Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo 553 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cofty

  atheism is revolutionary, with its roots in the reign of Bolshevik terror in the Soviet Union. - Stonecutter

  I take it you don't enjoy reading history books?
• 

  Chariklo

  NoStonecutters, atheism doesn't have it's roots in the Bolshevik Revolution!

  It'll be as old as religion itself!
• 

  NewChapter

  Can you not see that you are lumping together a vastly disparate collection of people who may not even agree with each other and may have widely different beliefs and different foundation for their beliefs?

  Char, this is getting tiresome. I am speaking of people that don't like Dawkins and some of my theories as to why that is and why atheists see a very different person. I think from my context that it is understood I'm dealing with very specific ideas, and that no idea that include every single person. Are you so delicate that I must make such disclaimers every single time?

  But to ease the confusion:

  THESE people---call him militant---so I was speaking about people who call him militant. I was not speaking of others, but of people who call him militant. Only some people call him militant, and these were the people I was speaking of.

  But a believer looks at him---an extension of what I was saying about people that call him militant.

  But a believer who thinks he is militant---not all believers think he is militant---this is to discuss those that would find him militant--please don't internalize this if you are a believer that does not find him militant---I am not disussing you---I am discussing a specific viewpoint (as I thought was pretty clear from context, but apparenty just must be made as clear as crystal) and from this point forward (what would be the legal phrasing?) all comments should be applied to the viewpoint I highlighted in the very beginning.

  See---tiresome. I'm assuming that people are looking at the context and not quote mining.
• 

  sabastious

  NC, is there something wrong with calling Dawkins a militant atheist? A war of words is still a war, and he's a GENERAL in the atheist/theist debate. Then again the same principle should also be applied to believers. Not all of them are above fighting dirty, which I don't think Dawkins does at all. Many of his fans do, however.

  -Sab
• 

  NewChapter

  with its roots in the reign of Bolshevik terror in the Soviet Union. Eugene Rose,

  LOL--you need to read better books.
• 

  NewChapter

  Is there something wrong with calling Dawkins a militant atheist?

  It's used in a perjorative to invalidate and dismiss important opinions of outspoken atheists. No one has to listen to a militant---they are out of balance and sensational. This is not Dawkins---but since it is some people's way of trying to paint him as unreasonable, someone to be ignored even feared, so yes, there is something wrong with it.
• 

  sabastious

  It's used in a perjorative to invalidate and dismiss important opinions of outspoken atheists. No one has to listen to a militant---they are out of balance and sensational. This is not Dawkins---but since it is some people's way of trying to paint him as unreasonable, someone to be ignored even feared, so yes, there is something wrong with it.

  No one has to listen to generals and their foot soldiers? I would say that they do hold authority as a commissioned group. Are you not a foot soldier, NC? Or are you a commander?

  -Sab
• 

  Chariklo

  But in the real world, not really.
• 

  NewChapter

  No one has to listen to generals and their foot soldiers? I would say that they do hold authority as a commissioned group. Are you not a foot soldier, NC? Or are you a commander?

  No, Sab. I disagree with the false structure you are building along with the false choices. You may think of yourself as part of some army, but that does not hold with me.

  On another note, I've often thought about how tiring it must be to be Dawkins at times. I watch people approach him with what they think is clever reasoning and I imagine I can hear him thinking, as Cofty so eloquently puts it, FFS!

  Seriously, if you are going to challenge someone like Dawkins, do a little reading. I saw him interviewed by this guy who pretended to want to understand, and he asked him how the eye came about. This is a subject that Dawkins has written and spoken about extensively---and yet this was the clever question this man thought to ask? Nothing new? Nothing challenging?

  He then went on to ask why we pee. Whatever. I think Dawkins uses incredible self-control with these clowns.
• 

  sabastious

  Anyone who thinks a question like "How did the eye come about?" will stump the world's leading evolutionary biologist is just plain stupid. NC, why do you not admit you are on a team who has a clear cut mission? If you found a way to admit this without discrediting yourself or your message you would have more soliders. Nevermind...

  -Sab