Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

ABOTA says: Richard Dawkins is an embarrassment to atheism.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 127 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 5:37:32 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 1, 2012 6:04:46 AM PST
zoltán says:
Kevin Bold says: "Theism is anything but "indefensible"."

The material of your post-- fallacious at best, with some blatant untruth thrown in for good measure-- supports my position. Thanks!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 6:26:00 AM PST
ABOTA says:
"Or it could be that many atheists were parroting him for ever after "The God Delusion came out."

Bingo. I got "Delusion" out of the library, and I said, "Hey! So THAT's where it all comes from." Funny how those free thinkers all sound like a bunch of clones.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 6:40:37 AM PST
zoltán says:
"I never heard of Dr. Richard Dawkins until about 1986/1987."

I think I first heard of him a bit later than that. I find it odd to be told, as I have been several times, that I am a follower of Dawkins. He and I have been atheists for approximately the same amount of time but I did not hear of him until nearly thirty years after realizing my position on theism.

Posted on Mar 1, 2012 7:08:44 AM PST
dischism says:
Kevin

< Or name famous atheists who realized there is a God (Lewis, Flew, Hoyle, etc.). Atheists have no response other than personal attacks against them.>

Which God did Flew believe in? Which God did Hoyle believe in?

Quote from Lewis (A Question of God)

< : I was at that time living like many atheists; in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with him for creating a world. Why should creatures have the burden of existence forced on them without their consent?>

Here he says he's an atheist, but twice he says he's angry at God. Is there not a contradiction here? Is an atheist capable of being angry at something they don't believe exists? I don't like people who say "Well, you were never really a ..." but in this case it's quite apt.

You need to provide some better examples than those, Kevin.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 7:25:28 AM PST
ABOTA says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 7:42:03 AM PST
dischism says:
ABOTA

Oh, puh-leeeeeeeze! yourself.

I occasionally use expressions casually invoking the word God, but I certainly don't have emotions *against* something in which I don't believe, which Lewis (whose fiction I've enjoyed very much for the last fifty years or so) stated he did directly.

Why did/does the metaphor work for *some* people? Because they already believe in a deity of some kind. It obviously works well for *you*. We're all pattern seekers; how we interpret the pattern varies.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 7:49:33 AM PST
Bubba says:
I praise god for inventing air conditioning and other major home appliances, that doesn't mean that I believe in any god, including your god.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 8:03:30 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 1, 2012 10:18:59 AM PST
Kevin Bold says:
dischism says: Which God did Flew believe in?

Irrelevant. His last book was entitled There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

You should read it. It's a lot more interesting than anything any atheist here ever posted.

"Which God did Hoyle believe in?"

The one who made all the carbon that "science" said shouldn't have been there, of course.

"Here he says he's an atheist, but twice he says he's angry at God. Is there not a contradiction here? Is an atheist capable of being angry at something they don't believe exists? "

Atheists are people, too, dich. And atheists are quite capable of contradicting themselves, just like the rest of us "mehums" (Scientologist term for "mere humans", ie., outsiders; perhaps athieists could appropriate it).

"You need to provide some better examples than those, Kevin."

Or you'll what? Hold your breath until you turn blue and pass out?

Posted on Mar 1, 2012 8:16:52 AM PST
dischism says:
Kevin

< Or you'll what? Hold your breath until you turn blue and pass out?>

I see you're your usual charming self.

< Irrelevant. His last book was entitled There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.>

And we've discussed this before, Kevin. You mean the one "co-authored" by Varghese, in which Americanisms were used which Flew had never previously used, and which was published when he was in his eighties?

< "Which God did Hoyle believe in?"

The one who made all the carbon that "science" said shouldn't have been there, of course. >

What? You mean Hoyle, the steady stater and panspermist who's been described as " an atheist for ID" ? Are you serious? Highly eccentric, of course, but a *theist*? roflmao

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 10:04:28 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 1, 2012 10:17:56 AM PST
Kevin Bold says:
Scientistic Mind says: The only one that does not have a crazy story is Atheism. There is no crazy story to follow.

"We're all here by accident. Despite our being flukes of the universe, we are the ultimate arbiters of all. We have meaning, because we can dream up the concept. We can criticize the religious despite our having worse then they ever could whenever and wherever we've been able to sieze political power -- up to forty thousand dead in ten months in France, one hundred million dead in seventy years in the twentieth century. We strain at the gnats of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam while swallowing the camel of Marxism. We profess rationalism while being anything but rational. We'll always brush aside the facts, the evidence, and the data when they go against us. We're atheists, we're sociopaths, and we gave the world dictatorships, death, and Lysenkoism. Kneel before us in awe!"

