239
Richard Dawkins quits atheism foundation for backing transgender ‘religion’
(www.telegraph.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2024
239 points (91.9% liked)
News
23768 readers
3643 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How is it any different than claiming with near certainty that leprechauns aren’t real?
I’m nearly 100% certain leprechauns aren’t real. Is my disbelief in leprechauns a religious belief? I similarly don’t believe in the Greek or Roman or Egyptian gods. Is that a religious belief, too?
The Christian god is a positive claim, and my near 100% certainty it’s not real is not a ‘belief’ unless you’re operating from a baseline that assumes it’s true, which is not how anything works. Strong atheism is a strong unwillingness to believe anything for which there isn’t evidence. That’s the opposite of faith – faith being the belief in things without evidence.
The only enlightened path for a Real Objective Thinker is to accept that anything might exist! If not you're just engaging in the same mystical thinking as those people who believe sky-daddy is all powerful and all good, but is just working in mysterious ways all those times good people need help and nothing happens. It's exactly the same you hypocrite. /s
Look, I'm just going by the classification system in the Wikipedia article I cited. I didn't even slightly imply any of the bullshit you just tried to ascribe to me.
Does Richard fucking Dawkins claim to be "near certain?"
?
Sorry, not following you, I couldn’t actually care less what Richard fucking Dawkins thinks tbh.
My comment was in the context of replying to https://lemmy.world/comment/14237089:
Edit: also, funnily enough, it turns out that Dawkins does claim to be "near certain," not "certain." That was news to me, given his reputation!
That's relevant because it puts a finer point on just how fervent the belief needs to be to count as "strong atheism."
Source:
I am a dumbass.
Hey, only for continuing to engage with an off the rails discussion. But your arguments are articulate and on point.
That's okay; it happens to all of us (see my edit).
I find the issue with hardcore atheism is the certainy of a lack of God in a scientific sense instead of an philosophical sense. Also the organization, dogma, and a sense of hierarchy in regards to authorities on atheism.
That being said the amount of atheists who subscribe to the religion isn't the root of all evil but false vs religion is the bane of all existence, is probably the same statically to jihadist and westboro baptist church
Again, do you believe in leprechauns? How certain are you that mermaids don’t exist?
How dogmatic are you in your lack of a belief in mermaids? Or fairies? How much are you bending to the will of anti-Tinkerbell propaganda?
Do you hear how insane that sounds?
eta: you said:
What authorities on atheism? What dogma? What organisation? Do you mean the clubs such as this comment section? There’s no central group or organisation. Atheism is the opposite of that. Your answer makes me think you don’t understand atheism at all.
If that’s the case, please ask me anything. I love answering questions. :)
You also said:
I’m not going into the rest of what was obviously wrong in the bits I cut off, but I’ll just stop you right there, lol.