Fundamentalist Atheists

[AmbiguousGuy]

I can understand where you are coming from, but I think you would be mistaken. I've seen his debates and read his books, but I'm just not impressed.

Why? Not why are you unimpressed, but why have you read his books?

If you want to defend your religious beliefs, you've come to the perfect place. Why read what someone else has to say about other beliefs? A guy you can't talk back to.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Why? Not why are you unimpressed, but why have you read his books?

If you want to defend your religious beliefs, you've come to the perfect place. Why read what someone else has to say about other beliefs? A guy you can't talk back to.

Are you criticizing him for trying to further educate himself by reading a book?
When is more knowledge ever a bad thing?

Sorry but I don't see your point here.

 

[Copernicus]

I can understand where you are coming from, but I think you would be mistaken. I've seen his debates and read his books, but I'm just not impressed. The priest at the local church also studied under Dawkins some time ago.

But you did not study under him, and you speak as if he had never addressed the issues you raised. That just isn't true. He addressed them in The God Delusion, and I've seen him do it elsewhere.

But this is not for stimulating critical argument. It's done purely out of malicious intent.

We can debate his motives, but neither of us knows what they are. My impression of him is that he is not any more malicious than most folks who debate religion, you and me included. Everyone says things that provoke others. He is hardly the equivalent of Fred Phelps, although he is quite often portrayed as such.

Most Christians in Britain are Anglican and quite easygoing, so I don't believe it, no.

We have a completely different impression on that. Again, you can blame him for what you perceive his attitude to be, but ad hominem arguments are a poor excuse for intelligent debate. If you choose to look for it, you will find things worthy of debate in the substance of his remarks.

I've seen a few of these Youtube debates, seen him no TV, and so on. I just don't think he's as good as people think and I'm rarely impressed with what he says.

That's fine, but it's a very subjective perception that I and many others do not share. He came to speak at a local high school here last year, and the line to get in to see him stretched around the block. Not everyone in the crowd loved him, but they certainly gave him a friendly reception.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Are you criticizing him for trying to further educate himself by reading a book?
When is more knowledge ever a bad thing?

Sorry but I don't see your point here.

My point is that if one really and truly wants to learn how to defend one's beliefs (or to show the weakness of others'), it is not by reading a book. It's by engaging the debate.

I could criticize the Bible up one side and down the other. I could destroy it with my words. But so what? I'd be attacking some writers' thoughts in a book. Some offstage person who couldn't defend himself.

I'd rather see if a particular Christian can defend his own view of biblical truth. Otherwise I'm batting at a strawman.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

God's retribution doesn't exist to scare atheists into belief. It exists to scare believers away from losing faith.

That has nothing at all to do with what I said :sarcastic
Plus, what you said is completely circular and pretty much defeats itself.

Back to what I actually said.
Do you really believe us, as human beings could actually stand before a Deity, that created everything, and have any power what so ever over his judgement?

I am still waiting for Dawkins to give an actual real answer to that question.

Atheists tend to go around questions if being intellectual honest doesn't fit into their arguments.

Dawkins does try, but he is such a hypocrite that his own words bury him.
The ONLY reason he receives the attention he does, is because we live in a world where drama sells and as long as one is stirring it up, they have a job.
Drama is one of the leading tools of the media.

 

[TheGunShoj]

But wouldn't it be better to do both? Maybe he encountered a new counter apologetic in the book that he hadn't seen before and it made him critically examine his beliefs and either accept the point or learn how to refute it in case he encounters it in a forum like this.

This is strictly hypothetical but it's just one of many reasons why he may have had to read Dawkins books.

Obviously he is here engaging in the debate, so I just don't see how you can justify criticizing someone for educating themselves.

 

[Falvlun]

Back to what I actually said.
Do you really believe us, as human beings could actually stand before a Deity, that created everything, and have any power what so ever over his judgement?

Nothing Copernicus (or Dawkins) said indicated as much. The reply "What if you are wrong?" is addressed to humans, not God, and it applies as much to the believer as it does to the atheist.

If I am wrong about (fundamentalist) Christianity, then I'm going to hell for my beliefs. That goes without saying.

But if the fundamentalist Christians are wrong, and God merely wants us to live a life of integrity, then God will be pleased with my attempts to understand the world around me, without faking a belief that I don't have.

It all depends on what the case actually is, and no one knows for sure. (Though, of course, we all have our beliefs on what we think is most likely, and we base our actions on that.)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But wouldn't it be better to do both? Maybe he encountered a new counter apologetic in the book that he hadn't seen before and it made him critically examine his beliefs and either accept the point or learn how to refute it in case he encounters it in a forum like this.

This is strictly hypothetical but it's just one of many reasons why he may have had to read Dawkins books.

Obviously he is here engaging in the debate, so I just don't see how you can justify criticizing someone for educating themselves.

