RE: Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?
December 29, 2009 at 10:12 pm
(This post was last modified: December 29, 2009 at 10:13 pm by Pippy.)
So I choose to see god.
But you do not choose atheism.
belief is a mental illness, a mistake at best and a lie at worst...
But belief if no god is logical, and scientific?
That is silly man. We both believe in shit. For you to pretend that I see faeries and you know how it really is is super ignorant fallacious drivel. We both either choose to see it our way, or we do not. Make up your mind, but don't call your belief somehow more or less valid than mine, and completely gloss over the whole 'freedom to believe what you want' thing.
That to me, would be a flaw of the "New Atheism" I was asked to define. New Atheism is Dawkins style combative, double standard rudeness disguised as some kind of better understanding of evolution or something. It is flawed, and I have pointed that out over and again. As soon as anyone says they want to rid the world of religion, they shoot themselves in the foot. The problem with religion is not it's existence, but that it can make people fanatic, and controlling of others. Not every believer has something wrong with them, only fanatical ones. And fanaticism is a level of dangerous self righteousness that leads you to think you're right and others are wrong, and that you should help them see it your way (which is undeniably and obviously correct). This "New Atheism" is compared to "atheism", the quiet and polite doubt and "atheism 3.0" that is, I feel, the most solid. Those guys are much more polite about other peoples beliefs.
It's something I have brought up here before, and had a cool reception. Dawkins is important to some of you guys, which I find kind of amusing, because a lot of you consider his arguments paramount to you world view, and I find him grating and see-through. Same with the Maher movie, that is a good example of the flaw of "New Atheism", how he refuses to acknowledge that fanaticism is a problem, and that 90% of believers are better people because of it, and in the end proudly declares himself a fanatic.
There, that is my take on other peoples words of "New Atheism".
We all beleive what we will, neither of us is more or less right than the other. I don't feel the need to mock your random just-so-happened world, try not to mock my god. It makes you sound ignorant when you don't even realize you are setting a double standard.
Thanks.
But you do not choose atheism.
belief is a mental illness, a mistake at best and a lie at worst...
But belief if no god is logical, and scientific?
That is silly man. We both believe in shit. For you to pretend that I see faeries and you know how it really is is super ignorant fallacious drivel. We both either choose to see it our way, or we do not. Make up your mind, but don't call your belief somehow more or less valid than mine, and completely gloss over the whole 'freedom to believe what you want' thing.
That to me, would be a flaw of the "New Atheism" I was asked to define. New Atheism is Dawkins style combative, double standard rudeness disguised as some kind of better understanding of evolution or something. It is flawed, and I have pointed that out over and again. As soon as anyone says they want to rid the world of religion, they shoot themselves in the foot. The problem with religion is not it's existence, but that it can make people fanatic, and controlling of others. Not every believer has something wrong with them, only fanatical ones. And fanaticism is a level of dangerous self righteousness that leads you to think you're right and others are wrong, and that you should help them see it your way (which is undeniably and obviously correct). This "New Atheism" is compared to "atheism", the quiet and polite doubt and "atheism 3.0" that is, I feel, the most solid. Those guys are much more polite about other peoples beliefs.
It's something I have brought up here before, and had a cool reception. Dawkins is important to some of you guys, which I find kind of amusing, because a lot of you consider his arguments paramount to you world view, and I find him grating and see-through. Same with the Maher movie, that is a good example of the flaw of "New Atheism", how he refuses to acknowledge that fanaticism is a problem, and that 90% of believers are better people because of it, and in the end proudly declares himself a fanatic.
There, that is my take on other peoples words of "New Atheism".
We all beleive what we will, neither of us is more or less right than the other. I don't feel the need to mock your random just-so-happened world, try not to mock my god. It makes you sound ignorant when you don't even realize you are setting a double standard.
Thanks.
