You made a false assumption about Atheism (that is, saying that atheists believe there is no God, 100%, as if they have some kind of proof). I gave a you a very clear video, that the vast majority of the atheists said in other threads described their beliefs. You said it was "too cut and dry", and since then people have been trying to get you to explain how it is. Come on, cough it up.
Originally posted by Deadline
Thank you for illustrating my point. The point is that you were still accusing me of making an argument I was not making.making. The fact that I changed my arguement is irrelevant. The point is you were still trying to accuse me of making the same argument after I had cleary told you thats not what I was doing. If you correct somebody and they change their argument there is nothing wrong with it, the problem is you were still trying to accuse me of making the same argument after I corrected it. You are selectively picking what information you like.What do you mean so I admit it? I already did that in the thread.
Oh I see, so the fact I cleary stated that atheism and theism were not belief systems and then after that you still accused me of making the argument that atheism and theism are belief systems is irrelevant?
I denied what? I'm not sure what you are refering to but one thing is clear when you asked for clarification I specifically said that atheism and theism were not belief systems. It seems to me you are trying to wriggle out of it.
Now Im not saying I'm perfect but when I make a point crystal clear you are in no position to tell me that I can't express myself properly.
You were not rude in the thread I am refering to but it did seem you were being argumentative. I wasn't perfect either and I myself did misunderstand some things that inimalist said. You are being rude now because I am giving you clear logically reasons for my behaviour and you are simply trying to distort what happened. When you do something wrong admit it. Theres also the fact that you want to talk about my behaviour while ignoring the behaviours of others. Omega Vision was bang out of order but you're willing to ignore that and focus on me. Biased.
Yes you are, no you don't.
Okay, well this is getting silly, I hope you don't mind if we don't go another round repeating exactly the same things to each other.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, it's hard to classify yourself if you think deeper on it and are not affiliated with any sort of organization you gave your defining power over to.
then why would we believe this person has an identifiable classification?
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think many atheists are at hard skeptics, and as such they easily fit a broad definition of agnosticism.I am not sure what inimalist is going for, perhaps he has a very strict definition of agnosticism, something along the lines "Believing that the existence of God is ultimately unknowable or does not matter", which is fair enough really, but in common usage agnosticism often means not being absolutely certain about God(s) either way, and that fits many people, though perhaps it is a somewhat useless label then.
to me, there is a difference between being open to a convincing argument and agnosticism.
I wouldn't define someone who believed in evolution, but was willing to judge the evidence against it, as an agnostic on the issue, and thus, I would not call myself an agnostic. The rest was an attempt at bravado.
Earlier this year Christopher Hitchens was diagnosed with esophageal cancer: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/christopher-hitchens-to-begin-cancer-treatment/
...divine punishment?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Earlier this year Christopher Hitchens was diagnosed with esophageal cancer: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/christopher-hitchens-to-begin-cancer-treatment/...divine punishment?
Hmm, i don't know a 60 year old chainsmoker...might just be coincidence.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, i don't know a 60 year old chainsmoker...might just be coincidence.
Well yeah, but I wanted to provoke discussion. There's a popular urban legend that Charles Darwin became a deathbed convert. Hitchens and the other figures in the New Atheism movement said they never will. Dawkins even said that he'll have cameras, audio recorders and eye-witnesses present when the end is near.
Do they really care that much about their image? Being stubborn all in the name of saving face. Then again, if they did become last minute repenters, it would seem to betray their public personas, as well as the New York Times best-sellers they spent so much time writing and later defending.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Do they really care that much about their image?
They probably care more about the people who would so readily accept the argument that "you can't prove Dawkins didn't convert to Pentacostalism on his deathbed" as proof that Dawkins converted to Christianity just before he died. By recording his death they would offer people more facts, it's easy to see that people will try to fit god into any bit of ignorance they can find and the record eliminates that hiding place.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well yeah, but I wanted to provoke discussion. There's a popular urban legend that Charles Darwin became a deathbed convert. Hitchens and the other figures in the New Atheism movement said they never will. Dawkins even said that he'll have cameras, audio recorders and eye-witnesses present when the end is near.Do they really care that much about their image? Being stubborn all in the name of saving face. Then again, if they did become last minute repenters, it would seem to betray their public personas, as well as the New York Times best-sellers they spent so much time writing and later defending.
