Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Anti-theist or Atheist?

with 13 comments

This man makes some great observations, because what we are seeing is a concerted effort to name believers irrational and mad.

 Does Dawkins hate God or is he just someone who thinks that God does not exist?


Written by dawkinswatch

January 24, 2008 at 6:07 pm

13 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The second.

    I agree with the video up to the point of “organized hate group” (although not with the implied message; I am an anti theist). Sure antitheism may be hate filled, but it is perfectly rational. Hate is the only appropriate responce to those who comprise the American Taliban (google it; it is creepy as hell). It isn’t wrong to hate murders or psychopathy the spawns it. Why should it be wrong to hate fanatics and the beliefs that spawn them? Because you say so?

    Samuel Skinner

    January 24, 2008 at 6:45 pm

  2. Dawkins concedes that the Judaeo-Christo-Islamic God may exist, but argues that this is incredibly unlikely (see his ‘The God Delusion’).

    And as to the video… well, I love how it makes the classic fallacy of:

    1) Hate groups use symbols.
    2) Atheist groups also use symbols.
    3) Therefore, atheist groups are hate groups!

    I use the symbols one as an example. It applies to the whole argument.

    And if you can’t spot the fallacy, it’s in the assumption that there are no subsets in the set of groups that use symbols.
    To put it another way, the author(s) ignore that fact that two subsets can be entirely unrelated to each other (other than their parent set, of course).


    January 24, 2008 at 8:26 pm

  3. Dave that is just one of the characteristics.


    January 24, 2008 at 9:18 pm

  4. Wait… religions use symbols…


    January 25, 2008 at 12:36 am

  5. Hey, I just wanted to chime in here and make some comments regarding my video. First, I want to thank you for posting it.

    Anyways, the main point of the video is to examine a particular argument used by many New Atheists today…that moderation is fueling some sort of fire for fanaticsm. I basically just turn it around to show that all and every beliefs that have been abused should equally be opposed.

    Moving on, I do believe that some of the groups and people I mentioned in the video fit the bill rather nicely. For instance, the Rational Response Squad seems the perfect example: (1) They use symbols for the purpose of degrading others, (2) They create myths, such that Theists are mentally unstable persons in general, and (3) Though it doesn’t seem overly apparent, they seem to be rather ritualistic in their behavior, especially in their treatment of the Blasphemy Challenge.

    Further, a mesasge of hate can be seen quite obviously from how they treat people. If they honestly believed Theists to be mentally unstable, would they treat them with such mallice?

    I also fail to see where I made any sort of fallacy here in equating some of these groups and people with Hate Groups in general. I did not merely say that because X uses symbols and Y uses symbols that X = Y. Though the argument would in fact be valid it wouldn’t be sound. I specifically mention symbols that are used for the purpose of degrading other people, which some of these New Atheists groups seem to be fond of doing.

    And I do also believe it is wrong to hate mentally unstable people and even murders (as one person pointed out previously as having no problem with). Hate, in general, seems immoral. I find it immoral because it solves nothing, but perpetuates a cycle of violence and dehumanization. A person of immoral behavior needs to be reformed so as to change…not hated.

    Thanks for viewing my video and thank you for your comments.


    January 28, 2008 at 3:17 am

  6. Yes, as you say, “all and every beliefs that have been abused should equally be opposed…”

    Which comfortably excludes Atheism and includes Christianity, islam, Judasim and pretty much every other faith-based, fantastical tradition.


    January 31, 2008 at 8:35 pm

  7. Mike,

    It excludes nothing of the sort.

    Atheists are not simply people that “lack a belief in God”. They have beliefs that support this lack or rejection. Just because you can define a position as a pure negative does not mean there is no justification or burden behind it.

    It’s like me saying that I an just a “non-muslim” and therefore I have nothing to prove or believe in. Terms are only meaningful if they tell you something about X object or person. The New Atheists wish to have labels (or no labels) which tell people NOTHING about them so as to not have to justify their own positions.

    It’s blatantly fallacious and lacking in intellectual integrity.


    February 4, 2008 at 7:51 pm

  8. I am sorry, but you are quite wrong here:

    “Atheists are not simply people that ‘lack a belief in God’.”

