Dawkins, tomorrow, CNN at 8est

Be there.

>>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".

>>40
but you illustrated your own point that atheists aren't a monolithic camp very well, just by showing your mediocre dialectics

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>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.

>>45
>>46
high five! WHBT :-)

>>47 == >>44

>>43

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.

>>43
>>49
same person or at the same level (castigating a troll after several people were caught before him)

>>33

Dumb liberal hippy.
51GET!

>>40

How the hell was he acting like a ranting extremist? Is it militant to defend yourself these days?

>>51

You're fucking ridiculous, hes liberal just because he believes morals are not absolute? Die, wingnut.

>>53
he said:
Dumb liberal hippy.
and the part you found offensive was LIBERAL? wtf?

>>54
only logical explanation: >>53 is a dumb communist hippie

>>55
and self-aware of it. actually, I think it would be more precise to call him a "dumb freedom-hating hippie" instead

>>54
>>55
>>56

HAY GUYS LETS IGNORE THE CONTEXT

>>57
aight!

>>54
>>55
>>56

Same person.

>>57

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.