Everyday Atheist are irritated by the idea of God.

gingerbread2011

Richard Dawkins Clashes With Giles Fraser On Radio 4 Over Atheist Poll (AUDIO)



Richard Dawkins has been labelled an "embarrassment to atheism" after clashing with a priest in a debate on BBC Radio 4.

The author of the God Delusion could not recall the full title of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin Of Species' during a discussion with Giles Fraser, Former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, over a poll conducted for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) which found that self-identified Christians didn't go to Church, or read the bible.

Dawkins said an "astonishing number couldn't identify the first book in the New Testament." But his claim that this indicated self-identified Christians were "not really Christian at all" was challenged by Fraser, who said the poll asked "silly little questions" to "trip" people up.

Giles Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of 'The Origin Of Species', I'm sure you could tell me that.

Richard Dawkins: Yes I could

Giles Fraser: Go on then.

Richard Dawkins: On The Origin Of Species.. Uh. With, Oh God. On The Origin Of Species. There is a sub title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

Giles Fraser: You're the high pope of Darwinism… If you asked people who believed in evolution that question and you came back and said 2% got it right, it would be terribly easy for me to go 'they don't believe it after all.' It's just not fair to ask people these questions. They self-identify as Christians and I think you should respect that.

Fraser warned against "culture wars" in Britain which "ape the nastiness" of America.

The exchange prompted Dawkins' name to trend on twitter, with even self-professed atheists criticising the professor.

@OwenJones84
Owen Jones
Right, that's it. Richard Dawkins is so irritating I'm converting to evangelical Christianity. Creationism and the full whack.

@ajcdeane
Alex Deane
Giles Fraser just demolished Richard Dawkins in a comprehensive way which rarely actually happens in public discourse #today @BBCr4today

@AdamBienkov
Adam Bienkov
Richard Dawkins couldn't name the full title of The Origin of Species, therefore God exists #isthisright

@wallaceme
Mark Wallace
On today's topic of Dawkins and "militant secularism", here's my piece on why he is an embarassment to atheists http://t.co/5WTvn6FR


@RogerQuimbly
Mr Roger Quimbly
Roses are red, Violets are violet, The heart is simply a pump And love is merely a chemical imbalance in the brain. - Richard Dawkins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/14/richard-dawkins-giles-fraser-radio4-athiesm_n_1275468.html

gingerbread2011

Atheist Targets 9/11 Cross At Ground Zero, Seeks to Have Atheist Symbol Included In Memorial

The president of an Atheist group appeared on Fox News Channel with Megyn Kelly on Friday to denounce the inclusion of the 9/11 cross in the memorial at Ground Zero to the exclusion of other, non-religious religious symbols.

American Atheists President David Silverman said that the cross at the 9/11 memorial at Ground Zero is in a museum paid for by public funds and amounts to the endorsement of Christianity by the government.

Silverman outlined the many ways in which the 9/11 memorial was public. “And they have the gall to say that this is not a public event? Well, we differ,” said Silverman. He said that atheists suffered as much as anyone on 9/11 and they demand representation.

“But you did not have a symbol that was found in the wreckage of Ground Zero,” noted Kelly.

“That’s because there are no symbols of atheism,” said Silverman.

He said that a number of crosses were recovered from Ground Zero because the original World Trade Center was assembled from cross beams. “That does not give Christianity the right to usurp the rest of the nation and to have a memorial solely to itself in our national memorial,” said Silverman.

“We find the assertion that it is not religious to be insulting to our intelligence,” said Silverman of the WTC cross. “We are not demanding that the cross be removed. We are demanding equal representation.”

“You want a big A in the museum,” said Kelly.

“We want something but they will not allow us because of bigotry,” Silverman replied.

Kelly challenged Silverman’s assertion that many atheists were suffering from “dyspepsia” and “headaches” because of the cross. Silverman said that he had members who would testify in court that this was the case.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/atheist-targets-911-cross-at-ground-zero-seeks-to-have-atheist-symbol-included-in-memorial/

ang pagtatampo ng militant atheism

Fenix

tldr, Richard Dawkins =/= Atheism

Ateo

I denounce him. He can go back to Christ for all I care.

