ChatterBank4 mins ago
The Trouble with Atheism
99 Answers
Are atheists neo-Jacobins ?
http://documentaryhea...trouble-with-atheism/
http://documentaryhea...trouble-with-atheism/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"What utter drivel! Which evidence is this, or have you simply made the above statement up? "
Nope, they copied and pasted it from here.
http://www.religiousf...ltimate-thread-2.html
Nope, they copied and pasted it from here.
http://www.religiousf...ltimate-thread-2.html
-- answer removed --
DT:.......<< http://www.religiousf...ltimate-thread-2.html
>>
Wrong again. I have just had a look at this link – so sorry to disappoint you. This is not a site I have ever seen before now. Just what are you hoping to achieve? IMO you are just a nasty person – I’d much rather you did not bother posting on my threads. Plus the odds are rather uneven – I’m one against about 20 – but I think you are the worst.
>>
Wrong again. I have just had a look at this link – so sorry to disappoint you. This is not a site I have ever seen before now. Just what are you hoping to achieve? IMO you are just a nasty person – I’d much rather you did not bother posting on my threads. Plus the odds are rather uneven – I’m one against about 20 – but I think you are the worst.
Are Khandro and Elderman one and the same, then? I ask because - four slots above this - the latter chides DT by writing, "I’d much rather you did not bother posting on MY threads" despite the fact that the thread was apparently started by the former!
Whichever, he/she is seemingly unaware that plagiarism is relatively easy to establish. Just highlight an original-looking piece of text in the suspect writing and put it - within inverted commas - into the Google search-slot. If you get a 'hit' that's very probably where the text came from.
Whichever, he/she is seemingly unaware that plagiarism is relatively easy to establish. Just highlight an original-looking piece of text in the suspect writing and put it - within inverted commas - into the Google search-slot. If you get a 'hit' that's very probably where the text came from.
2shortplanks //The only trouble I have with Atheism is that (some, not all) Believers will insist on telling me that I'm wrong and pray for my soul. //
I won't tell you that. However I do object to the assumption of the faithful that their delusions aught to be taken seriously when designing public policy.
I also object to the notion that religious views warrant automatic respect and their proponents allowed to present their philosophy free from all criticism. It is an utterly ludricous presumption.
I won't tell you that. However I do object to the assumption of the faithful that their delusions aught to be taken seriously when designing public policy.
I also object to the notion that religious views warrant automatic respect and their proponents allowed to present their philosophy free from all criticism. It is an utterly ludricous presumption.
I think I saw this when it aired a few years back.
I think one of the key points was the dogmatic way that atheists can behave which tends to look like belief.
In my opinion however that's a misunderstanding of the way that Science aand rationality work.
There is this nice "Baconian" model of Science where theories are postulated and experiments are done and everybody assess the data and goes with the data that fit's the experiment.
In my exprience this is Hogwash
What happens is that people take opposing views, sometimes out of reasoned argument and sometimes out of irrational beliefs.
Then experiments and observations are assessed and there's a big shouting match and slowly but surely opinion gravitates to the side that is gaining better data.
You can see this nicely with Fred Hoyle sticking to his steady state theory long after the background radiation evidence made the Big Bang model a "shoe in".
In short Science is not Baconian - it's Darwinian
So from the outside it can look quite religious and there are certainly enough Athiests tat approach their position with that same fanatical zeal - but they are the athiest "fundamentalists" and don't represent free thinking any more than Ian Paisley repesents Christianity
I think one of the key points was the dogmatic way that atheists can behave which tends to look like belief.
In my opinion however that's a misunderstanding of the way that Science aand rationality work.
There is this nice "Baconian" model of Science where theories are postulated and experiments are done and everybody assess the data and goes with the data that fit's the experiment.
In my exprience this is Hogwash
What happens is that people take opposing views, sometimes out of reasoned argument and sometimes out of irrational beliefs.
Then experiments and observations are assessed and there's a big shouting match and slowly but surely opinion gravitates to the side that is gaining better data.
You can see this nicely with Fred Hoyle sticking to his steady state theory long after the background radiation evidence made the Big Bang model a "shoe in".
In short Science is not Baconian - it's Darwinian
So from the outside it can look quite religious and there are certainly enough Athiests tat approach their position with that same fanatical zeal - but they are the athiest "fundamentalists" and don't represent free thinking any more than Ian Paisley repesents Christianity
