God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
(http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807)


More deconstruction from the atheist brigade.:p

Deconstruction is a term in contemporary philosophy, literary criticism, and the social sciences, denoting a process by which the texts and languages of Western philosophy (in particular) appear to shift and complicate in meaning when read in light of the assumptions and absences they reveal within themselves.

The magic man done it!

Yeah, the fallacy of self-contradiction is why the world is not densely populated by atheists.

But we're growing all the time, everywhere.

I love Hitchens.

But we're growing all the time, everywhere.



So are cancer/obesity statistics.

I love Hitchens.

So do I. His political commentaries are hilarious.

GeoffP has his problems.

So are cancer/obesity statistics.

Well, it was you who just made the demographic argument, not I, Sam. Is or is not demography a justifiable rationale for religion?

GeoffP has his problems.

LOL - at least I know how sedimentation bloody occurs, IAC. According to you we should all be living in the ocean by now. Maybe in little bubble houses.

Well, it was you who just made the demographic argument, not I, Sam. Is or is not demography a justifiable rationale for religion?

Yeah, that's why I supported it with an appropriate example.:p

When Hitchens comes up with things like, the war in Iraq is not the reason there were limited resources to aid Katrina victims; yeah right, true Internationalists, like Hitch, knew that those helicopters and trucks were more urgently needed to build democracy in Iraq and the unfortunates huddled in the Superdome should stop complaining and take comfort in the fact that the National Guard was receiving crucial emergency training in Iraq.

hehe.

Yeah, that's why I supported it with an appropriate example.:p

Dooon't bother with that rot. You dug your pit, and fell in it.

And where the hell did Iraq come from in that?

It's in Wiki.

Yeah, the fallacy of self-contradiction is why the world is not densely populated by atheists.

How so?

How so?

On the one hand they espouse freedom of thought and on the other they cannot conceal their disdain for theists.:p

All they do is replace religious dogmatism with atheistic dogmatism.

Besides, isn't it an oxymoron, to be engaged in attempting to prove the absence of something?:)

ALLAH AKBAR....

and to hell with all who disagree..

mind you... i didnt say... Allah wah Akbar.

-MT

On the one hand they espouse freedom of thought and on the other they cannot conceal their disdain for theists.:p

All they do is replace religious dogmatism with atheistic dogmatism.

Besides, isn't it an oxymoron, to be engaged in attempting to prove the absence of something?:)

1. Distain for a particular idea does not contradict that freedom of expression is a treasured principle.

2. I disagree that they are simply presenting another kind of dogmatic faith. They seem to be very careful to present rational arguments for their positions. Since the rational basis of religion is lacking, I am not very surprised that religious people cannot recognize a rational argument.

3. They aren't attempting to prove that God doesn't exist. It is sufficient to show that the idea was a human invention, one in a long line of attempts to make sense of the world through storytelling. I have not read Hitchens' book (yet), but Dawkins has explained your fallacy clearly using the teapot metaphor. Can you prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit between the Earth and Mars? I'm sure you can't, but does that mean it is reasonable to assume there is? No, it doesn't.

1. Distain for a particular idea does not contradict that freedom of expression is a treasured principle.

2. I disagree that they are simply presenting another kind of dogmatic faith. They seem to be very careful to present rational arguments for their positions. Since the rational basis of religion is lacking, I am not very surprised that religious people cannot recognize a rational argument.

3. They aren't attempting to prove that God doesn't exist. It is sufficient to show that the idea was a human invention, one in a long line of attempts to make sense of the world through storytelling. I have not read Hitchens' book (yet), but Dawkins has explained your fallacy clearly using the teapot metaphor. Can you prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit between the Earth and Mars? I'm sure you can't, but does that mean it is reasonable to assume there is? No, it doesn't.

1. If you are for people having the freedom to choose, calling them stupid or delusional or irrational is not indicative of it.

2. It is a dogma. Since atheists use false analogies while claiming to support free inquiriy and openmindedness.

3. See 2.:)

1. Freedom of expression means freedom to express that an idea seems stupid or irrational. My expression doesn't prevent your expression.

2. DOGMA,

-A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

-An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.


But that's not what most atheists I have read are doing. They don't speak in absolutes, but in probabilities. Most will acknowledge the tiniest possibility that there is a God, but there is little evidence to support this. The atheist conclusion is not a religious or dogmatic one, it is the endpoint of a rational process of exploration.

If they can admit that there's a chance that there's a God, then they're not Atheists.

1. Freedom of expression means freedom to express that an idea seems stupid or irrational. My expression doesn't prevent your expression.

2. DOGMA,

-A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

-An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.


But that's not what most atheists I have read are doing. They don't speak in absolutes, but in probabilities. Most will acknowledge the tiniest possibility that there is a God, but there is little evidence to support this. The atheist conclusion is not a religious or dogmatic one, it is the endpoint of a rational process of exploration.


