Effort died a long time ago...

MSPaint is a bitch.

From the Wrong Man For The Job challenge. See all 405 entries (closed)

( Watney Heckbulb uhnnnnnnnn has a PhD now! Woo!, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 22:52, archived)

I'm going to give this a click.

( ClanSoul http://www.clansoul.com/community/, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 22:53, archived)

^.

( Caewan SIDEWAYS ICECREAMS YOU <3, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 22:54, archived)

As with Psych <edit>and Caewan <end edit>above, I am gonna give this a click.
I'll be honest with you, I dont even know how you can manage seams like that without trying to :)

Woot!
( Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Ph.D., Thu 24 Jan 2008, 22:55, archived)

:)

( ClanSoul http://www.clansoul.com/community/, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:01, archived)

small joy

( Watney Heckbulb uhnnnnnnnn has a PhD now! Woo!, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:02, archived)

Small is all I can manage

( ClanSoul http://www.clansoul.com/community/, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:04, archived)

well I like it

( Bloop wasn't here on, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 22:53, archived)

Looks fine when I take my spex off.
And subtle, like my post below.
( Sea Tramp rattled David Cameron with Shakira wolf ringtone, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 22:53, archived)

Ah I see you are using Wengers prescription :)

( Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Ph.D., Thu 24 Jan 2008, 22:56, archived)

I did not see it.

( Sea Tramp rattled David Cameron with Shakira wolf ringtone, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:10, archived)

1337 sk1llz0rZ!

( mediocre *canned laughter*, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 22:54, archived)

WINNER!
this actually made me giggle :D
( McBadger Look over there, it's a Ferrari, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 22:57, archived)

This is fantastic.
Of course, Dawkins is a cock.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 22:57, archived)

He can talk some sense, but he can also be extremely one sided

( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 22:59, archived)

well you don't really look to him to prove the existence of god do you?
it would really be like the pope delivering a speech on the virtues of atheism.

i've been quite the fan of his since I read the selfish gene, its mostly his use of english i really enjoy.

...and the atheist fundementalism. i like that to.
( Tom O'Bedlam Fuck Boom Rapist, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:01, archived)

Anyone that thinks fundamentalism in any form is a good thing is a fucking retard.

( gronkpan, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:02, archived)

whoa... i wasn't using the word seriously.
i don't know if you're directing that at me but thats not how i meant it.
( Tom O'Bedlam Fuck Boom Rapist, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:05, archived)

Serious or not, Dawkins is as Fundie as the bigots he tries to denounce.
He's a frothing zealot like the rest of them
( gronkpan, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:07, archived)

Hes a professor
and thereby zealous.
( Watney Heckbulb uhnnnnnnnn has a PhD now! Woo!, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:09, archived)

well perhaps...
but i'd rather a humanist fundementalist who doesn't believe in an afterlife than a religious one. i'd massively prefer a world where i don't have to worry about being blown up.
( Tom O'Bedlam Fuck Boom Rapist, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:10, archived)

Why would you not have to worry about being blown up?
Would all humans be eradicated in this world you speak of?

That's the only way your chances of being blown up would be reduced.

Well, that or all explosives being eradicated.
( gronkpan, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:12, archived)

gosh yeah...
because the odds of me getting blown up in london by non-religous forces are fucking high aren't they?
( Tom O'Bedlam Fuck Boom Rapist, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:16, archived)

Conflict can be caused by things other than religion, you know

( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:17, archived)

no dispute there
and i not saying religion is at the root of all suffering at all. i think where i was going with this was that atheist fundementalism (if thats what we're going to call it) is not comparable to other zealotry.
( Tom O'Bedlam Fuck Boom Rapist, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:19, archived)

That depends on whether you're going to make a judgement about people based on what they believe

( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:23, archived)

This is illegal now if you do it in public
although it's officially enshrined in law that we can mock, abuse, criticise and express hatred for a religion; just not members of the religion.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:26, archived)

It's like
not-believing-in-pixies fundamentalism. I rabidly, evangelically don't believe in pixies either.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:24, archived)

^this

( Tom O'Bedlam Fuck Boom Rapist, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:27, archived)

