Aargh!

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:16 pm

Brendocon wrote:That obviously wins more clubcard points on the grounds that one of the books involved gets filed in the non-fiction section.

That was meant to say "fiction section", before anybody jumps up and down at me.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:23 pm

I'm about to get on the bus to Oxford to make my pilgrammage to worship at the feet of our saviour, Lord Dawkins.

Wish me luck

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:34 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:I'm about to get on the bus to Oxford to make my pilgrammage to worship at the feet of our saviour, Lord Dawkins.

Wish me luck

Don't forget the burnt offering!

Post by **Best First** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:34 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:
Best First wrote:
so, his is the only opinion on the matter then? So Agin we are back to silly fundamentalist statements. well done.

if you genuinely have nothing to add...
Spoilin' for a fight this morning, afternoon, late evening?

no, im just sick of athiests who paraphrase their (or other's) arguements into simplistic and therefore meaingless soundbites or couch them in insulting terms thus, in both cases, rendering any point they might be trying to make impotent.

You do no one any favours at all - a sad irony given your athiest or idiot epitaph.

reverting to trying to explain Dawkins book when i never actually question the validity of his opinion is amusing though, as is making a point of staing 'we don't know everything' at me when i have stated the same thing in this very topic.

As for not needing faith to believe his works - er, can you persoanlly verify everything in there or is there an element of trust on your part - faith - on your part. Its not the same kind of faith as there is a quantifiable and learnable basis but once more you should be more judicous in your wording.

Anyway, in terms of his idea - the point is if all you can do is refer to them in an ill concieved fashion ("athiest or idiot") then you are no more use to a discussion on the matter than someone who says "but! but! how can you evolve an eye?" and you end up with the same fundamentalist air.

I'm not having a go at your athiesm, or athiesm itself (strangely), i'm having a go at your childish advocation of it which is actively counter productive. Your like the Channel 4 Producers who insisted on calling Dawkins show something he didn't agree with and thus distilling his opinions to a point at which they can be ignored or mocked - that being the case you might as well be quoting from the Bible. Do you see the distinction?

Even the statement "you probably won't see any use for religious faith at all" is facile - whether something is correct is not the same as whether it has a use - its clear, moreso from an athiest perspective if anything that faith has a use - i.e if we assume it is a human construct then people must have a reason for constructing it - a use.

Whether thats a good thing or not is not the same thing as percieving it.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:37 pm

After reading your post and looking back over the thread, you're right. I apologize.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:46 pm

i'm particualrly fond of the place where i write 'on your part' twice within the space of seven words - that always wins them over.

good-oh.

edit - i am just getting to this point where i realise athiesm or more ardent agnosticism (by which i mean people who aren't silly enough to say 'there's definitely nothing' but don't allow that to be used as a credence lender to existing religions) need to light the way in terms of more than just knowing they are right - we need to be able to enagge in sensible well thought out discussion and try and evolve a more valid philosophy and way of acting - debunking faith alone, or laughing at it, isn't enough, as satisfying as it can admittedly be.

Not, on reflection that i took a great big swipe at that with this topic, which was more a reflection of my utter amazement at some people.

have fun mv.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:47 pm

Best First wrote: FFS - maybe you Impy and Dead Head can form a club called Religion is Stoopid Cos I Say So And Its Bad Stoopidhead And Thats A Fact Moron? A club that meets somewhere far away from mature conversation on this topic?

F off - I questioned in this topic why dont religious ppl belive in Evoloution and just say that god made it happen?

seems reasonable enough to me, and this way Science meets religion nicely. whats wrong with that?

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:48 pm

Here's a sample of what MV is in for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU&eurl=

Part 2's even better...

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:51 pm

Sadly a lot of people can't do that... some can, others can't. Rational as it would seem.

It comes down to how much they regard the Bible as the Literal & Complete Works of God. If it's not mentioned, it didn't happen. That obviously opens a whole new can of worms, but to each their own. Some people are more flexible... others not so.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:52 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
Best First wrote: FFS - maybe you Impy and Dead Head can form a club called Religion is Stoopid Cos I Say So And Its Bad Stoopidhead And Thats A Fact Moron? A club that meets somewhere far away from mature conversation on this topic?
F off - I questioned in this topic why dont religious ppl belive in Evoloution and just say that god made it happen?

seems reasonable enough to me, and this way Science meets religion nicely. whats wrong with that?

just reminising over your fauirly regular 'religion is evil and its obvious' contributions.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:57 pm

Ok, should I never talk about religion again then?

