I'm not the biggest fan of Richard Dawkins...
Not that I don't respect his work, it's just that he's so damned aggressive towards belief he comes across as just as much of a raving zealot as those he rages against.

So it was with great delight that I saw his works in WH Smith arranged tastefully in the New Age section. Right next to the Angel Healing cards and Psychic Sally's books.

Just the sort of thing that would probably make him foam at the mouth with rage. :D
(Mr Evian, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 13:11, 101 replies)

Yes. You're right: He *is* as much of a 'raving zealot' as the devout he rails against.
Like those religious fundamentalists who killed thousands of innocents by flying planes into the world trade centre; or blow themselves on buses, tubes, taking as many unbelievers as possible; or execute doctors for giving pro-choice advice; or kill others of their own faith over small doctrinal points; or choose to protect the reputation of their faith over stopping priests fucking children. &c. &c. &c. &c.
Actually, he's probably worse, isn't he? For slightly raising his voice arguing against all that.
( Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 14:03, closed)

this ^

( P-MONKE We're all fucked, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 14:05, closed)

It's not what he says that I have trouble with, it's how he says it.
He comes across as the kind of bloke who would turn into a raving megalomaniac given the slightest bit of power.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 16:31, closed)

You're just jealous that he married a timelord.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 17:15, closed)

I'd forgotten this minor fact
I just looked her picture up on Google - they have matching foreheads. Amazing.
( P-MONKE We're all fucked, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 18:25, closed)

That's their massive brains trying to escape.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:18, closed)

Dawkins and Tom Baker
Best fact of the year so far (it's been a slow start)
(spunkyD, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 21:08, closed)

- second rate biologist with a god complex
And he seems to be mixing up my idea of GOD with something that created the universe in 6 days. Which is a bit presumptuous to say the least

Anyway back to Books. If it wasn't for Paley's Natural Theology and other works, it's pretty unlikely that Darwin wouldn't have written the origin of species which Dawkins has pretty much built his career in pop science on
.
( buffet_the_appetite_slayer ٩(●̮̃•)۶ jacked in to the ICE on, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 14:36, closed)

^ never read a single Dawkins book ^

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 14:37, closed)

I've read a few of his.
He still comes across as a pompous, arrogant arse I'm afraid, despite the fact I agree with what he says.
(The Luggage is haunted..., Sun 8 Jan 2012, 15:47, closed)

Care to give some examples of arrogance?
It's an easy label to throw at somebody writing pop science books about a subject they care deeply about. It's rarely backed up with anything though.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 17:13, closed)

Surely the whole point of an ad hominem attack
is that you don't back it up with anything, you just stamp your feet and cry about the nasty man
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 16:10, closed)

Good point.
Silly ol' me.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 21:00, closed)

He is actually a religious nutcase.
You can spot the diehard atheists because they'll tell you over and over and over and over about their beliefs.

Even the born-again Christians aren't as annoying.
(gordonjcp, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 15:53, closed)

Really? More annoying?
As yet I have not had to hide behind the sofa to avoid those pesky door to door atheist proselytisers. No childishly illustrated leaflets in phone boxes either. Perhaps it's different round your way?
(unclestinky, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 16:17, closed)

atheism = a lack of belief in the supernatural generally or specifically in deities
They can't tell you over and over about their religious beliefs because they don't have any. Is everybody in your family as thick as you?
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 17:11, closed)

Finally!
A-theism - quite correct.
Atheists dont have beliefs - nonsense. They have different beliefs but they do not have "No" belief.
The point being made, but rather poorly articulated, is that Dawkins is a religious zealot. He is a zealot for the religion of a-theism. Dawkins is a first rate scientist and has done significant work in the field of evolutionary biology but constantly fails to understand his very own subject when addressing the world in regard of religion. We have an innate need for religion: be it: sex, capitalism,internet, atheism or church etc. Evolution has simply not got far enough to get away from this and is unlikely to do so within the short lifespan of one human being. As soon as well all realise this the better. Far more helpful was the Atheist bus campaign which did a lot more to raise the debate and stimulate proper thought.
(gearanach #wankwankwank, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 18:13, closed)

