My disappointment, disagreement and disgust with the militant atheist movement

Do you know what apatheism is? It avoids this logical fallacy that theists and atheists entrap themselves in.

What do you mean by "sworn up and down that atheism is ONLY defineable by individuals"? You seem to be stuck with the idea atheism is an ideology, which it isnt.

You are saying Dawkins has been misquoted and taken out of context by myself? Could you give an example. I find it remarkable you go to such lengths to oppose me by defending Dawkins.

This was not the purpose of my thread.

I was describing my feelings. Do you have a problem with that? You seem to express your only feelings regularly, surely you cant serious in saiyng there is something wrong in that? I didnt use my disgust as an argument, I instead explained why I fell such disgust.

LOL You think I jumped ship and am a theist now?

 

The God Delusion is the only Atheist book I started reading. In Dawkins' book, he comes across as an angry teenager rebelling against his father.

 

LOL When my friend lent it to me a few years ago, that was the same feeling I got. I think my Chomsky article highlighted my feeling at that time. My further notations in the OP a bout his argumentation articulate my position now.

 

Because you say so?

And that has what to do with:

a. Whether or not you have taken the time to actually read something you are commenting on?

b. Your sudden conversion away from blind defense of atheism?

You have, in the past, been a tremendous defender of Dawkins and Co. Routinely lectured us about who stupid we were to follow faith when giants like Dawkins strode the earth.

Of course, it is US, not you, that has been trapped by something fallacious? Those of us who have read and ultimately rejected Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, and can make a cogent case as to why are the ones trapped by fallacy?

Why do you need to dump on people?

Its a simple question: Why your sudden conversion?

No, I believe you embody modern atheism. Atheism is whatever it needs to be to disagree with and belittle other people. Its constant flip flops, arrogance, and contention. Hence the Dawkins is a great man, but militant athiesm is NOW wrong - for now.

I am saying its easy to show one thing in a video and the reality of the God Delusion is something called genetic based morality for which Dawkins makes a case.

The fact that hes and ********? Who cares? His science is fundamentally flawed. Those most at fault in their militancy are those who blindly follow him or reject him merely because he is an atheist and pay no attention to the actual 'science' he advocates.

Again, you are just bashing people.

Who cares?

So now we are debating your 'feelings'? Who friggin' care about how you feel about Dawkins? It is irrelavant to an actual debate isn't it? What matters is whether Dawkins is correct in his analysis and THEN why being a jerk about being wrong is a good thing.

But you aren't touching on any of that. You are simply pointing out someone else's flaws and, as usual, daring someone to disagree with you so you can take a (*)(*)(*)(*) on him.

Again, simple question: why the sudden change of heart and utter unapologetic attitude toward the people you have routinely insulted on this forum for daring to point out Dawkins flaws?

Do you understand why people detest Benedict Arnold now? Its not a legit conversion, its pure personal politics.

Nope, I just think you are equal opportunity in sheer obstinance with a telling ability to demand answers but never actually answer a question.

Do you really think this debate should be centered around your feelings for example?

Again, I have told you this before - you are not the world's judge. You are not righteous simply because you condem other people - and someday, you might just understand that.

 

Why is criticism of religion, whether it is warranted or not, always compared to a rebellion against an authoritative figure?

Why doesn't he come across, for example, like a father cursing the immature silliness of his teenage sons?

 

Why is all criticism of atheism dismissed with a whine and a snivel?

 

You are giving an answer, but not one that actually addresses the question. Sort of like if you asked me how many fingers you are holding up and I reply, "purple". To be fair though, I don't believe you are doing it on purpose, just merely a result of your strong beliefs.

But you're just parroting what the Bible says, which as I explained is not a valid answer to the question I asked.

I understand that this is what your Bible says. But please understand that followers of other religions feel the same way about their respective holy texts as you do about yours. How do you know that yours is correct and theirs is not?

And once more, please, telling me what it says in the Bible is not a valid answer - that is a circular fallacy. Please explain why the Christian Bible is correct and other texts are not, without referencing what the Bible says.

I don't mean others that specifically refer to Jesus Christ, just that other theistic religions believe their god and holy writings are true, just as you do.

 

The Bible is correct because it is the revelation of God.

The Christian knows this because God has opened his eyes to see it. God has given him His Spirit to know.

Quantrill

 

Actually most studies on the subject suggest the opposite. Atheists and agnostics are more familiar with the bible on average than are most Christians (but not as much when compared to Catholics).
I've read the NT cover-to-cover, parts of the OT (it's like reading a really long budget statement).

#2 - I have long criticized the lot of atheist analysis, Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. and regulary site their works to demonstrate the flaws in the arguementation.

Every atheist on this forum has previously assured me that NO atheist but them could speak for them, and disparaged me for pointing out that these guys are selling thousands of books to someone? But not them. [/QUOTE]
Just because someone buys or reads something, doesn't mean they agree.

See my response to #1 for an example.

I've read lots of Hitchens' articles. I've read some articles by Harris. I've heard them all speak on the radio.
I don't buy their books and I don't see a point. They're very open about their philosophies. Why pay them for their vitriol in long-form?
At least the bible is of cultural and historic significance.