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.
true. true. true. true. true. true. cool. questionable.
*vanishes back under bridge*
Thanks Matthew. This guy is something else. I just don't know what. lol. I love how he called us all schmucks. Does he even know what that means? I love how he thought he had to give you the definition of dogmatic. He IS the definition of schmuck however. :) I hope he leaves the site soon.
*sobs* that hurt my feeling booklover, my one lonely feeling. I will not be leaving the site soon, I've been here for like 3 or 4 years already. Please post the link to the definition of a schmuck please, it's the least you can do.
No thanks. If people want to look it up they can. You have no class Spitter and who would want to interact with you online since you can only respond in a seriously ridiculous manner.
No, none whatsoever. Class is for the weak. I'm vile and disgusting, hope you dream about me. *kisses*
« Il faut toujours se réserver le droit de rire le lendemain de ses idées de la veille . " »
Hmmmm Napoleon, that may be true in many cases, but I'm pretty sure I'll have the same convictions tomorrow that I hold today.~ Melinda
p.s. I cheated. I don't speak French. I Googled that sentence. :)
I appreciate that Melinda but I was thinking about this man's belief in the supernatural.
Oh! ha ha sorry Napoleon! My bad! I totally agree with you then! lol
I think there is a big difference between declaring onself an atheist and disliking religion for all the harm it has done to the world for centuries. Many believers also dislike organized religion for the same reasons. Disliking how the concept of "god" is manifested in the real world is different from being an atheist and I see no connection between the two. Atheism is a matter of "faith"; whereas disliking what religions have done is more of a political decision.
Personally, I don't think the existence or non-existence of god can be proven in debate. Faith is sometimes an irrational thing. It was only the lack of faith in my own heart that led me to atheism and I seriously doubt that any argument, pro or con, could convince me otherwise.
Atheism is not a matter of faith.
Faith does not require logic, reason, rationality or free-thinking.
Unlike religious people, Atheists should think for themselves.
''On ne devient pas athée par souhait'