You offer an imbalanced position. I agree that atheists wish to engage theists in debate and are 'happy' when a theist declares that they no longer believe in the god/ religious dogma that they did believe in — universeness

The balance is in favor of the atheists. Why should they feel happy if they succeed in taking someone's theism?

I was asked to teach math. But I refused. Only privately once in a while. Physics and math. In schools it's preaching. Teaching is preaching. And the young ones must learn by law. I didn’t wamt to be some refined slavedriver — Haglund

As I said, you are engaging in emotional sophistry and what is the difference in teaching maths privately to publically? I taught maths as well both in the classroom and as a private tutor. Mathematical addition and subtraction work the same way in private as they do in public. If you want to discuss your political opinions of how schools should be run then do so, don't try to muddy science with your political and emotional sophistry.

The balance is in favor of the atheists. Why should they feel happy if they succeed in taking someone's theism? — Haglund

They did not take it, they exposed its lack of evidence and in doing so have freed some of its enslaved/duped/conned minds. The balance is in the favour of the atheists because they have better arguments compared to the theists.

Seriously? you argue in favour merely because others argue against? — universeness

Yes. But not as playing advocate of the devil. I don't believe in the devil. I believe in gods, so I offer stuff against the atheists. Arguments, reasons, examples, knowledge, etc.

They did not take it, they exposed its lack of evidence — universeness

Theism has other means to proof than theists . By obliging theists to adopt these means, the take god away.

Yes. But not as playing advocate of the devil. I don't believe in the devil. I believe in gods, so I offer stuff against the atheists. Arguments, reasons, examples, knowledge, etc. — Haglund

The devil is just god dressed in red, wearing a mask with a couple of horns.
You are on the correct track with 'I don't believe in the devil.' Perhaps you will one day add /gods
to the sentence and you can stop your roleplay with polytheism for good.

They did not take it, they exposed its lack of evidence and in doing so have freed some of its enslaved/duped/conned minds. The balance is in the favour of the atheists because they have better arguments compared to the theists. — universeness

We can turn the table and ask atheist to see the gods are no fantasy by adopting a non-scientific proof. There are enough of these proofs.

Theism has other means to proof than theists . By obliging theists to adopt these means, the take god away. — Haglund

This makes little sense to me.

I say you offer imbalance, as you do not cite the many examples of theist attempts to convert people to their cause. — universeness

theists unlike atheists have a duty to convert, therefore it's normal for theists to attempt to convert although many don't practice that. but it's not normal for atheists since atheism is about disbelief in God, not about spreading religion.
That's why I find these "new atheists" practicing "atheist religion" strange, they are forming some sort of a church.

I don't think much of Rod Liddle. He is a Church of England theist who holds some very suspect viewpoints. I don't think he could produce a balanced piece on atheism if his life depended upon it. — universeness

I warmly recommend to watch the video anyway, it's one of the best because is speaks about "new atheism" point of view.

The devil is just god dressed in red, wearing a mask with a couple of horns. — universeness

Who is playing panto now? Or cos play...

This makes little sense to me. — universeness

Of course not. Because you adopt the scientific proof.

We can turn the table and ask atheist to see the gods are no fantasy by adopting a non-scientific proof. There are enough of these proofs — Haglund

Yeah, good luck with that! Turn, turn that table until you can turn that table no more.
Perhaps all that table turning will make your gods appear and I can say wow! you were correct all along.
I wouldn't bet your life on that happening if I were you.

Who is playing panto now? Or cos play... — Haglund

The gods in your head!

Of course not. Because you adopt the scientific proof. — Haglund

No, I just could not understand the context of your words in English? It was your English that made little sense to me.

Yeah, good luck with that! Turn, turn that table until you can turn that table no more.
Perhaps all that table turning will make your gods appear and I can say wow! you were correct all along.
I wouldn't bet your life on that happening if I were you. — universeness

Why shouldn't I turn the table and accept the scientific way of proof?

The gods in your head! — universeness

No, it's you putting on masks on gods.

No, I just could not understand the context of your words in English? It was your English that made little sense to me. — universeness

Yeah well English is not my native language. What I meant is that we could ask the scientist another way of proving things.

theists unlike atheists have a duty to convert, therefore it's normal for theists to attempt to convert although many don't practice that. but it's not normal for atheists since atheism is about disbelief in God, not about spreading religion.
That's why I find these "new atheists" practicing "atheist religion" strange, they are forming some sort of a church. — SpaceDweller

What a convenient excuse for the outrageous behavior of theists preachers, such as, "join us, or suffer in hell for eternity." I find the fact that you see atheists as forming a religion, 'strange,' and incorrect.
I watched this particular Rod Liddle offering before as well. I had a quick scan through it again and was reminded of the 'out of context, sound bite technique,' he commonly employs.

