reply to post by melatonin
Nope, it's a quote-mine of a defintion of one form of atheism. The 'weak' form of atheism makes no claims or denial of the existence of god. It is
just the non-belief.
You used this out of context to suggest this means someone like Dawkins is radical for making claims like telling kiddies about how people burn in
hell is a form of mental abuse. Totally out of context.
Sorry you’re wrong about my motive and technique. Here is the entire definition:
The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person
who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called “weak” or “implicit” atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism,
sometimes called “strong” or “explicit” atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which
will deserve support at some point
atheism.about.com...
I admit I left out the strong definition. I was actually trying to be generous. It doesn’t change anything. Dawkins goes way further than strong
Atheism, he doesn’t just “explicitly deny the existence of any gods”. That surprises me not. The reason I am calling him a
Radical
Atheist is he calls for the abolition of faith. That’s radical and that’s extreme.
Because he might care about the mental abuse of children.
Whammy, with all due respect, stick your fearmongering where the sun don't shine.
Oh I see I must have misunderstood!
The God Delusion is a children’s book, make more sense now. So “The Root of All Evil” is more akin
to “Horton Hears A Hoo”. While you have me inserting things in my bodily orifices, why not corral and shoot to kill those fear mongering
missionaries who are feeding AIDS babies in Africa. After all, they are child abusers too, right?
With 70% of HIV/AIDS deaths worldwide taking place in sub-Saharan Africa, AIDS remains a pandemic for countries like Kenya. Three children die every
five minutes in Kenya; hundreds orphaned every day. Through the CLEAR program, CMA is able to provide education, counseling and home based care in
Nyanza, the Kenyan province hardest hit by HIV/AIDS.
www.cmaid.org...
Uhm, all atheists have beliefs on top of those pertaining to atheism. Some are even communists - gasp! Some are even humanists - gasp!
Religion doesn't form the 'entire moral framework' of society. You just like to think it does.
Some are even creationists-gasp! Oh that’s impossible… arg. Maybe it doesn’t but it is the dominant influence on world morality. Say Dawkins
get his way, what will be the replacement source of morality?
So the claim was wrong then. He didn't name it. OK, he blames 9-11 on faith. Cool, as they flew into the building I have good reason to visualise
them screaming 'god is great'.
Dawkins (from his movie) “There are would be murderers all around the world, who want to kill you and me and themselves because they’re motivated
by what they think is the highest ideal … don’t let us forget the elephant in the room the elephant called religion."
He blames faith for terrorism. He says faith is a delusion. He says all faith is blind faith. Is all faith blind? You’re a science guy, so tell
when John Dalton came to the conclusion that matter had to have a fundamental particle. He was postulating the atom, but he couldn’t see it or
measure it. Then Thompson and other scientists spent a lot of time trying to prove it. Weren’t they employing faith?
You can blame atheism for Stalin and Mao all you like.
But it doesn't make the claim sustainable, any more than me blaming christianity for thousands of deaths in Iraq, or the deaths of those in
Hiroshima. Sometimes they do it in the name of theism, sometimes they do it in the name of communism and state, sometimes they do it in the name of
democracy. Stalin thought the people he was causing the deaths of was justifiable, and Bush thought the people he was leading to non-existence was
justifiable.
I do hold atheism accountable for Stalin and Mao. Apples and Oranges… Stalin and Mao were not really at war. They were “naturally selecting” to
engineer a society.
More than questionable. His own words show you are wrong. I can try to get the articles tomorrow. Probably a bit old for online access though.
I stated Darwin is known as a theist. I am suggesting he had social reasons to put up a front. It doesn’t hurt my argument a bit it he was an
agnostic or a weak theist. I then provided this quote from Darwin’s autobiography,” This very old argument from the existence of suffering against
the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the
view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.” Which demonstrates his belief in an intelligent first
cause was in question. He had serious doubts. And his theory has undeniably fueled Atheism and Marxism.
I know of at least one atheist who doesn't accept evolutionary theory, he stated so earlier in this thread. I'm sure he's not the only one.
Evolution is a scientific theory. That would be like taking on atomic theory as a worldview. A silly comment. Communism is nothing like what a social
form of evolutionary theory would be anyway.
Well Karl Marx would beg to differ with you.
"It is commonplace that Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin's. He even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the
author of The Origin of Species" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Barzum). Indeed, Marx wished to dedicate parts of his famous book to Darwin but "Darwin
'declined the honor' because, he wrote to Marx, he did not know the work, he did not believe that direct attacks on religion advanced the cause of
free thought, and finally because he did not want to upset 'some members of my family'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Jorafsky).
emporium.turnpike.net...
See the part about “not want to upset 'some members of my family” is in favor of my view on Darwin’s supposed theism. He didn’t want to
sleep on the couch.
It does affect the connection. It shows he never held to 'Darwinian' evolution. Which was your original claim. You might as well blame gravity for
the deaths his actions caused.
You’re airbrushing! Marx loved Darwinian evolution. Darwin to Marx. Marx to Stalin and Mao. The connection is Marx. The similarity between
dialectical conflict and natural selection is not an accident.
And there is a basis for morals apart from religion. Don't be silly. We form them by social agreement, they are part of the social milieu. And
underneath that, we have the capacity to act with empathy an sympathy - that's where evolution played a part.
Please look back at this post
www.abovetopsecret.com... and tell me, what is your reason for not killing the
fellow?
Yes, the same quote is used over and over, all probably from the same source - Harun. Creationistas are not known for their honesty, so excuse me if I
don't take it as reliable, especially when sourced from some obscure german book. Numerous quotes have been found to be completely false from these
type of people.
What type of people? The site Evolution Quotes seems kind of generic to me. (
bevets.com...)
Of course you think you did. Most secular communists were atheists. But not at all atheists are communists (indeed, very few are). Moreover, if you
read the 'christian communist' wiki, you'll see that not all communists were actually atheists. Some based it on the bible.
Therefore atheism =/= communism.
See this is the sort of side stepping I am talking about. Of course Atheism doesn’t equal communism. However they are forever linked in that Karl
Marx was a Darwinian Atheist who used those beliefs to create the idea for communism. They’re like a big happy inbred family. (banjo music drifts
through the mountain air) Squeal like a pig!
And people who have killed numerous people did. It makes no difference, evil people do evil things.
Ok you’re an Atheist right? There’s no Atheist ten commandments are there? Is there an Atheist Bible? The inspired word of the Flying Spaghetti
Monster, perhaps?
So what is evil? Who sets the standard for what is evil?
Have you ever seen his discussion with Bishop (ex now) Harries?
No but I have his debate with Dr John Lennox on order.
(on Faith)
Condemn is a strong word. He just thinks it's BS. That's his perogative. So do I.
If faith is BS and Faith is blind, then why does a man trust his wife? Isn’t that a form of faith based on evidence of faithfulness? Of course it
is. Faith is not BS and it is not blind.
Yeah, the commies are coming!!!
Religion can make any old poop up. Of course it can pretend to explain it. Before the fall all the animals lived in some fairy-land eating manna from
heaven. Dino's were used for donkey rides and snakes talked etc etc
It does explain it. Your heart is hard; so you cannot comprehend it.
See Mel, "
God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; " (1 corin 1:27)
Quite frankly, since I am debating you all you scientist intellectuals, I am glad that's true...
