belief in a religion as there are who don't.

[ramblingmadman]

And as an aside, weed_G, I think you'll find that there are as many materialists who claim belief in a religion as there are who don't.

"The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" anyone

[Guest Logik]

Regarding parents with a faith and parents who are atheists, neither is a problem as long as the parents don't try and force whatever beliefs they have on their children (and atheism is a belief not a lack of it, it's a belief that there is no God, the lack of a belief in a God is agnosticism). A faith (or lack of it) in no way reflects on how good a parent one is.

And as an aside, weed_G, I think you'll find that there are as many materialists who claim belief in a religion as there are who don't.

Or decide for themselves , completely agree

[weed_G]

And as an aside, weed_G, I think you'll find that there are as many materialists who claim belief in a religion as there are who don't.

for sure, thats why the 'dawkins list' and the point he's making is worthless(assuming of course his disciple is channelling him accurately) ..people are complicated and developed by a near infinite range of inputs....trying to boil the results down to a list of singular models shows a lack of insight into the subject matter imo

[Eddiesilence]

I have a problem with the claim that atheism requires belief, when in fact atheism is about the absence of belief. To those who say atheism requires belief, can you expand on this?

Internewt - an excellent point well made: "Atheism is a belief system like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

[weed_G]

can i just say before I have to go and sort something in the garden...it's nice to have ed and booj on the otherside of the table for a wee change ..cos ye know yer gonny get a bit of quality

[troy]

Most parents will encourage their children to accept their beliefs, its part of the job description. Children will naturally accept their parents beliefs until they can make up their own minds. Religious doctrine will only constrain their natural curiousity and creativity.

[Eddiesilence]

...atheism is a belief not a lack of it, it's a belief that there is no God, the lack of a belief in a God is agnosticism...

To clarify terms: I consider that I am an atheist because there is simply no reason to invoke the existence of a god or gods to explain phenomena, and there is no evidence which proves the existence of deities. Occam's razor and all that.

The definition of atheism I use is about the lack of belief, so maybe there's a bit of an overlap with the concept of agnosticism.

[Boojum]

I have a problem with the claim that atheism requires belief, when in fact atheism is about the absence of belief. To those who say atheism requires belief, can you expand on this?

Internewt - an excellent point well made: "Atheism is a belief system like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Because to be an atheist is to believe that there is no God. It's not just a lack of belief in one, as I said that's agnosticism, it is an actual belief that there is no such thing as God (with everything inherent in a belief - insisting that said belief is incontrovertible fact). If it were conclusively proven for once and for all that there is no God, then atheism would cease to be a belief and would become fact (and if it were conclusively proven for once and for all that there is a God then theism would cease to be a belief and would become fact), but it hasn't been and probably never will be, so atheism remains just as much an act of faith (ie a belief) as theism. Agnostics don't say "There is no God.", we say "I cannot truly know if there is a God or not." - I don't 'believe' in a God but neither do I disbelieve in one - that is the difference between agnosticism and atheism, agnosticism is a position of doubt - an absence of belief "I do not know if there is a God.", atheism is a position of certainty - a belief of absence "There is no God.".

E2A

To clarify terms: I consider that I am an atheist because there is simply no reason to invoke the existence of a god or gods to explain phenomena, and there is no evidence which proves the existence of deities. Occam's razor and all that.

That sounds more like agnosticism than true atheism to me, that's pretty much my position (I'll add that I also cannot know if there is or isn't a God, but that I don't hold with the practices of organised religion). It appears to me that you're not saying categorically that there is no God, you are saying that you see no reason to believe in one and no evidence to support the existence of one, which I'd consider to be agnosticism not all-out atheism.

Edited again to add regarding "Atheism is a belief system like not collecting stamps is a hobby." not collecting stamps would be an agnostic approach to stamp collecting, saying that it is wrong to collect stamps would be the atheist equivalent

Edited April 15, 2010 by Boojum