Fucking hell. And people accuse Dawkins of being a pompous bore.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 18:16, closed)

You see
Quite often, people give themselves the label "atheist" in a vain attempt to confer an air of "intellectual" about themselves. This is very sad and unfortunately most of those who class themselves as "atheist" fall into this camp and are anything but intellectual.
(gearanach #wankwankwank, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 18:22, closed)

Why does someone have to be an "intellectual" to not believe in a supreme being?

( P-MONKE We're all fucked, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 18:28, closed)

If I understand it right,
the people referred to by gearanach use their non-belief in a supreme being as evidence of their supposed intellectual superiority, even if they are severely lacking in other areas.

Also, the plebs need religion so that they can be happy with what they've got and never try to achieve anything greater.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 18:59, closed)

Why are you keeping up with the feeble attempt at condescension when your first post already revealed you to be barely literate?
Just ... you know ... out of idle curiosity.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 18:57, closed)

"intellectual" atheist
found. spp exists.


Im a scientist not a fucking english student. I can spell, but the rest of it eludes me.
(gearanach #wankwankwank, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 19:45, closed)

You're a pisspoor excuse for a scientist, chum.
I said that atheists don't have religious beliefs. You wanked yourself off for a paragraph. Which part of that did you think demonstrated your intellect in a good light?
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:00, closed)

If he's a post-normal scientist, that would explain a lot.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:11, closed)

For the really fucking thick
religion = ties that bind.
atheists - bound by a common a-theism

I never claimed to be intellectual - thats something you have placed upon me.

Scientist - better than you fuckwit.
(gearanach #wankwankwank, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:23, closed)

Yep, DEFINITELY a post-normal scientist.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:26, closed)

I'd bet my left testicle that he's barely scraped a GCSE in general science.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:31, closed)

That's not a dictionary definition, petal.
That's you desperately trying to wriggle out of the pit of nonsense you've dug for yourself.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

And I am a scientist and an intellectual. I have a doctorate in a scientific discipline, I worked as a researcher in a university and I now work as a consultant. And you're a prat.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:30, closed)

Now.. Im going to grant you "prat" because I continued to plough this furrow.

You wont win on the "religion" definition though and you are wrong on that one:
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion#Etymology

I've touched a nerve with the "intellectual atheist" thing tho.

"barely scraped GCSE in science" - I don't have a GCSE in science.
(gearanach #wankwankwank, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:38, closed)

Yes. The definition of all words in current usage derives directly and unbendingly from their classical roots.
You total fucking bell end.

That's "bell" from the Germanic for "shout" and "end" from the proto-european for "opposite". Therefore meaning "one who should talk very quietly so that nobody hears".
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:46, closed)

tee hee
poke poke....
(gearanach #wankwankwank, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:52, closed)

Of course.
The inevitable "ha ha I'm only trolling you" defence. The last refuge of the internet fail.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:53, closed)

nah - just bored now
your smugness is only outweighed slightly by the overbearing need to get the last word in.
(gearanach #wankwankwank, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 22:06, closed)

Shambles the only discipline I can see you partaking in is
a good whipping from Nanny when you've been a naughty little boy again.
(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 6:39, closed)

This calls for some kind of science-off with bunsen burners and test tubes and stuff.

( Pig Bodine., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 11:09, closed)

you'd better explain what you mean by 'religeon' and 'belief'
becuase you're not making any sense.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sun 8 Jan 2012, 19:21, closed)

Im using
dictionary definitions so have no need of explanation. I didnt want to waste any more words than I had to. It doesnt make sense if you dont want it to.
(gearanach #wankwankwank, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 19:44, closed)

Ah right
I didn't realise you were the source of fundamental truths of human existence.

