Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Very funny and interesting. It says a lot about christianity, religion, science, creationism, evoltion and atheism. I suggest people watch it and not judge this atheist before watching the video.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/113

...Heh, no video....
Although the video entitled "Athiest" on youtube is quite good.

What Video?

edited.

Entertaining, intelligent, if nothing really new being said. Struck me as more "anti-theist," though again done very well.

Very interesting, if abit anti-thiest. I really like listening to richard dawkins

Good video, thanks for posting.

PROPOGANDA without qualifiers. Fire with fire burns the world.

Nah, I was just being an ass.

A little bit of any philosophy can be dangerous, because you're never getting the full view. Dawkins is one of the world's leaders on "free thinking" and is widely known for being an atheist and an anti-theist.

A lot of the speech is inflammatory and lacks the proper backing both philosophically as well as scientifically. But Dawkins' books, lectures, and papers continue all of that and provide the base upon which he makes a lot of his statements.

I don't agree with everything Dawkins says. It's easy to make the case that religion has done much more harm than good, and if it's unlogical it's only reasonable to try to bring about its fall. But that's not always practical, and it also paints religion (and people) with broad brushstrokes, which I get uncomfortable around. He also goes a step further to militant materialism....one step beyond even atheism. I can't quite go that far, or at the very least discount the possibility.

....

The speech is actually amusing. I didn't mind it at all. If you are religious, Dawkins' words will probably just bounce off your ears and head back out...but the religious aren't really the target audience of that speech. Other atheists are. He has other books that attempt to "convert" (chosen purposefully) those who are religious (his recent 'The God Delusion' is an example)....but this speech isn't one of them.

So take it for what it is: One atheist talking to others about his views on how to move forward. No different than if someone posted a youtube video of a Christian preacher...it's only intended for a specific purpose, not as a cross-section and full view of that particular religion/belief.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Nah, I was just being an ass.

Hopefully. Because that post was both horribly out of place in this thread (spam) and scarily generalizing, speculative, and repressive.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
and if it's unlogical it's only reasonable to try to bring about its fall.

What?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What?

If religion is illogical (my bad with unlogical), it's only natural to try to bring about its fall (ending it). That isn't my idea...I was basically paraphrasing his intent in the speech.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
A lot of the speech is inflammatory and lacks the proper backing both philosophically as well as scientifically.

Dawkins is full of himself intellectually. His points often to not have the backing to make the claims he does. He needs to grow up. He has very little basis to make many claims that he does and uses his "position" as a scientist as a crutch for his credibility. Calling him a "leader in freethinking" is total BS. He's the Ann Coulter of Atheism.

Originally posted by Alliance
Dawkins is full of himself intellectually. His points often to not have the backing to make the claims he does. He needs to grow up. He has very little basis to make many claims that he does and uses his "position" as a scientist as a crutch for his credibility. Calling him a "leader in freethinking" is total BS. He's the Ann Coulter of Atheism. I like him.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I like him.

If I wouldn't like him too, I would take that as a proof that he is an idiot.

I like Dawkins more for the work he did in biology. The selfish gene is a revolutionary way to look at evolution and honestly he makes way more sense on the subject of punctuated equilibrium than Gould ever did, imho.

But ya, as far as his views on religion, he does point out many of the age old flaws in certain beliefs but does somewhat of a disservice to his cause when he blanket critiscizes all religions and religious people as morons (his interview with Ted Haggard is wonderful though).

He pulls way more punches than Sam Harris who talks at length about the potential societal problems of religion (http://www.samharris.org/), he isn't nearly as science oriented as Victor Stenger who actually tries to determine what would scientifically be proof of God (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/), nor does he have the broad historical perspective offered by Christopher Hitchens (http://www.hitchensweb.com/) whose recent book "God is not Great" is freaking fantastic.

Dawkins is interesting, but I'd way rather he be remembered for memes and the Anscestor's Tale rather than the Brights movement

Originally posted by Alliance
Dawkins is full of himself intellectually. His points often to not have the backing to make the claims he does. He needs to grow up. He has very little basis to make many claims that he does and uses his "position" as a scientist as a crutch for his credibility. Calling him a "leader in freethinking" is total BS. He's the Ann Coulter of Atheism.

