But hey, thanks for judging me based on the actions of a handful of nutjobs (with vastly different beliefs than mine) who did a terrible thing.
As the argument goes, your moderate religion is the foundation of extremist religion. By creating an atmosphere where it's acceptable to belive blindly, and to live your life according to rules based on blind beliefs, you are building the foundation of the evil actions performed when your beliefs are taken to the extreme.
his evangelical hatred of anyone who believes in God
How does this hatred show, specifically?
and then there are athiests who are fanatical about making sure that NOBODY believes in God
So anyone who dares to make an argument against the existence of God is "fanatical"?
dawkins acts as if evolution is proof of God's nonexistance
No he doesn't. He says that Evolution is just another things which makes "God did it" an unnecessary explanation. The point is, there's no need for God to explain these things.
an offensively obnoxious blowhard like Dawkins
How is he offensive and obnoxious, exactly? Please give me a couple of examples. Your ignorant post leads me to believe that you haven't actually bothered to look up with Dawkins real arguments are!
You are a hypocritical liar. That Guardian link in itself is actually just a bunch of attacks against Dawkins and atheists.
Please give me a single example of "hate speech" from Dawkins.
If it was some other Atheist who doesn't have a track record of bashing religion and religious people
Please give me a single example of Dawkins bashing religious people.
You clearly haven't even bothered to listen to what Dawkins has to say. Your is just a knee-jerk reaction based on your own piss-poor understanding of the arguments. Why are you making claims about a man you have never even bothered to actually listen to in the first place?
If you were to show me someone who was as vehemently, outspokenly, and disrespectfully religious as Richard Dawkins is atheist, I would call them out on it as quickly as I call out Richard Dawkins for the ass-hattery that he pulls.
What "ass-hattery", specifically? I suspect that you call it "ass-hattery" because he dares to question your superstitious beliefs. So you don't hate him because he attacks anyone (he doesn't). You hate him because you have no idea what his arguments really are, but you do now that you think he's an asshole for questioning yor beliefs.
It's the same as the difference between inviting a republican to speak in San Francisco and inviting Rush Limbaugh to speak there
This proves just how completely lost you are. Comparing Dawkins to Limbaugh? That's just insane.
It is a fallacy because it is inductive logic, which is not always true.
It is not a fallacy. Dawkins specifically says "why there almost certainly is no god", and his book, The God Delusion lays out the case for that position.
Dawkins also uses "Strawmen" to describe religous people and religion, and does personal attacks on them as well.
What straw men, specifically? If you personally don't ho0ld some of the beliefs Dawkins is arguing against, it doesn't mean that no one does.
What personal attacks? Please give me a couple of specific examples.
Immanuel Kant proved that you cannot prove God exists or does not exist by Science long ago. Anything else is pure logical fallacies like inductive logic, which Dawkins uses as well as circular references and wishful thinking.
This is nonsense. Again, you obviously haven't even bothered to listen to what he's actually saying.
In my recent experience atheists have gone a lot further than religious people.
Nice story. Unfortunately, you are extremely biased, and your stories only show that you yourself hold a deep hatred of atheists, not because they are assholes, but because they dare to question your superstition.
I think he is the atheistic equivalent of the guy on the university corner with a bugle calling passing girls "sluts" and telling them if they don't believe in God, they're going to hell.
Of course you do. You just can't handle the fact that he rationally and factually demolishes your religion. Anyone who criticizes your beliefs is obviously very mean. So Dawkins isn't mean because he isults people. He's mean because he criticizes your religion.
The stridency of the new atheism is at odds with its claim of being the calm, rational, and enlightened worldview.
Atheism is not a "worldview". Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. You may be referring to atheists who dare to argue against superstition. Arguing against something is not "stridency".
The version number should not introduce ambiguities in its interpretation.
"3.5 is a bigger change since 3.0 than 3.1" is hardly ambiguous.
If the developer really thinks more went into updating 3.0 than is reflected in calling it version 3.1, then he should go to version 4.0 and no one would bat an eye.
Maybe he doesn't think it's that major. Maybe he thinks it's something between.1 and.0.
I suppose they could, but the answers they find are going to be inconclusive.
Which is why he says "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". But like all other fundies, you didn't even bother to read his books before spewing out nonsense.
That's not a fallacy. That's what he sets out to argue for in his book. You are seriously confused, just like all other fundies who haven't actually bothered to listen to what Dawkins is actually saying.
I believe he was pointing out the idiocy of the article author, not necessarily theists in general. But we're still waiting for examples of Dawkins bashing someone.
I'm not sure. Was Pot Pol an atheist? Stalin probably was.
That's irrelevant. They did not kill in the name of atheism. They did not kill because they were atheists. They killed because they subscribed to evil ideologies that compelled them to kill. Atheism is not an ideology.
I posted a ludic, clear, well written response to the fish evolution article yesterday and it was rated -1 within hours.
The reason is that you are spreading lies. Remember rule 1: Creationists lie.
The evidence for creationism is massive, and much of the evidence for evolution has been disproven.
Complete and utter nonsense. All creationists arguments I've heard so far are blatant lies. You confirm this by linking to the blatant liar Kent Hovind.
He's said that people who teach their kids religion are child abusers.
No, he said that labeling children is close to child abuse.
He ends one of his lectures by saying how religious fundamentalists crashed into the twin towers, and therefore it's time to stop being so respectful of religion.
No he doesn't. You are lying about what he's saying, just like with the child abuse argument he made.
Those are pretty offensive comments to me...
And I find it offensive that you are actively lying about what Dawkins is saying. Pathetic.
