Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 27-10-2008 @ 11:02 AM by Omega85
reply to post by Good Wolf



A valid point indeed,
In retrospect i can see what you mean, most definitely .
We arent talking small numbers of people here either , where talking loads and loads. And where only talking about those that are blind !

How far do you think extremism and fanaticism reaches? How far do you think it reaches when its coupled with blindness?

On that note, i wonder how many are in a position of power or importance and hence are spreading this stuff throughout the masses .
Just remembering a couple of completely awesome threads but the actuall subject matter and true information in them made me sit back and shake my head. Some of the stupidity and ignorant people out there in the world is astounding. It angers me that some of these people are responsible for educating our children and our children's children .

I understand that you have to have pride about things and i agree but when you have things going on like what follows , If you cant understand that your going too far in doing this stuff then your truly too far gone already and shouldn't be in any authoritative or powerful position regardless of what it is.

One that springs to mind is where this stupid teacher wanted to remove a child in his class from school because he accused the child of black majic and dark witchcraft for something completely simple . Honestly the downright disturbed mentality that some people have out there is just pitiful . Fanatic extremists should not be in a position like that and ill tell you im damn sure that if these halfwits are running around when i put my child or children into school, ill be transferring them so fast, the systems head will spin and then ill go to work on alerting other parents and removing the offender from their position, permanently. I dont think anyone should have to deal with that crap let alone children who should be shown the correct and right way of things at all times .

Extreme fanaticism needs to be burnt and trashed , I don't care what "Faith" anyone is, the point is this BS has no place in society these days .
Fair enough if your a little blind, thats why its faith but to be stupidly and ignorantly blind? that is something completely different .

**Breathes** Ok im good

On another note i think that it is quite nice that Dawkins said that he is open the possibility of a higher power while not banging on about garbage.
I know just what im reading now on Mr Dawkins but i think the way he chose to word his statement was honorable and he seems to have his head somewhat screwed on the right way . i would love to see what yours and others take on this is .

Omega



[edit on 27/10/2008 by Omega85]


reply posted on 28-10-2008 @ 11:54 AM by noobfun
Originally posted by jakyll

True.
But for an intelligent man like Dawkins you would expect him to go to the source,not just take a cheap shot at Christianity.


but what would be the point?

if they deny all links to it no matter how provable then he would be debunking a dodgy beleief that no one alive today really believes and the reliegous disavowe all knowledge of

if the US military declared war on ancient rome for invading lands currently held by the state of Israel what would this achieve apart from a few raised eyebrows and a bunch of questions about sanity and need for new leadership


Einstein had similar views.He believed in the possibility of a higher power but he did not believe in the God of the Bible.


Einstein was agnostic, beleif in a higher unfathomable or unkown power is agnostacism, as is AlexG141989 although you can be an atheist agnostic and a thiest agnostic, the differances i cant remeber off the top of my head but thats for someone else to persue and decide where they stand

But Atheism is not just one set belief.For some it is that there is no evidence to support the existence of god(s) yet,for others it means that there is no higher power,there never was and there never will be.Dawkins belief comes across as the latter.


you should maybe read/re-read his book then.

it was dawkins who coined the phrase "there is almost certainly no god"

beleif in no god,is faith in no god, faith isnt atheism its a bizare no god religeon where faith insomething not existing becomes more valid then faith insomething existing ....neither use logic or proof as a bench mark and are equally absurd



[edit on 28/10/08 by noobfun]


reply posted on 23-11-2008 @ 04:45 AM by Good Wolf
reply to post by capstan


almost certainly no god.and who is he to make that kind of statement
He's going on the evidence to date for a God, none. The thing is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so it has to be said that one cannot rule out the possibility of there being a God. Hence, probably no God.

this guy probably does believe in god but wont admit it
You obviously don't know many atheists. Many would like there to be a God, many would like the bible to be true, but we won't make that leap without evidence.

Got any?




[edit on 23/11/2008 by Good Wolf]


reply posted on 23-11-2008 @ 02:00 PM by panda319
reply to post by jakyll



He's always said that Deism is more likely than complete Theism. He has also always respected it more? This is nothing new.


reply posted on 23-11-2008 @ 04:00 PM by noobfun
reply to post by panda319



its a case of tring to make somthing from nothing to prove thier personal philosophy no matter how much digging in the quote mine it takes

in the same way as trying to show hawkings and einstein were beleivers in the abrahamic god(or gods depending on view point)

[edit on 23/11/08 by noobfun]



reply posted on 23-11-2008 @ 06:19 PM by noobfun
reply to post by Bigwhammy


thanks for so elequantly giving an example of the point i made above

ID has no opponents its not worthy of any

they point out the obvious its not science so shouldnt be taught in science class


look they are happy for it to try, even the guy who framed the debate of ID says its not science yet

hell even Behe the only credable propenent of ID accepts common decent



yes the greatest champion of god dun it say we came frome a common ancestor were realted to chimps

and that big list of sceintists who think it is science and support it either A) dont support it and asked for thier names to be removed B) arnt in a field of science they are even aware of the facts and what the theory really says

if you really want a glimpse of how far detached from scientific knowledge some americans really are






[edit on 23/11/08 by noobfun]


reply posted on 23-11-2008 @ 06:47 PM by Bigwhammy
reply to post by noobfun



Well deism is belief in a creator God. At least Richard Dawkins acknowledges it has a serious case now. He did not before. This a large retreat from his books. I can understand your opposition, I'm sure it will take a while for those indoctrinated by the establishment to catch up


reply posted on 23-11-2008 @ 06:52 PM by noobfun
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to
post by noobfun



Well deism is belief in a creator God. At least Richard Dawkins acknowledges it has a serious case now. He did not before. This a large retreat from his books. I can understand your opposition, I'm sure it will take a while for those indoctrinated by the establishment to catch up
its always had the same case

there is no proof but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist

even in the god delusion he says this

i accept there could be a god or gods becasue theres simply no way to disprove them

but the fact there are so many throught out our history concludes if there is a god or gods chances are your just as wrong as we are were just willing to be more open about the posabilities

your listening to the hype not the words

[edit on 23/11/08 by noobfun]


reply posted on 23-11-2008 @ 06:56 PM by Good Wolf
reply to post by Bigwhammy



If you read the thread, you'd know that Dawkins is misrepresented here, a quote mine.

He's still not going to believe in a God without some evidence.

Got any?


reply posted on 23-11-2008 @ 11:23 PM by cruzion
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to
post by noobfun



Well deism is belief in a creator God. At least Richard Dawkins acknowledges it has a serious case now. He did not before. This a large retreat from his books. I can understand your opposition, I'm sure it will take a while for those indoctrinated by the establishment to catch up



Well, I guess by being mis-represented, Dawkins seems to have given the ID'ers a straw to grasp at. This isn't the light at the end of the tunnel; it's merely a quickly vanishing twinkle in the desperate fimament of pseudo-science creationism.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
The Genesis Code
  Posted 8 days ago with 4 member flags
Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 9 days ago with 3 member flags
Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 4 days ago with 3 member flags
The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 3 days ago with 3 member flags
A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 10 days ago with 2 member flags
Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 4 days ago with 2 member flags
We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 3 days ago with 2 member flags