Meh, you're entitled to your opinion. He's got a lot of credible science backing up his atheism...he just goes about it in such a way that it rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I recently read his work "The Selfish Gene" about social/cultural evolution, and found it fascinating. So he's not totally full of hot air...just sometimes.

As for the distinction of "leader in freethinking", he's certainly a visible figure in the field, and has published a wide variety of analyses on paranormal phenomenon...not just to debunk them (which he often does, but not always), but to look at them with a rational, critical eye. His collection of essays "Unweaving the Rainbow" is a good example of this (a nod to Newton breaking down the colors of the rainbow into the idea of prismatic light).

So I feel that the distinction is fully justified, regardless of your opinion of him.

Originally posted by inimalist
I like Dawkins more for the work he did in biology. The selfish gene is a revolutionary way to look at evolution and honestly he makes way more sense on the subject of punctuated equilibrium than Gould ever did, imho.

Yes. It is brilliant work isn't it?

Originally posted by inimalist
But ya, as far as his views on religion, he does point out many of the age old flaws in certain beliefs but does somewhat of a disservice to his cause when he blanket critiscizes all religions and religious people as morons (his interview with Ted Haggard is wonderful though).
It was a good interview, but the Dawkins is often rabid.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Meh, you're entitled to your opinion. He's got a lot of credible science backing up his atheism...
So, here's an opinon you're not entitled to. God and religion are not testable subjects. SCIENCE does not take positions on such issues; it is impossible for good science to have positions on such things. Logic might support athiesm, but SCIENCE does not. Making such ignorant statements is a giant disservice to the objectivity of science, suggesting that there is a world view associated with fact.

...and, it personally offends me.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
he just goes about it in such a way that it rubs a lot of people the wrong way....
Yes, usually rabid bashing and myopic totalitarianism is not an effective way to convince people you're sane.


Originally posted by DigiMark007
As for the distinction of "leader in freethinking", he's certainly a visible figure in the field,....
Ann Coulter of Athiesm. What a fabulous leader

Too bad the idiot can't see past his own blindfold and discover that light actually is prismatic and not just white.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yes. It is brilliant work isn't it?


It was a good interview, but the Dawkins is often rabid.


So, here's an opinon you're not entitled to. God and religion are not testable subjects. SCIENCE does not take positions on such issues; it is impossible for good science to have positions on such things. Logic might support athiesm, but SCIENCE does not. Making such ignorant statements is a giant disservice to the objectivity of science, suggesting that there is a world view associated with fact.

...and, it personally offends me.


Yes, usually rabid bashing and myopic totalitarianism is not an effective way to convince people you're sane.



Ann Coulter of Athiesm. What a fabulous leader

Too bad the idiot can't see past his own blindfold and discover that light actually is prismatic and not just white. Yeah, yeah, we get it, you hate him, you have no reason too. Lets go to the next topic.

Originally posted by Alliance
So, here's an opinon you're not entitled to. God and religion are not testable subjects. SCIENCE does not take positions on such issues; it is impossible for good science to have positions on such things. Logic might support athiesm, but SCIENCE does not. Making such ignorant statements is a giant disservice to the objectivity of science, suggesting that there is a world view associated with fact.

...and, it personally offends me.

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.

Originally posted by Alliance
Ann Coulter of Athiesm. What a fabulous leader

Too bad the idiot can't see past his own blindfold and discover that light actually is prismatic and not just white.

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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, yeah, we get it, you hate him, you have no reason too. Lets go to the next topic.

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.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
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.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.

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.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
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.
Originally posted by FeceMan
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.

He is indeed full of himself.

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.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
He is indeed full of himself.

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.

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...

Originally posted by Bardock42


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...

Can you prove the existance of infinity? If you cant you will never be able to prove the existance of God for certain.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, it certainly disproves some claims by some people about their God.
Too bad his OWN claims extend beyond the range of proof.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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...
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.

Originally posted by Alliance
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.

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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
what he is a radical against, and rightly so, is the idiotic fundamentalism that exists especially in the US about God...and rightly so.

True. I noticed when he talks to open minded religous people he suddenly becomes very polite.

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....

I would like that man to debate with a christian who has so much knowledge of the belief.