If I belive religion is evil, and depending on what angle you view it from, I belive it is in some respects, and its worthy of debate.

My contribution to this debate has been to ask a perfectly sensible question which Brend answered.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:08 pm

i was talking in more general terms than this topic, as evidenced by the fact i also referenced someone else who i believe has not posted in this discussion.

i am not questioing what you believe, and its the very fact that its worthy of debate and an issue of fundamental import which leads to my significant concern for the manner in which some people consistantly present their opinions on the subject.

If you believe religion is evil and want to do something about it posting things like "religion is evil and its obvious" which i don't think you can deny you do fairly consistantly is quite clearly counter productive, all it does is give those who disgaree with you an easy target, tarnish athiestic thought as overly simple and/or derail debate, as in the last topic when you posted that ridiculous equation.

i'm sorry if you are offended but my assertion is readily supported by large numbers of your posts on the subject.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:08 pm

I think the fanatacism that BF so eloquently pointed out and Smooth did not even bother to deny or qualify is QUITE odd and ridiculous, I think that if you were truly open ahd interested in other atheistic views outside of Dawkins, you wouldn't be so married to the vitrol and hate and complete intolerance Dawkins has of religion which hardly any other living scholars share, and I think that Michael Moore is to America as Richard Dawkins is to Religion. In other words, "Yeah, good points, but when you dress it up in so much anger and righteousness, you obfuscate your own message."

EDIT: Sorry, brain fart. Didn't even see there was a second page to this topic. Seems like the ship has already sailed on these points, ty BF.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:53 pm

no worries, although i think the comparison between RD and MM is pretty unfair, RD has an air of adamance but i don't think ther term 'hate' (and the rest) is fair, i think he's often misrepresented (like by c4 and their programming title) - at the end of the day he is a respected scholar and his opinions (what i have seen of them) are well thought out and well argued.

Moore on the other hand was a briefly amusing answer to people like Coulter but it rapidly became apparent he is essentially a selcectove and ill informed polemescist who plugs gaps in his knolwedge with **** humour (good humour is fine, naturally) and essentially acts as an easy target for those he claims to oppose.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:46 am

Well I just got back and **** me was RD brilliant. There was a queue of about 1,000 people without tickets round the block outside just trying to get in to see him, the chamber was packed so much that there were people standing at the back and in the aisles. Pure rock 'n' roll. He and Lalla read aloud for about half an hour from the book drawing big laughs from the crowd, then he announced a question-and-answer session. The first person to be picked to ask a question was a certain beardy dreadlocked Camdenite, who asked if he thought his recent tour of America had been successful in raising consciousness about atheism there - he replied that in Lynchburg, Va, home of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University (although RD actually spoke at a real university) he recieved such a warm reception and rapturous applause when he told them that all American atheists need to do is recognise each other and organise that he felt the battle was already half won. Lots of other interesting stuff too - one girl asked if he felt Muslims were more damaged by their faith than Christians, to which he stressed that the vast majority of Christians and Muslims were good and nice people, and that there was very little to be gained picking "goodies" and "baddies" in that case. One guy asked his opinion about recent studies indicating that black people have a lower IQ that whites and that it was linked to genetics, Dawkins said he didn't know anything about these studies (and neither did his questioner, when asked to provide details) but said that while he wouldn't be surprised that intelligence is linked to genes (after all, everything else is) he again didn't see much value in dividing humans into groups by their characteristics. Another person asked him about South Park, he said he had seen precisely two episodes of South Park, he was annoyed that they couldn't find anyone who could pull off a halfway convincing English accent, and he probably wouldn't be watching South Park again.

All told, an absolutely brilliant evening, spent in the company of one of my heroes, a bit like last Thursday when I met the lead singer of Ned's Atomic Dustbin

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:30 pm

BF -

Thats not really the point tho - what I dont understand is your stance towards myself in this topic. I have not posted anything that you claim I post 'fairly consistantly' in this topic so I dont understand why u feel the need to approach me on this angle?

Would you prefer I change tack and post how you claim I do, in this topic, and do exactly what you dont like?
If not, why bring it up?

In regards to this topic I have some insight to the subject, as I had seen a C4 docu about the place and had a perfectly grounded question to ask in regards to the subject, but if your going to bring up the BS u just did then there is lil point me posting here at all to be honest - you could simply say:

"mark posted somthing I dont like in topic X - thus anything he ever posts is BS"

just ask me to leave if thats how you feel.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:13 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:why bring it up?

because there are a group of people here who regularly posts arguements that make athiesm look stupid through overly simple arguements ot statements. That is not to say that their opinions are invalid, but that the manner in which they have a tendancy to be expressed is conterproductive both to their own stance and sensibel debate.

frankly while you have claimed you have not done it in this topic the comment "why not just reinterprit the bible like you (who?) always do" is a good example of this kind of meaningless genarlisation.

As someone who cares about the subject and mature debate on it Smooth's post was the straw that broke the camel's back on this front for me, but, as stated, you regularly post in a similar manner.

regularly.

not once.

not in topic X.

and i was only commenting on religion related comments, so to suggest i say:

"mark posted somthing I dont like in topic X - thus anything he ever posts is BS"

is nonsense.

nowhere do i say anything like this.

As stated i'm sorry if you are offended but my assertion is readily supported by large numbers of your posts on the subject.

And yes, that is the point as far as i am concerned. Religous debate here needs to start operating in a different manner.

and on that note i regret starting this topic.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:43 am

Best First wrote: i regret starting this topic.

You could say that the Devil made you do it.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:38 am

But Dawkins was still ****ing brilliant

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:56 am

Metal Vendetta wrote:But Dawkins was still ****ing brilliant

Amen to that.

Did you have him sign your book?

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:49 am

Nah, the queues for the book signing were, essentially, all the people who couldn't get in to hear him speak, so it would have taken hours and hours to get to him. Went to the pub instead.

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:15 pm

Mrs. Dawkins is fairly ******* brilliant as well.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:04 pm

She especially enjoys copulating when it is verbally suggested that she is in fact a primate, and should be properly fornicated with reflecting this status. [/southpark]

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:40 am

inflatable dalek wrote:Mrs. Dawkins is fairly ******* brilliant as well.

Yes, yes she was.

I was almost tempted to ask a City of Death-related question

Post by **Best First** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:43 am

Metal Vendetta wrote:But Dawkins was still ****ing brilliant

to be honest, all this "woo, woo" around Dawkins and mutual back slapping strikes me as potentially counter productive in terms of anything other than preaching to the converted.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:31 am

Best First wrote:to be honest, all this "woo, woo" around Dawkins and mutual back slapping strikes me as potentially counter productive in terms of anything other than preaching to the converted.

That's kind of the point I was making - 99% of his audience in Oxford (including the extremely pretty young ladies sitting next to me) were converts to the church of Dawkins anyway.

I'm leaning strongly towards his opinion that atheism is analagous to homosexuality - if, say, 90% of a population will be hetero, it's probably fair to say that 90% of a population will be religious in one form or another. Atheism could very well be a genetic thing, making "conversion" - trying to convince the religious that they really are deluded - as ridiculous as trying to "cure" gays.

The point of the God Delusion is raising consciousness about atheism, letting people know that it's not shameful and that it's a valid (admittedly the most valid) intellectual standpoint. There may be a few floating voters - people who are losing their faith anyway - who will be convinced to change their position from "nominally religious" to atheist or agnostic, but as we've seen on here time and time again, religious faith (especially when it's drummed into you by family, culture and tradition) is a very hard thing to shake.

Anyway, having read the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster lately I'm leaning more and more towards Pastafarianism. I even have Jack Sparrow-style dreads and facial furniture now, because as we all know the FSM loves pirates more than anything else. Except maybe midgets.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:50 am

Metal Vendetta wrote: I'm leaning strongly towards his opinion that atheism is analagous to homosexuality - if, say, 90% of a population will be hetero, it's probably fair to say that 90% of a population will be religious in one form or another. Atheism could very well be a genetic thing, making "conversion" - trying to convince the religious that they really are deluded - as ridiculous as trying to "cure" gays.

my instinctive reaction to that (and that's probably all it is at this stage) is that that's bollocks to be honest.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:54 am

I can see where you're coming from with the genetics thing... certain people may be predisposed to think in a specific way...

Not sure I'd agree with it, though. Think it's more down to nurture than nature.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:01 am

the rather rampant tactics of indocrination adopted by most faiths ceratinly suggest genetics isn't something you can rely on.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:37 am

I think indoctrination is all about making sure they believe the "right" thing - if faith is a genetic quality then those predisposed to it could end up believing any kind of bollocks to be the absolute truth. Far more useful to ensure that the religious believe that your kind of bollocks is the absolute truth.

Dawkins also talks a lot about how children are genetically programmed to believe absolutely without question everything that their parents tell them - similar to the "religion as virus" theory, parents unwittingly pass on this pervasive mind-virus to their offspring without stopping to check whether it is, in fact, bollocks.

I seem to like the word "bollocks" today.