Mr.Canada Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 The man is an atheist he does however have the right idea at times when speaking about society and how society should govern itself. I've posted many times here that I'd like to live in an autocratic society where the rule of God is the only rule we should obey. I am starting to think I was wrong. No, I'm not trolling. I've been listening a great deal to lectures and debates involving Mr. Dawkins as well as lectures and debates involving clergy, layman and all sorts, often within the same segment. He has some very interesting things to say that I think we could all use in order to get along and live together in relative peace. I'm starting to see that being an atheist doesn't mean believing in nothing as I used to believe but instead believing in a set of common society rules that most people today agree with. Muslims teaching their children that the penalty for leaving the Muslim faith is death has to be wrong, no matter which way you slice it. I'm not sure I know of another religion that speaks of the penalty for apostasy is death. It is sort of a tightrope with Dawkins but nonetheless worth listening to his points of view. Richard Dawkins in debate Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
cybercoma Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 Who are you and how did you get control of Mr. Canada's account? Quote
kimmy Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 I'm starting to see that being an atheist doesn't mean believing in nothing as I used to believe but instead believing in a set of common society rules that most people today agree with. I applaud you. That's an idea that some religious people are simply not able to grasp. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Moonlight Graham Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 I applaud you. That's an idea that some religious people are simply not able to grasp. -k This isn't the first time Mr. Canada has admitted he may have been wrong about a previous core belief. Not an easy thing to do for anyone, and yes should be applauded. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Guest Manny Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 I applaud you. That's an idea that some religious people are simply not able to grasp. Conversely, religion is an idea that atheist people are simply not able to grasp... Quote
Shady Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 Richard Dawkins is the poor man's Chirstopher Hitchens. Unfortunately, Hitchens is no longer with us. So we're stuck with the likes of Dawkins. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 Richard Dawkins = Evolutionary Biologist. Chris Hitchins = Journalist. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Shady Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 Richard Dawkins = Evolutionary Biologist = atheism for dummies. Christopher Hitchins = Journalist = atheism for intellectuals. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 Richard Dawkins = Evolutionary Biologist = atheism for dummies. Christopher Hitchins = Journalist = atheism for intellectuals. Which are you? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Shady Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 Which are you? I prefer Hitchens. He's much less about name calling, and much more about explaining in detail, his beliefs and positions. Dawkins gets more pub though, because he's kind of the shock jock of athiesm. Much less substantive though, in my opinion. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 OK...fair 'nuff. As an atheist, I find they generally have the same dialogue re: evolution and religion. As does Douglas Murray and a few others. Carl of course... Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 Carl of course... Sagan's contribution was one of scale....if we be so puny in the overall scheme of things, then so are our religions and gods. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 Sagan's contribution was one of scale....if we be so puny in the overall scheme of things, then so are our religions and gods. Yup...if you didn't feel like a speck lost in a sea of time and space after Cosmos, you weren't watching. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 Conversely, religion is an idea that atheist people are simply not able to grasp... Are you saying Christians can't grasp religion? Because they're atheists when it comes to the hundreds of possible gods a person could believe in, except for one. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NDvpZErg-Q Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 I prefer Hitchens. He's much less about name calling, Are you sure you aren't getting the two mixed up? Richard Dawkins is always so much more professional than Hitchens was, and is so much more educated on the facts. He is, quite frankly, a genius. Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 Are you saying Christians can't grasp religion? Because they're atheists when it comes to the hundreds of possible gods a person could believe in, except for one. Perhaps. Could it be that the dogmatists are really on the same side of the fence, after all? One should always keep an open mind. To be honest, the whole "Is God real" is is very silly, or even non-sequitor. It's like saying, "Are ideas real?". In another light, we all know Santa Claus is not real, yet we still celebrate and enjoy his symbolism at christmas. Why? Because the idea serves a purpose. Santa is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Once you grasp that, the argument fades away. Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) Yup...if you didn't feel like a speck lost in a sea of time and space after Cosmos, you weren't watching. And yet we are a very UNIQUE fly speck. We are at the present time the ultimate product of the universe. We could not exist if the universe did not evolve as it has, from simple proto-matter and early suns to high metallicity stars, to supernova that created planets and second generation stars. All of that had to happen first, before we could exist. On a cosmological evolutionary scale, we are the most complex and evolved things in the universe. Stars are very simple, compared to living things. Powerful, yes, but composed of basic elements and following fixed laws that WE can understand. And even in terms of energy, pound for pound, we are hotter than the sun. Edited February 20, 2012 by Manny Quote
Smallc Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 And yet we are a very UNIQUE fly speck. We are at the present time the ultimate product of the universe. How do you know that? Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 How do you know that? Easy. That's scientifical... Quote
Smallc Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 Easy. That's scientifical... No, it isn't actually. You have no idea what the universe as a whole holds, and neither do I. Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 You have no idea what the universe as a whole holds, and neither do I. True, but that is what our best science currently tells us. There's undoubtedly much more than you or I have any idea about. Some scientists say, not just more than we imagine, but more than we CAN imagine. So let me ask you, what do you prefer to BELIEVE. Quote
Bonam Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 And yet we are a very UNIQUE fly speck. We are at the present time the ultimate product of the universe. We could not exist if the universe did not evolve as it has, from simple proto-matter and early suns to high metallicity stars, to supernova that created planets and second generation stars. All of that had to happen first, before we could exist. On a cosmological evolutionary scale, we are the most complex and evolved things in the universe. That we know of. Stars are very simple, compared to living things. Powerful, yes, but composed of basic elements and following fixed laws that WE can understand. And even in terms of energy, pound for pound, we are hotter than the sun. That would be incorrect. Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 That would be incorrect. It depends on how you do the math, right? If you take the temperature of the sun (average temperature) and divide it by its mass, the number is lower than for a human. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.