No thanks. You can keep that crazy story. I'll stick with the God whose existence you can't disprove.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 10:18:15 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 1, 2012 10:20:18 AM PST
Ashwood says:
Kevin Bold says: No thanks. I'll stick with the God whose existence you can't disprove.

Ash : Shiva? Zeus? Thor? Flying Spaghetti Monster? You'll need to narrow it down a bit.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 10:20:15 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 1, 2012 11:06:37 AM PST
Kevin Bold says:
Shiva is closer to the truth than atheism.

And no, I don't need to "narrow it down a bit".

You, OTOH, if you're an atheist, may wish to come up with a way to defend the "crazy story" one must believe to be an atheist. That way, you won't keep confusing a god with many names with many gods.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 10:23:16 AM PST
Max Flash says:
Kevin Bold: I'll stick with the God whose existence you can't disprove.

Max: If that is your criteria for belief, then you must have quite a list of gods you believe in. How does your Catholic god feel about this?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 10:23:46 AM PST
"Shiva is closer to the truth than atheism."

Do you believe that Shiva exists? If not, then why not?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 10:25:33 AM PST
Kevin Bold says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 10:32:16 AM PST
mrs exp says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 10:36:03 AM PST
Ashwood says:
Kevin Bold says: And no, I don't need to "narrow it down a bit".

Ash : Since the penalty for believing in the wrong god is supposedly eternal torment, narrowing it down might be helpful.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 10:54:44 AM PST
zoltán says:
Kevin Bold says: "Too bad you have no facts on which to base your assertions; if you had any, you'd have included them."

Oops! My bad!

http://www.amazon.com/forum/christianity/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx77WQHU8YS50Z&cdMsgNo=50&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2E7VJMNUHEJSE&cdMsgID=Mx1RLZHGGUB92LK#Mx1RLZHGGUB92LK

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2012 11:48:45 AM PST
ABOTA says:
Don't forget that even though we are anomalous dips of entropy in a random system, we are *dignified* anomalous dips.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 2, 2012 8:54:13 AM PST
So why not praise Carrier for air conditioning? Or even Huan, the original inventor of artificial air circulation?

Why not praise Evans, Cullen and Perkins for inventing the various refrigerator technologies that eventually led to the modern refrigerator?

What does it mean that you "praise god" for these things?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 2, 2012 9:31:46 AM PST
no.

I know you wouldn't. :-)

Posted on Mar 2, 2012 9:47:03 AM PST
What's wrong with offending religionists? People with foolish beliefs are bound to be offended by clear-thinking people who openly reject those beliefs. Comes with the territory.

Posted on Mar 2, 2012 10:12:14 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 2, 2012 10:16:56 AM PST
It is always a rather mystifying statement that is mindlessly uttered by the religious when someone survives a car accident where they needed to be hospitalized and they will say "Thank god he/she survived." It seems to me that the people that need to be thanked are the citizens at the accident scene, the fire fighters who took the people out of the cars, the paramedics, the ambulance driver, the doctors and nurses in the emergency room, the surgeons and nurses in the operating room. The skills and dedication of these medical professionals saved the life. They are the ones to be thanked. Other humans. Not some far away mythical character known as god who seems to get the undeserving praise for doing nothing. Helping hands does much more than the useless praying hands.

Thank god. Thank it for what? This god phantom had nothing to do with the survival. "No show" god man didn't do squat (God man never does. Even when infants and children are being raped, abused and murdered). If this god man were real and wanted to really help instead of sitting on his magic wand (After all, god man has the power to create a universe), god man should have prevented the car accident in the first place. Why shouldn't this god man prevent the accident? After all, god man is suppose to be so concerned with the well being of us humans (Especially Americans~America is god's chosen people and land after all). Why does god man not prevent horrible crimes against humanity, the murder and abuse of infants, children and just people in general? The reason why. Because god does not exist. That is why. That is why , gods, religion, jesus etc... is all a load of BS.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 2, 2012 10:14:43 AM PST
Kevin Bold says:
People with foolish beliefs are more apt to be offended BY "religionists."

Posted on Mar 2, 2012 10:19:10 AM PST
J. Harding says:
ABOTA,

What do you have against Dawkins? Lots of people talk about what a jerk Dawkins is, but I've seen very little evidence of this. On the other hand, I know that Dawkins puts up with a great deal of rudeness, selective dishonest misquoting, and other shenanigans from theists.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  36
Total posts:  127
Initial post:  Feb 26, 2012
Latest post:  Apr 19, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions