Author Topic: Richard Dawkins  (Read 270651 times)

Offline Ken-Obi

  • Hasn't got Wan, doesn't deserve Wan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,183
  • Super Title: isn't going to get one of these either
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #40 on: August 13, 2007, 12:08:51 pm »
Anybody missed me? ;)
Someone should do the right thing - go back in time to 1992 and destroy the codes to Championship Manager before it is ever released

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,698
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #41 on: August 13, 2007, 12:12:28 pm »
Dawkins is a cock monkey
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Offline zimmie'5555

  • passenger on an intergalactic spaceship... sometimes wishes he was a woman
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,942
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #42 on: August 13, 2007, 12:14:21 pm »
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.

I think perhaps you're mistaking for some kind of religious zealot. My point is that none of this matters, is not important, and none of us know anything whatsoever. Like Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am" That is that the only thing we know for certain is that we have conscious thought- EVERYTHING else is open to interpretation.

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 #43 on: August 13, 2007, 12:34:39 pm »
I think perhaps you're mistaking for some kind of religious zealot. My point is that none of this matters, is not important, and none of us know anything whatsoever. Like Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am" That is that the only thing we know for certain is that we have conscious thought- EVERYTHING else is open to interpretation.

No i don't know anything about you but i completely disagree it totally matters whilst it impacts on mine and other people's lives.

And from a purely chin scratching perspective i do think its fascinating to know the factors that had to occur for me to be here.

Well apart from the drunken alley scene where dad nailed mum of course.
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

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 #44 on: August 13, 2007, 12:41:50 pm »
Fudge, I ain't no believer.

God may exist.  She may not.  I don't know fer shure.  Neither does Dawkins.  But he says he does.

Funny thing is, most of the people on this site defending the possibility of God existing are agnostics (VdM, myself etc.)

That is all.  Love and peace.

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 #45 on: August 13, 2007, 12:50:10 pm »
Fudge, I ain't no believer.

God may exist.  She may not.  I don't know fer shure.  Neither does Dawkins.  But he says he does.

Funny thing is, most of the people on this site defending the possibility of God existing are agnostics (VdM, myself etc.)

That is all.  Love and peace.

But Dawkins has always defended the position that there might be a god but given the facts at the moment there's virtually no chance of it, certainly no evidence for it.

I myself was an agnostic but i do think its a weak option, i prefer to sit firmly in the atheist box until anything happens that can influence me down to the agnostic option. And i'm not going to do what it seems like a lot of people opt for religion on the basis of trauma's in their life or wanting religion as a crutch as they grow closer to reaching the end of their lives.
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline The Fletcher Memorial

  • Feels mildly violat.................. ed
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,941
  • Reality is hard to find
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #46 on: August 13, 2007, 03:48:55 pm »
...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???

Not relevant or important you say? Did you enjoy your stay on Mars?
















It matters.


The sky does not know of east or of west;
it is in the minds of men where such distinctions are made, and then they believe them to be true.

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 #47 on: August 13, 2007, 04:45:05 pm »
Spot on
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

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 #48 on: August 13, 2007, 05:13:26 pm »

Offline CharleyBubbles

  • Passengers alighting at Edge Hill are advised that light showers are expected
  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #49 on: August 13, 2007, 05:22:33 pm »
Surely The Pope meeting George Bush is an example of interfaith dialogue that can only be helpful for the wider world?  Benny 16 has been preaching a great deal of understanding and would certainly not have been wholly supportive of Bush in his audience with him.  I certainly don't see how it fits into your rather clumsily assembled collage of post war religious wrongdoings.

Offline The Fletcher Memorial

  • Feels mildly violat.................. ed
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,941
  • Reality is hard to find
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #50 on: August 13, 2007, 08:04:59 pm »
Surely The Pope meeting George Bush is an example of interfaith dialogue that can only be helpful for the wider world?  Benny 16 has been preaching a great deal of understanding and would certainly not have been wholly supportive of Bush in his audience with him.  I certainly don't see how it fits into your rather clumsily assembled collage of post war religious wrongdoings.

Interfaith dialogue?? As for "Benny" preaching a great deal of understanding, do me a favour please!

It's the Bush government and his increasing use of religious terminology in politics (and of course, others too, across the world) to either justify their actions or absolve themselves of wrongdoings and outright acts of inhumanity.

I agree










Religious people can be good, can produce good, no argument. The little collection of pics I put up were in response to a post saying such a debate on religion etc was not relevant or important. Surely its never been more relevant or important.

If people want to believe in their God, fine, just don't go pushing it in everyone else's face. I, and many like me, don't need some make-believe God and archaic set of rules to be able to live as a good, moral human being.
The sky does not know of east or of west;
it is in the minds of men where such distinctions are made, and then they believe them to be true.

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 #51 on: August 13, 2007, 09:23:35 pm »
I really enjoyed the program. I can see why Dawkins puts peoples backs up, he'll politely observe a psychic/faith healer etc then roundly condemn it as nonsense in the next voice over. Very entertaining.

I'd like to have seen more of the exchanges between him and Satish Kumar. Unlike the tarot card readers that were clearly outgunned I thought that interview held the possibility of getting deeper into the argument between rationality and spiritualism.

I'll be tuning in next week, even though I have to miss the ace Indian cookery series to do so :(
Well, I don't know what it is, but there's definitely something going on upstairs

Offline The Fletcher Memorial

  • Feels mildly violat.................. ed
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,941
  • Reality is hard to find
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #52 on: August 13, 2007, 09:32:15 pm »
I really enjoyed the program. I can see why Dawkins puts peoples backs up, he'll politely observe a psychic/faith healer etc then roundly condemn it as nonsense in the next voice over. Very entertaining.

I'd like to have seen more of the exchanges between him and Satish Kumar. Unlike the tarot card readers that were clearly outgunned I thought that interview held the possibility of getting deeper into the argument between rationality and spiritualism.

I'll be tuning in next week, even though I have to miss the ace Indian cookery series to do so :(

Same here, but I guess that could take up a series of its own.

I agree





Sorry to go on, Raul but the MT pic did piddle me off a tad.

http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featpostel_56_p.htm
The sky does not know of east or of west;
it is in the minds of men where such distinctions are made, and then they believe them to be true.

Offline Mudface_

  • Boys Pen
  • *
  • Posts: 0
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #53 on: August 13, 2007, 09:42:36 pm »
Great stuff. I read the utter drivel from the Observer's astrologist in Sunday's paper and thought it was very defensive, full of strawmen arguments and well, a bit shit really. Hardly surprising, he was made to look an utter fool and charlatan, which is basically what he is. Not as creepily abhorrent as the cold-reading c*nt in the spiritualist church, though. We need a lot more programmes like this if the figures quoted at the start of it are accurate. Sadly there's far too many quacks and lifestyle journalists (helloooo, Melanie Phillips) in the press pressing their easy-thinking agenda on people.

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 #54 on: August 13, 2007, 10:07:30 pm »
I agree




I'm glad to see you brought them up. Mother Theresa is by no means universally thought of being a paragon of good.

http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm

Exposing Mother Teresa
Hitchens’ Book A Devastating Insight

 
By JOHN M. SWOMLEY

ONE OF THE interesting books published in 1995 debunks the myth of Mother Teresa, who has been unjustly built into a near-saint by the media. She has been virtually untouchable as an almost sacred figure. and anyone who dares to criticize her is promptly rebuked.

The book is The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa In Theory And Practice, by Christopher Hitchens (Verso, London and New York, 1995) $12.95. Hitchens aired a documentary on her in England and has investigated her activities.

He questions her Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 because she never did anything for peace. In fact, in her acceptance speech she said, “Abortion is the worst evil, and the greatest enemy of peace... Because if a mother can kill her own child, what will prevent us from killing ourselves or one another? Nothing.”

