Religious People
Fuck them.

Well there are two types really.

The sort who get on with their silly beliefs and don't expect to be treated any differently. Fair enough. You are a idiots but you are not cunts.

Then there's the sort that think their moronic group psychosis gives them the right to have other people adjust their lifestyles to accomodate them. Like trying to ban Life of Brian. Like issuing a fatwa against an author or a cartoonist whose ideas you don't like. Fuck off back to your own dimension and take your mediaeval dogma with you.

Yes OK they are an easy target here. But that doesn't change the fact that they are backward and are hindering the progress of human evolution. Fuck them from here to whatever ridiculous concept of hell they have dreamt up.
( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Thu 1 Apr 2010, 15:30, 37 replies)

This is how I feel about Richard Dawkins
He does the cause of atheism no favours whatsoever - he's a preacher of his beliefs just like those he'd condemn for theirs.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 15:32, closed)

I know what you mean
But I can't remember hearing about any dawkins-ites demanding seperate (lack of) faith schools, or calling for the death of the pope.

I feel that he is a product of our age, and fighting fire with fire is not neccesarily a bad thing. Agnosticism (fence-sitting) is not enough any more.
( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Thu 1 Apr 2010, 15:43, closed)

Agnosticism is the only way one can be.
Although agnosticism is really a-theism, but still - we can't and don't know either way, and all Dawkins is doing is making the atheist cause seem all the more arrogant and ill-informed.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 15:51, closed)

I'll have to disagree.
Agnosticism is not "being accepting", it is being an atheist but not having the courage of your convictions.

If you believe something, tell it like it is. That doesn't mean running around quoting Dawkins, or telling muslims that they should not be calling their children muslims, it just means accepting within yourself that religion is clearly not a valid concept.

If enough people believed that the moon's core is made of cheese, should we say "in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and not a shred of evidence to support your idea, i still respect it and will make allowances for your belief. In fact, let's spend lottery money on a school for moon-core-cheese-believers, so your children can also benefit from this theory".
( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Thu 1 Apr 2010, 15:58, closed)

No, agnosticism is saying you don't know whether God exists or not
(Though if he, she or it does then he, she or it seems to have a strange and rather unpleasant sense of humour.)

It's not lacking the courage of your convictions to say you don't know, and it doesn't mean you can't believe that most organized religion is fuckwitted or barmy.
(littlesunshine licked your blinky diodes on, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 17:32, closed)

That's still giving credence to an issue that shouldn't have any. The only possible reason to believe that there is a God is because of social history, agnosticism is the equivalent of equating a panel of experts with a homeless person whispering in your ear.

You can still be Atheist and admit the possibility of a God. Anything is possible. All Atheism means is that you acknowledge that, with all the current data and rational thinking available to us, it is likely that God does not exist.

The term 'God' also confuses the issue entirely, as it usually refers to the Judeo-Christian deity but can also just be a generic term for a creator. Personally, I firmly believe that no being exists to the specifications of Christianity or any other organized belief system. I accept the possibility of an undefined creator, but I do not think it a likely one.
(Legion, Sat 3 Apr 2010, 8:47, closed)

I like this guy's take on it
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
(lardyboy Next stop, Fissplap Central, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 16:21, closed)

Pascal's Wager
Isn't that great a bet really, when you think how many religions there are out there.

When Pascal died, the Flying Spaghetti Monster probably wasn't at all impressed with his choice of deity, and condemned him to being boiled for all eternity in a vat of marinara sauce.
(Vice Admiral Sir Charles Cockbrush KCB MBE DSO, who is finding it increasingly difficult to log into b3ta.com wants to duck your aunt and kick your puppy, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 16:39, closed)

Hmm.
If everyone's thinking was as wooly and wishy-washy as Pascal's, we would probably still be living in the 17th century!
( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Thu 1 Apr 2010, 16:40, closed)

Pascal's Wager
is the most spineless bet-hedging imaginable. Notice it never says anywhere 'you might as well believe in Zeus' or 'Odin'. You 'might as well' believe in any of them, too.
(Falstaff's Spiritual Successor, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 23:24, closed)

Exactly. The reason Christianity has so much power is because it always ends up being 'They are completely right, or there is nothing'. If we're going to listen to the Pope, why not (Long list of other religious and spiritual leaders) as well?
(Legion, Sat 3 Apr 2010, 8:50, closed)

The argument against Pascal's wager is as follows.
If we were created by God in God's image then surely we were created to be free thinking and questioning of our environment.

