Originally posted by scottishinnzThat is the good question. Whatever I would say, I will be told off,as a idealist(in the best of circumstances). But nevertheless... Creativity, passion, art, living for the life's sake.
So what is the purpose of man, without religion, other than to pass on genes?
Ok,I finished , feel free to unleash your complexes, you meaningless, ape offspring. 🙂 😀 🙂
Originally posted by Choreantwell if you do not like it, provide evidence against anything he says or any of his logic and change him, rather than complain. If I were arguing that there are not any apples in Norway, and someone else was arguing that there is, and his stance is backed up by evidence and logic, then I would not suddenly give up the debate and start criticizing him for patronizing me, because I was in the wrong and was being an idiotic, incorrect and ignorant person. Either argue against his beliefs, or admit defeat. Criticism of style adds nothing.
I do attack extremism,and Dawkins's one is comparable to most bitter religious jerks. But,on the contrary to them, he announces himself as a freethinker.
Originally posted by ChoreantI know very little about Dawkins. I don't really think about who the "best" atheists are. I don't much care.
I've got a question to atheists. Do ya really, consider Dawkins as one of your best??? And if so, can anyone show me any diffrence (in the way of thinking, not object) that differs him for any religious extremist??? Even worse, extremist, however paraniod is understandable, he believes in something, so he follows the path quam absurdum. Dawkins spends years on fightning a crusade, concerning a subject, he is certain , doesn't exists. Weird.
Originally posted by ChoreantThe Force is not about "intellectual agression", even if such a thing existed at all. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.
Of course, I mean the "force", rather the intellectual agression, than the real one.
Originally posted by ChoreantBut aren't all those things just things that we do? Does humanity exist, for example, so that the Mona Lisa can come into existence? Is that our reason for existence?
That is the good question. Whatever I would say, I will be told off,as a idealist(in the best of circumstances). But nevertheless... Creativity, passion, art, living for the life's sake.
Ok,I finished , feel free to unleash your complexes, you meaningless, ape offspring. 🙂 😀 🙂
Originally posted by doodinthemoodHe said exactly as much in a meeting of skeptics at the Galapagos Islands. Well done.
He works on that assumption because no truth has yet been provided by other viewpoints. And his way of thinking is similar to religious extremists as he is very passionate. This shouldn't be confused with religion though. Any religion will disregard counter-evidence, however large it may be. As soon as sufficient evidence counters Dawkins view, he will change his mind.
Originally posted by Choreanthe does not state that at all, what he states is that since there is no proof for god lets assume it doesn't exist, otherwise theres no proof against someone murdering someone, so lets assume their guilty, that is putting it into perspective
"My team, your team" I used , only to be legible.
His being far from extreme is, at least discusable. But his athesim, on the contrary, is of the greastest importance. He and his followers,do make another "religion". Dawkins goes much further than just fighting, self- assumed delusions. He states that everyone else can have no truth.
Originally posted by Choreantthe difference beetween dawkins and an extrement is that extrements just beleive, no matter how much evidence for or against,it Must be true, but if god appeared in front of dawkins once dawkins was sure he hadn't gone wacko and he wasn't daydreaming he say, "Aw shucks i was wrong, Gee thanks god" but in real life that just wouldn't happen
I've got a question to atheists. Do ya really, consider Dawkins as one of your best??? And if so, can anyone show me any diffrence (in the way of thinking, not object) that differs him for any religious extremist??? Even worse, extremist, however paraniod is understandable, he believes in something, so he follows the path quam absurdum. Dawkins spends years on fightning a crusade, concerning a subject, he is certain , doesn't exists. Weird.
Originally posted by knightistwoqueensYou got this the wrong way round. Dawkins would assume no-one had been killed if no-one provided evidence to the contrary. Dawkins would be an innocent until proven guilty rather than the other way around.
he does not state that at all, what he states is that since there is no proof for god lets assume it doesn't exist, otherwise theres no proof against someone murdering someone, so lets assume their guilty, that is putting it into perspective
Originally posted by ChoreantAs an atheist I don't find him a particularly useful representative. He's as dogmatic and fundamentalist in his way as any fundy christian.
I've got a question to atheists. Do ya really, consider Dawkins as one of your best??? And if so, can anyone show me any diffrence (in the way of thinking, not object) that differs him for any religious extremist??? Even worse, extremist, however paraniod is understandable, he believes in something, so he follows the path quam absurdum. Dawkins spends years on fightning a crusade, concerning a subject, he is certain , doesn't exists. Weird.
Originally posted by ChoreantI have never met Dawkins nor read any of his books yet, though I think I will in future. From what I have heard of him, his main aims seem to be:
I've got a question to atheists. Do ya really, consider Dawkins as one of your best???
1. Encouraging the study and understanding of science. This I agree with.
2. Pointing out the stupidity and various logical flaws in many religious ideas. This I agree with.
3. Trying to understand why people are religious and possibly find a way to help them see their errors. This I agree with.
So I generally agree with what I believe are his motives. I may agree or disagree with his methods but as I don't know much about them I cant really say.
Originally posted by Choreant
Athesim, as it once was, begun as a counterstirke to religious stupidity.
Atheism is not a religion and does not have 'members' and is not a 'movement' so I don't know what you mean by 'as it was' or 'begun'. Atheism is merely a description of peoples lack of belief in a deity. Its almost as if you are saying: "The group of people who don't believe that aliens visit the earth started as a counterstrike ..."
I became atheist because I realized that God didn't exist. I didn't join a group, it wasn't a counterstrike to anything, I don't have anything in particular in common with all atheists other than being human and not believing in God. I do feel an affinity to Dawkins partly because he is a scientist and partly because I think we have similar views but to say "one of our best" implies a movement or organization which simply doesn't exist.