>>8
Because religion is not the biggest of the world's problems.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-12 2:23
>>8
Because being an atheist and going on a crusade against religion with the goal of converting religious people to atheism when the existence of a god or not does not affect science and is utterly unprovable instead of spending your brainpower on things that DO affect science, is just about the most hypocritical shit you can do.
I was the first reponder saying that, as an atheist already, I have no reason to watch this.
However, Dawkins is not an embarassment to atheists; he's well spoken and well thought out. And religion is definitely one of the world's biggest problems.
The problem with Dawkins is that he's kind of a professional atheist. He gives the impression that the only thing athesits care about is being atheists.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-12 2:33
btw, another reason I'm not watching:
debate with theists doesn't work: all religious people have to be murdered concentration camp style [img - hardcore]
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-12 2:45
>>12
exactly. for an illustration, take look at any theist article in wikipedia -- it's always a baroque pile of theologian MANURE obscuring even the simplest facts.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-12 4:05
WHOA, BAROQUE!? BAROQUE! BRING OUT THE PANS, THE MOUNTAINS FULL O GOLD!
This doesn't make a bit of fucking sense. Dawkins isn't doing what he does to "Affect Science". He's doing it to affect society. How is that not obvious to you? If Christians are out converting people, then it's not wrong for Darwin to do so. Atheist don't have conflict with Christians because they're trying to competely saturate the world with their view, it's because they're wrong and ignoring science.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-12 4:49
>>11
When I said he was an embaressment to atheists I meant contemporary professionals who discuss their atheists beliefs and criticise religion. Dawkins is much different and it has nothing to do with appearances, it's his clearly extremist attitude. I once heard him say that Stalin was a confucian on this documentary a while ago. He just cannot admit that religion isn't the source of this problem, just human nature and the fact that pretty much any idea can be corrupted.
The reign of terror after the french revolution was claimed by the thugs responsible to be in the name of liberty, reason and science. These 3 things you womight believe to be inherantly anti-ignorance and the opposite of tyranny, but it is this belief that the revolutionaries used to justify their acts of injustice and support their tyranny.
Believe it or not there were non-marxist professional atheists and agnostics before Dawkins gained publicity and they were informed enough to realise that any ideal can be corrupted, but were delighted to look through history and see that not cult has been directly linked to atheism. Tyrants persecuted religions for their own ends, but they couldn't really be said to be cult-atheists. As predicted though something like this would eventually happen, Dawkins is sowing the seeds for some kind of atheist-cult. Cults generally thrive indehumanising their opponents, there is already loads of bigotry against anyone who has something to say about nihilism across the internet and it's growing because unlike other popular forms of bigotry there are no famous historical examples to fall back on of people doing insidious evil in the name of atheism.
there is absolutely no reasoning behind this statement other than a "gut feeling" that you get from the guy. who cares what he said about stalin? if you periceve atheism as being hostile in the first place, then you're going to percieve Dawkins as hostile.
secondly, maybe you should say what you mean and learn how to spell embarrassment, eh? "comtemparay professionals" - what does that even mean? professional atheists?
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-12 15:41
>>17
Where did I say this was due to a gut feeling? Clearly you are a deluded extremist.
i'm assuming it's due to gut feeling because you have nothing of substance to back up your claims. I ignored the last sentence because that is obvious troll bait. why am I an extremist for calling you out on your shit? it's not like I'm suggesting your murder.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-12 16:19
I love Dawkins because he invented the word meme
I'm not against the idea of religion, I'm against the church and ignorance, which religion usually comes with. The church is a really sick thing acutally, sicker than the corporations(which exploit people, but do it on a equal manner and actually produce something) and the state(which exploits people on a fair basis and actually protects the people) The church is the worst, it lies, it exploits, it produces nothing, it is unfair, and should be abolished.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-12 16:28
>>19
You said it was due to a "gut feeling" when I never even used the word "gut" or "feeling" in my entire 3 wods of text.
"I once heard him say that Stalin was a confucian on this documentary a while ago. He just cannot admit that religion isn't the source of this problem, just human nature and the fact that pretty much any idea can be corrupted."
Address this issue. Or continue to ignore it. Your call. I will judge your response accordingly and reveal to you whether you have decided to address the issue or are an extremist.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-12 17:03
If you're an atheist who thinks the world would be a better place without religion, then the chances are you love Dawkins. If you think otherwise, then you'll perceive Dawkins as a militant asshole who needs to shut up.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-12 17:08
Also, I love Dawkins myself.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-12 18:50
THE KING IS NEKKID
AND DAWKINS KNOWS
THEISM HAS GAME OVER WRITTEN ALL OVER IT
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 0:43
>>15
>This doesn't make a bit of fucking sense. Dawkins isn't doing what he does to "Affect Science". He's doing it to affect society. How is that not obvious to you? If Christians are out converting people, then it's not wrong for Darwin to do so. Atheist don't have conflict with Christians because they're trying to competely saturate the world with their view, it's because they're wrong and ignoring science.
