Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Richard Dawkin's remedy...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
YohjiArmstrong View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jul-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
  Quote YohjiArmstrong Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Richard Dawkin's remedy...
    Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 11:45
Oh alright then, the French revolution and Spanish Civil War. In both cases immense persecution occured because atheists loathed the church.

I like to think a world without religion would certainly think better, be more critical and question itself. But I'm not entirely unconvinved that people need a solid bedrock of faith in something and that alternatives to religion, as equally spurious and potentially dangerous, wouldn't turn up.

As far as I remember the SS uniform part was the belt. Which was a relic of the Wehrmacht I believe. Hitler certainly persecuted the Church (whilst creating his own- which the Confessing Church was founded to oppose).
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 14:42
So what do people want in a world that keeps on changing? We all need something to believe in, even if each other and the wonderful world of nature around us. What many religions teach cannot agree with modern knowledge. Denying natural causes always has been a risky business, they don't change but how we think of them does. Those religions that built on their house on the rock of former understanding of the world are now finding their rock was only sandstone after all.
elenos
Back to Top
Ovidius View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422
  Quote Ovidius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 08:02
Originally posted by YohjiArmstrong

Oh alright then, the French revolution and Spanish Civil War. In both cases immense persecution occured because atheists loathed the church.

I like to think a world without religion would certainly think better, be more critical and question itself. But I'm not entirely unconvinved that people need a solid bedrock of faith in something and that alternatives to religion, as equally spurious and potentially dangerous, wouldn't turn up.

As far as I remember the SS uniform part was the belt. Which was a relic of the Wehrmacht I believe. Hitler certainly persecuted the Church (whilst creating his own- which the Confessing Church was founded to oppose).


Yes but if you had read any dawkins you would understand this more deeply. Dawkins does not say that Religion CAUSED ALL VIOLENCE, he said that Most Violence is the RESULT of theism. So the French Revolution and Spanish revolution - were the result of Theism, they were caused not by christians, but by the reaction and impact of theism. The Nazi's were the RESULT of a continuance of beliefs that were formed with the church.

You have to get with the Rhetoric here. Dawkins has formed an almost infallible account of why Theism is bad, when compared to Atheism. Its a logical trap - just substitute the words theism/christianity/beliefs in the book to West/Blacks/Monkies and the rhetoric he created would still be valid.

So I'd be careful with using the old "Well it didn't happen this way" argument. Dawkins uses irrational rhetoric to attack something he believes is irrational. He uses ahistorical arguments to logically "prove" that atheism is better, just as he uses fake science to prove that theism is a "condition" that theists are suffering from!

To those who are defending Dawkins - give me a break. Theist or Atheist, I think we should at least be able to understand that Dawkins is the one that is delusional. Using a book like the God Delusion to further Atheism's cause. He is turning Atheism into a religion?! Evangelising his cause... Anyhow, my "memes" are playing up again... LOL
Back to Top
Praetor View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
  Quote Praetor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 09:32
Originally posted by Mixcoatl


I agree that it's idiotic to expect that a world without religion would be conflict free (it would probably be a bit better though, one cause of misery less), but I fail to see how atheism caused Hitler, who was a Christian, banned atheist and freethought organization while SS uniforms had "for the will of god" written on them.


Hitler was not a christian, though he was born into a nominally Catholic family, he had a secular marriage and committed suicide (both sins according to Catholicism). Furtheremore there were many accounts by his intimates of his ant-christian views eg.You see, its been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didnt we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"- this is according to Albert speer a statement made about christianity by Hitler. Hitler was clearly not a christian. Indeed Hitler expressed Social Darwinist views frequently to justify his actions.

Regards, Praetor.


Edited by Praetor - 31-Jul-2007 at 20:42
Back to Top
Dan Carkner View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 490
  Quote Dan Carkner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 11:07
The problem with him is that he takes many conflicts as "theological" that aren't really.  (Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine,etc.)   They are between groups with "different" religions, but they are not about theology.  
Back to Top
AyKurt View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 24-Mar-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 236
  Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 15:44
Originally posted by Ovidius


Yes but if you had read any dawkins you would understand this more deeply. Dawkins does not say that Religion CAUSED ALL VIOLENCE, he said that Most Violence is the RESULT of theism. So the French Revolution and Spanish revolution - were the result of Theism, they were caused not by christians, but by the reaction and impact of theism. The Nazi's were the RESULT of a continuance of beliefs that were formed with the church.
ok good analysis.
Originally posted by Ovidius

just substitute the words theism/christianity/beliefs in the book to West/Blacks/Monkies and the rhetoric he created would still be valid.
bad analogy.  The two cannot be compared.  The "West/Blacks/Monkies" are realities that exist wether you believe it or not.  By choosing those three are you somehow trying to relate Dawkins with racists and supremacists?

