He's an idiot. This isn't me being a butthurt Christian, but even in my current, objective and agnostic self I still think he's an idiot. He doesn't research properly what he's attacking and makes up things. Most arguments he gives are either wrong or irrelevant. But all his supporters eat it up like it's gospel (lol).
I think people who attack religion seem to have a complexion where they don't think they need to properly find out about religion because they presume what they think is sense and religion is nonsense, and so don't think they need to bother giving proper evidence.
fenrizz said:
I think he is pretty awesome.
I really wish more religious people would listen to him, but alas they hardly ever listen to rational arguments about faith anyway.
The thing is I cannot for the life of me understand why some people believe in fairy tales written some odd 2000 years ago.
Because an really old book says so?
Non-religious documents prove the existence of a man at the time who fits the description of Jesus. And by your logic we can't know for sure anything about the history of the world before our lifetime. Calling them "fairy tales" is pretty condescending and arrogant too.
fenrizz said:
What is there to find out, as you claim we must?
As for this evidence you want I'll have to disappoint you, for there is no evidence against god and religion.
If you want to attack something, you have to research what it stands for, and what it says, properly. Dawkins doesn't.
fenrizz said:
How can there be?
Just because you cannot prove without doubt that there is no 5231 year old teapot orbiting the sun outside Jupiter, does not mean that it is there.
Do you have any real evidence for the existence of god?
Using another leaf out of the Dawkins book? There'd be no purpose or reason for a teapot to be orbiting the sun.
People have had religious experiences and as I said, there is proof of Jesus existing. Whether he was the son of god or not is another question but why do you completely deny something may be true just because you don't think that other people's evidence, opinion or experience matters?
And why do you ask me anyway? I already said I'm not Christian.
But you pretty much admit that you haven't actually got an argument to fight the opposing side, and are just relying on propaganda fed to you and the presumption that what you say is sensible.
Why should I listen to him when he writes everything in the most off-putting way possible? When the man learns some tact, I'll listen. You don't pay attention to religious people that scram at you that you're going to hell, do you? I don't listen to people who crow that everything I know is wrong with a big smirk on their face.
I don't listen to religious leaders because there is no god, simple as that.
No amount of scare-tactics or screaming is going to change that, so there is no point in listening to them.
He doesn't say that everything you know is wrong, he just says that there is no god.
Hence, "everything I know is wrong". I don't think you understand how central the idea of God can be.
Anyways, fine. I don't listen to Dawkins because there is a God, simple as that. No amount of antagonistic musings from one incredibly narrow viewpoint will change that, so there is no point in listening to him.
(The WTF you felt when you read that is about identical to mine when I read your version. Deal with it.)
Not to mention that hilarious essay he wrote on post-modern writing.
On the topic of his antagonistic attitude towards religion:
Who started it? I'm genuinely curious as to what led him down the path of trying to combat such a widespread and ingrained stupidity. Did somebody of the Godly persuasion take a pot-shot at his work, or did he get pissed off of his own accord?
He's a dick, but he's on my side. I just wish he would stop looking for fights, especially the de-baptism thing. Otherwise, he's ok, though I prefer the likes of Michio Kaku and (posthumously) Carl Sagan.
He's an idiot. This isn't me being a butthurt Christian, but even in my current, objective and agnostic self I still think he's an idiot. He doesn't research properly what he's attacking and makes up things. Most arguments he gives are either wrong or irrelevant. But all his supporters eat it up like it's gospel (lol).
I think people who attack religion seem to have a complexion where they don't think they need to properly find out about religion because they presume what they think is sense and religion is nonsense, and so don't think they need to bother giving proper evidence.
fenrizz said:
I think he is pretty awesome.
I really wish more religious people would listen to him, but alas they hardly ever listen to rational arguments about faith anyway.
The thing is I cannot for the life of me understand why some people believe in fairy tales written some odd 2000 years ago.
Because an really old book says so?