I haven't criticized him. I've asked him why he reads Dawkins.

I haven't seen anything from Dawkins that I haven't seen repeatedly on RF forums.

So I wonder why people read Dawkins.

 

[Bunyip]

:sarcastic

Atheists tend to go around questions if being intellectual honest doesn't fit into their arguments..

Do you have an example? In my experience atheists tend to simply counter the arguments of apologetics, all of which are known to be deeply flawed, there is no evidence to consider and so no need for any dishonesty or avoidance.

What sort of questions do you think atheists tend to 'go around', or refuse to be intellectually honest about?

As an atheist I have never come across a question I needed to avoid,or could not answer honestly. I can not imagine what such a question could be and would love to find out.

 

[Copernicus]

God's retribution doesn't exist to scare atheists into belief. It exists to scare believers away from losing faith.

That has nothing at all to do with what I said :sarcastic
Plus, what you said is completely circular and pretty much defeats itself.

Sorry to upset you, but you seemed to think that a non-believer would take claims of hell seriously. There are even quite a few believers who don't take them seriously. What I said wasn't circular in the slightest. I was only pointing out that hell is one of the sticks in the carrot-and-stick technique that affects belief maintenance. Pascal's Wager, like the concepts of heaven and hell, is only really effective with believers.

Back to what I actually said.
Do you really believe us, as human beings could actually stand before a Deity, that created everything, and have any power what so ever over his judgement?

I guess not. Horrible things do happen, and I can imagine a lot of nightmarish scenarios. I'm not particularly concerned about this one though.

Atheists tend to go around questions if being intellectual honest doesn't fit into their arguments.

Spoiiiing! Doggone it! I just had that irony meter repaired!

Dawkins does try, but he is such a hypocrite that his own words bury him.
The ONLY reason he receives the attention he does, is because we live in a world where drama sells and as long as one is stirring it up, they have a job.
Drama is one of the leading tools of the media.

And internet debaters. Let's not forget that surly lot.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Do you have an example? In my experience atheists tend to simply counter the arguments of apologetics, all of which are known to be deeply flawed, there is no evidence to consider and so no need for any dishonesty or avoidance.

What sort of questions do you think atheists tend to 'go around', or refuse to be intellectually honest about?

As an atheist I have never come across a question I needed to avoid,or could not answer honestly. I can not imagine what such a question could be and would love to find out.

I agree with this 100%

A lot of times it seems like theists criticize atheists for giving the answer "I don't know" and accuse them of being dishonest or evading the question when a lot of the time, "I don't know" is a very appropriate answer.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Nothing Copernicus (or Dawkins) said indicated as much. The reply "What if you are wrong?" is addressed to humans, not God, and it applies as much to the believer as it does to the atheist.

If I am wrong about (fundamentalist) Christianity, then I'm going to hell for my beliefs. That goes without saying.

But if the fundamentalist Christians are wrong, and God merely wants us to live a life of integrity, then God will be pleased with my attempts to understand the world around me, without faking a belief that I don't have.

It all depends on what the case actually is, and no one knows for sure. (Though, of course, we all have our beliefs on what we think is most likely, and we base our actions on that.)

Exactly.
God does want us to live with integrity in our lives, and frankly, there is nothing wrong with that what so ever.

Where Religious people mess up is thinking one can do such and such all week long, and come Sunday, they are forgiven to then rinse and repeat every week.
It simply does not work that way.

Where Atheists get it wrong is they think the only reason religious people do nice stuff is for the reward given in Heaven.
Sure, many feel that way, but not the majority, and it is not what Jesus taught.

The reason I accept Christianity is because it lines up with my world view on its own.

 

[TheGunShoj]

I haven't criticized him. I've asked him why he reads Dawkins.

I haven't seen anything from Dawkins that I haven't seen repeatedly on RF forums.

So I wonder why people read Dawkins.

I guess criticize isn't the right word. But you are implying that there is no point to reading his books.

There may be pieces or quotes scattered throughout the forum but it's not going to convey the exact same message as reading his book word for word. To say that there is nothing within his books that can't be found here on the forum seems absurd to me.

 

[Bunyip]

I agree with this 100%

A lot of times it seems like theists criticize atheists for giving the answer "I don't know" and accuse them of being dishonest or evading the question when a lot of the time, "I don't know" is a very appropriate answer.

Sure, and 'I don't know' is a perfectly intellectually honest answer. Far more honest than claiming to know things that you do not in fact know.

For some reason (I assume because of the absence of better arguments or evidences) atheists are often expected to be able to answer questions that professional cosmologists can not yet answer. Atheists do not need to have the faintest clue as to how the universe came to be, atheism has nothing to do with cosmology. Somewhere along the line, as modern apologetics became increasingly desperate and besieged, atheism was conflated to mean a suite of claims - many of which inferring absolute knowledge in areas of science as yet fully unexplored. I imagine because the reality of atheism - that there is simply not enough evidence to validate belief is so much more difficult to refute. Whilst whatever an atheist has to say about the origins of the universe is likely to be far easier to challenge (especially given that the only honest answer; 'I don't know' often results in accusations of avoidance and intellectual dishonesty.)

