Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

Richard Dawkins

Recommended Posts

I ran into this video while surfing youtube. Dawkins makes the comment that makes religion the only pathway to doing bad things. And that atheism does not.

 

This is all said in the first 20 seconds of the video. The rest of the video is kinda lame.

 

8U0kzqPgkwo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not agree with his statement. Both the religious and irreligious have committed atrocities. Over a million Cambodians died in an effort to establish atheistic Marxism. Joseph Stalin ruled over an atheistic empire resulting in many deaths. The Catholic Church supported Hitler.

 

If one claims to follow Jesus then it is not a logical to do bad things at all. I find myself wanting to call Richard Dawkins a name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not agree with his statement. Both the religious and irreligious have committed atrocities. Over a million Cambodians died in an effort to establish atheistic Marxism. Joseph Stalin ruled over an atheistic empire resulting in many deaths. The Catholic Church supported Hitler.

 

If one claims to follow Jesus then it is not a logical to do bad things at all. I find myself wanting to call Richard Dawkins a name.

68839[/snapback]

What it is, is that the atheists have no written moral code, so what they do will always look better because there is no standard. Just ask one why they have no moral code and they will fumble to answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What it is, is that the atheists have no written moral code, so what they do will always look better because there is no standard. Just ask one why they have no moral code and they will fumble to answer the question.

68920[/snapback]

Most atheists claim to have a moral code, then when I ask them how they know what is the right thing to do and what is the wrong thing they can't explain it either. Morals are the most confusing thing to them, it doesn't matter where their position is.

 

As for Dawkins, he is a washed up biologist who fails at philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tharock220

I do not agree with his statement. Both the religious and irreligious have committed atrocities. Over a million Cambodians died in an effort to establish atheistic Marxism. Joseph Stalin ruled over an atheistic empire resulting in many deaths. The Catholic Church supported Hitler.

 

If one claims to follow Jesus then it is not a logical to do bad things at all. I find myself wanting to call Richard Dawkins a name.

68839[/snapback]

I agree.

 

Most atheists claim to have a moral code, then when I ask them how they know what is the right thing to do and what is the wrong thing they can't explain it either. Morals are the most confusing thing to them, it doesn't matter where their position is.

Most people don't need a moral code to tell them what is and isn't right. It's fairly common sense. Making things like theft and murder crimes came long before Christianity and most other current religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

Most people don't need a moral code to tell them what is and isn't right.  It's fairly common sense.  Making things like theft and murder crimes came long before Christianity and most other current religions.

68928[/snapback]

So we make our own rules? Jeffery Dahmer thought it was okay to eat people.

 

The reason written rules are needed is because not everyone's common sense is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

Most people don't need a moral code to tell them what is and isn't right.  It's fairly common sense.  Making things like theft and murder crimes came long before Christianity and most other current religions.

68928[/snapback]

If morals are arbitrary, then it's okay to commit mass genocide. An atheist can not claim a standard because there is know all knowing being to confirm what is truly right or wrong, it would be a matter of opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree.

Most people don't need a moral code to tell them what is and isn't right.  It's fairly common sense.  Making things like theft and murder crimes came long before Christianity and most other current religions.

68928[/snapback]

If morals are arbitrary, then it's okay to commit mass genocide. An atheist can not claim a standard because there is know all knowing being to confirm what is truly right or wrong, it would be a matter of opinion.

69095[/snapback]

Further, if morals are arbitrary, then absolutely no one has a right to "complain" about the said morals (?) of Jeffery Dahmer, Adolph Hitler, Pol-Pot, Joseph Stalin (etc...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran into this video while surfing youtube. Dawkins makes the comment that makes religion the only pathway to doing bad things. And that atheism does not.

 

This is all said in the first 20 seconds of the video. The rest of the video is kinda lame.

 

8U0kzqPgkwo

68823[/snapback]

This begs the further question then; What of Dawkins' own atheistic religiosity? His blind faith in macro-evolution, statements about panspermia, statements leaning toward abiogenesis? Are these his pathways to doing "bad things"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not agree with his statement. Both the religious and irreligious have committed atrocities. Over a million Cambodians died in an effort to establish atheistic Marxism. Joseph Stalin ruled over an atheistic empire resulting in many deaths. The Catholic Church supported Hitler.

 

If one claims to follow Jesus then it is not a logical to do bad things at all. I find myself wanting to call Richard Dawkins a name.

