Atheists... Your life is pointless

I don't know if I agree with you on that. I really don't like preachy people. In the UK I don't come across preachy Christians, apart from the odd Jehovah's Witness that comes knocking on the door. Whenever you see a vicar or a bishop being interviewed on TV they seem to be more apologetic than anything else. When they talk about something, it seems to be on very broad social issues rather than anything else, the treatment of the Occupy movement and proposed NHS reforms springs to mind.

Preachy atheists are all over the place. I was in London a few weeks ago and the tube was splashed with posters for Alain de Botton's new book. I can't watch Richard Dawkin's documentary on the anatomy of large animals, because every bloody thing is proof of evolution over and over again. I used to like illusionist Derren Brown, by daughter bought me his book for father's day. Supposedly it was about illusions, but it wasn't, it was all about why you should be an atheist, and why, when he was an evangelical Christian he was completely wrong. He even wrote that he thought his readers would be surprised to find out he used to be an evangelical Christian. I wasn't, he went from being a pain in the arse Christian to a pain in the arse atheist, like Crowley being brought up by Plymouth Brethren.

Certain atheists, like certain vegetarians have to tell you they're atheists, regardless of what you're talking about. And what's most annoying, is they presume to speak for all the agnostics too. Over here there's evidence of an atheist agenda all over the bloody place. The only thing they don't do is knock on your door, but I'm sure it won't be long before they start doing that as well. At least Jehovah's Witnesses **** off when you tell them to.

are there any other kind?

Anecdotal evidence--i've encountered exactly one person in the more than 60 years that i've been alive who has brought up the subject of god and religion with me who was not a religionist. On every other occasion upon which i've learned that someone was an atheist, it was incidental to the conversation, and it was someone whom i knew already for other reasons. By contrast, in North America (it happens in Canada, too, not just the United States), door-to-door religious botherers are more common than door-to-door salesmen.

So, my anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence. You lose.

Hehehehehehehehe . . .

The last time a JW came to door was when i was visiting my brother in North Carolina in 1980. When i realized what time it was, i just put on my best, smarmy country boy charm and told her that i'd driven all night to get there (absolutely true) and that i had laid down to get some sleep (also absolutely true). I suggested that she might leave me some literature (Watch Tower, natch). Like a true daughter of the South, she smiled, apologized profusely several times, gave me the magazine, wished me a good day and left promptly.

EDIT: I've had several people come to the door who might have been JWs, but i hustled them off before they could start their spiel.

Also notice that your reaction as an atheist to door-to-door faith pushers was orders of magnitude more polite than it would have been the other way round. John Safran, a comedian and documentary filmmaker from Australia, once flew to Salt Lake City to liberate Mormons of their theist anxieties and illuminate their intellectual darkness with the light of Charles Darwin. Their reaction makes yours look timid by comparison. But see for yourself. . . .

Yeah, i've seen that vid before, it's hilarious. Don't be fooled, though, usually i'm rude as hell--that was an isolated incident. Ordinarily, the god squad only evokes immediate and intense contempt in me.

I don't really know what you are talking about Frank.

Atheism, as we in Western culture take it, is the doctrine that there is no Christian God. Because such a doctrine cannot ever be verified then it must be a belief. Those who simply wish to act as if the doctrine is true are another matter. A tailor is needed for that and not an intellectual. Or a shoehorn.

The statement that someone has "no firm belief about God" is the agnostic position.

The position of most people in this debate is that no one ought to have a positive belief for or against the existence of God because both are unverifiable. Which is not only far more ambitious but is political and, in the last analysis, an economic argument. It has become promotion. A slither from A to B hoping no one will notice. Not even the self.

Only that ambitious version invites argument. No arguments can be brought to bear on the beliefs in either case.