Non-religious documents prove the existence of a man at the time who fits the description of Jesus. And by your logic we can't know for sure anything about the history of the world before our lifetime. Calling them "fairy tales" is pretty condescending and arrogant too.
That there is documents naming a Jesus does not prove that there is a god or that this Jesus was his son.
Maybe fairy tale is a bit condescending and arrogant, I'll give you that.
Does work of fiction work better?
Because that is what it is.
AnarchistFish said:
fenrizz said:
What is there to find out, as you claim we must?
As for this evidence you want I'll have to disappoint you, for there is no evidence against god and religion.
Research what it stands for?
What possible purpose would that serve?
It's irrelevant in an discussion of gods existence.
AnarchistFish said:
fenrizz said:
How can there be?
Just because you cannot prove without doubt that there is no 5231 year old teapot orbiting the sun outside Jupiter, does not mean that it is there.
Do you have any real evidence for the existence of god?
Using another leaf out of the Dawkins book? There'd be no purpose or reason for a teapot to be orbiting the sun.
People have had religious experiences and as I said, there is proof of Jesus existing. Whether he was the son of god or not is another question but why do you completely deny something may be true just because you don't think that other people's evidence, opinion or experience matters?
And why do you ask me anyway? I already said I'm not Christian.
But you pretty much admit that you haven't actually got an argument to fight the opposing side, and are just relying on propaganda fed to you and the presumption that what you say is sensible.
Not leaf put of Dawkins book, it was actually written by Bertrand Russell.
I'm going to quote the whole analogy here for clarity:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time
The other people's evidence of which you speak I still have not seen.
I'd be happy to have a look at it if someone could present it to me, but I must add that I doubt someone will come with it.
The Vikings also had religious experiences, but strangely they did not involve god, Jesus or the holy ghost.
I do not have very many arguments to disprove the existence of god, that much is true.
Neither do I have evidence to once and for all debunk the myth of the Yeti or the fabled unicorn.
Such evidence is impossible to get a hold of, as I'm sure you understand.
The presumption is not that my ideas are sensible.
It's more the knowledge that what they claim is preposterous.
At least my "side" does not have to rely on indoctrination to keep going.
Why should I listen to him when he writes everything in the most off-putting way possible? When the man learns some tact, I'll listen. You don't pay attention to religious people that scram at you that you're going to hell, do you? I don't listen to people who crow that everything I know is wrong with a big smirk on their face.
I don't listen to religious leaders because there is no god, simple as that.
No amount of scare-tactics or screaming is going to change that, so there is no point in listening to them.
He doesn't say that everything you know is wrong, he just says that there is no god.
Hence, "everything I know is wrong". I don't think you understand how central the idea of God can be.
Anyways, fine. I don't listen to Dawkins because there is a God, simple as that. No amount of antagonistic musings from one incredibly narrow viewpoint will change that, so there is no point in listening to him.
(The WTF you felt when you read that is about identical to mine when I read your version. Deal with it.)
You're right, I don't understand how central the belief in god can be to a person.
I find the whole notion to be absurd to be honest, and I do have a very hard time fathoming how people can believe it.
I just don't get it.
Out of curiosity, where you raised as a christian or some in other religion?
EDIT:
That may have come of as too harsh, but I assure you it is in no way intended to be.
Just trying to explain.
Unfortunatly I was never an excellent writer or orator.
He's an idiot. This isn't me being a butthurt Christian, but even in my current, objective and agnostic self I still think he's an idiot. He doesn't research properly what he's attacking and makes up things. Most arguments he gives are either wrong or irrelevant. But all his supporters eat it up like it's gospel (lol).
I think people who attack religion seem to have a complexion where they don't think they need to properly find out about religion because they presume what they think is sense and religion is nonsense, and so don't think they need to bother giving proper evidence.
fenrizz said:
I think he is pretty awesome.
I really wish more religious people would listen to him, but alas they hardly ever listen to rational arguments about faith anyway.
The thing is I cannot for the life of me understand why some people believe in fairy tales written some odd 2000 years ago.
Because an really old book says so?
