Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?

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]

Originally posted by Omega85
How far do you think extremism and fanaticism reaches? How far do you think it reaches when its coupled with blindness?

How long is a piece of string?



There are theists out there that really frustrate me, not because they are blind but because they believe that all (or sometimes most) atheists are atheists because they are afraid of "divine judgment" and that in reality, they do in fact believe in a God but try to convince themselves that they aren't.

I've seen this a lot and I'm really sick of it. It's entirely speculation as in fact most atheist would like there to be a greater, higher benevolent being but are not going to believe that without evidence beyond reasonable doubt- otherwise they know that they would be lying to themselves.

It's this sort of blatant misunderstanding that makes Richard Dawkins a target, he is believed to be a coward by the devouts.

[edit on 10/27/2008 by Good Wolf]

you guys should come jump on the athiest bus thread

exactly the point im arguing

as long as religeon keep the sexist racist anti everyone bits of thier holy books they will always be racist and the darker side will be waiting for some idiot to drag out and spread the good message again

"Come aboard the atheist bus"

noobfun

youd be aiming at Pharaoh Akhenaten's cult of Ra

Thats one.But not the only influence i was talking about.

the modern religeons care nothing for these older religeons(in many cases especially the more hard line or truley fundamental) becasue thier creation myths say thier religeon was there at the begining of everything so couldnt have been effected by them

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.




AlexG141989

I, as an atheist am open to the possibility that a God like being created the universe, and set things into motion. But I do not for one minute take anything said in the bible, or any holy book as truth. A God may exist, but who, or what he is is up for debate.

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





[edit on 28-10-2008 by jakyll]

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]

almost certainly no god.and who is he to make that kind of statement this guy probably does believe in god but wont admit it .because he thinks it him.the curse of ego

[edit on 23-11-2008 by capstan]

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]

Originally posted by capstan
almost certainly no god.and who is he to make that kind of statement

a rational man that deals in facts and evidence

in the hundreds of thousands of years man has had gods from nature spirits, ancestor spirits bearmen in the clouds no one has been able to produce any evidence to support the fact of god any god existing

its reasonable to conclude there really isnt one

he is just honest enough and reasonable enough to understand that this isnt proof there isnt one

so there probabily isnt but theres a chance now matter how small there could be

this guy probably does believe in god but wont admit it .because he thinks it him.the curse of ego

he accepts the possability there could be but understands the chance is so slim just like fairies unicorns leprechauns that its not worth thinking about until someone (anyone at all please step forward if you can and let us all know) presents some evidence that there is a god any of the hundreds of thosands of gods man has created of being real

we dont care which one any god will do we would just like some proof before we fall to our knees and beg for mercy as the good religeous folks do



[edit on 23/11/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by capstan
almost certainly no god.and who is he to make that kind of statement

- Well, he is a Dr. of philosophy and a proffessor at one the most respected and oldest Universities in the world, and a very popoular author on science.

this guy probably does believe in god but wont admit it .

- Well, he will admit to the 'possibility' of god.

because he thinks it him.the curse of ego

- You obviously know nothing about him, then.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by capstan]

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 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]

This is a huge victory for the intelligent design movement. Their top opponent now concedes a serious case can be made. In his next debate with Dr. Lennox, Dawkins will use the sneaky tactic of announcing his conversion to Christianity.

The apostle Richard:
"circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of England, of the tribe of Oxford, a Atheist of Atheists; in regard to the law, a Darwinist; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless." (flip 5:6)

What testimony that would be!






[edit on 11/23/2008 by Bigwhammy]

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 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

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 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?

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.