Best Religious/Nonreligious Debate Ever

[_Chap]

I fail to see that the ceremonial modes used in (A) have to be treated with respect, whatever they may be, while those in (B) deserve derision, whatever they may be, because no belief in an imaginary being is involved. Why does religious belief bring one these special privileges, I wonder?

Neither of them are to be treated with respect, but (B) was a faux-religious ceremony done at a atheist convention so big names could participate.

What do you mean by faux-religious? Do you just mean that it was a ceremony? If so, why can only religions have ceremonies without provoking your mockery? And why shouldn't (some at least, if not all) people who are proud of their new baby like the idea of a 'big name' being involved in his or her naming? Seems natural to me. Some religious people have been known to feel that way too.

Also at this same convention, they had "de-baptisms" where people where "blessed" with a blow dryer.

I rather think you will find that this was intended as a humorous mockery of the religious ceremony - you reverse a dipping in water by drying the person off, geddit? Hardly 'faux religious', surely?

[_EAllusion]

Dawkins is philosophically naïve and that comes across here and there. He's at his best, as one would expect, when commenting on biology. However, Dawkins takes so much bad criticism from religious critics from all angles that I'd be hesitant to endorse anyone's criticism of him without knowing what it is.

[_lostindc]

Yeah dude... I'd love to hear you attempt to debunk even one argument out of that book. Go ahead. Take your very best shot.

I felt more sadness, anger, and weakness from you in this one post than I did from Dawkins' entire book.

Why my words, I simply refer you to the Dawkin's Delusion by Berlinksi or Flew's latest work. I believe both dealt well with the weaknesses of the posivitist arguments. Can you offer viewpoints counter to their writings? They are both well prepared to dismantle the biologist's (Dawkins) arguments.

I simply ask you to read the first part of The God Delusion where he talks about the population of atheists and uses other religious groups as comparisons. This is the beginning of the marriage of atheism to religion in terms of the book.

[_Some Schmo]

Why my words, I simply refer you to the Dawkin's Delusion by Berlinksi or Flew's latest work. I believe both dealt well with the weaknesses of the posivitist arguments. Can you offer viewpoints counter to their writings? They are both well prepared to dismantle the biologist's (Dawkins) arguments.

I simply ask you to read the first part of The God Delusion where he talks about the population of atheists and uses other religious groups as comparisons. This is the beginning of the marriage of atheism to religion in terms of the book.

I had a feeling you were piggy backing your opinion off of someone else.

Tell you what, to be fair, you summarize their argument in your own words (after all, it's your criticism too, right?) and I'll attempt to counter your writings.

And yes, it is the biggest of insults to call atheism a religion, isn't it. Who wants their belief system called a religion? OMG! *spits*

You can pejoratively call atheism a religion all you want, or make the case that Dawkins thinks it so (yeah right) but most atheists know what atheism really is, and the only people theists are insulting when they call it a religion are themselves.

[_marg]

The term is used (rightly so) to mock and belittle them, not to win arguments. I don't know what my side is, but when people have secular baby naming ceremoniesin which the Arch-Bishop Dawkins helps administer, they are just asking to be made fun of. Guideparents instead of Godparents? Look at this blog entry about it:

Secular Student Alliance Advisory Board member Richard Dawkins also participated in the ceremony along with IHS President Larry Jones, IHS Legislative Liaison Jennifer Lange, Camp Quest Director Amanda Metskas, IHS Board Member Bobbie Krikhart, Camp Quest Co-founders Edwin and Helen Kagin, and Secular Student Alliance Executive Director August E. Brunsman IV. Shannon's mother also participated in the ceremony--to the best of our knowledge, she is not officially affiliated with any freethought organizations.

Do we really need to point out the mother is not part of any freethought organizations?

I didn't see any problem with what they were doing. Dawkins was asked to speak (according to the video) because he was viewed as a good role model. What's wrong with that? My daughter recently got married with a beautiful ceremony on a beach in Cancun..no mention of God or anything remotely religious/supernatural. What's the problem there stak, with people appreciating the value of ceremonies for important to them occasions?

[_marg]

Who wants their belief system called a religion? OMG! *spits*

ROFL

[_Scottie]

I liked this one too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0A4_bwC ... re=channel

[_EAllusion]

Why my words, I simply refer you to the Dawkin's Delusion by Berlinksi

You didn't even get the title right. But if there's an argument found therein you'd like to share, go for it.

[_lostindc]

Why my words, I simply refer you to the Dawkin's Delusion by Berlinksi or Flew's latest work. I believe both dealt well with the weaknesses of the posivitist arguments. Can you offer viewpoints counter to their writings? They are both well prepared to dismantle the biologist's (Dawkins) arguments.

I simply ask you to read the first part of The God Delusion where he talks about the population of atheists and uses other religious groups as comparisons. This is the beginning of the marriage of atheism to religion in terms of the book.

I had a feeling you were piggy backing your opinion off of someone else.

Tell you what, to be fair, you summarize their argument in your own words (after all, it's your criticism too, right?) and I'll attempt to counter your writings.

And yes, it is the biggest of insults to call atheism a religion, isn't it. Who wants their belief system called a religion? OMG! *spits*

You can pejoratively call atheism a religion all you want, or make the case that Dawkins thinks it so (yeah right) but most atheists know what atheism really is, and the only people theists are insulting when they call it a religion are themselves.

Before we get going, can you please point to one of your original arguments on the subject? It appears you must have many, or even one, judging by your statements.

by the way, look for a summary of those texts online, rather simple thing to do, embrace technology.

[_lostindc]

Why my words, I simply refer you to the Dawkin's Delusion by Berlinksi

You didn't even get the title right. But if there's an argument found therein you'd like to share, go for it.

Freudian slip, but I think you got the point. Why pose the arguments here, we all know this board is nothing but a cut and paste forum?

I forgot to mention, turn to Chapter 7 of Berkinski's book and I believe he deals well with Dawkin's argument that God is improbable.