Carry on.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sun 8 Jan 2012, 19:49, closed)

Are you using Humpty Dumpty's dictionary?
If you're asserting that atheism can be considered as a type of religion then you're a retard. I bet you're not even a fucking biologist.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:03, closed)

"He is actually a religious nutcase"
You are trolling AICMFP
( Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 17:46, closed)

It's almost impossible to distinguish between a troll and an honest retard in discussions like this.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 17:47, closed)

I'm, going with retard on this one though.

( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 8:53, closed)

Let's not forget that many of his supporters are appalling fat nerds and hate all women.
freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/12/29/why-yes-but-is-the-wrong-response-to-misogyny/
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 15:57, closed)

The way he treats delusional fuck-wits like delusional fuck-wits is truly appalling.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sun 8 Jan 2012, 17:15, closed)

Hahahaha

( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 16:10, closed)

I knew I should have stuck to fluffy bunnies.

Maybe I should have just joined in with the Harry Potter bashing. ;)
(Mr Evian, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 18:12, closed)

I prefer kittens
This thread does remind me of why I avoid discussing evolution with my friend who, while a very intelligent post-graduate scientist, is an ardent creationist. It's like beating ones head against a brick wall.
( P-MONKE We're all fucked, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 18:32, closed)

Maybe you should try actually beating their head against a wall.
It may not win the argument, but it will win the war.
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Sun 8 Jan 2012, 23:03, closed)

Dawkins is an arse,
so the idea of him being lumped together with a load of hippy, spiritualist crap, makes me smile.
Frankly, I'd struggle to get upset if all self-described humanists, brights, or what-have-yous, were boiled in oil (OK, that might be a step too far, but this is the net, where hyperbole is king). Despite the protests above, they do bang on about their beliefs (or lack thereof) as much as any other fundie, and seem to want atheism treated as a religion (then get all pouty when this is pointed out).

Want to worship yourself as a god? Fine by me, but could you please do it quietly? Oh, and hands off Thought For The Day, you smug, condescending, wankers.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 19:49, closed)

I preferred you before you embraced Islam.

( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sun 8 Jan 2012, 19:58, closed)

Well.
This post doesn't make you sound like an odious, feeble-brained, hypocritical, condescending cunt at all.
( Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:08, closed)

Like I had a reputation worth protecting.
On the plus side, I don't have a book out, nor am I ever invited on to speak in public about my tediously intolerant views. There's no chance of the godless sect worshipping me as the messiah, either, so it's all good.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:18, closed)

Such an old chestnut
Whenever a religion has had any power whatsoever, they have sought to control and to repress, and to dictate what people think and do.

Religion still has a massive amount of unquestioned power. Some people don't like this, and some people write books about it. Some people even argue their point eloquently.

Peoople describing Dawkins as "religious" or a "fundamentalist" are just displaying ignorance of what those words mean. Just because Dawkins has occasionally shared a platform and debated with zealots doesn't make him their polar opposite. Yes, sometimes Dawkins makes his points forcefully. He is able to base his points on evidence and state what would make him change his mind. He is actually the opposite of a fundamentalist, and the only time he ever comes across as anything other than humblel and polite is when he is debating with far more arrogant religious people.
(clinteastwoodbradfield, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:27, closed)

I'm not going to argue that organised religion isn't about control and oppression,
because it is (ooh, common ground).
It's also big on the belief that it is right, that everyone else is wrong, and that effort should be expended on persuading others of these facts. Prosletysing, I believe it's called, and it's this aspect of the Dawkins-style of atheism that gets up my nose. At least it's understandable when Christians engage in this behaviour - they think they can "save my sould" and offer me ever-lasting bliss (quite generous of them).
I don't believe in god (I did once, but not with any great conviction), but I stopped describing myself as an atheist, when I noticed that I appeared to be allying myself with the fundamentalist section of an organisation that didn't exist (atheism isn't a religion, so why are some people intent of prosletysing on it's behalf?).
I decided that it made more sense to call myself an agnostic, as it's equally meaningless to claim to know that god doesn't exist, as it is to claim the reverse. God may, or may not, exist, but I don't care. Sadly, I'm all too aware that Dawkins, and those like him, do exist, and I find it had not to care (similarly, Fred Phelps exists, and that bothers me, too; likewise, Abu Hamza - not a fan).

