Richard Dawkins is a super coward

reply to post by SuperFrog

Paranoia is dangerous, just so you know.
Are those your news sources?

Sheep like qualities are dangerous, just so you know

Where does the paranoia come in?

Is CNN or FOX your news source?

Do you really think what your hear from the MSM is the truth?

According to the information of the Humanitarian Law Center (HLC), 13,421 persons died, were killed or went missing during the armed conflict in Kosovo in the period from January 1st 1998 until June 14th 1999 and after the deployment of international troops in Kosovo until December 2000. There is still no information about the fate of 1,886 persons whose families are still searching for their bodies. More than 500 of these persons are Serbs, Roma, Bosniaks and other non-Albanians. In the total number of victims (13,421), 10,533 were Albanians, 2,238 were Serbs, 126 Roma, 100 Bosniaks, 40 Montenegrins, 25 Ashkalia, 18 Egyptians, 13 Turks, 10 Hungarians, eights (8) Goranis, four (4) Macedonians, two (2) Bulgarians, two (2) Czechs, two (2) Croats, two (2) Russians, two (2) Slovenians, one (1) Ruthene, one (1) Slovak, and 294 victims whose nationality has not yet been ascertained.

* Source - this was part of presentation in Belgrade, Serbia in 2009. You know, after conflict, even Serbs accepted that genocide was done in their name (just like with Germany and Germans in times of Nazi) Real reason we bombed Serbs was that Milosevic used his Armed and Police force against Kosovo population. Sure, there were atrocities against Serbs as well, but that was after attack by Serb's forces. Bombing of Serbia resulted in Serbs pulling out of Kosovo, Kosovo becoming new country and Milosevic loosing power in Serbia. They sent him to Hague for his war crimes in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, bad sadly, he died in jail before end of trial.

I suggest you watch Death of Yugoslavia made by BBC. You will learn what happened and how you got manipulated by media...

If you like to discuss something, get informed, learn... same about evolution.

As I said, I gladly help you...

sdb93awd

But why attempt to destroy that belief then?

If they are irrelevant why does Dawkins attempt to marginalize the concept?

Because (among many other things) people teach such conjecture and scientifically unsupported fantasies to impressionable young minds, as if it were unshakable fact. You realise he has no real problem with the average (non fanatical/non fundamentalist) religious observer? He promotes science and its principles.

This is why Dawkins is a coward. He is attempting to destroy something of utmost importance to millions of people armed only with ignorance-based conjecture.

Could it be simply that he has found a niche in the market that he hopes to keep exploiting?

Someone with his academic standing should be much smarter.

So Dawkins is both a coward and a dullard because his science conflicts with a lot of different mythologies? Could it have nothing to do with him being Oxford's "Professor for the Public Understanding of Science" for many years, rather than him simply exploiting a market? No possibility there?

So around 150 years of scientific observation and experiment, where it is encouraged to falsify current theories if you really can, a concept that has not been weakened but strengthened regardless of what has been thrown at it, is considered ignorance based conjecture to yourself? Looks unlikely.

Instead of standing back making unsupported ad hominem claims towards an eminent Professor, why don't you do something tangible and positive to substantiate your position? Can you show clearly where it isn't based on your own particular belief in mythology? Where is your paper, that explains how you found a creator or that explains how it happened in some verifiable way? Where is the creator itself, for starters.....in which way does it exist outside of the psyche of the believers?

reply to post by sdb93awd


I gotta be honest. All of your attacks seem to be largely based on character and integrity rather than any of the actual research and data he's provided. In short, you seem obsessed with ad hominem strategy. If that's all you got, then this thread was a waste of time for everyone concerned.

reply to post by Prezbo369


I just have to say, I freaking love your avatar, every time I see it I laugh. That vile woman....

Jesus wept:

reply to post by SuperFrog


Everhing you've posted is beside the point.

The conflict arose from the actions of Muslim activists.

All the stats and things you've thrown out have nothing to do with the initiating of the conflict.

The people were not going to just sit idly by........

Who seems to be benefiting from the US involvement in the middle east? Who has gained influence in every situation?

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Because (among many other things) people teach such conjecture and scientifically unsupported fantasies to impressionable young minds, as if it were unshakable fact. You realise he has no real problem with the average (non fanatical/non fundamentalist) religious observer? He promotes science and its principles.

This teaching of so-called "fantasies" to youngsters is not harming them or society. I believe that's up to the parents anyway.

