Singularity, on Nov 8 2009, 06:34 PM, said:
ben, you are implying that Condell is not a good atheist. Just exactly where do you get this dogmatic idea?
No, I am implying that he is a poor thinker on par with a religious lunatic, and as such a poor representative of atheism. Like all viewpoints, atheism is 'up for sale'. It has to make its way in a marketplace of ideas, and will be scrutinised on the basis of its most vocal proponents.
As for 'dogmatic'? I know we disagree and stuff, but you're being theatrical and it diminishes the quality of discussion. I haven't come close to expressing a dogmatic viewpoint.
Condell is 100% atheist because he does not believe in God.
You can't say he's not a very good atheist or not representative of some ideal atheist because you don't like something about the guy personally. THAT is a non sequitur.
See above. My position is legit.
There is no "atheism at it's best," as you say. There are no good atheist or bad atheist. There are just atheists; those who don't believe in God. Atheism has nothing to do with moral codes or anything else other than not believing in God, period.
Like it or not, while atheism itself is a simple state of non belief, there absolutely is an atheist culture. There are atheist conferences, websites, advocacy groups, etcetera. There are also those in public life who are (whether they choose to be or not, and most do) spokespeople for atheism.
Pat Condell is a terrible spokesperson, reinforcing the worst stereotypes.
Edited by ben, 16 December 2009 - 02:32 AM.