68839[/snapback]

Hopefully we can build people up in love? How do you define religion? -God can't be bribed. (How can we please God?-Hebrews) Everyone has religion in the sense of rules they live by. :lol:

James 1:26 KJV If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are at least 8 definitions of religion: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion. Atheist/"Natural Man 1st Cor. 2:14" sometimes define religious people as people who believe in the supernatural as opposed to only natural beliefs -stereotyping. On another note, Jesus saves (God's Grace) and not works (religion also was looking at Philipians 3)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are at least 8 definitions of religion:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion.

69223[/snapback]

And you'll find that atheists and agnostics fit snugly into #6.

 

Also, a case can be made for #1 if you disregard everything after the word "especially". Which you can do, because it deviates from the definition, so as to give an example (or examples). So, when you take the portion that says "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", you can easily see that atheists will make claims concerning " the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", and then defend these belief "dogmatically"! You see it at this forum all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you'll find that atheists and agnostics fit snugly into #6.

 

Also, a case can be made for #1 if you disregard everything after the word "especially". Which you can do, because it deviates from the definition, so as to give an example (or examples). So, when you take the portion that says "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", you can easily see that atheists will make claims concerning " the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", and then defend these belief "dogmatically"! You see it at this forum all the time.

69225[/snapback]

But athiesm is no belief in God, it would be like saying my hobby is not trainspotting because I'm not a trainspotter. You need to learn the meaning of the word 'athiest', I can believe in anything BUT God and rightly call myself an athiest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you'll find that atheists and agnostics fit snugly into #6.

 

Also, a case can be made for #1 if you disregard everything after the word "especially". Which you can do, because it deviates from the definition, so as to give an example (or examples). So, when you take the portion that says "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", you can easily see that atheists will make claims concerning " the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", and then defend these belief "dogmatically"! You see it at this forum all the time.

69225[/snapback]

But athiesm is no belief in God, it would be like saying my hobby is not trainspotting because I'm not a trainspotter.

70040[/snapback]

No, you are using abusive and illogical analogies in your attempted rebuttal of my statements (on many levels). And - No “belief†in God, would be nothing like saying your hobby is not train spotting:

 

First – You are attempting to promulgate that there is no God (via your world-view philosophy), and yet you are attempting to draw correlations between God and train spotters. But, we know for a fact that there are indeed “Trains†and “Train spottersâ€ÂÂ, therefore you are committing the logical fallacy of “non sequitur†because your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

 

Second – Your false analogy doesn’t even follow from my statements that you are attempting to rebut. The points being made, are that according to the definitions of religion, atheism can indeed be considered such. I, at no time mentioned God, and yet you are attempting to argue with me against something I didn’t even imply in my post. This is what is known as the “Red Herring†logical fallacy.

 

 

You need to learn the meaning of the word 'athiest', I can believe in anything BUT God and rightly call myself an athiest.

70040[/snapback]

I thoroughly understand the meaning of the word ‘atheist’, as I used to be one. But for your further education:

a•the•ism

Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uh m]

–noun

 

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

Origin:

1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism

 

â€â€ÂRelated forms an•ti•a•the•ism, adjective, noun pro•a•the•ism, noun

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

 

It might be a good idea for you to not only look up the definition of the word ‘atheism’ yourself, but that of “logical fallacies’, and ‘contextual application’ as well! Further, if you want to attempt to rebut someones argument, you may actually cover what they said, and not what you wanted them to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But athiesm is no belief in God, it would be like saying my hobby is not trainspotting because I'm not a trainspotter.

70040[/snapback]

No, you are using abusive and illogical analogies in your attempted rebuttal of my statements (on many levels). And - No “belief†in God, would be nothing like saying your hobby is not train spotting:

 

First – You are attempting to promulgate that there is no God (via your world-view philosophy), and yet you are attempting to draw correlations between God and train spotters. But, we know for a fact that there are indeed “Trains†and “Train spottersâ€ÂÂ, therefore you are committing the logical fallacy of “non sequitur†because your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

 

Second – Your false analogy doesn’t even follow from my statements that you are attempting to rebut. The points being made, are that according to the definitions of religion, atheism can indeed be considered such. I, at no time mentioned God, and yet you are attempting to argue with me against something I didn’t even imply in my post. This is what is known as the “Red Herring†logical fallacy.

