Aggressive Atheism

Excluding "Jihadists" I find myself more aggavated with loud "atheists" (anti-Christs) and science humpers than "Christians" that simply try to be good decent people.

What I have found is atheists tend to actually be good and decent people where as christian, by what you say, only try... and most of the time they fail. Because they judge. They judge harshly.

Oh and the last bit of my previous post is talking about exactly this comment you made Razorsedge. I thought you were past all this?
 
Sorry bud, its you who doesn't know what he is talking about. I did a quick look up on wiki just to make sure I wasn't mistaken, And i wasn't.
That is why facts wins... because they describe reality.
Muslims consider all the prophets from the old testament and new testament and jesus as prophets of god or allah. Thereby the same GOD.
They consider Jews and Christians protected people because of that.

Facts. Yes, wonderful things. If you check the actual instructions in the Bible on how to live from YHWH, they are very different from allah (an exception being to not eat pork). Muslim nations descend from Ishmael, who was the son of Abraham through his servant, so while they "know the same people", it's an entirely different religion. The same god wouldn't give two seperate sets of instructions to the exclusion of all the others but yet still include others.


Yes the energy god. I know all too much about this one. Now in a useful pragmatic sense I do believe in the energy of Intention, but consciousness as self awareness or as life, it already has a definition that isn't god.

But going from evolution... all life is connected from the emergence of the first two different types of organisms....self replicating molecules. So in a primal kind of way, we share a
connection with the living things like ourselves.


Thinking you could be communicated to by an "Energy" some abstract concept of a thing talking to you.....sounds like as plausible as Toasters randomly appearing on mars.

Your ability to justify randomly making up definitions and parameters of things you don't understand and/or believe in is amusing.

I think the real reason people feel the need to have Faith in a god is that they are scared. Scared to die. They don't want to leave their life behind. Their loved ones. So they cling to any idea of that....The recent emergence of the Psychics or mediums is proof of that. They want to think their ghost of relatives are watching over them...etc....
There is an afterlife of bliss, or reincarnation, or hellfire for the wicked, but how anyone knows about this, is the mystery. Is it knowledge??? not likely.
Sound like a myth story? Yeah, similar to many before it and many since.

Just like stereotypes exist for a reason, religion exists for a reason. While it stereotypes do not apply 100%, they are rooted in some truth. The same for religion, while many may not be accurate, there is something that traces back to the first humans that as persisted through thousands of years and hundreds of civilizations. The root would be the existance of some divine power.


Is it more useful to learn a martial art to defend yourself against an attacker or pray to god that they stop hurting you?

Can you understand my frustration with believers?

It's like they constantly say "Why have knowledge in practical things when I know there is a god? He/It/SHe will help me."

3+4=7 Correct!
3+4= god Wrong!

Almost every martial art is highly religious based, what's your point?
 
Could the Universe be an extension or inside of a godlike entity? Possibly. Does that rule out consciousness in the energy or communication with that consciousness. No. Science is always finding out how much it doesn't know yet, and who knows what is left to find out.

Yes, who knows - what does making up answers do for you?
What do you consider 'consciousness', out of interest?
 
What I have found is atheists tend to actually be good and decent people where as christian, by what you say, only try... and most of the time they fail. Because they judge. They judge harshly.

Oh and the last bit of my previous post is talking about exactly this comment you made Razorsedge. I thought you were past all this?

I aint been reading your posts man, I have no interest in hearing someone stereo typing people of faith or any type, excluding politician.

I have no interest in reading ignorant blanket nonsense statement written such as "I have found is atheists tend to actually be good and decent people where as christian, by what you say, only try... and most of the time they fail."

I know plenty of atheists that are NOT decent people, I know plenty of believers that are. Nothing is carved in stone... NOTHING... other than politicians are scum and America and western culture in general has become pussified by political PC and bleeding heart agenda, that applies to no other breathing species (for good reason) than pussified western human culture.

