• Richard Dawkins' Speech at Protest the Pope March
    170 replies, posted
[QUOTE=famasfanalt;24962761]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] This so much[/QUOTE] There's this terrible idea that atheists attack religion because they feel like being dicks, or just to convert people. Sure there's some atheists that like to be dicks, but I've seen my fair share of religious dicks too. What Dawkins and people like him are doing is attacking religion for certain ideas that they see as harmful to humanity, and more generally are against belief without evidence, which is the root of most of these harmful ideas. For example, the Pope being against the use of condoms in Africa, which you cannot deny will lead to countless deaths. The hostility the pope has towards science, a method that is behind the entirety of our modern civilization, from all modern medicine to the development of the computers we're all using. The belief that faith and prayer can cure you of an illness when there's isn't a single shred of reliable evidence this has ever happened. Dawkins and atheist groups may attack more fundamental aspects of religion but that's because they are the root of these irrational, damaging ideas.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;24962387]atheism is now a religion without scripture yes, and im now living in my own country, which has no land, money, or government[/QUOTE] I think atheists are just banding together because we (society) are finally at a stage where people are realizing that there's a lot of other atheists and scientifically minded people, and that religious institutions have been doing a lot of really bad stuff. I see nothing wrong with public outcry against the church, I might even go so far as to say it's a good thing.
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;24963212]Not really. 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] I see your point and I do belive that the pope needs to take stronger action. I, as an agnostic, am quite confused as to why the pope felt the need to say such a horrible thing. Dawkins did make a point on the hitler topic. I do think however that both parties should give it a rest. My family, being Irish, mainly consist of catholics and I find it easy to cope with their feelings. While a purely inteligent debate is healthy I think the parties need to calm down. With the vatican being self ruled, I find that, for lack of a better term, stupid. Never should relgious parties be involved in the running of any system of goverment. We all know how good a job other countries did when they ruled by a monarchy.
[QUOTE=famasfanalt;24962761]At 35 seconds the hand sign chick does a sexy eye brow raise [editline]06:44PM[/editline] [B] 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.[/B] [editline]06:49PM[/editline] This so much[/QUOTE] Well, if you look at the millions of children forcefully indoctrinated into false beliefs, it really says something about this situation.
[QUOTE=petieng;24963487]There's this terrible idea that atheists attack religion because they feel like being dicks, or just to convert people. Sure there's some atheists that like to be dicks, but I've seen my fair share of religious dicks too. What Dawkins and people like him are doing is attacking religion for certain ideas that they see as harmful to humanity, and more generally are against belief without evidence, which is the root of most of these harmful ideas. For example, the Pope being against the use of condoms in Africa, which you cannot deny will lead to countless deaths. The hostility the pope has towards science, a method that is behind the entirety of our modern civilization, from all modern medicine to the development of the computers we're all using. The belief that faith and prayer can cure you of an illness when there's isn't a single shred of reliable evidence this has ever happened. Dawkins and atheist groups may attack more fundamental aspects of religion but that's because they are the root of these irrational, damaging ideas.[/QUOTE] Did you ever play RDR? If so you'll remember that chick in the desert who refuses to recive help because 'the lord will save her' [editline]07:30PM[/editline] One good thing about this whole debate is the arguments that it provides! [editline]07:31PM[/editline] Or more a colabartaion of ideas
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;24963423]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] My good sir, I respected religion for a good while. Then I saw what religion had done from a historical point of view, and thought "Oh well, history is behind us, we should look forwards". And then I saw what religion do nowadays, and saw that the problem wasn't the individual institutions, the problem was the superstition which they leaned on, the belief that made these fucked up things acceptable. That belief was, of course, religion. So no, I don't HAVE to disrespect religion, and I have nothing against private individuals religiosity (if they keep it more as a hobby). Although I see no reason to respect it as a phenomena. It does, in my eyes, more harm than good. It's outdated. Terrorist attacks like 9/11 and 7/7 proves that religious fanaticism still is a very dangerous phenomena. It hinders scientific progress while trying to cover behind the NOMA principle (Protip: Eighter God exists or it doesn't. NOMA is a pile of bollocks). And as a little bonus, both the religions and people who respect religion view you as a bad person for throwing a wee bit of criticism towards it. Religion is, in my opinion, incompatible with modern society, and I don't respect it whatsoever. Although I'm still polite.
The man above me is very wise. I must save what you have said into notepad!
I believe these are from the same event: [url]http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-funniest-pope-protest-signs[/url] My personal favourite: [img]http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/9/19/22/enhanced-buzz-23250-1284949397-0.jpg[/img]
Oh god thats good!
Holy shit. Richard Dawkins is my hero.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;24961046]Right about what? Science is for proving things, religion's purpose is for faith, not fact.[/QUOTE] No, science is for understanding the universe. Religion is the pretence of understanding, with a little wishful thinking and false hope thrown in too.