Non-religious documents prove the existence of a man at the time who fits the description of Jesus. And by your logic we can't know for sure anything about the history of the world before our lifetime. Calling them "fairy tales" is pretty condescending and arrogant too.
That there is documents naming a Jesus does not prove that there is a god or that this Jesus was his son.
Maybe fairy tale is a bit condescending and arrogant, I'll give you that.
Does work of fiction work better?
Because that is what it is.
AnarchistFish said:
fenrizz said:
What is there to find out, as you claim we must?
As for this evidence you want I'll have to disappoint you, for there is no evidence against god and religion.
Research what it stands for?
What possible purpose would that serve?
It's irrelevant in an discussion of gods existence.
AnarchistFish said:
fenrizz said:
How can there be?
Just because you cannot prove without doubt that there is no 5231 year old teapot orbiting the sun outside Jupiter, does not mean that it is there.
Do you have any real evidence for the existence of god?
Using another leaf out of the Dawkins book? There'd be no purpose or reason for a teapot to be orbiting the sun.
People have had religious experiences and as I said, there is proof of Jesus existing. Whether he was the son of god or not is another question but why do you completely deny something may be true just because you don't think that other people's evidence, opinion or experience matters?
And why do you ask me anyway? I already said I'm not Christian.
But you pretty much admit that you haven't actually got an argument to fight the opposing side, and are just relying on propaganda fed to you and the presumption that what you say is sensible.
Not leaf put of Dawkins book, it was actually written by Bertrand Russell.
I'm going to quote the whole analogy here for clarity:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time
The other people's evidence of which you speak I still have not seen.
I'd be happy to have a look at it if someone could present it to me, but I must add that I doubt someone will come with it.
The Vikings also had religious experiences, but strangely they did not involve god, Jesus or the holy ghost.
I do not have very many arguments to disprove the existence of god, that much is true.
Neither do I have evidence to once and for all debunk the myth of the Yeti or the fabled unicorn.
Such evidence is impossible to get a hold of, as I'm sure you understand.
The presumption is not that my ideas are sensible.
It's more the knowledge that what they claim is preposterous.
At least my "side" does not have to rely on indoctrination to keep going.
I'm not gonna bother going into details to reply to that because your basic argument is "I'm right because I think I am therefore I don't need to prove myself".
Why should I listen to him when he writes everything in the most off-putting way possible? When the man learns some tact, I'll listen. You don't pay attention to religious people that scram at you that you're going to hell, do you? I don't listen to people who crow that everything I know is wrong with a big smirk on their face.
I don't listen to religious leaders because there is no god, simple as that.
No amount of scare-tactics or screaming is going to change that, so there is no point in listening to them.
He doesn't say that everything you know is wrong, he just says that there is no god.
Hence, "everything I know is wrong". I don't think you understand how central the idea of God can be.
Anyways, fine. I don't listen to Dawkins because there is a God, simple as that. No amount of antagonistic musings from one incredibly narrow viewpoint will change that, so there is no point in listening to him.
(The WTF you felt when you read that is about identical to mine when I read your version. Deal with it.)
You're right, I don't understand how central the belief in god can be to a person.
I find the whole notion to be absurd to be honest, and I do have a very hard time fathoming how people can believe it.
I just don't get it.
Out of curiosity, where you raised as a christian or some in other religion?
EDIT:
That may have come of as too harsh, but I assure you it is in no way intended to be.
Just trying to explain.
Unfortunatly I was never an excellent writer or orator.
It's okay. You're still more tactful that 80% of this forum.
But I was raised a Christian. Don't try to bring indoctrination into it, as I had a period of thorough skepticism, and some of my views infuriate my parents (meaning it was one of the most botched indoctrinations ever).
Anyways, if you don't base your life around the concept of God, I can imagine it's really weird to try to imagine. Trust me, though, it's not as surreal and bizarre as it sounds.
He's an idiot. This isn't me being a butthurt Christian, but even in my current, objective and agnostic self I still think he's an idiot. He doesn't research properly what he's attacking and makes up things. Most arguments he gives are either wrong or irrelevant. But all his supporters eat it up like it's gospel (lol).