    That is exactly what they are. I am an atheist and that is how I describe myself and am best described.

    Also, you state:

    “Terms are only meaningful if they tell you something about X object or person.”

    Atheism meets this requirement, even though I do not accede to it’s validity. It tells you that the person in question does not believe in any of the any mythical deities man has invented. Since you seem unclear on this simple fact, allow me to provide an illustration. A wall is painted some color to which you are not a witness. I am in a position to see that wall and I tell you, “It isn’t white.” Do you or do you not now have more information as to the color of the wall? If your approach above were valid, the answer would be no, you do not. However, it is plain that you do have more information as to the color of the wall: It is some color other then white.

    Your claims that I lack intellectual integrity and am engaging in fallacy are simply wrong.

    By the way, since you seem to enjoy talking about fallacies, I advise you to have a look at some discussion of the fallacy of false dichotomy (just to start). You may find it informative to consider your position in light of it.

    Perhaps you could make some effort at actually meeting your burden of proof for theism rather then trying to shift it?


    February 18, 2008 at 3:40 pm

  9. Since you seem unclear on the simple fact that a negative only helps to support further definition it seems you are inclined to believe you have no reason for justification for your lack of belief.

    Which means that it is not I who is switching any sort of burdenn, but you are simply lacking in courage or motivation to back your position intellectually.


    February 26, 2008 at 5:53 pm

  10. Your claims are insulting as well as wrong. Well done. At this point many people would say that we must agree to disagree. That, sadly, is not the case here. I must drop this issue and simply stop trying to educate you. You are stubborn in your ignorance and I am afraid I can but leave you to your fallacious, demon-haunted world (to steal a phrase). I will, in a last vain hope for your improvement, leave you with these final thoughts.

    All of your foolish harping about positive and negative statements beg the fundamental question that it is the theist making the positive claim, that a deity exists. The atheist says “I doubt your position, please provide evidence. Oh, you can’t? Very well, I do not accept your position.” For the theist to them claim that the atheist must give more reason then a complete lack of evidence is childish and foolish. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not the one questioning it. If you can’t see this simple truth, you are not worth the time it takes to explain things to (yet I try… sigh).

    In spite of the intellectual energy that has been wasted for centuries on theology and apologetics, no answer has ever been forthcoming to the atheists very simple question, yet instead of abandoning their doomed position, the theists arrogantly claim, “My position is the default and you must show why you disagree!” No. That is not the case.

    Don’t be childish and foolish.


    March 6, 2008 at 4:54 pm

  11. My position still stands.

    Your ignorance is astounding. As a Philosophy major it is my job to educate individuals correctly about what beliefs they hold and how they hold them, but it’s people like you that disgusts me with their willful ignorance and lack of motivation to back their own metaphysical and epistemological positions.

    Your use of the words “fallacious” and “evidence” are only a mockery of real thinkers who actually take the time to define these things and understand them, whereas your learning is most likely accomplished by a mere perusal of wikipedia and skeptic magazine (or at least, a book by Dawkins).

    I doubt you have any idea what you actually believe in much less why you deny the existence of God or any other supernatural entity. You posit an Empiricists position without any skepticism towards that…and it appears mostly out of pure emotion because you’re lacking in everything else as far as I can tell.

    This conversation has been more a waste of intellectual energy than what you ascribe to the centuries of theology and apologetics…and I positively believe it has gotten us even less far than either of those have, being that you refuse to see how shallow your thinking is.

    Keep up the good work. Fallacies don’t cease to be fallacies because they become fashions…which you are a good indicator of. When you’ve taken some formal classes on philosophy, hit me up some time so we can have a discussion. Till then, don’t bother wasting your breath or my brain cells.


    May 24, 2008 at 7:20 am

  12. Note, I may continue this discussion if you have questions.

    If you honestly believe what you think then I have no time for you. Until you can admit you know little about this field I will not bother helping you along.


    May 24, 2008 at 7:22 am

  13. I am unsurprised that you are a Philosophy “major”, indicating that you have yet to obtain a degree, It shows in both you thinking and writing. I also note that you do not address any of my points, rather ranting on about your qualifications.

    Please continue your education. Eventually, it may take.


    May 27, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: