Author Topic: Richard Dawkins  (Read 268779 times)

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Richard Dawkins
« on: August 12, 2007, 08:58:01 pm »
Got a new show on tomorrow and there's a top right up by Charlie Brooker.

Charlie Brooker
Saturday August 11, 2007
The Guardian


In the 18th century, a revolution in thought, known as the Enlightenment, dragged us away from the superstition and brutality of the Middle Ages toward a modern age of science, reason and democracy. It changed everything. If it wasn't for the Enlightenment, you wouldn't be reading this right now. You'd be standing in a smock throwing turnips at a witch. Yes, the Enlightenment was one of the most significant developments since the wheel. Which is why we're trying to bollocks it all up.

Welcome to a dangerous new era - the Unlightenment - in which centuries of rational thought are overturned by idiots. Superstitious idiots. They're everywhere - reading horoscopes, buying homeopathic remedies, consulting psychics, babbling about "chakras" and "healing energies", praying to imaginary gods, and rejecting science in favour of soft-headed bunkum. But instead of slapping these people round the face till they behave like adults, we encourage them. We've got to respect their beliefs, apparently.
Well I don't. "Spirituality" is what cretins have in place of imagination. If you've ever described yourself as "quite spiritual", do civilisation a favour and punch yourself in the throat until you're incapable of speaking aloud ever again. Why should your outmoded codswallop be treated with anything other than the contemptuous mockery it deserves?

Maybe you've put your faith in spiritual claptrap because our random, narrative-free universe terrifies you. But that's no solution. If you want comforting, suck your thumb. Buy a pillow. Don't make up a load of floaty blah about energy or destiny. This is the real world, stupid. We should be solving problems, not sticking our fingers in our ears and singing about fairies. Everywhere you look, screaming gittery is taking root, with serious consequences. The NHS recently spent £10m refurbishing the London Homeopathic Hospital. The equivalent of 500 nurses' wages, blown on a handful of magic beans. That was your tax money. It was meant for saving lives.

Inevitably, the world of science and logic is slowly fighting back. Hence the recent slew of anti-God books, one of which, The God Delusion, was written by Richard Dawkins, writer-presenter of The Enemies Of Reason (Mon, 8pm, C4). Dawkins has softened his style somewhat since his previous series, The Root of All Evil, in which he toured the globe interviewing religious extremists. Trouble was, their views made him so uppity, he occasionally came off worst. They remained eerily calm, while he huffed furiously. And because he looks and sounds precisely like Professor Yaffle from Bagpuss, the end effect was often unintentional hilarity.

In The Enemies of Reason he's still angry - how couldn't he be? - but this time round Dawkins controls his temper, focusing it like a laser beam, taking on spirituality and superstition in all its forms. The overall tone is less hectoring, more persuasive, and occasionally outright playful. It's more likely to win people over.

The end result is possibly the most important broadcast of the year so far; important because it presents a passionate argument we really all ought to be having right now, if we want to prevent a great slide backwards into mud-eating barbarism. And if you think that's hyperbole, I suggest you pick up a newspaper and see how many of the world's problems are currently being caused or exacerbated by the rejection of rational thought. From fundamentalist death cults to arrogant invasions: a startling lack of logic unites them all.

Cold, clear, rational thought is the most important thing we have; the one thing that can save us. If I was made Emperor of All Media, I'd broadcast something akin to The Enemies Of Reason on every channel, every day, for 10 years. This is an urgent message that must be heard if we want to survive, as a species. Oh. And I'd also broadcast a load of Tex Avery cartoons, just to show off my lighter side. Man, I loves dat Droopy.

Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline Barney_Rubble

  • #
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,841
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2007, 09:41:22 pm »

Don't believe the hype...

87:13

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2007, 09:43:48 pm »
Don't believe the hype...



In what way?
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline Barney_Rubble

  • #
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,841
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2007, 09:44:50 pm »

In ANY way, shape or form...

87:13

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2007, 09:46:18 pm »
Think he's absolutely spot on to be honest
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline WorldChampions

  • Charlie uniform november tango fan...
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 23,555
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2007, 09:46:48 pm »
Me too Fudge

Offline Barney_Rubble

  • #
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,841
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2007, 09:47:40 pm »

Fair enough.

