is there enough evidence that Richard Dawkins exists?
category: general [glöplog]
try actually reading one of dawkins books, you'll find the change in tone to be pretty shocking, and that's where his real message is (which again, directly attacks religion extremely rarely if at all), and not in his public appearances, where he probably tries to start a bit of a ruckus so that someone will actually red the fucking books instead of taking everything at face value
and that ad on the buses isn't very inspired even if i agree with the message, it's just too 'ha, in your face'.
and that ad on the buses isn't very inspired even if i agree with the message, it's just too 'ha, in your face'.
The ad was meant as a response to a bus campaign by a religious group that stated that non-believers would burn in hell (or something like that). They wanted to use stronger wording but it would never have been allowed.
If I had lots of money I would add my own ad:
"Don't worry and enjoy ASD demos. They probably run on ATIs too"
"Don't worry and enjoy ASD demos. They probably run on ATIs too"
And that's the whole point - why are public religious messages that have an undertone of "you will be punished if you don't believe (and btw, the gritty details of how to believe correctly are purely up to us)" even tolerated?
This ad campaign is able to create an uproar even in this community (which I frankly thought of being more open minded and tolerant than many of the responses uttered here, but oh well), yet many countries on this planet tolerate or actively endorse that people live and even legislation gets written by the "rules" formulated in some fucking fairy-tale book.
And this needs to be changed. Even if that means that some unwashed masses in middle nowhere need to find a different kind of opium for themselves.
This ad campaign is able to create an uproar even in this community (which I frankly thought of being more open minded and tolerant than many of the responses uttered here, but oh well), yet many countries on this planet tolerate or actively endorse that people live and even legislation gets written by the "rules" formulated in some fucking fairy-tale book.
And this needs to be changed. Even if that means that some unwashed masses in middle nowhere need to find a different kind of opium for themselves.
religion makes people kill each other, science gives them the means, philosophy makes them feel good about it.
Quote:
If I had lots of money I would add my own ad:
"Don't worry and enjoy ASD demos. They probably run on ATIs too"
Quote:
is there actually enough empirical evidence to support continued belief in the existence of Richard Dawkins?
But thoughts control is not a good idea no matter who is doing it or for what reason. Banning thoughts, ideas, lifestyles. Is that really the way to go?
How about education instead? And then letting people think for themselves.
I sure don't care about the ads. People should be able to express their thoughts, no matter what.
I believe in a God. I wont try to define God for you, that is not up to me, but i have defined it for myself.
Laugh at me all you like for what i care. I just think everyone should have the ability to live without fear of having the "wrong religion" or lack thereof. And the ad is fucking funny, it has had me grinning all the while writing this.
Peace.
How about education instead? And then letting people think for themselves.
I sure don't care about the ads. People should be able to express their thoughts, no matter what.
I believe in a God. I wont try to define God for you, that is not up to me, but i have defined it for myself.
Laugh at me all you like for what i care. I just think everyone should have the ability to live without fear of having the "wrong religion" or lack thereof. And the ad is fucking funny, it has had me grinning all the while writing this.
Peace.
> And this needs to be changed.
"must" this, "needs" that... isn't that a case of evangelical atheism ?
"must" this, "needs" that... isn't that a case of evangelical atheism ?
Navis, oh please. Sorry for starting a sentence with "You religious people" here, but I'll do anyway, just because you deserve it.
You religious people are always so keen on twisting every word around until it fits whatever "point" you're trying to pull out of thin air. But, given that I still consider you a person capable of rational thought, I'll try to explain once:
Note that I said neither anything about if there is a god of any kind nor that I'm not tolerant towards the beliefs of other people. What I DID say, however, is that my tolerance hits an abrupt ending as soon as others' religious beliefs are forced upon the way _I_ am living my life. This starts with TV broadcasts that tell my I'll go to $HELL for $WHATEVER_IS_DEEMED_INAPPROPRIATE and it's in full swing as soon as religion is trying to bleed over into laws that _I_ am supposed to obey.
And If I say "this needs to be changed", it's exactly that. I don't say "people believing in whatever deitiy needs to be shot or mind washed", I say "The influence that organised religion has on other people's lives has to be done away with".
Really. Come on. All religions always haven't shown the slightest tolerance towards ANY other belief (the abundance of factions calling themselves "Christian" and strongly opposing each other might give you a clue here), and as soon as "we" atheists or agnostics are trying to level the playing field, you all go "LOL YOU'RE JUST AS INTOLERANT AS WE ARE HAHA"? That's pathetic.
You religious people are always so keen on twisting every word around until it fits whatever "point" you're trying to pull out of thin air. But, given that I still consider you a person capable of rational thought, I'll try to explain once:
Note that I said neither anything about if there is a god of any kind nor that I'm not tolerant towards the beliefs of other people. What I DID say, however, is that my tolerance hits an abrupt ending as soon as others' religious beliefs are forced upon the way _I_ am living my life. This starts with TV broadcasts that tell my I'll go to $HELL for $WHATEVER_IS_DEEMED_INAPPROPRIATE and it's in full swing as soon as religion is trying to bleed over into laws that _I_ am supposed to obey.
