If you carefully read all that I have said on this matter in this thread you will find what I have said quite clearly that Atheism is like a religion. I did not say it is a religion. There is a distinction between those two assertions. Post #17 - quote

"there are many forms of belief. Atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet."

As to the 'belief system' argument I think I have said all I can say on that. If you don't accept that explanation I respect your choice. And as for the dogmatic, usually the most militant and active in any cause take this road. I'm not on it and have no idea whether you are or not.

The video is interesting but I have seen most of it before, as this subject interests me. Yes it is very calm and reasonable. And yes, from the atheist point of view it is right on the mark. Using science to prove that God doesn't exist is unusual. Do scientists have more insight on this than anyone else? Their inability to convince all others would suggest otherwise. The fact is neither side can 'prove' anything and is why I will not take part in that debate. If a person was to change his mind because of the 'debate', perhaps it can be changed again.:hmmm: It is an endless discourse.

I first heard the Irish joke here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAjMPxOvRk

It's a very long video but the joke is at the 34:00 minute mark. Hitchens dry and straight faced humour is nicely displayed here. It is amazing to see two men with opposing ideas converse with such respect and openness. Well worth watching the whole thing. It is not a debate but a pre-debate discussion. It's cool that they have similar experiences and are in agreement on a number of topics. An excellent video.

No it is not like a religion. It is nothing in itself and thus cannot be like anything else. Really difficult for theists and believers to understand that point, eh?

No, because you can only be dogmatic about a dogma you hold. A total certainty. A belief. Atheism holds no such absolute claims. Religion does. As somebody in the video says, belief means certainty, being certain a bout what one imagines to be truth - if you are not certain, than you have not really a belief. The whole purpose of belief is to proclaim certainty. Atheism is nothing in itself just the fencing of of theistic beliefs. There is nothing it offers that it claims absolute certainty on.

The point of view here is reason. Logic. Analysis. Examination. Let's leave these names linked to what they mean. Saying the POV is "atheism", means nothing here, is even misleading and a distortion again sinc eit implies that there is a system behind atheism that claims an own existence and defence of that. Atheism does not join theistic ideas that were invented by theism. All that is atheismk is that it is not joining theistic conceptions and inventions. That's all.

You do, and you repeatedly try to derail it and you even seem to be unaware of that. Because nowhere is said in the video, nor do I say, that science "proves the non-existence of God". How often must I refer to logic itself: the non-existence of something cannot be proven? The point is the existence of a god is not neededs, we can live and cosmos can move on without that idea. Why do you claim to have watched the video when you obviously have missed the repeated occasions where the interviewed people say exactly the opposite of what you put in their mouth? What you claim that had been said, has not been said anywhere. And is not written by Dawkins, Hitchens and the others as well in their books as far as I know them. That guy in the middle of that video also says so, showing you wrong in what you claim that is being said.

Science is an open process without any absolute certainties or final results that stand from their birth on to the end of all eternity . That is methodology it bases on - not just random "discourse". You cannot have a discourse between a fairy tale and a scientiifc theory, as if the first were of the smae nature and essence like the latter. Scientific theory is only temporary models on how to arrange what we already know in the most reasonable and efficient way. And we know a whole lot more about comology and the universe than 200 years ago - and we know that not because of religion, but dispite religion. Science does not deal in absolutes - religion does. Science forms theories that are of temporary validity until something better is formulated on the basis of more observations and information. Ockham'S razor means to go with that explanation that offers most explanatory value of most possible findings and phenomenons in the most elegant (=simple, easiest, uncomplicated) way. Religion not only denies the need to do so, since it claims to already have all the answers, it even fights against this dogma of being in possession of the absolute truth being examined. As Daniel Dennett in the video put it: religion is a gold-plated excuse to stop thinking. And we should stop paying respect for stopping to think.

