The Atheist Community

A response to Jack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_c0Jxb8ig4

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• TogetherForPeace
• Atheism
• comunity
• atheist
• Christian
• Christ
• Hitler
• dawkins
• new
• atheism
• debate
• dispute
• logic
• reason
• religion
• religious
• politics
• coughlan616
• Thunderf00t
• God
• rationality
• creationism
• richard
• human
• race
• intellect
• intellectual
• public
• forum
• YouTube
• Freethinker
• free
• thinking
• thinker
• internet
• www

[pbehnam87]

But those absolute assertions are made by "New Atheists" as well. Listen to Hitchens for just a few seconds and you'll know what I mean. As an atheist (agnostic atheist), I find New Atheism quite dogmatic in some aspects. It's some sort of a "bishop bashing" machine. They don't go after the bad things associated with religion, they want to eradicate it all together and you sense some sort of fascism when you read through books like "The End of Faith".

[themanofearth]

@pbehnam87 Uh... ok... To what absolute assertions are you referring?

[pbehnam87]

@themanofearth "Religion is the root of all evil," "Everything about Christianity is contained in the pathetic image of 'the flock," "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion," and all kind of nonsense. This version of Atheism is parasitic; it lives off religion. Appropriate use of reason and evidence is important but so is understanding their limits. Besides, Atheism has no monopoly over reason, science and evidence.

[themanofearth]

@pbehnam87 OMFg are you kidding me? Really? EVERYTHING you've pointed out here is an opinion that Christopher Hitchens it was followed up with statements of WHY his opinion stand thus. YOU are making them out to be absolute assertions by taking them out of context.

Atheism has no monopoly over ANYTHING. It is what believers call people who don't believe their claims and (in my opinion) the RESULT of evidence and reason not the cause of it.

[pbehnam87]

@themanofearth Calling the believers "deluded" means only non-believers have a grasp of reason and reality, hence monopoly over them. With talks of "spells" and "delusions," you get the impression that only through stupidity and disregard for evidence could anyone be anything other than an atheist. One needs a great deal of arrogance to be in this position.

You're applying a double standard here. If "religion is the root of ALL evil" is not an absolute assertion then what is?

[baalisgod666]

There was a movie played at Hoytes in Sydney in the 1980's. It features JC and the Catholics turned up in droves some with weapons, to harass movie goers. These people should be outcast. let god take care of them not science.

[themanofearth]

@YY4Me133 Hey it's all light hearted. It really doesn't have anything to do with whether someone believes one *might* exist. It's more about a philosophical principal: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence," is countered and balanced by "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I don't believe that a god *might* exist; I don't believe in the deist god one way or the other because I have nothing to go on either way.

[YY4Me133]

@themanofearth Forgive me for having been distracted while I was reading, however, that didn't explain anything, and what you have explained still comes across as a special pleading. If there's no evidence a thing exists (and there is no evidence for even a diest god) I, personally, see no reason to believe it *might* exist. You don't see things that way, and I still don't understand why, but we're all entitled to our opinions.

[themanofearth]

@YY4Me133 WOW... ok... um... No, there's only one p-i-t-f-a-l-l. Learn to read a sentence in context.

[YY4Me133]

@themanofearth Why doesn't it "apply in the same way?" Because "there's only one?" There's only one Bogeyman. It still comes off as a special pleading.