This motivation for atheism is a bit sad, I think,
and something of a scapegoat. People can still be insanely dogmatic and explosive without being religious. My motivation for atheism is irritation at virulent lies. It's not expedience or the desire to preserve lives. I'd still be an atheist if it killed people.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:19, archived)

this isn't a motivation for atheism
its a discussion about bigotry and fundamentalism.
( Tom O'Bedlam Fuck Boom Rapist, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:26, archived)

Well, I often see people say "I'm an atheist because religion starts wars".
That just strikes me as lame, is all.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:32, archived)

i wholeheartedly agree
my atheism is rooted in science. the only god i could believe in is a deist god like Epicurus'.
( Tom O'Bedlam Fuck Boom Rapist, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:38, archived)

I don't see anything inconsistant about belief in a hands-off creator God and Science

( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:41, archived)

Dawkins says the same thing in The God Delusion, as you possibly know.

(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:01, archived)

Most Muslims prefer Islamic fundamentalists to other kinds.
I guess that is part of bigotry.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:21, archived)

Atheism is not a faith
because it's up to a person who says a thing exists to provide evidence for it, not the person who says it doesn't to provide evidence that it doesn't. If the claim that it doesn't exist is outrageous, that can only be because there is some evidence to the contrary; a lack of evidence for the non-existence of something is no reason to believe in it.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:15, archived)

^this

( Tom O'Bedlam Fuck Boom Rapist, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:17, archived)

By the same logic,
A lack of evidence that there is a God is no reason not to believe in one.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:25, archived)

if this were a court
if there were no evidence of guilt we would presume innocence but if there were no proof of guilt or innocence we would still presume innocence.
( Tom O'Bedlam Fuck Boom Rapist, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:31, archived)

We can't apply legal convention to this kind of argument

( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:33, archived)

i'm not refering to legal convention
i'm refering to human instinct. in everything accept religion we require evidence to confirm the existence of something other than what is obvious.
( Tom O'Bedlam Fuck Boom Rapist, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:35, archived)

There are many people who think it's obvious that a God exists.

( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:38, archived)

thats a fair point.
i want to continue this but i have a 9am exam tomorrow on Creation to Revelation: the narrative of the bible and i should probably get some sleep in.

night all
( Tom O'Bedlam Fuck Boom Rapist, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:40, archived)

Fair enough.
I'm really only arguing for the sake of it, my philosophers urge.
Goodnight
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:42, archived)

By this standard,
since there is no proof that there is no God, we would assume that there is a God, but if there is no proof that there is no God and no proof that there is a God we would still assume that there is a God?

I don't support that argument at all.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:55, archived)

If I am not asking you to become a Muslim
then i have no requirement to prove that there is a God.

Dawkins is asking me to accept that there is no God. If he wants me to do that then he needs to provide evidence that there is no God.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:24, archived)

I'm inclined to think that you didn't actually read what I wrote.
Or have a blind spot for the idea that you don't have to demonstrate (let's leave "proof" out of this) that a thing doesn't exist, in the absence of evidence that it does. If reasoning did work that way, you would believe by default in the existence of everything imaginable, and only be able to understand the world by painstakingly thinning down the infinite ranks of absurd imaginary things one at a time until you get to those few things that actually do exist.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:30, archived)

No, using his logic you would be agnostic about everything until evidence swung you one way or the other.

( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:32, archived)

Sorry, whose logic do you mean, Pedantichrist or Dawkins?

(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:33, archived)

Pedantichrist's.
Unless I've misunderstood him.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:34, archived)

Right. OK.
Let's consider, I don't know, some random thing you (or he) don't believe in. Sentient trees, say. (Please don't say you believe in these, or I'll have to come up with something else.) What is the evidence that you claim you required before you stopped being agnostic about their non-existence and were actually convinced?

