Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2v
I can't do that last bit... Because an intelligent 13 year old would tell you that you're wrong.
Embarrassing*, Massively*, Input*, Initial*, Fuck.. whit? Lmfao. Learn how to spell G.
anyway..
I didn't go against the points he made in his book, I went against how he went about presenting it. I went against how he opened his book, I went about how he's a hypocrite to using black people as an example, and gays "Coming Out Of The Closet", when the mother fucker's family grew up in Africa owning slaves. You have everything wrong about me and you're really making yourself look stupid with continuation of the subject you think exists.
And by the way, I've done more than just read his books, I've looked up his speeches, his backround, his history, his intentions. This mother fucker is not in any fucking place to preach to us about certain shit, and I used his family slave ownership, as my example, to BACK THAT UP. Pull the cock out of your brain before you get a sexual thinking disease.
|
Spelling......dawkins background....
I think weve all heard enough from you... thanks... bye...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Crossword
Ok, to get away from the bickering match and onto an actual discussion let's try something.
See, I want to say I agree with 2v but he made his argument all wrong. He did sound like a 4 year old arguing about why their parent is a "stupid poopy monster" for not letting them play in the mud.
Well, I'd like to take this down a different route but with the same viewpoint.
After seeing this book mentioned on a lot of message boards I decided to pick it up and tear through it. I get to the end and I have a pile of tissues used to wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes. Good for Dawkins, standing up for his opinion and saying that God doesn't exist and he is "improbable" in a sense. But I don't think the argument he tried to make really said much at all, except to the creationism believers (and everyone knows how lost a person is if they believed dinosaurs were on the Arc ).
Well what about those that believe in a god, but do not believe in creationism, or as I like to call them, the "not-so-crazies". Dawkins argument falls apart at that point.
You can't flip a theist's argumentative strategy against them to support a argument if they don't believe in the strategy to begin with (using a creationism believers strategy to prove god exists against a plain old believer in god.)
He says that if believers think that since the world is so complex then it needed a creator, and since existence is complex then god himself must be intelligent. Because of the intelligence then we must also assume (key word) that God is complex. If God is complex then he/she/it/whatever must also need a creator of some sort of intelligence, etc etc.
Now, this works very well against those who believe in the creationism, hardcore, "by the book" beliefs. But there are many theists out there that do not hold the same beliefs as this, and see creationism as improbable and just some cooked bologna with a nice fried egg named "faith" on top of it.
I believe this is a good argument if you are facing one type of believer. But this is not a good argument to take on all believers. The battlefield is too vast....
And lastly... For Dawkins to pick on the men/women/children who believe in the insanity that is creationism is a weak move. I don't know what he is trying to prove.
I'm expecting his next book to be "The Mole Men Delusion".
So, if you guys could really continue this debate with some sort of structure I'm just gonna mosey on out.
|
I was a bit dissapointed in the way dawkins deals almost exclusivly with christians and jewish religions... But on the subject of christians, I kind of dissagree with people who will label themselves that after simply picking and choosing what they want and dont want to believe..
A car isnt really a car without an engine..
Just like a christian isnt really a christian if their missing fundemental sections of the christian belief system..
Religion
is crazy dude... Simplyfied its more or less a denomination of people who allow themselves to be lead into belief's without any form of proof.. I see where your getting at when you say that dawkins is mainly dealing with extreme cases, but given the opportunity what belief's exactly would you remove from the christian religion in order to make it all seem any more logical and scientific than what it currantly is?
What parts of the bible do you dissagree with that make what you believe any more feasable than the weird and wonderful belief's of creationists?
Do you dissagree that jesus was an avatar and the sole son of god, aspect of the deity that created the entire universe and existance itself? Do you dissagree that the bible was inspired and recited to those who wrote it by god himself? Do you dissagree with the genesis creation story? Would you be such a heretic to admit there is substantial plausability behind the theory of evolution?
And if you actually can bring yourself to take elements away from the bible and discredit them, can you actually safly call yourself a christian? Or is your philosophy on life more personal and not really adapt to that of mainstream christianity?
I mean, granted dawkins does generalise quite a bit on the belief's of those hes arguing against, hes taking it all straight from the fundemental belief's of the religion you guys are still claiming to be a part of and also what weve all heard religious people and theologons say time and time again.. To be a christian, you should believe that existance was designed by an exterior being.. And this is literally what the book is arguing against..
So my overall question to you is, what is it youve changed about christianity in your own mind thats a whole lot more probable than the creationist philosophy?