Guardian article on tolerance & humility of atheists

[fuddam]

for anyone who resents / rejects the article, methinks there's many a thread on this here hexus that will demonstrate EXACTLY her experience - stupid / ignorant / gullible believers, anyone?

lol

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ichard-dawkins

[JPreston]

Fuddam, that article was originally published in the LA Times and is an EPIC FAIL on every level.

If you can't see that every single 'point' she raises does not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny, then I have creditted you with far too much intelligence from your posts here in the past. I suggest you read the comments under that article for a systematic demolition of it, rather than troll for a repetition here.

[pollaxe]

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion. I know some pretty damned ignorant atheists and I know some equally tiresome and opinionated people of faith.

People are people, regardless of their beliefs.

All I have is my doubt and frankly, I cherish it.

[Saracen]

Well, she lost my interest in the first sentence.

can't stand atheists – but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.

I've known some deeply religious people that were crashing bores too, but at least I'm not ignorant enough to extrapolate that into all religious people being such. Which is a good job, since that would imply that anyone that does, or doesn't believe in a religion is a crashing bore, meaning the only interesting people would be agnostics.

And that, of course, is a huge risk when you make any crass, sweeping generalisations.

Must've been a slow news day if the Guardian has resorted to reprinting drivel like that. You'd think they could at least bother to commission some original drivel of their own. Or, of course, with my cynical hat on, the editor wanted to create a bit of a stir so he dropped a 'controversial' piece in to try to stir up a hornet's nest. Yawn.

[schmunk]

Ack, what a terribly-written article...

[JPreston]

Ha ha I just noticed something. That piece is subtitled "Atheists are a tiresome, self-pitying bunch whose primary motivation isn't rationalism but anger".

In yesterday's Sunday Torygraph there was this piece:

Christians risk rejection and discrimination for their faith a study claims

Bearing in mind the clear pro-jesus bias of that newspaper and the obvious misrepresentation of a small poll as a 'study', that article actually reads as though it sets out to criticise the christian respondants:

The first poll of Britain’s churchgoers, carried out for The Sunday Telegraph, found that thousands of them* believe they are being turned down for promotion because of their faith.

One in five said that they had faced opposition at work because of their beliefs.

More than half of them revealed that they had suffered some form of persecution for being a Christian....one in 10 churchgoers said they have been rejected by family members because of their religious beliefs.

As many as 44 per cent said they had been mocked by friends, neighbours or colleagues for being a Christian, and 19 per cent said they had been ignored or excluded for the same reason.

They also claimed that they are being discriminated against at work, with five per cent saying they had been turned down for promotion due to their faith. The same number said they had been reprimanded or cautioned at work for sharing their faith.

There has been a series of cases over recent months featuring Christians who have been suspended after expressing their religious views, including a teacher who complained that a staff training day was used to promote gay rights.

Tiresome, self-pitying whiner? Moi...?



*they only polled 512 christians to start with. 'found' should be replaced with 'extrapolated'. The article also fails by describing the British Humanist Association as 'an atheist association' - the clue is in the name really, nice work though Torygraph.

[Mike Fishcake]

I thought it had been a while

[G4Z]

To be quite honest with you JPreston if I were making the decision on who to promote or hire and lets just say that all things were equal between 2 candidates except one of them was religious and the other not I would go for the atheist. I wouldn't be doing it because I favour athiests or because I don't like theists but the simple fact of the matter is that one candidate would appear to be more irrational than the other and in my estimation probably a less capable decision maker.

To me that is a reasonable and fair position, believing in religion is imo no different to being convinced the earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese and I would question the intellectual abillity of anybody who believed those things. Its only because of history and the amount of people that believe it which make it socially unacceptable (to some) to discriminate on that basis. If a billion people belived the moon was made of cheese I would still say they were stupid.

[TeePee]

Fuddam, even you can see the obvious holes in this drivel.

[Englander]

What a load of rubbish, I got to as far as the bit that Saracen quoted, laughed at her and closed the article. A waste time and space, really.

[AledJ]

I want my wasted time back fro reading that tripe!!!

[Clunk]

Knickers.

[Agent]

for anyone who resents / rejects the article, methinks there's many a thread on this here hexus that will demonstrate EXACTLY her experience - stupid / ignorant / gullible believers, anyone?

lol

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ichard-dawkins

Posting a link to an article that reads like it's been written by a 10 year old hardly does any arguments you may have any favours.

[jim]

Stupid article, but Dawkins is still a rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish.

[Agent]

As for your sig Fuddam, perhaps quote the rest of what Einstein said...

neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted ... by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."

Einstein 1940, pp. 605–607

A god can never be 100% refuted by science, but god is often used to explain things that science currently can not.

More?

In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text.

Why don't you put the full passage of what he said in your sig?
It's freely available in his paper "Science and Religion" that was published in 1940. Go and look it up.

[badass]

As for your sig Fuddam, perhaps quote the rest of what Einstein said...



Einstein 1940, pp. 605–607

A god can never be 100% refuted by science, but god is often used to explain things that science currently can not.

More?





Why don't you put the full passage of what he said in your sig?
It's freely available in his paper "Science and Religion" that was published in 1940. Go and look it up.

A creationist quote mining?

Well I never