And If I say "this needs to be changed", it's exactly that. I don't say "people believing in whatever deitiy needs to be shot or mind washed", I say "The influence that organised religion has on other people's lives has to be done away with".
Really. Come on. All religions always haven't shown the slightest tolerance towards ANY other belief (the abundance of factions calling themselves "Christian" and strongly opposing each other might give you a clue here), and as soon as "we" atheists or agnostics are trying to level the playing field, you all go "LOL YOU'RE JUST AS INTOLERANT AS WE ARE HAHA"? That's pathetic.
LOL YOU'RE JUST AS INTOLERANT AS WE ARE HAHA
I agree with what you say here, my initial message was not towards you rather towards the voices tha call for a total change in society, which implies imposing their beliefs (agnostic/atheists/religious etc) upon others.
But you clarify that your rationale is different: it is similar to mine, which is basically "live and let live", in other words believe whatever you want (how matter foolish that may be to others) but you have no rights over what other people should believe or do in their lives to make themselves feel better.
My original comments don't come from a christian point of view. I still find the bus advert tacky and I can't help of thinking of the big egos behind it who think "well we know better than the unwashed masses". I would think of exactly the same thing if it was an ad for some evangelican church preaching "you'll all go to hell" or something vile like that.
I agree that things have to change in our society - but I'm talking about more practical things like church-state separation, education etc. I don't think man will ever take god out of his mind, and quite frankly I wouldn't want that to happen, as I personally have a strong interest and respect to the cultural side of religion, and I bet so do you :).
But you clarify that your rationale is different: it is similar to mine, which is basically "live and let live", in other words believe whatever you want (how matter foolish that may be to others) but you have no rights over what other people should believe or do in their lives to make themselves feel better.
My original comments don't come from a christian point of view. I still find the bus advert tacky and I can't help of thinking of the big egos behind it who think "well we know better than the unwashed masses". I would think of exactly the same thing if it was an ad for some evangelican church preaching "you'll all go to hell" or something vile like that.
I agree that things have to change in our society - but I'm talking about more practical things like church-state separation, education etc. I don't think man will ever take god out of his mind, and quite frankly I wouldn't want that to happen, as I personally have a strong interest and respect to the cultural side of religion, and I bet so do you :).
Where's pouetization when it's needed?
All humans are born without religion.
The bad thing about religion is the "children brainwashing". In fact, trying to convert an adult to some religion is a very difficult (or impossible) task.
Ethics must not be based on religious dogmas because that would not be a solid base for justice, ethics, society.
Enough said... let's post a random image of an old man.
The bad thing about religion is the "children brainwashing". In fact, trying to convert an adult to some religion is a very difficult (or impossible) task.
Ethics must not be based on religious dogmas because that would not be a solid base for justice, ethics, society.
Enough said... let's post a random image of an old man.
Quote:
This starts with TV broadcasts that tell my I'll go to $HELL for $WHATEVER_IS_DEEMED_INAPPROPRIATE and it's in full swing as soon as religion is trying to bleed over into laws that _I_ am supposed to obey.
How about TV broadcast that tell you about $STUFF you need to buy for your $IMPORTANT_ASPECT_FOR_YOUR_LIFE?
Quote:
Really. Come on. All religions always haven't shown the slightest tolerance towards ANY other belief (the abundance of factions calling themselves "Christian" and strongly opposing each other might give you a clue here), and as soon as "we" atheists or agnostics are trying to level the playing field, you all go "LOL YOU'RE JUST AS INTOLERANT AS WE ARE HAHA"? That's pathetic.
Wait wait wait, who's intolerant towards atheism here?
Gargaj, adverts don't generally tell you that you'll go to hell if you don't buy the product they're advertising.
pete: they do tell you that you're going to be unpopular or unsuccessful without the product though - plus if you dont believe in hell, why should you care?
Gargaj: are you seriously comparing advertising for <product X> to organized religion?
If you're above consumerist nonsense why do you care about adverts?
darwin on dawkins: "dude stop trying to be cool through association with me, i'm dead"
so far i rate Gargaj and Navis' contributions bigtime
What about mine? I'm awesome
gloom: <irony></irony>?
pete: i dont, i'm just saying that i dont see much difference between the two - and i do consider myself religious.
see, i grew up calvinist, and i still try to adhere to those values. for us, religion meant little get-togethers, talking about life, culture (i vividly recall discussing marilyn manson lyrics in religion-class), stuff like that. we never felt that atheists were sinners - we just felt they're missing out on something cool. they were welcome to join in any aspect, but we werent snubbing them if they didnt. (i mean heh, most of my friends dont believe in God and i dont complain about that - it's mostly them being shocked that i'm religious.)
in that aspect, no, i dont understand "organized" religion.
pete: i dont, i'm just saying that i dont see much difference between the two - and i do consider myself religious.
see, i grew up calvinist, and i still try to adhere to those values. for us, religion meant little get-togethers, talking about life, culture (i vividly recall discussing marilyn manson lyrics in religion-class), stuff like that. we never felt that atheists were sinners - we just felt they're missing out on something cool. they were welcome to join in any aspect, but we werent snubbing them if they didnt. (i mean heh, most of my friends dont believe in God and i dont complain about that - it's mostly them being shocked that i'm religious.)
in that aspect, no, i dont understand "organized" religion.