Richard Dawkins

[If you want atheists to be quiet and hide away then you should expect the same from the worlds religions - that would be double standards though - not unusual in itself for religions.

I'd settle for some of the atheist I know not personally trying to convert me to athiesm at every opportunity and in the process increasing their blood pressure when I ask them to prove that there is no god

[If you want atheists to be quiet and hide away then you should expect the same from the worlds religions - that would be double standards though - not unusual in itself for religions.

I'd settle for some of the atheist I know not personally trying to convert me to athiesm at every opportunity and in the process increasing their blood pressure when I ask them to prove that there is no god

Ditto. I get equally annoyed by all missionaries, regardless of what religion they are peddling. And yes, that includes atheism.

Live and let live.

Bart.

[If you want atheists to be quiet and hide away then you should expect the same from the worlds religions - that would be double standards though - not unusual in itself for religions.

I'd settle for some of the atheist I know not personally trying to convert me to athiesm at every opportunity and in the process increasing their blood pressure when I ask them to prove that there is no god

Albert,
I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything. I could care less. It's just that it disturbs me when I see an intelligent human being ask me to prove the non-existence of something rather than the normal scientific route of him proving the existence of his god - with facts and verifable data etc, not hearsay and fairytales.

I leave you with my quote to ISAW:

Anyway your welcome to your beliefs, I'll not spend any more time arguing over the merits of a non-entity, enjoy your superstitions and juju. (with all due respect etc. no offence intended).

What has the above got to do with religion?

Hey! i asked first

An atheist would probably be more likely to do what that woman did than than a religious person.

Really? care to give you examples of that happening and I'll bet i can produce one for every one you do.

You trivalise the womans profound actions at the Truth and Reconcillation tribunals if you comment athiests are "more likely" to be like her. On what evidence is this suggestion based?

But all i thent means is a claim that "Athiests are more moral than believers". this is a statement which is full of problems. although the secular sense of "natural law" may be appealed to, it still runs outside science. Don't forget the point was not about athiests and suggesting all scientists are athiests or better scientists are athiests is just not suported by evidence!

People don't need religion to tell them what's right or wrong.

so it IS an appeal to secular natural law! If it isn't them care to show me how to scientifically derive this woman's behaviour.

What she did was the right thing (or maybe she wanted to adopt him so that she could dispose of him more easily - joke). A religious fanatic would spout eye for eye and tooth for tooth

A misguided fundamentalist. Not the majority of believers.

(few ever seem to turn the other cheek as this woman did).

How do you know? And even if NONE acted as she diod so what? that does not mean they are right and her wrong does it? So morality is not decided on by a majority.

If religion is so correct then why are there so many contradictory edicts - as above (eye for eye versus cheek turning).

Now you are into a diferent point. But in mainstream religions there AREN'T so many contradictions! Also, science does not always agree. Is there a solution to the Reimann problem? Is stem cell research of benefit to society? Should experimenters intervene if a subject is suffering? Is the universe expanding at a constant rate? will it always do so? has it always done so? where areall the solar neutrinos? do other universes and wormholes exist?

Your not wrong that Dawkins is very anti-religious. He is only fighting back against attacks on him by religion.

that is a bit like demanding the death penalty for Saddam. One can be drawn into the same mindset of those form which one claims to detract.

He feels it is not enough just to be an atheist, he must actively fight religion. This is no more incorrect than a religious person trying to convert people to their faith - so don't be surprised at his "visciousness" (your word not mine). If you want atheists to be quiet and hide away then you should expect the same from the worlds religions - that would be double standards though - not unusual in itself for religions.

Actually some religions FORBID prostelytising e.g. jeudaism! But it isnt a case of that. it is comments like "far worse than clergy abusing children is the fact that religious people were involved in the eduation system in the first place" I heard Dawkings say similar myself!

If you want to believe in santa claus, the tooth fairy, or god, then I'll defend your right to be superstitious, I will not however condone your forcing it down my throat as fact.

Very high and mighty. where is your evidence for wormholes or are they still only a mathematical construct? So are they a FACT? Are they?

It is time for you to think for yourself - ask questions of your faith - does it stand up to scrutiny? or do you have to keep resorting to that cure-all, FAITH, everytime you come across something ludicrous, contradictory or just downright wrong in your bible or koran or whatever. Can you stand over the correctness of your religious intitution and their methods and history?

FAR FAR more people died as result of atheistic regimes than as result of
religious ones! Judging by your historical criteria then, atheism is far more dangerous. As to beinf fundamentalists I met Burbridge (the man) of the famous B2FH stellar synthesis paper and he is quite adamant about the behaviour of the "correct" lobby in Astronomy.

Are you happy with that? If so then carry on; but to me, religion, theism, deism or any other ism that requires me to suspend belief and not ask questions just goes against my nature entirely.

AtheISM??
Christianity does not require one not to ask questions or go aginst the nature of the Universe. Indeed the Pope pointed to the absurdity of God telling you to do evil or changing a law of nature.

ISAW,

absurdity of God

I agree.
How do you like being quoted out of context ??
You seem to have no trouble doing it yourself.
I will not continue this discussion as it is absurd to waste time on a non-entity (I mean god - not you).

People don't need religion to tell them what's right or wrong.

so it IS an appeal to secular natural law! If it isn't them care to show me how to scientifically derive this woman's behaviour.

No, it is not an appeal to a secular natural law. It is a a simple observation of reality. There are plenty of people who do not believe in religion but who can still tell right from wrong.

Bart.