Three points: (Introduction)

by Maria @, Wednesday, January 16, 2008, 18:20 (5943 days ago)

1. The second sentence in the first paragraph on the home page is nonsense: "Atheists will try to divert your attention from the fact that their theory is based on an irrational faith in the creative genius of mindless, lifeless matter." Creative genius of mindless matter? Don't be ridiculous! No atheist believes any such thing. - 2. The structure of this forum is not conducive to productive discussion. An example of one that is can be found at www.thinkhumanism.com. - 3. I made several attempts to register because your spam checker is too difficult to read. I think others may well be deterred by it.

Three points:

by Neil @, Thursday, January 17, 2008, 15:33 (5942 days ago) @ Maria

Point 2. Try viewing the forum in 'table view' that is more in line with the recommended forum layout. - Point 3. Have changed the way the spam checker works - it's now a lot easier for future registrations. - Please feel free to contact the Web Management Team via the Contact link bottom right for any other web site / bug issues.... thanks. - Neil White

Are you really an agnostic?

by Martin Freedman ⌂ @, Thursday, January 24, 2008, 01:01 (5936 days ago) @ Maria

Really it is very difficult to see this as the work of an agnostic there are so many problems with this Introduction. - 1. "The atrocities committed by atheist societies such as Soviet Russia and Red China are echoed by those of the crusading past and the fundamentalist present" this is an old canard spread by fundamentalists and not usually supported by agnostics at least any I know - and I was one too. These societies were first communist and only secondly atheist. Blame communism for their atrocities as that is the cause it is nothing to do with atheism. they were also not enlightened societies and although there is no necessary connection most of the atheism today is of the enlightened sort. - 2. "...and no faith has a monopoly on truth" For sure true but the implication in the paragraph was over the communist faith there is no such thing as an atheist faith. - 3. " However, in his book The God Delusion, Professor Dawkins launches the fiercest attack on religion since Nero unleashed his lions on the Christians." Complete balderdash! What books have you read? Not many it appears to make such an ignorant statement. - 4. "Agnosticism ...only believes what is known, and admits to ignorance of the rest. By doing so, and thereby acknowledging the possibility of a conscious designer... These include the motives and nature of such a designer, and the existence of a world and of beings beyond the scope of our perception. " OK so you are an theistic agnostic. Still you cannot know any of this and can only accept this on faith as fideist. And it certainly does not necessarily follow from agnosticism as the default would be an atheistic agnostic. If this is the AgnosticWeb why is this already so biased towards theism since you cannot know that god exists? - 5. "direct response to the apotheosis of atheism as represented in The God Delusion" you are entitled to respond the Dawkins book but do not think for a second that this represents a broad coalition of atheists it does not. You are only replying to Dawkins spin on this and many atheists would dissent from this. - 6. "I am unable to embrace atheism mainly because I am not convinced that chance could simultaneously assemble the four factors listed in the section entitled "Evolution"" Well Dawkins is just about the only person I know who is an atheist because of his understanding of evolution. This statement and that on the home page "If you cannot make up your mind whether we are the product of accident or design". Evolution via natural selection is neither! Maybe you should try to understand it first, it is not beyond knwoing before you write such ignorant comments on it! - 7. "I simply do not know what to believe, and that is why I am an agnostic. " Then why is everything you have written so biased towards theism and their mis-representations of evolution etc. Why not a balanced and unbiased approach? - 8. There is no point continuing as as I start to read the next section it reads like something out an ignorant fundamentalist tract. - I think you should be honest and say what you really think. This site is a complete sham it would embarrass any honest agnostic that I know of. I can only tentatively conclude that unless you fix the numerous errors here that you are a fundamentalist in disguise well I can see through your veil but I wish i was wrong :-(

Are you really an agnostic?

by dhw, Thursday, January 24, 2008, 15:39 (5935 days ago) @ Martin Freedman

Hard-hitting, and not always above the belt. - 1 & 2. I have not said that atheism is a factor in those atrocities, any more than I would argue that Bush went into Iraq because he is a Christian or that Saddam slaughtered his opponents because he was a Muslim. I am drawing a picture of a world in disorder, and that disorder exists regardless of the system in place. - 3. OK, fair comment. Perhaps I should have written "...launches a fierce attack on religion." I like a bit of colour. - 4, 6 and 7. One has to start somewhere. My starting point is the reason why I am not an atheist (because the whole project was sparked by Dawkins' book). Once I have explained why I cannot accept Dawkins' arguments, I am forced to consider the alternatives. "You can only accept this on faith...", "you cannot know that god exists"....Accept what? I accept nothing. These are what I call "areas of speculation", not declarations of belief. Of course I don't know that God exists. Nor do I know that he doesn't exist. I know nothing. In the relevant sections I scrupulously avoid using the word "God" anyway, because I want my speculations to be free from all that is associated with the term. But if I am to maintain what you call a "balanced and unbiased approach", I have to consider all the options, which includes the designer theory and religion. For further explanation, please look at the very important point raised by Kylie under "the real alternative to design". I have tried to make my position clearer in my reply to that. - 5 & 6. This is where you can help me and others like me. "You are only replying to Dawkins' spin on this and many atheists would dissent from this." "Dawkins is just about the only person I know who is an atheist because of his understanding of evolution." Please tell us more. Dawkins' book is so closely argued and so comprehensive that I assumed he had covered all aspects of the case against God. It would be really helpful if you could give us your own "spin" and your own understanding of evolution. That would be the best possible contribution to this website. - 8 & concluding remark: twice you use the word "fundamentalist". Let me reiterate: I do not have any belief. I can only explain why I am not an atheist (first third of the "guide"), speculate on the alternatives and their implications, and tell you again that I do not have any belief. I'm glad, though, that you wish you were wrong. Your wish is granted.

Are you really an agnostic?

by Peter P, Friday, January 25, 2008, 13:09 (5934 days ago) @ Martin Freedman

Am I seeing things? An agnostic is someone who is not an atheist and not a theist. Wilson says in his introduction that he's going to explain why he's not an atheist, and then he's going to consider the alternatives, none of which he believes in. Couldn't be clearer. Along comes Martin Freedman, reads one page, misinterprets pratically every word, sees that Wilson is not an atheist, probably notices the word designer, and calls Wilson a fundamentalist, which I presume is a religious nut! Just because he's willing to consider alternatives to atheism, which apparently means he's biased. Well I can see tbrough your veil, Mr Freedman. You're an atheist paranoid. But I wish I was wrong. - Message to dhw. Good that you've toned down the earlier chapters. Might be worth doing the same later on. Haven't checked, but remember feeling it sometimes got a bit pushy (not that I can talk!). Find your reply to MF remarkably restrained.

Are you really an agnostic?

by dhw, Friday, January 25, 2008, 17:58 (5934 days ago) @ Peter P

Thank you for your perfect riposte. Hard-hitting and entirely above the belt. - You are certainly right about my needing to make further revisions to the later sections. I would like to wait, though, until we get more comments on the content.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum