Posted on 12/06/2009 6:47:01 AM PST by Schnucki
If you had to come up with a subject for a debate, one that would persuade more than a thousand people to leave their firesides on a wet winter evening to sit in a draughty sports hall, what would you plump for? It would have to be something pretty charged, you would imagine. Or at least salacious. About Katie Price, perhaps, or Tiger Woods.
But no. The motion that had them standing in the aisles and dangling from the rafters at Wellington College was: "Is atheism the new fundamentalism?" True, this was an Intelligence Squared debate, and there was a good line-up: Lord Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford, and Charles Moore of The Daily Telegraph for the motion, Professors A C Grayling and Richard Dawkins against. But still. Atheism? When did this become such a crowd-puller?
The answer seems to be: "After September 11." At one point, indeed, Dawkins said that the next atheist slogan he would like to see on the side of a bus is: "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." He got a cheer for that, as he did for most things, the atheists in the audience outnumbering the believers by a wide margin. That didn't surprise me. What did was their lack of courtesy. There was even the odd jeer when the Christians were speaking. I had assumed that part of the point of being an atheist was that you were tolerant of the views of others.
In fact, while it was a gripping debate, I was struck by how little empathy there was between these two groups of wise and worldly men. The professor of philosophy seemed to have no idea how insulting he was being to the bishop when he compared his belief
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Athiests = UFO spoters.
“When you have no argument, go for grammar. Nice to see you keeping that tradition alive. Douchebag.”
And when both reason and grammar fail, go for the Ad Hominem attack
After all, God created all atheists didn't he ???
I had assumed that part of the point of being an atheist was that you were tolerant of the views of others.
Wrong, the whole point to being an atheist is hating the God you insist doesn’t exist.
That is so true. That is what I told my “atheist” brother, he just hates God.
Atheists may not believe in God but they probably do believe in abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage and global warming.
Atheists who are driven to essentially proselytize are fundies of a different stripe, but fundamentalists they are.
They’re just selling consequence-free sex to teenagers, when you get right down to it. Preganancy? Abortion. STD? Prophylactics and drugs. AIDS? Reagan’s fault. Consequences? What consequences?
Fundamentally juvenile, is what it is. Most grow out of it. Those who don’t, become bitter and buy billboards trying to convince others of their rightness.
Those who see the Universe as All that There Is...
And Those who see the Universe as a Created Thing
— With a Creator and a Purpose --
See with an entirely different set of Symbols in Their Heads
Talking to each other is like speaking
Swahili to one who hears in Shinto symbols
The sounds may be vaguely familiar, but
Neither understands the other
This is the problem with Communication between those
with dramatically different Metaphysics
I think you are assuming an awful lot.
If your faith in God is strong, atheism cannot, by definition, threaten your views. As for tying in these other issues, I assume you have some source other than your 'belief' that atheists adopt these positions by default?
Yes, and I love the insight!
These folks are zealous these days. Books, billboards, bus signs, talk shows, litigation. . .
Bunch of atheist ‘fundies.
I love Christian ‘fundies, though, and many consider me to be one, even though using perfect theological criteria I guess I’m not.
Atheists are mostly liberal anyway, so we don’t see many of them on a conservatve site, DU has a lot of them though.
Why is the burden of proof on us? Isn’t agnosticism a more honest intellectual approach to the existence of God? Of course, Aristotle points to a First Cause by reason alone.
Bad thinking was the problem—the spelling and typing was a bonus.
What a sloppy argument, typical of the atheist who doesn’t know why he or she doesn’t believe. It also is a slap in the face of the theist, so it’s a twofer.
I don’t believe that gods are invisible unicorns, or angry old men in the sky, or any other atheist tropes. I believe in a God who created the existing universe, and who has left evidence in creation - in the human mind and heart - of this fact. Of course, we could be merely conceited amoebas, and this evidence an emergent phenomena due to the complexity of our brains. But we don’t know. And that is why agnosticism is a better state than atheism if you are not convinced of the existence of God.
Ain’t No Threat.
Don’t make it any Less True.
Oh, so you are just making a funny quip about eternal, unendurable torture and pain. Nice.
I will Laugh like Hell when Your Big Toe Busts Hell Wide Open , My FRiend!
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.