Right there is two things in the bible I know are bullshit, Jesus said turn the other cheek, I say bullshit rip it off and somewhere it says Lions will lay down with lambs... yarite... after they have slayed them and are chewing on their dead corpse. Yet still I have no problems in general with someone else having faith. Go figure....
 
Wow you actually read my posts???? COol yeah yeah yeah, I know more about the Muslim , with Mohammad the great prophet who apparently was better then the Jew champion Jesus. He has a winged horse he uses to fly to heaven right. And Allah is just another name for the God of the old testament right? Like Jehovah, and other pronunciations of it. The Koran.
The Koran is poetry right? I wonder if that is why it seems so easy to twist the meanings.
To be honest, I don't give two shits about the muslim religion to want to investigate it any further. It sounds as stupid as Christianity and Judaism which is all based on the same retarded stories about Abraham.


Muslims consider all the prophets from the old testament and new testament and jesus as prophets of god or allah. Thereby the same GOD.
They consider Jews and Christians protected people because of that.

How the hell do you argue about something you don't know about? Or how do you hate something you don't know?
The Koran is NOT poetry. PERIOD.
The Koran doesn't say that Jews and Christians are "protected" people. Koran says that the Old Testament and the New Testament were originally the words of God, until they were alternated by the Jews and Christians for their own interest. Therefore, it is not the word of God. And in Koran,Jesus (who has a different name in the Koran, because Jesus means "the one bathed in oil" or something like that) and Moses were not described like in both previous religious texts, and Jesus was NOT the son of God. So, the Bible and the Old Testament are not considered as books with divine origins according to the Koran. Consequently, Christians and Jews are considered as heretic and not "protected".


So you say "I don't believe in THAT GOD"
So what fucking kinda GOD do you believe in?
If that would add anything to this conversation I would tell you :)
How would you know if it was a figment of your imagination compared to something you know is real and experience every day like a sunrise?`
What are you talking about here?
Investigating God's existence should rely on reasoning and knowledge alone not on imagination. We're not attempting to write a story, but to investigate God's existence.
 
Facts. Yes, wonderful things. If you check the actual instructions in the Bible on how to live from YHWH, they are very different from allah (an exception being to not eat pork). Muslim nations descend from Ishmael, who was the son of Abraham through his servant, so while they "know the same people", it's an entirely different religion. The same god wouldn't give two seperate sets of instructions to the exclusion of all the others but yet still include others.
Facts......are not found in books about sky daddies, zombies, and defying physics. "The same god wouldn't ....yet still include others." The point is SO VERY CLOSE that you are almost there..... are you starting to see the smoke clear yet???? Do you not know what you are writing? You clearly state that NONE of these people can agree.... so is there 3 gods? who all say they are the only god? I don't know how you don't get that you have stated now that none of them could be right...by default in a way.

the point I will Reiterate again is that """"NOBODY KNOWS"""""" so it is pointless to say and continue saying things like "well this guy says this" and "these people say that" its all fucking lies, stories, fables,

the whole purpose of these are to teach morals, but you cannot take them seriously!



Your ability to justify randomly making up definitions and parameters of things you don't understand and/or believe in is amusing.
Do I have to understand all the history of Santa Claus to not believe that he is real, with his magic reindeer and elves? No, because it is pathetic for a grown human to still believe in fairy tales.


Just like stereotypes exist for a reason, religion exists for a reason. While it stereotypes do not apply 100%, they are rooted in some truth. The same for religion, while many may not be accurate, there is something that traces back to the first humans that as persisted through thousands of years and hundreds of civilizations. The root would be the existence of some divine power.
You fail at analogies.
Serioulsy its
X exists for a reason and can be seen.
X existing means S exists
S =/= real
X-->S? how does that work again.
Lets try adlibbing!
Just like Shoes Exist for a reason, god exists for a reason.
Just like Nintento exists for a reason.

Listen up...I'll let you in on the big mystery of the origins of religion......people are stupid enough to believe it, so the shaman gets to have great power being the only one who can talk with it.......I wonder why anyone would lie about that? It isn't like there are things like power, influence and respect to make someone lie is there?


