Richard Dawkins.

[staika]

Wow 8 pages and a full out flame war, Damn I hate religious flame wars they are the worst kind of Flame war.
Also how hasn't this thread been locked or thrown in the R&P section yet?

OT: I don't know the guy but from what I read about him in this thread I doubt I'd like him that much. I don't care what people believe in, I just hate it when either side tries to destroy the other.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Your evidence is so vague it's laughable.

So I didn't give an exact detail or quote therefore what I say is crap? I used to be a proper Christian, I know that what he said was irrelevant. He presented it as a fundamental belief of Christianity when it wasn't.

And it would make sense for him to criticize a pope considering the pope represents a huge section of Christianity.

To be honest, he doesn't. That's one of the problems with the vatican as an institution.

And criticizing the pope on matters of doctrine is quite relevant.

But it makes no sense. A pope accepted evolution as a valid theory, how does that make him a hypocrite? If anything it just makes the church look open minded whilst on the other side of the coin they can't win because whatever they'd say, people like Dawkins would criticise.

Besides, your word isn't good evidence. Actually quoting him would be.

So you basically take his word until there's evidence to the contrary? I can't give evidence saying "this is not a part of christianity" because it wouldn't be there.

Your word could easily be biased and not give a full representation.

How would I be biased? I'm not on either side. Besides, we're dealing in facts here.

His own words are much more likely to give a full representation of his own argument.

His argument was along the lines of "Christianity will be proven completely wrong once this belief is proved wrong". I don't see how I could misrepresent that.

He's pretty much the worst poster boy Atheism could have.

Dawkins just looks at evidence, and he gets angry when religion deludes people at offers nothing usefull to society.

I'd say it does offer something to society. It gives people morals and somewhere to fall back on, and provide charity to people.

Of course organised religion has a lot of flaws, I could name quite a few, but people often forget the good things.

I made no claims about Christians,

Yes you did. You presumed I was Christian just because I was arguing against Dawkins.

Another thing. You can't call something "reality" if it isn't proved. By that logic, you can't call god a reality but you can't call his non-existence a reality either.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Your evidence is so vague it's laughable.

So I didn't give an exact detail or quote therefore what I say is crap? I used to be a proper Christian, I know that what he said was irrelevant. He presented it as a fundamental belief of Christianity when it wasn't.

Therefore what you say should be treated as crap. There is no reason to trust you.

And it would make sense for him to criticize a pope considering the pope represents a huge section of Christianity.

To be honest, he doesn't. That's one of the problems with the vatican as an institution.

Yes, he does. Catholics are by far the largest denomination of Christianity.

And criticizing the pope on matters of doctrine is quite relevant.

But it makes no sense. A pope accepted evolution as a valid theory, how does that make him a hypocrite? If anything it just makes the church look open minded whilst on the other side of the coin they can't win because whatever they'd say, people like Dawkins would criticise.

I don't know how it does, maybe you should actually quote Dawkins argument instead of just whining about it?

Besides, your word isn't good evidence. Actually quoting him would be.

So you basically take his word until there's evidence to the contrary? I can't give evidence saying "this is not a part of christianity" because it wouldn't be there.

So basically you have a ridiculous "You either agree with me or Dawkins!" view"? Because no, I did not take his word for anything. I'm saying that you shouldn't be trusted to relay Dawkins' argument

Your word could easily be biased and not give a full representation.

How would I be biased? I'm not on either side. Besides, we're dealing in facts here.

Because you clearly are already. It doesn't matter if don't think you're 'on either side'. You clearly are on a side against Dawkins, even if it doesn't fit your simplistic view of this just being 'atheism vs religion' or whatever.

His own words are much more likely to give a full representation of his own argument.

His argument was along the lines of "Christianity will be proven completely wrong once this belief is proved wrong". I don't see how I could misrepresent that.

I see no reason to trust you to have interpreted it correctly.

I don't see the point in carrying if you don't trust it then. And you're using technicalities to misrepresent what I'm saying. Dawkins was the one making a statement, he should be the one to prove it. I shouldn't have to prove it wrong.

And you don't really understand Catholics. Sure, the pope leads them, but most Catholics aren't bothered by what people like the pope say or do. There's a much bigger divide between them than I think you realise.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Oh and what 'technicalities' are those, hmm? Or is this just you making complaints that have no merit because I pointed out why your argument sucks?

Dawkins should be the one to prove his argument, not me disproving it.

Considering the Pope's influence on their doctrine, and this being a matter of doctrine, you trying to separate them is rather laughable.

Don't tell me that me separating them is laughable. You're extremely close minded if you just look at it and presume what you think without actually looking into it was right. I was the one in the Catholic church and I can tell you that most people don't adhere to what the pope says, nor do they care or pay attention to it.

 

[Lavi]

Brilliant scientist. Needs to stay out of religion. As a religious studies major, it is painful to see Christianity, Islam, and Judaism shoved into... well, Christianity. His arguments are poor philosophically as expected, and I honestly shouldn't need to tell anyone why philosophy is the best to deal with the existence of metaphysical realities (G-d, in this case, is limiting the scope of discussion). For The G-d Delusion, the first half is decent, but afterwards might as well not even be read.

Not to mention if one is to speak of atheism, it would be best to speak of other religions though not really necessary in this case I suppose.

 

[AnarchistFish]

I can't be bothered with this anymore

 

[Vausch]

I love the guy. He's outspoken while remaining articulate, a great writer with some fun and informative books, has a great sense of humour (watch his reading of hate mail as he laughs at it) and is one of the better leaders of atheist progressive movements. I do think he tends to get a little on the smug side and might be pushing it a bit with the anti-religion but it's never been something that would make me go "Oh man, too far".