How Did Richard Dawkins Offend a Christian Group This Time?

I thought boycotts were oppressive and infringed on people’s First Amendment rights…or is that only when LGBT people do them?  

An atheist exists and he will be in our town. I am offended!

Seems that we’ve already discovered the laughing piece… that people are calling a boycott of something that they would not naturally attend.

The Lord’s Day Observance Society? Seriously, such a group exists?

I think the festival organizers enjoy a bit of controversy (why else start it on Halloween) and include some people who’ve written in opposition to Dawkins (also a couple of classical vampire movies and Dr Who).  
http://www.faclan.org/the-festival/
“Samhainn, now Halloween, is when the ancient Celts
believed the veils between this world and the Otherworld were at their
thinnest; a time for reflecting on mortality.  It is an appropriate time
of year for Faclan to take Belief as its theme.”

Hey guys, let’s start boycotting church! That’ll teach those fuckers!

I will note the Free Church of Scotland which may be the largest single denomination on Lewis (the island where the festival is being held) has actually said it welcomes Dawkins coming and challenged him to a debate beforehand.  http://www.freechurch.org/index.php/scotland/news_events_item/free_church_challenges_dawkins_to_debate/

The area is conservative with strict Sunday closing (ferry and air service on Sunday didn’t exist until the 21st century). 

Dawkins’ very existence is apparently oppressive and an infringement of fundies’ right to determine what rights the rest of us are allowed.

 Sorry to burst your bubble there, Erp. Samhain is the harvest festival – it was all about life and fertility. The Christian “All Hallow’s Eve” is a time of superstition and demons, where they would wear demonic masks and offer fruit and candies as bribes to the devil in the hopes that they’d be left alone.

The fundie interpretation of the First Amendment:  I get to say whatever I want with no consequences, but I only have to listen to what I want to hear.  Anything less is tyranny!

 Scotland, you American, and you know gays are not really human, so they are a special case that the Lord (pbuth) will burn their Satinic asses, very soon in the rap.

Something that I have noticed is that most people are very good at adapting to their situation. So, when someone they know comes out as an atheist, or gay, or black/hispanic/asian (only on the internet…) suddenly they have to revise their opinions. Be a good example. (So, essentially, you’re just that awesome.)

But an atheist is someone who does not believe there is a god. I am just going by dictionary definition . That means a conflict. One cannot be both.

 I was quoting the festival organizers.  Btw October 31/November 1 is very late for a harvest festival in the Outer Hebrides given the first frost will have been in mid-October; most harvest festivals in Britain are in September.   One hopes Dawkins remembers to bundle up.

Agnostics are people who do not know if there is or there is no god. You can take it to mean that we are indecisive people.

wait, so people who wouldn’t go in the first place are now boycotting the event? I wonder if anyone has ever noticed that I am boycotting the mosque down the street…:D

They can boycott the talk the same way they practice abstinence with someone they’re not attracted to.

Boo hoo, these gosh darn equality laws are discriminating against by deeply held Christian beliefs. Wah wah wah. We should be free to discriminate against others, anything less is religious persecution!

Erp’s definition is pretty close to the one given to me by the Wiccan who initiated me.  He was from Scotland, and his family’s recorded history went back pre-Christian.  In particular, it was when it was easiest to communicate with the dead, and food was left out for them.

 I agree with your general point; however, I’m not sure how the First Amendment applies to Scotland, or to a group based in the U.K.

Yes, and most atheists are also agnostics. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Gnostics are those who know and agnostics are those who don’t know or find the existence of god unknowable. So there is a conflict. Just google the words.

Don’t bother, he’s a troll.

“Satinic” means “made of satin”, a very smooth and soft fabric. I will assume that “satinic asses” was exactly what you meant, since it sounds apt, at least.

 Let’s hope not.

Atheist, the last time I look at the dictionary, means someone who does not believe in a god. The part that they put the self in the highest order is my deduction from the things they do. I have only a limited brain so how can I be sure. A person who thinks he is right all the time must be one who puts himself in the highest order of things. If the person has god or society above the self then he must be lower in order. People who disrupt society cannot be putting society in the first order. They are only thinking of their own rights which they think is always right.

For those who think they are doing good works, then good works can also be subjective. Say if I spend my time and money on a certain cause, how rewarding is it for society as a whole? If I keep disrupting society how much more can it be further fractured before its downfall? As I said , I my brain is small, so if you think that is dumb reasoning then don’t bother with it.

Funny, I’ve been told God doesn’t either… and the people saying it weren’t being facetious at all.

Interesting article.  I read the original article you commented on and actually emailed John Roberts directly to ask about these facts that can be “torn apart”.  

To be fair he replied to me fairly quickly however his answer was [and I quote] “… but I have friends who are experts in engineering and design who could tear many of Dawkins arguments to pieces. They have approached the media for a debate, but Dawkins is not keen in meeting them.”

I’ve asked him what these arguments might be and pointed out if they had evidence that would disprove any of the science that Richard Dawkins promotes then they should publish it in a reviewed journal because if the facts support it then you can publish it (that’s kind of how science works).  

I have not heard back yet.

He also suggested that perhaps his quote was taken out of context.  As I was not present at the interview I can’t completely discount this explanation to be fair.  But I do admit his answer to my question was less than satisfactory.

but I have friends who are experts in engineering and design who could tear many of Dawkins arguments to pieces.

And my hairdresser has a really clever insight on atom splitting…

Exactly.