Originally posted by Ovidius

You have to get with the Rhetoric here. Dawkins has formed an almost infallible account of why Theism is bad, when compared to Atheism. Its a logical trap -
So I'd be careful with using the old "Well it didn't happen this way" argument. Dawkins uses irrational rhetoric to attack something he believes is irrational. He uses ahistorical arguments to logically "prove" that atheism is better, just as he uses fake science to prove that theism is a "condition" that theists are suffering from!
Well firstly what was irrational rhetoric that Dawkins uses?  What you said at the start was not irrational.
Secondly  What you perceive to be ahistorical  would most often just be considered historical facts.  Its only ahistorical because you choose to look at it like that.
And thirdly, when the hell did Dawkins use fake science to prove that theism is a condition?

Originally posted by Ovidius

To those who are defending Dawkins - give me a break. Theist or Atheist, I think we should at least be able to understand that Dawkins is the one that is delusional. Using a book like the God Delusion to further Atheism's cause. He is turning Atheism into a religion?! Evangelising his cause...
 
Lol well if you want a break then dont open the thread.  simple. Wink
Anyway he isn't evangelising for any atheist religion.  He is a biologist in charge of the public understanding of science.  The God Delusion isn't his only book but his most recent of 9.
 
The Selfish Gene, which looks at evolution from a gene's view
The Extended Phenotype, a continuation of the first book
The Blind Watchmaker, about the non random evolution by natural selection
River out of Eden, dealing with most of the problems and questions that come from evolution
Climbing Mount Improbable, about evolutionary adaptation
Unweaving the Rainbow, here he begins answering back to the anti-science fanatics basing the title on A.Keats poem that accuses Darwin of destroying the poetry of the rainbow by explaining how it gets its colours, Darwin shows that truth can be just as fascinating as mystery and even enhance or wonder of the world by looking at the wonders of the natural world
A Devils Chaplain, a collection of essays and articles
The Ancestors Tale, a journey going back four billion years of evolution.
 
Taking all into context then you can clearly see how the God Delusion is actually a natural evolution of Dawkins work as a scientist and one in charge of public understanding.
 
Well i should thank you Ovidius, at least your the first to attempt to back up your critisicms of Dawkins no matter if it was quite poor.
 
 
If we realise the wonders and strengths of knowledge compared to the weaknesses of blind faith then we will see how important scientists like Dawkins are.
So lets get away from the silly myths about Dawkins, hes not leading some pagan cult bent on destroyin the work of god.  I'm not sticking up for Dawkins because im some blind follower of his evil cult lol, rather because its amusing seeing people get into such hysterics over him, with all the baseless and opinionated accusations against him because of one book that most havent even read or put into perspective.  it only reinforces what hes saying.  Some people need religion not becuase its true but because they need something to believe in. 
 
So embrace the truth, embrace Father Dawkins Tongue LOL
(btw thats a joke, chillWink)
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 16:13

When I started this thread, I was not one of the ones who was in "Hysterics" about him- as a PanDeist, I actually share many views with Atheists and think that it is a brilliantly argued and excellent book that certainly should sit on anyone's bookcase - my argument is that he is over-evangelising his philosophy by seemingly blaming religion for everything - one can see that his logic (although it is brilliant) has one flaw, in that it hypothesizes than an Atheist world would have hardly any conflict, and that people who are religious are somehow lower and that Atheists are "superior" to them. I've had many conversations with radical Atheists, and they often use Richard Dawkin's book as a pretext to simply poke needless fun at perfectly moderate believers. People should be allowed to deviate, people should be allowed to have their own interpretation- what worries me is that Dawkins seems to be emphasising that the "true" way is Atheism - THERE IS NO TRUE WAY! (except religious fundamentalism and other wako beliefs). Just because Dawkins sits behind a calm, Scientific exterior that is both brilliant and mind and in literary skill, that doesn't give him the right to effectively use fundamentalist feeling for his own beliefs. He has seen that Atheism is indeed something neccesary for the modern world - contempary religion is dead -, but other strands of Philosophical thinking that do not conform entirely with Atheism are not. It seems that in an effort to appeal to people to rally to Atheism, he is using (as numerous people have said) fundamentalist rhetoric. God is a concept, a theory, an idea - ideas cannot be destroyed - they can be given egos, personalities, but they cannot be destroyed. The fundamental essence behind the concept of god - the "Einstein religion" as Dawkins put it - man's capibility for wonder of the natural world, with never die. If people choose to venerate this with some kind of cultural guise and/or ego, there is nothing that he can do about it and I suggest that he live with it, because religion is not going to die, and Atheism is not the ends and the means. Everyone's got to find their own way, and they've got to find it themselves. Science has advanced to the point that we in the West (and many of you outside of the west) don't need our wonder of the natural world to be given a cultural guise anymore, but infinity/god always has guises, there are always knew philosophical theorems and there will always be conflict.

