Again this bears repeating, atheism is not a worldview and it doesn't have a postion. It's not a way of life. It's a disbelief in the claimant's assertion that gods exist due to insufficient evidence.
These strawmen sure like to pop up a lot.
I am currently reading " The GOD delusion" by Richard Dawkins and would appreciate comments from those who have read it,pro &con.
by smiddy 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
breakfast of champions
ZID - hmmmm, will check that out. Thanks!
-
OnTheWayOut
While I wholeheartedly agree with Dawkins, I do not like acting confused by standard philosophical views that there must be a god.
The biggest pro-god arguments are summed up as:
The “ontological argument” which says that God must exist by his very nature, since he possesses all perfections, and it is more perfect to exist than not to exist.
The “cosmological argument” which says that the world must have an ultimate cause, and this cause could only be an eternal, God-like entity.
The “design argument” which asserts that the features of the universe mean that it is fine-tuned for life to exist, submitting that such features make it more probable than not that the universe had a purposive cosmic designer.
He can argue those views away, but they must be treated seriously to make headway with believers.
-
Perry
It's a disbelief
xchange,
The position is not called "a-belief" it is called "a-theist"
a-moral = without morals
a-belief = without belief
a-theist = without god (theist is from theos : a believer in god)
Many people who call themselves atheists are really agnostic because an atheist is an inherent impossibility, which is just exactly what Dawkins admits when pinned down. Of course, he would like to have it both ways, at times claiming each when it seems expedient to him.
-
xchange
Perry
You have an extremely narrow view of definitions. That's all that has to be said. You are also cherry picking your dictionary definition.
-
NewChapter
LOL. Dawkins allows as much possibiliy for the existence of gods as he does for the existence of fairies---but if it makes you feel better to define him as agnostic, go for it! It proves nothing. It makes no point. It is not a trump card. It is a strawman. It is inaccurate. But hey, if it makes you feel good, do it! No god will be punishing you for misrepresenting the truth. It will make people snicker, but I think some people like that. It validates them.
-
EntirelyPossible
which is just exactly what Dawkins admits when pinned down
Do you think about pinning Dawkins down a lot? So he can't go both ways?
-
ziddina
BOC, here ya go...
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Mysteries-Was-Original-Pagan/dp/0609807986
This one was interesting, too...
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Mysteries-Was-Original-Pagan/dp/0609807986
More about Gnostic teachings and Mary Magdalene than about the archetypal "goddess" in general...
-
Perry
It proves nothing. - New Chapter
Well it proves for instance that the positions of logic against the existence of God are (1) a position of impossibility (atheism) or (2) a position of personal ignorance (agnosticism).
-
xchange
Perry
It's not a postion!
Let's break it down. You say a god exists. I say show me the evidence. (You show me evidence). I say that is not sufficient evidence and bid you good dayand politely go my way. You chase me down and say it's your burden of proof, it's your burden of proof!