I think the problem in debates about atheism is usually epistemology, specifically a failure to grasp objectivism. That's why I complained about the use of the word "proof" earlier. We need the common ground of the idea of edging slowly towards a distant, unknowable objective truth, rather than the idea of anything being finally "proven" or anybody ever being completely convinced. I suspect Manley here is objecting to the straw man of a Dawkins who wants to secure your final, permanent conviction that God doesn't exist, but of course we never have that about anything, and proof is just a figure of speech, and in a manner of speaking yes we are always agnostics about everything - even after there is evidence.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:40, archived)

I'm merely standing up for the Scientists view that nothing is ever certain.
It's good scientific practise to have no preconceptions about anything until you have some evidence.
Much as I'm not arguing there is any evidence for the existence of God, I've studied a few arguments for it and they've all been awful,
but there is no way you can say once and for all 'there is no God'. I couldn't justify being atheistic rather than agnostic.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:46, archived)

Yes, that's it.
This is a semantic problem. If I say "there is no celestial teapot" you don't accuse me of being dogmatic about it, because as you said, the scientific stance to take is that nothing is ever certain. You know I'm merely using a shorthand for "I think the celestial teapot is overwhelmingly likely not to exist, and no of no good arguments for it". Yet if I say "there is no god", or rather if Dawkins says it, people are liable to accuse him of attaching a "once and for all" to his words, of giving up on the scientific "nothing is ever certain". But of course he isn't doing that, why should you assume he is? This straw man gets created, for some reason, the idea that atheists cease being objectivists when they talk about God. Why imagine that they're saying something of that kind? It's out of character for any rationalist. They shouldn't be required to say "well there might be a God or there might not" just to prove they're being rational about it, any more than they should be required to say "there might be a celestial teapot or there might not".
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:53, archived)

If you say that there is no celestial teapot,
That anyone who believes that there is a celestial teapot is clinically insane and that they should be forced to stop believing in a celestial teapot, then you are not saying "I think the celestial teapot is overwhelmingly likely not to exist, and know of no good arguments for it", are you now?
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:00, archived)

Depends what you mean by "forced".
If you mean "ridiculed relentlessly", that's compatible with my attitude that the said teapot might just minutely possibly exist. I don't believe in torture camps for people who disagree with me, though, no, and neither does Dawkins. And I'm not entirely sure what "clinically insane" means and generally dislike the term. I'd say that the belief is likely to be an ingrained irrationality (or, less likely, a simple mistake) - and that it needn't reflect on the person as a whole, who might be very smart in many other ways.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:06, archived)

But, for a person to whom the existence of God is obvious, your denial of it is equally insane.
Can you not see that it is only the side of the argument which you are on which drives you. Neither side has a stronger case for ridiculing the other.

Clinically insane is Dawkin's term.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:12, archived)

That's relativism

so I'm coming up against the problem of 
differing notions of epistemology again. I tell
 you that's at the root of these discussions 
really, not religion at all.

The problem with relativism is that you can 
apply it to all arguments, and then you 
discover that nothing is apparently true and 
that you no longer have a point of view. What 
appears to be true "for a person" is not the 
question; I'm trying to establish (as best I 
can) what is true, because I'm an 
objectivist and believe in a single (unknown) 
objective truth. The fact that other people's 
belief in opinions is just as strong as 
my belief in the opposite is irrelevant; what 
matters is how strong their arguments 
are.

I don't know where you got "clinically insane" 
from, but "insane" only appears three times in 
The God Delusion, and twice he is quoting other
 people, and the other time he is talking about
 Stalin and Hitler.

(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:20, archived)

It is not from the book, it is from a live 'debate'.
I agree, I am an I hold objectivism very dear.

That is why I do not set out to ridicule those who hold differing opinions.

I am interested in their arguments and, where appropriate, I offer my own.

How good their arguments are effects whether or not I embrace their ideas.

It does not effect the fact that I do not know anything and, as such, I cannot in good faith ridicule them.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:23, archived)

I'm not sure what I mean by "ridicule" any more,

or what you think it involves.
I suppose the main point is not to bother 
saying "you might be right" when the person has
 presented no argument (even implicitly) any 
stronger that "I feel it in my bones". Saying 
"you might be right, it's a valid point of 
view" in such circumstances just encourages 
poor argument style, I think - because they 
aren't being rigourous, and you're letting them
 get away with it.

(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:46, archived)

But Dawkins does not refrain from saying 'you might be right'
He actively says 'You are wrong'.

In my opinion he cannot know this and so is not in a position to say anything more than 'I believe that you might be wrong'.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:54, archived)

I do not believe in sentient trees
but, were there a group of people who did, I would not set out to berate them, call them clinically insane or stand on a stage and tell them that they were wrong.

