• Richard Dawkins' Speech at Protest the Pope March
    170 replies, posted
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;24960918]Being atheist doesn't automatically make you smart. Religion and science are two completely different things and should be treated as such.[/QUOTE] Although some people would like to unite religion and science, or at least find common ground, it's impossible to believe in the fundamentalist religious ideas that the Pope stands for and be rational. Even by being a "Liberal Christian" and not believing in stuff like original sin, creationism etc you're going to have to reject rationalism. It's possible to be agnostic and completely rational, but in practice the difference between agnostic and atheist is trivial. In which case even Richard Dawkins is technically agnostic and has said so himself (something like 'agnostic, but atheist in practice'.)
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;24961046]Right about what? Science is for proving things, religion's purpose is for faith, not fact.[/QUOTE] Yet so much of what they believe contradicts with scientific fact.
Mesmerizing is a word for Richard Dawkins and a microphone.
I am so glad that i weren't raised in the family devoted to god. Neither i am living close to a community that does. The idea of belief is very good though. - don't jump into conclusions let me explain. If you are a good person, act by the law, all is fine. you really don't need to think something more for yourself. Although it seems to be trendy in America (more rare in other country'es) to do it anyways. But if you are a bad person convicted criminal, mass murderer or in the popes case a pedophile, and you are not believed by anyone, everyone looks down upon you. IT'S SO EASY TO IMAGINE THAT SOMEONE STILL CARES OF YOUR PATHETIC LIFE. "i may have done a massive genocide, but god still loves me, whatever i may have done, he has to." The person has he's relief of that, and goes to do those evil deeds again. [QUOTE] "Being atheist doesn't automatically make you smart." [/QUOOTE] It makes you smart enough to face the difficulties of life as they are, not as an magical fairyland. - Smarter than believers - but noone is SMART. just smarter than others.
Why is this thread stickied?
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;24961046]Right about what? Science is for proving things, religion's purpose is for faith, not fact.[/QUOTE] The world cannot be both 4 billion years old and 4 thousand years old
[QUOTE=AlphaGunman;24961562]Why is this thread stickied?[/QUOTE] Cause the head of an organization that protects rapists is in England and he isn't being arrested.
Good that this is stickied, I enjoyed listening to this! Everything is so true.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;24961645]Cause the head of an organization that protects rapists is in England and he isn't being arrested.[/QUOTE] And it is also a state visit, meaning the UK government is basically recognising the autocratic government of a sovereign state.
Good sticky this. The video proves so many good points.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;24961046]Right about what? Science is for proving things, religion's purpose is for faith, not fact.[/QUOTE] I think telling people that condoms don't help against aids isn't exactly for the purpose of faith. I think it's trying to force false facts on people.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;24960918][B]Being atheist doesn't automatically make you smart.[/B][/QUOTE] I didn't say it did. When 'scientific' is mentioned, it doesn't mean 'smart' it means 'scientific'. And how would you define smart. One would think that simply denying the proof-less ideology of religion gives you a sliver of intelligence.
Religion is stupid. And it seems to me that Atheism is becoming more of a fad then simply not believing in any afterlife. "What club are you in?" The Athiest response should be "I'm not in a club." But it seems to have changed to: "IN A CLUB THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE YOUR SHIT." Guy made some extremely valid points, and the Church has been defined as mentally handicapped by any intelligent person for ages, but I find the fact that some people are turning Atheism into a religion without the scripture disturbing.
Both sides are as childish as each other.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;24961046]Right about what? Science is for proving things, religion's purpose is for faith, not fact.[/QUOTE] But more frequently science is explaining and clashing with what religion has to say about the world. [editline]07:15PM[/editline] [QUOTE=DTkach;24962123]Religion is stupid. And it seems to me that Atheism is becoming more of a fad then simply not believing in any afterlife. "What club are you in?" The Athiest response should be "I'm not in a club." But it seems to have changed to: "IN A CLUB THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE YOUR SHIT." Guy made some extremely valid points, and the Church has been defined as mentally handicapped by any intelligent person for ages, but I find the fact that some people are turning Atheism into a religion without the scripture disturbing.[/QUOTE] The atheist 'club' and being atheist are two different things - Being atheist is the lake of belief in a deity and the club is a side affect of people who wish to voice their views sticking together with people who share similar views.
atheism is now a religion without scripture yes, and im now living in my own country, which has no land, money, or government
[QUOTE=DTkach;24962123]Religion is stupid. And it seems to me that Atheism is becoming more of a fad then simply [B]not believing in any afterlife.[/B] "What club are you in?" The Athiest response should be "I'm not in a club." But it seems to have changed to: "IN A CLUB THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE YOUR SHIT." Guy made some extremely valid points, and the Church has been defined as mentally handicapped by any intelligent person for ages, but I find the fact that some people are turning Atheism into a religion without the scripture disturbing.[/QUOTE] That is not the definition for Atheism.
Love this motherfucker
At 35 seconds the hand sign chick does a sexy eye brow raise [editline]06:44PM[/editline] Dawkins is a truly smart man, however I think that this whole debate is pointless. If the relgious want to be relgious, let them. You don't need to force your beleifs upon them. In a way its extremly hypocritical of the ateists partys. You attack relgion for 'Forcing their way upon others' while you do the same. [editline]06:49PM[/editline] [QUOTE=MachiniOs;24962130]Both sides are as childish as each other.[/QUOTE] This so much
I'm going to see a lecture by him! (among others - including Brian Cox) The church is pretty burned by guys like Dawkins.
