Richard Dawkins Is A Fuckity Fuck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkxtG2f3NcY

 

It's just a great public service, exposing how utterly sick in the head these holy fuckers are.

"I look forward to observing from my post in heaven, the exquisite tortures you will suffer at the hands of a just and loving God, whom you have rejected, you fuckity fucker. God bless!"

 

So agnostic is a default towards religion? Me thinks you protest too much. You like what the bible says, others think it's historical fiction, at best. Where else should this thread have gone? My personal association is the adherents of biblical theism are caught up in faerie tales and I consider it a serious indictment of their rationality, objectivity and credibility. Whatever avenue MR Dawkins chooses to reach a wider audience I say more power to him. You can talk "commercially beneficial stance" till your blue in the face, I don't see him passing around a guilt trip called the "collection plate" or amassing tax free real estate, which BTW myself and every other taxpayer ends up paying for indirectly, in that local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize through tax exceptions — to the tune of about $71 billion every year.

 

sorry..

 

No.
An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. A philosophy first as are religions philosophies. I don't protest too much in asking for fair circumspection.

I have no special preference for information from any source it is all information. The bible doesn't say anything but the practice of trying to interpret what is written has illumined some things for me. Where did you think the thread went? I made an observation about the presence of a certain attitude that appears on either side of the discussion.

The observation that it is a commercially beneficial stance for him has no relevance to the fact that a collection plate is passed to maintain the institutions of religion. It is true regardless what transpires for others. If it wasn't profitable to him, he wouldn't invest his time in it. I am not saying it reflects badly on him if that is the way you are taking it.

That is not your association with them it is your ability to call other people less than rational, objective, or credible.

 

The bible doesn't "say" anything {rolls eyes}...whatever, Mr. literal. You quote the bible on these forums a lot to make certain points so you know exactly what I'm talking about. And I don't "call" people anything, I simple stop 'association' with them, if you can understand what I'm saying.

 

Religion lasts because it is not reasonable. If there was totally irrefutable proof of Jesus as Son of God, and the claims of other religion, then next week such proofs could change just as how lately we have new 'proofs' that there was no Big Bang, and that the speed of light is not a delimiter of acceleration. It is the lack of proof and the continued belief which is the actual transcendental realism of religion, and which can't be disproven given that it's distinctly unreasonable. This Dawkins is just being an unsympathetic asshole. Initially he could be applauded. Now he is absurd.

 

^ You got issues if you think Dawkins is the asshole in that video.

 

^ Agree with that. Whatever you may think of Dawkins in other ways, he's exposing a kind of sickness of the mind that exists in some of those religious nutcases.

 

I've heard that comment before, mr. literal, or captain obvious is another similar. If not those then that leaves a lot of guess work as to what in fact is meant. For example the term biblical theism is an abstraction that requires agreement to be understood. I understand what you are saying but I have my own understanding and my own reasons. It is not at all uncommon for me to say the bible doesn't speak to point out the fact that any written material must be interpreted. I also point out the things that are obvious because without the obvious meaning, relying on seemingly innocuous abstract associations is a distortion that affects the further reasoned position.Like having a bug in your software that affects performance. Terms like always and never are common terms used in a sentence that can provide such distortions without ever recognizing it is on those fundamentals that the argument is founded. You get those fundamentals in correct proportion the argument changes. I don't say the bible says but it is written, so it is not meant to be a cheap trick. Fact is I don't quote the bible unless it is in response to a bible quote in reference to philosophical foundations or world model. I use axiomatic phrases that can be found in the bible, as basis for further philosophical reasoning not as any proof of anything but to increase understanding of subjects. I use sayings from other traditions or persons to do the same thing.
As far as calling people things I understand that a lack of association comes after certain determinations on your part, i.e." the adherents of biblical theism are caught up in faerie tales and I consider it a serious indictment of their rationality, objectivity and credibility."

 

It has been my personal experience that you can in fact reason with many believers if you can appreciate their position or where they are coming from. There is a simple and very base reason for this and it is we find those most agreeable whom agree with us. An antagonistic position brings antagonistic reaction or they just dig their heels in further resistance to reason.

 

Flavor of the day. Sickness of the mind is not reserved for religious adherents although it is a popular whipping boy today for attempting to explain the funda-mental problems we face as human beings. It is a patch on and old and worn out infrastructure of cliquish, territorial, and cave dwelling behavior. How bright is someone who argues with religious nutcases by comparison? The whole plumbing needs to be taken out and restored in a new condition or we just keep springing leaks in one area or another.

Fundamental from unda, like a wave. Mental waves, brain waves, all reactions herein are based on thoughtful propositions.

I am not saying that Dawkins doesn't have a point but I think it is over all or considering all the things we face, misplaced. His popularity reflects the us versus them mindset on the basis that they are stupid. Many people find themselves allies then, in a conflict and we support our troops.

 

In a world of conflict allies are many and allies can change for the simple fact of disagreement. Friends in peace in such a world are harder to come by.

 

If you're saying that the atheist vs. believer conflict as it's presented in the media is somewhat shallow, I'd agree. Dawkins is very much a polemicist . I don't dislike him, but I don't necessarily agree with him either on many points.

He is really in the entertainment business, and he's an engaging type.

 

personally i have no idea why this thread is here. i fail to see, what anyone's possible flaws of personality, have to do, with either the structure of the universe, nor how it would be most beneficial to ourselves and others, to conduct our own lives. whatever he is, whatever i am, whatever you are, whoever you are, reading this, i fail to see what any of that, has to do, with any topic related to this forum.

maybe its just me, but i fail to see, how anyone's personality, has a dam thing to do, with the universe we live in.

 

^ Dawkins is a prominent atheist, the video is relevant for that fact. Moreover it exposes the hate filled dialogue which someone who takes as strong of a position on the topic has to put up with.

 

still don't see that as making it pertinent. are we talking about persons or are we talking about beliefs.
the title of this entire section is philosophy and religion. doesn't say a damd thing about social likes and dislikes of personalities.
there are plenty of other places all of the net for that kind of bullshit.

isn't this supposed to be about WHAT people believe or don't; NOT WHO says they do?
i'm sorry but i just don't see any logical relationship between the two.

 

I can't help you there then...

 

I used to be a huge proponent of Richard Dawkins and in many ways I still am.

Whenever I see his face on a youtube thumbnail I say to myself "What is Richard dorkins up to now" in an old familiar friend sort of tone.....And scroll on past....Its usually a video I've watched already anyway.

I bet most people don't know he coined the word meme back in the mid 1970's, around the same time home computers entered the market.....yeah, he named those things on facebook.

Daniel Dennett is much more robust source of naturalistic philosophy, but Richard Dawkins has actually made considerable contributions to our body of scientific knowledge.

 

The Lord certainly does work in mysterious ways!

I'm not a fan of missionary atheism, but just now I'm really glad that Monk Eye Fucker is around. That was hilarious! I've never been accosted by any so damnably funny as that lot. Rock on, Dawkins.