Wherever she goes this is her constant message. In 1992 at an open air mass in Knock, Ireland, she said, “Let us promise our Lady who loves Ireland so much, that we will never allow this country a single abortion. And no contraceptives.” She obviously sees no connection between poverty and too many children.

In one interview cited in the book, she was asked, “So you wouldn’t agree with people who say there are too many children in India?” She said, “I do not agree, because God always provides. He provides for the flowers and the birds, for everything in the world He has created. And those little children are his life. There can never be enough.”

One of Mother Teresa’s volunteers in Calcutta described her “Home for the Dying” as resembling photos of concentration camps such as Belsen. No chairs, just stretcher beds. Virtually no medical care or painkillers beyond aspirin, and a refusal to take a 15-year-old boy to a hospital. Hitchens adds, “Bear in mind that Mother Teresa’s global income is more than enough to outfit several first class clinics in Bengal. The decision not to do so... is a deliberate one. The point is not the honest relief of suffering, but the promulgation of a cult based on death and suffering and subjection.”

Then Hitchens notes that Mother Teresa “has checked into some of the finest and costliest clinics and hospitals in the West during her bouts with heart trouble and old age.”

The author mentions her visit to Haiti and her endorsement of the Duvaliers, the source of much deprivation of the poor in Haiti. Also, her acceptance of stolen money from Charles Keating, “now serving a ten-year sentence for his part in the savings and loan scandal.” Keating, a “Catholic fundamentalist”, gave Mother Teresa one and a quarter million dollars and “the use of his private jet.” During the course of Keating’s trial, Mother Teresa wrote Judge Ito asking clemency and asked Ito “to do what Jesus would do.”

One of the prosecutors in the trial wrote her telling her “of 17,000 individuals from whom Mr. Keating stole $252,000,000.” He added, “You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart--as he sentences Charles Keating--and do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you. Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience.” The prosecutor asked her to return the money, and offered to put her “in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession.” This supposed paragon of virtue never replied to his letter.

No one knows what happens to the millions of dollars Mother Teresa receives. There is no accounting and no evidence that she has built a hospital or orphanage that reflects modern health and sanitary conditions.

Hitchens details the reactionary political activities of Mother Teresa, from aiding the Spanish right wing against the anti-Franco forces who were seeking a secular society in post-Franco Spain, to her visits to Nicaragua and Guatemala to whitewash the atrocities of the Contras and death squads.

There is much more in this book, such as letters from former workers with Mother Teresa exposing her hypocrisy. Hitchens concludes his 98-page book with reference to her fund-raising for clerical nationalists in the Balkans, her endorsement by Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition, and her “cover for all manner of cultists and shady businessmen.” His last sentence is, “It is past time that she was subjected to the rational critique that she has evaded so arrogantly for so long.”

 

John M. Swomley serves American society in various capacities, a major one being a Jeffersonian advocate of separation of church and state.

From

THE HUMAN QUEST

& Ghandi was not without his faults , he selectively alternated between violent and non violent support for action & he opposed contraception.

But my intention is not to show that all religous people are evil because patantly that would be rubbish but i do think on balance we'd do better without it.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2007, 10:12:52 pm by fudge »
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline MichaelA

  • MasterBaker, honey-trapper and 'concerned neighbour'. Beyond The Pale. Vermin on the ridiculous. Would love to leave Ashley Cole gasping for air. Dupe Snoop Extraordinaire. RAWK MARTYR #1. The proud owner of a new lower case a. Mickey Two Sheds.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 29,365
  • At the Academy
  • Super Title: MichaelA
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #55 on: August 13, 2007, 10:10:15 pm »
I like his new single.

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 #56 on: August 13, 2007, 10:14:38 pm »
I really enjoyed the program. I can see why Dawkins puts peoples backs up, he'll politely observe a psychic/faith healer etc then roundly condemn it as nonsense in the next voice over. Very entertaining.