Originally posted by JacopeX
I would like that man to debate with a christian who has so much knowledge of the belief.
I would like christians to stop being that.

Originally posted by JacopeX
I would like that man to debate with a christian who has so much knowledge of the belief.

As far as I know he won't do debates with Christan's.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If I had said "and rightly so" just once more it would have been comic.



Originally posted by Bardock42

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....

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I would like christians to stop being that. 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.

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 DigiMark007
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.

Well if he had better arguments, him being abrasive doesnt make him less correct, but I agree its better to be polite.

Originally posted by JacopeX
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. 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)....

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.]
I used to like him until i realized what a danger to science and athiesm he was.

.Originally posted by Bardock42
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. .]
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.

Why? He paints anyone who is religious as an idiot. (an irony that is not kind to him)Originally posted by Bardock42
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 fundamentalistsOriginally posted by DigiMark007
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. 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.

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.
How can you possibly read it without interpreting it?

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.
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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So clear even that Digimark thinks Dawkins was the winner.
Wow...another formal assault on a memeber.

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.

OMFG THIS IS GREAT!!!!!

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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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.



Thats true but in all fairness common sense dictates that you are supposed to.

I think I agree with everything else you've said about Dawkins.

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.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Furthermore, you sound like an American.

Meh I dont think im very english anyway.

All Christians are against abortion?

You do realize that some people who believe that abortion is morally wrong are pro-choice, don't you?

Originally posted by FeceMan
All Christians are against abortion?

You do realize that some people who believe that abortion is morally wrong are pro-choice, don't you?

Did I say that? In case I did I apologize. I am usually careful to say most or many...

So, yes.

And, while I'm against abortion, I'm not against goatse.

Originally posted by FeceMan
So, yes.

And, while I'm against abortion, I'm not against goatse.

Good then. Many Christians are against abortion (FeceMan for example) and I don't want them to force their (imo) incredibly stupid opinion on me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Good then. Many Christians are against abortion (FeceMan for example) and I don't want them to force their (imo) incredibly stupid opinion on me.

I don't think you will ever have to have an abortion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think you will ever have to have an abortion.

I may not. And I may also never marry, I sure like the rights though...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I may not. And I may also never marry, I sure like the rights though...

I was just teasing you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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.

The only thing that is odd is your lack of thinking. You don't have to see it as a book of metaphors, but I have never suggested such a claim. I suggest that it CAN be seen as a book of metaphors.

You on the other hand, suggest that it must be seen as a book of "literal" fact, as if FACT is clearly apparent from a sentance and totally unrelated to connotation or personal interpretation of readign a document as large as a book.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Where did he claim that?.
Lets start a bit more recently...I always like up to date facts. "The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."

Thats right...Dawkins really isn't an athiest. TRY LEARNING. Might be good for a uninformed know-it-all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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.

"The God DELUSION"

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you were wrong with the first two points, lets see you bring up some evidence for the third.

"Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility."

"The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."

Maybe when I get home an I can sift through his books again, I'll provide quotes. He claims, falsely, that science can take a position on God. He is wrong. The question in itself is unscientific.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Bullshit.
Do you speak anything but?

Originally posted by Bardock42
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..
Anyone? I said everyone. He hates religion, thinks religous people are deluded...yet he doesn't hate them? And people say that you can hate homosexuality and not hate homosexuals...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, yeah, you don't like him. You rebel, you.
Yes, I do consider myself a rebel athiest because I don't think I'm an idiot. I like to resort to a little things called reason and rationality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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.

Yeah...come on...even DigiMark can figure it out.

Its called interpretation...do you know what it is?

Originally posted by Bardock42
N-no. It's democracy. Once again you show that you do not understand the word. And you show that you don't know the nuances of when to properly use the word. Please, go cry in the corner about how people are different than you. Whine about how people who think they're the only ones with a monopoly on "truth" (except for you) are evil and destroying the world. Then realize you're a part of it.

Originally posted by Alliance
The only thing that is odd is your lack of thinking. You don't have to see it as a book of metaphors, but I have never suggested such a claim. I suggest that it CAN be seen as a book of metaphors.

You on the other hand, suggest that it must be seen as a book of "literal" fact, as if FACT is clearly apparent from a sentance and totally unrelated to connotation or personal interpretation of readign a document as large as a book.


