Magic
You totally missed the point.
Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin etc. murdered people, just like x-tians. However, these 3 didn't pretend to be part of a religion that was about peace, love, forgiveness and understanding.
Richard Dawkins espouses Militant Atheism: "Mock them, Ridicule them." Attack Religious People with Insults!
by MagicMItchJensen 65 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Doltologist
Phizzy
That's the trouble with these x-tians. They are fine when they are top dogs and killing, raping, pillaging and enslaving those that don't believe in their understanding and all-loving god. Now the boot's on the other foot, they cry foul because of ridicule. They need to understand that we are treating them a darn sight better that they treated people like us who don't believe in their BS. We would now be dead for our rejection of their non-existent god.
-
Heaven
It doesn't surprise me that Dawkins would say this. Have you ever listened to his "Love Letters" from believers? It must wear on him after a while. There's only so much crap you can take in life before you react.
-
Doltologist
Heaven
It doesn't surprise me that Dawkins would say this. Have you ever listened to his "Love Letters" from believers? It must wear on him after a while. There's only so much crap you can take in life before you react.
Don'tcha just love x-tians and religtards in general - for they have so much peace and love and understanding in their hearts.
-
cofty
Most professional Philosophers are now agreeing if your bringing forward the claim "God does not exist", this requires proof by you too. - MMJ
No they aren't.
1. The statement "god does not exist" is meaningless until you define god.
2. The word proof has no place in a conversation like this. Proof belongs to mathematics and demanding proof regarding belief in an invisible supernatural being is foolish.
If we mean the god of christian theism - a creator god who cares about your fungal nail infection - then providing abundant compelling evidence that such a being cannot exist is easy. Dismantling the supposed evidence for such a god is also simple.
If you mean some vague notion of an unknowable being who may have played some undefined role in cosmic origins then the question can be safely dismissed as irrelevant.
Stalin et al subscribed to an irrational ideology. Religion is just one of many ideologies.
This is why I don't like to define myself as an atheist. My non-belief in deities is just one corollary of a commitment to an evidence-based life.
-
Phizzy
" This is why I don't like to define myself as an atheist."
Me too Cofty, people then love to tell you where you stand on various issues and philosophies, and to say you are in the same group as Stalin et al. They view Atheism as a "belief" like a religion, you can "accept" Atheism, and you must hold the same ideas as all other Atheists.
Utter nonsense.
You and I both choose to lead an evidence-based life, the religious and the believers do in all other areas of life, except for their religion and belief.
-
OnTheWayOut
I don't see any point in arguing over how far we can go in disagreement over belief/nonbelief.
Hey, each one of us is free to go as far as we like. When a Christian mocks the unbelievers, I feel they often think they deserve a pass because it's in the name of God and any retaliatory remarks some of these Christians receive make them cry out "UNFAIR, HATRED!" The unbeliever and the Christian both think they are doing the other a service by "mocking" the other. So those who can't take the criticism should not dish it out.
And come on people. If an educated adult were to seriously believe the Santa Claus story, would we not mock him? Flying reindeer? All the houses around the world in one night? So if a person wants to come off as firm in their belief in some crazy things like the virgin birth or the worldwide flood of a few thousand years ago, they are taking on the burden of being criticized for that. Their opinion demands that they educate themselves about it before insisting upon such a view.
I tend to agree with those that think Dawkins' attitude is a bit extreme, but he makes a living out of that. I am for HIM doing what he does because people can seek him out or avoid him. I will mock extreme beliefs on this forum, but I won't necessarily mock sincere believers in person when they seem to be reasonable people otherwise. That's because I see this as an appropriate place for that.
But I also see times when the believer chooses to pick the fight in person- state their silly claim and insist that arguing with it is hatred or ignorance.
Now, having come from the Jehovah's Witnesses, if I have a conversation with a Christian and they go to church or express their general agreement with the words accredited to Jesus of the Bible, and they are all about love and peace and harmony and they think that their Christianity contributes to such, I see no need to attack or mock them for such thoughts....as long as they don't insist I see it their way or they don't belittle those that don't see it their way.
-
rebel8
As unpalatable and perhaps morally wrong as it may be, shame is effective.
Dawkins wants to see social change happen and advocates use of an evidence-based technique to do so.
Me, I no longer find any reason whatsoever to respect religious beliefs. However, I have little responsibility to repair others' erroneous beliefs, and have little desire to engage in debates about every single thing that's wrong in the world.
Pseudoscience and religion hurt the entire planet and always will. I speak up when I believe it will accomplish something. Changing individuals' minds is a waste of my energy--I typically only speak out when I have the opportunity to affect more than just one individual.
-
cantleave
Are all these people who say the agnosticism is the only logical approach agnostic regarding Russell's Teapot or our Lord The FSM? -
Doltologist
OTWO
And come on people. If an educated adult were to seriously believe the Santa Claus story, would we not mock him? Flying reindeer? All the houses around the world in one night? So if a person wants to come off as firm in their belief in some crazy things like the virgin birth or the worldwide flood of a few thousand years ago, they are taking on the burden of being criticized for that. Their opinion demands that they educate themselves about it before insisting upon such a view.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop at believing in Santa Clause, flying reindeer and the like. If it only that innocent - no issue. However, jovies don't believe in blood transfusion and that kills.
Also, passing on religtard nonsense to the next generation tells them that it's OK to believe in illogical nonsense.