It is taught by Christians that God is an infinately forgiving, benevolant God (the old 'how many times should I turn my cheek?' jazz). Surely if these two facts are true then God would not punish people for questioning his existance in the afterlife.
( Anthropos Was making beer on, Fri 2 Apr 2010, 10:04, closed)

Evangelical atheists are just as bad in my opinion.
/lolpinion.
( Blue Star was working part time at the 5 and Dime, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 15:45, closed)

Excellent
I thought i was the only one who used this expression.
( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Thu 1 Apr 2010, 15:52, closed)

lolpinion?

(Bazongaloid, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 15:57, closed)

"Evangelical Atheist"

( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Thu 1 Apr 2010, 15:59, closed)

You are a idiots too
In general, I'm less concerned about people's private beliefs than their fucktarded mangling of grammar.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 16:21, closed)

Explain?

( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Thu 1 Apr 2010, 16:36, closed)

third line down

( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 16:42, closed)

It's a documentary style of grammar.
It is not meant to represent literary prose.
( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Thu 1 Apr 2010, 17:22, closed)

Do you like ignoring the fact
that the OP is objecting to evangelism and specifically states he's not bothered about "people's private beliefs" as you put it?

Or were you too busy being a tit?
( Mockingbird Practitioner of SCIENCE, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 17:01, closed)

and yet still feels entitled to refer to them as 'a idiots' who have 'silly beliefs'...
I presume you're OK with this patronizing, holier-than-thou attitude because it's similar to your own. In which case, enjoy your two-man circle-jerk of masturbatory self-justification.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 17:17, closed)

I think you'll find
There are more than two.

The beliefs are clearly silly. Why beat around the bush?
( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Thu 1 Apr 2010, 17:22, closed)

Because 'telling it like it is' is just a long way of saying 'rude'
Maybe you live in some sort of religious community - which would be an odd choice, given your obvious distate - but in general day to day life, I find I am rarely bothered by wild-eyed fanatics spewing gospel from their spittle-flecked lips. Seldom happens at all, really.

I suppose I just don't really see any particular need to insult an entire demographic simply because you disagree with them. It's pointless and churlish. Granted, religion's caused some fairly shitty things to occur, but humanity generally tends to find some excuse to be shitty to one another no matter what.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 17:31, closed)

This isn't about disagreeing
This is about having one's life made worse by cunts.
(egg1, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 18:11, closed)

Name three separate occasions in which theists have caused your life to be significantly worse than it was before by dint of their being theists
or shhhhhhh
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 2 Apr 2010, 1:30, closed)

I'm not quite as keen on bitching as the OP...
But I can pop out a few.

9/11 - Storm of hate and fear on both sides of the fence, leading into a fucking horrible war that has affected the entire planet.

Beaten up for having gay friends - Yes, they were religious and using it as a justification.

Opposition to gay adoption / marriage - Someone very close to me was denied the chance to raise a child despite being able to provide a very above average life for the sprog. Broke her heart.
(Scritty Bakerman., Fri 2 Apr 2010, 23:23, closed)

Come on now,
lets be serious for a second. They actually believe in a Sky Pixie therefore they are idiots. That is indisputable.

The fact that we’re willing to let these loons live among us is much to our credit.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Thu 1 Apr 2010, 18:14, closed)

While I agree with you completely...
...I'm sure they think your beliefs are silly too.
(Legion, Sat 3 Apr 2010, 8:51, closed)

Sorry
But I don't buy this 'Dawkins is an evangelical athiest, so he's as bad as the religious extremists' line. It's classic straw man crap.

Those who disagree with him came up with it to try and discredit him by attacking anything other than his arguments.

It's bollocks.

Dawkins is right - the religious are delusional. And it's time we all admitted it.
(El Fandango carved a big EF onto his nemesis' doublet on .., Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:36, closed)

He's a tub-thumping self-publicist, harvesting money from the insecure
Eloquent, certainly - but he merely validates the opinions of those too weak and intellectually feeble to formulate an argument of their own.

How the fuck is drawing a parallel between his media whoring and the bombastic proclamtions of the church a 'straw man' argument? I think you have heard of this term, and yet failed to fully understand.