Atheism is a far more dangerous ideology than Christian "fantasy" ( See: Stalin, Hitler, China, N. Korea, Lenin, Mussolini)

So Dawkins is both a coward and a dullard because his science conflicts with a lot of different mythologies?

No. He's a coward because he won't debate legitimate challengers. He'd rather try and humiliate the less-informed. Also, the Bible and science aren't mutually exclusive.

Could it have nothing to do with him being Oxford's "Professor for the Public Understanding of Science" for many years, rather than him simply exploiting a market? No possibility there

No. It couldn't be.

It is his stated goal to destroy Christianity; and Christianity has nothing to do with science.

He is afraid to be humiliated on his talking point of choice.

So around 150 years of scientific observation and experiment, where it is encouraged to falsify current theories if you really can, a concept that has not been weakened but strengthened regardless of what has been thrown at it, is considered ignorance based conjecture to yourself? Looks unlikely.

I'm not denying or discounting anything that science has observed. This isn't even what the discussion is about and again; Science and the Bible are not mutually exclusive to any reasonable person.

Instead of standing back making unsupported ad hominem claims towards an eminent Professor, why don't you do something tangible and positive to substantiate your position? Can you show clearly where it isn't based on your own particular belief in mythology? Where is your paper, that explains how you found a creator or that explains how it happened in some verifiable way? Where is the creator itself, for starters.....in which way does it exist outside of the psyche of the believers?

What position? I'm calling Dawkins a coward because all the evidence says that he is.

That's all I'm saying.

I am in no way trying to deny science. See how y'all just always run back to the talking points? It's unbelievable.

sdb93awd
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Everhing you've posted is beside the point.

The conflict arose from the actions of Muslim activists.

All the stats and things you've thrown out have nothing to do with the initiating of the conflict.

The people were not going to just sit idly by........

Who seems to be benefiting from the US involvement in the middle east? Who has gained influence in every situation?

You are making statements without any evidence of proof. Please, provide evidence that that was reason for war. And if you just watched beginning of video, which include Milosevic, who people played to rise tension against Kosovo (Yes, for your info, that is actually where it all started) and fueled nationalism to gain power (which eventually will cost them loosing ground in other 3 states (Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) and later rest of states (Montenegro and Macedonia) and last - Kosovo.

As you can see, this recent history is well documented, there on video you can even learn how they staged protest and attacked police to fuel ethnic tensions just to push everyone else... same tactic that Hitler used for his living space.

You can ignore truth and evidence and live dream... but at this point my only conclusion is that you are just another troll... unless you provide more then wishful thinking for what you stated here, any other discussion is unnecessary...

reply to post by AfterInfinity

gotta be honest. All of your attacks seem to be largely based on character and integrity rather than any of the actual research and data he's provided. In short, you seem obsessed with ad hominem strategy. If that's all you got, then this thread was a waste of time for everyone concerned.

Read the title of the thread...........

This isn't an evolution vs. creation thread.

This thread is all about character and integrity and intellectual "balls"; something RDawk clearly doesn't possess.

He runs away from his formidable challengers and attacks the weak.

reply to post by SuperFrog

You are making statements without any evidence of proof. Please, provide evidence that that was reason for war

I already did......but here ais more

US-Al Qaeda alliance in Bosnia

A major reason for the Serb attack on Srebrenica was to deal with the armed attacks mounted from that base on nearby villages: “intelligence sources said it was that harassment which precipitated the Serb attack on the 1,500 Muslim defenders inside the enclave.”27 General Philippe Morillon, commander of the UN troops in Bosnia from 1992 to 1993, testified to the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) that Muslim forces based in Srebrenica had “engaged in attacks during Orthodox holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region”28 According to Prof. John Schindler,

Between May and December 1992, Muslim forces repeatedly attacked Serb villages around Srebrenica, killing and torturing civilians; some were mutilated and burned alive. Even pro-Sarajevo accounts concede that Muslim forces in Srebrenica…murdered over 1,300 Serbs…and had “ethnically cleansed a vast area.29

This raises the disturbing question: were some Americans willing to ignore the atrocities of the al-Kifah mujahideen in Bosnia in exchange for mujahideen assistance in NATO’s successive wars dismantling Yugoslavia, the last surviving socialist republic in Europe? One thing is clear: Sir Alfred Sherman’s prediction in 1997 that America “intends to continue the war in the near future” soon proved accurate, when in 1999 American support for al-Qaeda’s allies in Kosovo, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), led to a controversial NATO bombing campaign

Also, circumstantial evidence is also clearly on my side. Who gains influence after these wars?

