Website review: Alex-parsons.co.uk/2007/12/22/disag...
IrishYankee discovered this in Atheist/Agnostic
•8 reviews since Dec 22, 2007
atheist
•alex-parsons.co.uk/2007/12/22/disagreeing-wit...
Website currently unavailable. Should we check again? (Click to enqueue this site for examination)
People who like this website
- xguse
Fullerton
- Ubercow
Costa Mesa
- d0n7bl1nk
Mission Viejo
- vegemike
Carlsbad
- Arnis
San Diego
- aioimo
Stanford
- theCryptofishist
Berkeley
- Gorod
Antelope
- Munchkin-God
Greenbank
- bradogie
Victoria
StumbleUpon is the best way to discover great web sites, videos, photos, blogs and more - based on your interests.
Everything is submitted and rated by the community. Discover, share and review the best of the web!
Reviews of this website
danger359 rated 7 months ago- From the page: "Describing atheism in the same terms as religion is like calling bald a hair colour"
- Emmers rated 7 months ago
- From the page: "In the end there is this fundamental point that the act of disagreement isn't in itself intolerant; two people can disagree yet respect each other's right to hold those opinions and to continue existing."
- droe82 rated 7 months ago
- From the page: "Huh, see the trouble with the idea of fundamentalist atheism is that we have nothing to be fundamental about."
The thing we have to be fundamental about is what agnostics don't: we have the fundamental belief of atheism that human reason is sufficient for correctly interpreting reality. To arrive at that belief, you must've used human reason to analyze human reason--that is, to believe that human reason is sufficient to interpret reality, you have to believe that human reason is sufficient to interpret reality. This is a belief based entirely on circular logic, so I'd hope that you couldn't call it scientifically proven.
What do you call a stance based on unproven, unscientific ideas which is often taken in reaction to theism that stresses the infallibility of human reason not only in matters of faith and morals but also as the basis of literal historical record; holding as essential to scientific belief such doctrines as the creation of the world and the creation of life from nonlife; and which is characterized by rigid adherence to those principles and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to spiritualism?
___
From the page: "Whilst many atheists might not say it so bluntly out of politeness, atheism is the belief in an absence of gods; by definition we see most of religion as untrue and useless superstition. That's not being an extremist or militant atheist, that's just being a normal one."
This person doesn't speak for me as atheist.
It's logically necessary that anyone who believes anything also believes people who hold opposing beliefs are wrong, yes, but just holding belief doesn't make someone militant in and of itself. Certain Christians may well believe that the Iraq war is a punishment by God of the United States, but that doesn't make them militant in that belief the way picketing funerals shouting stuff like "God hates fags!" and holding signs saying stuff like "Another soldier dead: God laughs!" would. I'm glad that, as the author seems to suggest, most atheistic violence seems to be verbal, but it's violence nonetheless. - From the page: "Huh, see the trouble with the idea of fundamentalist atheism is that we have nothing to be fundamental about."
- awesomeosaurus rated 7 months ago
- From the page: "Disagreeing with someone isnâ€t being intolerant, folks."
- vladin rated 7 months ago
- From the page: "Disagreeing with someone isnt being intolerant, folks."
- Birks79 rated 7 months ago
- From the page: "Huh, see the trouble with the idea of fundamentalist atheism is that we have nothing to be fundamental about. I donâ€t have a holy book to assert is fundamentally true and unlike religious fundamentalists, I know exactly what would change my mind: Evidence."
- cwlodarczyk rated 7 months ago
- From the page: "King Herod: Slaughterer of infants. Richard Dawkins: Writes books and gives speeches where he tries to persuade people through rational argument. I can see how the two can be confused."