Yes, I would think that they were wrong, that is what belief is about, but if I wanted to go to them and tell them that they were wrong then the burden of proof would be upon me to prove that they were wrong.

If they are happy believing in sentient trees and are not trying to force me to accept that there are sentient trees then there is absolutely no burden of proof on them whatsoever.

To be honest, to the extent that I do not know that plants do not have a form of sentience and am not qualified to categorise the boundaries between plant and animal life, I would say that I must admint to being, to an extent, agnostic on the subject.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:47, archived)

No, the burden of proof depends on the substance of what's being argued,
not just the fact of which party started the argument. How could you go about demonstrating that sentient trees don't exist? You could always be defeated by the argument that you haven't looked in the right place.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:00, archived)

No.
If I told you that your childhood friend never existed and that those memories were only the result of last night's dream, I would need to provide proof.

If I told you that the person you dreamed about last night was a real person that you had known when young then I would need to provide proof.

If Dawkins wants to convince people that they are wrong then he needs to bring some evidence to the table.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:09, archived)

It's likely that I can, if I try, track down evidence for the childhood friend having existed.
If for bizarre reasons there is no form of record that they ever existed at all (I don't know, something to do with growing up alone together in remote Siberia until this person drowned in a lake), I can still at least make a convincing argument that they might have existed based on the existence of childhood friends in general, and the fact that I was in circumstances where I might have had a childhood friend without any trace being left - not even any repercussions on my life, no bit of knowledge given to me by this person, nothing. You would, however, be able to place reasonable doubt in my mind that it might just be a false memory. They sound like a bit of a nonentity.

There is no argument for the existence of gods in general.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:29, archived)

You do not accept the arguments for Gods.
That is not the same as there being none.

The fact that most people believe that there is one suggests that it is not reasonable to say that there is no compelling argument for Gods.

Plenty of people have been compelled.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:41, archived)

I actually agree with all those statements, taken literally.

What I disagree with is the implication 
that it is at all likely that there is a God, 
or that "plenty of people have been compelled" 
makes it significantly more likely. We agree, 
surely, that it's very easy for plenty of 
people to believe in a thing which is not 
remotely true.

I'm even prepared to accept that a large number
 of people believing in a thing has some
 effect on the probability that they were 
convinced for valid reasons. It's not true to 
say "X number of people can't be wrong," 
because they always can, but it should 
certainly give you pause for thought if a large
 number of people believe in a thing.

I did this pausing for thought already, though,
 quite a large number of years ago.

(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:55, archived)

I am not suggesting that there is a valid argument that there is a God.
I am suggesting that there is a valid argument not to go around telling everyone that there is no God.

I also believe that there is a valid argument not to go around telling everyone that there is one.

Basiacally, if you don't know then you only have an opinion and condemning the opinions of others seems somewhat abhorrant to me.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 1:01, archived)

The absence of evidence that there is not a God is precisely as compelling as the absence of evidence that there is a God.
The arguments for Atheism are no more or less backed by proof than those for religion.

The more important thing here is not what is real, but why you think that someone has to prove to you that what they believe is real.

If Dawkins wants people to embrace atheism, as he says he does, then the onus of proof is on him, just as it is on any religious nutter who is recruiting.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I remain unable to conclusively dtate that there is no God and, as such, am in no position to tell anyone who believes one theory over another that they are wrong.

Dawkins has no greater insight into, for example, what happens to our sense of self after we die, than I have or a rabbi has. For him to decide that his opinion is more valid than that of others, without any supporting data, is not reasonable.

I also find his 'you believe in fairy stories, nah-nah-nah' style of debate to be banal and show him up somewhat.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:39, archived)

I find the idea that people deserve respect for believing in fairy stories
just because these stories fall under the banner of religion, and the idea that we ought to pussyfoot around and treat these fairy stories as valid points of view, just because they are somehow labeled as more special than other fairy stories, repellent. I think the religious absolutely deserve to be mocked and have got away without being mocked for far too long, and the point of view that this will ruin the credibility of atheists, alienate potential converts to atheism, or is poor debating style, is incorrect. We have to call garbage what it is, and to be respectful about garbage is misguided.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:45, archived)

They don't deserve respect for their beliefs,
but you should respect the fact that they have those beliefs.
So long as their beliefs don't hurt you, at least.
I appreciate there are occasions when religious beliefs do hurt people, but there have been plenty of occasions where Science has hurt people.
It's not a reason to discard everyone who believes in it.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:49, archived)

It is also illegal in the UK
After all, one cannot decide what one believes, any more than one can decide whether one likes chocolate or not.

