[ Home ]

dawkins debate

I think that anyone who disagrees with me is a cunt (I am fundamentally idealogically opposed to civilised and courteous discussion as a means of airing and exploring our differences)

Yes but that's just what you beleive, where's the scientific truth?

but what is belief? Its ok saying that you don't believe what I believe but what if I don't agree with you on the meaning on the word "belief"?

at least scientists put forward theories which they then invite to be disproved. believers just cling psychologically to their mental crutches whatever their foundation. a believer who seriously invites debate about their thoughts could be a half-way house but their efforts are unlikely to be sufficiently objective as to be worth bothering about. beliefs are irrelevant. theories can be useful.

I feel I need to disagree with you nix, old chap.

its a shame that the most well-known and listened to non-religious speaker in this debate is Dawkins. Dawkins main focus appears to me to be to implore atheists to stand up and be counted - to be as proud and unashamed to voice their (non) beliefs as those of faith. Afteraall, it strikes me that there are two possibilities here as to why atheists refrain from talking about how they see the world in front of people of faith: 1) people of faith are mentally ill and should be treated as such - i.e. you don't try to upset them and you're not mean to them 2) people of faith are not mentally ill and are just as happy and robust in their beliefs as the rest of us are. In case one well thats unfortunate but as POFs are very vocal in politics, the rest of us need to stand up and be counted before these nutters take us all to oblivion (which presumably they wont mind as they get to meet their beloved higher being). In case 2 then the rest of us need to stand up and be counted as it is not politicians faults if they pander to religious lobby groups when the silence coming from the rest of us implies that there are only people of faith (POF?) and no others. So, if you're still reading, I think Dawkins has a laudable aim in trying to make those of us who are committed atheists as well as people like me (agnostic verging on atheist) not be afraid to talk openly and unashamedly in front of POFs. They believe in beings that can't be seen, heard or felt and we don't. Unfortunately though, because Dawkins is not so far particularly successful in his primary aim, he ends up speaking for all of us and he doesn't do a very good job. Whilst I agree that you could term the indoctrination of small children "child abuse" and be technically correct it clearly is not a very clever or constructive thing to do. It is incendiary polemic hyperbole and just serves to create a rift and unfortunately lots of non-dangerous, non-proselytising, non-lobbying, generally nice POFs end up thinking that we're a bunch of arseholes. Hey kix, keep the topics coming

i agree with you up to the last paragraph, then i sigh with disappointment i try to be polite, fairminded and undrstanding but i just feel very very cross and now and again would like to unleash my frustration on POF's but I cant because i am neither articulate or confident in expressing my aetheism. Instead I have tantrums in my own head and I find that only dawkins' audacity can pop the dummy back in my mouth. He calms and reassures me in the same way that jesus may hearten a christian who is trapped in a well with a broken ankle. Only i know that dawkins exists because i've seen him on the telly. as for the debate she starts off with confidence and fully on the offensive but by the end is a giggling school girl hoping that the bell rings before her classmates realise she's peed her pants under the desk

Your last paragraph falls into the category that Dawkins rails against - best not speak the truth because we might offend POFs. It is perfectly acceptable for POFs to offend atheists, agnostics and POOFs (People Of Other Faiths) but god forbid an atheist offends a POF or a POOF. The rift already exists and is there because of the fundamental inability of organised religion to accept any other view of the world. All Dawkins does is state the truth - why should anyone be offended? I think you will find that abuse (child and adult) and organised religion are inextricably linked.