Originally Posted by MariconesUnited
If you want to get reliable info on someone, go to the source. I certainly don't think Bill O'Reilly is objective, and neither is Deepak Chopra, as inspiring as his books may be.
But really, I'm not interested in debating personalities. You made a thread proclaiming atheists to be negative and condescending people. You rested that argument using 2 vocal atheists. That's downright ill logic. What about everyone you know who is atheist? What about everyone in this thread who came out as atheist? Were we condescending and negative before saying we were atheist? Are we now? Did you know we were atheist before this thread? If not, how many people out there do you know who are atheist without you knowing?
My point is that I believe your vision is skewed. Because of a tiny, vocal minority within atheism.
And I'm sorry but you're refusing to seek out for yourself the answer to a very important philosophical question because you don't like someone's personality. You should always judge a book's arguments' based on its logical merits mostly. And I'm sorry but you're also showing that you need a refresher course in that domain also.
All up to you of course
LOL...taking this a little personally, are we?? I didnt say all
atheist are arrogant and/or condescending. I just said most are (at least the ones I met). I only know 2 atheists in Toronto and both think they're the smartest people on the planet.
Here, I give you another example of Hitchens giving the finger to his Bill Maher's audience: Christopher Hitchens gives Bill Maher's crowd of leftist automathons a well-deserved finger - YouTube
Another example where Hitchens goes wrong. In this video first he says religion is a source of hatred (which I often, but not always, agree with him on). But then right after that he says religion should be hated upon in return.
First few minutes of video: Christopher Hitchens - The Best of the Hitchslap - YouTube
You see, he's doing exactly the same thing, he's no better then Westboro or some of the other churches.
AFA Dawkins is concerned, I LOL at him because he's not objective at all. He hates religion plus he doesnt hold any major science credentials, he's a zoologist by trade. These very lack of credentials is what Deepak Chopra called him on, and Dawkins got mad and acted condescending towards Chopra.
Good scientists are truth seekers, not ego-driven, arrogant know-it-alls