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

Comments by piousunbeliever

Go to: The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

piousunbeliever's Avatar Jump to comment 80 by piousunbeliever

It tells us that knowledge need not give humanity life or freedom; it may only bring slavery and death.

WTF!?! How come non-atheists ( since this guy seems to not want to call himself an actual theist) think they can calim things without qualification. I would like to know of at least one situation where increased knowledge has lead to less freedom, besides being a scientist during the inquisition. Sometimes I don't know why I even try to talk to theists.

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:47:00 UTC | #99676

Go to: Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

piousunbeliever's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by piousunbeliever

D'souza is also one of those that argues that it was under the Christian influence that gave Newton the desire to discover the laws that govern the order God had placed in nature. This assumption did help early physics get its start, and don't tell me Newton wasn't a christian. However, careful study of the resulting laws and theories of the Scientific revolution, and basic logical philosophy, demonstrates the ridiculousness of believing any religion. Newton had some things right, and some things wrong.

We ought to stand on the shoulders of giants, not sit at the feet of trolls, like D'souza and Moses.

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:27:00 UTC | #99673

Go to: Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

piousunbeliever's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by piousunbeliever

It would be a good thing to loose the label "atheist". One problem is that this name is given equal footing with all other religions. As in, there are christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc.... Use of this specific label reduces our carefully thought out position on reality to the same standing as the randomly selected a priori claims of various faiths.

I also think our use of Atheism limits our ability to understand the subjective experience of the human. We only argue against the legitamacy of faith based claims without relizing that through these faulty calims people are learning about themselves. By not addressing our subjectivity, I think many people come off with the impression that we are missing a portion of the human experience.

The orthodox Western spirituality is atrocious, but it can not be replaced with nothing. The agnostic buddhism proposed by Sam Harris and Stephen Batchelor is the best way to approach our human subjectivity. Our subjective experience must be addressed, by the atheist does not have the ability to address it.

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:27:00 UTC | #73456