Slaxl: The funny thing is in the religion debate Peter Higgs is going to get extra weight added to his views because the 'god' particle was his and discovered, which can easily be manipulated by journalists who misrepresent science to suggest he has proof of god.Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.Science and religion are not incompatible, if both sides make compromise for each other. That an atheist might play nice and not tell a Muslim that there are no gods does not mean there are gods. There are still no gods. That's as compatible as science and religion get. You leave us alone we'll leave you alone. Truth doesn't change.
Slaxl: Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.
Slaxl: AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.He's not a dick about it. Go find me examples of him being a dick.
AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.
AdolfOliverPanties: He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.
Silverstaff: Again with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy from the atheists.
Silverstaff: Joseph Stalin was clearly an atheist:
Silverstaff: Note that it lists four main enemies of the working class:The nobility and aristocracy: "We rule you"The religious church: "We fool you"The military: "We shoot at you"The bourgeois (middle class): "We eat for you"Communist propaganda has always placed religion right alongside the bourgeois as enemies of the people. Atheism is an integral that belief system, has been since day one.
SkunkWerks: Uncle Tractor: Agreeing with him doesn't make one an "adherent."No, idolizing him does. And that's what his Adherents tend to do in my experience...
Valiente: It's arguable that they weren't atheists at all. They turned the religious impulse they found in their own societies from sky fairies to Party leaders. What was "the cult of personality" (besides a pretty good '90s hit) but an attempt to replace fictional gods with fictional humans?In other words, if you claim "there is no god, but I'll be playing one for the masses", you're not so much an atheist as a master manipulator of human weakness.
I drunk what: 1. God created Man, Life, Free Will2. Man created Sin3. Sin altered God's Good-Perfect Creation into what you now see as Evil (aka malaria, mosquitoes, etc..)
cegorach: 1. Read up on what the scientific method actually is.
Ishkur: Silverstaff: What an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.Stalin wasn't an atheist. Neither was Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.. not once did they rant in any of their speeches that their enemies must be eliminated for the sake of secular humanism and rational inquiry. Rather, what they did was establish systems of moral absolutes with state theocracies, oppressive social obedience and strict political doctrine replacing scripture. Essentially: Political ideology as church, with themselves as God.The whole "who committed more atrocities" argument is a mutually assured destruction debate tactic anyway. Do you really want to count them all up? Christians wiped out two entire continents and an entire race of people. And not only did they commit genocide to others, they committed genocide to themselves (the greatest enemy to Christians has always been other Christians: Quite possibly up to 50 million in just the wars of the Reformation....20 million in the 30 years war alone). But do these numbers make any argument better? Do you feel better about your side if you can tally it up and show that your beliefs only killed a few million less than their beliefs? Does that make it more right?Today's Christians should not have to answer for every past atrocity done in the name of Christianity, just as today's atheists should not have to answer for every past atrocity done in the name of atheism (which is technically none...but even if you throw in Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot or anyone else who wasn't Christian or an atheist, that still doesn't justify either argument).
Silverstaff: Lionel Mandrake: Uncle Tractor: Relevant to all Dawkins threads:[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]An IRL version:[i159.photobucket.com image 720x408]upload.wikimedia.orgWhat an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.
ciberido: raerae1980: FTA: "Higgs argued that although he was not a believer...."Soooo then, they are in agreement?I like this quote from Hawkins, "No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may 'believe', in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."I really doubt that's true, however. If the kind of Rapture evangelical Christians believe in were to actually happen, the next day people like Hawkins would be trying DESPERATELY to explain it away rather than say, "Oh, guess we were wrong. Whoops."
Uncle Tractor: Relevant to all Dawkins threads:[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]
I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: Maybe you were thinking of something else?Faith is: The evidence of things unseen.I was thinking that words have meaning. and you were about to tell us how Science never engages in such nonsense? do tell
douchebag/hater: Richard Dawkins = Westboro Baptist Church.
had98c: Silverstaff: Slaxl: Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.No, Dawkins is an attention whoring asshole.Supporting reason and logic is one thing, actively calling people of faith mentally ill and deluded and insulting and belittling them doesn't win converts over, it is just the atheistic version of preaching to the choir.His jackassery gives the religious plenty of fodder to depict atheism as a religion unto itself (and an evil one at that), because of the zealotry and fervor that he approaches it with is very much akin to religious.When Dawkins is insulting people for having religion, and since most people are at least nominally religious, all faith leaders have to do is to play nice and look reasonable and benevolent and suddenly Dawkins looks like the looney calling everybody crazy.Even if he supports the search for truth, reason and logic, he's such a poor ambassador for it that he isn't exactly winning over converts, just rallying his own "faithful" (or faithless as it were).He's not going to win over any converts anyway since almost everyone already has their mind made up barring some grand event that swings evidence in such a way that nobody could really ignore it, like the second coming or something. So he might as well be an ass for all the good it'll do for him to be nice. It's much, much better to be right than to be liked.
Sybarite: I guess I don't understand why outrageous claims with no supporting evidence are acceptable targets for ridicule (be it healing crystals, or psychics, or ancient aliens, or whatever), yet somehow the silliness of theism is supposed to be treated with kid gloves.
radarlove: I'm amazed that you people are still arguing with each other over something that can never be either proven nor dis-proven by either side.You're all a bunch of farking idiots.
Lumpmoose: Science does not and cannot address supernatural elements and it never properly uses faith in the religious sense. And it doesn't need to. Science-minded people can still believe. You just believe. That's why it's called "faith". It's when you start using dogma as a weapon against science that we have a problem. Those people are the problem. They are a threat to human advancement, freedom, peace and cooperation.
Slaxl: The funny thing is in the religion debate Peter Higgs is going to get extra weight added to his views because the 'god' particle was his and discovered, which can easily be manipulated by journalists who misrepresent science to suggest he has proof of god.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Aug 17 2017 16:33:22
Runtime: 0.424 sec (424 ms)