Fanatics Chop-off Teacher's Hand

[Pesty]

DonkeyApple said:

Lost_BMW said:

DonkeyApple said:

But Dawkins is exactly the same kind of fanatical as the ones with the imaginary friend.

He needs to be up against the wall with the others for his intollerant preachings.

Maybe, but at least he doesn't promote the blind following of an unproven sky pixie so there is some difference.

Why should he/we be forced to be tolerant of fantasy when it affects our lives?

I agree completely.

But Dawkins has no proof for his religion either and yet rams it down everyone's throat like a mad mulha.

He is a fanatical believer in something that cannot be proven and travels around trying to get other people to sign up. HE is identical to any other fanatical buffoon.

There may be some merit in what you say about him. However if he was not raming it down our throats as you put it, who else would?
We hear about 'their' side constantly who else has the balls to say wait a minute is anybody thinking about the ste they spout?
Radio 4 evey morning some religious nut comes on and talks ste for about 5 minutes why dont they have an oposing view every other day.

without Dawkins it would be all one way traffic.

[Lost_BMW]

DonkeyApple said:

Lost_BMW said:

DonkeyApple said:

But Dawkins is exactly the same kind of fanatical as the ones with the imaginary friend.

He needs to be up against the wall with the others for his intollerant preachings.

Maybe, but at least he doesn't promote the blind following of an unproven sky pixie so there is some difference.

Why should he/we be forced to be tolerant of fantasy when it affects our lives?

I agree completely.

But Dawkins has no proof for his religion either and yet rams it down everyone's throat like a mad mulha.

He is a fanatical believer in something that cannot be proven and travels around trying to get other people to sign up. HE is identical to any other fanatical buffoon.

His opinions aren't genuinely religious though.

Philosophically should equal weight/expectation be given to those who deny/won't accept the existence of something others claim but can't prove as to those who claim in the first instance?

[DonkeyApple]

Pesty said:

DonkeyApple said:

Lost_BMW said:

DonkeyApple said:

But Dawkins is exactly the same kind of fanatical as the ones with the imaginary friend.

He needs to be up against the wall with the others for his intollerant preachings.

Maybe, but at least he doesn't promote the blind following of an unproven sky pixie so there is some difference.

Why should he/we be forced to be tolerant of fantasy when it affects our lives?

I agree completely.

But Dawkins has no proof for his religion either and yet rams it down everyone's throat like a mad mulha.

He is a fanatical believer in something that cannot be proven and travels around trying to get other people to sign up. HE is identical to any other fanatical buffoon.

There may be some merit in what you say about him. However if he was not raming it down our throats as you put it, who else would?
We hear about 'their' side constantly who else has the balls to say wait a minute is anybody thinking about the ste they spout?
Radio 4 evey morning some religious nut comes on and talks ste for about 5 minutes why dont they have an oposing view every other day.

without Dawkins it would be all one way traffic.

Mentalist + Mentalist = Balanced World.

[Bill]

DonkeyApple said:

But Dawkins has no proof for his religion either and yet rams it down everyone's throat like a mad mulha.

He is a fanatical believer in something that cannot be proven and travels around trying to get other people to sign up. HE is identical to any other fanatical buffoon.

IMO you're coming at this from the wrong way. The default position is there is no god, so atheism doesn't require belief as it's a rejection of unproven theory.

But I'd a gree that he is unhelpfully shouty about it.

[superlightr]

Anyone heard of the Pascal's Wager??? Its interesting.


Copied from Wiki:

• *

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal that, even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

In Pascal's words and order this philosophy uses the following logic:

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager. It is not optional.

Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose.
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

5. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

There is an eternity of life and happiness (to gain if correct)
There is here an infinity (length) of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain
A finite number of chances of loss
What you stake is finite
When one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life
When there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

6. (Some would say) "Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?"

Learn your inability to believe
Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions
Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed

• **

Troubles is there is more than 1 God what if you choose the wrong one. Bugger.

[Bill]

superlightr said:

Troubles is there is more than 1 God what if you choose the wrong one. Bugger.

Indeed. And if he (or she) is as fickle as his (or her) proponents seem to think you're properly fked if you get the wrong one.

And imagine how bitter the Roman gods must be after being ignored for a couple of millenia

[superlightr]

Bill said:

superlightr said:

Troubles is there is more than 1 God what if you choose the wrong one. Bugger.

Indeed. And if he (or she) is as fickle as his (or her) proponents seem to think you're properly fked if you get the wrong one.

