Yay, religion might be able to go from god fearing back to moral teaching.
I hope.
Do it in the name of rational thinking.
[QUOTE=General Omega;21288030]Yay, religion might be able to go from god fearing back to moral teaching.[/QUOTE]
the catholic church needs to take a lesson like this the most
[QUOTE=General Omega;21288030]Yay, religion might be able to go from god fearing back to moral teaching.[/QUOTE]
I thought religion went from god fearing to moral teaching :tinfoil:
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;21285809]He makes a lot of ad hominem attacks I suppose.[/QUOTE]
No he doesn't, dumb people falsely accuse him of doing it though when they don't really understand what an ad hominem attack is. He prides himself on NOT making ad hominem attacks. And if I hear 'ad hominem attack' once more I'm going to stab somebody.
They're both a bunch of retards if you ask me.
Hell yeah!!
Dawkins seems like a man you could easily dislike, but that doesn't make him wrong. In the end all he does is express his views in the exact same way any high profile Christian would do so.
No-one should be above the law, and I hope our justice system will do what no-one yet has dared to attempt.
Also, did you know he coined the word 'meme', awesome.
[QUOTE=Archy;21288065]the catholic church needs to take a lesson like this the most[/QUOTE]
And learn that the bible is not a history book, but just a simple moral guideline.
and to get drunk like hell and learn that words are words. I am sick of religious people yelling at me for cussin.
bring back john paul II he was a pretty cool frood
I made this 4 the pope <3
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcZHQK-hBhc[/media]
[QUOTE=General Omega;21288121]And learn that the bible is not a history book, but just a simple moral guideline.[/QUOTE]
i would disagree with you, but i don't want to spark another religious debate
[QUOTE=General Omega;21288121]And learn that the bible is not a history book, but just a simple moral guideline.[/QUOTE]
It's more than a moral guideline, but it's an awful one anyway
I like where this is going :munch:
I agree he should be arrested, but I don't think that was the intention of Dawkins. As others have pointed out, if that was the case, they wouldn't have made it so public. The point is that they HAVE made it public, which to me would suggest that they want the pope to know. I think that the greatest victory they could achieve would be getting the pope not to come to England, because that implies guilt. If they can ensure that they'll be able to arrest him, it is a win-win situation. If he comes, he is arrested. If he doesn't, he loses all credibility. The only problem is if he comes and nothing happens. Though perhaps the controversy and publicity itself has some positive merits...
Also, to all you who say he's just as bad as the fanatics - you're missing the point. It's not that atheists like Dawkins object to strong beliefs. It's that they object to [i]irrational[/i] beliefs held strongly. By your logic we should all be apathetic and mild. It's not about who shoves their beliefs the hardest down your throats. It is about how justified they are in doing it. If I force you to move out of the way, it's fine if I'm a paramedic trying to get to someone injured, it's not if I'm just late for work. I've done the same thing (and it is equally unpleasant) but in one case it is justified and in the other it isn't. Likewise, in the defence of science, which has done more for humanity than any other idea EVER, Dawkins is more justified than the fanatic who defends religion, in order to perpetrate essentially irrational acts.
[QUOTE=Archy;21287866]if you're going to get on about the medieval ages here, i should probably tell you right here that they were pretty screwed up back then (forks were scandalous for some reason)
society was different, and for the most part pretty weird, so all kinds of things that are considered atrocities now were a-okay back then
[editline]11:43AM[/editline]
and btw, most of the time scandalous shit meant hanging, so think of that too[/QUOTE]
I know, I'm just saying the popes have never been the best people in the world.
The Catholic Church never said anything against the nazis either btw.
[QUOTE=P13 B01;21288438]I agree he should be arrested, but I don't think that was the intention of Dawkins. As others have pointed out, if that was the case, they wouldn't have made it so public. The point is that they HAVE made it public, which to me would suggest that they want the pope to know. I think that the greatest victory they could achieve would be getting the pope not to come to England, because that implies guilt. If they can ensure that they'll be able to arrest him, it is a win-win situation. If he comes, he is arrested. If he doesn't, he loses all credibility. The only problem is if he comes and nothing happens. Though perhaps the controversy and publicity itself has some positive merits...
Also, to all you who say he's just as bad as the fanatics - you're missing the point. It's not that atheists like Dawkins object to strong beliefs. It's that they object to [i]irrational[/i] beliefs held strongly. By your logic we should all be apathetic and mild. It's not about who shoves their beliefs the hardest down your throats. It is about how justified they are in doing it. If I force you to move out of the way, it's fine if I'm a paramedic trying to get to someone injured, it's not if I'm just late for work. I've done the same thing (and it is equally unpleasant) but in one case it is justified and in the other it isn't. Likewise, in the defence of science, which has done more for humanity than any other idea EVER, Dawkins is more justified than the fanatic who defends religion, in order to perpetrate essentially irrational acts.[/QUOTE]
That was an absolutely amazing post.
Seriously. Great assessment of the situation
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21282790]Richard Dawkins raging[/QUOTE]
Dawkins is one of those hilarious atheists that is against religion being everywhere up in his face, yet parades around his lack of religion and does roughly the same thing his opponents do.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21288051]I hope.
Do it in the name of rational thinking.[/QUOTE]
Because men would like to think their great, great, great, great grandfather crawled out of a slime pit spawned by random chance rather than be responsible to a higher power.
