I said 'backed it up' not 'proved'. I'm not in the business of making claims that can't be proven. The point was that he wasn't just talking out his ass...he at least could defend himself rationally if needed. But I guess you missed that part.
But way to fiddle with bullsh*t semantic differences to try to insult me. If you're offended, tough sh*t. I said science when I probably should have said logic...which, of course, is a completely justifiable reason to get upset ( ). I wasn't trying to be anything but respectful...you're the one that decided to be a douche about it.
I was merely defending my statements, not Dawkins himself. We're not really in disagreement about his delivery style...you just choose to make it into an argument rather than a discussion.
1. He damages the credibility of science by claiming that science actually disproves religion. This is a blatant fallacy.
2. He is rabid and ruthless in his attacks, constantly failing to account for nuances and diversity. He paints all those who are religious as though they are Christian fundamentalists.
3. He ignores flaws in his own argument, globalizing it to the point where it is no longer supported by the "facts" he provides.
Those are certainly reasons to dislike him.
Sorry, I didn't know you were hypersensitive. Also, I didn't know I was really being disrespectful. If I was doing that I would have called you a "douche" or something immature like that.
Semantics are important. The English language has more words than any other language on earth. Choice of words is important. I take what people say literally. Next time I'll just randomly start replacing your words until I find a sentence that I think is correct.
All this "science proves atheism" is a major problem for me when I have to battle off all this ID/creationism BS. Its a flat misinterpretation of both science and atheism, both of which are personal interests of mine.
I know we're in agreement on most of it, but you made a statement that was similar to something Dawkins repeatedly makes. I told you why I thought it was wrong.
"Arguments" as you put them are better. They're a good way to see which person resorts to calling the other a "douche" first. So please, "if you're offended, tough sh*t" and realize that I'm not a hormonal teenager interested in whining online about some avatar who hates me or vice versa.
You made a statement. I thought it was stupid and told you so and why. No need to be all offended.
Hypersensitive, no. Though maybe I ended up taking your words the wrong way, which seems to have gone both ways a bit in this thread...an occasional evil with the written word.
Anyway, I'm just going to let it go. I've read some of his stuff, but I'm not a huge Dawkins fan anyway...and this has obviously snow-balled into something neither of us intended.
You should have seen when I said that one could observe Dawkin's character through his writing much like one can see Coulter's writing through hers...
Of course, I was dealing with morons, but it took three pages of me repeatedly explaining what I said to show that I never, in fact, said that Dawkins was the Coulter of atheism.
But here you are, saying he is. I am so smart, S-M-R-T.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
I don't think it is necessary to repeat already said in this thread, that firstly his statements prove/disprove or even intellectually challenge the idea of God.
He can bleat on about fallacies of Christianity, but his ridiculous, self absorbed statements prove nothing of God. It is moronic, and illogical to invoke science as a proof of (or lack of) existence of God.
He seems like a self obsessed idiot, anyway.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Well, it certainly disproves some claims by some people about their God.
The concept of God is an idiotic thing though. Because people just attribute it unprovable and everyone takes it. If it exists it would be somehow provable...
Too bad his OWN claims extend beyond the range of proof.
Idiotic? Then why so enduring and present in every global culture?
And perhaps God is somehow provable, but simply not under current capabilities.
Anyway, what we should be exercising is global tolerance for things that are clearly a matter of opinon/vision and not fact. Dawkins is simply another radical trying to force his myopic interpretation on the world.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Yeah, global tolerance for things that are simply a matter of opinion. No doubt....now creation as it is in the bible is not a matter of opinion. It is just wrong. There should be no tolerance for that bullshit.
And, I am not sure whether you actually thought a bit about it or just figured that it would be great to hate him. But not only in this speech did he say that he is in fact agnostic and just labels himself atheist because his believe in a God equals his believe in Unicorns, but also does he work together with clergyman on some points. Reasonable people, what he is a radical against, and rightly so, is the idiotic fundamentalism that exists especially in the US about God...and rightly so.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
If I had said "and rightly so" just once more it would have been comic.
And yeah, that's what I mean, he's not an idiot...he is a radical in a way that he thinks fundamentalism is bad and of course he thinks what he believes is right and wants people that believe the same to finally claim that they are there too. I mean, the thing with the Jewish community he said is correct. Atheists are just usually too (in the original sense) liberal and don't speak up....
There was an article in Time recently where Dawkins had a debate with some noted scientist-Christian about the existence of God. I think Dawkins points/counter-points were better and the theist couldn't adequately address some of Dawkins questions. But at the same time, he sucks at debating and came across as the same pompous jerk that many people already know him as. Abrasive was the word that came to mind. That probably lost him the debate in many peoples' eyes.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 10th, 2007 11:33 AM
). I wasn't trying to be anything but respectful...you're the one that decided to be a douche about it.