But I remain a devout atheist.

Ischaramoochie

seems it's a thread fail. again.

gingerbread2011

Atheist here are affected. Who will be the next richard dawkins in the Philippines? ROT can be their field of practice.

gingerbread2011

the Big "A" is their symbol .
I really dont get why should the president of atheist society in america should whine about this stuff. There are more important things than this metal cross found in ground zero.

gingerbread2011

Prominent Atheists Lash Out at DNC‘s Reinstatement of ’God’: ‘Precisely What Our Founders Aimed to Avoid’

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ready-prominent-atheists-lash-out-at-dncs-reinstatement-of-god-precisely-what-our-founders-aimed-to-avoid/

Atheists were likely elated by the Democrats’ initial decision to remove “God” from the party’s 2012 platform. But, their joy was quickly diminished when liberal political leaders, realizing the political fallout from its decision, quickly moved to reinsert the language. Now, secularists are responding with disappointment and frustration, claiming offense, discrimination and poor manners on the behalf of Democrats.

Atheist hopefuls get knocked out again.

gingerbread2011

Richard Dawkins on his tense relations with those who believe in God.

In his controversial bestseller The God Delusion, evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins attacked religious belief. He spoke with me about his new work, The Greatest Show on Earth, and his inimitable style. Excerpts:

Why were you motivated to write this book?
Well, it's about the evidence for evolution. Evolution is one of the most fascinating ideas in all of science. It explains your existence and mine, and the existence of just about everything we see. How can you possibly ask what motivated me? It's just a wonderful subject to write a book about.

Is this supposed to be the definitive refutation of creationist arguments?
Well, it's amazing that there needs to be a definitive refutation of them, but yes, if you put it like that, it is a propitious time from that point of view. Any time would have been a good time for this book.

Are those incompatible positions: to believe in God and to believe in evolution?
No, I don't think they're incompatible if only because there are many intelligent evolutionary scientists who also believe in God—to name only Francis Collins [the geneticist and Christian believer recently chosen to head the National Institutes of Health] as an outstanding example. So it clearly is possible to be both. This book more or less begins by accepting that there is that compatibility. The God Delusion did make a case against that compatibility in my own mind.

I wonder whether you might be more successful in your arguments if you didn't convey irritation and a sense that the people who believe in God are not as smart as you are.
I think there is a certain justified irritation with young-earth creationists who believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old. Those are the people that I'm really talking about. I do sometimes accuse people of ignorance, but that is not intended to be an insult. I'm ignorant of lots of things. Ignorance is something that can be remedied by education. And that's what I'm trying to do.

Is there anything else I've missed?
I would be glad if you didn't use the word "strident." I'm getting a little bit tired of it.

I've read your books and I would not disagree with that characterization.
OK. Well, let me plant one idea in your head. When somebody offers an opinion about anything other than religion—say, politics or economics or football—they will use language that is no more or less outspoken than mine, and it isn't called strident. As soon as it's an atheistic opinion, immediately the adjective "strident" is attached to it, almost as though the word atheist can't be used without the preceding adjective "strident." You wouldn't talk about a strident Christian.

Oh, yes, you absolutely would. I wouldn't call all of the new atheists strident. Christopher Hitchens, for example, isn't strident.
Is he not?

I would just say that it's a different approach.
I suppose the most strident passage in The God Delusion is where I talk about how the God of the Old Testament is the most unpleasant character in all fiction. I had this long list of adjectives: homophobic, infanticidal. That's kind of using long words, long Latinate words to describe what everybody actually knows: that the God of the Old Testament is a monster. I put it in this rather, I'd like to think, amusing way.

