Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism

May 10, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: News24

Awarded after your tenth article is published on MyNews24. You've got 15 more to go to reach the next level! All children are born Atheist, without the knowledge of God or whatsoever.

Comments
201 - 220 of 288 Comments Last updated Jun 2, 2013

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#207
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

True Christian witness wrote:
no one is born an Atheist, just as no one is born with beliefs.
These are contradictory concepts. An atheist is simply... a person who is not a theist. It is a person who does not hold any of the beliefs proposed by the various factions of theism. In this respect, we are ALL born atheist (no capital letter needed). We're all born without any beliefs in any gods, or any religious system at all. That's what an atheist is.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#208
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
These are contradictory concepts. An atheist is simply... a person who is not a theist. It is a person who does not hold any of the beliefs proposed by the various factions of theism. In this respect, we are ALL born atheist (no capital letter needed). We're all born without any beliefs in any gods, or any religious system at all. That's what an atheist is.
Yep.

These True Believers™ do not actually pay attention to what they post.

It's kinda sad, really...
True Christian witness

Bartlesville, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#209
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
These are contradictory concepts. An atheist is simply... a person who is not a theist. It is a person who does not hold any of the beliefs proposed by the various factions of theism. In this respect, we are ALL born atheist (no capital letter needed). We're all born without any beliefs in any gods, or any religious system at all. That's what an atheist is.
It is my belief not to argue with people, especially to prove a point, but you are wrong in your concept.

No one is born an Atheist, just as no one is born with beliefs is the true concept. The Muslim baby is born a Muslim, just as the Catholic baby is born a Catholic.

The true Atheist has to draw conclusions or estimate his concept of God is not what the accepted understanding of God is, therefore he has the God given right to choose to believe in God or not.

The Bible is God's word of instruction is available to all creation of mankind, but only the meek will listen and obey it.
Psalm 37:11
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#210
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text> is.
If you don’t believe in any gods, you are an atheist, right? This definition seems pretty basic, not the kind of material that requires an advanced degree in theology to understand.

But apparently it isn't accurate. In fact, as I circulate in the secular movement on a daily basis, I frequently meet nonbelievers who are unwilling to identify as atheists.

Of course, there are other words that might describe those who don't believe in deities — agnostic, humanist, skeptic, etc.— and quite a few nonbelievers prefer one of those terms as their primary means of religious identification, but many reject outright the atheist identity even as a secondary or incidental label. "Don't call me an atheist!" one such nonbeliever recently told me. "I refuse to identify according to what I reject. I don't believe in astrology or unicorns, but I don't label myself according to that – so why should I identify according to my rejection of god-belief?"

This is an interesting argument, perhaps even somewhat persuasive, but it deserves some scrutiny.

For starters, most of us would probably agree that each person should be free to identify as he or she sees fit, so those nonbelievers who are uncomfortable with the atheist label shouldn't feel obliged to use it. But when we scratch beneath the surface, we sometimes find that the stated reason for avoiding the atheist label – such as the claim of not wanting to identify according to what one doesn’tbelieve – is a bit disingenuous.

After all, since there are no specific, common words in the English language for one who rejects astrology or unicorns, it would be rather difficult to identify as such a person. But if there were such a word (say, an “anti-astrologist”), it seems doubtful that those who fit the definition would vigorously avoid it. I couldn't imagine astrological skeptics saying,“Don’t call me an anti-astrologist! I refuse to label myself according to what I don’t believe!”

In fact, standing up against certain ideas is common in our politics and culture, both historically and in modern times, as we see with terms like anti-imperialist, anti-bullying, anti-defamation, anti-war, anti-racist, and anti-federalist. It hardly seems a matter of noble principle that one should refuse to identify as rejecting a concept, particularly a central philosophical question such as theism.

Thus, if most "non-atheist nonbelievers" were honest (and, by the way, many are) they would concede that their avoidance of the word has little to do with a principled refusal to stand up against a concept; rather, they avoid the atheist label because it carries with it a powerful stigma. Even to many nonbelievers,“atheist” is still a word that is not uttered in mixed company. In fact, some surveys show that, despite the growth of secularity in America in recent years, atheists are nevertheless the most distrusted minority.