Almost every martial art is highly religious based, what's your point?

That wasnt' the issue. the issue is having self defense is more useful thus more pragmatic then praying for god to help you. One gets results and the other does not. Get it now.....?

I dunno.... I'm starting to think that you are actually mentally crippled or what, but do you even read what you write?
 
Facts......are not found in books about sky daddies, zombies, and defying physics. "The same god wouldn't ....yet still include others." The point is SO VERY CLOSE that you are almost there..... are you starting to see the smoke clear yet???? Do you not know what you are writing? You clearly state that NONE of these people can agree.... so is there 3 gods? who all say they are the only god? I don't know how you don't get that you have stated now that none of them could be right...by default in a way.

the point I will Reiterate again is that """"NOBODY KNOWS"""""" so it is pointless to say and continue saying things like "well this guy says this" and "these people say that" its all fucking lies, stories, fables,

the whole purpose of these are to teach morals, but you cannot take them seriously!

So at first when you think the information backs up your point of view they are "facts", but not when they don't.

Example:
Sorry bud, its you who doesn't know what he is talking about. I did a quick look up on wiki just to make sure I wasn't mistaken, And i wasn't.
That is why facts wins... because they describe reality.
Muslims consider all the prophets from the old testament and new testament and jesus as prophets of god or allah. Thereby the same GOD.
They consider Jews and Christians protected people because of that.

Which happened to not even be the facts, but I digress. You thought they were, and could only have gotten them from (misinterpreting) Muslim writings, or information derived from Muslim writings. These would also fall under your new blanket of "sky daddys, etc.". Make up your mind.

You obviously have zero clue how to debate. You actually aren't trying to debate, you are just trying to (repeatedly) "shout" your opinion the loudest.


Do I have to understand all the history of Santa Claus to not believe that he is real, with his magic reindeer and elves? No, because it is pathetic for a grown human to still believe in fairy tales.



You fail at analogies.
Serioulsy its
X exists for a reason and can be seen.
X existing means S exists
S =/= real
X-->S? how does that work again.
Lets try adlibbing!
Just like Shoes Exist for a reason, god exists for a reason.
Just like Nintento exists for a reason.

You fail at understanding analogies.

Listen up...I'll let you in on the big mystery of the origins of religion......people are stupid enough to believe it, so the shaman gets to have great power being the only one who can talk with it.......I wonder why anyone would lie about that? It isn't like there are things like power, influence and respect to make someone lie is there?

I am not saying organized religion isn't a bad thing. But you can't seperate the idea of a creator/diety and corrupt organizations run by men for power. This is what I am arguing against.


That wasnt' the issue. the issue is having self defense is more useful thus more pragmatic then praying for god to help you. One gets results and the other does not. Get it now.....?

Well it may not have been the "issue", but to bring up benefits brought about by religion in an argument about how religion is "bringin us down" is just piss poor debating and makes you sound ignorant.

I dunno.... I'm starting to think that you are actually mentally crippled or what, but do you even read what you write?

I was thinking the exact same thing about you bud.
 
the point I will Reiterate again is that """"NOBODY KNOWS"""""" so it is pointless to say and continue saying things like "well this guy says this" and "these people say that" its all fucking lies, stories, fables,

How do you examine the truthfulness of any document or idea?
Show us your approach that led you to all these conclusions and ideas about religions. The mystery here is that you clearly don't have a full picture of any of the religions that you have been talking about so far.
You obviously think of yourself superior and wiser than anyone who believes in any God.

the whole purpose of these are to teach morals, but you cannot take them seriously!
Wrong, you see, you don't have a clue of what religion is based on, apart from the belief in a supernatural entity.
 
How do you examine the truthfulness of any document or idea?
Show us your approach that led you to all these conclusions and ideas about religions. The mystery here is that you clearly don't have a full picture of any of the religions that you have been talking about so far.
You obviously think of yourself superior and wiser than anyone who believes in any God.


