This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← The ‘God wars’ and the Global Atheist Convention

The ‘God wars’ and the Global Atheist Convention - Comments

MagnusFaustus's Avatar Comment 1 by MagnusFaustus

Pigeon holing indeed. He divides us up into three groups of 'stupidly militant', 'stupidly naive' and then notes the rest as people who 'wish' they were theists.

Why do I bother reading these blasted Archdiocese articles? All they do is make me irritated.

I must be a mental masochist to keep coming back and doing this to myself on the weekend.

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:34:51 UTC | #931729

mattersoffact's Avatar Comment 2 by mattersoffact

without God it is notoriously difficult to make sense of the world or of human life or death or joy or pain or love-making or justice or even, at the philosophical end of the spectrum, of truth itself

Oh well, I suppose it is April 1st, so we should expect something as Foolish as this .....

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:36:13 UTC | #931730

AFineBalance's Avatar Comment 3 by AFineBalance

If this is the best he can come up with then I'd say job done. He's doing nothing more than getting lots of nods from those who already have fixed opinions. All a bit silly and childish really.

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:46:26 UTC | #931732

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 4 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:50:12 UTC | #931733

debonnesnouvelles's Avatar Comment 5 by debonnesnouvelles

"What about the challenges the New Atheists pose, especially for the Christian Church? What can we learn from them? First... ... Second, Christians ought to thank God for the dialogue made possible by atheism..."

!!!

well, it's too bad he doesn't like listening to comedians at the global atheist convention, he's kind of got a talent himself...

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:50:40 UTC | #931734

Ophelia Benson's Avatar Comment 6 by Ophelia Benson

Why is an Anglican writing for a Catholic archdiocese? Just Warsi Syndrome - the enemy of my enemy is my friend as long as enemy2 is an atheist?

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:02:44 UTC | #931737

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 7 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:05:19 UTC | #931739

Ophelia Benson's Avatar Comment 8 by Ophelia Benson

Where's the part where he does serious thinking? He complains that there was no serious thinking at GAC 2010 but then he doesn't do any himself - it's all just boneless chat about how to get along with each other and the like.

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:09:39 UTC | #931740

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 9 by Alan4discussion

Meanwhile, the sad atheists are those who do take the God question seriously. They know that the stakes are high and that without God it is notoriously difficult to make sense of the world or of human life or death or joy or pain or love-making or justice or even, at the philosophical end of the spectrum, of truth itself. But despite their awareness of the cost, the sad atheist cannot believe in the One who might be the well of life-giving meaning to quell our anxieties.

Ha! ha! Ha! ha! There is the SERIOUS QUESTION OF god?? -
He seems to be unable to comprehend or even recognise the question of all the gods except ONE. - Unlike atheists who can answer and dismiss the question of all "gods" quickly, and then move on to the really serious question of the problems caused by the deluded god-botherers who find it notoriously difficult to make sense of the world or of human life or death or joy or pain or love-making or justice or even, at the philosophical end of the spectrum, of truth itself, without resorting to fantasy! - usually copied from mis-translated bronze-age myths!

The mad atheists are led by biologist and science populariser Richard Dawkins, the 'high priest' of the New Atheism, and these people are as cranky as hell at religion.

The poor fellow is confused by looking in his theist mirror, so gets it backside first as usual! I'll straighten it out for him!

The biologist and science populariser Richard Dawkins, & the New Atheists, are maddened by the cranky as hell religions and their deluded irrational followers.

Fixed!

They know that the stakes are high.

We know that they used "stakes" and heretic burning as a form of reasoning, but no longer have a supporting theocracy which encourages this!

Being an Anglican myself, I have spent sleepless nights wrestling with the intricacies of all the variations of Christian, and yes, even Catholic, beliefs.

Categories of atheists?? From someone trying to categorise the trooooo xtian. Telling xtians from Catholics - That's a hard one!! These days telling defecting Anglicans from Catholics is even harder!

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:21:14 UTC | #931743

robaylesbury's Avatar Comment 10 by robaylesbury

On the one hand, I think it is vital that we as skeptics are subject to robust critisism. I don't mind being on the receiving end of a good critique and perhaps we can be a bit jingoistic at times.

But, and its a big but, the majority of former believers I know left the faith because they ceased to believe it was an accurate reflection of reality. I'd love it if my adversary's could respond to this. Yes we can be vocal, and yes we do make fun sometimes. Yet beneath this we've valid objections deserving of a cogent response. That's what I'm waiting for, and I won't extend false respect where I feel none is merited.

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:23:18 UTC | #931745

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 11 by xmaseveeve

A show not to be missed - ie rally a counter-protest. This piece is riddled with manipulative, dishonest language, for example, Richard Dawkins is 'cranky' about religion, which means he's grumpy but implies that he's a crank.

[Removed by moderator]

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:35:03 UTC | #931748

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 12 by xmaseveeve

Ha ha I agree with Alan - always a safe bet - 'the stakes are high' and the straw is ready to light. In your dreams, mate! We've moved on.

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:43:10 UTC | #931753

hemidemisemigod's Avatar Comment 13 by hemidemisemigod

Meanwhile, the sad atheists are those who do take the God question seriously. They know that the stakes are high and that without God it is notoriously difficult to make sense of the world or of human life or death or joy or pain or love-making or justice or even, at the philosophical end of the spectrum, of truth itself. But despite their awareness of the cost, the sad atheist cannot believe in the One who might be the well of life-giving meaning to quell our anxieties.