We should bear in mind that use of the atheist identity does not necessarily preclude the use of other terms. Personally, I strongly prefer the word “humanist,” but I nevertheless will use “atheist” if a situation calls for it. This might be in response to a direct question – Are you an atheist?– or in circumstances that simply do not allow for an explanation of humanism.

Importantly, although it is unfortunate that many feel it necessary to avoid the atheist label, we shouldn't be critical of them. Everyone's personal and family situation is unique, and it wouldn't be fair to judge those who are reluctant to openly identify as atheist. Ultimately the decision is up to the individual, and nobody should be berated for hesitating.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#211
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
.... "Don't call me an atheist!" one such nonbeliever recently told me. "I refuse to identify according to what I reject. I don't believe in astrology or unicorns, but I don't label myself according to that – so why should I identify according to my rejection of god-belief?"
The exclamation mark makes the atheist sound unduly animated, but apart from that - quite right.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
... is a bit disingenuous.
After all, since there are no specific, common words in the English language for one who rejects astrology or unicorns, it would be rather difficult to identify as such a person.
Misses the point. It is unnecessary - like atheist should be.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
But if there were such a word (say, an 'anti-astrologist'ť), it seems doubtful that those who fit the definition would vigorously avoid it.
Again, no need - like there should be no need to avoid atheist. However, atheist is what the religious use for non-believer and (like 'secular') it's about one's relationship with a god. A non-believer like me prefers plain English to religious language and atheist or agnostic is what you might call me, not what I choose to call myself. That's all.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I couldn't imagine astrological skeptics saying,“Don’t call me an anti-astrologist! I refuse to label myself according to what I don’t believe!”
In fact, standing up against certain ideas is common in our politics and culture, both historically and in modern times, as we see with terms like anti-imperialist, anti-bullying, anti-defamation, anti-war, anti-racist, and anti-federalist. It hardly seems a matter of noble principle that one should refuse to identify as rejecting a concept, particularly a central philosophical question such as theism.
Thus, if most "non-atheist nonbelievers" were honest (and, by the way, many are) they would concede that their avoidance of the word has little to do with a principled refusal to stand up against a concept; rather, they avoid the atheist label because it carries with it a powerful stigma.....
Actually, the Atheist group in Kansas that was a recent topic of one of the threads on the Atheist Forum actually chose to call themselves Atheist
http://kcatheists.org/
as, in their view, they wanted to show that 'atheist' is not a label that should carry any negative connotation or stigma.

And I choose to call myself a 'non-believer' precisely because atheist has no more relevance for me personally than a-pixie-ist (I don't believe in pixies either). I don't 'avoid' the word, I just regard it for what it is - irrelevant to me. That is entirely principled and I feel you demonstrate no understanding at all of why people choose more accurate and positive self-descriptions like humanist, sceptic,(etc).

If atheist carries a stigma it may be due to the negative way religionists see people like me...
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.h...
Atheist carries no negative connotations for the non-religious and we aren't one claiming a god(s) exists, much less to know God's will.
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

If atheist carries a stigma it may be due to the negative way religionists see people like me...
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.h ...
Atheist carries no negative connotations for the non-religious and we aren't one claiming a god(s) exists, much less to know God's will.

Mass media is quick to dismiss ideas without thought.
Atheists seem to have the same moral values as theists .

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#213
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

True Christian witness wrote:
It is my belief not to argue with people, especially to prove a point, but you are wrong in your concept.
We are all here to "argue", to make our case and practice our debate skills (at least, I am). But I assure you, that AS an atheist myself, I am giving you the correct definition of the concept.