Most likely, this all stems for a general exasperation with Humanists, who seem to want to worship themselves as gods, or at the very least create a godless religion (and what's the bloody point of that?).
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:50, closed)

Really? Dawkins is in the same category for you as Phelps and Hamza?
Dude. That's weak. I'm afraid I'm going to have to put you on ignore and try to remember back to the good old days when you weren't a dick.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:52, closed)

Oh, well.
You can go burn in my own imaginary hell.

Seriously, though, Phelps is a crazy old man who bangs on about his beliefs, firmly believes himself to be correct (representing one fringe of Christian belief), and is somewhat rude about those who disagree. I have no problem bunging Dawkins into that end of the no-god camp. I plucked Hamza out of thin air, as I'm not really up on Islamic clerics, so feel free to shoot me down for that one. Anyway, I don't like any of them.

Richard Coles said that Dawkins is thoroughly pleasant, so long as you avoid discussing religion with him - that's probably true, but his public persona is all I know, and that does nothing but discuss religion (I'm sure he does many other things in his spare time), so I'm left with believing him to be an odious shit. For the record, the tipping point was this website, which made me want to vomit up my own spleen (I was going through an anti-religion phase, and it kicked me into my now comfortable agnosticism). I still like Steven Pinker, though.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 21:07, closed)

Phelps runs a family business based around upsetting the relatives of dead soldiers and then suing them when they impinge even slightly on his rights to free speech, leaving them penniless as well as bereaved.
Dawkins writes pop science books about biology.

I can see why you think they're comparable.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 22:19, closed)

Arrogant old men,
whose views of religion do nothing to foster greater understanding between cultures.

I'm more frequently exposed to followers of Dawkins, than those of Phelps (given that they're practically non-existent), thus he's higher up my list of annoyances, even if he's not actually as awful as the latter.
For me, Dawkins represents a crytallisation point for everything that's wrong with atheism.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 8:05, closed)

you talk and think like a religionist
People don't follow Dawkins. If he suddenly 'saw the light' there wouldn't be millions of people converting overnight, because he's had a mental breakdown.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 8:48, closed)

Ah, but that's the problem.
People do follow Dawkins, whether he wants them to or not. By its very nature, atheism doesn't need talking about, and doesn't require exponents. For better or worse, Dawkins has become a figurehead for atheism, and he appears to relish it (I'm not sure that it's a role he chose, and he'd be swiftly replaced, were he to convert, but it's the role he inhabits, nonetheless).
Muddy this together with the humanist "religion," and other secular movements, and you wind up with a no religion as a religious movement, which is exactly what it shouldn't be.
I'm not religious, but I have absolutely no problem with people who are*, and no interest in converting them to my way thinking, simply because it's not important to me - thus, people who espouse their atheism strike me as being somewhat hypocritical (which takes us back to the accusations of "intellectual posturing" which were levelled at Tab, earlier).
Granted, it does become important when the religious views of one group impinge upon the rights of others, but I don't think a secular view that boils down to "you're all wrong, so stop being stupid" is in any way constructive, so I would seek to distance myself from it.

If I come across as a religionist, this is probably because I come from a nominally religious background, where a belief in god is assumed, and have thus made a concious choice about my beliefs (or lack of).

*It should be clear from what I've written that the exceptions to this rule are religious fundamentalists (as they seek to impose their religion on others, often through violent means), and those who claim to have no religion but wish to be treated as though they do (I think this comes from the "special status" that religious groups can enjoy, so I have some sympathy, but come at the issue from the other end - I don't want secular organisations to receive the same "special status," rather I'd see it removed from religious organisations).