Yes he is, Dawkins has said numerous times that science and religion cannot coexist. As in, impossible, and the only way to move forward with science is to get rid of religion. If Christians are converting people, than it IS wrong for Dawkins to do so, how can YOU not see that?? Athiests who hate religion usually cite conversion and the crusades as negative effects of religion, so if one of those people makes it their mission to convert religious people that is FUCKING HYPOCRITICAL.
You can't say Christians are "wrong". God in theory is all powerful, he can be anything and do anything. Maybe he is really a giant bearded old man. I don't think so, but it's possible. You can point out factual inconsistencies in the Bible, but you will never prove the idea of god "wrong".
People believing in a higher power does not affect science, or anything for that matter. When religion comes into government or people base their politics off of their religion, that is when there is a problem.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 1:02
>>23
I both think the world would be better without religion and dawkins is an asshole.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 1:35
World needs aggressive spokespersons for reason, like Dawkins, because somebody has to speak against the fundamentalists without being afraid of offending anybody.
You must be a christian zealot or a sympathizer. Saying science and religion cannot co-exist is making a simple observation that stems from a general understanding that science is based on seeking truth through fact and evidence-- and that religion is based on faith.
Don't come down on Dawkins because you don't understand the difference between spirituality- which speaks to learning the nature of GOD and religion- which seeks to control society through faith and lies.
The reason Dawkins' actions aren't hypocritical is because he hasn't started murderous crusades against christians or told people to start bombing chruches and kill the religious. Telling to people to stand up politically to Christians might seem hypocritical (because you're stupid), but that's just the nature of the game. He's saying that people shouldn't be ruled by religious thought and there's nothing really wrong with that. Putting "FUCKING HYPOCRITICAL" in all caps isn't doing shit to prove otherwise.
When I say Christians (And religion) is wrong, I do so based on the factual inconsistences with the bible and things that run alien to simple proven knowledge. I do so because of a history of violence against science and reason. But I don't wish Christians to be eradicated- just educated. There IS a difference. I believe in a God, or possibly Gods, but when that view tries to oust KNOWEDLGE and SCIENCE with bunk bullshit...that where I cross the line.
Dawkins doesn't appear to be trying to prove God wrong, JUST religion.
When religion comes into government or people base their politics off of their religion, that is when there is a problem.
Yes and THAT is what Dawkins addresses, idiot.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 2:05
Dawkins is a fucking moron. How can anyone even listen to him? hes worse them most christians/muslums
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 2:17
>>29
"Don't come down on Dawkins because you don't understand the difference between spirituality... and religion"
Actually Dawkins thinks both are complete bullshit
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 2:28
>>29
"Dawkins doesn't appear to be trying to prove God wrong, JUST religion"
Then why is he an atheist? Atheism does not equal “I don’t believe in god" atheism equals "I believe there is no god"
What Dawkins, and other atheists, should be doing is showing the world that we don’t always need to believe in god. Most of us can make it without such absurd thoughts. But instead they try to use science to disprove god, which is completely futile and hypocritical.
I think David Hume expressed how we should deal with organized religion best. He pointed out that the main reason people believe in god is not based on rational evidence. But rather its because many people need moral sets of guidelines that are set by a higher authority in order to judge right and wrong. Of course not everyone needs a personal Jesus to judge right and wrong for them, but for those who do, is it really wise to take it away from them? Let the sheep play because the damage they do without such thoughts and guidelines could be much worse.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 2:45
>>32
I disagree with both Hume, Dawkins and the religious. I believe morality and god are seperate, any person can be stripped of their religion but still maintain their morality. I believe that stripping a person of their religion should not involve arrogance and bigotry, it should be a simple straight forward logical debate without the use of extremist tactics. I believe that people should be free to choose to be religious or not as long as they do not do anything injust or affect anyone elses liberty.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 3:02
Religions have been fooling people (among other things) for millenia, and it is an art for the best religious leaders know how to exploit the masses.
Dawkins realises that if he's going to convert people away from religious mindset to a Darwinist mindset, it's going to require the exact same tactics and strategies.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 3:07
>>33
Have you ever tried to convince somebody their religious beliefs are wrong, or even worth reconsidering? Here's what I think - fundamentalists are a lost cause. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that most religious people are so steeped in their dogma they will never abandon religion. Logical arguments do not work. If people are going to be turned off by what he says without even considering them, they won't be convinced anyways.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 3:18
>>33
You may disagree with Hume, but stripping away their beliefs, regardless of how backward and primitive you think they are, makes you morally in the wrong, and I'm not a particularly religious person.