I'd like for you to show me proof that "christian extremists", and not nationalists, supposedly started attacking people unprovoked.

That is the heart of what we're talking about.

sdb93awd
I already did.

Also, circumstantial evidence is also clearly on my side. Who gains influence after these wars?

I'd like for you to show me proof that "christian extremists", and not nationalists, supposedly started attacking people unprovoked.

That is the heart of what we're talking about.

sbd93awd - on Balkan, nationality is closely connected to ethnic group as well religion.

In video, just at it start, you will see rise of Milosevic, who was president of Serbian's Communist party, got played by Serbs acting to provoke them and bring police and army to Kosovo, because they become low minority on Kosovo which they conquered in one of the wars in 15th century.

Rise of Serbian nationalism is what started all wars as they declared that all Serbs can live only in 1 state - Big Serbia - that is what they called it. That is why they occupied Bosnia and Croatia, and if you watched video, you will see Serbs General who suggested to Milosevic to move troops from Slovenia,a s there was no enough Serbian's there to proclaim independent Serbian state.

Why do you think part of Bosnia is now called 'republica srpska'. They don't want to live with others, yet they wanted to rule land they live on, even if only minority (Croatia) or one of 3 constitutional ethnic groups (Bosnia).

As I said, this is all well documented, you can even watch Hague tribunal or read about it. I did for a long time, follow it.

Just do simple thing - search Arkan, Seselj and Cetnik.

Just to explain you what happened in Bosnia - Bosnian government just before war was given ultimatum by Serbs - live under Serbia (still Yugoslavia) or you will have war. They had strong force behind them, very large army, bunch of paramilitary forces. Most of land they took, it was done in first 3 months of war. Then they started destroying everything, including Sarajevo (Serbian general responsible for attack was sentenced in Hague), Dubrovnik (Croatia - beautiful city on Adriatic sea) and they made many atrocities of war, including genocide in Srebrenica.

Later in Hague they showed video where they killed group of young prisoners.... many of them were 15-16. Not sure if you like to see it.

And to be fair, later in war (1993-1994) Bosniak had extremist as well, mostly from Arab countries, because it was clearly war for survival of Bosniaks (and that would be very clear to you, if you have seen whole video). But at the end of war, Bosnia has sent everyone who was accused of any war crimes, while Serbia tried to cover up and some of them were taken as heroes. This is why they were blocked from becoming members in EU.

If you like to discuss something, you should inform yourself first.

As I said, I gladly help you, but don't make conclusions on wishful thinking...

reply to post by SuperFrog


You are making the choice to be ignorant. That's really all I can tell you at this point.

Can you just not bear to think that the MSM has an agenda?

Do you really believe the MSM?

They have told you everything that you've spewed here; and it isn't the truth. Muslim extremists clearly began the altercations within the country before the "war" began.

Just like it was the muslim extremists who started the altercation in Syria; yet we blame Assad for protecting his people.

sdb93awd
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

You are making the choice to be ignorant. That's really all I can tell you at this point.

Can you just not bear to think that the MSM has an agenda?

Do you really believe the MSM?

They have told you everything that you've spewed here; and it isn't the truth. Muslim extremists clearly began the altercations within the country before the "war" began.

edit on 30-9-2013 by sdb93awd because: (no reason given)

I think I told you I was there more then once. I know people from there.

You are the one who is ignorant in this case, as well in other instances, where you like to believe your little myths.

Trust me, even you are Christian, you don't want to be there, if you were not orthodox. What do you think happened in Vukovar? Come on, please tell me muslim extremist (there are no muslim population there).

Just wake up, try to read and learn...

Let's do simple thing - baby steps - what happened in Vukovar in 1991 - before war in Bosnia.

reply to post by SuperFrog

You are the one who is ignorant in this case, as well in other instances, where you like to believe your little myths.

Yet I've displayed proofs of my point. You seem to want to take CNN or the BBC's word for it. You still haven't shown me one instance of an unprovoked attack from "christian extremists".....and that's the point of what we're talking about.

What, in your opinion, is happening in Syria?



Why aren't "fundamentalist" Christians in this country causing terror?

It's like half our population; yet you never hear of "fundamentalist Christian" terror groups.

You would think America would be ripe with these psycho American Christian terrorists; yet they don't even exist.

Are you personally afraid of Christians?

Don't avoid question - as I said, simple step - what happened in Vukovar in 1991? Who was fighting and why that city is important?

sdb93awd

 

This teaching of so-called "fantasies" to youngsters is not harming them or society. I believe that's up to the parents anyway.