Wrong, you see, you don't have a clue of what religion is based on, apart from the belief in a supernatural entity.

Because you are at least intelligent enough to understand what I write I will do that for you.
Start with a belief in Nothing......
Start adding in beliefs that are Apparently True(if you can't think of any examples yourself things like Humans need air to breath to live. Things fall down under normal earth gravity. Water freezes at 0c. Etc etc etc for everything and anything that you have seen or done, others have seen or done, and others could see or do.)

Now, when you come upon the topic of any religion you start putting things in that are now currently true.
All religions have religious leads. Those of whom hold great influence, and power, and even more-so respect.
Most if not all religions have some form of Decree based on writings of man, some told orally as tradition before being wrote.
All of the 3 major Monotheistic religions, claims their knowledge on morality, history, and the nature of all things to be the one true word of god.
Other religions incorporate a more Naturalistic approach as seen by Native tribes, and the Animal Totem spirits, and their unique creation stories. The polytheistic religions typically had representations of nature and human nature to reflect the moral stories with characters of a common archetype.
Religions are based off of typically ancient people's ways of thinking and processing of the world which never equals the current society and the secular progression mankind has made despite religions attempts (in mostly westernized countries) to prevent progression. As seen in other countries whom practice religious law, and the quality of life that all people are able to lead. No progression, is ever religion because it prevents change for the better and keeps the worst of the worst. SLAVERY, INFANTICIDE, MURDER, RAPE, GENOCIDE, INCEST...are all found in the bible. This to me sounds like a book you wouldn't want your children reading.

Next point on religion...
These sacred text written by people, and in many cases multiple people are hardly congruent, and often times contradictory.

many of the beliefs of religious followers are inspired by miracles. These recounts of amazing feats tend to have little to do with what can happen within the constraints of real world. For example a man can not actually walk on water as if he were walking on a dirt road. A man can not comeback to life spontaneously. either they were not dead, or it didn't happen.
I think they can be categorized into
Lies
Trickery
Hallucinations

It really boils down to

Be skeptical
Be cynical
Be Informed
Otherwise
you don't know.
Agnosticism 1iMm



listen to this, this is very good and informative and the kinda of reason that I am an atheist because I understand the nature of the brain and the nature of people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First off, i cannot access Youtube at the moment so if you have any other link of that video (to Google maybe) i will watch it.

Religions are based off of typically ancient people's ways of thinking and processing of the world which never equals the current society and the secular progression mankind has made despite religions attempts (in mostly westernized countries) to prevent progression.
If the religious book X is based on ancient people's way of thinking and their knowledge then how do you explain the following :


And (remember) the Day when We shall roll up the heaven like a scroll rolled up for books, As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it, (it is) a promise binding upon Us. Truly, We shall do it."

Does this ring any bells? The big crunch if you haven't guessed.
“I do swear by the Day of Resurrection. I do swear by the reproachful soul. Does man reckon We shall not gather his bones? Yes indeed; We are able to shape again the tips of his fingers.” (75: 1-4)
Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.( 75:4)

These are about the finger prints and how they are EXCLUSIVE to every single person.


No! If he does not stop, We will take him by the naseyah (front of the head), a lying, sinful naseyah (front of the head)!” (96:15-16)
The frontal lobes are considered our emotional control center and home to our personality. Correct?

Verily in cattle there is a lesson for you: We give you to drink of what is inside their bellies, from among chyme and from among blood, pure milk palatable to those who drink it (16:66)

Do your researches of how milk is made.

These verses are fair enough for me to believe in the wisdom of the source, considering WHEN it was first introduced to humanity and after how many centuries we reached the same conclusions after reliable researches. How can I deny it?

Now let me quote Spinoza in his wise saying, which i totally agree with.


