deleted

geo wrote:

ant wrote:

You're calling me a "chicken-shit intellectual coward" because I dare to criticize bad things done by the Church?

No I am not.

I am critical of those that broadly attack religion.

That is absolute bullshit. You responded to my post, quoted my words, and called me a "chicken-shit intellectual coward." You can't deny it. It's right there. And it really pisses me off.

I get pissed off too around here.
Like when someone like Robert says I'm talking out of my ass and people thank him for it.

Welcome to the club.

Please, everyone stop the name-calling and taunting. I cannot ask Ant to stop if you're not going to.

I would have responded in private if you had messaged me.

Thanks for warning the collective and not being biased about it.

i didn't know this and found it shocking from someone who is supposed to value rationality:

The reaction to Oppenheimer’s story was swift and did much to support the claim that the atheist community protects sexual predators, much like the Catholic Church did during the priest pedophilia scandal. Richard Dawkins, possibly the most famous atheist in the world, immediately went on a tear on Twitter, blaming victims for their own rapes if they were drinking. “Officer, it’s not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, somebody got me drunk,” he tweeted, comparing being forced to have sex with the choice to drive drunk.

When called out on it, he doubled down by suggesting that rape victims are the real predators, out to get men put in jail: “If you want to be in a position to testify & jail a man, don’t get drunk.”

For someone who is a supposed rationalist, Dawkins refused to even acknowledge the basic difference between making the choice to break the law and being the victim of a crime. But only for rape, of course. It’s unlikely Dawkins would think it’s your fault if you are standing there minding your own business, while drunk, and someone hits you for no reason. But if the assault occurs with a penis instead of a fist, in Dawkins’ mind, suddenly the victim is the person at fault.

I can see why women would be outraged at this, especially when it comes from someone who claims that atheism has a monopoly on rationality.
Utterly repugnant.

It doesn't matter if Richard Dawkins is the founder of the "Kick a Puppy Foundation." The fact is biological evolution is well-established and creationism has been thoroughly debunked as mere wishful thinking and delusion. How moral atheists or theists are has not one iota of bearing on whether evolution is true or God exists. Once we can all get past the faith vs. reason debate we can shift the focus to whether atheists or theists are more inclined to help little old ladies cross the street safely.

Of course, you created a thread specifically to discuss the atheist "movement," but it is apparent you don't really understand what motivates us atheists. We're not glamorizing disbelief. If we were we'd advocate disbelief in all sorts of well-established and accepted ideas. No, we're glamorizing intellectual honesty, critical thinking and science education. So your thread title is loaded. We aren't doing what you say we're doing.

I am critical of those that broadly attack religion.

Geo did not broadly attack religion. He attacked specific negative instances. Read with comprehension ant:

geo wrote:I must be amoral too because I regularly criticize the Catholic Church, pointing out its hypocrisies, its institutionalized contempt of women and gays, its long history of violence and bigotry, turning the other cheek, as it were, while children are being sexually abused

ant wrote:Once again we have the typical myopic, narrowly defined, broad characterizations of religion.

It's either a narrow criticism of specific crimes, or it's a broad characterization or religion in general. Your sentence is self-contradictory. Geo is angry for good reason ant.

It doesn't matter if Richard Dawkins is the founder of the "Kick a Puppy Foundation." The fact is biological evolution is well-established and creationism has been thoroughly debunked as mere wishful thinking and delusion. How moral atheists or theists are has not one iota of bearing on whether evolution is true or God exists

That has never been my argument.
If you believe it has show me what specific post has made you believe it has been.


What I have said before is that A-theism is not a guarantee of rational behavior or logical reasoning.
Quite frankly, it's not even a good start.

The 4 horsemen who are referenced often by new atheists are a pitiful example of rationality if anyone cares to dig deep enough. Actually, it doesn't even take much digging. It's in front of us.

Whatever emotional reactions my opinions of new atheism's icons might evoke entirely belongs to the reactor.

I point out idiotic behavior and rationality of certain new atheists
Anyone is welcome to point out "religious" men behaving badly.

If the behavior of men like Harris and Dawkins should not reflect badly on non belief, lack of belief, or whatever it's called tomorrow, the bad behavior of perverted and corrupt priests should not reflect badly on religion, or spirituality, or theism, or whatever you wish to call it.
it only does if you (not YOU - just in general) choose to conveniently define it as narrowly as possible for the sake of a Strawman creation.

The point is that when you begin to broadly mock and speak condescendingly to people of a particular worldview, you begin to abstractify anyone that differs from yours.

Just look at how hard some people here have pressured me to admit being a "creationist"
It has a "witch-hunt" feeling to it.

selective outrage is easier on he who is outraged.

If the behavior of men like Harris and Dawkins should not reflect badly on non belief, lack of belief, or whatever it's called tomorrow, the bad behavior of perverted and corrupt priests should not reflect badly on religion, or spirituality, or theism, or whatever you wish to call it.

Whatever it's called? How about Nazism? Should Nazism reflect badly on Secular Buddhism?

You're missing the categories ant.

Theism is a category, with many religions under it's purview. Atheism is a category, with many worldviews under it's purview.

Does Islam reflect poorly on Christianity? No? Then why does the words of a Eugenist reflect poorly on the words of a Secular Humanist?

The words or actions of a Secular Humanist reflect poorly on Secular Humanism, and the words or actions of a Christian reflect poorly on Christianity.

The 4 horsemen who are referenced often by new atheists are a pitiful example of rationality if anyone cares to dig deep enough.

This is woefully lacking in perspective. Of course you can find irrational words from any man. That does not give you quantitative or qualitative measurement of how irrational they are compared to others. Go back and look at the link by Silvanus Publishing, and give me your quantitative or qualitative assessment of his rationality.

You'll find nothing even remotely close from Richard Dawkins. You have to search deeply, as you said, to find irrational words.

No one says that atheism is a guarantee of rationality. That's your strawman. But contrary to what you say, it is a good start.