I'd like to have seen more of the exchanges between him and Satish Kumar. Unlike the tarot card readers that were clearly outgunned I thought that interview held the possibility of getting deeper into the argument between rationality and spiritualism.

I'll be tuning in next week, even though I have to miss the ace Indian cookery series to do so :(

Yeah i'd agree with all that, and its clear that Dawkins has turned down the bolshiness but then he hasn't got onto some of the more serious issues yet.

And what are you some sort of denier of science , get Tivo you fuckwitt and watch both
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline The Fletcher Memorial

  • Feels mildly violat.................. ed
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,941
  • Reality is hard to find
The sky does not know of east or of west;
it is in the minds of men where such distinctions are made, and then they believe them to be true.

Offline TheoRacle

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,542
  • LFC Supporter
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #58 on: August 14, 2007, 12:33:23 am »
I'm glad to see you brought them up. Mother Theresa is by no means universally thought of being a paragon of good.

http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm
& Ghandi was not without his faults , he selectively alternated between violent and non violent support for action & he opposed contraception.

But my intention is not to show that all religous people are evil because patantly that would be rubbish but i do think on balance we'd do better without it.

Vehemently opposed to religion and all those who push its cause.  Not overly keen on Dawkins' style but it has to be said that he certainly has brought the sham that is organised religion into the limelight and made a few more people stop and think about what it means to be tolerant of religion.

Now we just need some political leaders with the balls to run on a platform of aethism.  Still a long way off in my view, in main stream politics anyway, but hopefully the tide is turning.

Offline Phil M

  • YNWA
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 58,982
  • Bravery is believing in yourself" Rafael Benitez
    • I coulda been a contenda.....
It's true to say that if Shankly had told us to invade Poland we'd be queuing up 10 deep all the way from Anfield to the Pier Head.

Offline TheoRacle

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,542
  • LFC Supporter
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #60 on: August 14, 2007, 02:55:38 am »
Me?

Don't know, who are they? Can't view Youtubes etc at work....

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 #61 on: August 14, 2007, 03:42:57 am »
Show me a human being and I will show you a flawed human being.  And should I discredit Christopher Hitchens' views on MT on the basis that he is a right wing hawk who supports the Iraq war? Anyone who is opposed to the idea of religion will try and point out flaws in religious human beings.

Of course they had their faults but to believe one author over thousands of people who benefited directly and millions indirectly is a bit much.  For all the good she did, having traditional views on abortion is not such a terrible thing.  The point to make was that people can be religious and do a whole lot of good.  And to attribute a political agenda to her is just silly, I'm afraid.  Visits to Nicaragua to whitewash the Contras?  Who is blinkered enough to believe that she went there to specifically do that.  She went to do her work and in the process some bad people took some political mileage out of it.  Naive and simplistic on her part, sure but programmatic support, no.

And Gandhi had faults all right but alternating between violence and non-violence was definitely not one of them.  He had revolutionary beliefs very early on in his life but developed a political philosophy very firmly based on non-violence and followed it very consistently.  And he was not "opposed" to contraception, he believed that humans should check their "baser" impulses by practicing abstinence.  A slightly wacky theory but not one opposed to contraception per se.

The point is that having religious beliefs, regardless of people being leaders or not is not always a bad thing.  Much bad has come out of religion but so has a great deal of good. Baby. Bathwater.

I agreed with The Fletcher Memorial's point that religion mattered - he showed the negative side, which definitely exists and I was trying to show that there is another side, and it seems he agrees.  I'm not one for pushing religion in others' faces at all - I lost one of my closest friends from childhood in religious riots or riots which ostensibly were carried out in the name of religion to I have been cut close to the bone on this one.  I have also seen some fantastic religious people in my life whose photos are not available on the internet who have done amazing things for needy people, completely selflessly, so I completely recognise there are two sides to the religion beast. 

