It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by melatonin
the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil v the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil
?????????????????????
It is obviously implying that people like myself who believe in God are delusional. I find that highly offensive and bigoted. I am not delusional. I have two college degrees... It is extremely offensive... to imply I am mentally ill!
Atheism's Wrong Turn
Mindless argument found in godless books.
by Damon Linker
In the penultimate chapter of his best-selling book The God Delusion, biologist and world-renowned atheist Richard Dawkins presents his view of religious education, which he explains by way of an anecdote. Following a lecture in Dublin, he recalls, "I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place." Lest his readers misunderstand him, or dismiss this rather shocking statement as mere off-the-cuff hyperbole, Dawkins goes on to clarify his position. "I am persuaded," he explains, "that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell."
Why Dawkins refuses to take this idea to its logical conclusion--to say that raising a child in a religious tradition, like other forms of child abuse, should be considered a crime punishable by the state--is a mystery, for it follows directly from the character of his atheism. And not just his. Over the past four years, several prominent atheists have made similarly inflammatory claims in a series of best-selling books. Philosopher Daniel Dennett shares Dawkins's hostility to religious education, warning ominously in Breaking the Spell that "under the protective umbrellas of personal privacy and religious freedom there are widespread practices in which parents" harm their children by teaching them ignoble lies. In The End of Faith, writer Sam Harris argues that "the very ideal of religious tolerance--born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God--is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss." And then there is polemicist Christopher Hitchens, whose manifesto God is Not Great culminates in a call for humanity to "escape the gnarled hands which reach out to drag us back to the catacombs and the reeking altars and the guilty pleasures of subjection and abjection ... to know the enemy, and to prepare to fight it."
Journalists have dubbed this combative style of challenging religious belief "the new atheism." To the extent that the appellation is meant to highlight the novelty of virulently anti-religious ideas finding a mass audience in the United States, it is certainly fitting. But, as a description of the style of unbelief itself, it demonstrates a striking lack of historical awareness. That's because "the new atheism" is not particularly new. It belongs to an intellectual genealogy stretching back hundreds of years, to a moment when atheist thought split into two traditions: one primarily concerned with the dispassionate pursuit of truth, the other driven by a visceral contempt for the personal faith of others.
Originally posted by the Dickie Dee
"I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."
It would only be the same thing if there was a book called The Atheism Delusion.
Originally posted by Astyanax
The Atheist Delusion by Greg Taylor
The Atheist Delusion by John Gray
The Dawkins Delusion? by Alister McGrath
You also neglect to mention the countless vials of bile and opprobrium that atheists have had poured over them by believers since the beginning of time.
Posted by Bigwhammy
In the penultimate chapter of his best-selling book The God Delusion, biologist and world-renowned atheist Richard Dawkins presents his view of religious education, which he explains by way of an anecdote. Following a lecture in Dublin, he recalls, "I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place." Lest his readers misunderstand him, or dismiss this rather shocking statement as mere off-the-cuff hyperbole, Dawkins goes on to clarify his position. "I am persuaded," he explains, "that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell."
Originally posted by Astyanax
They are threads in which no real evidence for conspiracy is presented.
If you don't wish to be offended by such things, don't deliberately start threads and post material calculated to provoke and offend.
Originally posted by an3rkist
You would really have to define God to completely debunk Dawkins. "God" can be whatever a person wants it to be.
Originally posted by Gigatronix
Can someone please point out where Atheists have elected Dawkins, Hitchens, or any other Atheist to be our mouthpiece? Say what you wnat about Dawkins, I could care less. He's another guy talking a bunch of stuff and spouting off opinions. I don't see how attacking Dawkins, whether he's right or wrong, or civil or abrasive, proves anything, validates anything, or refutes anything. He's just a man who happens to get alot of publicity. And we all know the people that get the most publicity are people who either say very smart things or very dumb things. He's probably done both.
I don't think you can formulate a picture of a conspiracy based on this guys ramblings. Or any guy's ramblings. Seems to me it wouldn't be a very effective conspiracy if you could get to the heart of it by going on YouTube.
What we have here is a circular conspiracy, Atheists are conspiring to assert there a religious conspiracy, the religious are conspiring to assert an Atheist conspiracy, in the process probably obscuring the real conspiracy.
What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents. - RFK
What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents. - RFK
Originally posted by Astyanax
This post earns you a seat in Pedant's Corner with melationin and me.
Your claim that religious 'creationists' are merely responding to an attack from atheists remains, however, unsubstantiated.
The Atheist Delusion
Answering Richard Dawkins
www.newdawnmagazine.com...
The Atheist Delusion
In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain...
books.guardian.co.uk...
The Dawkins Delusion
[Dawkins' The God Delusion is mentioned on the front cover of the book!]
www.amazon.com...
The Dawkins Delusion
The Dawkins Delusion? is a book by the biochemist and Christian theologian Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, written as a critical response from a Christian perspective to Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion.
en.wikipedia.org...
It is merely that the march of science renders your beliefs increasingly untenable.
Originally posted by AshleyD
Originally posted by Astyanax
Your claim that religious 'creationists' are merely responding to an attack from atheists remains, however, unsubstantiated.
Unsubstantiated? From your links: tral-la, boom-de-ay, etc...
Originally posted by Astyanax
The operative word in the sentence quoted is, as you are well aware, 'merely'.
Is this really the very best you can do? I am reminded of little girls arguing over the rules of hopscotch or French cricket.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
After much inner turmoil, and self-doubt, I have come to the conclusion that this thread is gone circular.
Someone somewhere used the term 'tag-team', in the sense that there are 'groups' from both sides....both 'sides' referring to the so-called 'atheists' and the so-called 'theists'....
As I was saying, I have come to the conclusion that this thread is damaging to the spirit of ATS. I do not state this lightly, I simply think it has gone on long enough...
and the original premise has not been proven to anyone's satisfaction, except to the 'True Believers' who gang up in the first place!!
Perhaps, and I know I invite scorn or Mods 'warnings', but someone has to say ENOUGH! I've seen threads die out, from inactivity....but this keeps going on, and it goes nowhere, IMO.
If I'm wrong, please show me where I'm wrong. I'm listening....