Apologies if this is a bit rambling, but I'm typing it on a phone, so the editing options are limited.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 9:19, closed)

I think you'll find (both in this thread and in general)
that about 80-90% of the pointless discussion about atheism is started by people complaining about it, accusing atheists of being religious and making feeble whimpers about being persecuted. If you're sick of hearing about atheism then you should lay the blame at the new evangelicals, creationists and conservative anglo-catholics who started the fight thirty years ago.

The churches would like atheists to be quiet because they have no coherent response. The only recourse they have is to go on the attack.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 9:48, closed)

40% of the noise is the churches, asserting themselves.
40% of the noise is the atheists, banging on about how the churches are wrong, and isn't it awful how they enjoy such a privileged position is society.
10% of the noise is idiots like me, going "why can't you just shut up? You're all wrong, and it's doing my head in. Let me tell you why you're both wrong..."

But I stand by the points made about atheists acting as if atheism is a religion, as it's a position I've come to of my own volition, not prompted by the evangelicals.

It's all the pagans fault, anyway.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 9:58, closed)

Banging on about the position of religion in society is secularism.
It originated with non-conformist christians rather than atheists.

There are ... what ... four notable mouthy atheists in the media and one of them recently died. Of the surviving three, Dawkins is the one who upsets people the most and he has written _one_ book about religion which was prompted primarily by a virulent reaction that included death threats to a perfectly inoccuous pop science book he wrote about evolution in the 1970s.

You might have reached your position independently, but it is still bollocks.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 10:10, closed)

I can't really argue against your assertion that secularism has it's roots in Christian thought,
as it's not something I've ever looked into (it is counter intuitive, though).
My experience of secularism comes from organisations like the National Secular Society, which sounds like a good idea in principle, but then they bang on about how Thought For The Day is religious propaganda (and I'm sure I've heard something similar attributed to Dawkins), and that forces me to the conclusion that they're a bunch of frothing nutters. I like Thought For The Day.

[Edit: it's taken me far too long to work out that the recently deceased, notable atheist that you were referring to was Christopher Hitchens. I think this probably says it all. Hitchens is categorised in my brain as "essayist" (somewhere near Alistair Cook, probably), whilst Dawkins represents an unpleasant subsection of "atheists". Maybe he just needs to work on his public image?]
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 10:24, closed)

Hitchens was far more virulent and outspoken an anti-theist than Dawkins.
The NSS are a tiny group of puritanical scots who lack belief so can't share the misery of the wee frees so have to conjure up their own grim persecution complex.

90% of what Dawkins has written is about evolution. He's been elevated to his position as Atheist Antichrist almost entirely by evangelical christians because he calmy tore apart their attempts to re-label creationism as "intelligent design" and sneak it into the pantheon of science.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 16:37, closed)

Like I said, he needs a better public image.
He does himself no favours, y'know.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 17:30, closed)

There's a difference
People who "follow" Dawkin's are following a rational, if ultimately unverifiable, hypothesis. Occam's razor and all that. Religion is simply an appeal to authority which you are obliged to swallow undigested. (Proof denies faith etc.)
(unclestinky, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 13:49, closed)

No arguement, there.
My issue is not with atheism, but with the people who espouse it. Organised atheism, if you will.
Atheism doesn't need defending, as it has nothing on which to be attacked (unless you compare it with agnosticism, which is arguably more rational).
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 14:16, closed)

Atheism does have something to be attacked
Its lack of conformity to the belief in established religious 'right and priveleges'. A lack of belief is largely speaking, in the eyes of most religions, a problem and something to be corrected. Your assertion that it cannot be attacked would presumablyequally apply to, say, a conscientious objector not wishing to agree with a war being waged and I am fairly sure that many were and indeed still are castigated for this stance. An absence of acquiescence does not remove a belief, direction or viewpoint. It is an alternative, surely?