Offline TheoRacle

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,542
  • LFC Supporter
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #62 on: August 14, 2007, 04:16:06 am »
And to attribute a political agenda to her is just silly, I'm afraid.

Why?

And he was not "opposed" to contraception, he believed that humans should check their "baser" impulses by practicing abstinence.  A slightly wacky theory but not one opposed to contraception per se.

Semantics..

The point is that having religious beliefs, regardless of people being leaders or not is not always a bad thing. 

Yes it is. Leads to and promotes tolerance of ignorance, double standards, fanaticism, exploitation, corruption, oppression and division.

 
Much bad has come out of religion but so has a great deal of good.

Nothing that couldn't have been generated without it. In fact a lot more 'good' would be visible if it were not for religion...


I have also seen some fantastic religious people in my life whose photos are not available on the internet who have done amazing things for needy people, completely selflessly, so I completely recognise there are two sides to the religion beast. 

I have also seen some fantastic non-religious people in my life whose photos are not available on the internet who have done amazing things for needy people, completely selflessly...


Your point is?

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 #63 on: August 14, 2007, 07:05:37 am »
Why?

Because those are isolated incidents in a life full of service and sacrifice where that agenda was not pushed.  We are very sensitive about religious, especially Christian agendas in India and she would have been deported if she had tried to prosthelyze.  I have been to many of their homes and the work that goes on there and the people who work there are generally excellent.

Semantics..

Not really.

Yes it is. Leads to and promotes tolerance of ignorance, double standards, fanaticism, exploitation, corruption, oppression and division.

Your (narrowminded) view, though that can happen, I agree.  Lots of those things have also happened under communist and other totalitarian regimes - i.e regimes which have self-consciously rejected religion.
 
Nothing that couldn't have been generated without it. In fact a lot more 'good' would be visible if it were not for religion...

Your view and one that is not capable of proof or any objective determination since we cannot go back in time and do things differently.  Also the experience of the communist regimes mentioned above would suggest otherwise.  Mao and Stalin killed more people than any bigoted religious leader,

I have also seen some fantastic non-religious people in my life whose photos are not available on the internet who have done amazing things for needy people, completely selflessly...

Of course you have and so have I, are you being deliberately provocative or are you just vacuous?

Your point is?

That all kinds of people, religious and otherwise, can do good and being religious does not automatically make people monsters.


Mate your views or at least the way your express them smack of as much intolerance as the religious fanatics you refer to.  My point was simply that religious people are not all bad just as non-religious people are not all good, or bad, for that matter. 

Peace be upon you and your tribe.

Offline The Fletcher Memorial

  • Feels mildly violat.................. ed
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,941
  • Reality is hard to find
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #64 on: August 14, 2007, 09:12:10 am »
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."  Steven Weinberg
The sky does not know of east or of west;
it is in the minds of men where such distinctions are made, and then they believe them to be true.

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,698
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #65 on: August 14, 2007, 09:29:13 am »
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."  Steven Weinberg

There are and always have been plenty of reasons for good people to do evil things.

Greed, fear, opression, hatred, poverty, desperation, jealousy and the list is endless.
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Offline CharleyBubbles

  • Passengers alighting at Edge Hill are advised that light showers are expected
  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #66 on: August 14, 2007, 10:04:55 am »
Interfaith dialogue?? As for "Benny" preaching a great deal of understanding, do me a favour please!

Yes, a meeting between God's representative on Earth and Head of The Catholic Church and one of the world's most high-profile, important Methodists.  Benny 16 (the best German number16 since Dietmarr Hamann in my oh so humble opinion) has, certainly, preached a great deal of understanding in a papalcy which has been contemporaneous with a great deal of religious tension. 

But anyway Dawkins lovers, you should be out rejoicing at the declining influence that Christianity has suffered throughout the Twentieth Century through to today, shouldn't you?    Downing Magners in Alma Di Cuba between chapters of The Da Vinci Code?