So lets get away from the silly myths about Dawkins, hes not leading some pagan cult bent on destroyin the work of god. 
 
In case you haven't noticed, not many of us (I hope) have that view, many of us on this forum are self-confessed (they've said in this thread or other parts of the forum) that they are some form of Deist or Moderate Theist - none of us would make so silly an accusation. As many of us here have said, Dawkin's book is very good and such pieces of philosophy should be enouraged, it's his solution that worries me and many of the other people who have contributed to this thread.
 
...You have hit on it just there, we have been accused of being adherents of such things as "blind faith" and the other quips that you've mentioned just because we are questioning Richard Dawkins - it's this kind of absolution about a Philosophy, ANY philosophy, that I hate, and in that sense, what Richard Dawkins has inspired is hypocrital to say the least. People should constantly debate. If you don't machine-gun your own beliefs and others all the time (a favourite past time of mine) how are you going to get anywhere philosophically? Many Atheists don't because they see Richard Dawkin's word as final.
 
If we realise the wonders and strengths of knowledge compared to the weaknesses of blind faith then we will see how important scientists like Dawkins are.
 
It's important that people understand that the old "God vs. Science" question doesn't exactly hold up anymore - the stories that contradict science are precisely that - stories and don't entirely discredit all religion. When we percieve that god is a concept (Spinoza and Descartes, for example), then we can see that fundamentally, religion slots in fine with science - veneration of this concept is the problem - each culture has devised their own way with their own cultural "limpets" and it is these "limpets" and socio-political issues that cause the trouble. "Blind faith" can be inspired by any ideology, not neccesarily a religious one - for example, with Islamists, it's more for the political and cultural ties that Islam represents to them that create this "blind faith". "Blind faith" is simply the irrational defense that people who are still practising "limpeted" religion feel when their cultural "limpets" are being attacked - it's a war of culture and religious practicing methods rather than the entire concept of religion.
 
I say again, I realise that Dawkins is an highly respected figure (by me also Smile) but I feel that there are so many ridiculous myths that Atheists assosiate with him that his book certainly desires closer inspection to find out where the basis for these come from.


Edited by Aster Thrax Eupator - 31-Jul-2007 at 16:24
Back to Top
Ovidius View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422
  Quote Ovidius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2007 at 11:17
Originally posted by AyKurt



bad analogy.  The two cannot be compared.  The "West/Blacks/Monkies" are realities that exist wether you believe it or not.  By choosing those three are you somehow trying to relate Dawkins with racists and supremacists?


Yes I am, his attacks on Religion have a similar rhetoric to Supremacist literature attacking Blacks or Jews and a similar rhetoric to attacks on Western Materialism. They use a quasi-Scientific argument to attack everything that is unproved, by offering less supported theories.

So his idea of Memes etc is a totally non scientific theory and Psychoanalysts, Psychologists, neuro Scientists etc with EXPERIENCE and EVIDENCE of how the brain works know that his theory is wrong. However, as with the Historical argument, their position is attacked with a logical trap that is laid by Dawkins - the idea that their positions can not be proved either.


Well firstly what was irrational rhetoric that Dawkins uses? 


Most of his work is irrational. Its based on argument and attack, not on proper science or proper history.


Secondly  What you perceive to be ahistorical  would most often just be considered historical facts.  Its only ahistorical because you choose to look at it like that.


I'm a Post-Structuralist, my belief in "historical-facts" is somewhat questionable. However, i do believe strongly in METHOD and in the discovery of evidence from sources. Dawkins offers no real method or evidence in support of his arguments, they are baseless attacks on theism, not historically constructed criticisms of historical facts.

