Fundamentalist Atheists

[Falvlun]

I got drunk, took all my clothes off in the RF lobby, and converted to Islam on the spot.

Aw man! Is there gonna be an encore?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Aw man! Is there gonna be an encore?

Buy me a bottle of Jack Daniels, meet me in the lobby, and we'll see.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Aw man! Is there gonna be an encore?

If not, I've got video.

You'll have to outbid Kilgore and/or the tabloids for it, though.

 

[TheGunShoj]

People don't like their religious figures' being questioned. It hurts their feelings and takes a while for them to develop a thick skin to it like we have to deal, only we have to deal with ridicule as well.

How can one be a religious figure when he belongs to no religion, nor do most of the people who look up to him?

No one is exempt from criticism but it's frustrating when a point is refuted several different ways by several different posters and the opponent essentially puts his fingers in his ears and says "la la la, I can't hear you" and provides the same tired argument over and over again, all the while accusing Dawkins of giving a childish response.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

How can one be a religious figure when he belongs to no religion, nor do most of the people who look up to him?

No one is exempt from criticism but it's frustrating when a point is refuted several different ways by several different posters and the opponent essentially puts his fingers in his ears and goes "la la la, I can't hear you" and providing the same tired argument over and over again, all the while accusing Dawkins of giving a childish response.

Please explain to me how answering the question "What if you are wrong" with the exact same question is in any way a well thought out or mature answer?

Please.

School Yard Kid #1: I think John is better at pitching than you.

School Yard Kid #2: You never seen me play, I might be better than John. So what if you are wrong?

School Yard Kid #1: Well what if you are wrong...

Not only did that exchange look like that but Dawkins included some mildly racist comments in his. Anyone who lowers himself to racism I will not consider a great intellectual.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Please explain to me how answering the question "What if you are wrong" with the exact same question is in any way a well thought out or mature answer?

Please.

School Yard Kid #1: I think John is better at pitching than you.

School Yard Kid #2: You never seen me play, I might be better than John. So what if you are wrong?

School Yard Kid #1: Well what if you are wrong...

Not only did that exchange look like that but Dawkins included some mildly racist comments in his. Anyone who lowers himself to racism I will not consider a great intellectual.

Whether you consider him a great intellectual is of no concern to me. Arguments stand on their own merit, no matter who presents it.

Don't you think you might be committing just a little bit of a straw man fallacy by way over simplifying what he is actually saying into five words used by children on the playground?

I'm not going to keep kicking a dead horse and give you what would now be the fourth or fifth explanation for how his rebuttal is much more than you make it out to be. If you haven't accepted it by now, I doubt there is any getting through to you. Your mind is made up.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Please explain to me how answering the question "What if you are wrong" with the exact same question is in any way a well thought out or mature answer?

Please.

School Yard Kid #1: I think John is better at pitching than you.

School Yard Kid #2: You never seen me play, I might be better than John. So what if you are wrong?

School Yard Kid #1: Well what if you are wrong...

Not only did that exchange look like that but Dawkins included some mildly racist comments in his. Anyone who lowers himself to racism I will not consider a great intellectual.

You're bad at analogies.

 

[Breathe]

How can one be a religious figure when he belongs to no religion,

That's not really the point of the post, though; it's not about atheism being a religion or not. Hero-worship, though, which fanboys seem to be guilty of, certainly do come across with religious zeal.

I don't get why he's hyped up as an atheistic speaker, to be honest. He can't debate for toffee (that's a really weird idiom, I know) and I don't think he's as well-versed on religious scripture as some people would like to think.

But hey, different strokes.

nor do most of the people who look up to him?

That's not really the point, either. It clearly doesn't apply to those guys, then, does it?.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please explain to me how answering the question "What if you are wrong" with the exact same question is in any way a well thought out or mature answer?

Please.

It suggests to the theist asking the question that some self-reflection about why they don't worry about the hells of all the religions THEY don't believe in will probably shed light on why atheists don't generally worry about their hell either.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Whether you consider him a great intellectual is of no concern to me. Arguments stand on their own merit, no matter who presents it.

Don't you think you might be committing just a little bit of a straw man fallacy by way over simplifying what he is actually saying into 5 words used by children on the playground?

I'm not going to keep kicking a dead horse and give you what would now be the fourth or fifth explanation for how his rebuttal is much more than you make it out to be. If you haven't accepted it by now, I doubt there is any getting through to you. Your mind is made up.

And what was his rebuttal exactly?

Making jokes about Thor and Zeus and Deified Pasta, accusing her of being a Christian without evidence, making racist comments, and then topping it off with "What if you are wrong"

And that is just about it.

