Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Dawkins Is Wrong. Religion Is Rational [View all]gcomeau
(5,764 posts)179. Run along... don't trip over that tail between your legs.-eom
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
244 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Still trying to figure out here how rationalists can have anything rational to say about something
patrice
Dec 2012
#1
Agnostics can be either theists or atheists at the same time as being agnostic
Fumesucker
Dec 2012
#13
I doubt you are claiming that no agnostic has an opinion on the existence of a god or gods
Fumesucker
Dec 2012
#32
That is exactly how I recall it as well and still have a handful of friends who
cbayer
Dec 2012
#134
In terms of your first example, what you cite would render proof that Alberta exists.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#21
There were times when scientists actually believed they had proven that the world
cbayer
Dec 2012
#27
I disagree and have run into absolute atheists, just as I have run into absolute theists.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#95
You do realize that even Dawkins isn't an absolute atheist, as you define them. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#103
I am aware that Dawkins has described himself as one step below an absolute atheist.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#104
"prominent atheists who call for the death or subjugation...evidence...religious fundamentalists...
humblebum
Dec 2012
#176
Try Dawkins who wants us to think religion is the root of all evil and the cause of most wars.
Democratopia
Dec 2012
#182
For God's sake! He had a TV show called "The root of all evil" and the intention of that show was
Democratopia
Jan 2013
#236
Oh! So you think the question mark was meant to suggest the answer "no!" I saw that show, did you?
Democratopia
Jan 2013
#238
Let's put it this way: The clue about the show's content was in the title.
Democratopia
Jan 2013
#240
As an atheist, I find him to be beneath contempt. But thanks for watching his show!
Democratopia
Jan 2013
#242
Am I just not seeing where the quote is in your post? Nowhere do I find it.
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#206
That revealed faith is potentially very dangerous, its in the first sentence you quoted...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#209
It seems self evident what he means, yet I'm not seeing where he said what you claim.
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#210
Great. Now where is the quote in the post you put up? I'm just not seeing it.
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#216
Neither can exist without the negation of the other, so they both imply one another in that
patrice
Dec 2012
#8
"Those atheists who harangue us ..." A Richard Dawkins question is not a harangue.
AnotherMcIntosh
Dec 2012
#3
The strong can stand-to haranguing and possibly become more authentic as a result of it . . .
patrice
Dec 2012
#9
Much as I loved my scientific education and training, physics was the one thing that
cbayer
Dec 2012
#23
Relativity was tested in the real world. Evidence that Einstein was correct can be observed.
Warren Stupidity
Dec 2012
#54
One can build a rational framework around fundamentally irrational beliefs.
Warren Stupidity
Dec 2012
#52
Agree. There was no god in his theories, but there was god in his life at various points.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#45
The difference between the giant purple and pink flying zebras is the number of people
cbayer
Dec 2012
#18
I can also think of reasons why people might believe, even though they have no hard proof.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#49
Which is why it is important to keep religion out of public schools, except as an
cbayer
Dec 2012
#64
Holy fucking shit, that's stupid, most people believed in astrology, and in the past....
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#100
But popularity doesn't make something more likely to be true, because it isn't evidence...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#106
The problem when it comes to religion, as you know, is that there is no evidence
cbayer
Dec 2012
#108
Its still a fallacy, besides that, once you get beyond the general concept of theism...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#111
You mean kinda like you label certain atheists "fundamenalists" because they disagree with you?
trotsky
Dec 2012
#152
We are going to dinner at our Italian friends house. He is Jewish and we are having
cbayer
Dec 2012
#37
No, I think that the possibility that something is true may be correlated with the
cbayer
Dec 2012
#60
Thousands of years of indoctrinating people into that belief caused those numbers.
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#71
"A Flying Horse" is rational? A flying unicorn, maybe. But a horse? no way. nt
Speck Tater
Dec 2012
#48
How many people on this planet were indoctrinated into flying horse belief?
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#72
He actually makes the case that both theism and atheism are based on faith and that
cbayer
Dec 2012
#61
I think I get the drift. At least in the western world, there were far more Jews than Christians
dimbear
Dec 2012
#86
So if God didn't always exist then it is something that began to exist and therefore has a cause.
eomer
Dec 2012
#171
Because it is part of the argument; why do you want to strip off the conclusion?
eomer
Dec 2012
#192
"put forth ideas that STILL demolish theistic arguments." If you are referring
humblebum
Dec 2012
#220
Do any theists even bother listening to atheists, most of us(including Dawkins) are agnostic!
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#99
Jesus fucking Christ nailed to two popsicle sticks? Could you be any more rude?
cbayer
Dec 2012
#102
But you don't criticize Dawkins, you(and the authors you link to) erect straw versions of him to...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#109
"there is no such thing as "absolute evidence" you are trying to redefine..." - It
humblebum
Dec 2012
#221
I'm saying that using the word "absolute" as an adjective usable with the word...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#222
It seems to be a matter of wording to you then. I believe that by the phrase "absolute evidence"
humblebum
Dec 2012
#223
Subjective "evidence" can only be observed by the individual who observes it...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#232
Yes, that is why it is called "subjective" evidence. And yes it is experience also, or observation,
humblebum
Dec 2012
#233
I must ask, what is a pegacorn, because it sounds awesomer than a unicorn. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#115
Are you really comparing proof that there is no god with proof that there is no cancer?
Moonwalk
Dec 2012
#122
Exactly my point. There is no way to compare scientific facts with religious beliefs.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#123
I defend religionists, but I don't offer factual support for specific religious beliefs.
cbayer
Dec 2012
#160
I'm glad that you got to see for yourself the total dishonesty and denial...
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#186
It never ceases to amaze me. The pure hypocrisy and wilfull ignorance displayed is stupefying.
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#187
When a person is arrogant enough to think they can possibly know everything,
DrewFlorida
Dec 2012
#196