Au contraire mon ami. This is quite a myth. The correlation between religion and negative societal conditions is well known. Look at the link, a lot of work has been done in this area since this study, it generally isn't even considered controversial any longer amongst sociologists (ones who aren't religious anyway).

www.epjournal.net...

Ever wonder why the US basically has 2nd/3rd word societal standards in amongst their 1st world affluence, or what the only correlation might be? Truly a great shame for the majority of it's citizens who are normal, nice intelligent people...including the non fundamentalist religious observers (ie. those who don't want to rewrite science to accomodate their delusion).

It is the cult brainwashing of young minds. No different to teaching Scientology or anything else as fact. It should be banned from all education (apart from comparative study of mythology).

sdb93awd

 

Atheism is a far more dangerous ideology than Christian "fantasy" ( See: Stalin, Hitler, China, N. Korea, Lenin, Mussolini)

Hitler spoke positively about German Christianity and the "Aryan Christ". There are references to "the lord our creator" in Mein Kampf indicating he was a creationist. You didn't know the influence of Martin Luthers anti Semitic drivel on the German populace or the part it played in the final solution? Time for you to learn.

From Mein Kampf.....

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord

As to Luther.....

he lived within a local community that had expelled Jews some ninety years earlier.[193] He considered the Jews blasphemers and liars because they rejected the divinity of Jesus, whereas Christians believed Jesus was the Messiah.

The prevailing view[28] among historians is that Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric contributed significantly to the development of antisemitism in Germany,[29] and in the 1930s and 1940s provided an ideal foundation for the Nazi Party's attacks on Jews

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

You do understand that Luther was a christian and these views were motivated by christianity?

Was it Stalins atheism or his moustache, or something else? Perhaps the chairman couldn't grow one and this was the cause of his problems. Are you pulling logical fallacies out of thin air (like your hero "Craig" seems to do)? Can you point out where atheism would be more relevant than facial hair/no hair? Would you like us to continue this trip down logical fantasyland pointing out all of the correlations between religion/atheism and history?

sdb93awd

 

No. He's a coward because he won't debate legitimate challengers. He'd rather try and humiliate the less-informed.

I would like to see him put people like Craig way down the list, where he belongs... and debate some Easter Bunniasts or Father Christmasians first. It is the same thing, the results would be similar and it would be as fruitful.

The most ridiculous assertions are known to spring from apologists (like Craig). Such as requiring evidence/proof that god doesn't exist (Easter Bunny?). I do seem to recall hearing an assertion that belief in fairies, Santa etc. can't be compared to religion, because their non belief wouldn't change anyone's world view. Nonsense. I had no problem working out god wasn't real, the only way it changed my world view was the realisation that adults lie. Some time later when I found out about Santa not being real, it was much harder to take. A bit crushing, some of the magic was lost.....

It is basically saying that mild and harmless delusions (fairies etc.) can be discounted, but a full on (religious) psychosis indicates something must be real. Why would Dawkins (or any rational person) entertain these types of idiocy?

sdb93awd

 

Also, the Bible and science aren't mutually exclusive.

sdb93awd

 

It is his stated goal to destroy Christianity; and Christianity has nothing to do with science.

Lol.

Please compare your quotes. Notice a contradiction? I guess the bible is directly relevant to the social sciences.

sdb93awd

 

I am in no way trying to deny science. See how y'all just always run back to the talking points? It's unbelievable.

Really.....so you don's support the idea that science should take a completely unsubstantiated, immeasurable and undetectable magical sky fairy (ie. biblical god) into consideration? I agree.

reply to post by sdb93awd

Read the title of the thread...........

This isn't an evolution vs. creation thread.

This thread is all about character and integrity and intellectual "balls"; something RDawk clearly doesn't possess.

He runs away from his formidable challengers and attacks the weak.

Is this the man we're talking about?







Remind me again how he has no "intellectual balls". And what exactly are "intellectual balls", anyway? What does that even mean?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


The OP has no concept of intellectual integrity. The OP's arguments are all knee jerk reactions to the collective rejection of his superstitious beliefs and are based on intellectual dishonesty.

reply to post by sdb93awd

This isn't an evolution vs. creation thread.

If it's not a discussion our origins, why is it in the O&C forum?

reply to post by sdb93awd

He runs away from his formidable challengers and attacks the weak.

And what does that say about creationism, since he's attacked creationist thinking?