A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Harbal]

It's certainly not for the want of being told.

I don't get it.

I was just making the point that he shouldn't have to wonder why people think kristians are idiots because he has already been told on numerous occasions why they are idiots. I suppose I'm saying he doesn't listen.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's certainly not for the want of being told.

I don't get it.

I was just making the point that he shouldn't have to wonder why people think kristians are idiots because he has already been told on numerous occasions why they are idiots. I suppose I'm saying he doesn't listen.

Oh. When I think about it he probably doesn't 'wonder' about it at all.

[Harbal]

Oh. When I think about it he probably doesn't 'wonder' about it at all.

Actually, I think you were right, he probably does.

[Dubious]

You've assumed your conclusion, then declared it true. It's called "circular reasoning," and it constitutes proof of nothing.

This is beyond ironic! I guess you haven't noticed what a perfect summary this is of your own methodology...one you have never deviated from as though it were a case of statute law chiselled on the "Stone Tablets" of your psyche. When you look in the mirror is there ever any reflection, anything of substance coming back at all that could be glanced at analytically or retroactively? Rhetorical question only! Additional data piled on the already obvious is equivalent to insisting on paying more for less.

[Greta]

You've assumed your conclusion, then declared it true. It's called "circular reasoning," and it constitutes proof of nothing.

This is beyond ironic! I guess you haven't noticed what a perfect summary this is of your own methodology...one you have never deviated from as though it were a case of statute law chiselled on the "Stone Tablets" of your psyche. When you look in the mirror is there ever any reflection, anything of substance coming back at all that could be glanced at analytically or retroactively? Rhetorical question only! Additional data piled on the already obvious is equivalent to insisting on paying more for less.

This seems to be something theists do - claim that non believers are subject to dogma and holding irrational beliefs. It's all thoroughly shameless. Whom is more subject to inflexible dogma - the theist or secularist? Whom is being more rational - the one who subscribes to middle eastern myths of the Iron Age or those who admit that they don't understand deepest reality?

Fascinating to watch the post-information and post-reason world emerge, one where knowledge and correctness no longer matter, just words that people want to hear. It's increasingly Orwellian, and even more like Brave New World.

[Immanuel Can]

This is beyond ironic...

Yes, bark, bark, bark...

Where is your defence of Atheism? I'm not seeing it yet. And without that, Atheism is just an assumed conclusion.

[Dubious]

You've assumed your conclusion, then declared it true. It's called "circular reasoning," and it constitutes proof of nothing.

This is beyond ironic! I guess you haven't noticed what a perfect summary this is of your own methodology...one you have never deviated from as though it were a case of statute law chiselled on the "Stone Tablets" of your psyche. When you look in the mirror is there ever any reflection, anything of substance coming back at all that could be glanced at analytically or retroactively? Rhetorical question only! Additional data piled on the already obvious is equivalent to insisting on paying more for less.

This seems to be something theists do - claim that non believers are subject to dogma and holding irrational beliefs. It's all thoroughly shameless. Whom is more subject to inflexible dogma - the theist or secularist? Whom is being more rational - the one who subscribes to middle eastern myths of the Iron Age or those who admit that they don't understand deepest reality?

Fascinating to watch the post-information and post-reason world emerge, one where knowledge and correctness no longer matter, just words that people want to hear. It's increasingly Orwellian, and even more like Brave New World.

All so true! It's also the reason why I think of non-theistic morality as secular, common law or as you say, "rational" based on discovered and created values vis-a-vis the mandated theistic ones which are only meant to be obeyed understood or not by those so "supervised" by their god.

[thedoc]

It's interesting to me how civil he manages to remain, relative to the abuse he endures.

Sorry, It's the way I was brought up, I just can't help myself.

Ha! You are just as rude as anyone else, more so than most. SOB is generally a gentleman, but he hasn't been around for ages.

No I'm not, I'm not nearly as rude and obnoxious as you are.

I don't read SOB's posts, much too rude for me.

[Dubious]

This is beyond ironic...

Yes, bark, bark, bark...

Where is your defence of Atheism? I'm not seeing it yet. And without that, Atheism is just an assumed conclusion.

...who says I or anyone has to defend it? Do you denote that as a worthwhile requirement, Saint Immanuel? If it just defaults to an "assumed conclusion" why all your religious outrage in trying to conquer a mere assumption...unless you suffer the same hallucinations as Don Quixote attacking windmills thinking they're giants.

[thedoc]

And you wonder why people think kristians are idiots.

It's certainly not for the want of being told.