"I'm persuaded that the certitude of Divine revelation can be established solely by the wisdom of the doctrine

and not by miracles; that is to say by ignorance" - Benedict Spinoza

As seen in other countries whom practice religious law, and the quality of life that all people are able to lead. No progression, is ever religion because it prevents change for the better and keeps the worst of the worst. SLAVERY, INFANTICIDE, MURDER, RAPE, GENOCIDE, INCEST...are all found in the bible. This to me sounds like a book you wouldn't want your children reading.
It's not because of the religious laws or what religion promotes. It's because people who are ruling these countries are fucked up people. People who are working according to their own agenda, their own interest is what matters for them. This is mostly in the third world countries. Without mentioning the pressure that they have from above (from more powerful countries).

listen to this, this is very good and informative and the kinda of reason that I am an atheist because I understand the nature of the brain and the nature of people.
This doesn't mean that what you are saying is correct.
 
First off, i cannot access Youtube at the moment so if you have any other link of that video (to Google maybe) i will watch it.


If the religious book X is based on ancient people's way of thinking and their knowledge then how do you explain the following :




Does this ring any bells? The big crunch if you haven't guessed.



These are about the finger prints and how they are EXCLUSIVE to every single person.



The frontal lobes are considered our emotional control center and home to our personality. Correct?



Do your researches of how milk is made.

These verses are fair enough for me to believe in the wisdom of the source, considering WHEN it was first introduced to humanity and after how many centuries we reached the same conclusions after reliable researches. How can I deny it?

Now let me quote Spinoza in his wise saying, which i totally agree with.


"I'm persuaded that the certitude of Divine revelation can be established solely by the wisdom of the doctrine

and not by miracles; that is to say by ignorance" - Benedict Spinoza


It's not because of the religious laws or what religion promotes. It's because people who are ruling these countries are fucked up people. People who are working according to their own agenda, their own interest is what matters for them. This is mostly in the third world countries. Without mentioning the pressure that they have from above (from more powerful countries).


This doesn't mean that what you are saying is correct.

Now because you are using scripture, This will most like be one of the lasts or last post I make, because this is just getting beyond stupidity.

Man wrote Holy Text
therefore
Holy text is the word of man.
therefore
it was never divine doctrine
therefore
it is just a book
end

Some things being true doesn't equally distribute that truthfulness to everything else. That is called a generalization.
a basic example could be:
That frog is green
That frog hops
That frog catches insects with it's tongue
That frog can come back from the dead.

Just because the first 3 are true does not make the fourth one true.

If by now you don't get how this disqualifies everything else. Its like a trial for religion. I the prosecution presented by case with as much patents that I could. You have presented your case somewhat for the case of God and religion, and I have to say, you certainly had no arguments that I'd consider worthwhile dissecting.
Many of which never addressed the problems I point out, and are replied to with more religious doctrine. Which I said at the begining of the thread was not made by god.

As a final statement.
Have you ever heard of the philosophical problem called
The problem of evil?
Essentially what it boils down to is that no Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Loving god could ever create anything 'evil'
because by definition it would know its creating evil, it will know what that evil will do, and Nothing that is considered loving would make evil by the definition of loving.
 
Now because you are using scripture, This will most like be one of the lasts or last post I make, because this is just getting beyond stupidity.
You obviously didn't get the point of my previous post. If you prefer ending the conversation once somebody quotes anything from any reference without trying to look at things from that perspective, then you are mentally blind.
If my memory serves me well, you did the same thing in previous debates on this forum, whenever you run out of arguments or you are incapable of understanding the others, you stop the conversation... big head.
I gave those quotes so that you could see how that "book written by a man" referred to things that science could only discover recently or later after the first time that book was introduced to men. How could someone living in that period know all those stuff?

As a final statement.
Have you ever heard of the philosophical problem called
The problem of evil?
Essentially what it boils down to is that no Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Loving god could ever create anything 'evil'
because by definition it would know its creating evil, it will know what that evil will do, and Nothing that is considered loving would make evil by the definition of loving.

What the hell evil is?
It's not something created, it's like maths.
 
