|
Is atheism/agnosticism the trend now? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| stren |
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
Atheism just quickly became a religion of it's own for the "enlightened".
I figured out there was no god all on my own as a kid. I don't need to join any sort of organization to strengthen that belief or try to convert others around me. I mean what are we all going to tithe to the church of atheism? they are just trying to keep all of the formal religious aspects, but based on a new set of tenants and principles. I would rather the concept of religion just die. |
I do not know how can you compare Atheism to a religion ? religions require dogma and not believing in something is not a religion.
WAT?
| quote: | Originally posted by rubez
hitchen's was a prick as well. in fact all these atheist spokesmen are ****s.
they are running a racket just the same as the churches and jessie jackson etc are. |
a racket ? how are they making this exactly ? |
|
|
| Vector A |
They are no more "running a racket" than any other author promoting a book.
Anyway, if you don't believe in any gods, you are an atheist. Regardless of whether you think that the dreaded label tarnishes your oh-so-complex ideas and sentiments about religion.
Atheists don't all belong to a single unified "church" any more than theists do. |
|
|
| bluegmt |
I don't get why it is so important to read famous and smart authors about religon and/or atheism. I mean, as an agnostic, the only religious books I'd read would be the Bible and the Quran and maybe a few books about religion and its history.
But why would I read a book which talks about beliefs and trying to prove a certain point of view and rejecting the others?
I think beliefs are deeply intimate and I don't want someone to tell me what to or not to believe... |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vector A
They are no more "running a racket" than any other author promoting a book.
Anyway, if you don't believe in any gods, you are an atheist. Regardless of whether you think that the dreaded label tarnishes your oh-so-complex ideas and sentiments about religion.
Atheists don't all belong to a single unified "church" any more than theists do. |
I agree and I'm glad you brought attention to book sales that some atheists clearly care about. (Not blaming them, if I wrote a book I'd want people to read it and make money off it)
I often wonder if Dawkins is less vehement and aggressive in his beliefs outside of the public eye and that his scathing comments towards religious types is some sort of gimmick. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
| I've read neither author but I'd assume they're presenting ideas in a combative manner to attract rating/sales. We wouldn't be talking about them if it didn't work. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
I don't think it's quite that simple. Much of Dawkins' anger comes from the ways that religion around the world is used as a way of controlling people, from oppressive religious law that enforces patriarchal social structures to the way children are indoctrinated from an age where they're too young to make a decision for themselves. And some of it probably comes from the way some religious institutes try and defy or appropriate science, which is no doubt infuriating to a scientist like Dawkins.
As I said before though, Dawkins is really a preacher to the already-converted. He might argue publicly with and against religious figureheads and institutions, but he's not really talking to them. He's actually directing his message at a certain kind of atheist: the arrogant, self-congratulatory atheist who smugly believes themselves to be more rational and intelligent for seeing through the "children's stories" of religion and confronting the truth of reality without a "comfort blanket". That's Dawkins' audience. His entire body of work is one giant pat on the back for the self-regarding atheists of the world. His belligerent style doesn't make any attempt to reach out to the religious and convince them of anything. It's a polemic to be repeated by people who already agree with Richard Dawkins. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
| I can see trying to level the playing field. Religious people have an organization, thousands years of history, religious texts, millions of believer and countless experts/scholars. All of which adds legitimacy to their beliefs and is a daunting for an individual to hold his own against. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
I bet Richard Dawkins has a really small dick and that's what drives all his THERE IS NO GODDDDDD :mad: stuff.
Plus he looks like a cunt and has a really in irritating ty voice.
Just a thought. :o |
|
|
| Alex |
| His dick is so small microbiologists don't have the technology or skills to study it. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Holy what a burn! :stongue::stongue: |
|
|
| Lira |
No, pretty much for this reason:
There have never been so many atheists and agnostics in the world, but they're a pretty much a minority in the world, with the unaffiliated being just a bit more numerous than Hindus (of course, not everyone is a sceptic in this group), but the number is bound to shrink, proportion wise, in the next few decades.
As for where I live, a tenth of Brasília's population is either atheist or agnostic, but we're note exactly a vocal minority because some people have really ruined the conversation for us. Thank you very much, Dawkins :mad: |
|
|
|
|