Like using science to disprove God?

If they can admit that there's a chance that there's a God, then they're not Atheists.

False.

You only say that because you are used to the rigid linear definitions and dogmas of religion. Dawkins himself admits that there is a small possibility there is a God, but there is also a small possibility that the Roman Gods, or Thor also exist. There is a small possibility that all of reality is but a computer matrix. There is a small possibility that the dolphins are really in control. So you see, acknowledging the small possibility of something is rational. Believing in such a thing with 100% faith is somewhat less than rational (but of course I fully support your right to hold irrational ideas).

Like using science to disprove God?

Who did that? Not Dawkins for sure. That's a strawman argument.

Who did that? Not Dawkins for sure. That's a strawman argument.

Foundation for Reason and Science

Richard Dawkins believes science's ability to admit ignorance is one of its greatest strengths. On the flip side, he proposes that faith remains arrogant and all too certain of its validity without any rational set of proofs.:D

faith:Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Anyway, at least the money is coming in:
http://richarddawkins.net/foundation

RDF is now in the process of applying for charitable status in the US and UK.



All donations on this page are made to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, a non-profit charitable organization, with status pending approval.

Please consider donating directly to RDF in the form below. Paypal is the worlds most used service for secure electronic transactions today. If you don't have an account, the signup is free and easy. Your donations make our campaign for Reason and Science possible!


Please consider making an automatic monthly donation!

Please consider making an automatic yearly donation!


'Growing Up in the Universe' 2-Disc DVD Set: Pre-Order Now!
Oxford professor Richard Dawkins presents a series of lectures on life, the universe, and our place in it. With brilliance and clarity, Dawkins unravels an educational gem that will mesmerize young and old alike. Illuminating demonstrations, wildlife, virtual reality, and special guests (including Douglas Adams) all combine to make this collection a timeless classic.

Donate a general amount towards sending 'Growing Up in the Universe' DVDs to schools and libraries:

We will be collecting a separate pool of donations for this purpose. As we assemble our list of recipients, we will ship out copies of the DVD with the help of Burning Shed.

Please help us build our list of schools and libraries who should receive this DVD.

BUY THE DVD through our online shop. (All proceeds go to RDF)

If you are a tolerant, reasonable person that opposes religious persecution, perhaps you might accept that:

1. Faith, the opposite of reason - is unreasonable.

2. Tolerating the intolerance which exists in all major religions - is intolerant.

3. Allowing a child to be automatically given its parents' religion (often irreversably reducing the capacity for freedom of thought, religious or otherwise, as an adult) - is religious persecution.

In which case I recommend you give this 'reason based initiative' lots of tax deductable money.

You will be contributing to truly reasonable and tolerant cause, making a stand against religious persecution - in a way that only atheists can.

evangelism, anyone?:rolleyes:

Well they do say that Prophets are charismatic and convincing. :D

Richard Dawkins believes science's ability to admit ignorance is one of its greatest strengths. On the flip side, he proposes that faith remains arrogant and all too certain of its validity without any rational set of proofs.
correct

Promoting a particular message (like global warming), has only the outward appearance of evangelism, but no religious quality.

correct

Promoting a particular message (like global warming), has only the outward appearance of evangelism, but no religious quality.

Please donate to the Foundation for Reason and Science.:p

PS you have to prove you are reasonable and tolerant as only atheists can be.

Huh?

On the one hand they espouse freedom of thought and on the other they cannot conceal their disdain for theists.:p

All they do is replace religious dogmatism with atheistic dogmatism.

Hurt feelings do not translate into a violation of freedom of thought.

Religious laws, on the other hand, sometimes do.

Hurt feelings do not translate into a violation of freedom of thought.

Religious laws, on the other hand, sometimes do.

Huh?

Sure but there are morons in all guises

"I would vote for a pro-war, religious person over an anti-war atheist" - Hitchens.

So would I, what's wrong with that?

So would I, what's wrong with that?

I would vote for the anti-war atheist.

It all depends on what war, some are worth fighting. I wouldn't vote for anyone that would not at least consider the option as a last resort.

Spidergoat is right. It's calling the boundary on deciding when war is necessary that comes into in question.

And since we're debating titles and all here...Sam and IAC.

If Dawkins is necessarily and functionally an agnostic since he can't disprove God, does that mean that you're also both necessarily agnostics too, since neither of you can prove the existence of God? After all, you can't really claim to knowledge you don't ultimately have.

Spidergoat is right. It's calling the boundary on deciding when war is necessary that comes into in question.

And since we're debating titles and all here...Sam and IAC.

If Dawkins is necessarily and functionally an agnostic since he can't disprove God, does that mean that you're also both necessarily agnostics too, since neither of you can prove the existence of God? After all, you can't really claim to knowledge you don't ultimately have.

Thats why its called faith honey.

And if its war you're wanting, there's always a justification for it. Of course both sides may not exactly have the same one