I wouldn't presume to tell YOU what a makes a Christian. You ought to take the word of someone who has adopted a title regarding what that title entails.
True Christian witness wrote:
No one is born an Atheist, just as no one is born with beliefs is the true concept. The Muslim baby is born a Muslim, just as the Catholic baby is born a Catholic.
Any baby would have to be taught to be Muslim, or Catholic. Left to its own devices, no baby would practice the rituals or tenants of any belief system. They are born without one. An atheist similarly has no religious belief system.
True Christian witness wrote:
The true Atheist has to draw conclusions or estimate his concept of God is not what the accepted understanding of God is, therefore he has the God given right to choose to believe in God or not.
The "accepted understanding" of God varies from person to person. An atheist (again, not a capitalized word) is only a person who has not been convinced by any story about gods that they've ever heard. How could a whole world of people settle on ONE "accepted understanding" of supernatural beings or realms?
True Christian witness wrote:
The Bible is God's word of instruction is available to all creation of mankind, but only the meek will listen and obey it.
Psalm 37:11
Muslims say something quite similar about the Quran. Ditto the Hindus with their Vedas, and the Buddhists and the Tripitaka. Every religion believes that their scripture was handed down by "divine" hands. What method can you provide which will sort out the true claims from the false ones?

The Bible has many things within it which virtually preclude the possibility that it is divine. It endorses slavery and misogyny. It has fictional creatures like unicorns and dragons. It has TALKING animals. It's full of magic and brutality, things that I can consider neither realistic nor admirable.

I know how to be a good person without "obeying" an ancient book that forbids shellfish or tattoos. I simply treat others with kindness and respect, the same as I expect for myself. We don't need "orders" from on high to be good, moral people. We only need to decide what will help us achieve a goal of a peaceful and cooperative society. That involves outlawing murder and theft obviously, but it will not involve things like punishing a rapist with the marriage of his victim, or stoning (or even simply ostracizing) homosexuals. A society that was TRULY operated according to Biblical dogma would be a barbarian state.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#214
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KJV wrote:
If you don’t believe in any gods, you are an atheist, right? This definition seems pretty basic, not the kind of material that requires an advanced degree in theology to understand.
You're entire post was a cut-and-paste from Psychology Today. Conversation would be more interesting if you put your own thoughts and ideas into your own words, rather than just copying what someone else wrote, don't you think?

Many atheists resist identifying themselves openly, because it can be very difficult to do so. They risk social ostracization, and the scorn of family, friends and loved ones. How would YOU feel if you belonged to a group known as the "most distrusted minority"? How eager would you be to tell people this, even though you knew you're perfectly trustworthy?

The reason we don't have words for non-unicorn-believers or non-astrology-believers, is because people who believe in unicorns or astrology are not trying to manipulate legislation to give favor to their beliefs, or enforce their beliefs onto others. Their beliefs are hardly widespread, and require very little confrontation or consideration.

But many believers in Christianity DO want American law to reflect Christian and biblical values and beliefs, so that even non-Christians must obey them (I know that not ALL Christians want this, but there are enough that the rest of us should be vigilant). Opposition to this, based on a lack of belief in supernatural concepts, is easier to understand and categorize if it has a name.

We have a name for atheism, because we live in a religion-soaked world, and many people simply do not buy the claims. That's a difficult place to be sometimes, and having a name for this position helps contribute to our identities, and helps clarify our position in a world where the vast majority holds a contrary view.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215
May 24, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That's interesting.
I'm not nearly as fond of Colbert as I am of Stewart.
Colbert is a wee bit too real, even though I know he's a Poe, the stuff he says is too close to what real conservatards say for my taste.
Stewart, on the other hand, delivers punches to any and all comers who act stupid, or say stupid things-- democrat, republican, independent-- all are fodder for his scathing wit, if they say or do stupid things.
For that, Stewart has my undying respect.
Stewart is so fast on the draw with the superficial joke that he often does not see what assumptions - taken from the last minute news on channels with an axe to grind, like Fox - he is giving credibility too. By going after all comers, it is as if he has no underlying principles or philosophy, and is merely using anything and anybody for fodder for jokes, whether tasteless or vulgar or pithy and deeply to the point, or terribly misleading.

I think Colbert is less vulgar, less hasty, more philosophical, and much more good looking!

I do not like it when a comedian accepts the conventional wisdom as put out by a lazy stupid press, as in the case of the socalled scandals. I like even the very serious types, Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC, or Pete Williams on NBC, who check on the facts themselves.