I, CharleyBubbles, would have to disagree... In contemporary Britain, it's the decline of influence of Christian values as exemplified by the removal of Section 18, failure to amend abortion laws given advances in medical science, civil partnerships, the removal of tax incentives for married couples... that disenfranchise and divide our society far more than the existance of religion itself.  This is particularly true of Muslim communities within Great Britain, who i'm quite sure have more of a proverbial axe to grind with the decadance of The West as a whole than Christianity, as evidenced by the high percentage of Muslim familes who choose to send their children to Christian schools rather than schools with no religious ethos whatsoever. 

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 #67 on: August 14, 2007, 10:18:33 am »
Are you a fan of these guys?

Yeah i am actually , didn't give two hoots about them when they were just doing magic but when they turned their eyes to hypocrisy i was well interested.

They're obviously loud and brash but anyone who does this sort of works alright in my book
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 #68 on: August 14, 2007, 10:20:02 am »
There are and always have been plenty of reasons for good people to do evil things.

Greed, fear, opression, hatred, poverty, desperation, jealousy and the list is endless.

And i'm all for removing as many of those reasons as possible , and given that religion has been the number 1 driver of evil deeds i'll start with that one.
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline CharleyBubbles

  • Passengers alighting at Edge Hill are advised that light showers are expected
  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #69 on: August 14, 2007, 10:27:53 am »
And i'm all for removing as many of those reasons as possible , and given that religion has been the number 1 driver of evil deeds i'll start with that one.

don't be silly fudgeywudgey, it's one of few global mechanisms for good.

aren't money and power generally far more corrupting than religion?  I know I'll get a rather predictable answer about the three being very closely related, so i'll pre-empt it by saying that it's inarguably increasinly tenously so in today's post-christian Europe.

Offline TheoRacle

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,542
  • LFC Supporter
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #70 on: August 14, 2007, 10:28:18 am »
Mate your views or at least the way your express them smack of as much intolerance as the religious fanatics you refer to.  My point was simply that religious people are not all bad just as non-religious people are not all good, or bad, for that matter. 

Peace be upon you and your tribe.

Feel free to believe your fairy tale mate but don't try to pretend that people aren't suffering today because of it.  Why should any anyone tolerate that?

Offline CharleyBubbles

  • Passengers alighting at Edge Hill are advised that light showers are expected
  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #71 on: August 14, 2007, 10:29:08 am »
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."  Steven Weinberg

"Love thy neighbour" Jesus Christ.

Offline TheoRacle

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,542
  • LFC Supporter
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #72 on: August 14, 2007, 10:30:27 am »
"Kill all those that do not worship me.": God

Offline CharleyBubbles

  • Passengers alighting at Edge Hill are advised that light showers are expected
  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #73 on: August 14, 2007, 10:37:40 am »
"Kill all those that do not worship me.": God

"I have three heroes: Steffi Graf, Elgar and Glenn Hoddle"

Jacques Chirac

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 #74 on: August 14, 2007, 10:42:41 am »
don't be silly fudgeywudgey, it's one of few global mechanisms for good.

aren't money and power generally far more corrupting than religion?  I know I'll get a rather predictable answer about the three being very closely related, so i'll pre-empt it by saying that it's inarguably increasinly tenously so in today's post-christian Europe.


Haven't been called that since i last saw my old catholic priest as he paedo'd me.

There's plenty of NGO's that have no religious bent whatsover so it doesn't need to be driven by religion and on balance in the world today i see more mechanisms for evil driven by religion and thats why BubblyWubbly it goes into room 101.

"inarguably increasinly tenously " i'll ignore your iteration and head straight for a resounding no.

