She doesn't beleive in God, but she's not a strict rationalist, but historically there are all sorts of atheists, predating materialism and rationalism, but our beliefs aren't the point, what's more important is our respect for each other as people. After all, views are just a way of getting through life and it's difficulties, a place to stand, and the best place to stand is in a position of respect and fellowship with others, of give and take. No society is secure without that maturity, and differing beliefs and views give us the chance to exercise it, and that is more valuable than any specific worldveiw
that's what we do agree on lol
Which is weird because his hero Darwin was to his deathbed an agnostic not an atheist
It should be pointed out here that the New Atheist community will insist that atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief. They would say that they lack a belief in divinity, rather than believing that divinity doesn't exist. They will do so dogmatically (and never use the word "dogma" with reference to the New Atheists around one of their own, unless you want to become embroiled in a semantic discussion) to the point that they will accuse a person identifying as an atheist who claims to believe that God does not exist of not knowing what an atheist is (because New Atheists own the word "atheist" now). They also claim to begin from a position of agnosticism, becoming atheists only from a balance of evidence and logic. It would probably come as a surprise to many people that atheism is not a belief, not least to those many people who have long existed and continue to exist who simply believe God doesn't exist, and have always assumed that that meant they were atheists.
It's hard for even the greatest thinkers to discard an idea with which they've been assaulted from a young age, especially if that idea is reinforced by its acceptance in our community. People don't want the emotional trauma of changing such beliefs, which is one of the reasons why many with shared convictions find frequent sanctuary from challenge by surrounding themselves with the like minded as often as possible. It seems to me we largely accept, or even just find more than logically probable, those things generally regarded as true by many within our own culture. Perhaps this is for evolutionary reasons, part of our system for quickly adopting an understanding of the world without having to experience every pertinent situation for ourselves. In spite of my many criticisms of New Atheism, I support the core of Dawkins' aim. He has stated that his goal is to raise consciousness of rationalistic views, because people are more likely to consider a viewpoint as legitimate if they perceive it as existing among others. Inevitably, however, it often becomes a tit-for-tat between the Atheist community and the religious one.
Not 100% sure what you are trying to say . Are you saying that it's all or nothing when it comes to religion and you have no time for the moderates?
Usually, those smart people have been brought up in the faith and never sought to question it. It (and its associated rituals) became such a part of their daily life that it became a part of them.
All reasons are emotional underneath, ask a psychologist. Nobody holds an opinion for intellectual reasons, though they may pretend to themselves they do, those who thinks they do are simply out of touch with their feelings
Not really. I don't know anybody here that well.
I have no respect at all for fundamentalists.
But the Nazi's did not phrase their anti Semitism in religious terms, nor did they look to religion to justify it. They took their justification from the mainstream science of the time, which argued for the significance of race and the superiority of certain races over others.
Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed the option of aborting a foetus if it has Down Syndrome? That they should be forced to bear and bring up that child, even though it will never have a 'normal' life?
The right to abort a child that parents do not wish to raise exists, and I consider it perfectly reasonable. Never having been in that position I certainly make no judgement on the decisions of parents in that position.
I can't remember exactly what he wrote/said (I did read about this a while ago), but perhaps he was arguing that it would be an infliction upon the child, causing unnecessary suffering? Just guessing.
His comments were irresponsible, dangerous, and callous, but typical of his arrogant overreaching.
I see no reason to be obtuse about my statement, the inference is clear, what person is going to tell you they'd rather not be born?
With respect Mr Rynner, his statement on this matter was widely publicised, the simplest search will lead you to it, so a reference does not need posting. I find it disturbing that nobody on this forum bats an eye when members further up this thread speak about shooting people for their beliefs, and yet when I share heartfelt outrage at the fascistic ravings of Mr Dawkins, I am upbraided.
And what makes you think that people with down's syndrome are miserable? The inference is insulting to those born different. I don't know any people with down's syndrome, but my nephew is quite profoundly autistic, and yet he has a good life, he enjoys, many fine qualities including a cracking sense of humour? Would you and your friends here have forced his Mum and Dad to abort him? Who exactly do you think you are?