I gave those quotes so that you could see how that "book written by a man" referred to things that science could only discover recently or later after the first time that book was introduced to men. How could someone living in that period know all those stuff?

Some pretty long bows and inherently 'obvious' statements there though. A million monkeys will eventually bash something out that can be interpreted as a prediction of the future, and the more vaguely you are willing to allow it to fit in your interpretation the more you're going to find. What other part of the body is more likely to be the 'personality centre' for fucks sake? The face, or 'front of the head' is where it is all conveyed!
 
You obviously didn't get the point of my previous post. If you prefer ending the conversation once somebody quotes anything from any reference without trying to look at things from that perspective, then you are mentally blind.
If my memory serves me well, you did the same thing in previous debates on this forum, whenever you run out of arguments or you are incapable of understanding the others, you stop the conversation... big head.
I gave those quotes so that you could see how that "book written by a man" referred to things that science could only discover recently or later after the first time that book was introduced to men. How could someone living in that period know all those stuff?



What the hell evil is?
It's not something created, it's like maths.

Well, I gave you an answer. I don't know if you understood what I am talking about.
I mentioned how they would of know these things before..... when I said that the Christians burned many libraries of knowledge because they thought that it was Heretic Literature. It was alchemy and science they destroyed. Christians still do book burnings because they are still retards.

Really I read those quotes and I said... BIG FUCKING DEAL. So people knew that people left behind fingerprints. Well there is nothing divine about that so what is the point of presenting that in a thread where you are suppose to be proving god is real and the religions are correct. Wow, so in the sandy and dusty desert they saw the markings of a fingerprint and saw with their eyes mind you, that fingers have different prints. How is that suppose to convince me that God exists exactly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Evil
Read it already.
If my memory serves me well, you did the same thing in previous debates on this forum, whenever you run out of arguments or you are incapable of understanding the others, you stop the conversation... big head.

No, I typically lose my composure towards the subject because I am not going to go into a name calling contest on the internet with some creationist mental case who hallucinates God. Get some medication for that.
There is something to be said about those who'll accept anything to be true and the kinds of things they are capable of.
Plus I am always very insulted by the lack of respect when it comes to the terms of Information cited that is never read and therefore ignored and that is quite possible the worse part of these discussions.
 
If by now you don't get how this disqualifies everything else. Its like a trial for religion. I the prosecution presented by case with as much patents that I could. You have presented your case somewhat for the case of God and religion, and I have to say, you certainly had no arguments that I'd consider worthwhile dissecting.

You haven't dissected any argument against you. You just reply with a long drawn out version of "BULLSHIT, YOU BELIEVE IN GOD SO YOUR OPINIONS ARE STOOPID AND NOT WORTH MY TIME". This is lazy and extremely narrow minded.

But it's obvious you are of the lazy sort, when you know don't even have a firm grasp of english but are to lazy to bother spell checking simple words with google which takes like 5 seconds.

I don't agree with hexwind on most of his religious opinions, but I will agree there is a supernatural power out there, and that is all I will argue here. Not from religious texts, not from religion, but because the intricacies of nature require intelligent design.

How long the earth has been around and how many species have died out is all unknown, but this "one species turned into an entirely different species" bullshit that evolution posits has yet to be proven, and it never will be. It doesn't happen now (at least not without unnatural practices in a lab), and it never happened before. Anyone who thinks all the various complex and/or simple biosystems on earth could just happen by chance is the individual in need of "medication".
 
You haven't dissected any argument against you. You just reply with a long drawn out version of "BULLSHIT, YOU BELIEVE IN GOD SO YOUR OPINIONS ARE STOOPID AND NOT WORTH MY TIME". This is lazy and extremely narrow minded.
No it is concise and to the point. It is efficient.
But it's obvious you are of the lazy sort, when you know don't even have a firm grasp of english but are to lazy to bother spell checking simple words with google which takes like 5 seconds.

I don't agree with hexwind on most of his religious opinions, but I will agree there is a supernatural power out there, and that is all I will argue here. Not from religious texts, not from religion, but because the intricacies of nature require intelligent design.