When theatre shows are having to be cancelled by death threats from Sikh bodies and Christian Voice.
Whilst our authors are still under fatwa's from leaders of other countries,
As we have mass demonstrations with "7/7 on its way" and "He who insults Mohammed must be massacred".
We go to war in Iraq with two leaders who take their orders from on high and pray together with their hands on the big red button of destruction.
We have catholic bodies who object to allowing a womans right to choose abortion and would have us going back to back street operations with the increase in deaths from those. Even worse we have the church still objecting to contraception whilst the worlds population explodes and millions die from STD's.

Its not inarguable & its certainly not increasingly tenuous for a load of people.
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 #75 on: August 14, 2007, 10:47:55 am »
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” [Epicurus]
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

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 #76 on: August 14, 2007, 10:53:57 am »
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” [Epicurus]
No fucking clue mate, that is the very nature of my spiritual status.  ;)
Feel free to believe your fairy tale mate but don't try to pretend that people aren't suffering today because of it.  Why should any anyone tolerate that?
Don't have a fairly tale to believe in mate, as much as I would like one.  I am not religious, believe it or not.

I agree that some people are suffering because of religion.  I agree that this should not be tolerated.

Offline CharleyBubbles

  • Passengers alighting at Edge Hill are advised that light showers are expected
  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #77 on: August 14, 2007, 11:03:45 am »
Haven't been called that since i last saw my old catholic priest as he paedo'd me.
fantastic.

Quote
There's plenty of NGO's that have no religious bent whatsover so it doesn't need to be driven by religion and on balance in the world today i see more mechanisms for evil driven by religion
 
Whilst its true that there are a number of NGOs (that do good) without an inclination towards any religion, there are a huge number of religious organisations too... which doesn't prove anything really other than you can do go with or without religion, which i'm sure everyone thought was a given anyway.

Quote
"inarguably increasinly tenously " i'll ignore your iteration and head straight for a resounding no.
alright it was a clumsy sentence, but i'm meant to be at work...

Quote
When theatre shows are having to be cancelled by death threats from Sikh bodies and Christian Voice.
 
Which theatre show was cancelled after death threats from Christian Voice?  How represenative are Christian Voice of the Christians of Great Britain as a whole (the simple answer is that they're not at all).

Quote
We go to war in Iraq with two leaders who take their orders from on high and pray together with their hands on the big red button of destruction.
That's a bit silly old Fudge now isn't it.  "take their orders from on high"?  Aren't they the democratically elected leaders of their countries, mandated to serve those who put them into power, accountable by the ballot box and both returned at elections after going to war?
Quote
We have catholic bodies who object to allowing a womans right to choose abortion and would have us going back to back street operations with the increase in deaths from those. Even worse we have the church still objecting to contraception whilst the worlds population explodes and millions die from STD's.
I don't agree with abortion except for in rape cases or if the birth of the baby puts the mother's life at risk.  Not really that bizaare a viewpoint and one held by people from all sorts of faiths aswell as those with no faith at all. 

Quote
Its not inarguable & its certainly not increasingly tenuous for a load of people.
I think that stating that the political and economic influence of Christianity in Europe is on the decline is about as inarguable as Wigan might struggle to get into Europe.

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 #78 on: August 14, 2007, 11:25:14 am »
fantastic.

i'm sure the 1000's of people who have had their lives ruined throughout the ages by paedophile priests and rapist holy men wouldn't agree with your sentiments.


Whilst its true that there are a number of NGOs (that do good) without an inclination towards any religion, there are a huge number of religious organisations too... which doesn't prove anything really other than you can do go with or without religion, which i'm sure everyone thought was a given anyway.

Yeah i'd go along with that. As i said it would be idiotic to claim that some people don't do good from a religous perpective.


alright it was a clumsy sentence, but i'm meant to be at work...

Work. work is for people who get raises....

Which theatre show was cancelled after death threats from Christian Voice?  How represenative are Christian Voice of the Christians of Great Britain as a whole (the simple answer is that they're not at all).

Jerry Springer and the BBC.

