|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 15:40:18 GMT
No it's you who keeps changing their mind. Nope all your deliberate failure at basic comprehensive reading. Atheism is a movement just as it is the expression of a belief, Except for the fact that it the absence of a belief and therefore not a movement. and it has representatives Since it is neither a movement nor a homogenous group, it does not have any representatives. , and atheists can deny this all they like, it doesn't make the slightest difference. No, it's your disingenuous attempts at sophistry that won't make any difference.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 15:46:28 GMT
It's a movement to promote a particular point of view by getting people to reject one and accept another. It makes no difference what it is based on, a movement is a movement. Its main representative is Richard Dawkins.
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Hartman on Feb 13, 2012 15:50:27 GMT
Nope all your deliberate failure at basic comprehensive reading. Take it easy, Thomaseshuis.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 18:46:04 GMT
Nope all your deliberate failure at basic comprehensive reading. Take it easy, Thomaseshuis. I have not called him any names. I just pointed out his inability to comprehend my statements. It's either that or he is wilfully twisting them to suit his own needs.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 18:50:30 GMT
It's a movement to promote a particular point of view Nope. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less. by getting people to reject one and accept another. That's still secularism/anti-theism, not atheism. It makes no difference what it is based on, a movement is a movement. Its main representative is Richard Dawkins. It does, a liberal movement is not a socialist movement. Just like an anti-theist movement is not an atheist movement. Atheism is the name for the lack of belief in gods. Not the name of a movement of homogeneous group.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 21:07:21 GMT
It is a movement, and it has a representative. His name is Richard Dawkins.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Feb 14, 2012 9:39:46 GMT
Of course he's a preacher. He tells people that they should reject their views and follow his views and become atheists. Is that right? Can you provide one example where he has done that?
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 14, 2012 12:32:27 GMT
Yes, his books, and his talks.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Feb 14, 2012 16:48:58 GMT
Yes, his books, and his talks. Care to be more specific? You formed an opinion about him based on something, right? I want to know what it was in his books that you found 'preachy'. Also, links to youtube videos where you thought he is being 'preachy'. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Feb 14, 2012 16:50:47 GMT
Worldquest. LOL at your signature. You obviously misunderstood my position. But A for effort.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 14, 2012 17:18:51 GMT
Thank you. Likewise.
About Dawkins's preaching. Come on, you shouldn't even have to ask. The guy's on a mission. If Jesus was around now (not that I believe in Jesus) he'd be like "Dude, chill".
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Feb 14, 2012 17:30:07 GMT
Thank you. Likewise. About Dawkins's preaching. Come on, you shouldn't even have to ask. The guy's on a mission. If Jesus was around now (not that I believe in Jesus) he'd be like "Dude, chill". I do have to ask, because you are high on assertions and low on facts backing them up.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 14, 2012 17:55:47 GMT
He writes books and gives talks in which his objective is to get others to reject one view and accept another, namely his. That's why he does it. He's a preacher. Why do you want me to be specific? Do you want me to quote something he's written or said so that you can then say "aaah, but that doesn't mean he's a preacher" (even though it does) whilst completely disregarding his purpose for writing the book or giving the talk in the first place? Do you think he does it so that everyone will reject his views?
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Feb 14, 2012 23:03:09 GMT
You're saying that preaching a certain view doesn't make someone a representative, yet earlier you said that the pope represents all catholics, which includes those who don't agree with him. Look if you want to debate, stick to my arguments, don't try to twist them or quote mine me. I never said the pope was the representative of catholics because he preached catholic christianity. I used the pope as an example because he has been elected/chosen as head and representative of the Christian church. This: false. What you fail to realize is that atheism isn't a movement, religion, philosophy or any other form of organized phenomenon. It's simple the name for a lack of belief in god. We're not a coherent group. The only thing we have in common is lacking a belief in god. We don't have any representatives nor dogma. Again twisting my words, I said that someone preaching something only makes him a representative of his/her view on the subject. Not a representative of the subject itself nor any majority of the people adhering to or falling under that subject. There's no such thing. You're again confusing atheism with anti-theism. Nope, only his own view on atheism. Atheism is an ism. If you don't want it to be an ism you are free to make up another word. Your failure to understand that the prefix a- mean without is not my problem. Atheism is just that a-theism, not theism. It isn't an -ism itself. By your logic asymmetry contains symmetry and being asocial is exhibiting socially acceptable behavior. The prefix a- means that something is not the thing that follows the prefix. So Anarchism is not a political philosophy?
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Feb 15, 2012 3:34:45 GMT
He writes books and gives talks in which his objective is to get others to reject one view and accept another, namely his. That's why he does it. He's a preacher. Why do you want me to be specific? Do you want me to quote something he's written or said so that you can then say "aaah, but that doesn't mean he's a preacher" (even though it does) whilst completely disregarding his purpose for writing the book or giving the talk in the first place? Do you think he does it so that everyone will reject his views? This just shows me you have no actual evidence to your claim. You keep repeating your assertion, and when challenged on it, are not able to give me a reason why you made that assertion. J.K Rowling also writes books and gives talks, doesn't mean she is a preacher. Back up your claims if you want to be taken seriously.
|
|