It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Richard Dawkins: Republicans are a 'disgrace' for denying evolution

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Speaking as a Christian with a healthy respect for, and interest in science, not to mention some leftist ideals it must be said, if the left can keep all the scientists, then we will be up on the deal.

Stunning, facepalm inducing ignorance is not something to be proud of GeisterFahrer, no matter what religious beliefs one might hold.




posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Doesn't a Young Earth Creationist believe the world is less than 6,000 years old?

So if one of those GOP candidates believes the Earth is 10,000 years old will they call him a 'moderate'?
And 4.54 billion years? I'm guessing a 'RINO'?

I wonder which one of those Republicans doesn't believe in evolution. It's a tough call since they all seem to be stuck in primordial slime.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: starwarsisreal

I don't particularly like Richard Dawkins. He is too interfering. He uses his purported science ( his scientific opinion) as some weapon of conversion as though he is privileged with a greater understanding than the rest of humanity. There are organic reasons why certain myths operate in culture. He is as much a tele evangelist of his own cause as any Bible Belt preacher man. If we dropped every nuance of myth from our lives we would be left as empty logical robot machines.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

A god has done no such thing.

He or she, has never shown themself to me.

I agree with Dawkins. That's scary how many Republican candidates don't believe in Evolution.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

'A total logical fallacy, as obviously God is not material and science is only interested in, and can only observe material ‘reality’'

Well. quantum physics is the proof that the statement ''science is only interested in, and can only observe material reality'' is incorrect, so I assume perhaps the reason science shows no evidence for god (note I did not say disproved) is because it only observes, as you put it, 'reality'.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: starwarsisreal

Oh what BS

What does believing in God have to do with our sh!itty public schools?

When "god" was in the schools we were #1 in the world. I am not saying prayer in schools was the reason but it sure isn't a reason they are crap now.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Well our godless schooling still ranks #1 in higher education



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Singapore is now #1 in scholastic achievement, and by law no religious instruction is allowed in schools

But, I don't fully disagree with you, as you are correct about being number one in the past.

I personally believe its has zero to do with religion in schools, which I admit I am not a fan of (but its not my country), but rather certain demographics of parents telling their children what their teacher told them is untrue, on subjects such as history and certain sciences, and I'm sure that children being told their tutors are wrong would stop them listening to them or believing any of the lessons taught.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: starwarsisreal

Pot calling the kettle black.

The man who claimed it would be “immoral” to carry on with a pregnancy if the mother knew the foetus had Down’s syndrome.

Dawkins later defended his view, saying he would not apologise “for approaching moral philosophic questions in a logical way”

What ever your beliefs are the guy is a vile, ignorant disgrace of a man.
edit on 3-11-2015 by PickledOnion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Excellent point!


I was taught that it's WRONG (a sin - an offense to God) to even question religion or God. It is not for us to question, but to TRUST. I think a lot of people are taught that, if only subliminally. I couldn't help where my mind went, though.

I think religious people are taught not to question, because it shows a "lack of faith". And as atheists, we have questioned ourselves right out of religious belief. Questions, logic and science are all seen as threats to religion and "faith".

I think that's why it's so easy for people to attack the atheist. Their "process" in getting out of religion is seen as a direct threat.


originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
"When you talk about agnosticism it's very important to make a distinction between I don't know whether X is true or not, therefore it's 50/50 likely, and that's the kind of agnosticism I'm definitely not. I think one can place estimates of probability on these things and I think the probability of any supernatural creator existing is very very low. source


This is SO important! It's why I don't call myself an "agnostic". Because that would mean that I believe the probability of God existing would be about equal to the probability of him NOT existing. When, really, I see the liklihood of his existence as very, very low. I'm not saying he absolutely doesn't exist, because he could. But, to me, God is as likely or unlikely to exist as any other mythical entity. Like the Unicorn.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid




I suspect that deep down inside all of us KNOW whats real...

God has revealed Himself to everyone.

NO one is inexcusable just because they say they don’t believe in Him.



You're right, and I despise the deimurge usurper jehovah that you hold high. Like any pretender the facts speak for themselves, jehovah is not mans friend. Likewise you shall be held to account for judging through the eyes of the usurper.
You may believe in him, I know and dont need belief to denounce the "lofty one"



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: starwarsisreal

I used to like Dawkins (I'm an atheist, myself), but over time I have come to the conclusion that he's generally a sensationalist out for attention.

That said, I find it very hard to argue against anything that he says in this video or object to the way that he says it.

He's pretty spot on, and I agree with him that when candidates claim to favor creationism over evolution, that they're pretty much doing it for ratings over actual belief. But what they don't discuss in this video is that one can believe that a god created everything and it not be the same belief as Creationism proper. So, to equate the two as being the same is disingenuous, in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: starwarsisreal

It's funny how someone can paint a whole swathe of people with the same brush? How do you get the right to do that?



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Enochstask

He didn't though. This is his quote from that video: “You’ve just told me that all the Republican candidates except one say they don’t believe in evolution. Now that’s a disgrace."



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
If Quantum Physics underpins our reality isn't our existence more like a giant hologram?

If we live in a quantum hologram couldn't all we see and know have appeared by the flick of a switch?



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
And when I care what a Brit thinks about US politics, I'll have moved to the UK.



posted on Nov, 3 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Speaking as a Christian with a healthy respect for, and interest in science, not to mention some leftist ideals it must be said, if the left can keep all the scientists, then we will be up on the deal.

Stunning, facepalm inducing ignorance is not something to be proud of GeisterFahrer, no matter what religious beliefs one might hold.


denying God's truth for lies isn't something to be smug about either.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: troubleshooter

Are you attempting to draw a parallel between that and god saying 'let there be light'?



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: troubleshooter

Are you attempting to draw a parallel between that and god saying 'let there be light'?

I wasn't but you could or even "... the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep..." (Gen 1:2)
edit on 4/11/15 by troubleshooter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: troubleshooter

That verse is vague and conveniently open to many interpretations.

I'm not discounting the possibility of metaphysics, but we know Genesis is hogwash based on scientific findings. I will substantiate that upon request.

Now if you were not drawing that parallel, then what were you ultimately getting at?
edit on 4-11-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join