Originally posted by JacopeXIt does affect me though. Christians are against abortion. They could possibly make abortion illegal. Then if my girlfriend got pregnant she couldn't get an abortion, because of Christians (and some other nutjobs)....
Being christians?Because it hardly effects you in anyway as it is just a belief. If atheist cry over faith, then I pity and laugh.
Damn...my reply didn't make it to the thread...so: abridged version.
Originally posted by Bardock42
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.
Perhaps you sohuld execute anyone who is ever misinformed about issues. Besides, couldn't the bible be metaphorical?
You suffer some of the same problems as Dawkins, you paint anyone who is religious as the same (and as a Christian fundamentalist).
.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And, I am not sure whether you actually thought a bit about it or just figured that it would be great to hate him.]
.
Originally posted by Bardock42
[B]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. .]
Why? He paints anyone who is religious as an idiot. (an irony that is not kind to him)
Originally posted by Bardock42
[B]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....
..which is exactly why is is the same damn type of psycho fundamentalist that he whines about. The man is more than anti-fundamentalism...he's anti RELIGION. Big differnce and its a distinction that he's too dull to make. Unfortunately, he drags science and athiesm down with his idiocy. Hes not an idiot, he just has one idiotic belief that corrupts his being...just like most other fundamentalists
Originally posted by DigiMark007Dawkins' points failed in a lot of places too. He was too worried about toppling religion and barely realized he was actually talking to one man. Collins was the clear winner in that debate.
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It does affect me though. Christians are against abortion. They could possibly make abortion illegal. Then if my girlfriend got pregnant she couldn't get an abortion, because of Christians (and some other nutjobs)....
Then don't live in a democracy.
There is an awesome debate between Resa Aslan and Sam Harris kickin around on the internet. Resa Aslan makes some great points in it that are entirely pertinant to this discussion of Dawkins.
Basically, people who take the radical stance against all religion (as opposed to fundamentalism or religious violence and oppression) make the same very mistakes in the interpretation of religious texts as the religious extremists do.
Its not necesarily that it is a bad position to have, but like Alliance is saying, it is certainly not conducive to winning over the hearts and minds of the converted, and honestly, seeing as he is so media savy, it paints a picture of all athiests as ignorant radicals.
Letme just plug the new Christopher Hitchens book again: PLUG!
Originally posted by Alliance
Damn...my reply didn't make it to the thread...so: abridged version.Perhaps you sohuld execute anyone who is ever misinformed about issues. Besides, couldn't the bible be metaphorical?
Might be an idea.
How does that relate to what I said? I said creation as it is stated in the bible. Not as it might be possibly interpreted.
Originally posted by Alliance
You suffer some of the same problems as Dawkins, you paint anyone who is religious as the same (and as a Christian fundamentalist).
No, I don't.
Originally posted by Alliance
I used to like him until i realized what a danger to science and athiesm he was.
In what way (note to the reader: He isn't, I just want Alliance to tell me why he thinks he is.)
Originally posted by Alliance
He is an all out athiest, regardless of how he occasionally presents himself. Besides, (unfortunately as Digimark already noted) when Dawkins debates intelligent people, like Fancis Collins (a scientist whose achievements outpace Dawkins' imo) he still is an ass to them.
Great, he's an ass (iyo), that really relates to his point.
Originally posted by Alliance
Why? He paints anyone who is religious as an idiot. (an irony that is not kind to him)
No he doesn't...remember the interview I posted a while ago.
Originally posted by Alliance
..which is exactly why is is the same damn type of psycho fundamentalist that he whines about. The man is more than anti-fundamentalism...he's anti RELIGION. Big differnce and its a distinction that he's too dull to make. Unfortunately, he drags science and athiesm down with his idiocy. Hes not an idiot, he just has one idiotic belief that corrupts his being...just like most other fundamentalists
Well, he is an atheist and thinks that is the best way to be...I wouldn't call him a fundamentalist as he can be very reasonable and is not against everyone religious.
Also, I don't think he comes of as ass that much, the interviews and videos I watched with him were all very fair and he seemed to be a reasonable person.
Originally posted by Alliance
Dawkins' points failed in a lot of places too. He was too worried about toppling religion and barely realized he was actually talking to one man. Collins was the clear winner in that debate.
So clear even that Digimark thinks Dawkins was the winner.
Originally posted by Alliance
Then don't live in a democracy.
Working on it.
Then again, one would say that living in a democracy is not just about accepting whatever happens but also advocate what one wants themselves....****ing radical democracists.
Originally posted by Bardock42
How does that relate to what I said? I said creation as it is stated in the bible. Not as it might be possibly interpreted.
Originally posted by Bardock42
In what way (note to the reader: He isn't, I just want Alliance to tell me why he thinks he is.)
(note to reader: bardock knows sh*t about the historical and current relations between science and the public...therefore he is credible)
Besides, what was wrong with this list?
