From: aryavazhi <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :
From: "jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> ...But many so called atheists today consider Dawkins to be one of the leading apologists for atheism. Don't be an idiot, John. *No one* considers Dawkins a "leading apologist for atheism" because being an atheist requires no apology. Good to know, that he is not a leading apologist. What I don't get is, what's all the fuss about? Why would an atheist want to convince anyone of his persuasion? If you feel, there is no meaning or sense in life, neither good or bad karma, if you believe in a sort of nihilism (?), then what's in for you, convincing anyone about it? I accept totally that the atheist position is a complete valid one, but then you cannot know either way, and it's everybodies choice. You do realize that you just created the same kind of straw man argument you rail against below, don't you? To my memory, NO ONE in the history of Fairfield Life has ever tried to convince others that there is no meaning or sense in life, that there is neither good nor bad karma, or that there is only nihilism, and that they should follow it. You made ALL of that up. There may be people in other places or on other forums who do that, but we're on Fairfield Life, and my bet is that you cannot find a single post by a self-professed atheist on this forum who ever did anything like what you suggest. As for legitimate reasons that *some* atheists might want to preach to others is that then they might qualify for the billions of dollars of tax-free benefits that governments give to those who believe in the invisible man in the sky. :-) :-) :-) Believing in an invisible man in the sky is the thing that people should apologize for. There are still a few other alternatives to the invisible man in the sky, don't you think? Just knocking down a strawman is not a great argument. There are many, many different positions wrt some final reality, I wouldn't know personally anone who believes in a very literalist version of religion anyway (they do exits, but probably not around here). To argue against a simplistic and literalist version of belief, just weakens these arguments. That's all. If you believe that your supposed God is sentient and has the ability to control life on this or other planets, then it's "an invisible man in the sky," even if you believe its a woman, or some amorphous, non-physical blob. But believe anything you want. Really. Just don't expect me to treat your beliefs as if they deserve respect or to be argued about just because you believe them. They don't, any more than the beliefs of someone who thinks that the moon is made of green cheese.
