Menu Bar
News: New Advanced Search Features
Needs Plugin: Flash
Atheist Intolerance
CNN's Delia Gallagher talks with atheists who say society has no tolerance for nonbelievers.
(Feburary, 25, 2007)
(Feburary, 25, 2007)
Mar 24, 2008 9:56 AM
Re: Atheist Intolerance
I’m going to write The Bible II: From Here to Eternity. Nowadays, with book series so popular, especially fantasy ones, my tome will no doubt be warmly received. Chapter I: And White_Wolf said to Himself, “Who extinguished the light? This ain’t no good at all. Let there be light.” And there was light, and White_Wolf saw that it was good and … Chapter II: The Christian slithered down the apple tree and (now it’s getting real interesting, as the Christian is going to try and convert W_W’s harem consisting of hundreds of fair heathen ladies to Christianity; a surprise ending lies in wait). What next? Oh, yeah; Chapter III: White_Wolf’s Arch Rival, the Dark Lord, becomes pissed off and does not only threaten to flood everything, he in fact does flood everything. But White_Wolf and his ever-expanding army of fair heathen ladies, armed with babies, build themselves a big boat quickly. Word is send out to all other animals of the world, by carrier pigeon (not extinct 6000 years ago), and soon they arrive. The lion leading the sheep, the mouse carrying the cheese. Large stocks of pie are assembled, and then the big boat sails off to the stars. All rights reserved.
By: White_Wolf
Re: Atheist Intolerance
Christopher Hitchens. The man isn't a scientist, he has nothing but a few books under his belt to back up his reputation, in effect he has as much right to comment on theism as a clergyman does on science.
All he says in his opinion, and as much sense it might make on some issues it really should hold no weight as it has no scientific substance.
My point is this if there ever was undeniable evidence for a god, as unlikely as it might be, I think Dawkins would put his hands up and say he was wrong and rewrite the science books. Whereas Hitchens would be unable to change.
Dawkins, though he may not believe in God, he seeks evidence, science is flexible. Hitchens is bigoted, he is completely intolerant and will never be changed no matter what evidence.
That's the impression that I get.
All he says in his opinion, and as much sense it might make on some issues it really should hold no weight as it has no scientific substance.
My point is this if there ever was undeniable evidence for a god, as unlikely as it might be, I think Dawkins would put his hands up and say he was wrong and rewrite the science books. Whereas Hitchens would be unable to change.
Dawkins, though he may not believe in God, he seeks evidence, science is flexible. Hitchens is bigoted, he is completely intolerant and will never be changed no matter what evidence.
That's the impression that I get.
By: SaladDays
Re: Atheist Intolerance
Undeniable evidence? What would that look like? A giant host of winged angels/monsters flying from the sky, throwing people into a lake of fire? A powerful, glowing, possibly pulsating being descending from the heavens and turning the moon to blood?
Even if disbelief were shattered so blatantly, I, and many other atheists, would not feel inclined to bow down and worship such a creature as a "god". That's an alien attack right there... A scary, alien attack. We might not understand the science behind their powerful lightning weapons and miracle rays, but I'm not going to be pledging loyalty to our new ant overlords (to paraphrase the Simpsons).
Even if disbelief were shattered so blatantly, I, and many other atheists, would not feel inclined to bow down and worship such a creature as a "god". That's an alien attack right there... A scary, alien attack. We might not understand the science behind their powerful lightning weapons and miracle rays, but I'm not going to be pledging loyalty to our new ant overlords (to paraphrase the Simpsons).
By: quaidbrown
Re: Atheist Intolerance
Belief in god has nothing to do with worship.
Some people say there is presently evidence enough to support evidence of god, I disagree. Undeniable evidence for god is purely rhetorical, like scientists discovering a new colour.
But then, I often think if Dawkins instantly changed his opinion there'd be a lot of atheists who'd be running around like headless chickens because there'd be no one to tell them what to think.
Some people say there is presently evidence enough to support evidence of god, I disagree. Undeniable evidence for god is purely rhetorical, like scientists discovering a new colour.
But then, I often think if Dawkins instantly changed his opinion there'd be a lot of atheists who'd be running around like headless chickens because there'd be no one to tell them what to think.
By: SaladDays