 

 

 

I thoroughly understand the meaning of the word ‘atheist’, as I used to be one. But for your further education:

a•the•ism

Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uh m]

–noun

 

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

Origin:

1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism

 

â€â€ÂRelated forms an•ti•a•the•ism, adjective, noun pro•a•the•ism, noun

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

 

It might be a good idea for you to not only look up the definition of the word ‘atheism’ yourself, but that of “logical fallacies’, and ‘contextual application’ as well! Further, if you want to attempt to rebut someones argument, you may actually cover what they said, and not what you wanted them to say.

70042[/snapback]

In what way was I using an 'abusive' analogy? I wasn't trying to draw corralations between God and trainspotters I was trying to show you the stupidity of calling athiesm a faith. We know that there are trains and we know that there are trainspotters, I'm not a trainspotter so calling my hobby 'not trainspotting' is the same (if we are being grammatically correct) as calling my athiesm a 'faith'. The word means NON belief. try again...

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=we...3-riaonu5eriEag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He just helped you to spell the words correctly....

...In what way was I using an 'abusive' analogy? I wasn't trying to draw corralations between God and trainspotters I was trying to show you the stupidity of calling athiesm a faith. We know that there are trains and we know that there are trainspotters, I'm not a trainspotter so calling my hobby 'not trainspotting' is the same (if we are being grammatically correct) as calling my athiesm a 'faith'. The word means NON belief. try again...

... and sorry, denying the religious character of atheism is stupid as well. An atheist isn't analogue to someone that doesn't have certain hobbies (that would be more like a agnostic), it's analogue to someone that makes a point about not having certain hobby. Even, if he doesn't believe in God, it still is a belief system that makes dogmatic statements about the divine realm by disputing Gods existence.

 

As for religious influence and the claim that the "Roman Catholic Church Hitler" that is true with certain exception. They supported Hitler, because he did do things that were generally accepted as being right social-economic programs, his stance against Versailles and Communism. However they successfully opposed euthanasia activities, which were allowed by Hitler, who retracted this laterdue to that kind of oposition. On the other hand the Anglican church supported Churchill and I won't really know about any protest from their side against the mass murder of German civilians by the RAF.

 

Dawkins has got a strange logic sometimes and in this case his ignorance of Communist mass murders and the fact that this was also related to their atheist philosopy is something that can't be stressed often enough. It shows that Dawkins is dishonest, when it comes to smear people that disagree with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and sorry, denying the religious character of atheism is stupid as well.

I've heard it argued that if atheism is a religion then baldness is a hair colour and off is a TV channel.

 

On the other hand the Anglican church supported Churchill and I won't really know about any protest from their side against the mass murder of German civilians by the RAF.

The bombing of German and Japanese cities to speed up the end of the war was tragic but justified. The Germans and Japanese started the war, had targeted civilians of the Allies (e.g. the blitz) and would have done exactly the same to the Allies had they the chance. They had to learn the lesson that it is foolish to pick fights with larger militaries (i.e. the Americans and the Soviets).

 

Dawkins has got a strange logic sometimes and in this case his ignorance of Communist mass murders and the fact that this was also related to their atheist philosopy is something that can't be stressed often enough. It shows that Dawkins is dishonest, when it comes to smear people that disagree with him.

70046[/snapback]

Dawkins would probably say that the crimes of Stalin and Mao were prompted by their dogmatic faith in an ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But athiesm is no belief in God, it would be like saying my hobby is not trainspotting because I'm not a trainspotter. You need to learn the meaning of the word 'athiest', I can believe in anything BUT God and rightly call myself an athiest.

70040[/snapback]

Atheism is a oxymoron belief. Because if the people involved actually believed what they said, they would not waste their time debating it, or putting up websites and forums against it. I truly do not believe in ghosts, do I go join a Aghost group and fight against what I claim does not exist?

 

Taking time to fight against what you say does not exist only proves that it does. Or you have to accept that you are not quite all there chasing shadows of the imagination.

 

Does or does not God exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But athiesm is no belief in God, it would be like saying my hobby is not trainspotting because I'm not a trainspotter. You need to learn the meaning of the word 'athiest', I can believe in anything BUT God and rightly call myself an athiest.

70040[/snapback]

So you are saying that you can believe anything even if it is supernatural as long as you don't attribute it to a god?(god meaning any god.)

 

What do you believe anyways? I see atheists that believe many different things from one another.

 

I've heard it argued that if atheism is a religion then baldness is a hair colour and off is a TV channel.