I'm not an atheist. But I love this man. [editline]08:56PM[/editline] Not in a gay way.
I don't really understand why so many people take this seriously. I'm a Catholic, and do I give a shit? No. I have to admit though the current pope is a nut. Doesn't deserve a sticky either.
[QUOTE=famasfanalt;24962761][editline]06:49PM[/editline] This so much [/quote] Not really. [QUOTE=famasfanalt;24962761] Dawkins is a truly smart man, however I think that this whole debate is pointless. If the relgious want to be relgious, let them. You don't need to force your beleifs upon them. In a way its extremly hypocritical of the ateists partys. You attack relgion for 'Forcing their way upon others' while you do the same. [/QUOTE] It's not so much a debate as it is two sides trying to get as many people as they can to see 'their truth.' I had trouble wording that so pardon if it sounds more like a violent land grab than it should. The way Dawkins sees it is that the Catholic Church as a whole is a net destructive force on humanity. The way Benedict (think that's his papal name, I don't remember) sees it is that outspoken atheists/agnosts are the corrupting force of Satan, and that science is a corrupting influence. I can't speak for either of them, but I can imagine that they're just acting on their want to help humanity as a whole. This would explain the whole 'buggering boys' fiasco, as if Catholicism is seen as a church of child molesters and rapists, nobody would convert and thus, as Benedict would see it, they would go to hell. The problem is, the Vatican is self-ruled. The laws of the Vatican, as I understand, are "if you repent your sins you'll be forgiven" which can be seen as an excuse to do whatever you want and perform 12 Hail Marys when you get caught.
[QUOTE=redBadger;24963185]I'm a Catholic, and do I give a shit? No. I have to admit though the current pope is a nut.[/QUOTE] I dropped out of the Catholic Church after two things: 1) Realizing the Bible contains some nice and kind teachings, mostly from the Gospels, aka "The Adventures of Cosmic Hippie", but otherwise is dripping with nonsensical bullshit. 2)Hearing a speech or two from Ratzinger. Damn, dude's an ass.
[QUOTE=thisispain;24955905]i don't mean to kill the mood, but isn't he basically doing the exact same thing the pope did?[/QUOTE] No, Dawkins is using actual FACTS not unsupported statements like the Pope.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;24963267]I dropped out of the Catholic Church after two things: 1) Realizing the Bible contains some nice and kind teachings, mostly from the Gospels, aka "The Adventures of Cosmic Hippie", but otherwise is dripping with nonsensical bullshit. 2)Hearing a speech or two from Ratzinger. Damn, dude's an ass.[/QUOTE] Agreed on both counts, particularly the first. I agree with many of the morals being conveyed in the bible, but I don't see how billions of humans are confusing that with a fucking documentary.
[QUOTE=DTkach;24962123]"What club are you in?" The Athiest response should be "I'm not in a club." But it seems to have changed to: "IN A CLUB THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE YOUR SHIT."[/QUOTE] No. There are differences amongst atheists. You know, there are no dogmas in atheism (more than not believing in god, but thats more of a definition), so saying "The Atheist response should be" is rather stupid. So. There are atheists who respect religion (you seem to be one). Atheists who hate theists and continues to call every theist a retard (retards). And the "Richard Dawkins type" as I call it: Extremely critical of religion as they view it as a (example) outdated superstition that is, when being more than a private "hobby", incompatible with modern society, but still aim the death ray of reason towards religion itself, and are often polite when they do it (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, PZ Myers et cetera). I am more of the "Richard Dawkins" type.
[QUOTE=RayDark;24962053]I didn't say it did. When 'scientific' is mentioned, it doesn't mean 'smart' it means 'scientific'. And how would you define smart. One would think that simply denying the proof-less ideology of religion gives you a sliver of intelligence.[/QUOTE] The thing is, most Atheists tend to be so because they are intelligent. It's scientific curiosity (or logic) that results in Atheism, so it's pretty clear that most Atheists, on the whole, generally tend to be smarter.
[QUOTE=Herr Sven;24963325]No. There are differences amongst atheists. You know, there are no dogmas in atheism (more than not believing in god, but thats more of a definition), so saying "The Atheist response should be" is rather stupid. So. There are atheists who respect religion (you seem to be one). Atheists who hate theists and continues to call every theist a retard (retards). And the "Richard Dawkins type" as I call it: Extremely critical of religion as they view it as a (example) outdated superstition that is, when being more than a private "hobby", incompatible with modern society, but still aim the death ray of reason towards religion itself, and are often polite when they do it (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, PZ Myers et cetera). I am more of the "Richard Dawkins" type.[/QUOTE] You don't have to disrespect religion to be technician of reasonable death in ray form. Attacking a religion isn't the same as attacking an institute based on religion (the Vatican). Religion is an archaic viewpoint that could probably be described as a science spawned out of fear of the unknown instead of curiosity and lust for knowledge, and it's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just outdated.
[QUOTE=amcwatters;24955729]The five devout nondenominational Christians in all of Facepunch are thinking both sides are corrupt as they watch this video.[/QUOTE] Corrupt no, retarded, disrespectful and hateful towards each-other for no good reason yes
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.