Why shouldn't I turn the table and accept the scientific way of proof? — Haglund

Please continue to try!

Yeah well English is not my native language. What I meant is that we could ask the scientist another way of proving things — Haglund

I know it's not. I think scientists are happy with the scientific method, but sure, you can ask. I think they will ignore you however or repeat that they are happy with the method they have as it is better than any alternative you offer. I would agree with them.

And I just saw part of the doctrine on TV, in a show for children. "In the name of science" yawning is investigated. The children are told that smart brains study for us. A visit is paid to a national tech institute where "the smartest brains" work for us. To give us smart and clean cars. "Hallelujah brother!" "And here we put 300 small cute solar panels, you see?" Djeezus! Already the small are pushed on!

they are happy with the method they have as it is better than any alternative you offer — universeness

And that's exactky where the digma appears!

such as, "join us, or suffer in hell for eternity." — universeness

lol, fanatics do exist, but this is not conversion.

'out of context, sound bite technique,' he commonly employs — universeness

atheists enjoy "out of context" methods because it's the easiest way to undermine theist dogma, mostly because a lot of theist are not apologists, atheists use it as well known tool for attack.

And that's exactky where the digma appears! — Haglund

Yours? Or what you claim is theirs?

Yours? Or what you claim is theirs? — universeness

When you say that your means of proof is better.

atheists enjoy "out of context" methods because it's the easiest way to undermine theist dogma, mostly because a lot of theist are not apologists, atheists use it as well known tool for attack — SpaceDweller

I disagree and would suggest that atheists defend much more than they attack.
Atheists don't have to attack, they just let theists put their god posits forward and then provide them with counterpoints that expose the weakness in their arguments and the gaping holes in their reasoning skills.
Theism is fear-based, a plea to non-existent supernaturals that theists wish to scapegoat for their own personal life choices or to make sense of what happened to them during their life outwith their personal control. They plead for the non-existent supernatural to assist them, give them absolution and/or offer them something better in the future or after they are dead. Primal fear of the unknown is a powerful driver towards theism but it can be defeated by rational thought.

Richard Dawkins — SpaceDweller

Richard Dawkins, in an interview, makes it a point to say that on a scale of 1 to 10, his certainty that there's no God is a 7. He's not a complete atheist to the extent and degree certainty in one's position counts.

His stance is that even if God exists, He's not worth worshipping for the following good reasons:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. — Richard Dawkins

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. — Richard Dawkins

Which makes him a prejudiced atheist, as gods don't conform to that image.

atheists enjoy "out of context" methods because it's the easiest way to undermine theist dogma, mostly because a lot of theist are not apologists, atheists use it as well known tool for attack — SpaceDweller

:100:

Praise the gods, dolleylujah, Juppijahwey!

This quote is perfect example for "out of context" method, because he puts forward presumably only negative connotations without asking or saying anything why is that so?


are you atheist since ever or have you been believer once but no more?

This quote is perfect example for "out of context" method, because he puts forward presumably only negative connotations without asking or saying anything why is that so? — SpaceDweller

Dawkins' good pal, Dan Baker has, if memory serves, taken care of that.

I even had a person who earned his living as a theist of Protestantism say to me that he knew a secret truth that was not known by many but was accepted by the highest authorities in both the protestant and catholic faiths.
It was a few years later when he was a little pissed one night at a gathering and he said that the god of the old testament was overthrown by the god of the new testament. I think that was the big secret he was talking about. Perhaps he was just 'winding me up,' I have no idea but I did think he was a bizarre theist after that. That was about 25 years ago and I have never seen him since.
Some strange fruits grow on those theistic burning bushes.

I even had a person who earned his living as a theist of Protestantism say to me that he knew a secret truth that was not known by many but was accepted by the highest authorities in both the protestant and catholic faiths.
It was a few years later when he was a little pissed one night at a gathering and he said that the god of the old testament was overthrown by the god of the new testament. I think that was the big secret he was talking about. Perhaps he was just 'winding me up,' I have no idea but I did think he was a bizarre theist after that. That was about 25 years ago and I have never seen him since.
Some strange fruits grow on those theistic burning bushes. — universeness

nice "secret", I have secret that is 100 times more powerful :smile:
his secret was accepted because Christianity was born, obviously Jews didn't become Christianized, there was massacre in Jerusalem starting with Joseph first martyr because of Jesus and his teachings.
So yes, one God overthrown another, but that applies more to Jews than to Christians.