Further in my reply to John I speculated that the issue his friends possibly had was Dawkin’s championing of Evolution.

One observation I’ve made on this (to various Religious folks) I’ve never really got a satisfactory answer to.

Creationists seem obsessed with disproving evolution.  Why don’t they put their effort into trying to prove Creationism via the scientific method?  Let’s pretend Evolution is disproved tomorrow… know what?  That does not prove Creationism is true.  I’m baffled at their failure to understand this basic fact and the energy they put into (with miserable failure I might add) disprove Evolution.

You know you just said there are no fideists ? They are theists which are holding that objective certainty of God’s existence is impossible. An example of a philosopher holding this position is Kierkegaard.
P.S. : Well, you exactly said there are no agnostic atheists, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander and all that…If agnostic atheism is impossible, neither should agnostic theism.

I don’t qualify the noise bieber makes as music.

How can I not be sure if god exist and believe he doesn’t exist at the same time? One can be a non-religious theist though.

They are by definition different. One cannot claim to know and not be sure at the same time. Maybe in certain parts of the country atheism may not be acceptable but in other parts of the country, religious people are not acceptable and seen as backward. I have seen a few debates and have friends of different faiths. Some infer the existence of god from science and nature. One need as much faith to believe or not to believe. And, you can say people like me, just cannot take that leap of faith either to or not to believe.

One cannot say he is unsure and know at the same time. 

And here is your error: atheism, like theism for that matter, are not positions about knowledge, but about beliefs. You can very much be unsure, i.e. agnostic, and believe (thinking true without evidence) one way or another, i.e. be an atheist or a theist. 

P.S. : And a non-religious theist is still a theist, so if agnostic atheism were impossible as you hold, agnostic theism would be too, religious or not. Religiousness being a question of practice and dogma, it is orthogonal to this argument I think.

People who disrupt society cannot be putting society in the first order. They are only thinking of their own rights which they think is always right.

You’re not confusing ‘atheist’ with ‘anarchist’ are you?

Being an atheist has nothing to do with thinking one is right all the time.
Disrupting society has nothing to do with atheism.

I don’t care what label you want to use.  Several prominent scientists have used ‘atheist’ in exactly the same way you do.  What I do care about is that you attack people who call themselves ‘atheist’ based on completely false assumptions.

 “One cannot claim to know and not be sure at the same time.”

Precisely. The very definition of agnosticism (note the little “a” that means without, i.e. “without knowledge”) is NOT knowing. Nobody is claiming to know for sure (unless you’re a “hard” atheist); but the available evidence points to no god.

Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

No?  Then you are a-flying-spaghetti-monsterist.

Can you prove it doesn’t exist?

No?  Then you are an agnostic a-flying-spaghetti-monsterist.

There is a difference between not believing in something, and thinking you can prove it doesn’t exist.  That is the distinction that you are missing.

As a Christian I think these people are being pathetic. Why aren’t they jumping for joy at the potential evangelistic opportunity, or even (God forbid) the chance to love thy neighbour and thine enemies? Guys, please, you’re letting the side down!

Well it is invented somewhere by some people who want to widen their catchment. It is definitely a contradiction in terms if you go by the dictionary.

Since I cannot prove whether a deity exist or not,my decision is not to take the leap of faith either way-ie not to be a theist or atheist.

But I am not holding something for true without evidence. My decision to not to hold something without evidence to be true. That is why I cannot be a theist or atheist. I am going round and round on the same point.

I have never said, or implied, that agnostics are stupid or indecisive.  I do think you do a lot of projecting.  You make all kinds of assumptions about other people, even with your “you may” when I’ve never said anything of the sort.

Hey, you may be a flying unicorn.  You’re entitled to your own opinion.

Yes you cannot be sure of both. The impossible position you describe is neither fideism, nor agnostic atheism nor it is a logical consequence of either or both.

You seem to confuse belief and knowledge. Knowledge is, classically, a justified true belief, that is there must be a reason for the truth of your belief for it to become knowledge. Usually, the reasons accepted for such an important question by denizens of this forum are iron-clad evidence. So, absent evidence (justification for or against the belief)
on a subject
you can very much both hold that you have no knowledge about it and that you have a belief about it.

P.S. : Talking about the impossible position you describe, you can be certain of both with reasons for both, which would be an illogical double gnosticism; certain of both with reasons for neither (i.e. taking both on faith), which would be a very weird atheist theism; or be certain of one with reasons and taking the other on faith, which would be a gnostic theism where you know there is no god or a gnostic atheism where you know there is a god.

I love how Geddy sings this line, especially in the last chorus. I am still listening to the album almost daily, with a lot of other Rush added in. It’s created a Rush Revival around here. Fun Times.

 Eh, just the mere existence of atheists offends certain theists.

 As a former christian I think you fail to see the whole spectrum of possibilities involved in this. Religious hierarchy is not big on education. There is just to much of a chance the person attempting  to witness will be exposed to a different perspective. The problem with words is that they always make a person feel like were empowered. Yet when it  comes to facing the world, were who we always are. There is no power. This tends to leave people a little shaken. Thus making them susceptible to new thoughts and ideas. We both no that is never a good idea for a christian. That is where doubt creeps in. As they realize, they got no power, it’s easy to take that next step and wonder if there is anybody out there. This is why they are not jumping for joy. They can’t protect their income source out there.

I also love that line, a lot. ‘The Wreckers’ is a great song. I hope they play it just for you. “Concert Hall!”

Catchy indeed.

Easy, you buy a ticket for it and don’t turn up!