The thing about Darwin is a myth.
They care not so much about their image, but about the cause, I believe. Like the myth about Darwin, it would make their Religious opponents incredibly happy if they did find faith on their deathbed, and the more immoral ones among them, would likely not even mind fabricating it, like some have done with Darwin above.
I imagine that Dawkins and other prominent atheists constantly get confronted with people saying "Oh you'll change your mind when you are on your deathbed", non prominent atheists like I (and I am sure others on this site) are face with the similar "There are no atheist in foxholes" (something many of the serving atheists find quite offensive) at times. It's a stupid tactic, and it shouldn't even be used, but it is and that's the reality of it.
If Dawkins died, and there would be no proof of his last minutes, then you can bet your ass someone will spread the rumour that he became a die-hard Christian in his last minutes, and then atheists all over the Internet, would again and again, be confronted by certain types of Christian posters with "You know, even Dawkins found God on his deathbed", and although you and I as reasonable people can see that a simple "So what?" (whether it was true or not) should be sufficient, as Dawkins is not the emperor of atheist people, the more stupid or malicious Christian debater will not understand that or care, and the more stupid Atheist will not be sure what to reply.
That being said, I am sure that it is also partly a self image that they have of themselves, but I can understand the reasoning behind it, and know, from experience, that it is not just silly propaganda, but has a real reason, in that especially famous atheists must worry about being lied about after their death by immoral, hardcore theists.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaConverted? Wasnt Darwin always a theist?
Well yeah, but I wanted to provoke discussion. There's a popular urban legend that Charles Darwin became a deathbed convert. Hitchens and the other figures in the New Atheism movement said they never will. Dawkins even said that he'll have cameras, audio recorders and eye-witnesses present when the end is near.Do they really care that much about their image? Being stubborn all in the name of saving face. Then again, if they did become last minute repenters, it would seem to betray their public personas, as well as the New York Times best-sellers they spent so much time writing and later defending.
I was just thinking about a hypothetical.
If/when Dawkins is on his deathbed, and starts having last minute doubts about god and eternity (however strong or weak the thoughts might be), he still wouldn't be able to convert. Not out loud, anyways. And it would be because of the pressure he put on himself. All of his extensive life's work would be for nothing. He would be the sell-out of the century.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I was just thinking about a hypothetical.If/when Dawkins is on his deathbed, and starts having last minute doubts about god and eternity (however strong or weak the thoughts might be), he still wouldn't be able to convert. Not out loud, anyways. And it would be because of the pressure he put on himself. All of his extensive life's work would be for nothing. He would be the sell-out of the century.
I don't think he'd be a sell out, if he has a good reason, or if he's just honest about it, nor does it mean that his life's work is invalid.
I believe it was him actually, that told a story about having a professor, who was well respected in a certain field and the major proponent of a certain theory, and one day a younger guy was giving a lecture and clearly and scientifically disproved the theory the his Professor had spend his life working on, and after the lecture his Professor walked up to the younger man and thanked him.
I think if your wish is not to appear right, but to find out the truth, there is no shame in admitting being wrong or changing your mind.
Hell, even if he does it out of fear (which I suppose is what Christians generally assume would be the reason to find God before you die, fear of hell) I'd not really lose respect for him, I don't agree with it, but even smart people can be wrong and even smart people can be afraid.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I was just thinking about a hypothetical.If/when Dawkins is on his deathbed, and starts having last minute doubts about god and eternity (however strong or weak the thoughts might be), he still wouldn't be able to convert. Not out loud, anyways. And it would be because of the pressure he put on himself. All of his extensive life's work would be for nothing. He would be the sell-out of the century.
Why would his life's work be for nothing? He championed science and reason. Anybody who understands those things won't have their minds changed by what he says as he dies, unless it presents a compelling argument.