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, making him as guilty of religous zealotry as other fundamentalists who claim that they have a monopoly on "truth."
Originally posted by Bardock42
Great, he's an ass (iyo), that really relates to his point.
No, it simply compunds the fact that he's a menace to civilized society.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No he doesn't...remember the interview I posted a while ago.
Which one was that...rember the Collins debate.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, he is an atheist and thinks that is the best way to be...I wouldn't call him a fundamentalist as he can be very reasonable and is not against everyone religious.
Reasonable? He yells at the Pope for not taking god out of science when the Vatican makes the biggest step toward science since the church accepted heliocentrism. He's an utterly mypoic man. He IS agianst all religion...he thinks religious is a sign of a flawed mental state...maybe this is new to your corner but thats against anyone who is religious.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, I don't think he comes of as ass that much, the interviews and videos I watched with him were all very fair and he seemed to be a reasonable person.
He's an incredible ass who is more bent on showering himself with pseudo-intellectual glory than actually promoting good thought.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So clear even that Digimark thinks Dawkins was the winner.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Then again, one would say that living in a democracy is not just about accepting whatever happens but also advocate what one wants themselves....****ing radical democracists.
Actually, thats anarchy.
Originally posted by Alliance
How can you possibly read it without interpreting it?
It's a story book, you don't have to see it as big metaphors (many fundamentalist Christians don't). You didn't know that? Odd.
Originally posted by Alliance
(note to reader: bardock knows sh*t about the historical and current relations between science and the public...therefore he is credible)Besides, what was wrong with this list?
1. He damages the credibility of science by claiming that science actually disproves religion. This is a blatant fallacy.
Where did he claim that? I mean, we have this one video where he says that of course there might be a God, it's just as likely as believing in a teapot orbiting Saturn. In fact, that is not saying that it disproves it at all. Have we seen different videos?
Also, good job on taking my little joke there, very creative of you.
Originally posted by Alliance
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.
Not true, didn't with the Archbishop of Canterbury for one. I am sure there are more Christians he also respects. But...well, that one is really enough to disprove your stupid claim
Originally posted by Alliance
3. He ignores flaws in his own argument, globalizing it to the point where it is no longer supported by the "facts" he provides, making him as guilty of religous zealotry as other fundamentalists who claim that they have a monopoly on "truth."
Well, you were wrong with the first two points, lets see you bring up some evidence for the third.
Originally posted by Alliance
No, it simply compunds the fact that he's a menace to civilized society.
Bullshit
Originally posted by Alliance
Which one was that...rember the Collins debate.
The one I posted. He interviewed the Archbishop of Canterbury. You replied to the thread.
And no, I don't remember the Collins debate, I believe it was not posted..and I happen to not own any Time Magazines.
Originally posted by Alliance
Reasonable? He yells at the Pope for not taking god out of science when the Vatican makes the biggest step toward science since the church accepted heliocentrism. He's an utterly mypoic man. He IS agianst all religion...he thinks religious is a sign of a flawed mental state...maybe this is new to your corner but thats against anyone who is religious.
Well, we saw that he isn't against anyone religious. That doesn't mean that need for religion is not a flaw in the human brain. And not only did you use myopic wrong, I also have no idea in what way you think he is it. Yeah he wants all Religion gone....and? If you think about it it kinda makes sense to not want religion...
Originally posted by Alliance
Just like Ann Coulter is reasonable to JackieMalfoy.He's an incredible ass who is more bent on showering himself with pseudo-intellectual glory than actually promoting good thought.
Yeah, yeah, you don't like him. You rebel, you.
Originally posted by Alliance
Wow...another formal assault on a memeber.
Assault? Are you out of your mind? Do you lack the most rudimentary of reading capabilities? The part you quoted neither attacked DigiMark nor you.
Originally posted by Alliance
Actually, thats anarchy.
N-no. It's democracy. Once again you show that you do not understand the word.
Meh? We get it... you don't like Dawkins.
N.B. The Dawkins v. Collins debate is available here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-3,00.html
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Meh? We get it... you don't like Dawkins.N.B. The Dawkins v. Collins debate is available here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-3,00.html
Thanks.
Furthermore if we lived in a real Democracy we would not have gone to invade Iraq. Sure we can elect who comes into power but we have limited power in changing policies (demonstration).
Even then im sure that elections sometimes are rigged.
Further furthermore I dont give a **** wether its a democracy or not I dont want any religous fundies telling me what to do!
Originally posted by Alfheim
Furthermore if we lived in a real Democracy we would not have gone to invade Iraq. Sure we can elect who comes into power but we have limited power in changing policies (demonstration).Even then im sure that elections sometimes are rigged.
Further furthermore I dont give a **** wether its a democracy or not I dont want any religous fundies telling me what to do!
Furthermore, you sound like an American. 😂