Lets start a bit more recently...I always like up to date facts. "The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."

Thats right...Dawkins really isn't an athiest. TRY LEARNING. Might be good for a uninformed know-it-all.



"The God DELUSION"



"Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility."

"The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."

Maybe when I get home an I can sift through his books again, I'll provide quotes. He claims, falsely, that science can take a position on God. He is wrong. The question in itself is unscientific.


Do you speak anything but?


Anyone? I said everyone. He hates religion, thinks religous people are deluded...yet he doesn't hate them? And people say that you can hate homosexuality and not hate homosexuals...


Yes, I do consider myself a rebel athiest because I don't think I'm an idiot. I like to resort to a little things called reason and rationality.



Yeah...come on...even DigiMark can figure it out.

Its called interpretation...do you know what it is?

And you show that you don't know the nuances of when to properly use the word. Please, go cry in the corner about how people are different than you. Whine about how people who think they're the only ones with a monopoly on "truth" (except for you) are evil and destroying the world. Then realize you're a part of it.

Look, I will just do what I do with every other moron that is too stupid to understand what I say and makes up shit.

Bullshit, you moron.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yeah...come on...even DigiMark can figure it out.



I thought we buried our hatchet....anyway, why all the anger?


...

And as for my interpretation of the Collins/Dawkins debate, I said that Dawkins points were harder to answer from a theist perspective, but that Dawkins debating relied heavily on poor rationale (he attacked religion in general as much as the question of God), bashing, and generally acting like a jerk. So I was more in agreement with him by the end than Collins, but thought he handled himself rather poorly.

So, if he handled himself poorly, and used poor rationale, how exactly did you end up agreeing with him?

Handling yourself poorly AND using bad rationale almost instantly suggest that one is not only a jerk, but doesn't know what he is talking about.

When intelligence is spent, insults are vent.

Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
Very interesting, if abit anti-thiest. I really like listening to richard dawkins

The problem with Dawkins, is he is so convinced God exists, he is spending all his time trying to prove he doesnt exist...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The problem with Dawkins, is he is so convinced God exists, he is spending all his time trying to prove he doesnt exist...
That is exactly the impression that I had. He is an atheist who is fighting god.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So, if he handled himself poorly, and used poor rationale, how exactly did you end up agreeing with him?

Handling yourself poorly AND using bad rationale almost instantly suggest that one is not only a jerk, but doesn't know what he is talking about.

When intelligence is spent, insults are vent.

In fact the smartest people I know (as well as the smartest on this forum) do use insults frequently, it is more the people of lesser intelligence that hate it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
stion..

In fact the smartest people I know (as well as the smartest on this forum) do use insults frequently, it is more the people of lesser intelligence that hate it.

I think you need to shoosh.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is exactly the impression that I had. He is an atheist who is fighting god.
Ahh, there are alot of them around! Question is...who will win? :O

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think you need to shoosh.


Ahh, there are alot of them around! Question is...who will win? :O

Why?

Originally posted by Bardock42
In fact the smartest people I know (as well as the smartest on this forum) do use insults frequently, it is more the people of lesser intelligence that hate it.

People who are truly intelligent, do not need to use insults. They are intelligent enough to put an argument together, without insulting, because their argument is strong enough.

Those who are not intelligent enough to make an argument, NEED insults to try and justify their incoherent ridiculous, intellectually insulting babble...

Hence all the greatest intellectuals could put someone down without using a single insult.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think you need to shoosh.


Ahh, there are alot of them around! Question is...who will win? :O

I don't think God care or even notices. They are like ants biting at the toe of a giant.

Hmm, fair point.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
People who are truly intelligent, do not need to use insults. They are intelligent enough to put an argument together, without insulting, because their argument is strong enough.

Those who are not intelligent enough to make an argument, NEED insults to try and justify their incoherent ridiculous, intellectually insulting babble...

Hence all the greatest intellectuals could put someone down without using a single insult.

As I said. That's what people of lesser intelligence say to feel better about themselves in my experience.

Intelligent people can make excellent points and still throw insults in, because, to be fair, it becomes incredibly annoying to talk to people that do not even comprehend the most simple points. Sure they might not need them, but there's hardly any reason to not use them.

people resort to insults when they have nothing left.