87:13

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2007, 09:48:20 pm »
Fuck yeah the Dawkins Posse's on the move


Do you see how we won that one with scientific reasoning, our logical overlord Dawkins would be proud. Except of course thats a weak human emotion and can't be tolerated in the new world order ;D
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline Barney_Rubble

  • #
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,841
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2007, 09:59:20 pm »

Logical overlord? ;D Bosh and flimshaw!

Illogical, jumped-up, over-exposed, shitty-arsed little gobshite, more like...

 :wave

87:13

Online Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,362
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2007, 10:12:47 pm »
Logical overlord? ;D Bosh and flimshaw!

Illogical, jumped-up, over-exposed, shitty-arsed little gobshite, more like...

 :wave



You may not like him, but he's doing important work.

Maybe we should get someone more telegenic and cuddly.

Oh, and "illogical"? Show me where.

Offline Barney_Rubble

  • #
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,841
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2007, 10:37:04 pm »

Sorry, telegenic doesn't wash with me.

It's all about Dawkins now. He may as well publish The Three Little Pigs.

When the messenger becomes more important than the message, perhaps they should shoot the messenger....

87:13

Offline WorldChampions

  • Charlie uniform november tango fan...
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 23,555
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2007, 10:42:17 pm »
Meh, What does Barney know?  ;)

Offline Barney_Rubble

  • #
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,841
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2007, 10:43:12 pm »

Exactly.

87:13

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2007, 10:48:35 pm »
Sorry, telegenic doesn't wash with me.

It's all about Dawkins now. He may as well publish The Three Little Pigs.

When the messenger becomes more important than the message, perhaps they should shoot the messenger....



I don't think thats true at all, everything Dawkins talks about is dealing with truth backed up by facts.  I don't see any ego in him at all and thats why he doesn't soften his image at all and deals with the issues regardless of how he's perceived.

Just because the press picks up on him doesn't mean its all about him.

As for the three little pigs , it has about as much relevance as the Bible or Koran does.
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline Barney_Rubble

  • #
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,841
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2007, 11:08:05 pm »

everything Dawkins talks about is dealing with truth backed up by facts.

I don't think that's true at all.

I think he's the Biological (?) version of David Iriving.

87:13

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2007, 11:15:26 pm »
I don't think that's true at all.

I think he's the Biological (?) version of David Iriving.



Well lets have some of the specific issues you disagree with because its all about as vague as the bible at the moment

Which is clearly nonsense because David Irving spouted absolute bollocks made on falsified information. Irving is a holocaust denier whilst Dawkins main 'crime' is for denying the existence of some grey haired ghost who allegedly created the world in just under a week.

Whatever Dawkins can be accused of its certainly for not making use of the latest statistical facts.
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline Barney_Rubble

  • #
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,841
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2007, 11:25:09 pm »

How is he so sure the world wasn't created in just under a week, by a grey haired ghost?

How can he know?

Simple dismissal of something that appears to defy logic, defies logic.

They said man would never fly. They said the Earth was flat. They said man descended from the apes....

87:13

Offline WorldChampions

  • Charlie uniform november tango fan...
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 23,555
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2007, 11:36:24 pm »
Because of lack of / absolutely no evidence of such, except a fairytale story about it

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2007, 11:40:09 pm »
How is he so sure the world wasn't created in just under a week, by a grey haired ghost?

How can he know?



Because there's not a jot of evidence to support the argument whereas there is a wealth of scientific information to support his theories of evolution.

To quote the man himself we don't 'know' that thereisn't a teapot orbitting Mars and there would be no possible way of proving or disproving it, but working on the basis of probability we can quite obviously say its bollocks.

 


They said man would never fly. They said the Earth was flat. They said man descended from the apes....



And all of those weren't based on scientific fact. Dawkins has always been the first to admit that he would reassess if there was the slightest basis in fact.

Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline Barney_Rubble

  • #
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,841
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2007, 11:41:48 pm »

this time round Dawkins controls his temper, focusing it like a laser beam, taking on spirituality

Taking on spirituality?

Fuck me :lmao good luck with that one...