Basically, his historical work cannot be trusted because he knows what he wants the past to say, before he starts researching. Again, this is similar to people with strong political or racial beliefs - they are using the past and researching the past in an true effort to support what they already believe to be true. This is what I find wrong about his history, oh and that fact that its complete nonsense.


And thirdly, when the hell did Dawkins use fake science to prove that theism is a condition?


Ermm. Viruses of the Mind (1993), The Selfish Gene (1976) and in the God Delusion. He calls Religion a Mind Virus, caused by Memes!

The only problem with this is that there is no evidence of Memes. He has never provided a single shred of evidence to support any of his theories. This is why it is fake science. He is again doing it back to front. Creating a theory based on his own bias against theism. He has created a massive theory of why Relgion is a virus without any evidence, observation or discovery.

He has also attacked the work of Genetecists and other scientists in their work. Claiming that all Religious Scientists are not Scientists. He also attacks the people that have found evidence that counter his theories.

 
Lol well if you want a break then dont open the thread.  simple. Wink
Anyway he isn't evangelising for any atheist religion.  He is a biologist in charge of the public understanding of science.  The God Delusion isn't his only book but his most recent of 9.


I'm aware of his other work. The God Delusion is, as I said, an attack on Religion. He IS evangelising the cause of Atheism - he has even made TV programmes to that effect.

 
 
If we realise the wonders and strengths of knowledge compared to the weaknesses of blind faith then we will see how important scientists like Dawkins are.


So we should substitute blind faith in religion with Blind faith in atheism and Dawkins style of Knowledge? I'd rather stand on the moderates side, with the agnostics. With the rest of the world that 'cannot be sure'. The wonders and strenghts of knowledge and the culmination of enlightenment development of intellectualism are vital and I believe that Dawkins has broken from this development. He prefers to substitute irrational belief in Religion with irrational belief in HIS "science".


So lets get away from the silly myths about Dawkins, hes not leading some pagan cult bent on destroyin the work of god.


No, he's leading a atheistic cult, intent on releasing the world from Theism towards a non-religious utopia, which would inevitably be non-violent etc.


 I'm not sticking up for Dawkins because im some blind follower of his evil cult lol, rather because its amusing seeing people get into such hysterics over him, with all the baseless and opinionated accusations against him because of one book that most havent even read or put into perspective.  it only reinforces what hes saying.  Some people need religion not becuase its true but because they need something to believe in.


I am not in hysterics about Dawkins, I just find his methods, arguments and theories a complete joke. Not because I am religious, but because I hate they way in which he pretends to represent rational thought. Atheism, in my opinion, is just as irrational as theism.
 


So embrace the truth, embrace Father Dawkins Tongue LOL
(btw thats a joke, chillWink)


LOL
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2007 at 11:46

Precisely! You've always got to machine-gun your own and other peoples' beliefs (...but not literally, like whats happening in Iraq...). In my mind, anyone that dares to oppose the constant questioning is dangerous- be they Religious or Atheist. We must question everything.

Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 00:07
I saw a full program of Dawkins on TV where he called the shots, it was his program where he said what he wanted to say. The first few minutes was interesting and well told, but the rest of the hour was boring, filled with cliches, redundant statements and repetitions. He is one of those people  who after having made a good point keep on and on until the point where the urge to kill him arises!
elenos
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 06:40
In my mind, anyone that dares to oppose the constant questioning is dangerous- be they Religious or Atheist. We must question everything.

Questioning is only useful if you understand and are prepared to accept the answer. If you fail on either of those, especially the latter, there is no point in asking the questions.

For example, you could question how a computer works, although if you are not prepared to accept an Engineers explanation, you are a bigger fool than you were before you asked the question.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 16:02

I'm aware of that, but those things are materialistic and function by the laws of physics - things like metaphysics and philosophy can all have equally valid systems and still be contradictory. People have grappled for millenia with these issues - there is no answer! It's too large a question - t least we can find personal ways which help us look at the question in a way which helps us live our lives.

...Also (this is highly relevant to Mr.Dawkins...) there is such a thing as overstating the case - although they are helpful in today's world, preaching Atheists are boring and frankly tell us the case (which we know is valid) again and again and again.

