Atheist Alliance 2007

[sephodwyrm]

Watch the video here.
Thanks shaun.

[Bokks]

Ah, Richard Dawkins and fundamental atheism.
...
Oh, wait...

[Wautd]

Ah, Richard Dawkins and fundamental atheism.
...
Oh, wait...

Because using words and reason to attack an idea is the same as killing in the name of a god... how?

[Shaun]

That's a long link - you might want to hyperlink it with this button to stop people from scrolling to the right from now on.

[Dayman]

Here is all the videos: here

Ah, Richard Dawkins and fundamental atheism.
...
Oh, wait...

They aren't all like that.

[sephodwyrm]

They aren't all like that.

I hope they were, though.
Imagine if all the atheists were as smart as Dawkins.

[Dayman]

I hope they were, though.
Imagine if all the atheists were as smart as Dawkins.

I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who is so clever in his wordplay that he can refute religion without people even realizing it.

Oh, and Dawkins isn't a fundamentalist atheist, or at least he says he isn't. He's almost there, but stops short.

Wanting religion to take a back seat to science is the dream of every atheist and agnostic out there.

[Bokks]

Wanting religion to take a back seat to science is the dream of every atheist and agnostic out there.

No, true, but Dawkins is one of the atheists that has come out and said that anyone who believes in any god is an ignorant idiot.
Or was he not one of the authors of "the God Fallacy" or whatever the name of that book is. Talks about a little boy, why he's wrong for believing in god. I'm fairly certain that that was Dawkins. Could be wrong, though...

Because using words and reason to attack an idea is the same as killing in the name of a god... how?

Very true, he hasn't led anyone to car-bomb a whole city steet or anything. But he's close minded to the potential of anything else being possible, which is fundamentalism. Now, I'm not the whole "see God through a butterfly landing on your shoulder" like some sun-staring feel-good buck-toothed fundamentalist out there (I'm thinking of the daughter of that one minister who founding this ultra-zealous Christian church stating that everyone else, including other christians not as "pious" as they are, will go to hell for all eternity. Scary family. And since there's only 75 people in that church, sucks to be us...) but I still would keep an open mind were I an absolute atheist, and I wouldn't call faith ignorant, either. Misguided, heck, maybe even scared could possibly be used to define the faithful (I am religious, those are just possible definitions that I would understand being used) but not ignorant or foolish.

[Maverick]

Wanting religion to take a back seat to science is the dream of every atheist and agnostic out there.

So, we shouldn't follow religion blindly, therefore we should put our faith in science and technology blindly.

I like how you folks think. Religion is destroying minds, so instead we should follow a path that is destroying the entire biotic community. Very interesting.

[Dayman]

So, we shouldn't follow religion blindly, therefore we should put our faith in science and technology blindly.

I like how you folks think. Religion is destroying minds, so instead we should follow a path that is destroying the entire biotic community. Very interesting.

No, because skepticism requires being skeptical.

I do not place complete and total faith in everything not science, not even my own views of religion, that's why I danced with, and still do sometimes with agnosticism.

I don't trust everything science does. Why not? I'll let Patton Oswalt (comedian and fellow atheist) answer that.

"Hey we just made cancer contagious and airborne! You're welcome, we're science! We're all about coulda, not shoulda!"

Science has bad ideas sometimes, and they're wrong a lot too, but that's the point. I'm more inclined to listen to someone who would accept he is wrong when proven so than someone who believes they know the truth no matter what.

And how is science destroying the biotic community? I mean, if we never discovered Element Zero, no one would have biotic abilities.

[Maverick]

Chai, I'm failing to see how we differ in principle, if that is what you are arguing here.

but I do agree with one thing hitchens said ; who I prefer over dawkins of course --- he said I dont care what you believe I just want everyone to stop telling everyone else what to believe-- if you have faith in a god then simply keep it to yourself and I will keep my atheism to myself ( I am paraphrasing here)

I believe that everyone should believe that it is wrong to tell everyone what to believe. You are smart, I know you can see what's wrong with this statement.

Science has bad ideas sometimes, and they're wrong a lot too, but that's the point. I'm more inclined to listen to someone who would accept he is wrong when proven so than someone who believes they know the truth no matter what.

True enough, but your statement in the last post didn't reflect your skepticism so you can't blame me for pointing that out. The problem with science and technology is the "abiding faith" in people that every human need and question has its answer in science and technology, no matter what. We are trapped in a vicious circle, science and technology is the cause of and solution to all of our problems.

The problem with Atheism is that, like religion it is dictatorial. It does not adress the root of the problem, human ignorance. If everyone is educated and can think for themselves we have no need for any "isms" or other rhetoric that sum up a body of principles for individuals that can't reason through the theory for themselves and so rely on "isms" to establish concurrence with others in lieu of rational discourse. I can't overstate how troubling this is, as they say "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

People need to start thinking for themselves and only then can they make free decisions. I don't ascribe to any doctrine, political party or movement, I am simply me, a free-thinking entity, precisely what people who would control me (ideologically or literally) deplore.

[Gary88]

i think christoppher hitchens gives a wonderful talk, i think he is a marvelous speaker. he isn't in such a huge rush to throw things at you he takes his time and makes very clear intelligent arguments.

[sephodwyrm]

Btw, lets all agree that Dawkins has a good sense of humor.
So what can you do about it?
LOL!!

[Ringeck]

"Religion being the source of guilt, shame, misery and immorality".



Cute.

Some of these guys, for all their intelligence and silky british accents, are as true believers as the people they criticize.

[sephodwyrm]

Its called the God Delusion.

but not ignorant or foolish.

Really?
How about taking his book, read it, and refute the points?

Cute.

And readily proven by the Good Book.

[Ringeck]

And readily proven by the Good Book.

I dunno. You can probably take any ideology, religion, worldview or whatever's your poison and find plenty of arguments why it is the source of said things. It is by the exact same method, and just as invalid, by which the aggressive opponents of the speakers in the video associate atheism with stalinism or nazism. That both were atheist ideologies doesn't mean atheism is to blame for their horrors.

[Bokks]

Its called the God Delusion.

Ah, thank you.

Really?
How about taking his book, read it, and refute the points?

Well, exactly how much do i need to refute? It's not the content of what he writes, per-say, but the fact that he outright attacks anything that should not agree with what he says. What is that again? Oh yeah: fundamentalism. Doesn't matter if you take what you believe in and build a church for it, the second that you start attacking what other people believe in and say that any thought contrary to what your is is wrong, that is fundamentalism. This is just evolutionary based.

And readily proven by the Good Book.

I'm confused, are you saying the bible proves this against itself or are you calling the God Delusion "the good book" now?

[sephodwyrm]

That both were atheist ideologies doesn't mean atheism is to blame for their horrors.

Atheism doesn't tell people to kill for atheism. The argument of Hitler and Stalin is old and wrong. Because really, neither Stalin and Hitler said that they're killing people for ATHEISM. So frankly, Nazism and Stalinism weren't atheist ideologies. They were totalitarian ideologies that involved the creation of a Personality Cult.

Basically, its not unlike a religion of its own making.

[Ringeck]

It is completely beside the point whether Hitler was atheistic or not (he didn't go much into it, although transcripts of his private dialogue - the "table talk" papers make it pretty obvious that he, in his later years at least, was at the very least an areligious opponent of german protestantism and catholicism); had anyone bothered to read the post below they'd have noticed that I marked the entire hitler/stalin argument as invalid from the get-go.

Atheism doesn't tell people to kill for atheism.

Neither do most of the world's religions; it all depends on the interpretations of those religious that people use to legitimize their actions. People - human beings - are the problem and will always be the problem (because we are such nasty bastards) , and it is deeply childish to think that we can solve the world's problems by ridding it of religion.

Your Caps Lock seems to have hung itself up at the end of your post.

[Bokks]

It is completely beside the point whether Hitler was atheistic or not (he didn't go much into it, although transcripts of his private dialogue - the "table talk" papers make it pretty obvious that he, in his later years at least, was at the very least an areligious opponent of german protestantism and catholicism); had anyone bothered to read the post below they'd have noticed that I marked the entire hitler/stalin argument as invalid from the get-go.

Well, that doesn't discount any curiosity that may exist on the matter.

Neither do most of the world's religions; it all depends on the interpretations of those religious that people use to legitimize their actions. People - human beings - are the problem and will always be the problem (because we are such nasty bastards) , and it is deeply childish to think that we can solve the world's problems by ridding it of religion.

Very true

Your Caps Lock seems to have hung itself up at the end of your post.

Whose? No-ones points were capitalised at all, except ATHEISM, which is fairly docile as far as capitalisation goes.

I don't doubt that atheists could kill people for ATHEISM. The only reason this hasn't happened is because so few people are atheists. The capacity for horrendous, fundamentalist barbarism exists in atheists too.

Exactly!

edit:

Somehow I think I can remind that the the Orthodox church and it's clerics were persecuted in the Soviet Union. Untill Stalin was forced into a temporary alliance that is ...

True, but that wasn't persecution for atheism, that persecution for political strength and "equality".(after all, if all opposition is dead, then therein lies true equality)
Plus it was totalitarian communism under Stalin.