I think people who attack religion seem to have a complexion where they don't think they need to properly find out about religion because they presume what they think is sense and religion is nonsense, and so don't think they need to bother giving proper evidence.
fenrizz said:
I think he is pretty awesome.
I really wish more religious people would listen to him, but alas they hardly ever listen to rational arguments about faith anyway.
The thing is I cannot for the life of me understand why some people believe in fairy tales written some odd 2000 years ago.
Because an really old book says so?
Non-religious documents prove the existence of a man at the time who fits the description of Jesus. And by your logic we can't know for sure anything about the history of the world before our lifetime. Calling them "fairy tales" is pretty condescending and arrogant too.
That there is documents naming a Jesus does not prove that there is a god or that this Jesus was his son.
Maybe fairy tale is a bit condescending and arrogant, I'll give you that.
Does work of fiction work better?
Because that is what it is.
AnarchistFish said:
fenrizz said:
What is there to find out, as you claim we must?
As for this evidence you want I'll have to disappoint you, for there is no evidence against god and religion.
Research what it stands for?
What possible purpose would that serve?
It's irrelevant in an discussion of gods existence.
AnarchistFish said:
fenrizz said:
How can there be?
Just because you cannot prove without doubt that there is no 5231 year old teapot orbiting the sun outside Jupiter, does not mean that it is there.
Do you have any real evidence for the existence of god?
Using another leaf out of the Dawkins book? There'd be no purpose or reason for a teapot to be orbiting the sun.
People have had religious experiences and as I said, there is proof of Jesus existing. Whether he was the son of god or not is another question but why do you completely deny something may be true just because you don't think that other people's evidence, opinion or experience matters?
And why do you ask me anyway? I already said I'm not Christian.
But you pretty much admit that you haven't actually got an argument to fight the opposing side, and are just relying on propaganda fed to you and the presumption that what you say is sensible.
Not leaf put of Dawkins book, it was actually written by Bertrand Russell.
I'm going to quote the whole analogy here for clarity:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time
The other people's evidence of which you speak I still have not seen.
I'd be happy to have a look at it if someone could present it to me, but I must add that I doubt someone will come with it.
The Vikings also had religious experiences, but strangely they did not involve god, Jesus or the holy ghost.
I do not have very many arguments to disprove the existence of god, that much is true.
Neither do I have evidence to once and for all debunk the myth of the Yeti or the fabled unicorn.
Such evidence is impossible to get a hold of, as I'm sure you understand.
The presumption is not that my ideas are sensible.
It's more the knowledge that what they claim is preposterous.
At least my "side" does not have to rely on indoctrination to keep going.
I'm not gonna bother going into details to reply to that because your basic argument is "I'm right because I think I am therefore I don't need to prove myself".
He's an idiot. This isn't me being a butthurt Christian, but even in my current, objective and agnostic self I still think he's an idiot. He doesn't research properly what he's attacking and makes up things. Most arguments he gives are either wrong or irrelevant. But all his supporters eat it up like it's gospel (lol).
I think people who attack religion seem to have a complexion where they don't think they need to properly find out about religion because they presume what they think is sense and religion is nonsense, and so don't think they need to bother giving proper evidence.
fenrizz said:
I think he is pretty awesome.
I really wish more religious people would listen to him, but alas they hardly ever listen to rational arguments about faith anyway.
The thing is I cannot for the life of me understand why some people believe in fairy tales written some odd 2000 years ago.
Because an really old book says so?
What is there to find out, as you claim we must?
As for this evidence you want I'll have to disappoint you, for there is no evidence against god and religion.
How can there be?
Just because you cannot prove without doubt that there is no 5231 year old teapot orbiting the sun outside Jupiter, does not mean that it is there.
Do you have any real evidence for the existence of god?
The teapot thing? That's what we call a strawman argument. Which is kind of the point he was making about Dawkins not arguing well. As for what he is arguing, well it doesn't matter wether or not there is a God, but it does matter that some people believe in that.
