Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[SuperFerret]

"Arrogant" doesn't even begin to describe him.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm surprised he believes Jesus existed.

Dawkins can be arrogant, but he's pretty humble compared to some of his opponents.

 

[Manic]

To say Dawkins has a bit of a god complex would be as apt as it is ironic.

 

[Sloth7d]

Dawkins is a well-known *****ebag. Citing him hurts your claims.

So were Nietzsche and Voltaire. Their personality doesn't reflect whether they're right or not. Really, I'm surprised to here you say Dawkins is a D-bag. In interviews with people like Ben Stein and Bill O'Reilly he comes across quite humble. He's not like Bill Mahr or theamazingatheist or anything.

 

[Sloth7d]

I'm surprised he believes Jesus existed.

Dawkins can be arrogant, but he's pretty humble compared to some of his opponents.

There's really no reason to doubt a prophet by the name of Jesus existed. It's his divinity that's in question.

 

[bunk]

When I see the ad hominem attacks, it just reads as "I'm too lazy to actually comment on this person's arguments."

 

[Thundercrack85]

There's really no reason to doubt a prophet by the name of Jesus existed. It's his divinity that's in question.

I have yet to see credible evidence for his existence. There's the total lack of contemporary accounts, inconsistencies in later accounts (by people who admit they never knew him while he was alive), huge gaps in his alleged (canonical) history...

So I disagree.

 

[Sloth7d]

I have yet to see credible evidence for his existence. There's the total lack of contemporary accounts, inconsistencies in later accounts (by people who admit they never knew him while he was alive), huge gaps in his alleged (canonical) history...

So I disagree.

I don't claim to refute the majority of what you said. In fact, it's all true. However, I still have a hard time believing that all of these accounts came about from a person who didn't exist. I don't doubt that most of what is written down is exaggeration though; so, for me it doesn't matter if he's real or not as it doesn't really change anything. Perhaps, that has a hand in why I don't doubt his existence aswell.

 

[Red Mask]

I don't believe in the annoying Coke ad that's atop this website. If any god or athiest can get rid of it, I'll root for him!

 

[Juicy J]

Question for all of you atheists: if there is no god, then how exactly are we here? How do you account for the existence of, not just us, but everything if there is no higher power? Do you honestly believe that something came from nothing, or do you think that matter is eternal or what?

 

[EML420]

Why does christianity get argued over the most? I mean theres tons of other religons but why does christianity get foot hold over those? When people argue about or talk about it on forums and what not its always christianity.

 

[moviedoors]

Question for all of you atheists: if there is no god, then how exactly are we here? How do you account for the existence of, not just us, but everything if there is no higher power? Do you honestly believe that something came from nothing, or do you think that matter is eternal or what?

I don't know. I'd love to understand it all some day, but until I have sufficient knowledge to that affect, I'll just remain without belief in those subjects. Simple as that.

To me, that's one of the key concepts of skepticism: having the intellectual fortitude to admit when you just don't know, and in the absence of knowledge, there can be no belief.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

Well, Juicy J,
I certainly don't believe that a single all-powerful being wished everything into existence. If this kind of statement came from a two year old, we would be very disappointed in them...

Also if God really did create mankind, then God is the largest mass murderer in the Universe. Responsible for every person that has been murdered by another on this planet during the entirety of Human history. And don't give me any of that "But God gave Mankind free will c**p"
Because that is just a cop out to make you (I mean that collectively) be able to explain this away and feel better about it.
As God is perfect, he/she would have created Humans without the need of anger, aggression, greed and all those other wonderful traits which allow us to murder thousands upon thousands of each other every year.

I'd rather believe life is a cosmic accident (or joke, depending from where you sit) than to think anyone planned it out. Because if they did, well I think a recall is way overdue...

But I am actually in the agnostic camp. I have not seen any evidence to make me believe in the existence of God. But that does mean it is not impossible that they may exist. I can't see the air, but I know it's there.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

I don't know. I'd love to understand it all some day, but until I have sufficient knowledge to that affect, I'll just remain without belief in those subjects. Simple as that.

To me, that's one of the key concepts of skepticism: having the intellectual fortitude to admit when you just don't know, and in the absence of knowledge, there can be no belief.

I'd have to disagree with you there. If there is an absence of knowledge, then all you can have is a belief or faith that the thing of which you have no knowledge is actually true or correct.

If you have the knowledge of something then it is not a belief, but a fact or truth.

Certainly, that is how I see it and my wife tells me I am never wrong and as she is a woman and women are never, ever wrong..... Well you see where I am coming from.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Why does christianity get argued over the most? I mean theres tons of other religons but why does christianity get foot hold over those? When people argue about or talk about it on forums and what not its always christianity.

Maybe because most people who speak English live in Christian-dominated countries?

 

[moviedoors]

I'd have to disagree with you there. If there is an absence of knowledge, then all you can have is a belief or faith that the thing of which you have no knowledge is actually true or correct.

If you have the knowledge of something then it is not a belief, but a fact or truth.

Certainly, that is how I see it and my wife tells me I am never wrong and as she is a woman and women are never, ever wrong..... Well you see where I am coming from.

Yeah, you nailed me on the semantics there, but did I get my idea across?

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

Hi MD,
Absolutely you got the idea across, I was just a bit confused with the detailing and wanted to say what I thought you meant. No offence meant at all.

 

[SuperFerret]

^You must have a big itch with him to say that. I would say he can be arrogant often, but what he says can also be very insightful.

I'm surprised he believes Jesus existed.

Dawkins can be arrogant, but he's pretty humble compared to some of his opponents.