Ninety percent of Americans say they believe in God. To make fun of them is to alienate them.
Well in that particular passage I'm only talking about the God of the Old Testament, so the only people who will be offended are the people who believe in the God of the Old Testament—which by the way is most of the people you're referring to. So that has to be conceded. But I also suspect that if they actually read the Old Testament, they could not fail to agree with what I said. The God of the Old Testament is a monster. It's very, very hard for anybody to deny that. He's like a hyped-up Ayatollah Khomeini.

But if some portion of that 90 percent are intelligent people—
But they wouldn't disagree with what I said about the God of the Old Testament. They'd probably say something like, "Oh, that's quite different. We believe in the God of the New Testament." Something like that.

Not if they're Jewish they wouldn't.
Well, sure enough. They'd say, "OK, we've moved on since that time." Thank goodness they have.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/09/25/darwin-s-rottweiler.html

gingerbread2011

The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness [Hardcover]
David Aikman (Author)



http://www.amazon.com/The-Delusion-Disbelief-Atheism-Happiness/dp/1414317085

Book Description
Publication Date: March 19, 2008

The last few years have seen a great assault upon faith in the publishing world, with an influx of books denouncing religious belief. While attacks on faith are not new, what is notable about these books—several of which have hit the bestseller charts—is their contention that belief in God is not only deluded, but dangerous to society.
In The Delusion of Disbelief, former Time senior correspondent and bestselling author David Aikman offers an articulate, reasoned response to four writers at the forefront of today's anti-faith movement: Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.
Aikman shines a light on the arguments of these “evangelists of atheism,” skillfully exposing their errors and inconsistencies. He explains what appears to motivate atheists and their followers; encourages Christians to look closely at what they believe; arms readers with powerful arguments in response to critics of faith; and exposes the social problems that atheism has caused throughout the world.
Aikman also takes on one of the most controversial questions of our time: Can American liberties survive in the absence of widespread belief in God on the part of the nation's people? The answer to that question, says Aikman, is critically important to your future.
The Delusion of Disbelief is a thoughtful, intelligent resource for anyone concerned about the increasingly strident and aggressive new attacks on religious belief. It is the book that every person of faith should read—and give away.

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly


Journalist and biographer Aikman offers a spiritedly unsympathetic review of the new atheism represented by Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell), Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation), and Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great). As might be expected from any one author simultaneously engaging four opponents, Aikman struggles at times amid a flurry of arguments and counterarguments. Still, many of his criticisms score on their targets. Aikman reads the new atheists in historical perspective as the heirs of Voltaire, Marx, Feuerbach and Mencken, as well as in their immediate setting of post-9/11 fears of religious extremism and discontent with the Bush administration and its perceived evangelical leanings. While not an expert on all the issues the new atheists raise—chapters on science and biblical criticism rely heavily on arguments made by other reviewers—Aikman speaks effectively to the interplay between religious belief (or disbelief) and politics, whether among the American founders or in contemporary North Korea. But after criticizing the new atheists' inflammatory rhetoric, Aikman does not always rise to a higher level himself: references to Harris's drug use and Hitchens's communist past and drinking habits become gratuitous. (Apr.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
About the Author
Dr. David Aikman is an award-winning print and broadcast journalist, a best-selling author, and a foreign policy consultant based in the Washington D.C. area. His wide-ranging professional achievements include a twenty-three-year career at Time magazine, serving for several years as bureau chief in Eastern Europe, Beijing, and Jerusalem, his reporting spanning the globe and covering nearly all the major historical events of the time.

Dr. Aikman was educated at Oxford University and holds a PhD from the University of Washington in Russian and Chinese history.

gingerbread2011

When they watch TV many people use the word of God. Bless you and your family.

They always hear Jesus name. They always hear Allah and Muhammad in every corner of the street.

When they go out they see Temples bearing the name of the Lord. Even in their family when there are gatherings there could be nuns, priest, pastors within their circle of family.

They are invited by their workers to attend such gathering. They cannot avoid their friends to attend wedding ceremonies without mentioning the word of God. Even when they sleep some of their love ones pray them.

How stressful is that life to atheist.

Fenix

Ambabaw naman nyan para ika-stress.

rickym

i think this book will make more believers read the book of richard dawkins etc. one thing i notice is that sometimes when believers open their mouths, the more the faithful believe on the other side. am curious how this will turn out.

sugargame

rickym wrote: »

i think this book will make more believers read the book of richard dawkins etc. one thing i notice is that sometimes when believers open their mouths, the more the faithful believe on the other side. am curious how this will turn out.

Richard Dawkins doesn't follow the mainstream thought in the atheist world. He always mentions Christianity as being benign and Islam as malevolent,

Majority of the atheists today are actually symphathizing with Muslim fundamentalists. Old news: CPP/NPA are collaborating with MILF/Abu Sayaff; social democrats and leftist professors in the US and Europe are defending Islamists; and Russia/China supporting Iran.

So it's not surprising to see the ROT atheists and muslims here are waging jihad together against Christianity.

gingerbread2011

Fenix wrote: »

Ambabaw naman nyan para ika-stress.

Stressful yan ikaw ba naman cursing the idea of God everyday you hear your "who he must not be named".

Ateo

gingerbread2011 wrote: »

When they watch TV many people use the word of God. Bless you and your family.

They always hear Jesus name. They always hear Allah and Muhammad in every corner of the street.

When they go out they see Temples bearing the name of the Lord. Even in their family when there are gatherings there could be nuns, priest, pastors within their circle of family.

They are invited by their workers to attend such gathering. They cannot avoid their friends to attend wedding ceremonies without mentioning the word of God. Even when they sleep some of their love ones pray them.

How stressful is that life to atheist.

Stressed!?! Ang saya saya nga ng atheists eh. Look at Tonton making fun at Jeezaas! And his virgin mother. Plus his big Dad with an anger management problem. Blasphemy is a lot of fun, but sadly you will never get to experience it.

Fenix

Mas nakaka-stress yata yung tuwing nagbabasa ka dito, ang dami mo nababasa na napapaisip ka tuloy sa paniniwala mo pero pilit mo sinasara isip mo. Mahirap kaya yun!
Nangyari na sa akin yun, ang daming mga tanong, ang daming butas sa relihiyon at diyos, pero pilit ko dine-deny kasi alam ko na "masama" ang mag-isip ng ganun na laban sa relihiyon/diyos. Nakakapagod.
Pero ngayon malaya na ako mag-isip. Stress-free!

nwfirstranger

Gingerbread, di ka ba nai-istress gumawa ng mga ganitong threads? From what I see, you seem to care more about what Richard Dawkins or other prominent atheists think than most of the atheists here cause you have already created numerous threads to stuff like these.

We know that you are very dedicated to your crusade of discrediting atheists, agnostics and other blasphemers. But most of the time, you fail miserably and your posts backfires. And you know, failing generates a lot of stress.

tonton

God is cool. It's his stupid followers that suck. Just like the Pactards.

ElCid

Ateo wrote: »

Stressed!?! Ang saya saya nga ng atheists eh. Look at Tonton making fun at Jeezaas! And his virgin mother. Plus his big Dad with an anger management problem. Blasphemy is a lot of fun, but sadly you will never get to experience it.

You believe yourselves to be the apex of civilization but unfortunately you're just a symptom of a diseased and dying society. Atheism never spurred the growth of any culture. It is the harbinger of it's decline - look at Russia during the Bolshevic and France during the Reign of Terror. The sense of what is sacred has brought civilization on whose soil both science and culture have grown and flourished. On the other hand, the only remarkable things that those who adhere to atheism have accomplished have brought nothing but grief, killing fields, mass murders, mass rapes and a host of other ills in society unprecedented in the history of the world. Atheism is useless - you can't even derive morality from atheism and those contrived by atheist are depraved that even you people abhor. Even your laughter is empty and can only be compared to the laughter of hyenas. You make fun at other people's beliefs when you should be the one to be laughed at because your atheism is bankrupt of any moral value. Of course idi0ts laugh at things they don't comprehend. I do not see where your laughter is coming from - when the history of the world is marred by atheist cruelty. You bask and benefited from the culture that grew under the aegis of FAITH and even shamelessly arrogate its morality as your own. You should be laughing at yourselves instead.

wimpy_kid

ElCid wrote: »

You believe yourselves to be the apex of civilization but unfortunately you're just a symptom of a diseased and dying society. Atheism never spurred the growth of any culture. It is the harbinger of it's decline - look at Russia during the Bolshevic and France during the Reign of Terror. The sense of what is sacred has brought civilization on whose soil both science and culture have grown and flourished. On the other hand, the only remarkable things that those who adhere to atheism have accomplished have brought nothing but grief, killing fields, mass murders, mass rapes and a host of other ills in society unprecedented in the history of the world. Atheism is useless - you can't even derive morality from atheism and those contrived by atheist are depraved that even you people abhor. Even your laughter is empty and can only be compared to the laughter of hyenas. You make fun at other people's beliefs when you should be the one to be laughed at because your atheism is bankrupt of any moral value. Of course idi0ts laugh at things they don't comprehend. I do not see where your laughter is coming from - when the history of the world is marred by atheist cruelty. You bask and benefited from the culture that grew under the aegis of FAITH and even shamelessly arrogate its morality as your own. You should be laughing at yourselves instead.

Sure.



http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=pzuckerman_26_5

How could atheist contribute to culture when the catholic church persecuted them during the renaissance?

Renaissance and Reformation

During the time of the Renaissance and the Reformation, criticism of the religious establishment became more frequent in predominantly Christian countries, but did not amount to atheism, per se.
The term ath?isme was coined in France in the sixteenth century. The word "atheist" appears in English books at least as early as 1566.[32] The concept of atheism re-emerged initially as a reaction to the intellectual and religious turmoil of the Age of Enlightenment and the Reformation ? as a charge used by those who saw the denial of god and godlessness in the controversial positions being put forward by others. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was used exclusively as an insult; nobody wanted to be regarded as an atheist.[33] Although one overtly atheistic compendium known as the Theophrastus redivivus was published by an anonymous author in the seventeenth century, atheism was an epithet implying a lack of moral restraint.[34] How dangerous it was to be accused of being an atheist at this time is illustrated by the examples of ?tienne Dolet who was strangled and burned in 1546, and Giulio Cesare Vanini who received a similar fate in 1619. In 1689 the Polish nobleman Kazimierz Łyszczyński, who had allegedly denied the existence of God in his philosophical treatise De non existentia Dei, was condemned to death in Warsaw for atheism and beheaded after his tongue was pulled out with a burning iron and his hands slowly burned. Similarly in 1766, the French nobleman Jean-Fran?ois de la Barre, was tortured, beheaded, and his body burned for alleged vandalism of a crucifix, a case that became celebrated because Voltaire tried unsuccessfully to have the sentence reversed.
Among those accused of atheism was Denis Diderot (1713?1784), one of the Enlightenment's most prominent philosophes, and editor-in-chief of the Encyclop?die, which sought to challenge religious, particularly Catholic, dogma: "Reason is to the estimation of the philosophe what grace is to the Christian", he wrote. "Grace determines the Christian's action; reason the philosophe's".[35] Diderot was briefly imprisoned for his writing, some of which was banned and burned.
The English materialist philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588?1679) was also accused of atheism, but he denied it. His theism was unusual, in that he held god to be material. Even earlier, the British playwright and poet, Christopher Marlowe (1563?1593), was accused of atheism when a tract denying the divinity of Christ was found in his home. Before he could finish defending himself against the charge, Marlowe was murdered, although this was not related to the religious issue.[citation needed]

Hintay ka na lang ok? Ngayong mas tanggap na sa society ang atheism compared nung naghahariharian pa ang simbahang katoliko, maghintay ka na lang bago ka magsalita ng tapos.