I find people who will not question what they believe to be difficult, whether they believe that there is a God or that there is not, but I find people who tell me what I have to believe to be intolerable.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:52, archived)

If you want to call it garbage then you will have to prove that it is garbage
which, since this is never going to happen, is your downfall.

Just as a Bishop cannot mock atheists without incurring my wrath, so an atheist cannot mock a bishop.

You are no better than any fundamentalist when you say 'what I believe is right and, regardless of my ability to demonstrate this, I declare anyone of a different opinion to be wrong'.

I don't like to say this, but that level of intolerance borders on evil.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:51, archived)

So, you'd never call anything garbage?
Or does this principle only apply to religion?
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:56, archived)

This principle applies to everything.
If I do not have sufficient evidence to be certain about something, within the realms that we are discussing it, then I will not dismiss someone for believing it.

Indeed I will call to task those who do.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:02, archived)

I question
what kind of evidence it takes to make you certain any particular ludicrous thing doesn't exist.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:12, archived)

I am not certain about anything.
That is why I do not feel it is appropriate for me to mercilessly ridicule people.

You should not be certain about something for which you have not got conclusive evidence either. If you are then you are making the kind of assumptions which you seem to feel are worthy of ridicule.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:14, archived)

Aha, so you agree that "assumptions which I seem to feel are worthy of ridicule"
are at least a class of assumptions, assumptions of a kind that you can identify (without having to ask me what I think). You know what type of assumptions I'm talking about, then. You just don't want to call these assumptions "ridiculous"

Fair enough, I'm not fussy about terminology. If I'm no longer allowed to ridicule people, I will have to make do with accusing them of holding "assumptions of the kind which I previously thought were worthy of ridicule" instead. Comes to the same thing.

...by which I mean that you agree with me really, and find certain ideas that you encounter ridiculous, and just don't want to appear harsh by saying so, or something.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:38, archived)

No, you are wrong.
There are ideas I consider ridiculous, but the major point here is that I do not ridicule them, not because I do not wish to be harsh, but because I accept that my opinion of these ideas is subjective.

I do not ridicule them because I do not know that they are wrong, I am merely bound by my own prejudices.

It is unlikely to encourage you to agree with me, and I genuinely do not believe that it affects this argument, but you might be interested to learn that I have attended a CofE church this very evening.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:45, archived)

Also, it is time for bed.
I have enjoyed argueing with you.

Feel free to Gaz me.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 1:04, archived)

OK, I'm losing coherence due to tiredness too.
Night chap.
...it's about time we had an argument about this really, though, been brewing for a while.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 1:07, archived)

Dawkins expresses fondness for the C of E. (More so than I do.)

I'm not sure what we mean by "ridicule", I
 think the problem might be that we have 
different ideas  of what it means. I just mean 
telling people "you're wrong" when I think 
they're extremely unlikely to be right and have
 weak arguments. I could point out that I'm 
replying to a post which begins "no, you are 
wrong". Oh, and continuing with "your arguments
 are extremely weak" and perhaps comparing them
 to other weak arguments, e.g. "you might as 
well say you believe in fairies," is also part 
of ridicule. There's nothing dogmatic in this, 
you understand. I don't see why you shouldn't 
say that sort of thing too.

(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 1:06, archived)

Hmm,
You can be wrong about something without it being subjective.

As a hypothetical example:

I believe that there are kittens in the woodpile. You believe that they are crabs.

I should not say 'You are wrong, they are kitten', but, if you say that I don't believe that there are kittens, then I am perfectly entitled to say 'you are wrong - I do believe that there are kittens'.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 9:15, archived)

Even that isn't strictly true,

it's possible to be mistaken about one's own
 experiences. Every opinion is subject to 
fallibility, even my own opinions about what I 
myself think (and actually I quite often misjudge
 my own mental processes when I try to describe 
them, e.g. try describing retrospectively how you
 arrived at a preference, and see how watertight 
your description is - probably not very).

