The illogic of Atheism

Let me also point out his entire diatribe is one assertion after another. Why should you or anyone stand with him or against him? How do you know his points are valid or not valid? You don't. You and every member like his points simply because you don't like atheism, atheists and what it all stands for a materialistic mechanistic it all happen by chance non spiritual view of reality more or less ( meaning members have various degrees how much tolerance they prefer for that perspective). That is an assertion. Is this a correct observation or not? You tell me.

Completely wrong, as always steve. You continue to believe that people can only be proponents if they're emotionally motivated and have no other rationale whatsoever. I haven't even read the article - I chimed in about Dawkins in particular and have limited my posts in this thread to that topic thus far.

I don't "like" people's points because they are for or against atheism, theism, the existence of psi or not. I do my best to pay more attention to and have more respect for ones that are substantiated, well reasoned, and that acknowledge the other side's arguments without hand waving them away by avoiding actual discussion of why you think they come up short. I have agreed with and disagreed with many people who say they're atheists, just like I've agreed and disagreed with many who say they're theists. Unlike you, I don't reflexively dismiss people and chalk it all up to emotion.

And amazingly you go as far as saying that me and "every member" "don't like atheists". Another completely false and baseless assertion. We're talking about beliefs here - not necessarily people, unless you're alleging that all people who share a belief act the same or are of equal stature in terms of fairness, approach, demeanor, and reason.

Completely wrong, as always steve. You continue to believe that people can only be proponents if they're emotionally motivated and have no other rationale whatsoever. I haven't even read the article - I chimed in about Dawkins in particular and have limited my posts in this thread to that topic thus far.

I wonder if Steve is reading the same thread as the rest of us. The proponent response to the article was pretty cool if you actually read the initial posts:

Silence:

Man, its tough to take things at face value on the internet.


Malf: (Liked by Valmar)

Surely that quote from Hitchens was tongue-in-cheek?

Chris: (Liked by Obiwan, Valmar and Typoz)

Not only that, but it's taken out of context and the beginning has been altered in a misleading way.

Sciborg:

I don't get the essay's assertion that no one knew what they were talking about when speaking of "God". 

Kamarling:

But, back to the article, I think he is somewhat inconsistent throughout.

It seems to me that Linda stirred the controversy by defending Dawkins which, as has been pointed out, is something even his fellow atheists are increasingly reluctant to do. However, I have Linda and Steve on ignore so these are my impressions from the bits of posts that have been included in replies.

Completely wrong, as always steve. You continue to believe that people can only be proponents if they're emotionally motivated and have no other rationale whatsoever. I haven't even read the article - I chimed in about Dawkins in particular and have limited my posts in this thread to that topic thus far.

I don't "like" people's points because they are for or against atheism, theism, the existence of psi or not. I do my best to pay more attention to and have more respect for ones that are substantiated, well reasoned, and that acknowledge the other side's arguments without hand waving them away by avoiding actual discussion of why you think they come up short. I have agreed with and disagreed with many people who say they're atheists, just like I've agreed and disagreed with many who say they're theists. Unlike you, I don't reflexively dismiss people and chalk it all up to emotion.

And amazingly you go as far as saying that me and "every member" "don't like atheists". Another completely false and baseless assertion. We're talking about beliefs here - not necessarily people, unless you're alleging that all people who share a belief act the same or are of equal stature in terms of fairness, approach, demeanor, and reason.

I never had allusions you'd say I was right. I never insinuated emotion was part of it. I must be listening to a different channel. All I hear is an outcry against materialism... . I see this often. Citing someone without checking that persons credentials. In this case Mr. Mathis. Why and How do you know his assertions are well reasoned?

I never had allusions you'd say I was right. I never insinuated emotion was part of it. I must be listening to a different channel. All I hear is an outcry against materialism... . I see this often. Citing someone without checking that persons credentials. In this case Mr. Mathis. Why and How do you know his assertions are well reasoned?

