Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
This is troubling to many atheists I have known. They believe that theists tend to favor "Kill them all. God will know his own."
Of course, when two or more groups with differing ideas decide to kill thim all, it gets downright historical.
Additionally your logic sucks. Your hubris is fine but your logic is in the dumper. I provided evidence of Dawkins' bigotry, you've provided no such evidence of mine, nor can you.
Now you can be like others and claim that to "stamp out" something doesn't really mean stamp it out or you could take an objective look at it and say, yeah Walsh is right about this one.
However, after your false assertion regarding all my "fundie friends", that was good for a belly laugh, I'm not optimistic.
BTW, weren't you done with me about a thousand posts ago? :-}
It is telling that an atheist would even bother to seek a justification or excuse for his own disbelief.
My Spiritual discernment on such conduct is that they are more likely spiritually rebellious or doubtful than actually disbelieving. A "true" atheist, IMHO, is a metaphysical naturalist who doesn't believe but doesn't mind if you do - he seeks no justification and makes no excuses.
First post you made. You referred to 'Dawkins and his particular brand of Marxism. Despite your tortured logic, you can't prove Dawkins avows Marxism, which my dictionary defines as 'the system of political and economic thought developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' (etc., with not a single mention of Marx's views on religion; maybe that's because a substantial fraction of the Catholic priests in South America are Marxists, eh?). Attaching noxious epithets to a person because you don't like his views on an unrelated subject is bigoted in my view.
By all means criticize outspoken atheists or promoters of Darwinian evolution. Be as harsh as you want; but when you step over the line and say things about them that are malicious and untrue, you're a bigot.
BTW, weren't you done with me about a thousand posts ago?
Yes, but you're still here.
I thought so, chicken. In fact a lying chicken. My daughter's got more character in her little toe than you have in your whole body.
So you actually think that rational arithmetic is closed under all the operations in that equation? Really?
I wonder what the general opinion of FR posters would be. My guess, based on opinions I've read here, is that a significant number would support that ban. It would be an interesting poll.
If not a ban, would you support stamping out that religious teaching by some other means, social for example?
Do you think a ban would stamp it out? Bans per se aren't very effective stamping out means I think.
Do you have any evidence that more than a tiny fraction of people who don't believe in a deity are 'metaphysical naturalists'. Most atheist I know are empirical naturalists; they see no useful reason to posit and no hard evidence for a Deity. Their naturalism does not have metaphysical underpinnings; rather, they've noticed naturalism is a useful way to view the world, and see no pressing reason to abandon it.
Why did the terminology change from atheist to metaphysucal naturalist between posts?
BTW, the single kindest, most effectively charitable person I know is self defined as an atheist.
Drives the church-going neighbor, a very fine person, absolutely nuts..."Why are you so nice?" "Why are your kids so good?" etc.
My conclusion, from this and other examples I know personally, is that the correlation between virtue and religion is low at best.
Here are a few cuts to get the definition process started (emphasis mine):
"Naturalism" refers to a number of different topics:
As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the physical world is a 'closed system' in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it." More simply, it is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. In rejecting the reality of supernatural events, forces, or entities, naturalism is the antithesis of supernaturalism.
As a substantial view about the nature of reality, it is often called metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or ontological naturalism to distinguish it from a related methodological principle. Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is the principle that science and history should presume that all causes are natural causes solely for the purpose of promoting successful investigation. The idea behind this principle is that natural causes can be investigated directly through scientific method, whereas supernatural causes cannot, and hence presuming that an event has a supernatural cause for methodological purposes halts further investigation.
Drange: Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (infidels.org) Suppose you are to answer the following two questions:
Neo Darwinism is a terrific meme. That's right. But that doesn't make it true and I care about what's true. Smallpox virus is a terrific virus. It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it stamped out.
Or this:
Society, for no reason that I can discern, accepts that parents must have an automatic right to bring their children up with particular scientific opinions and can withdraw them from say, religion classes that teach creationism.
Catching on now Professor?
I see you didn't take my advice Ed. No surprise there. But Ed, here I am on a public forum taking on all comers. Mr. Dawkins is welcome to join in. In fact, I'm quite sure you sent him a link to this thread when you emailed him. I'm also quite sure that he would do a more able job than you at defending his atrocious opinions vis a vis stamping out religion. Don't you? :-}
In the discussion, where I changed the term from atheist to metaphysical naturalist, I was following up on an assertion concerning the mind being merely the epiphenomenon of the physical brain (a metaphysically naturalist deduction) and wondering how such an atheist could ever claim to be "fulfilled".
My original post at 2200 (referenced at 2233) needed the additional clarification in the following dialogue with Right Wing Professor.
I think a little analysis of metaphors is in order here. Smallpox was not stamped out by killing or imprisioning all the innocent little poxes. It was stopped from spreading by immunizing people.
This may seem like an irrelevant distinction to you, but it is not irrelevant. The people who were immunized were volunteers.
The implication of Dawkins statement is that he would spread his word with the same ferver that evangelicals spread theirs. There is no force implied.
You might argue that force is used in the public school system, but you would be wrong on several counts. No one requires kids to attend public schools; no one requires those who do to take courses in biology. The content of public school education is determined by politics, just like our laws. Some you approve of and some you don't. Your tax dollars support both. But you are not required by any law to send your kids to public schools.
ferver=feverish fervor
I must say though that the entire thread has been a learning experience.
How does feeling "fulfilled" relate to atheism?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.