[QUOTE=P13 B01;21288438]I agree he should be arrested, but I don't think that was the intention of Dawkins. As others have pointed out, if that was the case, they wouldn't have made it so public. The point is that they HAVE made it public, which to me would suggest that they want the pope to know. I think that the greatest victory they could achieve would be getting the pope not to come to England, because that implies guilt. If they can ensure that they'll be able to arrest him, it is a win-win situation. If he comes, he is arrested. If he doesn't, he loses all credibility. The only problem is if he comes and nothing happens. Though perhaps the controversy and publicity itself has some positive merits...
Also, to all you who say he's just as bad as the fanatics - you're missing the point. It's not that atheists like Dawkins object to strong beliefs. It's that they object to [i]irrational[/i] beliefs held strongly. By your logic we should all be apathetic and mild. It's not about who shoves their beliefs the hardest down your throats. It is about how justified they are in doing it. If I force you to move out of the way, it's fine if I'm a paramedic trying to get to someone injured, it's not if I'm just late for work. I've done the same thing (and it is equally unpleasant) but in one case it is justified and in the other it isn't. Likewise, in the defence of science, which has done more for humanity than any other idea EVER, Dawkins is more justified than the fanatic who defends religion, in order to perpetrate essentially irrational acts.[/QUOTE]
That was beautiful.
[QUOTE=General Omega;21288030]Yay, religion might be able to go from god fearing back to moral teaching.[/QUOTE]
Teaching good morals like saying "Love me or I will fucking torture you for eternity" is cool, blind faith is good, authorities are always right and you should not think for yourself and your life doesn't matter, you're going to heaven anyways (which is probably not true).
[editline]04:18PM[/editline]
And that's just the New Testament.
Only taken 500 years to finish the job.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;21288554]Dawkins is one of those hilarious atheists that is against religion being everywhere up in his face, yet parades around his lack of religion and does roughly the same thing his opponents do.
Because men would like to think their great, great, great, great grandfather crawled out of a slime pit spawned by random chance rather than be responsible to a higher power.[/QUOTE]
Dawkins is not against religion being in his face, he's against religion being false and bad for us.
I do not care where my ancestor came from, or how life started, but evidence points toward evolution.
It is not because I fear being punished that I do good, but because it is the right thing to do. You're just doing it to go to heaven, which is quite selfish.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;21288566]Teaching good morals like saying "Love me or I will fucking torture you for eternity" is cool, blind faith is good, authorities are always right and you should not think for yourself and your life doesn't matter, you're going to heaven anyways (which is probably not true).
[editline]04:18PM[/editline]
And that's just the New Testament.[/QUOTE]
show me the verses you got that from
[QUOTE=sp00ks;21288566]Teaching good morals like saying "Love me or I will fucking torture you for eternity" is cool, blind faith is good, authorities are always right and you should not think for yourself and your life doesn't matter, you're going to heaven anyways (which is probably not true).
[editline]04:18PM[/editline]
And that's just the New Testament.[/QUOTE]
And that god is the greatest/nicest entity, though he apparently killed everyone on earth with a flood.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;21288554]Dawkins is one of those hilarious atheists that is against religion being everywhere up in his face, yet parades around his lack of religion and does roughly the same thing his opponents do.
[b]Because men would like to think their great, great, great, great grandfather crawled out of a slime pit spawned by random chance rather than be responsible to a higher power.[/b][/QUOTE]
What is nice to believe is completely irrelevant to the truth. You realize this right?
[editline]12:25PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=General Omega;21288030]Yay, religion might be able to go from god fearing back to moral teaching.[/QUOTE]
The Bible makes for a terrible moral guide, what with justifying slavery and selling your daughter... Seriously. Religion and their books are dumb. If you want a moral guide, read a law book.
I want Dawkins to succeeded, but I know that the pope will be pardoned.
[QUOTE=Archy;21288661]show me the verses you got that from[/QUOTE]
It is not a specific verse, but the general idea behind it. There is no proof to back up the stories from the Bible, we are supposed to trust it because Jesus said we should.
[QUOTE=Faren;21285679]How on Earth is he a stuck up prick?
[editline]11:00PM[/editline]
You're just saying that because he uses words that you don't understand.
[editline]11:00PM[/editline]
And because he is British.[/QUOTE]
It has come to my attention that in discussing the subject upon whence we wish to create thought-provoking conversations, that you think it incredulous that one such as I could be both British, and an intellectual man. I find such a grievous and unfounded predisposition to be prepossessing with regards to how disingenuously you assert your opinions onto my own, with reckless abandon for the overbearing fact that you know little to nothing about my own personal background other than the opinions which you assume are synonymous with an unintelligent foreigner. Such an outlook is deeply offensive to myself, and reflects equally back on your own lack of forethought.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;21288730]It is not a specific verse, but the general idea behind it. There is no proof to back up the stories from the Bible, we are supposed to trust it because Jesus said we should.[/QUOTE]
well, you said that the new testament said that stuff, which verses did you get your ideas from?
[QUOTE=Archy;21287765]for shame, who thought that a pope could screw up so badly[/QUOTE]
See: 1300-1600AD, The Crusades, every Inquisition, and the Protestant Reformation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.