You're right, you didn't insinuate it, you said it explicitly. You literally said "because you don't like atheism or atheists". You didn't say "because you disagreed with the way Dawkins composes himself and attempts to argue, or his arguments themselves".

You're absolutely correct that you're listening to a different channel. Where is the outcry against materialism here? Perhaps you're reading something into the conversation that hasn't happened. 

And as further evidence that you're certainly not reading anything in this thread, in my very last post I said that I haven't read the article and haven't commented on it at all in this thread. I never said anything about Mathis, his credentials, or how well reasoned he is.

It seems to me that Linda stirred the controversy by defending Dawkins which, as has been pointed out, is something even his fellow atheists are increasingly reluctant to do.

In case I'm asked to justify this "assertion", here are a few links:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/02/call...aith-wars/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien...89396.html

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/1...-damaging/

Further, I think that there is a tendency for some atheists to promote the "them and us" approach by ascribing religious motivation to anyone who criticised their atheism. My sense of the proponent view on this forum is certainly not that it comes from a religious imperative. I'm reminded of some Einstein quotes on the subject of atheism. It seems that the old guy had no belief in a personal god but had little time for atheists, particularly the fanatics.

‘I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.’ (Quoted in M. Jammer, Einstein and Religion, Princeton 1999, p. 48.)

'Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge against the traditional "opium for the people" - cannot bear the music of the spheres.' (ibid, p. 97.)

‘What really makes me angry is that they ['people who say there is no God'] quote me for support of their views.’ (ibid, p. 150.)

You're absolutely correct that you're listening to a different channel. Where is the outcry against materialism here? Perhaps you're reading something into the conversation that hasn't happened. 

Agreed that this conversation has no such outcry so one should ask who is the one driven by emotion? If we are to consider the views of proponents in general, well, of course there is an antipathy towards materialism: that's the debate! What else would he expect?

No one save member Chris provided any direct evidences.

I did as well.  Linda dismissed it as is her right, but I stand by the substantiation of the specified assertion made by the OP's linked article's author.

You and every member like his points simply because you don't like atheism

Really Steve?  Did you poll every member?

I don't like Dawkins because I believe he's intellectually dishonest, mean spirited, and unkind.  I could care less that he's an atheist at his core.  I know many in my personal life and I don't run around "disliking their points" just because I don't share their metaphysical world view.  Same thing goes for many deeply religious folks in my personal life.

Up your game man.  That was weak.

EDIT: Apologies to all as I failed to read ahead and see Dante's more eloquent response.  Makes what I wrote here duplicitous.

I did as well.  Linda dismissed it as is her right, but I stand by the substantiation of the specified assertion made by the OP's linked article's author.

I listened to your video link. The only thing  that stood out occurred at about 25 minutes. There he said, go mock... . What I can't  discern is, did he mean to mock an individual personally or mock to no one but mock in general. Do you know?

Really Steve?  Did you poll every member?

I don't like Dawkins because I believe he's intellectually dishonest, mean spirited, and unkind.  I could care less that he's an atheist at his core.  I know many in my personal life and I don't run around "disliking their points" just because I don't share their metaphysical world view.  Same thing goes for many deeply religious folks in my personal life.

Up your game man.  That was weak.

EDIT: Apologies to all as I failed to read ahead and see Dante's more eloquent response.  Makes what I wrote here duplicitous.

You took what I wrote without the caveat.  Go back to that post.

In case I'm asked to justify this "assertion", here are a few links:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/02/call...aith-wars/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien...89396.html

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/1...-damaging/

Further, I think that there is a tendency for some atheists to promote the "them and us" approach by ascribing religious motivation to anyone who criticised their atheism. My sense of the proponent view on this forum is certainly not that it comes from a religious imperative. I'm reminded of some Einstein quotes on the subject of atheism. It seems that the old guy had no belief in a personal god but had little time for atheists, particularly the fanatics.

Good for Karmarling to actually back up your assertions.