Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But I did not say anything was a waist. I said..."It is as much of a waist of time being an atheist as it is being a theist." That means any waist on one side is equal to the waist on the other side.
IT'S WASTE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. WASTE! WAIST IS THE PART BETWEEN RIB CAGE AND HIPS. AHHHHHH
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But I did not say anything was a waist. I said..."It is as much of a waist of time being an atheist as it is being a theist." That means any waist on one side is equal to the waist on the other side.
Well if you'd SAID "waste" rather than "waist" we'd all get the context. I thought you were making a Buddah's waistline joke, in all honesty.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Falwell didnt have the facts backing him up.
Neither does Dawkins. He always takes things one step beyond fact and damages the reputations of both science and atheism in the process. Just because he uses facts at some point in his argument does not mean his conclusions are, in fact, based on those facts.
As a scientist and an atheist he often offends me with his statments, just as most Christians I know are offended by firebrands like Falwell.
Originally posted by OrdoLike what statements?
Neither does Dawkins. He always takes things one step beyond fact and damages the reputations of both science and atheism in the process. Just because he uses facts at some point in his argument does not mean his conclusions are, in fact, based on those facts.As a scientist and an atheist he often offends me with his statments, just as most Christians I know are offended by firebrands like Falwell.
Originally posted by Bardock42
What does he say about it?
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004
Originally posted by Ordo
Neither does Dawkins. He always takes things one step beyond fact and damages the reputations of both science and atheism in the process. Just because he uses facts at some point in his argument does not mean his conclusions are, in fact, based on those facts.As a scientist and an atheist he often offends me with his statments, just as most Christians I know are offended by firebrands like Falwell.
As a professor of evolutionary sceince, basing alot of his rebuttals for religious explainations on his Darwinian and other sciences, Id say he fits the very definiotion of a man who knows what he is talking about.
But I better understand your comparison in that respect.
Hitchens is probably more your kind of guy then.
But in an age where Religion has so much power in politics and worldpower, it really should be able to stand up to Dawkins level scrutiny, I feel....and it doesnt.
Originally posted by inimalistJust that he compares believe in God to a Delusion or something else?
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I feel Dawkins has had his day...seriously he is barely around any more, it's like Militant Atheism died overnight...I guess now the republicans are out of office there is less of an appetite for it. Perhaps?
Well, it's natural to see more media coverage around the release of his book, which has now been out for a while. But taking that and making a broad generalization like this, with no evidence, is flatly wrong. Besides, religious beliefs aren't fashion fads...Dawkins may be in the spotlight less in this country nowadays, but the percentages of atheists, militant or otherwise, will be roughly the same regardless.