I dont totally agree with that, people often resort to insults not when they have run out of argument, but because they have run out of paitence.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...Sure they might not need them, but there's hardly any reason to not use them.

As soon as you have insulted someone, you have lost the argument.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
As soon as you have insulted someone, you have lost the argument.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA


Bullshit

Also, do people notice how just those a reasonable human would not consider intelligent throw that shit around?

Originally posted by Bardock42
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA


Bullshit

Also, do people notice how just those a reasonable human would not consider intelligent throw that shit around?

You are delusional. Is that insulting you?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are delusional. Is that insulting you?

Not really. I am not, of course...but I wouldn't count it as an insult.

Either way, you must realize the severe stupidity of your last statement, if not I can give you an example that should clarify it and if you have just one brain cell left make you think about never talking again.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. I am not, of course...but I wouldn't count it as an insult.

Either way, you must realize the severe stupidity of your last statement, if not I can give you an example that should clarify it and if you have just one brain cell left make you think about never talking again.

You fail.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I dont totally agree with that, people often resort to insults not when they have run out of argument, but because they have run out of paitence. grade school tactics. you big poohead.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So, if he handled himself poorly, and used poor rationale, how exactly did you end up agreeing with him?

I thought he won in spite of himself. Does that make sense? It's possible to dislike an argument, but agree with it. He attacked religion and religious people a bunch, so it was kinda side-tracked and disrespectful, but when he stayed on topic there was nothing Collins could refute him with that seem logical to me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You fail.

God, I wish some intelligent person was on so I could tell them about the idiocy I encountered today. And all in the same thread.

Originally posted by Bardock42
God, I wish some intelligent person was on so I could tell them about the idiocy I encountered today. And all in the same thread. so I take it that you are the only intelligent person here.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
so I take it that you are the only intelligent person here.

Hey, I can't really judge DigiMark that well, but yeah...pretty much.

Originally posted by Bardock42
God, I wish some intelligent person was on so I could tell them about the idiocy I encountered today. And all in the same thread.

Like I would care.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hey, I can't really judge DigiMark that well, but yeah...pretty much. thats very AC of you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Like I would care.

*random stupid answer a la Shakyamunison*

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
thats very AC of you.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe I just read what many of you said and realized that, well...you guys are stupid.

Nothing wrong with that either. You just are.

Do this... insult them first, then counter/destroy their points, or lack there of.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do this... insult them first, then destroy their points, or lack there of.

A sane person. Oh God. I felt so lonely cry


hug

lil bitchiness, please ban Bardock42.

Originally posted by Bardock42
*random stupid answer a la Shakyamunison*



Maybe, maybe not. Maybe I just read what many of you said and realized that, well...you guys are stupid.

Nothing wrong with that either. You just are. you sound like his lapdog.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
lil bitchiness, please ban Bardock42.

For what? If I recall right I was the guy that talked on topic before you guys dragged it off. Should you maybe be banned? I mean...you never contribute to anything.

Originally posted by Bardock42
For what? If I recall right I was the guy that talked on topic before you guys dragged it off. Should you maybe be banned? I mean...you never contribute to anything. woof.

Originally posted by Bardock42
For what? If I recall right I was the guy that talked on topic before you guys dragged it off. Should you maybe be banned? I mean...you never contribute to anything.

For braking the rules of the forum.

Okay...anyone of the following people:

Shakyamunison
Rogue Jedi
Grand Moff Gav


You actually got something to say about Richard Dawkins or are you just using this as your personal Off Topic forum?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
For braking the rules of the forum. they dont get it. they call us idiots for not believing what they believe.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
For braking the rules of the forum.

Giving my opinion on your intelligence after the topic was introduced by a moderator (which in a way insulted me, not that I care) is hardly against the rules. It is in fact common on this forum...and it should be, because you guys are just not contributing to anything in any way.Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
they dont get it. they call us idiots for not believing what they believe.

No. FeceMan does not believe what I believe and I do not think he is unintelligent.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
they dont get it. they call us idiots for not believing what they believe.

They fail and don't even know it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Giving my opinion on your intelligence after the topic was introduced by a moderator (which in a way insulted me, not that I care) is hardly against the rules. It is in fact common on this forum...and it should be, because you guys are just not contributing to anything in any way.