To say your problem is with the espousal of atheism is essentially an attack on voicing ones opinion because it can be ' a bit loud and in your face' which whilst not pleasant or always constructive is no different to just about any other argument whether it is political, religious or even whether or not Harry Potter is suitable for mature adults. Either all sides get their say or none. The church has enjoyed a position for centuries (millennia in fact) where it has literally been 'God's law, the one true law' and it doesn't like the fact that not only do some folk not agree with it but actually find it logically flawed based as it is on a premise of accepting the unprovable.
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 14:40, closed)

War is a demonstrably real thing,
and demonstrablt harmful, and thus can be argued against. Attacking atheism for its lack of beliefs is pointless, as it's a perfectly sound, logical position (you could argue for a belief in god, but that's not an attack on atheism, it's a defence of religion), and I fail to see how you could attack it for its non-conformity, outside of a society ruled by religious edict.

I have no more time for mouthy christians, muslims, hindus, or whatever, than I do for outspoken atheists.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 16:10, closed)

Religion is demonstrably harmful.
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the crusades (cheap and dirty example); fundamentalism; scientology et al. Religion as a way of life can be a wonderful thing for many people giving them direction, purpose, succour etc but it has been the catalyst for or cause of innumerable wars and atrocities throughout human history. Pacifism as an objection to violence as a tool and the reasoning behind it appears, to me, to be remarkably similar to atheism. They both stem from a slightly unnatural rejection of human reliance on instinct and reject the arguments therein.
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 17:17, closed)

The acts of man against man are demonstrably harmful,
regardless of what justifications you hang on them. At least you didn't bring up Palestine.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 17:31, closed)

So you agree?
Sorry I was mid edit of my previous post when you replied.

Religion is dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. Atheism can at least take personal responsibility for acting like a dick.
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 17:42, closed)

I posted a piss weak response to your cheap arguement,
and have just noticed that I completely missed the point!
Arguements against religion are reasonable (if somewhat tiresome, after a while), it's arguements against atheism that don't work.

I seem to have wound up arguing both sides of the wrong arguement. Probably time for me to give up.

[edit: I've now read your edit, and am going to agree, in spite of myself, as I don't have the energy to start taking a pro-religion stance.]
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 17:57, closed)

The problem isn't that he's a fundie
...the problem is that he's a raving evo.

Oh, and can we please stop with the "RELIGION MAKES PEOPLE FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS" shit, most people got past that stage of argument with the Proddies-vs-Papists back in NI in the 1970s. Unless you really do think that Bloody Sunday was about transubstantiation and belief in original sin.
(Guy Debord cette mauvaise réputation..., Wed 11 Jan 2012, 0:34, closed)

Ah, well, fair enough, politely put. May I apologise for prior impetuous 'c' bomb?
For the record, I think Dawkins, as a person, seems dreadful: a patronising, arrogant, conceited self-publicist. And not a great scientist. However, my initial point was: however awful he is, he's not going to blow anyone up because of what he thinks. And as for the suggestion (not by you, I think) that my athiesm is merely intellectual posturing...wow.
Anyway, I'm spent; have a good rest-of-sunday.
( Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 21:07, closed)

Cunt is bandied about by many on here (myself included),
so I've long since ceased to view is as a genuine term of abuse!
To be honest, I'm probably being needlessly argumentative, and getting upset on the internet (atheism is a reliable trigger, for me).
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 21:15, closed)

You might like this.
michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/bus.htm
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:22, closed)

I rather did, thanks!
I always thought that the "There's probably no god" was a bit naff, if only for its lack of conviction (something you can't normally accuse the atheists of).
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:30, closed)

Some of those are mildly entertaining
but it degenerates into the usual mindless twaddle by about two-thirds of the way down. Atheism equates to murder? My arse.
( P-MONKE We're all fucked, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:30, closed)

I can't be arsed to read every post on here but-
it strikes me that whenever someone says, "I don't have a problem with what Dawkins says, it's just that I find him really arrogant!", that actually, they do object to what he says (a lot) but just can't think of a convincing counter argument. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered, it is the content that is important. In fact, by focusing on the way the message is delivered rather than on what he is saying, you are basically admitting you have lost the argument.
(Nitrous Nitrous, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 23:23, closed)

Since I've already lost the argument, you won't read anything beyond this line,
but I'm not convinced that any real progress will be achieved by a privileged white Englishman who insists on fighting fire with fire.

