Fry's a bit all over the place, for me. He's clearly a very intelligent man, but he's very fragile. Saw him once at Liverpool Street station. Very tall. American atheist? What's that? My arguments are from all over the place, but I've never heard of American atheist. Rather disingenuous of you to slag off bad arguments without saying why they're bad, though.
I'd bag up if I was shagging Nessie for sho, dunno what that thing has caught in that swamp after 6 billion years.
I don't get why he is seen as intelligent? I said confused not bad. I have read all the post on here and your points and arguments are almost verbatim of their site
Fry's clearly very well read, eloquent and witty. There's plenty to criticise him for, I'm sure, but he's not a stupid man, is he? What's confused about any of the arguments that I've used? Pick one and make a point. Most of the arguments that I've used on here are very widespread. I'm not familiar with the American atheist site, though. Just looking it up, I see that it's the organisation run by David Silverman. Him I know. He's an activist, rather than a philosopher or author. I doubt the stuff he uses on his site's original. I'll have a look now.
For example if the said society was ruled by Islamic laws then these are your answers as best I as I can from the top of my head.. 1) Islam forbids homosexuality as an act altogether and practice of it in public, what people do it in their homes is a different thing, no one proactively go round looking for people who are homosexuals and didn't used to happen, whereas these days its used by people with other agendas than the religious one in places like Pakistan etc... There are lot people who have homosexual tendencies in the Muslim communities and some of them openly admit it but the difference they abstain from the practice because of their belief and that's what's important in Islam is the abstention, but your free to do whatever you want in private there is no big brother going around checking every home. 2) sex before marriage, same as number really, if you want I can elaborate and its essentially same and there are examples from the Prophet (saw) times that he was lenient, if people do as they desire that's not the fault of Islam. 3) Again blasphemy depends what you mean by that, denying god in general then no, its not a simple yes or no answer... The thing you have to realise is that if it was a Islamic country for instance laws would be based on that but it wouldn't mean it stops people from living their life, same as UK the law is decided by the governments what they think is right, similar thing. Hard to keep up with all the posts...
He comes across thick as **** to me but hey ho. Yeah have a read its all your arguments. Including for example not stamp collecting... Both of you try and be vague and wax lyrical about what atheism is, ie a non belief... However when we look at atheism today can we deny its missionary nature? In a similar way to Buddhism an atheist religion?
I didn't make the non-stamp collector argument. So your problem is that I won't accept your attempt to reverse the burden of proof, just as Highburyal didn't? Can't say that I'm surprised.
Atheism as an entity is taken as a given and not subjected to what religion does. Its had a process over the years as religion has and not everything is rosy as people would have you believe. People cite the likes of Sam Harris yet know very little about his fundamentalist views
You say it wouldn't stop people living there lives but using the example of someone who is gay, you've said they can't do it in public. That is stopping someone living there life. I get what you are saying about where you are in the world making a difference. I just think as countries develop more, social attitudes become more liberal and in turn a religious government loses its validity because it is at odds with the way people think and live there lives. The other point I was making was not about the social differences but about how government should make decisions based on the evidence available and the options available to deal with the current issues and not make policy and law based on what a religion says.
There is no burden of proof I tried to push on you, I said the argument of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" isn't a argument and asking for proof without clarify what that proof isn't an argument either..