My alltime favorites were probably the Smothers Brothers and Pat Paulson, and some of Mort Sahl, and most of all, Herblock the cartoonist. I know I am more political than you, and I suspect I am also older. Do you remember them?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#216
May 24, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
We are all here to "argue", to make our case and practice our debate skills (at least, I am). But I assure you, that AS an atheist myself, I am giving you the correct definition of the concept.
I wouldn't presume to tell YOU what a makes a Christian. You ought to take the word of someone who has adopted a title regarding what that title entails.
<quoted text>
Any baby would have to be taught to be Muslim, or Catholic. Left to its own devices, no baby would practice the rituals or tenants of any belief system. They are born without one. An atheist similarly has no religious belief system.
<quoted text>
The "accepted understanding" of God varies from person to person. An atheist (again, not a capitalized word) is only a person who has not been convinced by any story about gods that they've ever heard. How could a whole world of people settle on ONE "accepted understanding" of supernatural beings or realms?
<quoted text>
Muslims say something quite similar about the Quran. Ditto the Hindus with their Vedas, and the Buddhists and the Tripitaka. Every religion believes that their scripture was handed down by "divine" hands. What method can you provide which will sort out the true claims from the false ones?
The Bible has many things within it which virtually preclude the possibility that it is divine. It endorses slavery and misogyny. It has fictional creatures like unicorns and dragons. It has TALKING animals. It's full of magic and brutality, things that I can consider neither realistic nor admirable.
I know how to be a good person without "obeying" an ancient book that forbids shellfish or tattoos. I simply treat others with kindness and respect, the same as I expect for myself. We don't need "orders" from on high to be good, moral people. We only need to decide what will help us achieve a goal of a peaceful and cooperative society. That involves outlawing murder and theft obviously, but it will not involve things like punishing a rapist with the marriage of his victim, or stoning (or even simply ostracizing) homosexuals. A society that was TRULY operated according to Biblical dogma would be a barbarian state.
I like your comment very much. I like your definition of atheist as including the modifier - any gods that you have ever heard of.

I started two threads today, one about
an allgoodallpowerful god cannot exist
and the other
the only god that can exist
or words to that effect. I would be glad to see your comments on those threads since I often get behind on the long and fastrunning streams (to change similes), and miss replies. I am delighted to read your wonderful comment, which emphasizes ethics as much as theology, and which is so detailed in explaining things.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#217
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

havent forgotten wrote:
I like your comment very much. I like your definition of atheist as including the modifier - any gods that you have ever heard of.
Thanks very much! I could see myself being open to the possibility of a god existing, but I would need to hear its definition first, to judge whether it seems plausible. But yeah, none that I've heard of YET seem to make any sense.
havent forgotten wrote:
I started two threads today, one about
an allgoodallpowerful god cannot exist
and the other
the only god that can exist
or words to that effect. I would be glad to see your comments on those threads since I often get behind on the long and fastrunning streams (to change similes), and miss replies. I am delighted to read your wonderful comment, which emphasizes ethics as much as theology, and which is so detailed in explaining things.
How would I find your threads?

This is my thought about an "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving" god...

With his great omnipotence (all-powerful), he created the universe, and everything in it. This included living, thinking, feeling beings, capable of joy and love, sorrow and suffering. It also included Hell, a place of eternal suffering.

With his omniscience (all-knowing), he knew before creating me that I would be an atheist. He knew this about me before even creating the universe itself. He knew, long before I ever existed, that I would end up in permanent torment and everlasting agony.

And with his omnibenevolence (all-loving), he created me ANYWAY.

None of this adds up. An all-loving being does not create lifeforms capable of suffering, who are destined for eternal suffering. Not simply for the "crime" of not being convinced by magical stories. This is not a "transgression" AT ALL, and is not worthy of ANY punishment, let alone UNENDING punishment.