Back to Top
AyKurt View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 24-Mar-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 236
  Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 17:29
Fundamentally (Wink) the point is each to their own so long as they keep it to their own.
The problem is for some time religous extremists dont keep it to themselves and insist on shoving it down others throats, be it through education or media or government.  So theres going to be a counter reaction.  An atheist reaction, naturally.  Its necessary for balance. 
 
Wether you like Dawkins or not he isn't going to go away so long as there are creationists and christian evangelisers.  And no doubt there are and will be many more like him who, although on a smaller scale, will also feel they have to confront the illogical beliefs of those people.
 
These types of atheists wouldnt exist otherwise.  If religious folk kept their beliefs to themselves then there would be no need to counter them. 
Logical, no?
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
Back to Top
Eondt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 23-Aug-2006
Location: South Africa
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 279
  Quote Eondt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 02:24
Originally posted by AyKurt

, will also feel they have to confront the illogical beliefs of those people. 
It's exactly this kind of language that moved others in this forum to condemn the superior (even, holier than though Wink) attitude of atheists, no offence.
 
Remember that for someone who is religious your "faith" in atheism seem just as "illogical". 


Edited by Eondt - 03-Aug-2007 at 02:25
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 07:34
Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator

I've been looking around at a lot of literary criticism about The god delusion after reading a fair bit of it, and I and many of the reviewers have come up with one little tick in his argument. It's not a tick in his argument against Theism - I think it's a good a well argued book which deserves its reputation. But many acedemics have argued that Richard Dawkins suffers from what is ultimatley a kind of Christian view of his ideology. He seems to come to the conclusion that by everyone being Atheist, the majority of world conflict will stop. I don't know about you guys, but I think that's rubbish. Humanity is ALWAYS going to fight over something, it's in out nature.
 
I agree, too often people come out with cliche's like 'Religion is the cause of all wars', which is tosh. Religion is in fact rarely a cause of war. It is used as a motivation for the masses by the ruling class who decide to send ordinary people into harms way.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 07:47
Religion often causes war. But it is not the cause of all wars. Religion, don't forget is a very broad term, so even ideologies that clash to cause a war can be construed as or linked to religion. I think personally that if someone wants to support a religious ideology, or if someone doesn't it is their call and they are entitled to make it. Either side should not be punished for their convictions, neither should they attempt to enforce or transplant their convictions onto others. Militant atheism as as pointless as militant religious observance
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 08:08
Name me one atheist who wants to forcibly convert a believer into an unbeliever. That seems to be a strictly theistic profession.
 
Nevertheless, while religious beliefs can be beneficial to the individual it often stands in the way of society as a whole - be it scientific progress (Religion opposing Stem cell research, for example) or morality (Religiously derived morals seem to insist on encroaching its habits on unbelievers. Just remember, Homosexuality was strictly an illegal act in Ireland until 1993)
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 09:01
Originally posted by Parnell

Name me one atheist who wants to forcibly convert a believer into an unbeliever. That seems to be a strictly theistic profession.
 
 
LOLLOL    Richard Dawkins   LOLLOL
 
 
 
Well done Denis ClapClap
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 09:33
You twat, he doesn't want to do it forcibly. He never suggests that. Disappointed in you to be honest that you'd buy into that lynching gang of anti-Dawkins activists.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 09:48
Originally posted by Parnell

You twat, he doesn't want to do it forcibly. He never suggests that. Disappointed in you to be honest that you'd buy into that lynching gang of anti-Dawkins activists.
 
 
Twat? Do you want me to get thick? He is a militant atheist and in fact those are your words from a much earlier topic under the guise of Denis earlier in the year. Why does he feel the need to 'educate' the blind masses? Why is that his job? He has his belief and he like to throw it down people's throats. He is aggresive in his attitude towards the 'brainless' masses of believers. He has no duty, just like the religions have no duty to outwardly transplant his beliefs and convictions onto others, and I personally dont see him as a paragon of truth, I see him as a dogged self-publicist, intelligent but intolerent of other's beliefs in the way that he talks about religion. So what if people want to belief in Jesus, or Allah, or Vishnu, Or the Sun God or whatever, as long as they respect my views I will respect theirs. So I don't buy into anything like a ' lynching gang of anti-Dawkins activists', as you put it, I think for myself and my view is that he is a militant atheist, just like you have said in the past. So don't bother calling me a twat or anything like it, and think about what you are going to say before you make another fool out of yourself. And if you want me to go into detail, down to the very pedantics of the argument, I will, because I most certainly am aware of what i'm talking about.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.