The catholic church and the Vatican city are the crumbled remains of a once great empire that will be nothing but a chapter in some history books in a few decades.
[QUOTE=redBadger;24963185]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] pft raped children who give a fuck i smoke weed erry day dont give a FUCK
The pope looks really evil in this one: [IMG]http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/9/19/22/enhanced-buzz-23247-1284949053-0.jpg[/IMG] Reminds me of that one point in the first Lord of the Rings movie where the young hobbit tries to take the ring from the old one and the old one gets that really evil look on his face.
I, being Theistic, even support this. It's about time someone tried to put an end to this molestation bullshit. The Pope's giving all religions a bad name.
This is the first time ever hearing from Richard Dawkins and I have to say, I'm impressed. He sounds like a very poetic man with much charisma.
Hahaha, this is like watching two children fight over whose daddy's the stronger one. Two obnoxious children without whom the world would be a better place, to be more exact. [editline]08:37PM[/editline] Well, maybe not better, but without a doubt much less annoying. And why the fuck is this stickied?
Richard Dawkins has to be one of my favorite people alive right now.
Amazing.
[QUOTE=Deep Fried Baby;24964969] And why the fuck is this stickied?[/QUOTE] Because Richard Dawkins is fucking cool.
That was great. I agree with this wise man. I personally despise religion, a lot.
[QUOTE=Herr Sven;24963641]My good sir, I respected religion for a good while. Then I saw what religion had done from a historical point of view, and thought "Oh well, history is behind us, we should look forwards". And then I saw what religion do nowadays, and saw that the problem wasn't the individual institutions, the problem was the superstition which they leaned on, the belief that made these fucked up things acceptable. That belief was, of course, religion. So no, I don't HAVE to disrespect religion, and I have nothing against private individuals religiosity (if they keep it more as a hobby). Although I see no reason to respect it as a phenomena. It does, in my eyes, more harm than good. It's outdated. Terrorist attacks like 9/11 and 7/7 proves that religious fanaticism still is a very dangerous phenomena. It hinders scientific progress while trying to cover behind the NOMA principle (Protip: Eighter God exists or it doesn't. NOMA is a pile of bollocks). And as a little bonus, both the religions and people who respect religion view you as a bad person for throwing a wee bit of criticism towards it. Religion is, in my opinion, incompatible with modern society, and I don't respect it whatsoever. Although I'm still polite.[/QUOTE] Oh wow, someone who thinks exactly as me. I respect someone's faith, but I don't think orginized religion will fit in the future society to come.
[QUOTE=RayDark;24962444]That is not the definition for Atheism.[/QUOTE] Ahem. [quote] [B]Definition of [I]ATHEISM[/I][/B] 1 [I]archaic[/I] [B]:[/B] [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ungodliness"]ungodliness[/URL], [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wickedness"]wickedness[/URL] 2 [I]a[/I] [B]:[/B] a disbelief in the existence of deity [I]b[/I] [B]:[/B] the doctrine that there is no deity[/quote]Essentially that. Wasn't a big part of my argument anyway... [QUOTE=Kingy_who;24962271]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.[/QUOTE] Its still stupid. You can't hate fanatical religions while being fanatical in the fanatical hate. Why can't everyone just keep their ideals to themselves? :smith:
[QUOTE=DTkach;24966846] Its still stupid. You can't hate fanatical religions while being fanatical in the fanatical hate. Why can't everyone just keep their ideals to themselves? :smith:[/QUOTE] Because humans naturally are boastful, proud things. We always have to assert ourselves as being right over another, and no one else does it better than Atheists and Theists. Atheists: "durr u is stoopid religion d00d :hurr:" Theists: "durr u is stoopid atheist d00d :hurr:" is basically what the arguments boil down to or start as. Unfortunately, many go from immature to radical, which is the major problem. Atheists: "All religions and their followers must die." Theists: "All Atheists must die."
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;24967298] Atheists: "durr u is stoopid religion d00d :hurr:" [/QUOTE] implying that all religions are theistic
[QUOTE=Doriol;24967510]implying that all religions are theistic[/QUOTE] About 75% of the Atheists I've seen believe that.
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;24967298]Atheists: "All religions and their followers must die."[/QUOTE] Weee! Someone seems to have missed the point of my first rant. Not all atheists are like that. Actually, that is a minority. See my second rant for my opinion...
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;24967554]About 75% of the Atheists I've seen believe that.[/QUOTE] then 75% of self-proclaimed atheists are idiots
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;24967554]About 75% of the Atheists I've seen believe that.[/QUOTE] Where was this poll made?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;24968786]Where was this poll made?[/QUOTE] It's probably another meaning for "majority".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.