If there's a god who wants me to believe in him, I can think of better ways than for him to put a book with talking animals into the hands of other human beings for THEM to convince me. If they fail to do so, whether because they have insufficient evidence, or because their narrative is inconsistent, or because they claim the book is the source of all morality while behaving like immoral gits themselves, the fact that they could not convince me is THEIR failure (or god's), NOT mine.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218
May 24, 2013
 
True Christian witness wrote:
<quoted text>
It is my belief not to argue with people, especially to prove a point, but you are wrong in your concept.
No one is born an Atheist, just as no one is born with beliefs is the true concept. The Muslim baby is born a Muslim, just as the Catholic baby is born a Catholic.
The true Atheist has to draw conclusions or estimate his concept of God is not what the accepted understanding of God is, therefore he has the God given right to choose to believe in God or not.
The Bible is God's word of instruction is available to all creation of mankind, but only the meek will listen and obey it.
Psalm 37:11
John 16:23 ... And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

The above is 100% proof that the bible is a LIE.

Why? Because every day, thousands of Genuine Christian™ children DIE, in SPITE of their parents ASKING IN THE VERY NAME MENTIONED IN THIS ALLEGED PROMISE.

And that?

Proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, your god isn't real...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#219
May 24, 2013
 
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> Stewart is so fast on the draw with the superficial joke that he often does not see what assumptions - taken from the last minute news on channels with an axe to grind, like Fox - he is giving credibility too. By going after all comers, it is as if he has no underlying principles or philosophy, and is merely using anything and anybody for fodder for jokes, whether tasteless or vulgar or pithy and deeply to the point, or terribly misleading.
I think Colbert is less vulgar, less hasty, more philosophical, and much more good looking!
I do not like it when a comedian accepts the conventional wisdom as put out by a lazy stupid press, as in the case of the socalled scandals. I like even the very serious types, Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC, or Pete Williams on NBC, who check on the facts themselves.
My alltime favorites were probably the Smothers Brothers and Pat Paulson, and some of Mort Sahl, and most of all, Herblock the cartoonist. I know I am more political than you, and I suspect I am also older. Do you remember them?
I dunno. Stewart has quite the educational background (as does Colbert, naturally).

But my favorite commentator? Has to be the many-degreed Rachel Maddow. That she is both an athiest and gay, and in a committed gay-relationship?

Is only icing on the cake for me-- the real "meat and potatoes" of why I watch, is because she presents things clearly, and isn't afraid to use complex ideas in her presentation or to trace out intricate patterns to get at the root-cause.

In short? Ms Maddow presumes her audience is nearly as erudite as she is, and at least 1/2 as educated too.

And *that* is the main reason I watch her show. She appears to refuse to talk down, or to dumb-down her points, in order to identify with a crowd who is on the 7th beer of a six-pack...

;)

Have you noticed the education-levels of the liberal pundits/comedians, as compared to the educational levels of the conservatives?

It's rather striking: the majority of the Fox crowd? Little or no college, many without even GEDs...!!

Whereas on the liberal side, most are as a minimum, college graduates, many with post-grad degrees too.

Am I an educational elitist? You damn betcha I am-- I also recognize self-taught educated folk as well; a harder task than formal education, if successful.

Alas, the conservatives seem to thrive on bragging how ill-educated they are and how stupid they can be...

... meh.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#220
May 24, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks very much! I could see myself being open to the possibility of a god existing, but I would need to hear its definition first, to judge whether it seems plausible. But yeah, none that I've heard of YET seem to make any sense.
<quoted text>
How would I find your threads?
This is my thought about an "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving" god...
With his great omnipotence (all-powerful), he created the universe, and everything in it. This included living, thinking, feeling beings, capable of joy and love, sorrow and suffering. It also included Hell, a place of eternal suffering.
With his omniscience (all-knowing), he knew before creating me that I would be an atheist. He knew this about me before even creating the universe itself. He knew, long before I ever existed, that I would end up in permanent torment and everlasting agony.
And with his omnibenevolence (all-loving), he created me ANYWAY.
None of this adds up. An all-loving being does not create lifeforms capable of suffering, who are destined for eternal suffering. Not simply for the "crime" of not being convinced by magical stories. This is not a "transgression" AT ALL, and is not worthy of ANY punishment, let alone UNENDING punishment.
If there's a god who wants me to believe in him, I can think of better ways than for him to put a book with talking animals into the hands of other human beings for THEM to convince me. If they fail to do so, whether because they have insufficient evidence, or because their narrative is inconsistent, or because they claim the book is the source of all morality while behaving like immoral gits themselves, the fact that they could not convince me is THEIR failure (or god's), NOT mine.
I must quite agree: the most damning proof of NO gods, are the very people who scream the loudest that there IS one!