If you go around telling people who believe in a god that there is no such god, you're being a dick.
Then they should stop trying to force their beliefs down my throat first.
The issue many people have with atheists is their tendency to preach their views to those who don't believe them.
Because religious people constantly try to force their superstition down everyone else's throats. If the religious morons just shut the fuck up, there wouldn't be a problem.
That said, I have to say I'm disappointed in Opera. It used to be the fastest, but I don't know what happened with them lately.
I't say it's still the fastest in real-world usage. SunSpider and those other marketing benchmarks only test a tiny subset of the web, and are optimized to work well in specific browsers.
Dawkins is clearly an atheist, and believes the universe just is. Since he has no proof of that, that is a religious belief, which he believes as strongly and irrationally as an Christian believes in God.
Wrong, liar. He will readily admit that we don't actually know for certain. What he will tell you is that such-and-such explanatory is much more plausible than believing that God did it. So there is actual evidence to support his beliefs, and he is open to being wrong. Unlike religious idiots like yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
As the argument goes, your moderate religion is the foundation of extremist religion. By creating an atmosphere where it's acceptable to belive blindly, and to live your life according to rules based on blind beliefs, you are building the foundation of the evil actions performed when your beliefs are taken to the extreme.
Why and how, exactly? Examples, please.
This is a blatant lie which shows that you haven't even bothered to find out what Dawkins is actually saying. Truly pathetic.
Source?
How does this hatred show, specifically?
So anyone who dares to make an argument against the existence of God is "fanatical"?
No he doesn't. He says that Evolution is just another things which makes "God did it" an unnecessary explanation. The point is, there's no need for God to explain these things.
How is he offensive and obnoxious, exactly? Please give me a couple of examples. Your ignorant post leads me to believe that you haven't actually bothered to look up with Dawkins real arguments are!
Please give me a single example of "hate speech" from Dawkins.
Please give me a single example of Dawkins bashing religious people.
You clearly haven't even bothered to listen to what Dawkins has to say. Your is just a knee-jerk reaction based on your own piss-poor understanding of the arguments. Why are you making claims about a man you have never even bothered to actually listen to in the first place?
What "ass-hattery", specifically? I suspect that you call it "ass-hattery" because he dares to question your superstitious beliefs. So you don't hate him because he attacks anyone (he doesn't). You hate him because you have no idea what his arguments really are, but you do now that you think he's an asshole for questioning yor beliefs.
This proves just how completely lost you are. Comparing Dawkins to Limbaugh? That's just insane.
It is not a fallacy. Dawkins specifically says "why there almost certainly is no god", and his book, The God Delusion lays out the case for that position.
What straw men, specifically? If you personally don't ho0ld some of the beliefs Dawkins is arguing against, it doesn't mean that no one does.
What personal attacks? Please give me a couple of specific examples.
This is nonsense. Again, you obviously haven't even bothered to listen to what he's actually saying.
Nice story. Unfortunately, you are extremely biased, and your stories only show that you yourself hold a deep hatred of atheists, not because they are assholes, but because they dare to question your superstition.
Zeitgeist is trash, by the way.
Of course you do. You just can't handle the fact that he rationally and factually demolishes your religion. Anyone who criticizes your beliefs is obviously very mean. So Dawkins isn't mean because he isults people. He's mean because he criticizes your religion.
Atheism is not a "worldview". Atheism is not believing in God. That's it. You may be referring to atheists who dare to argue against superstition. Arguing against something is not "stridency".
"3.5 is a bigger change since 3.0 than 3.1" is hardly ambiguous.
Maybe he doesn't think it's that major. Maybe he thinks it's something between .1 and .0.
If the software vendor decides that .5 is .and a half, then it is so. It's that simple.
Which is why he says "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". But like all other fundies, you didn't even bother to read his books before spewing out nonsense.
That's not a fallacy. That's what he sets out to argue for in his book. You are seriously confused, just like all other fundies who haven't actually bothered to listen to what Dawkins is actually saying.
I believe he was pointing out the idiocy of the article author, not necessarily theists in general. But we're still waiting for examples of Dawkins bashing someone.
That's irrelevant. They did not kill in the name of atheism. They did not kill because they were atheists. They killed because they subscribed to evil ideologies that compelled them to kill. Atheism is not an ideology.
You are a typical religions fundie idiot who hasn't even bothered to read his fucking book. Sigh.
He is not.
Now YOU are insulting someone else's beliefs, you fucking hypocrite.
False. He convinced me, among others. I was undecided, and actually held a weak belief in God.
You are an idiot.
The reason is that you are spreading lies. Remember rule 1: Creationists lie.
Complete and utter nonsense. All creationists arguments I've heard so far are blatant lies. You confirm this by linking to the blatant liar Kent Hovind.
No, he said that labeling children is close to child abuse.
No he doesn't. You are lying about what he's saying, just like with the child abuse argument he made.
And I find it offensive that you are actively lying about what Dawkins is saying. Pathetic.
Then they should stop trying to force their beliefs down my throat first.
Because religious people constantly try to force their superstition down everyone else's throats. If the religious morons just shut the fuck up, there wouldn't be a problem.
I't say it's still the fastest in real-world usage. SunSpider and those other marketing benchmarks only test a tiny subset of the web, and are optimized to work well in specific browsers.
No, you idiot. He's saying that atheists are just normal people, and that they have ethics.
Wrong, liar. He will readily admit that we don't actually know for certain. What he will tell you is that such-and-such explanatory is much more plausible than believing that God did it. So there is actual evidence to support his beliefs, and he is open to being wrong. Unlike religious idiots like yourself.