b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 9818506 (Thread)

# Mornng all. More of the same frm me....
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 9:08, archived)
# haha
but the 'Richard Dawkins Delusion' by God perhaps?
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 9:10, archived)
# I'm sure there's a Dawkins refutation
called 'The God Delusion Delusion'
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 9:28, archived)
# there was a book published
to say how wrong richard dawkins was, and it was called "The Dawkins Delusion"

/trufax
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:35, archived)
# big seller was it?
:)
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:42, archived)
# haha, if god magicked some awesome advertising campaign into every christians head
then i assume yes.

but it didnt need divine advertising for christians, they'd just want to see Dawkins get shat on. :D
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:44, archived)
# how unchristian!
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:48, archived)
# BEWBS!
Ahahaha!
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 9:11, archived)
# Shurely it's the other way round?
Eve tempting Adam to doubt God, methinks.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 9:49, archived)
# I think that's why he's asking her if she reckons it's a good read
like she's given it to him - maybe.

Or perhaps the whole apple saga was a Daily Mail lie and it was Adam that tempted Eve to bite his juicy fruit
- "Go on you know you want to, Eve! You'll like it and of course you can spit it out if it tastes funny!"
*Adam applies a million pounds per inch pressure to the back of Eve's neck*
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:01, archived)
# Look at the picture again
it is quite clear that Eve has recommended Adam read the book, so it's exactly the right way round.

(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:09, archived)
# BELIEVER!
*burns*
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:31, archived)
# Hahahaha!
My secret is out!
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:49, archived)
# LOL
My only excuse is that it was early in the day for me when I posted. I didn't look at the piccy proper like. And yes, I always wondered if there was some DailyMailism going on in blaming the laydee for the entire fall of mankind.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:49, archived)
# haha
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 9:51, archived)
# Nooooo!

(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:09, archived)
# hahaha!
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:31, archived)
# hehehe but...
bindun and FPd www.b3ta.com/board/7419964 *runs away*

I admire Dawkins but I do think he needs to chill out sometimes: www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/religion/dawkins+warning+over+fairy+stories/2640487
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:37, archived)
# That couldn't have happened, as I wasn't here then.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:40, archived)
# 1 year and 19 days
I'll make a note of that.

(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:41, archived)
# This is a major reason why I don't like the dawkins approach to atheism.
Humans are fundamentally irrational - they fall in love, put themselves in harms way for friends, laugh at bizzarre situations etc.

It's one thing to say that we should look at facts rather than stories, it's another to say that we're all paragons of rational thought. Or that being one is some sort of goal.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:47, archived)
# I think one of his main concerns (and mine too)
is that organised religion takes advantage of these facts and governments use it to control the masses, whether Christian or Islamic
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:50, archived)
# yes, but some academic isn't going to change that...
governments don't really have a great track record of taking academia all that seriously...

Professor Nutt, for example.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:54, archived)
# no but governments (eventually) have to take the population seriously
and if the population decides that a country should be secular, then it is likely it will ultimately be so.

It might take a few generations though
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:57, archived)
# the population needs to care enough first.
without being patronising about the uneducated masses, I would hope that Dawkins will be able to make more documentaries and suchlike. His books are boring as fuck and for that reason, I think he would probably turn off a lot of people who don't already have an interest in him.

He writes in a bit of an academicy way, which is irritating, as I prefer to try to write in a more accessible way, even if its for an academic paper. For example, I think Bill Bryson's Short History of Almost Everything is well written and accessible for people not necessarily well-versed in physics and cosmos (like me)... I think the way forward for influencing collective consciousness, is for Dawkins to make some engaging, interesting documentaries which appeal to a wider cross-section and to stop writing like a smug cunt.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:08, archived)
# I agree with all of this
but if Dawkins can influence others then they can perhaps try to educate the masses in a more accessible way
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:15, archived)
# yes, I agree with that too.
perhaps it's a change that ought to happen in scientific/academic writing, that people need to stop using hoity-toity exclusive language just for the sake of it, so that more people (or even people other than themselves) can understand what they're on about.

I saw a presentation from a youngish professor on the importance of this, and it was most enjoyable, although the old guys in the crowd ripped him a brand new arse. The point is really, that academia is pointless if only academics can understand what it's all about.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:25, archived)
# I agree with all of this.
*picks pint back up*
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:45, archived)
# *grunts*
and if Dawkins should then turn arahnd to me, trying to tell me that what I fink has such a high probability to be wrong as would render the likelihood of it being correct as negligible I should say: "OI! DAWKINS! NOOOOOOOOOO! YOU ARE NOT THE MESSIAH OF ATHEISM AND RATIONAL THOUGHT! YOU CANNOT MAKE AN ORGANISED GROUP OF ATHEISTS, BUT I WOULD PERHAPS BE PERSUADED TO LET YOU TAKE MY MOTHER OUT FOR A DRINK IF SHE HAPPENED TO BE SINGLE!"
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:51, archived)
# *agrees*
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:00, archived)
# does-not-com-pute
what-is-love
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:51, archived)