When Laplace was asked by Napoleon why he has no representation of the variable called "god" in his probablity calculations and formulas, Laplace simply said something like this: "I don't need that variable, it does nothing of additional value." The cosmos still functions, you see. Life still moves on. Adding god to the cosmological formula does nothing, nowhere, for nothing and nobody, neither for better nor worse (if staying focussed on cosmology here and ignoring how religions makes people insane - that is only a problem strictly limited to the sometimes strangely behaving dominant species inhabiting this tiny little particle of dust). It simply is a variable that has no cosmological or explanatory effect.

Carl Sagan in the beginning of the video says something comparable to Laplace at the end of the first excerpt in the video.

Keep it simple. Do not add unneeded complications and variables that serve no purpose and have no potential for additional gains.

I am in doubt on whether you really got why I quoted it.

Anyhow. "What atheists don't tend to do is making unjustifiable and unjustified claims about the nature of the cosmos or the divine nature of certain books." (Sam Harris, in that video)

Mr dogmatic is becoming fantastic for delivering without realising it:yeah:

Thank you.

Are you saying that none of the people in the video are Atheists? Are you saying that none of them hold the view that God doesn't exist or is unnecessary? Okay, I guess I missed something.


"The fact is neither side can 'prove' anything and is why I will not take part in that debate."

If you are suggesting that I have in any way tried to prove that God exists please quote me on it. This is the 'debate' I was talking about. Other than my stated personal belief in God I have made no such attempt to persuade you or any one else. My only argument has been the implied similarity of Atheism to religion or a belief system. I tried to give up that argument in my last post. You on the other hand have written volumes expounding the Atheist point of view. Who's trying to convert who?

And now you are telling me how to interpret a joke?

Okay.

deleted. no use in trying.

The beauty of it is I don't think he understands the joke himself, its too "unadvanced" for him:rotfl2:

TRUE:D

May the force/schwartz be with you....

That's your second post in a row attacking a fellow member without providing any argument of your own.

It's getting old, and you're walking on thin ice.

You keep on throwing that out, look it is simple, it is dealing with what he has written and the arguements are self evident,.......
for the first he displays again the very dogmatism in his approach he is claiming doesn't exist in his side of the arguement.
For the second perhaps you are just not "advanced" enough to get it:03:(but it actually has nothing to do with religion or atheism which is what makes it so funny when he introduced it).


I think his fundamentalism is old and is historicly very thin ice which is why it must be called out each and every time.

Then call it out with facts and arguments. The sniping ends now.

I just read that the Turkish star pianist Fazil Say is pulled to court in Turkey over comments he made on social networks where he expressed critical and amused comments on belief. He also has repeatedly critizised the Re-Islamization of Turkey under the regime of Erdoghan I. and the AKP. The charges he is accused of are over hate speech and incitement speech. The satanic freedom of speech via internet made both his comments and the masses learning early about the charges possible.

At the same time Turkey harbours the only book publisher in the Muslim world that dares to publish a translation of Richard Dawkins bestselling book The God Delusion - it is banned in all Muslim countries. A small publisher has published it in Turkey now, and promptly got charged with hate crime and blasphemy. This did not save it for the prosecutors - news of the event spread mainly via internet, and caused support for the owner of the publishing company. Since the charges were filed, 5 more editions were printed and sold, and demand is said to be still high. The satanic evil of free speech once again has been demonstrated. :D

I refer you back to the first part of that post.

If you want another example of putting facts to the arguement take a nice little look at the preceeding post, is that the same person complaining about censorship of reading materials who frequently advocates censorship of reading materials?
The facts and the arguements speak for themselves don't they. Dogmatic fundametalists but oppsite sides of the same coin.

Your reply to me did indeed have an argument.

However,
And
do not, and qualify as blatant trolling and sniping. The warning stands.

The dogmatism of his approach is evident throughout the topic, the more he expresses his certianty in his belief and condemns the other he is delivering the destruction of his own arguement.

His own words have bitten him in the backside, is using someones own words trolling?
The comment about the joke stands, though nowadays its been updated to chinese and numerous eastern european nationalities, the polish angle can get quite funny.

Why don't you quit while you're still ahead? You have a long history of skating as close to the edge as you can, and right now you're very close to the edge.