I've heard it before. On what grounds do you say that atheism is not a religion? I thought I'd ask since I always get a different answer from atheists. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On what grounds do you say that atheism is not a religion? I thought I'd ask since I always get a different answer from atheists. :o

70051[/snapback]

I am agnostic rather than atheistic - I don't know if there's a supernatural realm or not.

 

From my perspective as an outsider I would say that atheism does not share the features common to most established religions: ritual, prayer/meditation, worship, extensive dogma, belief in an afterlife, festivals etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if the people involved actually believed what they said, they would not waste their time debating it, or putting up websites and forums against it.

The same could be said for those who do not believe in evolution. If you don't believe it exists why bother putting up a forum against it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same could be said for those who do not believe in evolution. If you don't believe it exists why bother putting up a forum against it?

70054[/snapback]

Because you guys declared war on creation and God by having it removed from certain places. Now can you name where we had evolution removed and it cannot be talked about less someone gets into trouble or lose their job? Nope. So the fight is constant because we have to keep our rights because you guys threaten them everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same could be said for those who do not believe in evolution. If you don't believe it exists why bother putting up a forum against it?

70054[/snapback]

Forums/websites like this help to expose and challenge a theory being taught in the science classrooms around the world to many youths as though it is a fact. It allows for challenges/exposures and debate and may at least be one area where both sides are allowed to be discussed/debated, rather than an uneven playing field where there is "evolution only".

 

If it is indeed scientific and a fact, rather than faith, then the believers/supporters/teachers should be able to come up the evidence, which would and should easily silence all arguments to the contrary. Yet what we do find is, it always leaves more questions than answers....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you'll find that atheists and agnostics fit snugly into #6.

 

Also, a case can be made for #1 if you disregard everything after the word "especially". Which you can do, because it deviates from the definition, so as to give an example (or examples). So, when you take the portion that says "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", you can easily see that atheists will make claims concerning " the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", and then defend these belief "dogmatically"! You see it at this forum all the time.

69225[/snapback]

But athiesm is no belief in God, it would be like saying my hobby is not trainspotting because I'm not a trainspotter.

70040[/snapback]

No, you are using abusive and illogical analogies in your attempted rebuttal of my statements (on many levels). And - No “belief†in God, would be nothing like saying your hobby is not train spotting:

 

First – You are attempting to promulgate that there is no God (via your world-view philosophy), and yet you are attempting to draw correlations between God and train spotters. But, we know for a fact that there are indeed “Trains†and “Train spottersâ€ÂÂ, therefore you are committing the logical fallacy of “non sequitur†because your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

 

Second – Your false analogy doesn’t even follow from my statements that you are attempting to rebut. The points being made, are that according to the definitions of religion, atheism can indeed be considered such. I, at no time mentioned God, and yet you are attempting to argue with me against something I didn’t even imply in my post. This is what is known as the “Red Herring†logical fallacy.

 

 

You need to learn the meaning of the word 'athiest', I can believe in anything BUT God and rightly call myself an athiest.

70040[/snapback]

I thoroughly understand the meaning of the word ‘atheist’, as I used to be one. But for your further education:

a•the•ism

Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uh m]

–noun

 

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

Origin:

1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism

 

â€â€ÂRelated forms an•ti•a•the•ism, adjective, noun pro•a•the•ism, noun

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

 

It might be a good idea for you to not only look up the definition of the word ‘atheism’ yourself, but that of “logical fallacies’, and ‘contextual application’ as well! Further, if you want to attempt to rebut someone’s argument, you may actually cover what they said, and not what you wanted them to say.

70042[/snapback]

In what way was I using an 'abusive' analogy?

70042[/snapback]

Hmmmm, You want me to re-hash what I already concisely pointed out in post# 14? You need to go back and re-read my original post (#12), and your attempted rebuttal (#13), and you soon see that not only did you not address my assertions in post #12, but you further fallaciously drug a “red herring†across the thread, by attempting to divert from my points with you introduction of non sequitur ‘s.

 

Your “hobby†analogy has absolutely nothing to do with my assertions, because its very premise is not analogous to the assertions. It is nothing more than a diversion from the issues I brought up! In fact, your “hobby†analogy is nothing more than another common (and easily refutable) fallacious atheistic simile; not unlike the “orbiting teapotâ€ÂÂ, or “spotted geese on Venus†allegories.

 

I wasn't trying to draw corralations between God and trainspotters I was trying to show you the stupidity of calling athiesm a faith.

