Atheist zealots a heavy cross to bear

[PKFFW]

An article I found interesting after the recent spat of threads about science v religion that have devolved into argumentative name calling and people questioning the intelligence of others.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1225924203791

Cheers,
PKFFW

[ardeegee]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2..._faitheist.php

[ardeegee]

Also, here's the Dawkins debate where he was so "awful."













A classic and excellent Dawkins moment:



And here's a good way to spend a half hour:

[kindlekitten]

you know, some commentary on some of this might help instead of expecting us to just jump into a bunch of websites and videos that may or may not float our boats!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2..._faitheist.php

See I saw the article more as a call to civility rather than a "most pathetic, pitiful, wimpy spectacle of a weepy little inactivist, someone who is so put off by humor, assertiveness, and any expression of disrespect for damfool ideas that he wants to run away and cry."

I guess if one can't be rude and obnoxious to the other party then it just isn't fun in some peoples minds.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[neilmarr]

I have pretty strong views on this subject based on fifty-odd years of deep thought and hard study. But really, chaps and chappesses, is MobileRead the place to try to sort out this opened can o' worms? I think not. This is a site to discuss ebook readers and ebook reading, not a religious or phylosophical forum. There are plenty such venues out there -- and many are most worth while. Best wishes. Neil

[TGS]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

I have pretty strong views on this subject based on fifty-odd years of deep thought and hard study. But really, chaps and chappesses, is MobileRead the place to try to sort out this opened can o' worms? I think not. This is a site to discuss ebook readers and ebook reading, not a religious or phylosophical forum. There are plenty such venues out there -- and many are most worth while. Best wishes. Neil

But this is the lounge, where people get to sound off about anything not related to ebooks. Any discussion that ensues on this topic will, I suspect, be like peeing in the wind, but sometimes peeing in the wind is just what people want to do.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

you know, some commentary on some of this might help instead of expecting us to just jump into a bunch of websites and videos that may or may not float our boats!

Okay, here's the commentary-- the first 6 clips consist of the debate that the newspaper columnist in the OP's link was complaining about Dawkins acting so badly in and making him ashamed to be an atheist. I assert that in the debate Dawkins was calm, soft spoken, polite and the picture of civility. He showed himself to be thoughtful, well educated, and well spoken. But one would be well served to watch the videos and draw one's own conclusions about how Dawkins comported himself rather than take either my impressions or those of the twit who wrote the article at face value.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

See I saw the article more as a call to civility rather than a "most pathetic, pitiful, wimpy spectacle of a weepy little inactivist, someone who is so put off by humor, assertiveness, and any expression of disrespect for damfool ideas that he wants to run away and cry."

I guess if one can't be rude and obnoxious to the other party then it just isn't fun in some peoples minds.

When you are dealing with intelligent, well educated, rational people, you can be polite. When you are is rolling around in the mud with swine, you can't help but get a bit muddy.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

When you are dealing with intelligent, well educated, rational people, you can be polite. When you are is rolling around in the mud with swine, you can't help but get a bit muddy.

Can one not be intelligent, well educated and rational and also believe in a "god".

Einstein did afterall. Are you saying discussing the issue with him would have been no different to rolling in mud with swine?

I think the "twit"(as you put it) in the original article was merely stating his dislike of his fellow atheists who display an attitude of "you must be an unintelligent moron who is "beneath me" and worth nothing more than scorn and ridicule if you believe in a god and therefore I must immediately resort to being rude and obnoxious to you".

Obviously we each saw the article in a different light and that is ok.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Can one not be intelligent, well educated and rational and also believe in a "god".

Einstein did afterall. Are you saying discussing the issue with him would have been no different to rolling in mud with swine?

Einstein did not "believe in God."

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

And even if he did, that is still an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Einstein could be wrong. Einstein was wrong in his opposition to quantum mechanics.

And you are disregarding the first part of my statement: "When you are dealing with intelligent, well educated, rational people, you can be polite." There are intelligent, well-educated people who are also religious. But the overwhelming majority of the religious people chomping at the bit to "debate" and "disprove" evolution and other non-theistic things are pig-ignorant nitwits or slimebag liars or both. Atheists gain their bitterness (if it is there) not from debating with erudite philosophers-- they get if from dealing with hillbillies who say "I ain't come from no monkey, I dun come from Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve) and they ain't dun bin no big bang an' you gonna die an' burn in hell fur'ever if you don't dun bin turnin' to Jeeeeeeeesus, who diiied foooor yoooouah seeeeens!" It comes from listening to people who couldn't distinguish a quark from a quasar if their lives literally depended on it who come up and tell you how they know more than "all dem gooodles syentyst" and then start quoting the same idiotic creationst talking points that all ignorant sheep get from their ignorant shepards and the wolves that prey on them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

http://www.google.com/custom?num=100...onists&spell=1

[bear4hunter]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Einstein did afterall.

No he didn't!

Albert Einstein is sometimes claimed by religious theists seeking the authority of a famous scientist for their theistic views, but Einstein denied the existence of the traditional concept of a personal god. Was Albert Einstein therefore an atheist? From some perspectives his position would be seen as atheism or no different from atheism. He admitted to being a freethinker, which in a German context is much the same as atheism.

http://atheism.about.com/od/einstein...n-Atheist-.htm

[Poppa1956]

What the heck, y'all have got good ol' Al on both sides of the fence. I jes' figgur I'll put him on the fence.
http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html

[FizzyWater]

Personally, I think zealots of any persuasion "a heavy cross to bear".

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

I have pretty strong views on this subject based on fifty-odd years of deep thought and hard study. But really, chaps and chappesses, is MobileRead the place to try to sort out this opened can o' worms? I think not. This is a site to discuss ebook readers and ebook reading, not a religious or phylosophical forum. There are plenty such venues out there -- and many are most worth while. Best wishes. Neil

as earlier stated, this is the Llounge. as long as we don't hang from the chandeliers, wear our spurs in the waterbeds or shoot at the piano player, we're pretty much allowed free rein if we play more or less nicely with one another.