What self-respecting deity would suffer such as these ...how did you put that? "immoral gits" ... would suffer such as these immoral gits to sully the otherwise good name of said deity.

When in fact, all it would take? Was something God-Like, something that objectively could not possibly be from OTHER THAN a deity.

At a bare minimum, a daily occurrence of such would only be fair-- since life is so happenstance, and apt to end abruptly.

... meh.

That all gods seem to fall into the same class of "I refuse to prove I exist" category?

Does seem to indicate they aren't actually there at all...
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#221
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Scratch an atheist and out pops ....

Known by many as the world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins - author of The God Delusion - explained during a public discussion at Oxford University, that he does not think of himself as an atheist, but rather an agnostic. The Telegraph reported on Monday that

Richard Dawkins - although regularly labeled as one - does not consider himself an atheist.

In the open dialogue with Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, Dawkins also noted that in his book, The God Delusion, he never made the claim that he is certain that God does not exist.
When moderator, Sir Anthony Kennedy, made a remark insinuating that Dawkins had made such an argument, Dawkins quickly jumped in and corrected him.
"No, I don't. I don't. You were wrong when you said that. I constructed in the God Delusion a 7-point scale, of which 1 is 'I know God exists' and 7 is 'I know God doesn't exist' and I called myself a 6."
Kennedy then asked, "Why don't you call yourself an agnostic then?"
Dawkins replied, "I do."
Dawkins then explained that he believes there are gradations of agnosticism. He is of the opinion that there are agnostics who feel that although they cannot know, for sure, whether or not a God exists, they conclude -to their satisfaction - that there is a 50-50 chance there is, or isn't a God. Dawkins emphasized that he is no such agnostic.
Quite certain - although he set forth absolutely no research or statistical evidence to support his claim - Dawkins insists that it is highly improbable that God exists.
"I think the probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low, which is why I say I'm a 6.9"
One has to wonder, where does Dawkins derive such a "probability"? If he is so certain, why doesn't he just say he is a 7? What holds him back?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#222
May 25, 2013
 
