I was talking about Atheism. I wasn't comparing science to religion in any way actually. Atheists can be as militant in their non-belief as believers are in their belief.
Random atheists never try to convert me either. Atheists can get pretty douchy online, but they are hardly unique in that sense. That doesn't mean they act douchy in real life. There is no Atheist equivalent of the Hare Krishina's, or Mormons. I can't act like they are all innocent, I have seen plenty of gay looking pro-Atheism bumper stickers.
The scientific method as we know it today is grounded in a combination of empiricism, positivism and pragmatism, where the importance of sensory experience is stressed. There were other rival schools of thought which held reason as the primary source of epistemic truth. And they had a high esteem for Mathematics and logic. The scientific method is highly popular because it is practical in advancing economic ends. Eventually, it all boils down to practicality.
Of course not, but you see them on TV and some of them even have their own organizations, which is pretty ironic and mind-boggling. They don't have the same sort of recruitment practices or collective thinking, but I find them just as annoying, if not more so.
There are also people on TV trying sell me a shoe horn on a stick. It's still a fuck of a lot less annoying than being stopped and asked how I feel about Jesus Christ. If I'm watching a show and an atheist comes on, I act just like I would during a commercial; I get up, and go take a piss.
Lol. Well usually it's somewhat hypocritical, especially considering what they're complaining about in the first place. There's some mirroring going on there.
At face value, yes. But it depends on what their aim is. Are they for-profit, etc.
Why?!
He's the Atheist equivilant of Joel Osteen. He's a brilliant scientist, I would never deny that. But he is as close as anyone comes to being an Atheist Fundamentalist. He is the preachy, militant Atheist you were talking about. He even has a best selling book about Atheism, "The God Delusion".
He's basically no different from the pricks who start flame wars on r/atheism, only with more clout.
My main gripe with him beyond that is this seeming obsession with literalism being the only facet of religious belief, and that religious belief sans literalism is not religious belief at all. It's does a great disservice to theology. It ignores both the history and necessity of interpretation.
To me, it really comes down to how strident he is. It's not a matter of agreeing, or disagreeing with his argument. I really just feel, at the end of the day, that he is a condescending ass.
Well, whether what he said there is actually the truth or not is also up for debate and also up to interpretation
75% of it is the accent!
Whatever the argument, it's as hard to prove god doesn't exist, as it is to prove god does exist. It's a circular debate, no matter what side you take. Reason and logic do not apply.Well, whether what he said there is actually the truth or not is also up for debate and also up to interpretation
That's racist.
That point is sort of moot anyway. Believers and non-believers don't care about it being proven whether he exists or not. "Proof" doesn't even exist as a concept in most cases.