Certainly their power is out of proportion to the size of the group but thats what religion does it enforces people to put them on a pedestal and be treated in a special way.

how representative are Al Queyda of Islam?, but they still have a tremendous influence on the world we live in.




That's a bit silly old Fudge now isn't it.  "take their orders from on high"?  Aren't they the democratically elected leaders of their countries, mandated to serve those who put them into power, accountable by the ballot box and both returned at elections after going to war?

Words from their own mouths i'm afraid, but i agree it is silly that we can elect two fucking baffoons democratically who then answer to the voices in their own heads (from God or some other fairy) and ignore the will of the people.

Once they're in power they are our overlords and can do whatever their conscience dictates. yeah its silly and fucking frightening.



I don't agree with abortion except for in rape cases or if the birth of the baby puts the mother's life at risk.  Not really that bizaare a viewpoint and one held by people from all sorts of faiths aswell as those with no faith at all. 


Fine but don't for one minute impose your views on other people where it could affect their lives. Unless of course you're happy to look after these children yourself. 

I notice you ommitted to say anything on the undefensible position of contraception?
Rubber Dinghy Rapids....

Offline The Cappuccino Kid

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Aren't we free?
Re: Richard Dawkins
« Reply #79 on: August 14, 2007, 11:53:52 am »
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?

First things, I don't see what the fact that the fella writes horoscopes has to do with anything because they, like Dawkins arguments against God's existence, can't be disproved or proven so a Spencer statement about what Scorpio's should be doing this week and a Dawkins statemtent say, "God doesn't exist" are both as unverifiable as each other.

I don't think that Spencer implies that astrology is "art and imagination"- more to do with say, Dawkins' book, "Unweaving The Rainbow" where he altogether dimisses Keats' views on the creation of the rainbow. I think it's sad on Dawkins part that he totally dismisses the views of Keats and his artistic licene to claim that beauty can be found in scientific discovery. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Dawkins to an extent in that there is beauty in billions of years of evolution but where is the harm in creative freedom such as this? I think this could be argued as why Dawkins is an enemy to "art and imagination."

With regards to the astrology and astronomy connections, it is perhaps naive on Spencer's part to  say that "if one is right, then the other must be to." I think what he's getting is that there must have been something there to hold the interests of Galileo and Keppler, perhaps the intrigue into the unknown and something so ambiguous as to its verity. An intrigue which perhaps seems lost on Dawkins seeing as how to him, something which can't be scientfically proven, isn't even worth considering.

About the part about Yeats, I think it's immature on Dawkins behalf to just claim that Yeats, arguably the greatest poet of all time, just wrote "pretty words" without considering what the influences or beliefs behind those "pretty words." The Irish myth, folklore and spiritualism which were behind aspects of Yeats' work would also no doubt be dismissed by Dawkins due to a lack of scientific verfication. If Dawkins were to suspend his dependence on science for just one second, perhaps he'd find a deeper beauty than just the "pretty words" he appreciates. From this, it could further be argued that due to his inability to consider anything else but science in all aspects of life, whether it be personal interest or literature, that Dawkins is an enemy of "art and imagination."

To me, it seems hypoctrical for Dawkins to lambast those who have a faith in God when it requires just as much faith to not believe in God.

Anyway, did it occur to anyone that if Dawkins managed to prove that God didn't exist and all religion was therefore abolished the next day, all the evil and suffering in the world would still exist in the world. The problem is not with religion or faith, the problem lies with those who manipulate it for their own ends. Science, for example, could just as easily be manipulated by evil beings just like say the Nazi Party in the 30s/40s. People would still find things to kill and terrorise each other in the name of, possibly even different scientific theories. Religion is not the root of all evil, human manipulation and distortion is.

Thanks for your personal attack on what subject I decided to study- I like to think it came in handy as when it comes to debating, I like to think I have a tolerant and compassionate attitude to the opinions of others- something Dawkins lacks.
Formerly Mr Brightside.