Lincoln wrote:
Scratch an atheist and out pops ....
Known by many as the world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins - author of The God Delusion - explained during a public discussion at Oxford University, that he does not think of himself as an atheist, but rather an agnostic. The Telegraph reported on Monday that
Richard Dawkins - although regularly labeled as one - does not consider himself an atheist.
In the open dialogue with Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, Dawkins also noted that in his book, The God Delusion, he never made the claim that he is certain that God does not exist.
When moderator, Sir Anthony Kennedy, made a remark insinuating that Dawkins had made such an argument, Dawkins quickly jumped in and corrected him.
"No, I don't. I don't. You were wrong when you said that. I constructed in the God Delusion a 7-point scale, of which 1 is 'I know God exists' and 7 is 'I know God doesn't exist' and I called myself a 6."
Kennedy then asked, "Why don't you call yourself an agnostic then?"
Dawkins replied, "I do."
Dawkins then explained that he believes there are gradations of agnosticism. He is of the opinion that there are agnostics who feel that although they cannot know, for sure, whether or not a God exists, they conclude -to their satisfaction - that there is a 50-50 chance there is, or isn't a God. Dawkins emphasized that he is no such agnostic.
Quite certain - although he set forth absolutely no research or statistical evidence to support his claim - Dawkins insists that it is highly improbable that God exists.
"I think the probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low, which is why I say I'm a 6.9"
One has to wonder, where does Dawkins derive such a "probability"? If he is so certain, why doesn't he just say he is a 7? What holds him back?
Lying about god is a defense mechanism used by theists who cannot cope with the real world.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#223
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
We are all here to "argue", to make our case and practice our debate skills (at least, I am). But I assure you, that AS an atheist myself, I am giving you the correct definition of the concept.
I wouldn't presume to tell YOU what a makes a Christian. You ought to take the word of someone who has adopted a title regarding what that title entails.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Within your own group, I agree.
Those outside looking in, different story.
Part of the problem is that some of those outside looking in, you say must be included in your group, against their will (most or at least many, agnostics).
It is common for Christians to say their members worship the one true God.
Do you agree with that?
Theirs is the only path to heaven....and you agree?
These are descriptions of how Christians describe themselves.
Shall we say that those men who take six year old children to bed for sexual purposes are showing 'true love' for these children, and that the children have a free will in these actions?
That is what those individuals say about themselves.
If I want to say I am a horse lover, and I enjoy eating horse meat three times a day, should society accept my use of the term 'horse lover'?
It is the nature of language that society gets to decide what meaning words carry, not individuals, not minority groups.
Currently Muslims define infidels, and decide their punishment.
If they get to define the terms of their own religion, they are justified.
Society disagrees.
~~
Historically atheism has been considered a belief system, that denies the existence of god.
RE: Einstein
Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9...
Why doesn't Einstein get decide if his own belief system is atheism, especially since it agrees with what society said/says about atheism?
There has been a movement to CHANGE the meaning of the term 'atheist'.
This comes not from agnostics, who you would include in your group, but from certain other members, whom society has called 'atheists' due to their belief in no-god.
You tell us we should accept your use of the term, since you are a member of the group, yet it seems to me you deny that same right to agnostics, who do not consider themselves as atheists.
The term 'atheist' has no absolute, unchanging, undeniable meaning.
It means what society says it means, and that meaning is sure to change over a period of a millennium or so.
Your true position, as I see it, is that your group wants to change the meaning of the term atheist.
I can see many reasons for this, none of which is to use the word in its absolute sense, since no such absolute sense exists.
This attempt dumbs down language.
It takes a well defined group (those individuals who have a belief in no-god) and broadens it to such an extent that I have heard atheist say it includes dogs, trees and even rocks.
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#224
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Interesting views from Dawkins as an agnostic

Known by many as the world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins - author of The God Delusion - explained during a public discussion at Oxford University, that he does not think of himself as an atheist, but rather an agnostic.

The Telegraph reported on Monday that Richard Dawkins - although regularly labeled as one - does not consider himself an atheist.

In the open dialogue with Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, Dawkins also noted that in his book, The God Delusion, he never made the claim that he is certain that God does not exist.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#225
May 25, 2013
 
Lincoln wrote:
Interesting views from Dawkins as an agnostic
Known by many as the world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins - author of The God Delusion - explained during a public discussion at Oxford University, that he does not think of himself as an atheist, but rather an agnostic.
The Telegraph reported on Monday that Richard Dawkins - although regularly labeled as one - does not consider himself an atheist.
In the open dialogue with Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, Dawkins also noted that in his book, The God Delusion, he never made the claim that he is certain that God does not exist.
We're all interested to learn what motivates you to return to this forum over and over again, to lie about god, atheists and scientists?

I'm not sure why you want to create so many atheists by being so publicly stupid while representing your cult?
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#226
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
We're all interested to learn what motivates you to return to this forum over and over again, to lie about god, atheists and scientists?
I'm not sure why you want to create so many atheists by being so publicly stupid while representing your cult?
Seems news that Richard Dawkins is an agnostic
Known by many as the world's most famous atheist,

Richard Dawkins - author of The God Delusion -

explained during a public discussion at Oxford University, that he does not think of himself as an atheist,

but rather an agnostic.

The Telegraph reported on Monday that Richard Dawkins - although regularly labeled as one - does not consider himself an atheist.

Kennedy then asked Dawkins , "Why don't you call yourself an agnostic then?"

Dawkins replied, "I do."

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

9 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
HELL real or not? (Sep '13) 4 min Patrick 286
Richard Dawkins in a nutshell 8 min Electrical Engineer 16
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 8 min ChristineM 225,528
If Christianity were true... 1 hr Amused 122
Adam Atheoi - the god of 'humanity' 6 hr Siro 76
Hollywood Actor Reveals What He Thinks Is 'Weir... 7 hr Thinking 98
Richard Dawkins jumps yet another shark 7 hr Thinking 30
•••
•••