How long the earth has been around and how many species have died out is all unknown, but this "one species turned into an entirely different species" bullshit that evolution posits has yet to be proven, and it never will be. It doesn't happen now (at least not without unnatural practices in a lab), and it never happened before. Anyone who thinks all the various complex and/or simple biosystems on earth could just happen by chance is the individual in need of "medication".

I guess the 99.99% or scientists who use the same processes to advance technology and understanding of the universe must be completely wrong. Why bother having peer reviewed journals of scientific findings that other scientist can test claims when it is clearly in the domain of GOD and its intelligent design of life. Creationist aka intelligent designers, are totally right then.... its all just god, all answers is god, why would you need anything else?
Your doubt in evolution, is only a product of your wacko beliefs. All normal cognitive and rational people have seen the evidence of evolution and recognize it's validity.

My biggest puzzle about deists is "Why MUST there be a creator at all?
Why is it a necessity?
IT is alright to say "I don't know" and that is acceptable. Science says that all the time, but the difference is that they will try to know. That is what we call Knowledge.
 
Speaking from a Christian point of view, the majority of us don't have a problem with atheists; considering most my mates are atheists, I doubt I'd get very far if I didn't!

But aggressive atheists annoy me as much as religious fundies. Particularly Dawkins. I read this pretty good article recently:

Dawkins preaches to the deluded against the divine

LIKE revivalists from an alternative universe, 2500 hardcore believers in the absence of religion packed into the Global Atheists Convention in Melbourne last weekend to give a hero's welcome to the high priest of belief in unbelief, Richard Dawkins.

The bestselling author of The God Delusion was similarly fawned over by the Australian media, which uncritically lapped up everything he said.
This was even after (or perhaps because) he referred to the Pope as a Nazi, which managed to combine defamation of the pontiff with implicit Holocaust denial.
By comparison, Family First senator Steve Fielding (Aussie Christian politician - Andyman) may feel he got off lightly when Dawkins described him merely as more stupid than an earthworm.
For someone who has made a career out of telling everyone how much more tolerant the world would be if only religion were obliterated from the human psyche, Dawkins manages to appear remarkably intolerant towards anyone who disagrees with him.
The fact is, however, the shine has come off Dawkins. For sure, he remains a superstar for the legions who loathe religion. But, nevertheless, a strong feeling has developed in less credulous quarters that he has gone too far.
While he was writing about the "selfish gene" and the "blind watchmaker", he received a respectful reception even from those who might have disagreed with him but were nevertheless impressed by the imaginative brio and dazzling fluency of his argument. But then he left biology behind and became the self-appointed universal crusader against God. Flying the flag of Darwinism, he went to war against religion on the grounds that any belief that did not follow the rules of scientific inquiry was prima facie evidence of imbecility or insanity.
He became the apostle of scientism, the ideology that says everything in the universe has a materialist explanation and must answer to the rules of empirical scientific evidence; to believe anything else is irrational.
A second's thought tells one this is absurd. Love, law and philosophy are not scientific yet they are not irrational. So it is scientism that seems to be irrational.
As for Dawkins's claim that religion is responsible for the ills of the world, this is demonstrably a wild distortion. Some of the worst horrors in human history - the French revolutionary terror, Nazism, communism - have been atheist creeds. And although terrible things indeed have been done in the name of religion, the fact remains that Christianity and the Hebrew Bible form the foundation stone of Western civilisation and its great cause of human equality and freedom.
Through such hubristic overreach, Dawkins has opened himself up to attack from quarters that, unlike the theologians he routinely knocks around the park, he cannot so easily disdain.
Books taking his arguments apart on his own purported ground of scientific reason have been published by a growing number of eminent scientists and philosophers, including mathematicians David Berlinski and John Lennox, biochemist Alister McGrath, geneticist Francis Collins, and philosopher and recanting atheist Anthony Flew.
These have itemised his many howlers, sloppy assertions, internal contradictions, unscientific reasoning and illogicality. His responses to these stellar intellects are fascinating. He claims they cannot possibly have meant what they wrote, or they are senile, or their scientific credentials are somehow obviated by the fact they are practising Christians.
Indeed, he seems almost to believe that, since everyone who believes in God is stupid or evil and Christians are stupid and evil because they believe in God, those who oppose him must be Christian and can be treated with contempt.
I had first-hand experience of this when, addressing an audience of US atheists, he accused me of "lying for Jesus" by misquoting him. This came as something of a surprise since I am a Jew. Moreover, far from me misquoting him, which was not the case, he had in fact ascribed to me words that had been written by someone else.
This anecdote raises in turn the most intriguing question of all about Dawkins. Just why is he so angry and why does he hate religion so much? After all, as many religious scientists can attest, science and religion are - contrary to his claim - not incompatible at all.
A clue lies in his insistence that a principal reason for believing that there could be no intelligence behind the origin of life is that the alternative - God - is unthinkable. This terror of such an alternative was summed up by a similarly minded geneticist as the fear that pursuing such thinking to its logical ends might allow "the divine foot in the door".
Such concern is telling because it suggests a lack of confidence by the Dawkins camp in its own position and a corresponding fear of rigorous thinking.
To stamp out the terrifying possibility of even a divine toe peeping over the threshold, all opposition has to be shut down. And so the great paradox is that the arch-hater of religious intolerance himself behaves with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist and, despite excoriating religion for stifling debate, does this in spades.
An illuminating example was provided by an atheists summer camp for children last year in Britain that Dawkins backed. The children who took part were to be taught to be critical thinkers, yet all discussion of religion was ruthlessly excluded.
Far from opening young minds, this was shutting them in the ostensible cause of reason.
Such indoctrination is a hallmark of the fundamentalist who knows he is not just right but righteous. So all who oppose him are by definition not just wrong but evil. Which is why alternative views must be howled down or suppressed.
This is, of course, the characteristic of all totalitarian regimes, including religious inquisitions. Which is why Dawkins can lay claim to being not the most enlightened thinker on the planet, as his acolytes regard him, but instead the Savonarola of scientism and an intolerant closer of minds.
Melanie Phillips's new book, The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power, will be published by Encounter, New York, on April 20.
 
