Hello, I have been wanting to get this off of my chest for a while.

Richard Dawkins together with other "Great" atheists (Hitchens,  are commonly seen as the "Leaders" of atheism. Everywhere i turn people rally behind them without hesitation. I have no problem with agreeing with someone and supporting them, but since joining this site and communicating with atheists across the web i am sad to say that I have been pressured into supporting anything they (or other popular atheists) say or do. As you can tell from the title, I don't like them, I find most of the current big time atheist to be rude, harsh, condescending, arrogant, men who happen to be smart. They spout the word "evidence" but as far as i can tell, only use evidence that supports their own views. They are incredibly anti-theist outright insulting those with faith, while i do not like religion I would never dream of telling someone that one way of thinking is correct or insulting them for their beliefs.  For the most part they are BRILLIANT scientists, and yet they completely discredit anything if it has the slightest lack of extraordinary evidence or if a religious person says it. I may be wrong, but isn't science about looking for the truth, accepting new ideas and testing them, admitting when you are wrong? Isn't science meant to be unbiased? "A  sentient all-powerful being/force, that existed before the rest of the universe, willingly and with intent created the universe and continues to exist beyond normal perception interacting with the universe regularly and still with intent." okay, there might be many many MANY variations on that principle, but that is the premise of a lot of religions, Laughable? Yes. Incredibly unlikely? Yes. Goes against massive amounts of par-to-quality evidence? Yes. But it's still a scientific hypothesis, that as of writing this cannot be tested. As such It should be accepted as a possible if-unlikely truth until it can be (dis)proven. We have diss-proven many things that religion spouts or claims in their holy books, but that is disproving an element of the religion, not the existence of a god. Dawkins has admitted this, yet he continuously dismisses any arguments against his views unless they come from one of his fellow atheist scientist buddies.

Ted Haggard, remember him? Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM4bq9ypAdY

Yeah, he was probably putting on an act for the cameras, we only saw 3 minutes of him, described by himself. But you should be able to understand what he's saying.

And there is truth to it.

That is a brief summary of the problems i have with Dawkins and a lot of the other atheist "leaders". But the reason i'm posting this is the rest of the atheist community seems fine with agreeing with everything he/they say(s). I've been delving into physics lately, and i try to apply one thing i do agree with dawkins on, I can't believe what i read in a book, or the website tells me, or etc. I try to avoid making claims about topics i don't know all about, I try to remain skeptical towards new ideas until i can get evidence that has quality and quantity, I ask questions and don't take things at face value. These are things i truely support, but It seems to me I'm the only atheist that feels that way. i have been observing and found that athesim is becoming almost as dogmatic and cruel as religion.

Anti-theism is on the rise, hatred is cast onto anyone who so much as prays at a dinnertable, if someone is a religious person expect them to be hated and ridiculed by this community regardless of anything other than the fact that they have a religion. Entire forums are set up for the purpose of laughing at religious people and ations (not just the extremist/fundy ones that are okay to laugh at sometimes)

People are mindlessly throwing out arguments that are often little more than: "X is wrong because there's ZERO evidence for it, but Y!, Y has evidence so it must be correct!" never going into any detail about the topic.

People are doing what i described earlier, dimissing things unfairly, while parading around a sliver of something they support.

The "Leaders" are followed blindly, mimicking a cult. if dawkins says something he is agreed with unconditionally by almost everyone, and if you are one of the few who don't agree with it, you are insulted and targeted for all sorts of things (Personal experience)

And everywhere people are trying to convert others into atheism.

A dogma is beginning to form, the atheist that i have observed are lining up to become just like the hardcore religious peoples they claim to be different from.

I joined this site and others with the expectation that I was going to meet people guided by logic, reason, quality evidence (Not just normal evidence.) instead of other's words. and mild = tolerance toward opposing viewpoints as we have nothing to lose if they disagree.