No. FeceMan does not believe what I believe and I do not think he is unintelligent. insulting is not contributing.

Yeah, anyways, so, Shakya, you got any opinion on the video posted? Because, you know, there is the OTF for you to just randomly chat with your friends.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
For braking the rules of the forum.

Seriously now... if you're calling for Bardock to be banned because he called you a name or took a jab, then the majority of us; including yourself, should be banned.

There's also a difference in someone insulting you as a means to ignore your points and/or troll you and insulting you because you factually and repeatedly say something stupid.

Dawkins has a personal vendetta and it shows...chances are he was touched by a preist...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, anyways, so, Shakya, you got any opinion on the video posted? Because, you know, there is the OTF for you to just randomly chat with your friends. more AC propoganda.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Dawkins has a personal vendetta and it shows...chances are he was touched by a preist...

I don't think so actually. And I spent the day watching Youtube videos on him. He seems to be a very intelligent fellow. He takes a strong stance, but he has reasons for it. He is certainly no stupid radical.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
insulting is not contributing. Dude, I wrote essays replying on topic to Alliance.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
more AC propoganda. a

Originally posted by Bardock42


a ?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
?

It's "propaganda". Doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's "propaganda". Doesn't matter. does he send you scripts or does he like program you?

Have you read his book the God Delusion? Hes clearly an intelligent man but has this sort of, condescending arrogance towards religious people that it is painful to look at his points objectively.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
does he send you scripts or does he like program you?

Yeah, so Dawkins. What are your thoughts on him as a Christian?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Have you read his book the God Delusion? Hes clearly an intelligent man but has this sort of, condescending arrogance towards religious people that it is painful to look at his points objectively.

I sadly have not read it yet. I will soon. But well, what I think is that it is not necessarily wrong to look down on believers generally. If you can still judge case for case, it seems rather likely to me that more stupid people are people of faith.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, so Dawkins. What are your thoughts on him as a Christian? dunno, not familiar with him.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
dunno, not familiar with him.

Oh, you could watch the video this thread is about. That might even make you eligible to reply to this thread with an informed opinion and not just that bullshit you spew.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I sadly have not read it yet. I will soon. But well, what I think is that it is not necessarily wrong to look down on believers generally. If you can still judge case for case, it seems rather likely to me that more stupid people are people of faith.

Well, whilst you might believe that, it doesn't really go down well with Scholars and academics. He is getting more and more passionate about his own crusade against religion. And since some of the most intelligent people in the world belong to some faith or other...in fact, I shall exchange intelligent for wise.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, you could watch the video this thread is about. That might even make you eligible to reply to this thread with an informed opinion and not just that bullshit you spew. I was responding on your resorting to insults when you cannot get someone to believe what you believe.

I dont comment on the man because I know very little of him. But I do comment on immature girlyman tactics.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, whilst you might believe that, it doesn't really go down well with Scholars and academics. He is getting more and more passionate about his own crusade against religion. And since some of the most intelligent people in the world belong to some faith or other...in fact, I shall exchange intelligent for wise.

What insider information do you have on scholars and academics? Because I know a few that really like him. And I qualified it. Also, Dawkins probably got a point, that if you would take a sample of the smartest people in the world the atheists would make a much larger portion than they do of the whole.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I was responding on your resorting to insults when you cannot get someone to believe what you believe.

I dont comment on the man because I know very little of him. But I do comment on immature girlyman tactics.

I bet the only thing he can come up with to respond to that is an insult.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I was responding on your resorting to insults when you cannot get someone to believe what you believe.

I dont comment on the man because I know very little of him. But I do comment on immature girlyman tactics.

As I said that is not the tactic. I made my point clear. A skill, that you do not have.

I'm sure many like him, my point is he is pretty much detested at St. Andrews...well, go get a selection of the most intellegent people in the world. Dawkins is ranked No. 3 according to Prospect Magazine, but that was decided on peoples votes...


Bardock please only respond to things about the topic, ignore the rest.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As I said that is not the tactic. I made my point clear. A skill, that you do not have. I have excellent insulting skills, but I am not a six year old girl with a skinned knee.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I have excellent insulting skills, but I am not a six year old girl with a skinned knee. That's what I meant. You did not understand what I wrote down. It is frustrating for people that usually understand what other people mean.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I'm sure many like him, my point is he is pretty much detested at St. Andrews...well, go get a selection of the most intellegent people in the world. Dawkins is ranked No. 3 according to Prospect Magazine, but that was decided on peoples votes...