He's far more determined to ram his opionion-cock down the throat of anyone nearby than any priest I've ever met.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 2 Apr 2010, 1:42, closed)

He's written one book on religion
and he's written nine about evolution. He's gone on record several times to say that he's sick of being the media's go-to guy for any story about atheism and that they could go to any university in the country and find a professor who will tell them the same things.

If he came across as tub-thumping, let's not forget his job at Oxford was Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. It's what he was paid to do. I remember the Christmas lectures extremely fondly.

I'll confess, I'm a fan. I've read all his books and I've heard him speak three times. The first time was at the culmination of the God Delusion book tour, and was (obviously) about religion, but the other two times - even though he was addressing a theatre packed full of atheists - he talked about the mating habits of spiders and other quirky oddities found in nature. Drawing our attention to the wonder of science rather than ramming his "opinion-cock" down our throats.

He doesn't harvest money from the insecure, he writes books about science that, in my opinion, do an admirable job of explaining the complexities of natural history in a way that the layman can understand. If you think I'm insecure because I enjoy reading The Ancestor's Tale of an evening then I really pity you.

You don't know what you're talking about, in short.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Fri 2 Apr 2010, 11:38, closed)

Are you thinking about the same chap?
From his DVD, The Enemies of Reason, in respect of other people's beliefs, and whether or not they can be considered valid:

"Richard Dawkins doesn’t think so, and feels it is his duty to expose those areas of belief that exist without scientific proof, yet manage to hold the nation under their spell."

Duty. His fucking *duty*, as if he's the nation's sole arbiter of reason. Add to that his other epics, such as The Root of All Evil (can you guess what he chose?), and he starts to look like a overly-verbose one-trick-pony with an particularly obnoxious axe to grind.

I've studied a great deal of evolutionary theory, and wholly accept it; I am baffled that anyone could genuinely prefer a baseless, supertitious explanation for the way things are. I respect Dawkins' academic accomplishments, and enjoyed The Blind Watchmaker - but that was in the days before he threw a massive intellectual hissy fit and more or less became a cartoonish pastiche of himself. Actively going out of one's way to destroy the beliefs of others is mean-spirited.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 2 Apr 2010, 15:21, closed)

Okay, I'll bite
The Root of All Evil? was a title chosen by Channel 4 for the two-part documentary accompanying TGD. Dawkins has gone on the record several times to express his dissatisfaction with the title (apparently he managed to get them to add the question mark) which isn't surprising - "evil" is hardly a scientific matter. Anyway, it covers exactly the same ground as the book, so no great surprises there.

When it comes to The Enemies of Reason, it sounds like you're reading off the back of the DVD box, again that would be promotional copy not written by Dawkins. Still, if you want to stand up for psychics who take people's money to comminucate with their dead relatives, homeopaths who sell people water as medicine, crystal healers, astrologers, snake-oil salesmen and cranks then be my guest. If you think that exploiting vulnerable people with tales of false hope is somehow laudable, that's fine. I'd much rather spend an evening with a scientist like Dawkins or a sceptic like Derren Brown, than a bullshit merchant like Deepak Chopra.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 10:05, closed)

I'm entirely on board with the skeptics
I'm not defending snake-oil, nor its salesmen. I just feel that Dawkins is unacceptably militant about it. Destroying something precious to someone else simply because it has no value to you (or even no inherent value in and of itself) is mean.

Case in point; found out recently that my father has aggressive cancer. My mother, an intelligent woman, is buying some gelatinous homeopathic glop, and everything else that offers even the most slender chance of having some small effect. I know it's arse - hell, she knows, too - but it allows her to feel that she's doing *something*, and that helps her get by. Yes, it's stupid, but fuck it; it gives her some form of peace, and people have paid a lot more for a lot less.

If Dawkins had a b3ta sig, it would be 'will kick you when you're down'. Which said; I do not dispute his arguments in the slightest.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 0:51, closed)

I'm not really understanding
how they hinder the cause of evolution.

In fact love them or loathe them, Christianity as well as having some bad things, has also produced some bloody amazing art, literature and music. And even if I hated every last one of them (which I don't) I'd still love the monks who saved books rather than burn them
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 22:53, closed)

The difference between Dawkins and the religious zealots, is that his beliefs and arguments stand up to scrutiny and reason. He may not be a nice man, but at least what he says is verifiably true.
(shanterbabs, Fri 2 Apr 2010, 20:02, closed)