Instead i have found a group of self righteous, key phrase spewing, intolerant, hateful, followers who actively try to change a person's beliefs instead of presenting the alternative and letting that person act accordingly to what they are presented (the backbone of scientific thought and progress)

I could go into more detail, but honestly I'm tired as all get-out. In this post I stress that i am not talking about YOU or anyone else in particular, just what i have found. I posted this to voice my opinion about the current state of atheism, in a great tide of identical arguments and opinions I am standing out with one of my own that i am not basing off of any one Else's; it is an opinion that i came to by myself free of other's forcing it on me. Isn't that what free thought is all about?

Feel free to respond however you like, You can even go ahead and insult me and dismiss everything i said, just as i expect most will. I just wanted to get that off my chest.

Somewhat related note: I think I'm the only atheist with an opinion like this; the supernatural and paranormal science that studies it. Legitamit fields of study, even if the methods are frequently terrible. I think that some supernatural elements might just be natural elements that we just don't understand yet. (A long time ago, the concept of cold eluded the minds of of the time and was considered supernatural, but of course now we understand the absence of heat and can explain its workings.) I'm not saying all supernatural claims are true, just that they should not be dismissed immidiatly on the basis that they are considered supernatural. Ghost for example, I believe that there is somethting to these claims, or at least some of them. Consistent and observable patterns, large amounts of unexplained, undeniable phenomenon (Among some admittedly fake). Are they the spirits of the dead? I doubt it, but I see reason to look into the matter. The same goes for some other supernatural ideas that everyone here seems to hate.

And finally, I have a very difficult time getting behind Dawkin's precious gene-centered evolution.

Tags: Dawkins, Richard, athiesm, commentary, disagree, dogma, hate, observation, opinion, religion

Views: 887

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"they" need to prove that or "their" belief is "unjustified" Damn I hate this stupid iPhone.

I'm relieved that I'm not the only one that doesn't like Dawkins.  :)

"For the most part they are BRILLIANT scientists, and yet they completely discredit anything if it has the slightest lack of extraordinary evidence or if a religious person says it. I may be wrong, but isn't science about looking for the truth, accepting new ideas and testing them, admitting when you are wrong?"

That's not really how science works. Firstly, you need to construct a testable hypothesis that, ideally, will explain, or better explain, certain phenomena in the natural world. You then test the hypothesis, using what you know and what you find out to update and refine the model. This process continues and undergoes peer review. If the model you have constructed jives with all of the available facts, and the model has significant predictive power, it may be elevated to the status of a theory, at which point it may be accepted.

The way you word it makes it sound like you come up with any old idea and automatically accept it without evidence, then do tests. This is not scientific.

"But it's still a scientific hypothesis, that as of writing this cannot be tested."

If it is untestable, then it is not scientific. It is a claim of knowledge, untestable and unsupported by evidence. A rational and skeptical mind must dismiss this "God hypothesis". One of my favourite shows is "The Atheist Experience" that is broadcast on public access television by the Atheist Community of Austin. On that show, they ask theists (usually Christians) to call in and state what they believe and why they believe it. So far, I have not seen any theist with a decent argument for believing in a God. So it's not that believing in God is an option among multiple choices... it is not an option, if you care about what you believe being demonstrably true.

"We have diss-proven many things that religion spouts or claims in their holy books, but that is disproving an element of the religion, not the existence of a god. Dawkins has admitted this, yet he continuously dismisses any arguments against his views unless they come from one of his fellow atheist scientist buddies."

But the existence of God has never been indicated. Remember, the default position of belief is to not believe a claim unless it is supported by enough evidence to justify the belief. for certain claims, such as "I have a dog", you may be justified in believing that claim, purely on my say so, as whether I have a dog or not has little impact on your world view, or the state of the universe. On the other hand, if I were to claim I had a pet dragon, you would likely demand more proof than merely my say so.

"And everywhere people are trying to convert others into atheism.

A dogma is beginning to form, the atheist that i have observed are lining up to become just like the hardcore religious peoples they claim to be different from."