(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 10:26, archived)

This is what it all boils down to for me.
I'm a big fan of giving respect to get respect. Dawkins gives no respect therefore I don't respect his opinions.
( gronkpan, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:13, archived)

Look at us, all hanging around in a long dead thread ;)

( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:16, archived)

It was
you must be terrorist
( Watney Heckbulb uhnnnnnnnn has a PhD now! Woo!, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:08, archived)

I liked him in that series he did a few months ago,
where he was taking on pseudo-science and trying to convince them to subject themselves to proper scientific testing.
I think he gives an overly negative view of religion.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:03, archived)

that was rather good.
i'm with him as far as religion goes, especially where he says that atheists should not bend over backwards to appease theists with bullshit like "i respect your beliefs". every theist i know has condemned my lack of belief at one point or other.
( Tom O'Bedlam Fuck Boom Rapist, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:08, archived)

So you should apply that lesson to people you've never met?
Bigot.
( gronkpan, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:09, archived)

fuckin' A i would
for your information i study philosophy and biblical studies, i'm not close minded. people are entitled to their beliefs but do not ask me to pussy foot around them.
( Tom O'Bedlam Fuck Boom Rapist, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:15, archived)

If they are entitled to them,
that is respecting them.

Pussy footing around is not respect.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:19, archived)

I just think it's rather naive to say religion is the cause of problems in the world.
I think it's often more of an excuse than a cause.
And he tends to completely ignore the benefits of religion.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:10, archived)

My grandad got killed by the Japanese in WW2.
As such, I hate all Japanese people.

Richard Dawkins says this is an acceptable way of thinking.
( gronkpan, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:10, archived)

Right or wrong, we tend to think like that.
If you saw 5 people wearing a particular type of clothing, and they were all offensive, you'd assume someone else dressed like that would be offensive.
I guess it's the same kind of defence mechanism as that which stops us eating things which have made us sick in the past.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:13, archived)

That is a way of thinking that it is wrong.
We all do things which are wrong, but we do not laud it.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:29, archived)

Dawkins uses too many big words
it makes my head hurt.
( Watney Heckbulb uhnnnnnnnn has a PhD now! Woo!, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:03, archived)

It's the intro to 'The Blind Watchmaker' that makes my flesh creep
so desperate to please 'wimmin' and lefties it comes across as a pile of arse. Spoilt the rest of the book for me.
( Colonel Boris beer is small here, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:04, archived)

Probably making up for the bit in the selfish gene
where he implied homosexuals normally wear makeup. (Removed from later editions.)
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:10, archived)

Ha ha!
Loveable old bigots.
'Lovely people, some of them, but they do smeall a bit...'
'Yes, dad...'
( Colonel Boris beer is small here, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:13, archived)

Yes.
As is anyone that tries to fight bigotry with more bigotry.
( gronkpan, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:00, archived)

This
I see a fundamentalist.

An atheist declaring any non-atheist to be 'clinically insane' is no better than a Muslim denouncing non-Muslims, a Rabbi denouncing gentiles or the Pope declaring that any non-Catholic is mad.

Fundamentalism is a problem, whatever it's guise and religious intolerance has caused more wars than any other single factor. I can think of no larger example of religious inteolerance than Dawkins.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:18, archived)

Hitler will be disappointed to hear that.

( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:21, archived)

Really?
Because I would suggest that Hitler's intolerance of religion was nothing compared to Dawkins's.

Of course, you probably are referring to the genocide of the Jews. That was not about Judeism, it was about a race.
( Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:27, archived)

carefull now!

( prodigy69 uncle 2.0, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:05, archived)

Down with this sort of thing!
/obligatory response
( Watney Heckbulb uhnnnnnnnn has a PhD now! Woo!, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:07, archived)

near......faaar away :)

( prodigy69 uncle 2.0, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:08, archived)

more of this
kind of thing.
( Holly Would is much better now, thank you very much., Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:06, archived)

Down with this sort of thing!

( NinjaBadger Come see "The Room" in London- See Events Nov 28th, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:08, archived)

shopped pics only

(tommclaughlan, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:17, archived)

if I may say so...
... bindun?
( stereoroid yes, I'm a-Twit-ter, same name, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:33, archived)