Right, I see. So I can be a "sad" atheist who believes in what can be seen or determined by evidence or I can be a happy Christian who believes that an all-powerful god created the universe, put two humans in it and then was surprised to find that during an unexplained absence of his omniscience and omnipresence the humans acted in a typically human way (when persuaded by a talking snake) and committed a "sin". To counter this sin god sent his son (who is really himself) to be sacrificed by the humans. The murdered son was resurrected and now lives with his dad and another third god (who is also the first god).

Although all humans die, those that believe the above story and spend sufficient time praising god and his various personas will be resurrected and live in eternal bliss. Everyone else will also be resurrected but spend eternity in extreme agony.

Well that explains human life, death, joy, pain, love-making, justice and truth itself. I'm sold! Halle-bloody-lujah!

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:51:26 UTC | #931758

Katy Cordeth's Avatar Comment 14 by Katy Cordeth

...without God it is notoriously difficult to make sense of the world or of human life or death or joy or pain or love-making or justice or even, at the philosophical end of the spectrum, of truth itself...

Mulherin seems to be paying us a compliment without even realising it. If the only reason he and people like him believe in their god is because life is too difficult for them to face without some deus ex machina they can turn to to explain away all the tricky bits, then surely those people who manage to face existence without recourse to a supernatural crutch are being more courageous.

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:07:01 UTC | #931765

helena!'s Avatar Comment 15 by helena!

What a TOOL! The religious have the most narrow thinking I have ever known.

Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:38:20 UTC | #931776

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 16 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 01:25:46 UTC | #931794

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 17 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 01:35:13 UTC | #931796

dandelion fluff's Avatar Comment 18 by dandelion fluff

Well, of course they don't accept comments. Every single paragraph could be shredded.

As an ex-catholic, I did struggle with the meaning thing - for maybe a week or two. Then I realised real meaning was coming at me from all directions. So I guess that makes me a happy sad atheist.

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 03:50:23 UTC | #931810

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 19 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 04:00:47 UTC | #931812

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 20 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 04:11:56 UTC | #931813

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 21 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 04:15:04 UTC | #931814

squeegee's Avatar Comment 22 by squeegee

"the varieties of non religious belief"

I'm no intellectual but aren't there only two forms of non belief....atheism and agnosticism? Once again theists of this world, atheism means non belief in deity and describes NOTHING ELSE about that particular person. Am I right about this RDF folk?

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 05:41:13 UTC | #931819

mmurray's Avatar Comment 23 by mmurray

Comment 20 by retep57 :

Here Chris , take my test:

Catholic test of faith , re transubstantiation  1 - eat cracker  2- vomit cracker 3- test for jesus meat 4- if the test returns positive then yay the Catholics are right    - if the test shows only crackers then your religion is wrong , leave the wrathoholic superstition and avoid practitioners of priestcraft . 5- if you still believe this  crap despite the evidence ... then transubstantiation is actually true! you are in fact... CRACKERS 

I do wish people would take the trouble to read what the doctrine of transubstantiation is about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the doctrine that, in the Eucharist, the substance of wheat bread and grape wine changes into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus,[1] while all that is accessible to the senses (the appearances - species in Latin) remains as before.[2][3][4]

The RCC has been in the theology and politics business for a couple of thousand years. They are not so stupid as to claim that communion wafers become the body and blood of christ in any way that is testable by science.

Michael

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 06:02:27 UTC | #931821

Sean_W's Avatar Comment 24 by Sean_W

He's given me an idea for testing sanity.

Does the world make sense?

Yes, of course.

Okay, get in that line over there.

Next.

Does the world make sense?

What, you're joking right?

Ah, welcome brother.

Who are those people over there and why are they grinning ear to ear?

Oh, well, the world makes sense to them.

It does?

Apparently.

That's crazy.

I know.

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 06:12:50 UTC | #931824

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 25 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 06:24:59 UTC | #931826

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 26 by Jos Gibbons

If you're going to publish nonsense like this, wait until April 2.

Claims without even bad arguments to support them are all$ this article has. Some are especially implausible, such as the author having any experience of atheist meetings. Some are begging to be justified, such as Christianity's uniqueness.

$ With one possible exception, namely the "atheism is hypocritical because the fact that it defines itself in terms of that which it criticises makes it an example of that which it criticises". By that logic, no-one can criticise anything ever. The fallacy is clear: a view on religion is meta-religious, but not necessarily religious.

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 06:58:27 UTC | #931827

Mrkimbo's Avatar Comment 27 by Mrkimbo

Quite a nice man. Cheer up, Chris! There's no god! It's really not that scary... you'll get over it, and have a happy life.

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 07:59:24 UTC | #931830

zeerust2000's Avatar Comment 28 by zeerust2000

Blah blah blah blah blah ............. blah

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:13:33 UTC | #931832

zeerust2000's Avatar Comment 29 by zeerust2000

Christianity is not simply one option among other compatible belief systems, and engaging with atheists leaves that abundantly clear.

What a weird thing to say. That it is simply one option among many arbitrary belief systems is exactly what atheists are saying. He seems to think Christianity is something special, but fails to point out why. Why don't these people just read The God Delusion, and then get back to us. It's all there.

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:26:07 UTC | #931834

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 30 by Alan4discussion

Comment 29 by zeerust2000

Christianity is not simply one option among other compatible belief systems, and engaging with atheists leaves that abundantly clear.

What a weird thing to say. That it is simply one option among many arbitrary belief systems is exactly what atheists are saying.

Yep! Classic backside first thinking! - One delusion among many - and he still sits in mind-blanked denial, reads it in reverse, & does not get it, AFTER atheists have pointed it out to him! ("Can't they see that MY delusions are a special (nut) case! - any heap of words appearing to support them can be called "reasoning" !")

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:20:49 UTC | #931841