Therein lies the constant trick being performed on this thread and elsewhere. The trick is to present the matter in terms of there being no evidence for God and to pass seamlessly, or thought to be seamlessly, to the idea that there ought not to be a belief in God conditioning political and economic thought. Which is a different matter entirely. There are no earthly consequences for Crusoe being an atheist or a believer until Friday appears. So another trick is involved. Pretending an individual in nothing more than that when in fact he or she is a member of a complex social system of very considerable importance and to which they owe their existence and maintenance and which, if history is the judge, is more fragile than people like to think.

Both tricks necessarily assume a stupid audience.

Hence the refusal of atheists to promote the atheist society. I don't think most of them can even imagine such a thing.

The gross error of atheists on here is to think that they can come on an international debate forum and act as if they are spouting in the pub or at the inexperienced they have obviously become used to spouting at.

When Pascal said that "the heart has reasons which reason knows not of" the application applies to all beliefs even if Pascal himself thought otherwise.

Media seem eager enough, enthusiastic even, about Dawkins.

Why do you think that is? What other self-pulicising, vulgar and vain crank gets the press he gets? He is pandering to those who have found inhibitions to promiscuity irksome.

He has no science because a list of happenings and descriptions of them is not an explanation of the whole series. And science is about explanations. Understanding.

The size of the list and the words employed in it merely obscure the obvious fact and such is the intention.

Doesn't your anecdotal evidence say more about the differences between living in the UK and living in the USA than who's right or wrong?

Check out the last three posts on the Challenges to Teaching Evolution thread Jack. My post was 8 hours ago. See how it has been answered and that is the usual manner.

None of the important points I have made on the evolution threads has ever been answered. Not a single one.

There is an atheist agenda alright. With a money motive.



You must be joking.

spendi, It's because your questions are illogical.

How convenient for you.

It sointinly is!

Sure, but you didn't address the substance of the post to which you linked when you retailed your anecdote, so why should i address the substance of sucha a diffrerence?

The post of mine to which you replied specified that the behavior of Dawkins type militant athetists is no more representative of all atheists than the behavior of BNP fanatics can be said to be representative of all Englishmen. You sidestepped that entirely in your response. Why you you expect a more serious response to your post than you gave to mine?

I think I did say prior to that, that I wasn't talking about all atheists. I do accept what you said about the BNP, but I was frothing at the mouth, thinking about all the books, tube journeys and TV documentaries that have been ruined by Dawkins and his lot. My dander was up.

There was a phone in on the radio last week about Baroness Warsi moaning to the pope about militant secularism in the UK. Almost every atheist who phoned up was at pains to point out they were a soft atheist, not at all like Dawkins. They too were really pissed of that he presumed to talk for them.

I think Dawkins is probably the preachiest person in the UK. I honestly can't think of anyone else who comes close

But the BNP members are a bunch of discredited thugs whereas Dawkins is basking in the prestige of being an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford.

Members of the BNP would not be allowed anywhere near as much freedom of the airwaves either.

The comparison is ridiculous.

Have atheists no one to put up to rebut my post concerning the two sophistical tricks they regularly deploy to try to delude a few half-wits?

Until these guys can present to us the joys of an atheistic society in a sufficiently golden light to persuade us to embrace it with enthusiasm they have not one leg to stand upon. They prove themselves wrong every time they pass up on the any one of the many opportunities I have provided down the years for them to do so.

They seem to think it will be just the same as this minus JWs knocking on the ******* door once in a blue moon.

They don't even want an atheist society. They just want a nice easy target to take a dump on. Regularly enough to proscribe DIACALM imo.

If we all converted SENECOD would be indicated.

Over 80% of Americans are religious, and the Catholics are now trying to control women's reproductive organs. What more can I say?

Actually, what I said was: “Actually, to declare there is or there is not a GOD or gods, is a guess or an assertion. It is a "belief" only when the individual terms it a "belief."”

I actually didn’t say anything about “atheists” there. If a person declares there is a GOD…it is a guess or an (unsubstantiated) assertion. If a person declares there are no gods…it is a guess or an (unsubstantiated) assertion.

If either of those people call their guess or assertion a belief (and some on each do)…then it is a belief.