A View on Atheist

[downbeatplumb]

I believe in a UK court of law the term is 'balance of probability'.
On the balance of probability there is no god.

[Ace Otana]

This is why I use a more general term such as 'unlikely' with regard to God's existence.

Actually the likely hood of a god existing is extremely improbable.

I don't have any certainty in the uncertainty.

I'm not certain of anything either.

[Gawdzilla]

I must admit, that when I first joined this Forum it was shortly after reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. I was amazed by how much of a rant this book was. The only book of I have read that has a similar style is Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler! I began to wonder if all atheists held such a viciferous view.

Sounds remarkably like someone who hasn't read either book. Certainly a most ridiculous comparison.

[diffidus]

I must admit, that when I first joined this Forum it was shortly after reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. I was amazed by how much of a rant this book was. The only book of I have read that has a similar style is Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler! I began to wonder if all atheists held such a viciferous view.

Sounds remarkably like someone who hasn't read either book. Certainly a most ridiculous comparison.

I have read both books. I was not refering to the content or subject matter of these books, but the tone and style. Both are shining examples of a hubristic rant!

[Gawdzilla]

I must admit, that when I first joined this Forum it was shortly after reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. I was amazed by how much of a rant this book was. The only book of I have read that has a similar style is Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler! I began to wonder if all atheists held such a viciferous view.

Sounds remarkably like someone who hasn't read either book. Certainly a most ridiculous comparison.

I have read both books. I was not refering to the content or subject matter of these books, but the tone and style. Both are shining examples of a hubristic rant!

"Through a glass darkly"? Really, if you let your prejudices control your perceptions this is what happens.

[eric209]

I must admit, that when I first joined this Forum it was shortly after reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. I was amazed by how much of a rant this book was. The only book of I have read that has a similar style is Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler! I began to wonder if all atheists held such a viciferous view.

Sounds remarkably like someone who hasn't read either book. Certainly a most ridiculous comparison.

I have read both books. I was not refering to the content or subject matter of these books, but the tone and style. Both are shining examples of a hubristic rant!

Tone and style are very much relevant to what the subject matter is. Passion for what you devout your life to is expected. When that passion is reason and science I argue it is to be applauded. When that passion is genocide its deserving of a quick death.

[Rev. Rye]

I must admit, that when I first joined this Forum it was shortly after reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. I was amazed by how much of a rant this book was. The only book of I have read that has a similar style is Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler! I began to wonder if all atheists held such a viciferous view.

Seriously, Dawkins is vociferous? Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris I can actually see described as vociferous, but Dawkins? He feels more like the Martin Luther King to Hitchens and Harris' Malcolm X and Huey Newton. Of course, in his own life, Dr. King was a polarising figure. Of course, that said, it's not like anybody's been actually trying to jail any of those three for their beliefs, or that they're doing anything worse than writing a book of TV Special about religion. Come to think of it, Dawkins actually did his best to steer clear of religion in his next book after The God Delusion.

'There is no empirical evidence that currently exists to support the notion that God exists, therefore, I do not believe in God'
'There is no empirical evidence that currently exists to support the notion that God exists, therefore, God's existence is unlikely'

Of course, that said, these points are hardly mutually exclusive; The first one points to one's own subjective beliefs, and the second one is intended to be a more objective (if objectivity is, in fact, possible) assessment of what little evidence there is for the existence of a God. In fact, from what I've seen, it seems like the second point tends to lead to acceptance of the first one.

For what it's worth, I think that this post, by an agnostic, no less, is an illustration of the good that my Tips For Theist on an Atheist Forum could do. Fundamentally, its advice is good for everyone, theist or non.

I have read both books. I was not refering to the content or subject matter of these books, but the tone and style. Both are shining examples of a hubristic rant!

And so have I. As for the tone and style, let me put my thoughts on Hitler's book this way: If I were a reader in Deutsches Reich (aka Wiemar Germany) without any particularly strong political convictions or feelings about the "Jewish Question" that was raging throughout Europe in the days before Hitler's rise, simply reading his book would be enough to make me hate him with a passion, because of the long, rambling nature of the writing. As RationalWiki notes, "The book is best read aloud before an audience of thousands in a very loud and hysterical tone, since the more subtle nuances of meaning and emphasis are lost on the armchair reader who will find it a difficult book to finish." Dawkins' work, on the other hand, is pretty well-organised, and fairly quotable. It's still not my favourite book on atheism, Lord Russell's Why I am Not a Christian still holds that honour, but it's still pretty good.