87:13

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2007, 11:54:06 pm »
Taking on spirituality?

Fuck me :lmao good luck with that one...



Pretty easy, anyone can do that straight after nailing astrology and any loonies who believe in tarot cards
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline Barney_Rubble

  • #
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,841
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2007, 12:21:27 am »
So Astrology and the Tarot is the pinnacle of spirituality?

Fuckinell.

Never fails to amuse me that atheists are such fucking experts on religion.

I'll just suggest a couple of books; J.G Frazer's 'The Golden Bough', and Louis Pauwels' 'The Morning of the Magicians'.




Richard von Daniken Dawkins. Hahahahaha ;D

87:13

Offline David Sanction

  • despicable, attention seeker
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,006
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2007, 12:51:44 am »

Offline Redcap

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,053
  • You wrote a bad song Petey!
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2007, 02:32:09 am »
I think he's highly overhyped, and wouldn't even be around if the morality police weren't out in such force these days. He doesn't really bring anything terribly controversial or challenging to the table that any person using some sense could work out on their own. All he really does in the end is wind up the religious conservatives.

Offline TheoRacle

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,542
  • LFC Supporter
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2007, 04:26:30 am »
So Astrology and the Tarot is the pinnacle of spirituality?

Fuckinell.

Never fails to amuse me that atheists are such fucking experts on religion.

I'll just suggest a couple of books; J.G Frazer's 'The Golden Bough', and Louis Pauwels' 'The Morning of the Magicians'.




Richard von Daniken Dawkins. Hahahahaha ;D



I've got a few others you'd like Barney.

The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg; Aesop.

Hansel and Gretel; the Brothers Grimm.

The Secret; Rhonda Byrne

Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health,

The Princess and the Pea: hans Christian Anderson.

Online Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,362
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2007, 09:46:59 am »
I think he's highly overhyped, and wouldn't even be around if the morality police weren't out in such force these days. He doesn't really bring anything terribly controversial or challenging to the table that any person using some sense could work out on their own. All he really does in the end is wind up the religious conservatives.

That's the beauty of what he talks about.

As you say, anyone with some sense could work it out on their own. Dawkins just happens to be the one who decided to do something about it, i.e. write a book or do a tv series.

Surely you're not going to criticise him for being right? And surely you appreciate someone should be shouting this stuff as loudly as possible right now?

Offline Raul!

  • No nude LFC topics - Sir Raul la di Dah of Coverpoint - Imminently Female
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,037
  • My nipples explode with delight
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2007, 09:52:38 am »
Tend to agree with Barnabas.

Dawkins is overrated.  Some of the people on this site make a better case for atheism than he does.  His early arguments were interesting but he has become stuck in a groove and is not innovating any more.  Also seems to believe his own press a bit more than he should.

*ducks from boy from cork*

Offline Redcap

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,053
  • You wrote a bad song Petey!
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2007, 09:54:04 am »
That's the beauty of what he talks about.

As you say, anyone with some sense could work it out on their own. Dawkins just happens to be the one who decided to do something about it, i.e. write a book or do a tv series.

Surely you're not going to criticise him for being right? And surely you appreciate someone should be shouting this stuff as loudly as possible right now?

You have a point. I wonder what sort of an impact he's actually made, however. For some bizarre reason I can't begin to explain, I'd feel somewhat reassured by reading a couple of book jacket quotes from ex-born again Christians. I'm weird :P

Online Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,362
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2007, 10:03:15 am »
Tend to agree with Barnabas.

Dawkins is overrated.  Some of the people on this site make a better case for atheism than he does.  His early arguments were interesting but he has become stuck in a groove and is not innovating any more.  Also seems to believe his own press a bit more than he should.

*ducks from boy from cork*

The arguments were simple and clear from the start. No wonder he's not innovating.

Look, I'm a Dawkins fan because he speaks sense. I'm sure there are others out there who could do the same job, in a less irritating way, but for now, he is the guy who is actually raising the profile of people who aren't technically insane, so I'll stand by him.

And, by the way, I never got to finish his book, The God Delusion. It was all so self evident, it started to get boring. Also, some of the examples he gave of religion taking precedence over common sense were so galling and tragic, I was getting a little angry. So I put it down. For now.