Bardock please only respond to things about the topic, ignore the rest.

Well, it's hard of course. How to decide that someone is the most intelligent. Still, I guess most scientists are actually not believers and scientists are generally the people we consider intelligent.


As for the responding. Why should I not respond to what is said to me?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's what I meant. You did not understand what I wrote down. It is frustrating for people that usually understand what other people mean.

. and it is amusing that you get so upset about such trivial crap.

you should follow Gav's advice.

You guess...majority of astrologers are Christian...and many Christians are scientists. Big Bang? Catholic Monk came up with it. Evolution? Darwin, Christian. Galileo? Catholic, Bacon, Catholic, and it goes on.

Einstein "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


As for not responding, your apparently intellegent, rise above it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
and it is amusing that you get so upset about such trivial crap.

you should follow Gav's advice.

Look, if you were in my position and realizing that people like you exist, you would understand, why it is so horrible.


Yes, you are allowed to vote...you...are...allowed...to...vote.

Do you see the fatality of it all?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, so Dawkins. What are your thoughts on him as a Christian?

He's extremely intellignet, relies on facts, and has a really convincing argument.

Depsite being a Christian, I'm not a mindless sheep. Since I was about 12 or 13 the possibility of no god(s) has always been in the back of my mind. "What if the athiests are right? The people who put the Bible together didn't know anything about dinosaurs or atoms or DNA." is something that haunts me in a very scary/nagging way.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Look, if you were in my position and realizing that people like you exist, you would understand, why it is so horrible.


Yes, you are allowed to vote...you...are...allowed...to...vote.

Do you see the fatality of it all? are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You guess...majority of astrologers are Christian...and many Christians are scientists. Big Bang? Catholic Monk came up with it. Evolution? Darwin, Christian. Galileo? Catholic, Bacon, Catholic, and it goes on.

Einstein "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


As for not responding, your apparently intellegent, rise above it.

Astrology is not a science.


Wow, wow, Darwin was not Christian. Eistein also wasn't Christian and he did not believe in God. That are quotes either taking out of context or made up.

And well. As I replied to RJ. You should understand.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He's extremely intellignet, relies on facts, and has a really convincing argument.

Depsite being a Christian, I'm not a mindless sheep. Since I was about 12 or 13 the possibility of no god(s) has always been in the back of my mind. "What if the athiests are right? The people who put the Bible together didn't know anything about dinosaurs or atoms or DNA." is something that haunts me in a very scary/nagging way.

Yeah, that's my view (maybe not Dawkins), but I just don't understand it either way. I mean...there must be some doubt. And I really don't mind Christians with reasonable views...I understand that you can believe in God...it seems unlikely to me, but it is a possibility. But there are so many fundamentalist people that are just horribly stupid....those are at least the ones I despise.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Astrology is not a science.


Wow, wow, Darwin was not Christian. Eistein also wasn't Christian and he did not believe in God. That are quotes either taking out of context or made up.

And well. As I replied to RJ. You should understand.

He never said Einstein was Christian.

Wow wow wow! Darwin was a Christian.

Einstein didn't believe in God no, but the fact that you don't know that quote yet debate about science and religion...speaks volumes!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Astrology is not a science.


Wow, wow, Darwin was not Christian. Eistein also wasn't Christian and he did not believe in God. That are quotes either taking out of context or made up.

And well. As I replied to RJ. You should understand. I understand, you know I understand.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I understand, you know I understand.

Please stop baiting him, its getting tedious.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Wow wow wow! Darwin was a Christian.

Einstein didn't believe in God no, but the fact that you don't know that quote yet debate about science and religion...speaks volumes!

Yeah, I must have mixed them up. I recall to have read a Darwin quote to the contrary, it might have been addressed to him though.

Also, you should read what I said. Not "That quote is..." but "That are quotes" ..referring to the many quotes that believers often use to paint Einstein as Religios or in their way spiritual, which he certainly wasn't.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Please stop baiting him, its getting tedious. agreed. I am gonna read up on this Dawkin s guy and will comment then.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He's extremely intellignet, relies on facts, and has a really convincing argument.