70042[/snapback]

Unfortunately for you, if you actually go back and read post’s 12 and 13, you will easily see that you in fact did attempt to “draw correlations between God and train-spottersâ€ÂÂ. Why, because I didn’t even mention “GOD†in my assertions! I was pointing out the definitions in “RELIGION†and how “Atheism†falls well with the parameters. And THAT is what you should have been responding to when you “attempted†to rebut my assertions! But you drug your “red herring†of “non sequitur†across the stage instead. And now you’re attempting to “equivocate†your way out of the corner you painted yourself into.

 

Now, you further commit the logical fallacy of “Ad Hominem (of the abusive kind), by calling me “stupid†for showing that “atheism†fits well into some of the definitions of “religionâ€ÂÂ! And you further mistake the word “faithâ€ÂÂ, for “religion†(another red herring?). You cannot even get your story straight (purposefully or not), because you are scattering your story all over the place, as if you say enough mistaken analogies, one might stick. Unfortunately, you are using false analogies to begin with; therefore, logically, none of them CAN stick!

 

We know that there are trains and we know that there are trainspotters, I'm not a trainspotter so calling my hobby 'not trainspotting' is the same (if we are being grammatically correct) as calling my athiesm a 'faith'. The word means NON belief. try again...

70042[/snapback]

Again, I never claimed “atheism†is a “faith†(although, that is another argument for another day, that you will lose for many reasons); I proved that according to the definition of religion, atheism CAN indeed be considered a religion! You really need to look up (yes, you are forcing me to point this out again) the definitions of ‘religion’, ‘logical fallacies’, ‘contextual application’ and NOW “faith†as well!

 

What is funny here is that you fail to realize that you DON’T have to believe in God (or a god/gods) to be religious. This is a common tact of atheists to overlook, or cherry-pick definitions for their own purposes.

 

Further: Obviously atheism can indeed be considered a religion!

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874

 

 

Once again, I must mention, if you are going to “attempt†to refute any of my assertions (or anyone else's), I would suggest you actually argue against what I asserted. You further attempts to use logical fallacies in order to give the impression that you have a cogent argument, your attempts will be exposed for what they actually are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On what grounds do you say that atheism is not a religion? I thought I'd ask since I always get a different answer from atheists. ;)

70051[/snapback]

I am agnostic rather than atheistic - I don't know if there's a supernatural realm or not.

70053[/snapback]

Were that the case, you would have more a neutralist stance, instead of seemingly turning a blind eye to the atheist’s religious bent (as pointed out in the definition of religion). This seems to me more of what Greg Bahnsen termed (in his famous debate with atheist Gordon Stein) the presumed “neutrality fallacyâ€ÂÂ. So, as a supposed agnostic (which basically means that you don’t know, or are proceeding from ignorance), you really don’t have an argument “per seâ€ÂÂ, and should be seeking knowledge far more, and attempting to defend atheism far less. Which “begs the questionâ€ÂÂ, but we’ll leave that alone for now.

 

 

From my perspective as an outsider I would say that atheism does not share the features common to most established religions: ritual, prayer/meditation, worship, extensive dogma, belief in an afterlife, festivals etc.

70053[/snapback]

Atheists do share many features with religion (as cogently pointed out in posts 11 and 12). It is a common misconception that you have to observe prayer and meditation, worship and a belief in an afterlife, to be religious. You must actually read the entire definition of religion, and not merely omit those parts that might prove you wrong (that is not being neutral). The “neutral†person would look at, and acknowledge the truths on BOTH sides of the argument!

 

In fact, many, if not all Atheists:

 

1- Are dogmatic about their beliefs (even “extensive dogmaticâ€ÂÂ). If you don't believe this, or refuse to see it; wait until you read the responses to this post.

 

2- Do have a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

 

3- Do something they believe in and follow devotedly (i.e. points or matters of ethics or conscience).

 

If the above were not true, you wouldn’t see atheists coming here to argue (so dogmatically) for their beliefs. Deny truths vehemently, and often using logical fallacies to do so.

 

If you don’t believe atheists have “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universeâ€ÂÂ, just ask ANY atheist about the “the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe†and, if you are really listening, you’ll hear their beliefs on those subjects (and often are fervidly dogmatic in their defense of those “beliefs). And they will “follow devotedly†those “beliefsâ€ÂÂ. Just read the writings of Carl Sagan, or Richard Dawkins (etc…) to hear the fevered pitch and cadence often used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms