:lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc
Printable View
They deserve each other.
Dawkins had gone out of his way to pick the fight, and he wasn't disappointed by the opposition.
It's clearly a win-win.
But Dawkins never swore at them.
So who are more sensible ?
Yeah, he swore, just without the swear words.
He is unwilling to "hear" their side and they his, so they are perfect for each other. They can rant and rail away, to little avail, and make the other infinitely happy.
Win-win.
If he is unwilling to hear the other side, why do he know the god topic so well ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hard-up1
"Why do he" indeed?
Is a puzzlement.
He's obviously got too much time on his hands.
Hmmmm...a puzzlement
He has to know the 'god topic' so well in order to argue against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Telstra
But Hardup said he is unwilling to listen which is not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by gsdx
He listened so much until he knows so well.
The evidence is significant that you understand Dawkins little more than you understand Christians.
My words matter not: your words betray you.
Religion debate - really don't undertand this whole type of thing at all . Perhaps it is that people who claim to believe in God essentially state that this omnipotent omnipresent being can be in any way affected by what one human being says or writes . If there is a god surely the disbelief of one person will in no way affect him ? Either there is a god or there isn't and no argument one way or the other will create or diminish him . But god is obviously so feeble this action must be taken for him , the Ayatollah's fatwa against Salman Rushdi , obviouly God could not do this alone so an elderly Iranian man had to do it for him .
Either there is a god no matter what anyone says or there isn't no matter what anyone says and getting someone to admit this or formally swear to it is a rather pointless exercise .
my error - I grace with the label of debate what is just opposition . Name-calling .
I like Dawkins. I feel that he's been slipping under the radar in the past couple of years though. He got caught up in his militant philosophy and I feel that people have just moved on from being angry.
Who is this Dawkins dude? :confused:
How many times do you listen to flat earthers and Earth-is-6,000-years-old mental defectives before you simply tell them to fuck off?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hard-up1
Mwk .............Quote:
Originally Posted by Hard-up1
I think Dawkins makes an excellent point. Christians of the type that write him hate mail forget the words of Christ, when he tells them to turn the other cheek.
Despite him having what I consider to be quite a pompous demeanor, I have a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins. I don't share his anti-theistic views or his apparent love of mockery, but I have learned a lot from listening to him speak, and some of his perspectives have even helped to shape and solidify my view of the world.
This video doesn't interest me however. My main grievance is that by cherry-picking the impassioned words of a vocal minority, it gives the kids of /r/atheism ammunition to justify their conceited intolerance. I wont fault Dawkins for this, as it is not necessarily by his failing that others might presume these letters to be representative of Christianity as a whole; but I won't praise him for it either, as there is no real lesson to be learned from watching this.
It's just Dawkins again showing his irritating pomposity.
Dawkins can be respectful, curious and engaging when speaking with intelligent religious people.
Here, he's a smart guy making fun of dumb people. Classy.
If there's anything us atheists are intolerant to, it's the vile words of hate that come from the mouths of the religious the world over - making a mockery of these delusional people is hardly anything compared to what said religious folk did to non-believers when the world was theocratic (e.g. burning them at the stake etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders123
Like all sky fairy believers, Christians pick and choose what they want to abide by and believe inQuote:
Originally Posted by star-warrior
Sanskrit proverb: it is not goodness to be better than the worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by benno5693
Intolerance justified by good intent is the mantra of the oppressor. Do you really want to adopt that as your own?
Enlightenment is about leading and showing, not ridiculing or mocking. The supposed basis of atheism is rationalism, which isn't about petty exchanges or invectives. Mr. Dawkins draws fire because he departs from using rationalism to using invective.
Whereas religious people are certainly not right in petty attacks either, the exchanges are exhibitions of nastiness on both sides, not any endeavor at enlightenment. Both are tarred by their smallness and pique.
As have bankers, lawyers, JUBBERS, vegetarians, realtors, teachers, politicians, Dr. Seuss, musicians, actors, vegans, kings, humanitarians, athletes, artists, and people of every walk. There are very, very few absolutists in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeicsDom
Basically you don't want Mr Dawkins to laugh and have fun about unproven religious views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hard-up1
Most scientists should act more like Mr Dawkins.
I laughed my head off; thanks for posting this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Telstra
The trouble with religion is that it's not based on reason, so you can't reason people out of it.
I think it's worth noting that my post referred to the nature of the posts in /r/atheism, not the attitudes of atheists ourselves. You're making this about atheism vs religiosity when it's a matter of tolerance vs intolerance. It’s important to be skeptical, to scrutinise, and even to criticise, but insipid image macros detailing why 'God's not real' or screenshots of Facebook conversations 'destroying' Christians in 'debates' is not productive, it's asinine. My post was referring to the pseudo-intellectual 'warriors of reason and logic' who plague the subreddit; the ones who would, ironically enough, take from this video that Christians are hateful hypocrites, and use that to justify their own intolerance.Quote:
Originally Posted by benno5693
Vile words of hate can come from the mouths of atheists, and words of love and support can come from the religious. It's important to recognise that not all religious individuals are hateful, and that not all atheists are rational and enlightened. It shouldn't be about us vs them, but mutual understanding, respect, and civil discussion. This video contains nothing other than petty derision from both sides; it's poison.
ummm this video is a poison?Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders123
That is abit over the top don't you think?
I would say this video is a comedy.
