Richard dawkins

[Greizer85]

"Arrogance: keeping superior people sane since 50,000 BC."

Go, Dawkins, go; if you don't like it, tell your God to smite him. If you really believe in an all-powerful being, such insolent little twirps shouldn't really rock your faith-chair with their silly logic one way or the other. I wonder why politeness is so important to most of these believers..? Hint:

Spoiler :

It's called cognitive dissonance.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I agree with Dawkins in that there probably isn't a personal god. But you can't disprove a distant, non-personal god.

EDIT: I also agree with his opinion on children. I agree about his views on creationism (in that it is false). However, he also states that religion is intrinsically violent, which I have discussed above.

 

[civ_king]

I agree with Dawkins in that there probably isn't a personal god. But you can't disprove a distant, non-personal god.

you can't disprove that flaming mutant space cheese monkeys exist

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Yes you can. Monkeys need air, so there are no space monkeys.

 

[civ_king]

Yes you can. Monkeys need air, so there are no space monkeys.

they are silicon based and live in an undiscovered Universe

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I wonder why politeness is so important to most of these believers..? Hint:

Spoiler :

It's called cognitive dissonance.

Hint:

Spoiler :

This is called projection.

Spoiler :

It's also a case of armchair psychology.

 

[Winner]

Let's try and be a bit more contructive here. One of the things he has been very vocal about is the fact that children are labeled christians, muslims and so on by media and everyone(in my opinion this is a rather indisputable fact. Recently in my native Norway a twelve year old girl was run over by a car and she was several times referred to as a Smith's Friend, which is a Norwegian christian cult). Monty Python also noticed this fact by the way(Every sperm is sacred).

In his opinion this is baaad. Why? Well he compares it to attributing political beliefs on children. We don't call a ten year old child a republican or democrat for obvious reasons. At least I don't think any of us would take it seriously if someone claimed it. Why should religion be different?

You just presented a compelling argument in a polite and funny way - ergo, you're a jerk

 

[Kerozine]

Guy who engages in public discourse on an otherwise sensitive topic for many. His views aren't new, but the tone he uses can be quite shocking/entertaining.

 

[Antilogic]

You just presented a compelling argument in a polite and funny way - ergo, you're a jerk

Exactly.

The problem is that too many consider religion above questioning. Therefore, if you question religion, even if you do it in a polite way, you are automatically a jerk.

 

[civ_king]

Exactly.

The problem is that too many consider religion above questioning. Therefore, if you question religion, even if you do it in a polite way, you are automatically a jerk.

The Bible is always right, if it weren't it would not be the Christian holy book

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

Psalm 93:1
The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Explain that.

 

[uppi]

Explain that.

It is pretty much impossible to move earth out of its orbit with current technology, let alone with Iron Age technology.

 

[Gooblah]

"Arrogance: keeping superior people sane since 50,000 BC."

Go, Dawkins, go; if you don't like it, tell your God to smite him. If you really believe in an all-powerful being, such insolent little twirps shouldn't really rock your faith-chair with their silly logic one way or the other. I wonder why politeness is so important to most of these believers..? Hint:

Spoiler :

It's called cognitive dissonance.

You're a sad little armchair psychologist, aren't you?

I'm an athiest, I don't believe in God, and I take stock in the billions of experiments that have been conducted through the scientific method to discover the nature of our universe.

I still think he's a jackass. Not because he 'questions religion', not because I don't like what he does, it's because he's rude. You can ask questions and provoke thought without being rude and condescending.

 

[dwaxe]

You're a sad little armchair psychologist, aren't you?

I'm an athiest, I don't believe in God, and I take stock in the billions of experiments that have been conducted through the scientific method to discover the nature of our universe.

I still think he's a jackass. Not because he 'questions religion', not because I don't like what he does, it's because he's rude. You can ask questions and provoke thought without being rude and condescending.

Being rude and condescending nets you extra media time, and you, as an atheist, must agree that media attention to non-religious people is important to your movement.

That is my rationalization for rudeness and condescension by a few atheists. As long as the atheists people meet in real life are nice, there is no serious detriment to your movement.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Being rude and condescending nets you extra media time, and you, as an atheist, must agree that media attention to non-religious people is important to your movement.

That is my rationalization for rudeness and condescension by a few atheists. As long as the atheists people meet in real life are nice, there is no serious detriment to your movement.

I didn't even realize there was a "movement" going on... and as long as information is available for people, the media means nothing. This media time might be important to Dawkins, because he is out to sell books.

 

[Masada]

The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Explain that.

Explain what? That Biblical Literalism isn't the majority view in Christianity and that Catholicism, for instance, reconciled that passage with earth moving a few hundred years ago? If you want to use that to criticize Christianity in general your not going to get anywhere since the majority do not hold the Bible as a literal construct. If you want to use it to criticize Evangelicals then by all means do so, they actually believe that kind of stuff. But don't go around believing its some sort of valid general critique.

 

[civ_king]

how do you decide what parts of the Bible is BS and what isn't? cuz hey slavery isn't legal but the Bible says it is A-OK to do, heck you can sell your daughter into slavery or kill gay people

 

[Masada]

how do you decide what parts of the Bible is BS and what isn't? cuz hey slavery isn't legal but the Bible says it is A-OK to do, heck you can sell your daughter into slavery or kill gay people

I don't? But if you think Christianity is defined solely on the basis of the Bible then you really need to open your eyes.

 

[PeteAtoms]

I don't? But if you think Christianity is defined solely on the basis of the Bible then you really need to open your eyes.

But the bible is part of the definition.

 

[Masada]

But the bible is part of the definition.

Sure, it isn't the definition itself is it though?