Are you talking to me? I read the link to the Cambridge thing. It seemed pretty clear: Dawkins calls himself agnostic.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sick of smug catholics who think they understand Dawkins and atheists better than anybody else.

D really appreciate it if you would read the whole chapter from the book you cite. It's only nine pages long.

I can't deal with the pro-lifers either, or the "open your heart posters." But I personally have seen a lot more nasty atheist postings. Maybe it's just one atheist and the rest are sweetie-pies. Or maybe I've been on here longer than you. I don't know. But check out the "what are you giving up for Lent" thread for a recent display of atheists' (one atheist? several atheists?) dumb and insulting one-liners.

I'm sick of smug catholics who think they understand Dawkins and atheists better than anybody else.

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, 16:55. Have you seen some of the abuse the Ranting Atheist and other atheists here dish out to people of faith? It's too much fun to stop, just because you said pretty please. It seems to be, if I may go so far, the whole meaning of her life.

I have seen arrogance on both sides. A few months ago there was a thread titled "Why don't you believe in God?". The original post implied that the source of many people's troubles was a lack of faith, then lamented about how atheists call faith "dumb", and invited responses.

The first response was

"I don't think it's dumb; I just don't believe. To me, it's akin to believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. I haven't "wrestled with it" and it doesn't bother me. It also doesn't bother me if others believe. To each their own."

And the second response was

My marriage is not broken, I'm not depressed and I'm not overwhelmed by my kids. I also do not believe in God. I believe in Science.

I do not believe that human beings are the highest form of life and I'd be sad if there weren't something bigger/better out there, but God...don't need him/her/it.

Bottom line: I don't think you need to have faith in order to be a good person.

I don't have any disdain or disrespect for those that do believe, but I'd prefer that they not shove it down my throat just as I respect their beliefs and do not force mine on them.

Why do you believe in God?

and the THIRD response was:

I think it's human to want to understand the environment and control it, but I think science is a better instrument for that than religion or magic. Not perfect, but better.

And this went on and on for quite some time, with OP actually thanking people for their responses and without anyone calling anyone else "dumb".

So I think the idea that there is one nice Atheist and a bunch of bullies is flat out wrong. You remember the wacko, and the atheists remember the smug Christian who says "if you don't have faith, it is because you haven't truly opened your heart".

The atheists on DCUM are bullies and trolls. With one exception who generally identifies herself and calls out the others.

Seriously, 16:55. Have you seen some of the abuse the Ranting Atheist and other atheists here dish out to people of faith? It's too much fun to stop, just because you said pretty please. It seems to be, if I may go so far, the whole meaning of her life.

The Ranting Atheist will never show respect to people of faith. Her name says as much.

Thanks for trying, though.

RantingAtheist wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it was not clear in the last post that I am a Christian. I just think the earlier attack on Dawkins and atheism is nonsense.

Just want to say, given your comments, and the contrast between yours and other self-described Christians on DCUM, you may be the only one here. Quick! Register as "TheDCUMChristian" while it's still available!

Imagine the two of us on the same side of an argument. Dogs and cats living together!

Well, I have my beliefs and you have yours. But honestly it pisses me off when people misrepresent a belief system. The earlier posters quote a snippet of Dawkins and distort it in a way clearly opposite of the text they lifted it from in the same way that one might lift a passage from the Koran to prove that Muslims are evil. And this whole issue of Mitt Romney not qualifying as a real Christian gets me, not that I'm even Republican. I guess it all started when someone asked me if I was a Christian and I said "yes, I'm Catholic" and they asked me if I was "born again". I said "yes, I was baptized and confirmed" and they proceeded to explain why I was not yet saved.

While I have your attention, I do think they have a point, which is that atheists often mock the notion of faith. I think that there is enough data on humans to recognize that all of us make decisions based on factors other than reason. In fact, there may be data to suggest that free will itself is an illusion, therefore making moot any judgment about what is relevant in defining beliefs at all (the fields of biology, and also cosmology). Even an atheist can appreciate that, not that we shouldn't try hard to form good beliefs. Yes, they bring it on themselves by trying to prove God through reason, especially when they are not particularly well versed in the ground already covered by the philosophers. But it's OK for people to be at a different point in the discovery process. Everyone starts from scratch and has to work through these ideas as though they are new.

So I suggest that as long as theists approach proof of God with some humility, that atheists should counter in a respectful way. That way we all grow.

Anonymous wrote:I guess it was not clear in the last post that I am a Christian. I just think the earlier attack on Dawkins and atheism is nonsense.

Just want to say, given your comments, and the contrast between yours and other self-described Christians on DCUM, you may be the only one here. Quick! Register as "TheDCUMChristian" while it's still available!

Anonymous wrote:9:08 again. I mean, how would you suggest we respond to RantingAtheist's absolute certainty that s/he's right about everything, including the non-existence of God, and this certainty of hers means she can abuse the rest of us as idiots and sheeple. Obviously, we could ignore her, but she's been around for a few years now so the track record on ignoring her is bad. So given that s/he's still here, and shows up about once a week to proclaim that s/he's 100% right and the rest of us are stupid idiots, how would you respond to him/her?

Wow, you guys really have gone off the deep end. Some other anonymous contributor here may have claimed to have disproved the existence of gods. I haven't. In fact, the handle "RantingAtheist" was essentially a "tweak" at the one or two angry theists who conflate some number of non-theist posters as "the Ranting Atheist" and various sock-puppets. As though not believing in a supernatural being is so far from mainstream thought that it's improbable that more than one individual could suffer from such a delusion.

Anyway, as to the previous point, there's a significant difference between not being able to "prove" a negative, and not being sure. Which is, of course, the whole point of FSM: No one can be 100% sure of the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but we don't have a special category for those folks. We could all of us be living in a reality being dreamed by a unicorn sleeping under a World Tree--by Dawkins' rules, none of us can say with 100% certainty that this is not the case. So we are all unicorn dream agnostics.

Oh and I'm not ranting atheist. I'm catholic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he is de facto only in the same way that you are a de facto Christian. If you choose to negate his atheism it forces you into the same agnostic camp with all of the other people not 100% certain.

No. Once again, the word "christian" has, since the very beginning of christianity, encompassed people with some or even a lot of doubt. Some of the disciples had doubts. Otherwise, you make the Tea Party and their fundamentalist, non-questioning ilk into the only "true" christians, and we all know how wrong that is. Questioning your faith is key to being a real christian, which means that christians easily fit into categories 1-3 on Dawkins' scale.

On the other hand, you can't accuse me of "negating" Dawkins' atheism, because he negates it himself. He created the categories we have been discussing, he's the one who says that being a true atheist means 100% or "strict" certainty. Dawkins is also the one who says he, Dawkins, is a level 6 not 7 on his scale, and a "temporary agnostic." Not me, Dawkins, says he's a "temporary agnostic."

Geez. I'm done here. You clearly want to read only what you want to read. I'm not going to humor you, by continuing to go around in circles with you. It's probably some twisted game where you're trying to see how long we'll play along. Congrats, you win, you're the last man or woman standing, dear Ranting Atheist. Although in order to win, you had to convince me you're an impenetrable idiot.

This impenetrable idiot somehow bothered to read all the way to the end of the chapter you are quoting. So I know how his argument ends. You apparently do not.

Anonymous wrote:The victimized and oppressed Christians. Bring back the lions.

I LOVE YOU!

Who the hell is Dawkins and why would any of us care what he has to say?