Atheism is not, and never will be a religion. It is a statement on dis-belief in a god or gods. That's it! If people are coming out as atheists and challenging theists to justify their beliefs, what's wrong with that? If they are like me, where they care about if what they believe is demonstrably true, and that belief informs your actions, then they must care about what other people believe too. In my opinion, this is why atheists have begun to "evangelize", so to speak. The one thing it is not evolving in to is a dogma. there are no doctrines of Atheism that must be followed, other than not believing in a deity. There are also no "holy" figures, like you are making Dawkins or Hitchens out to be. I do agree with much of what they say, but I disagree with them on many points too. I am under no obligation to follow their word or agree with them.

"I joined this site and others with the expectation that I was going to meet people guided by logic, reason, quality evidence (Not just normal evidence.) instead of other's words. and mild = tolerance toward opposing viewpoints as we have nothing to lose if they disagree.

Instead i have found a group of self righteous, key phrase spewing, intolerant, hateful, followers who actively try to change a person's beliefs instead of presenting the alternative and letting that person act accordingly to what they are presented (the backbone of scientific thought and progress)"

Now what, exactly, is "quality" evidence as opposed to "normal" evidence?

Evidence is defined as "that which tends to prove or disprove something". What does quality evidence have that normal evidence does not?

Now in terms of tolerance, we do tolerate peoples rights to believe in whatever garbage they want. That doesn't mean we are not allowed to speak out about why they're wrong, or that we're not allowed to try and change minds. There's a big difference between tolerating someone and treating them like a child and never questioning or challenging their views.

"Ghost for example, I believe that there is somethting to these claims, or at least some of them. Consistent and observable patterns, large amounts of unexplained, undeniable phenomenon (Among some admittedly fake). Are they the spirits of the dead? I doubt it, but I see reason to look into the matter. The same goes for some other supernatural ideas that everyone here seems to hate."

But can you measure or quantify these patterns? Lots of people make all sorts of wild claims, but none of what they say can be replicated under laboratory conditions. When that's the case, these phenomena are untestable, and therefore not believable, at least from a scientific point of view. The reason there is so much hostility towards the idea of Ghosts, etc. is because the proponents of these ideas are either unwilling or unable to provide any supporting evidence whatsoever, yet continually make more untestable and irrational claims, much like religions do.

Blasphemy, the FSM exists! LOL

Some may not like Dawkins but Dawkins has always been correct as far as I have read and listened to him.

Having met him 5 times and watched most of the stuff out there, he has never disappointed me with his intelligence. He does hate to be idolized and put on a pedestal. Too bad, he is my hero!

Plus, who else do you know that is married to a female timelord?

RAmen

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

Latest Activity

Freethinker 31 commented on John B Hodges's blog post The Uncensored Ten Commandments
47 minutes ago
Profile IconMorrigan Wolf, Daniel Denton, Dean Alexander and 7 more joined Atheist Nexus
50 minutes ago
Loren Miller replied to Joe's discussion New Rule: Students Who Have a Same-Sex Wedding Can’t Be Mad When Their Christian Schools Expel Them For It in the group Atheist News
56 minutes ago
Freethinker 31 liked IAmTheBlog's blog post Indianapolis schools ban only selected religions, as well as atheist and LGBT sites, from students' Internet.
1 hour ago
Freethinker 31 replied to Jeff Dempsey's discussion Atheist Advice For A Drug Addict or Alcoholic
1 hour ago
Freethinker 31 liked Jeff Dempsey's discussion Atheist Advice For A Drug Addict or Alcoholic
1 hour ago
Michael Penn commented on Donald R Barbera's blog post Skin Politics: Propaganda and Reality
1 hour ago
Plinius commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
1 hour ago
Sentient Biped replied to Joe's discussion New Rule: Students Who Have a Same-Sex Wedding Can’t Be Mad When Their Christian Schools Expel Them For It in the group Atheist News
2 hours ago
Andrew Bradford Hoke commented on Andrew Bradford Hoke's blog post The Sociology of Religion
2 hours ago
Joseph P replied to Joe's discussion New Rule: Students Who Have a Same-Sex Wedding Can’t Be Mad When Their Christian Schools Expel Them For It in the group Atheist News
2 hours ago
Joe added a discussion to the group Atheist News
2 hours ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service