This. That was an excellent book that is a great intro to genetics. He gets a pass from me. Especially since he attacks the bullshit that is "new age medicine" too.
He amuses me. He gave me the single most powerful argument against religion (I wish I would have thought of it, tis quite simple) which is 100% irrefutable.
He's an idiot. This isn't me being a butthurt Christian, but even in my current, objective and agnostic self I still think he's an idiot. He doesn't research properly what he's attacking and makes up things. Most arguments he gives are either wrong or irrelevant. But all his supporters eat it up like it's gospel (lol).
I think people who attack religion seem to have a complexion where they don't think they need to properly find out about religion because they presume what they think is sense and religion is nonsense, and so don't think they need to bother giving proper evidence.
fenrizz said:
I think he is pretty awesome.
I really wish more religious people would listen to him, but alas they hardly ever listen to rational arguments about faith anyway.
The thing is I cannot for the life of me understand why some people believe in fairy tales written some odd 2000 years ago.
Because an really old book says so?
Non-religious documents prove the existence of a man at the time who fits the description of Jesus. And by your logic we can't know for sure anything about the history of the world before our lifetime. Calling them "fairy tales" is pretty condescending and arrogant too.
That there is documents naming a Jesus does not prove that there is a god or that this Jesus was his son.
Maybe fairy tale is a bit condescending and arrogant, I'll give you that.
Does work of fiction work better?
Because that is what it is.
AnarchistFish said:
fenrizz said:
What is there to find out, as you claim we must?
As for this evidence you want I'll have to disappoint you, for there is no evidence against god and religion.
Research what it stands for?
What possible purpose would that serve?
It's irrelevant in an discussion of gods existence.
AnarchistFish said:
fenrizz said:
How can there be?
Just because you cannot prove without doubt that there is no 5231 year old teapot orbiting the sun outside Jupiter, does not mean that it is there.
Do you have any real evidence for the existence of god?
Using another leaf out of the Dawkins book? There'd be no purpose or reason for a teapot to be orbiting the sun.
People have had religious experiences and as I said, there is proof of Jesus existing. Whether he was the son of god or not is another question but why do you completely deny something may be true just because you don't think that other people's evidence, opinion or experience matters?
And why do you ask me anyway? I already said I'm not Christian.
But you pretty much admit that you haven't actually got an argument to fight the opposing side, and are just relying on propaganda fed to you and the presumption that what you say is sensible.
Not leaf put of Dawkins book, it was actually written by Bertrand Russell.
I'm going to quote the whole analogy here for clarity:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time
The other people's evidence of which you speak I still have not seen.
I'd be happy to have a look at it if someone could present it to me, but I must add that I doubt someone will come with it.
The Vikings also had religious experiences, but strangely they did not involve god, Jesus or the holy ghost.
I do not have very many arguments to disprove the existence of god, that much is true.
Neither do I have evidence to once and for all debunk the myth of the Yeti or the fabled unicorn.
Such evidence is impossible to get a hold of, as I'm sure you understand.
The presumption is not that my ideas are sensible.
It's more the knowledge that what they claim is preposterous.
At least my "side" does not have to rely on indoctrination to keep going.
I'm not gonna bother going into details to reply to that because your basic argument is "I'm right because I think I am therefore I don't need to prove myself".
I really need to read some of his works, apparently they're pretty good. All I really know is that he coined the use of the word meme in The Selfish Gene and defined it as information that is a mind virus, essentially.
A bit to dogmatic in my opinion. Yes, you don't believe the same as others and say you can disprove them, but if your only point in doing so is to prove them wrong and not to help them believe something new then you are just a big-shot asshole.
You're not listening. The fact is, there is some evidence which would suggest the possibility of a god which Dawkins ignores, and the arguments Dawkins makes in his books are badly made and generally inaccurate.
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
The Celestial Teapot was used to show that the burden of proof should be on the one making an extraordinary claim. You missed his point.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