And people's behaviour is important. Do you think Martin Luther King would now be remembered for his constructive contribution to the civil rights movement if he'd gone around throwing wobblers and being completely unable to hold a civil conversation with anyone who held views that conflicted with his own?
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 0:03, closed)

Your right
The colour of his skin, nationality and education completely undermine his arguments.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 6:27, closed)

you're

( browser still relating boring anecdotes into a void on, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 15:50, closed)

Yeah
I noticed that just before I posted the message. I was about to correct it, then I thoutght about the kind of people who get upset at that sort of thing.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 18:35, closed)

Link to Dawkins "throwing wobblers" please?
Link to Dawkins being "completely unable to have a civil conversation with anyone who held views that conflicted with his own"?

For example, I watched this new video on youtube this morning:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqqoViVXf-c
He seems entirely civil to me...also, it's a curious kind of Englishman who was born in Nairobi
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 16:13, closed)

Just because you've got a video of Dawkins
not throwing a wobbler, doesn't mean he never does it. Only a person of blind faith could make such an assertion.
Which is why my cult will always be at war with your kind, as our holy book has fortold of a day when he will throw a massive wobbler. Then, and only then, can peace be brought unto the earth.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 19:09, closed)

^ this ^

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 9:49, closed)

I can't be arsed either
so I'll avoid commenting.
(username failed moderation, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 10:46, closed)

I agree with almost everything he says.
And I think he's a bit arrogant and pushy.

I did enjoy the Blind Watchmaker though - all that stuff about how the eye evolved, and was useful all the way through in particular. I guess my objection to all the fervour is that the majority of religious people in the UK, and the world, are infinitely more likely to organise a coffee morning than the mass slaughter of unbelievers, and I don't mind a coffee morning. And I don't believe that the slaughter of unbelievers, when it happens, has much to do with the existence or otherwise of God.
(sabre-tooth monkey, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 12:29, closed)

Isn't it interesting....
...that Dawkins, who's been an atheist most of his life, and a successful author and public figure since The Selfish Gene was first published in 1976, only became noisily atheist after some religious nutcases started flying planes into tall buildings and randomly blowing themselves up on busy public transport?
( shinyshinyscalp less a man, more a way of life, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 11:56, closed)

Funnily enough there's a great video...
... which discusses that here
( @><|= w0nu!) or cunt to my friends, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 18:12, closed)

The label Atheist only makes sense from a religious viewpoint.

I don’t have religion in my life, in the same way that I don’t have corned beef in my coffee. My coffee doesn’t “lack” corned beef, I don’t define it by it’s absence of Fray Bentos.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 18:55, closed)

I like this.
Succinct, and involving corned beef. A win for all concerned (unless you're a Hindu).
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 19:06, closed)

But why oh why would you not want corned beef in your coffee?
Spamuccino anyone?
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 22:56, closed)

Atheism pfffft
there is a god, he is real and anyone can find him if they look.

But then I am one of those people from vanuatu what worship prince philip.
(cs1ca, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 12:26, closed)

Are you lot planning anything exciting when he carks it?

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 12:46, closed)

that depends
if he's already returned unto us, bringing with him the promised bounty of western consumer goods, then I dare say it'll be prophecy fulfilled, job done.

If he hasn't, then we'll be busy inventing excuses as to why he hasn't, like every other religion does
(cs1ca, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:26, closed)

He should totally leave you a shitload of Curries vouchers in his will.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 13:45, closed)

I hope I get a toaster
I like toast
(cs1ca, Tue 10 Jan 2012, 14:17, closed)