Sorry but I do not see any substance in that answer. Did I miss something?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It suggests to the theist asking the question that some self-reflection about why they don't worry about the hells of all the religions THEY don't believe in will probably shed light on why atheists don't generally worry about their hell either.

Hell wasn't brought up as an issue in her question. Her question was simply "What if you are wrong?" And he never truly answered that question.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

That's not really the point of the post, though; it's not about atheism being a religion or not. Hero-worship, though, which fanboys seem to be guilty of, certainly do come across with religious zeal.

I don't get why he's hyped up as an atheistic speaker, to be honest. He can't debate for toffee (that's a really weird idiom, I know) and I don't think he's as well-versed on religious scripture as some people would like to think.

But hey, different strokes.


That's not really the point, either. It clearly doesn't apply to those guys, then, does it?.

Of course the Dawkin's Otaku will never see that. Dawkins is like Justin Bieber to them. And just like you cannot convince a Bielieber that Bieber's music actually is just pap, you cannot convince a New Atheist that what Dawkins puts forward is nothing but pap, it's propaganda...it is marketed towards a specific prejudiced mind set and it is very dumbed down for easy consumption and to reinforce prejudice.

They have created a reality for themselves and in that reality Dawkins is like an atheist superhero, he is marketed as a voice for the voiceless, a stalwart opponent of all the evils of religion. And since that is their reality, nothing can disconfirm their belief that Dawkins is anything but great. Which is kind of sad, because now they cannot even look at anything Dawkins says or does with the eye of criticism or even examine his works objectively. It is personal to them.

So if I were to show them this misogynist and sexist tidbit from Dawkins:

Dear Muslima,
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and...yawn...don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with. Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so...And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin

Some of them would surely go to great lengths to try and prove that Dawkins meant nothing sexist, that he wasn't being a misogynist. Why? Because to them it is impossible for Dawkins to be wrong. Dawkins said, they believe it, that settles it.

In my mind believing that everything Dawkins says in regards to religion is correct, believing he is incapable of being at times shallow and unimaginative, believing that in no way could Dawkins be racist and misogynistic is not the sign of freethinking but of dogmatism.

 

[TheGunShoj]

And what was his rebuttal exactly?

Making jokes about Thor and Zeus and Deified Pasta, accusing her of being a Christian without evidence, making racist comments, and then topping it off with "What if you are wrong"

And that is just about it.

Sorry but I do not see any substance in that answer. Did I miss something?

Hell wasn't brought up as an issue in her question. Her question was simply "What if you are wrong?" And he never truly answered that question.

Yes, you did. Neither of them come right out and talk about hell but it is implied. The point of the question "what if you're wrong?" is essentially that he will burn in hell according to most Christian doctrines. He's saying that out of all the thousands of religions, you could just as well be wrong like you are accusing me of being, so why don't you fear all of those potential hells that you may face?

Have you ever heard the saying "You are almost as much of an atheist as me, I just go one god further."? or something along those lines? That's essentially the point that he is making.

 

[Falvlun]

Buy me a bottle of Jack Daniels, meet me in the lobby, and we'll see.

Hmm. I have a moldy bottle of peach schnapps from misguided college years. Will that do?

If not, I've got video.

You'll have to outbid Kilgore and/or the tabloids for it, though.

I have half a tube of sunscreen, and some leftover pot roast. Will that cover it? (The carrots are delicious).

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Y"You are almost as much of an atheist as me, I just go one god further."

Sure. I have heard Dawkins repeat that canard. And his fans tend to like dusting that one off as if it were some sort of trump card. But that is about as stupid a statement as one could make.

Atheism by definition is the disbelief in ALL gods, not just one or two or three...atheism is when you don't believe in ANY GODS AT ALL. Since most Christians believe in one god they are no way close to being atheist.

 

[Falvlun]

Did I miss something?

Only the forest.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Only the forest.

But at least I saw the trees.

 

[Falvlun]

But at least I saw the trees.

Dawkins' trees can be offensive, but the forest can still be sound.

 

[Willamena]

Dawkins' trees can be offensive, but the forest can still be sound.

So, if the forest is sound and a tree falls... I'm confused.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Dawkins' trees can be offensive, but the forest can still be sound.

And I am not critiquing atheism, I do not find it necessary to critique atheism as a whole. Neither would it be wise to, because atheist hold diverse views. I am critiquing Dawkins and a specific type of atheism: The New Atheism. I do not believe that all atheist fall into that camp.

So yes, I am not critiquing the forest, I am critiquing a single tree.