Depsite being a Christian, I'm not a mindless sheep. Since I was about 12 or 13 the possibility of no god(s) has always been in the back of my mind. "What if the athiests are right? The people who put the Bible together didn't know anything about dinosaurs or atoms or DNA." is something that haunts me in a very scary/nagging way.

Exactly, when the Bible was written, those stories were the best the people of an unscientific world could come up with, it's not that they were stupid, it's just what they had to work with.

It's very possible that there is a God or a higher power, yet the world factually works like the science community thinks it does, due to the luxuries of advanced science, technology, observation and research.

The people that bother me, and I believe that bother Bardock too, are the ones (aka fear mongers) that refuse to see past their book. The "it is written, so this has to be it" regardless of what new facts and proofs come to light.

As far as your nagging feeling, despite what the fundamentalist say, it is possible for you to be a Christian and believe in science.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I must have mixed them up. I recall to have read a Darwin quote to the contrary, it might have been addressed to him though.


Darwin was raised Christian, but it ends there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Religios

u

I assumed "That are quotes" was a typo. As that line makes no sense.

But Einstein himself may not have been spiritual, but he certainly valued religion.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I assumed "That are quotes" was a typo. As that line makes no sense.

But Einstein himself may not have been spiritual, but he certainly valued religion.

It does though. I explained it.


Either way...do you think most scientists are believers or atheists nowadays?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It does though. I explained it.


Either way...do you think most scientists are believers or atheists nowadays?

Atheists.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Darwin was raised Christian, but it ends there.



u

I don't see how it relates to anything though. I mean especially before Darwin everyone had to be Religious, really.

Originally posted by Robtard
As far as your nagging feeling, despite what the fundamentalist say, it is possible for you to be a Christian and believe in science.

It's impossible to not believe in science though (to a degree). Even the people who wrote the Bible knew that things fall down and that fire is hot.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Darwin was raised Christian, but it ends there.

Not at all, he was Christian until his death. However, as Sir Francis Bacon said, the Bible is the Book of Gods Words, whereas Physics is the book of Gods works. The Bible tells us why, not how. Or so Bacon felt.

The Book of Job talks about blood being the life of the flesh, this is long before anyone knew scientifically that blood carried the nutrients all across the body. They talk about these sort of things all through the bible but alot of people just miss them out.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's impossible to not believe in science though (to a degree). Even the people who wrote the Bible knew that things fall down and that fire is hot.

Yea... but is it scientific if you believe "God must have done it" as the answer to everything?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Not at all, he was Christian until his death. However, as Sir Francis Bacon said, the Bible is the Book of Gods Words, whereas Physics is the book of Gods works. The Bible tells us why, not how. Or so Bacon felt.

The Book of Job talks about blood being the life of the flesh, this is long before anyone knew scientifically that blood carried the nutrients all across the body. They talk about these sort of things all through the bible but alot of people just miss them out.



It's really hard to guess that blood has something to do with life...


Also, you are interpreting it a bit too much, they didn't really say anything much scientific.

How the hell does the man who put forth a powerful argument that clashed with the story of Adam & Eve believe the Bible to his death? He probably just said that to avoid being killed by bible thumpers.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yea... but is it scientific if you believe "God must have done it" as the answer to everything?

Good point.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How the hell does the man who put forth a powerful argument that clashed with the story of Adam & Eve believe the Bible to his death? He probably just said that to avoid being killed by bible thumpers. A good point. There might be lots of people who feared to speak out. I mean, there are in the US now still politicians that fear to speak out I am sure....

Originally posted by Bardock42


It's really hard to guess that blood has something to do with life...


Also, you are interpreting it a bit too much, they didn't really say anything much scientific.

Ofcourse, cause you've actually read it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yea... but is it scientific if you believe "God must have done it" as the answer to everything?
It depends what your basis for thinking that it..

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Ofcourse, cause you've actually read it.

I don't have to read the whole book to comment on what you said....

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't have to read the whole book to comment on what you said....

The Book Of Job? Thats what im talking about, go read it then comment. Dawkins addmitted to not reading it when the dinosaur question came up.