No it is concise and to the point. It is efficient.

It's also efficient to lay in bed all day, which is also lazy and narrow minded.

I guess the 99.99% or scientists who use the same processes to advance technology and understanding of the universe must be completely wrong. Why bother having peer reviewed journals of scientific findings that other scientist can test claims when it is clearly in the domain of GOD and its intelligent design of life. Creationist aka intelligent designers, are totally right then.... its all just god, all answers is god, why would you need anything else?
Your doubt in evolution, is only a product of your wacko beliefs. All normal cognitive and rational people have seen the evidence of evolution and recognize it's validity.

My biggest puzzle about deists is "Why MUST there be a creator at all?
Why is it a necessity?
IT is alright to say "I don't know" and that is acceptable. Science says that all the time, but the difference is that they will try to know. That is what we call Knowledge.

No my doubt in evolution is a product of a lack of historical data or observable phenomena. There isn't any to be peer revued, so I am not sure what you are referring to.

If you mean someone looking at two different organisms and drawing unprovable conclusions based on a previous mindset, and others prescribing to this same point of view clapping him/her on the back for maintaining the status quo (peer revue), then I must lol.

It IS alright to say "I don't know", because there is plenty that we don't know about the universe that we can see and measure currently. Much less about things that happened in ancient history that isn't accessible due to the passage of time.

To make a blanket statement like "All normal cognitive and rational people have seen the evidence of evolution and recognize it's validity" is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

Regarding "Why must there be a creator" I already answered that. But it doesn't meet your narrow world view and therefore must be wrong.
 
I wouldnt have thought there was this much to say on the matter. It all seems self explainatory to me. "extreme" anything has a overly motivated critiera.