Religion

edhopper

(37,381 posts)

95. Reiread the part

Thu Aug 29, 2013, 01:22 PM

Aug 2013

about contrary to everything we know.

"Many universes" what's that?

There is actually quite a bit of evidence of earthlike or life supporting planets in the galaxy, very different from belief in a supreme being that has shown zero evidence in the last 13.5 billion years. The evidence for there not being one is the all the facts we know about the Universe. It is an antiquated idea, like the Ptolemaic universe, or the four humors that no longer holds any validity in the Universe as we know it. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would like to hear.
Saying we don't know everything, so God is possible, with anything to support the notion of God, is just the God of the gaps argument.

I am an atheist, not an agnostic. i don't accept that there is a God, so my defacto position is that believers are wrong.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

139 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Doubting Dawkinses another breed of fanatic [View all] rug Aug 2013 OP

At least Dawkins does not attempt to disenfranchise, kill, or imprison those who do not agree panzerfaust Aug 2013 #1

From the article: rug Aug 2013 #2

That quote does show she's an idiot muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #5

She can fuck off? Wow, touch a nerve there? cbayer Aug 2013 #8

No, saying 'fuck her' is not violent; her saying others are not *yet* violent muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #9

I'm afraid she is speaking for many, Muriel, and they are getting louder. cbayer Aug 2013 #11

The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks he's right, and that you need to join his team muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #13

That's exactly the point. Dawkins is behaving like an evangelical religious leader. cbayer Aug 2013 #14

I'd love to see you make a proof that that statement equals idiocy. rug Aug 2013 #15

You got to the "Burn the heretic" okasha Aug 2013 #37

Your worldview is so limited, you think any disagreement means someone muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #51

I was referring to the penchant okasha Aug 2013 #54

I think that's too broad. There are atheists on the site that have also raised cbayer Aug 2013 #60

I didn't mean to imply that all DU atheists okasha Aug 2013 #63

Thanks for clarifying. cbayer Aug 2013 #65

Isn't that a prejudiced example? Brettongarcia Sep 2013 #134

This proves my point - you think that because the writer is an atheist, I shuold hold back muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #72

No, what I think is that Dawkins' fans okasha Aug 2013 #105

And you haven't been following the thread muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #106

What I characterized as your "burn the heretic" post okasha Aug 2013 #108

Torcaso. okasha Aug 2013 #35

Touche. rug Aug 2013 #43

"... atheist militants are not much of an advertisement for a world ... meant to be more tolerant... Jim__ Aug 2013 #3

So she's a follower of Dawkins on Twitter, but she objects when he tweets? muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #4

Oh, you know she objects to what he tweets, not when he tweets. rug Aug 2013 #16

cbayer wants him to shut up muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #19

You can take that up with her. rug Aug 2013 #20

Evidence of fact? I thought you were joking muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #22

I have no problem confusing fact from opinion. rug Aug 2013 #24

So do some atheist bloggers - quite a few actually. cbayer Aug 2013 #21

No, he's not right wing, and that's another smear muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #23

Where did I say he was right wing? cbayer Aug 2013 #26

He made his reputation off his science muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #28

I had never heard of him until he went anti-theist. cbayer Aug 2013 #29

He was famous in the worldwide scientific community muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #30

Well, as I have said, I think he provided a service in kicking cbayer Aug 2013 #31

*You* had never heard of him... pokerfan Aug 2013 #33

I didn't say no one had ever heard of him. cbayer Aug 2013 #36

It was an international best-seller pokerfan Aug 2013 #39

Probably not in the Christian bookstores, that's for sure. cbayer Aug 2013 #44

I still have an early edition pokerfan Aug 2013 #61

I was overwhelmingly preoccupied with my studies at that time and that may cbayer Aug 2013 #62

In Time's All-Time Top 100 Nonfiction Books muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #48

Well, that's something. cbayer Aug 2013 #55

Somehow I don't think okasha Aug 2013 #40

Where's that pic okasha Aug 2013 #38

This one? rug Aug 2013 #45

Thanks! okasha Aug 2013 #46

This one? pokerfan Aug 2013 #69

Do I even need to point out what is wrong with this quote edhopper Aug 2013 #6

Surely you realize Lowenstein was not referring to atheists who find hope in religion. rug Aug 2013 #17

I mean to an atheist edhopper Aug 2013 #27

I don't think she's asking atheists to accept religious beliefs. rug Aug 2013 #42

I understand what she is saying, and I know she is not saying that. edhopper Aug 2013 #47

To be precise, she is saying that many believers receive benefit from their beliefs. rug Aug 2013 #50

No she is not saying that edhopper Aug 2013 #53

Where did she say that? Are you making things up? rug Aug 2013 #59

I refer to thiis edhopper Aug 2013 #64

Well, we must disagree. rug Aug 2013 #67

Guess we just have different edhopper Aug 2013 #71

Enduring a life of misery LTX Aug 2013 #18

So they cling to a falsehood? edhopper Aug 2013 #25

You speak from a position of western privilege. LTX Aug 2013 #32

No edhopper Aug 2013 #34

Of course not. LTX Aug 2013 #41

Alcohol and drugs are also a way people cope edhopper Aug 2013 #49

You do realize that not everyone okasha Aug 2013 #52

Of course not. It's called an analogy edhopper Aug 2013 #56

The problem is that it's not a particularly apt analogy. okasha Aug 2013 #57

Fair criticism edhopper Aug 2013 #66

The point is that in most cases okasha Aug 2013 #68

Depends on how deep edhopper Aug 2013 #70

I find this kind off hand dismissal of religious beliefs frustrating. LTX Aug 2013 #73