Good for you and David Hume. But the truth lies with >>34, the damage they do WITH such thoughts is much more dangerous to scientific- therefore- human progress. If calling Dawkins an extremist because of this stance is logical, then so is calling YOU an extremist.
I actually see him as a balance in a world where we are saturated and indoctrinated into religion by birth.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 8:50
When I said he was an embaressment to atheists I meant contemporary professionals who discuss their atheists beliefs and criticise religion. Dawkins is much different and it has nothing to do with appearances, it's his clearly extremist attitude.
go feed on more religious propaganda, wishy washy accusations of "intolerance" and "bigotry" are their hobbyhorses now, even though dawkins' dialectics are ALWAYS based on iron hard logic. instead, they don't like him for being so blunt about something that so many people have invested so much EMOTIONS in, but they lack the mental faculties to say that clearly, so they go about trying to make something that resembles a logical argument, but usually is just plain stupid RETHORICS.
>>38
Funny how you act like a ranting extremist when responding to someone who is accusing your hero of it.
"go feed on more religious propaganda"
No, this isn't a case of us and them. Not everyone who disagrees with you just arrived from bible camp. There are atheists who agree with you in principle, but who are logical and rational enough to see that the world is a little more complex than "LOL FUCKING STUPID BIBLE BASHERS VS SUPER SMART ATHEIST SUPERMEN".
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 10:36
>>40
if that is so, why are you not answering in substance, chump? you see invectives and the logic automatically becomes bunk? sorry, but your answer is not devastating or even correct, you're just contesting hard logic plus vitriolic tone with hollow rhetoric and a straw man. also, I would like to point to >>39 and then have you explain me how the accusations of dawkins being an "extremist" are correct. someone does not become an extremist just by talking passionately about their ideals, but it's very convenient for theists to use that ad hominem argument against dawkins logic instead of addressing the points he makes.
also, I think you meant bible "thumpers" not "bashers".
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 10:37
>>40
but you illustrated your own point that atheists aren't a monolithic camp very well, just by showing your mediocre dialectics
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 11:51
>>41
What logic am I contesting? You have to realise there are more than 2 sides to this discussion. I am not religious in any way and my ciriticism of Dawkins is legitimate.
This is my argument, it can't be simpler. Dawkins discussions always go something like this.
1: There is no proof god exists.
2: Religious people are ignorant lol!
3: Religious people are responsible for all the world's problems.
I'm with Dawkins up to step 1, but beyond that he's just a ranting extremist using atheism to justify bigotry. As an atheist I seriously want Dawkins to admit that he has become what he hates and see a psychologist about his serious penis envy and inferiority complex issues. For his own sake.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 11:57
>>43
nice baseless generalization. "Dawkins discussions always go something like this". BASIS FOR THAT ASSERTION? you prat!
next, "but beyond that he's just a ranting extremist using atheism to justify bigotry." no, it's all based on deduction and logic. I addressed that in >>38. you have an ostensibly poor grasp of the meanings of basic terms. I suggest you look up, say, "ranting" and then CONFER IT TO YOUR OWN DAMN POST
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 12:03
>>40
Why the fuck do you think dawkins is doing all of this if he really thinks that the world is as you so well put it "LOL FUCKING STUPID BIBLE BASHERS VS SUPER SMART ATHEIST SUPERMEN". Get your head out of your ass. Dawkins knows that there are religious people out there who are logical, people who beleive in god and alos in science and in reason. He wants those people to question the logic of the idea of god and to toss it out, to embrace reason and science instead. He just doesn't do it by tip toeing around sensitive religious areas, he is blunt and he attacks the illogical theist propositions head on. Then all the xians cry that he is an extremist and that he is a arrong prick, but dawkins is simply pointing out the obvious stupidity in their beleifs.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 12:06
>>43
1: There is no proof god exists.
2: Religious people are ignorant lol!
3: Religious people are responsible for all the world's problems.
O RLY? nice fucking strawman asshat. go read the god delusion, go see someof dawkins debates, then talk. You're abviously just pulling shit out of your ass.
Is either a christian extremist trying to play with the big boys or he's been so indoctrinated into religious thought that it's impossible to reason with him. There's no hypocracy in #1 if there is an other side saying that faith is the proof of God's existence. Number 3 is a straw man, because not once does Dawkin say that religion is repsonsible for ALL the world's problems. You need to cite where he said EXACTLY that, if you're going to continue to make that claim.
As for #2: Religious people are ignorant if they insist stem cell reasearch is morally wrong, or that there were no dinosaurs, or that evolution isn't even a *remotely* viable theory, or that the earth is flat. There is nothing inflammatory or "extreme" about pointing out someone's lack of logic when they are wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 15:09
>>43 >>49
same person or at the same level (castigating a troll after several people were caught before him)
It does matter anyway. They/He failed for not addressing any of the arguements. It doesn't make sense to hate Dawkins based on this bullshit and it's pretty much indefensible.