Register to Comment
Page 2 of 499 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 4987
Like Tree1385Likes
  1. #11
    toxic avenger toxic avenger is offline
    toxic avenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    35,553

    Quote Originally Posted by Rausmaus Von Schnellkat View Post
    Must be one powerfully influential human if one of the only ways to shore up the god-stuff is to attack that human.

    Probably just about the only way that Dawkins is connected to the Divine Brilliant how this is yet another thread though which amply demonstrates that believers don't actually comprehend what atheism or agnosticism is.

    They think that by outlining their unhappiness with Dawkins that their god becomes that little bit clearer a figure in modern culture.

    In a little while we will see one poster arrive to say Dawkins has been 'debunked' (which could only happen if a real live god announces its presence) another will be along to say that Dawkins isn't a really real academic despite the opinion of the University of Oxford and a number of other top-flight Universities and journals on that question and perhaps three or four who will be along to claim that Dawkins is a bit rude despite them never having been in the same room as him or attended any lecture with him at all.

    It is easy to undermine atheism. Show me a god. If you can't do that then atheism is not diminished but strengthened as a concept in human affairs.
    The thread is not about the merits of atheism, rather the merits of Dawkins, Harris, etc. In my post above, I distinguished the atheist evangelists from atheists generally, by pointing to atheist criticism of both their views and their tactics.

    Having thus scorned the prophets, here endeth the lesson.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #12
    Rausmaus Von Schnellkat Rausmaus Von Schnellkat is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,636

    If you could but just learn to read the subject of the thread is whether Dawkins 'undermines' atheism- which is actually impossible as a proposition.

    Atheists are perfectly free to go their own way in expressing what a pain in the hole believers and other primities are in the modern world (vis Jihadists, American Jeezhadists etc etc).

    Dawkins is a very mild mannered agnostic. In comparison to my favoured response to the lingering indoctrinated you should be on your knees every night thanking Jiminy Cricket that it is only an academic you have to worry you.

    If it was down to me and given the profile of the formerly predominant cult in Ireland you'd need to be friends with Michael O'Leary to even get to mass.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #13
    Monday Monday Monday Monday is offline
    Monday Monday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,703

    To answer the OP.

    How many athiests have taken up a faith because of embarrassment, unhappiness or disillusionment with the work of Richard Dawkins?

    How many Catholics have given up their faith because of embarrassment, unhappiness or disillusionment with the work of (say) Sean Brady?

    I'd venture to suggest it's zero vrs hundreds.

    So, you think Dawkins is a Dick? Well whoop-de-do. Start another thread on it. I happen to agree with you but it doesn't undermine atheism one scintilla.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #14
    Rausmaus Von Schnellkat Rausmaus Von Schnellkat is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,636

    Newsflash- 'Believers discover Richard Dawkins is not godlike in imaginary perfection- world remains unastounded'.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #15
    Half Nelson Half Nelson is offline
    Half Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    18,651

    Quote Originally Posted by Monday Monday View Post
    To answer the OP.

    How many athiests have taken up a faith because of embarrassment, unhappiness or disillusionment with the work of Richard Dawkins?

    How many Catholics have given up their faith because of embarrassment, unhappiness or disillusionment with the work of (say) Sean Brady?

    I'd venture to suggest it's zero vrs hundreds.

    So, you think Dawkins is a Dick? Well whoop-de-do. Start another thread on it. I happen to agree with you but it doesn't undermine atheism one scintilla.
    It's impossible to undermine something that shrinks or expands in order to evade the questions put to it.

    We see atheists claiming its narrowest definition yet using their atheism as a ground to attack religious belief.
    And then conveniently retreating into their tiny definition when confronted.

    Atheism's definition in practise, is not that it stands for anything or that it has anything to offer; it is that it is anti-religion.
    Dawkins should know - he has made a career out of it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #16
    benroe benroe is online now
    benroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6,304

    The only way Dawkins could "undermine" atheism would be if he found a biological bar code or divine trademark ,then we would have to listen otherwise who cares what he says while hes out spreading the bad news.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #17
    Rausmaus Von Schnellkat Rausmaus Von Schnellkat is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,636

    Someone show the silly sods a dictionary. And they can look up the meaning of the word 'atheism' themselves.

    You can't 'shrink' or 'expand' atheism. Atheism means the absence of a belief in gods. It isn't one of those things that can be partially enjoyed or partially rejected.

    Stupid sods.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #18
    statsman statsman is offline
    statsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    51,182

    It's very difficult for those of a religious bent to understand that Atheism isn't a religion and isn't a movement and that there are no leaders, no authorities and no rules to follow. When you invest so much of your self identity to accepting 'spiritual authority' the notion that there are a whole bunch of people for whom that concept has absolutely no meaning whatsoever can't be easy to digest.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #19
    Rausmaus Von Schnellkat Rausmaus Von Schnellkat is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,636

    It might be very hard for them but then there are remedies. Small collections of words explaining the meaning of the term in dictionaries is a great place to start.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #20
    toxic avenger toxic avenger is offline
    toxic avenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    35,553

    Quote Originally Posted by Rausmaus Von Schnellkat View Post
    If you could but just learn to read the subject of the thread is whether Dawkins 'undermines' atheism- which is actually impossible as a proposition.

    Atheists are perfectly free to go their own way in expressing what a pain in the hole believers and other primities are in the modern world (vis Jihadists, American Jeezhadists etc etc).

    Dawkins is a very mild mannered agnostic. In comparison to my favoured response to the lingering indoctrinated you should be on your knees every night thanking Jiminy Cricket that it is only an academic you have to worry you.

    If it was down to me and given the profile of the formerly predominant cult in Ireland you'd need to be friends with Michael O'Leary to even get to mass.
    Ah but that's not true - he and his disciples are on a mission to convert people away from theism, and thus he does undermine atheism, if you take it to mean the spread of atheism and the rejection of religion (his own stated goals).

    And you, conversely, are immensely lucky that you live in a tolerant country with a secular government - if I were in charge then you'd be toasted medium-well on a barbecue in a very pre-Vatican II way...
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 2 of 499 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment