Dawkins on Christian Inconsistency...

[Orbit]

Then why are you refuting what I said? How can you claim to know anything about what atheism is or isn't without having this knowledge? Answer: you can't. And to boot, you actually just said Dawkins is not an influential atheist. That's a ludicrous claim. Your knowledge of atheism is nil if you don't know Dawkins is influential. My knowledge of atheism comes from reading atheists: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris--are they lying?

 

[LuisDantas]

Then why are you refuting what I said?

Because you are wrong, why else?

How can you claim to know anything about what atheism is or isn't without having this knowledge?

How could I not know? I don't need Dawkins to be an atheist. No one does or ever will.

Answer: you can't.

A wrong and misleading answer, but sure, an answer nonetheless. Are you done already?

And to boot, you actually just said Dawkins is not an influential atheist. That's a ludicrous claim.

I said no such thing. I am just refusing your misleading implications that I somehow need to conform to his parameters, or that there is some sort of necessary orthodoxy for atheism.

What is up with you?

 

[Orbit]

Because you are wrong, why else?

What is up with you?

What is up with me is your denial that there exists a set of ideologies that are associated with atheism. These ideologies are out there in world, and are very popular. You can see the themes in the events at the American Atheists website, conferences and sponsored talks; you can hear the ideologies described on The Thinking Atheist podcasts, and represented in countless books by atheist authors. Instead you stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la I can't hear you; what is wrong with you"

 

[LuisDantas]

What is up with me is your denial that there exists a set of ideologies that are associated with atheism.

If you failed to understand my clearly stated points, it is because you want to. See you later.

 

[Orbit]

If you failed to understand my clearly stated points, it is because you want to. See you later.

You have failed to see my clearly stated points, for which I have evidence. All you have are unsupported assertions, so yes I'll see you later.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since this is a thread on Dawkins, how about you tell me that materialism, skepticism, and anti-theism are NOT part of his books, which are widely accepted as a standard of atheism?

The books of Richard Dawkind are not accepted as "a standard of atheism".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is up with me is your denial that there exists a set of ideologies that are associated with atheism. These ideologies are out there in world, and are very popular. You can see the themes in the events at the American Atheists website, conferences and sponsored talks; you can hear the ideologies described on The Thinking Atheist podcasts, and represented in countless books by atheist authors. Instead you stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la I can't hear you; what is wrong with you"

If you've ever listened to things like the Thinking Atheist, then you've probably heard him say more than once things like "this position isn't a 'requirement' of atheism; it's just my personal perspective."

 

[Orbit]

The books of Richard Dawkind are not accepted as "a standard of atheism".

What authors then pray, are more associated with atheism and how do they differ? I was merely using Dawkins as a case in point.

 

[Orbit]

If you've ever listened to things like the Thinking Atheist, then you've probably heard him say more than once things like "this position isn't a 'requirement' of atheism; it's just my personal perspective."

That doesn't negate the fact that the personal perspective is hugely influential.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What authors then pray, are more associated with atheism and how do they differ? I was merely using Dawkins as a case in point.

As much as it might gall you, there are no prophets or high priests of atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That doesn't negate the fact that the personal perspective is hugely influential.

What's your agenda here? You certainly seem very emotionally invested in this issue.

 

[Orbit]

What's your agenda here? You certainly seem very emotionally invested in this issue.

I'm just answering your point. What is with you trying to denigrate my position by calling it "emotional"?

 

[Orbit]

As much as it might gall you, there are no prophets or high priests of atheism.

And New Atheism isn't a movement. Gotcha.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm just answering your point. What is with you trying to denigrate my position by calling it "emotional"?

I may be wrong, but I get the sense you have an ulterior motive here, and I think it would save everyone involved a lot of time and frustration if we confront it openly instead of dancing around it.

 

[Orbit]

I may be wrong, but I get the sense you have an ulterior motive here, and I think it would save everyone involved a lot of time and frustration if we confront it openly instead of dancing around it.

You, my friend are projecting. I am an atheist. I have no ulterior motive. I was simply stating that atheism includes a recognizable set of ideologies. Please see convo upthread. I don't know what your ulterior motive is, but it seems to be to silence me by making unfounded accusations. First I'm "emotional", now I have an "ulterior motive". Ridiculous.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And New Atheism isn't a movement. Gotcha.

It kind of is (though a diverse one - for instance, Atheism Plus includes ideas that don't mesh well with some of Dawkins' positions), but you don't need to be a "New Atheist" to be an atheist.

It seems like you're desperate for a single stereotypical model of an atheist that you can use as a straw man for the atheists you come across. Is that your angle here? If so, you're doomed to failure - there's a reason why they say that organizing atheists is like herding cats - we probably disagree about more than we agree on.

 

[Orbit]

It kind of is (though a diverse one - for instance, Atheism Plus includes ideas that don't mesh well with some of Dawkins' positions), but you don't need to be a "New Atheist" to be an atheist.

It seems like you're desperate for a single stereotypical model of an atheist that you can use as a straw man for the atheists you come across. Is that your angle here? If so, you're doomed to failure - there's a reason why they say that organizing atheists is like herding cats - we probably disagree about more than we agree on.

If you look upthread, I have identified points of agreement. Skepticism as a general orientation towards life was one of them. Philosophical materialism is another. There are commonalities. And here we have yet another unfounded accusation from you--that I am trying to build a strawman. Since I have evidence to back my claims, you resort to ad hominem attacks--3 of them so far.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you look upthread, I have identified points of agreement. Skepticism as a general orientation towards life was one of them. Philosophical materialism is another. There are commonalities.

... except that there are plenty of atheists who aren't skeptics or materialists, so these aren't commonalities.

And here we have yet another unfounded accusation from you--that I am trying to build a strawman.

Well, if it walks like a duck...

Edit: if you aren't after a straw man, why are you so keen to find a cookie-cutter set of beliefs to apply to a large number of people? What's wrong with actually asking whichever atheist you're talking to what he or she actually believes instead of assuming that he or she agrees with Richard Dawkins on some particular point?

 

[Orbit]

... except that there are plenty of atheists who aren't skeptics or materialists, so these aren't commonalities.


Well, if it walks like a duck...

Your statements are absolutely ridiculous. There's no point talking to someone that spouts such nonsense, which flies in the face of the facts. Atheists aren't skeptics--gotcha....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your statements are absolutely ridiculous. There's no point talking to someone that spouts such nonsense, which flies in the face of the facts. Atheists aren't skeptics--gotcha....

Many atheists are skeptics; many aren't. If you want to know whether a particular atheist is a skeptic or not, you'll have to ask them.