And it depends entirely on who is doing the telling, idiots seldom can recognize that others are smarter than they are, and so will project their deficiency onto others.

[Greta]

This is beyond ironic! I guess you haven't noticed what a perfect summary this is of your own methodology...one you have never deviated from as though it were a case of statute law chiselled on the "Stone Tablets" of your psyche. When you look in the mirror is there ever any reflection, anything of substance coming back at all that could be glanced at analytically or retroactively? Rhetorical question only! Additional data piled on the already obvious is equivalent to insisting on paying more for less.

This seems to be something theists do - claim that non believers are subject to dogma and holding irrational beliefs. It's all thoroughly shameless. Whom is more subject to inflexible dogma - the theist or secularist? Whom is being more rational - the one who subscribes to middle eastern myths of the Iron Age or those who admit that they don't understand deepest reality?

Fascinating to watch the post-information and post-reason world emerge, one where knowledge and correctness no longer matter, just words that people want to hear. It's increasingly Orwellian, and even more like Brave New World.

All so true! It's also the reason why I think of non-theistic morality as secular, common law or as you say, "rational" based on discovered and created values vis-a-vis the mandated theistic ones which are only meant to be obeyed understood or not by those so "supervised" by their god.

Yes, and their rules were set in stone (well, in type) with the Guttenberg Press. Why do people abandon reason in this way? Part tradition. Part indoctrination. Partly emotional issues. Partly flight from bisexual impulses. Partly a chance to gain a position of authority without having to study material that demands rigour.

It seems that many theists blame rationality for the world's problems, an assumption made perhaps due to the ubiquity of technology. The accuse rich amoral secularists of being the problem. They tend to ignore or gloss over overpopulation issues, mainly because religious and cultural beliefs have been a major part of that problem.

Further, most money in the world still resides with theists. Many of the religious (and new agers) blame wealthy secularists for the shrinking of the middle class. Wrong!

The study, from the nonpartisan wealth research firm New World Wealth, found that of the 13.1 million millionaires in the world, 7.4 million, or 56.2 percent, identify themselves as Christian when asked about their religion.Jan 14, 2015

[thedoc]

I don't get it.

I was just making the point that he shouldn't have to wonder why people think kristians are idiots because he has already been told on numerous occasions why they are idiots. I suppose I'm saying he doesn't listen.

Oh. When I think about it he probably doesn't 'wonder' about it at all.

I consider the source, and if that source is less than reliable, I discount it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Sorry, It's the way I was brought up, I just can't help myself.

Ha! You are just as rude as anyone else, more so than most. SOB is generally a gentleman, but he hasn't been around for ages.

No I'm not, I'm not nearly as rude and obnoxious as you are.

I don't read SOB's posts, much too rude for me.

You are very snide, and just because your 'style' is different doesn't make you not rude. Kristians are always going to suck up to other kristians on here. IC is the most obnoxious, supercilious arsehole on here, but just because he's a kristian you let it slide. Very dishonest and hypocritical of you.

[thedoc]

You are very snide, and just because your 'style' is different doesn't make you not rude. Kristians are always going to suck up to other kristians on here. IC is the most obnoxious, supercilious arsehole on here, but just because he's a kristian you let it slide. Very dishonest and hypocritical of you.

No, I might be subtle and a bit left handed, but I try not to be snide and as nasty as you. I side with IC because I agree with him, not because he's a Christian, so it's not hypocritical of me to take his side. However I assume that you are stating your true feelings and are being honest about them, otherwise you are being hypocritical. It seems that you see everyone who disagrees with you as being nasty and hypocritical, as if your's is the only reasonable position to have, very narrow minded of you, and not at all conducive to a reasoned conversation.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You are very snide, and just because your 'style' is different doesn't make you not rude. Kristians are always going to suck up to other kristians on here. IC is the most obnoxious, supercilious arsehole on here, but just because he's a kristian you let it slide. Very dishonest and hypocritical of you.

No, I might be subtle and a bit left handed, but I try not to be snide and as nasty as you. I side with IC because I agree with him, not because he's a Christian, so it's not hypocritical of me to take his side. However I assume that you are stating your true feelings and are being honest about them, otherwise you are being hypocritical. It seems that you see everyone who disagrees with you as being nasty and hypocritical, as if your's is the only reasonable position to have, very narrow minded of you, and not at all conducive to a reasoned conversation.

I wouldn't exactly describe you as 'subtle'. And wrong is wrong. If you are offended by that being pointed out then that's hardly my fault.