So were Nietzsche and Voltaire. Their personality doesn't reflect whether they're right or not. Really, I'm surprised to here you say Dawkins is a D-bag. In interviews with people like Ben Stein and Bill O'Reilly he comes across quite humble. He's not like Bill Mahr or theamazingatheist or anything.

When I see the ad hominem attacks, it just reads as "I'm too lazy to actually comment on this person's arguments."

Okay, let's pick apart his claim then, at the most superficial level, and we'll see why I have absolutely zero interest in giving him or his views any time of day.

"Somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist"

First off, he's most obviously stating that there is a direct correlation between a person's intelligence and their religion. That's a good way to let people know how little you think of them, and really, it's the most basic form of religious intolerance ever. The "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm smart and you're dumb" argument. It equates to someone saying "Somebody as intelligent as Dawkins would have been a Christian".

Second, his statement is inherently false, and can't possibly be true. Say Jesus existed, if so, he was clearly not an athiest, BUT Dawkins says he should be, because he's so smart. But Jesus can only be considered intelligent due to his teachings, which are Judeo-Christian in nature. So the very thing that makes him too intelligent to be religious is impossible to separate from religion. It boggles the mind, and shows me that Dawkins doesn't have a good understanding of religion at all, and while he's welcome to his own opinion, shouldn't be trying to convert others if he doesn't understand why they're religious.

Third, there are only three ways to look at Jesus, and none of them fit this statement. One, Jesus existed and was merely a prophet and teacher, who while teaching generally good lessons, was ultimately wrong about the nature of the universe, and was quite mad to believe that he was the son of god. The other says that Jesus did exist and WAS the Son of God, not much else to say there. The third, Jesus never existed and is just a fictional character like Mickey Mouse or Superman.


Now, after reading that profoundly arrogant and ultimately incorrect headline, why should I continue to listen to Dawkins? If he has something deep and profound to say, why wouldn't he put his best face on? Why start a conversation in which he wants to convince someone of something by insulting them?

 

[moviedoors]

Hi MD,
Absolutely you got the idea across, I was just a bit confused with the detailing and wanted to say what I thought you meant. No offence meant at all.

None taken at all. Just another lesson in how carefully I should choose my words, and I don't take that lightly.

 

[SuperFerret]

Well, Juicy J,
I certainly don't believe that a single all-powerful being wished everything into existence. If this kind of statement came from a two year old, we would be very disappointed in them...

Also if God really did create mankind, then God is the largest mass murderer in the Universe. Responsible for every person that has been murdered by another on this planet during the entirety of Human history. And don't give me any of that "But God gave Mankind free will c**p"
Because that is just a cop out to make you (I mean that collectively) be able to explain this away and feel better about it.
As God is perfect, he/she would have created Humans without the need of anger, aggression, greed and all those other wonderful traits which allow us to murder thousands upon thousands of each other every year.

I'd rather believe life is a cosmic accident (or joke, depending from where you sit) than to think anyone planned it out. Because if they did, well I think a recall is way overdue...

But I am actually in the agnostic camp. I have not seen any evidence to make me believe in the existence of God. But that does mean it is not impossible that they may exist. I can't see the air, but I know it's there.

If God is perfect, we cannot understand His motives and all that anger, aggression, greed and such is part of what He intended. God being perfect, or even being good, doesn't hinge on Him being nice or understandable to us.

 

[Thundercrack85]

That's the thing about Jesus. We really know nothing about him. Even if you believe he existed, what he himself thought or said, is unverifiable. All the people who wrote about him had their own agendas.

Paul for example, never even met Jesus. But he wrote a lot about him. Christians obviously take it at face value.

Maybe Jesus claimed he was the son of god, maybe he didn't. We have no way of determining that. Everything that was written about him, was written after he died, by people who never personally knew him.

Again, I'm surprised Dawkins accepts' his existence.

 

[Manic]

Okay, let's pick apart his claim then, at the most superficial level, and we'll see why I have absolutely zero interest in giving him or his views any time of day.

"Somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist"

First off, he's most obviously stating that there is a direct correlation between a person's intelligence and their religion. That's a good way to let people know how little you think of them, and really, it's the most basic form of religious intolerance ever. The "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm smart and you're dumb" argument. It equates to someone saying "Somebody as intelligent as Dawkins would have been a Christian".

Second, his statement is inherently false, and can't possibly be true. Say Jesus existed, if so, he was clearly not an athiest, BUT Dawkins says he should be, because he's so smart. But Jesus can only be considered intelligent due to his teachings, which are Judeo-Christian in nature. So the very thing that makes him too intelligent to be religious is impossible to separate from religion. It boggles the mind, and shows me that Dawkins doesn't have a good understanding of religion at all, and while he's welcome to his own opinion, shouldn't be trying to convert others if he doesn't understand why they're religious.

Third, there are only three ways to look at Jesus, and none of them fit this statement. One, Jesus existed and was merely a prophet and teacher, who while teaching generally good lessons, was ultimately wrong about the nature of the universe, and was quite mad to believe that he was the son of god. The other says that Jesus did exist and WAS the Son of God, not much else to say there. The third, Jesus never existed and is just a fictional character like Mickey Mouse or Superman.


Now, after reading that profoundly arrogant and ultimately incorrect headline, why should I continue to listen to Dawkins? If he has something deep and profound to say, why wouldn't he put his best face on? Why start a conversation in which he wants to convince someone of something by insulting them?

He's like an internet troll who targets Christians and has enough pull to extend his trolling beyond the internet. It's not enough for Dawkins to simply say there is no God; he has to goad the people who believe in God to reacting to his statements. It won't bring them around to his way of thinking.

 

[SuperFerret]

Pretty much.

 

[Anubis]

Of course if he gets off on conflict then, you know, kid in a candy store.

 

[8wid]

Archaeology vs the Bible (James Randi)