Offline The Cappuccino Kid

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Aren't we free?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2007, 10:12:38 am »
Not only do I disagree with almost everything he has ever said, I think the man is a huge twat as well. We were forced to study him for two years at A Level Theology. As said before, he just repeats himself more and more now without ever saying anything innovative that would genuinely make me sit back and think "you know what, he's right with this atheism thing."

An excellent criticism of him in yesterday's Observer:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2146775,00.html

Neil Spencer is absolutely spot on there, in my opinion.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not religious in any way, shape or form.
Formerly Mr Brightside.

Offline Armin

  • Reformed RAWK Traitor
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,503
  • I'm up on the pavement
  • Super Title: Keep off the Grass!
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2007, 10:16:37 am »
I might get the Hitchens book, God is not Great. Have the Dawkins but not read it yet.
Well, I don't know what it is, but there's definitely something going on upstairs

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2007, 11:10:46 am »
I might get the Hitchens book, God is not Great. Have the Dawkins but not read it yet.

I thought Hitchens book was much better myself and i'm a big fan of Dawkins, i'll send it to you once i've got it back off a mate.

It was much more about the detail of where particular religions were completely up their own arses as opposed to Dawkins book which was dealing with philisophical points.
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline zimmie'5555

  • passenger on an intergalactic spaceship... sometimes wishes he was a woman
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,942
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2007, 11:25:56 am »
Are we really going to have another god v. anti-god thread on here? Sooooooo boring...

Offline zimmie'5555

  • passenger on an intergalactic spaceship... sometimes wishes he was a woman
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,942
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2007, 11:27:16 am »
...and not in the least bit relevant or important. God might exist. God might not exist. We won't find out I guess until we die. In the meantime, does it really matter one jot???

Online Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,362
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2007, 11:35:30 am »
Not only do I disagree with almost everything he has ever said, I think the man is a huge twat as well. We were forced to study him for two years at A Level Theology. As said before, he just repeats himself more and more now without ever saying anything innovative that would genuinely make me sit back and think "you know what, he's right with this atheism thing."

An excellent criticism of him in yesterday's Observer:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2146775,00.html

Neil Spencer is absolutely spot on there, in my opinion.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not religious in any way, shape or form.

Well, since you started the personal attacks, let's have a look at the author of the article you called "excellent" and "spot on".

Neil Spencer writes horoscopes. This means he feels qualified to advise people on serious matters such as career and love, based solely on which month of the year they were born.

Let's take his musings from a recent edition of the Observer, July 29 2007.

Leo - "If you are celebrating your birthday today, you are closing a chapter". No way!

Taurus - "Dress up".

Sagittarius - "At professional and personal levels expect quick and decisive developments over the next five months". Five months? You mean, the rest of the year?

Cancer - "only holidaying Cancerians can afford to be idle". You mean, working Cancerians should, erm, work?

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/experts/neilspencer/0,,1660265,00.html

As for his "excellent criticism", well, let's see.

He bangs on for a while about homeopathy, which has been scientifically (is that a dirty word?) proven to be absolutely baseless, unless the laws of physics are suspended. As someone said, if homeopaths could actually prove how they do what they claim to do, they would all win the Nobel prize.

He says astrology has 1,728 basic personality types. Why does he only deal with 12?

He says Galileo and Keppler were into astrology as well as astronomy, the clear implication being that if they were right about one, then the other must also be true. He then says Dawkins is engaging in an acrobatic rewriting of history if he thinks otherwise.

In the same vein, he castigates Dawkins for admiring Yeats, and then, in the next paragraph, castigates him again for dismissing Yeats.

Finally, when he is running out of hot air, he claims that Dawkins' "reason..[is the] enemy of art and imagination". Is he now saying that astrology is "art and imagination"?

Oh, and finally? No offence, but you "studied" Theology for two years? What did you do after the first day?

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2007, 11:42:00 am »
...and not in the least bit relevant or important. God might exist. God might not exist. We won't find out I guess until we die. In the meantime, does it really matter one jot???

What could be more important than the reason why we're here and what if anything there is after we die?