Yes, it was a flip answer edhopper Aug 2013 #74

I agree -- to an extent. LTX Aug 2013 #75

But that is more of the edhopper Aug 2013 #77

With that clarification, I think we are on the same page. n/t LTX Aug 2013 #80

You are aware that the basis for all religion is not based in reality? cbayer Aug 2013 #79

I think that may be a bit unfair. LTX Aug 2013 #83

Then the member should clarify and not make statements which can so cbayer Aug 2013 #84

I am not and never said edhopper Aug 2013 #85

You again make the definitive statement "things that are not there". cbayer Aug 2013 #88

As far as all facts in evidence edhopper Aug 2013 #91

So you take the position that if there is not facts in evidence that cbayer Aug 2013 #93

Reiread the part edhopper Aug 2013 #95

It is not the de facto position of most atheists that believers are wrong, btw. cbayer Aug 2013 #97

You seem to be wrong about that too. edhopper Aug 2013 #102

So you were talking about the SS Defacto? cbayer Aug 2013 #103

I am completely in the wrong here edhopper Aug 2013 #107

I've done the same thing and on more than one occasion. cbayer Aug 2013 #109

I don't see a problem edhopper Aug 2013 #110

I don't have a position on the veracity of beliefs or non beliefs. cbayer Aug 2013 #111

Well that is your position edhopper Aug 2013 #112

I've never found a good word to describe where I am (at this time). cbayer Aug 2013 #113

You thinking about higher evolved species sounds like edhopper Aug 2013 #114

But that doesn't answer the question about whether something higher evolved might cbayer Aug 2013 #115

You could call them gods edhopper Aug 2013 #116

And when alcohol or drugs become a problem for an individual, there cbayer Aug 2013 #58

So a moderate amount edhopper Aug 2013 #78

I don't know what kinds of drugs you may or may not tried, but they don't cbayer Aug 2013 #81

Well, this divide could get deeper or Dawkins could step aside (as cbayer Aug 2013 #7

'Step aside'? Aside from what? muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #10

Shutting up would be a good place to start, particularly when it comes to twitter. cbayer Aug 2013 #12

Oh my! edhopper Aug 2013 #86

I didn't say he had to and he is certainly not going to because I said so. cbayer Aug 2013 #87

Considering edhopper Aug 2013 #89

I have said many times that he deserves much credit for cbayer Aug 2013 #90

What specific "outrageous" position edhopper Aug 2013 #92

This will be circular and not productive, but I will give you my primary objections. cbayer Aug 2013 #94

Yes edhopper Aug 2013 #96

Wow. Where did you get that? cbayer Aug 2013 #98

I will put it to a vote. edhopper Aug 2013 #99

You will put what to a vote, lol? cbayer Aug 2013 #100

See my new thread. edhopper Aug 2013 #101

Yes that will be some rational, scientifically based data fully grounded in reason. cbayer Aug 2013 #104

You're an anti-theist yourself skepticscott Sep 2013 #124

Ugh, leave me alone. cbayer Sep 2013 #126

Already addressed, and you know it skepticscott Sep 2013 #135

Use your Ignore feature, thats what its for. cleanhippie Sep 2013 #139

I would ask you to reconsider whether all those merit shutting up. eomer Aug 2013 #118

Whether they merit shutting up or not doesn't really seem to be the issue. cbayer Aug 2013 #119

I want everyone to shut up from promoting sexism. I want no one to shut up on the two I listed. eomer Aug 2013 #120

A discussion such as you propose would be interesting, but can cbayer Aug 2013 #121

We agree on the important parts. eomer Aug 2013 #122

Big congratulations on you first sermon! cbayer Aug 2013 #123

Dawkins does not have a "bully pulpit" edhopper Sep 2013 #125

Your definition is too narrow. Of course he has a bully pulpit. cbayer Sep 2013 #127

I won't get into a round and round edhopper Sep 2013 #128

Well, let's use different words then. cbayer Sep 2013 #129

Yes edhopper Sep 2013 #130

And he will continue to say whatever he wants to... cbayer Sep 2013 #131

That's why he edhopper Sep 2013 #132

He hasn't written a book in 7 years and SRO is always defined by venue. cbayer Sep 2013 #133

I hope it's not edhopper Sep 2013 #136

Why are you using falsehoods about Dawkins skepticscott Sep 2013 #138

You, for one skepticscott Sep 2013 #137

richard dawkins foundation criticizes the vatican based on a satire news site.... madrchsod Aug 2013 #76

One of our esteemed members also fell for this and posted it here. cbayer Aug 2013 #82

Lol! Not all evidence is indeed evidence. rug Aug 2013 #117