 

[TheGunShoj]

Where Atheists get it wrong is they think the only reason religious people do nice stuff is for the reward given in Heaven.
Sure, many feel that way, but not the majority, and it is not what Jesus taught.

.

That's a pretty big assumption and I don't think its a very big concern for most atheists in the big scheme of things. Most of us don't see God as a requirement for morality and recognize that humans are a social species so it is in our best interest to co exist peacefully.

Yes I do think that some people are only good due to an expectation of infinite reward and I have a problem with that, but certainly not all of them do.

I think most people would still be perfectly moral if religion were removed from their lives.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I guess criticize isn't the right word. But you are implying that there is no point to reading his books.

Well, no. I wasn't doing that until you got involved. I was just asking the guy what motivates him to read Dawkins. I'd really like to hear his answer.

There may be pieces or quotes scattered throughout the forum but it's not going to convey the exact same message as reading his book word for word.

So why are you interested in knowing Dawkins' message?

Do you read Darwin? I don't. I'm not interested in Darwin's view of evolution. Instead, I read various modern writers regarding evolutionary issues. And I don't even remember their names. I'm just focused on the actual issues.

Not saying my way is better. I'm just curious why people seem so interested in a particular guy's view of things. Why study Dawkins?

I don't read philosophers either, but I'm very interested in philosophy -- if that makes any sense to you.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Sure, and 'I don't know' is a perfectly intellectually honest answer. Far more honest than claiming to know things that you do not in fact know.

For some reason (I assume because of the absence of better arguments or evidences) atheists are often expected to be able to answer questions that professional cosmologists can not yet answer. Atheists do not need to have the faintest clue as to how the universe came to be, atheism has nothing to do with cosmology. Somewhere along the line, as modern apologetics became increasingly desperate and besieged, atheism was conflated to mean a suite of claims - many of which inferring absolute knowledge in areas of science as yet fully unexplored. I imagine because the reality of atheism - that there is simply not enough evidence to validate belief is so much more difficult to refute. Whilst whatever an atheist has to say about the origins of the universe is likely to be far easier to challenge (especially given that the only honest answer; 'I don't know' often results in accusations of avoidance and intellectual dishonesty.)

Well said. +1

 

[Bunyip]

Well, no. I wasn't doing that until you got involved. I was just asking the guy what motivates him to read Dawkins. I'd really like to hear his answer.



So why are you interested in knowing Dawkins' message?

Do you read Darwin? I don't. I'm not interested in Darwin's view of evolution. Instead, I read various modern writers regarding evolutionary issues. And I don't even remember their names. I'm just focused on the actual issues.

Not saying my way is better. I'm just curious why people seem so interested in a particular guy's view of things. Why study Dawkins?

I don't read philosophers either, but I'm very interested in philosophy -- if that makes any sense to you.

Why study Dawkins? Well I could think of a number of good reasons, he is one of the most significant scientists of our time and has made an astonishingly vast contribution in his field, he has written extensively on the social and biological aspects of religious belief, he writes beautifully and engagingly and most importantly he has a great many interest7ng and pertinent points to make.

I'm an atheist, but read a great many books on theology and apologetics - to read a person's work is not necessarily to share his/her beliefs.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why study Dawkins? Well I could think of a number of good reasons, he is one of the most significant scientists of our time and has made an astonishingly vast contribution in his field, he has written extensively on the social and biological aspects of religious belief, he writes beautifully and engagingly and most importantly he has a great many interest7ng and pertinent points to make.

I'm an atheist, but read a great many books on theology and apologetics - to read a person's work is not necessarily to share his/her beliefs.

Each to his own. I don't read apologists myself. And I don't come to internet forums and attack either apologists or counter-apologists (who aren't here to explain or defend themselves). To me, that seems like a personal problem which someone is having with opposing worldviews. They don't attack an argument. They attack some guy, some perceived champion of the hated worldview.

It's like creationists attacking Darwin.

I find it curious.

 

[Bunyip]

Each to his own. I don't read apologists myself. And I don't come to internet forums and attack either apologists or counter-apologists (who aren't here to explain or defend themselves). To me, that seems like a personal problem which someone is having with opposing worldviews. They don't attack an argument. They attack some guy, some perceived champion of the hated worldview.

It's like creationists attacking Darwin.

I find it curious.

Well personally I read apologetics and counter apologetics because I find them interesting. Debate is all about attacking arguments (as opposed to attacking the person) something that you can not do unless you understand what those arguments are.