Yes quite a lot when religion affects pretty much everyone on the planet whilst the people who practice it affect our lives in such a negative fashion.

Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2007, 11:55:04 am »
Tend to agree with Barnabas.

Dawkins is overrated.  Some of the people on this site make a better case for atheism than he does.  His early arguments were interesting but he has become stuck in a groove and is not innovating any more.  Also seems to believe his own press a bit more than he should.

*ducks from boy from cork*


Well if we're talking about people getting stuck in a groove and boring everyone to death that rules out all the preachers of the various religions still banging on about blatant untruths.

God give it a rest he was around over 2000 years ago ;D

I'll leave that other philosopher Rimmer to have his piece

Kryten - You think Jesus was a hippy?

"Well he was. He had long hair and didn't have a job. What more d'you want?"


I don't really see why Dawkins should have to innovate on his argument when there has been absolutely no effective argument to his basic principles.

Really religion has been driven back to falling onto its most simple defence that of 'belief' because it can't wage a proper debate and hence why organised religion around the world is growing meaningless to a huge proportion of people. Unfortunately it also seems to be polarising a growing minority of people to hugely devastating actions.
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline wistycastor

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
  • Fuck The USA and more or less everywhere else.
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #37 on: August 13, 2007, 11:56:36 am »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRZmzf7WiNg

Anyone watched the film Zeitgeist? This is the link to the opening part of the "Religion" section of the film which is right on the fucking money. I went through a period about seven years ago when -after being a noisy atheist- I went a bit soft on religion, believing it to be a counterbalance to the soul-crushing materialism everywhere. I even had sympathy for Islam as it seemed to be standing by its principles, whereas all the other faiths had been eroded by capitalism.
Now we give house room to bearded terrors who want to kill us all or force us back to the times of auto-de fei and the ducking stool. Personally I'd like to flatten every church, mosque and synagogue in this country and for people to see that we are of the same species, no one's going to 'save' us and life's fascinating enough without the sub-Grimms fairy tale horseshit.
OUT OF THE NORTH PARTS A GREAT COMPANY AND A MIGHTY ARMY.

Offline zimmie'5555

  • passenger on an intergalactic spaceship... sometimes wishes he was a woman
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,942
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #38 on: August 13, 2007, 11:58:30 am »
What could be more important than the reason why we're here and what if anything there is after we die?

And how are you ever going to find out the reason 'we're here'? And presumably, if one doesn't believe in god, or is setting out to disprove god's existence, then surely you believe there is no purpose to existence? You could spend your whole life thinking, discussing, fruitlessly gathering evidence in favour or against your beliefs; or you could live your life in the face of it, keep a relitively open mind and live as good a life as possible, and deal with whatever consequences or rewards come your way after death (if any). So in that sense, to me, the deabte itself is entirely irrelevant.

Offline fudge

  • RAWK Gaylord
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,807
  • "I'm a swine, its my nature"
    • Fat man dancing
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2007, 12:06:59 pm »
And how are you ever going to find out the reason 'we're here'? And presumably, if one doesn't believe in god, or is setting out to disprove god's existence, then surely you believe there is no purpose to existence? You could spend your whole life thinking, discussing, fruitlessly gathering evidence in favour or against your beliefs; or you could live your life in the face of it, keep a relitively open mind and live as good a life as possible, and deal with whatever consequences or rewards come your way after death (if any). So in that sense, to me, the deabte itself is entirely irrelevant.

Because science has given us the answers to how we're here, there is no why, no reason for it at all. Its an accident there's no design and we should revel in the fact that we're so lucky to have this chance and enjoy it whilst we can rather than lambasting ourselves for not living up to some fake set of rules laid down by men of a bygone age trying to control the populace.

From the big bang to evolution there is far more evidence in the little work that had been done by mankind to date that  puts all the fairy stories that the various religions in the world have come up with to explain our presence here.

You can keep your mind open to the likes of Thor and it won't do you any particular harm other than wasting a huge piece of your life focussing on something thats not there. And i'd have no problem with that but Thor unlike the other religions of the day doesn't impact on the secular world, the rest shape it with their petty squabbles and edicts all the time.
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....