The Evangelical Atheist

Firstly, I would advise you to look up 'positive Christianity' and how it pertains to Hitler and the Nazi movement. It is basic and common knowledge John. I am surprised you do not even know this. Whether it served as a motivating factor or not is really beside the point. The Nazi's used 'positive Christianity' as a form of justification to slaughter millions of people. Hitler was in fact a Christian in that he believed in God and Christ. I would strongly advise you to read up on the subject before trying to argue on a subject of which you appear to know little to nothing about.

Secondly, do some reading on the Inquisition. If you want to be a bit more precise, I would advise you to look up the name 'Edgardo Mortara'.

I am an atheist John. You know what that is, don't you?

As I said before, I would strongly advise you to actually read up on Hitler and his religious beliefs before you enter any discussion on the matter.

 

Does Indonesia have 'freedom of expression'? Is it freedom of expression to attempt to incite a crowd to go out and cause harm to others or to kill the infidels as a way to be forgiven from sin? Do you think he is preaching to the secular or those who are more radical in their beliefs? While the bombers may have come from more secular homes or upbringing, the fact that they then turned to the more radical aspects of their religion cannot be ignored or denied.

And I was saying you should read the actual book so you can see what he says of his scientist friends who are theists.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

After that debacle, they are at least trying to educate their ground troops of what they should be protecting and looking out for.Source

Another source.

Do you think his statement was political?

I can assure you, regardless of his religion, any religious figurehead who makes such a statement is not being solely political or trying to send a political message. Such rhetoric is downright dangerous, especially when one considers it was being given at a youth day event.

So you think the embassy was bombed because of a land dispute and those who did the bombing, did so in support for the Aboriginals?

That's a new one.

Can "one"? Really? As a scientist, do you pray to the 'scientist gods' for a new discovery? Where is this altar?

Science does not compete with religion. If you read the book, you would see exactly what he means.

I am sure there are. Does not make their actions any less abusive. Dawkins actually mentions the fact that children should be free to make their own choices and not forced into believing as their parents want them to believe and doing so with threats and causing fear.

Do you disagree?

I personally think that children should be brought up to have the freedom to believe or not believe and should not be terrorised either way by their family or community.

And you should read the book to see exactly what he says and where he leans in the "spectrum" of belief. I'll give you a hint, he grades himself as being someone who "cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there" (page 50 to 51 of the book).

Come come Sam.

Why do you think they killed all of those people, Sam? Could it be in their zeal, they viewed organisations such as religious organisations, as well as clubs and Government ministries and departments which were secular, as being a threat to their rule? Those "atheist" tyrants also banned and destroyed many secular and atheist organisations which they viewed as being a threat to their power base.

So because he had no love for the Church, he was an atheist? He was in fact a theist, in that he believed in God and Christ.

Hitler was against the Church because it failed to support his ideology and he feared the power they had over the populace, so he wanted a religion free society. But he did believe in God and saw his actions as being a part of God's plan for the Jews.

So as an atheist, are you suggesting I should somehow view "rape, murder, pedophilia" as being acceptable because is occurs in the animal kingdom?

Sheesh! I better go and sharpen my axe and start going on a rampage.. after I rape a few children of course!

You tell me Sam. How are homosexuals treated in Iran these days, as one example? Do you think the Christian anti-homosexual protesters at Mathew Shepard's funeral and the trial for his murderers loved Matthew but hated his "sin"?

You still didn't answer the question...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

SAM:

You said as much yourself. Review your material on the educational background of suicide bombers.

Not sure what you're getting at, again. I haven't said anything that is incorrect, have I?

You haven't asked me what I think or believe. We're discussing Dawkins.

This is a straw man.

I'll ask again: why is the difference important to you?

So, you're content to spend pages and pages posting here on something you have no direct knowledge about.

Do yourself a favour and actually read Dawkins' book from cover to cover. Then, you may have some credibility when you criticise it. It's not a difficult read. It won't take long.

Or are you afraid that it might challenge your firmly-held beliefs? Are you worried that your faith won't be able to stand up to Dawkins' flimsy arguments?

Do you think his assessment of Einstein's religious views is incorrect? Do you think Einstein was actually a closet follower of a mainstream religion, or believed in the big man in the sky? Do you think the distinction Dawkins makes is unsustainable? Or what?

I know that you most likely can't answer these questions, since you haven't read the book, but I just thought I'd put them out there.

Your response is a non sequitur.

He explicitly addresses this point in the book you have not read.

Straw man. Dawkins hasn't called anybody stupid.

Ok. So we're even on this. You drop the silly argument that atheism naturally leads to mass murder, and I'll drop the silly argument that theism naturally leads to mass murder.

Deal?

You'll need to support that hypothesis with evidence. Got any?

You need to establish that this is an effect of theism. Can you?

Then we are agreed. Atheism is amoral, not immoral. Right?

Religion, on the whole, stifles scientific curiosity rather than encouraging it. Questioning is usually a bad thing in religion. It is almost always discouraged.

You seem to have drifted off on a tangent again.

Will you now retract your silly claim that an atheist cannot be a secular humanist? Yes or no? Or will you simply pretend you didn't make that claim, and ignore this?

You appear to be confusing secular humanism and atheism. As I have already carefully explained to you, secular humanism is a moral philosophy. Atheism is a position concerning belief in supernatural deities. One can be an atheist without being a secular humanist. Also, one can be a secular humanist and call somebody a delusional liar.