And imagine how bitter the Roman gods must be after being ignored for a couple of millenia

and again if you hedge your bets and blieve in all of them, then again thats will upset the one true everlasting God as he cant take the competition and so will send you to whatever naughty corner you should go to for eternity. Nice of him eh? Will Unite take this up for me?

[DonkeyApple]

Bill said:

DonkeyApple said:

But Dawkins has no proof for his religion either and yet rams it down everyone's throat like a mad mulha.

He is a fanatical believer in something that cannot be proven and travels around trying to get other people to sign up. HE is identical to any other fanatical buffoon.

IMO you're coming at this from the wrong way. The default position is there is no god, so atheism doesn't require belief as it's a rejection of unproven theory.

But I'd a gree that he is unhelpfully shouty about it.

Almost in a zealotlike preaching way.

I happen to agree with his views but he is as much of a fanatical tit as his imaginary friend opponents. Neither of them can prove their core belief is correct, both are wasting their lives and both are prats. Dawkins probably more so as he will undoubtedly not realise that he is just the same as those he rails against.

We don't need him or anyone to speak for us and these people only speak because they wish to convert people to their following.

[Pesty]

DonkeyApple said:

We don't need him or anyone to speak for us and these people only speak because they wish to convert people to their following.

This is where I dissagree with you.

I think we do need him and we need him more than ever. These faith schools show that.

We should be moving away from these silly superstitions not letting them grow.

[DonkeyApple]

Pesty said:

DonkeyApple said:

We don't need him or anyone to speak for us and these people only speak because they wish to convert people to their following.

This is where I dissagree with you.

I think we do need him and we need him more than ever. These faith schools show that.

We should be moving away from these silly superstitions not letting them grow.

But you'd be blindly following someone with unproven beliefs, just like a religious nutter.

We don't need him or any other people like him. They are all ultimately dangerous people who seek followers and preach division. IT doesn't matter what it is they are preaching they are all the same breed.

We have books, we have brains, we have freedom. We need none of these dangerous, manipulative and needy people.

Sadly, many humans are too weak to stand for themselves and seek someone to follow, and thus, they seek groups to hold in disdain, even contempt.

[s2art]

DonkeyApple said:

Pesty said:

DonkeyApple said:

We don't need him or anyone to speak for us and these people only speak because they wish to convert people to their following.

This is where I dissagree with you.

I think we do need him and we need him more than ever. These faith schools show that.

We should be moving away from these silly superstitions not letting them grow.

But you'd be blindly following someone with unproven beliefs, just like a religious nutter.

No, all Dawkins is doing is stating, perhaps too vehemently for some, is that there is no reason to believe in gods. That is a lack of belief, not someone with unproven beliefs.

[Lost_BMW]

DonkeyApple said:

Pesty said:

DonkeyApple said:

We don't need him or anyone to speak for us and these people only speak because they wish to convert people to their following.

This is where I dissagree with you.

I think we do need him and we need him more than ever. These faith schools show that.

We should be moving away from these silly superstitions not letting them grow.

But you'd be blindly following someone with unproven beliefs, just like a religious nutter.

We don't need him or any other people like him. They are all ultimately dangerous people who seek followers and preach division. IT doesn't matter what it is they are preaching they are all the same breed.

We have books, we have brains, we have freedom. We need none of these dangerous, manipulative and needy people.

Sadly, many humans are too weak to stand for themselves and seek someone to follow, and thus, they seek groups to hold in disdain, even contempt.

I actually think that you're last sentence disproves the ones above.

If we didn't have a (few) people like Dawkins to balance out the (many) pushers of religion we'd be even more tied up in man made controls in the name of sky pixies because their heavy and constant and fervent pushing would con(vince) the many weak minded sheep-like followers the utter nonsense they spout.

That's how the shamen, priest kings, politicos and (false) prophets have built and held such sway for so long. Because theirs was the message being pushed, harder and more often than others' and backed by some pretty repugnant tools to dissuade the contrarians.

Threats of eternal damnation and 'Hell', the Inquisition, 'the unbeliever is your enemy', 'death to those who leave the faith' and on and on . .

[ThunderSpook]

Religion seems to be the one thing where a few people don't get to ruin it for the majority.

For example, making a phone call when driving, a few people crash, let's ban it! Adverts on TV, a few people complain, let's ban it! Religion, a few fanatics killing people, ah well they're just misunderstood and they're not all like that, let's embrace it and hope the fanatics realise we're doing it all for them.

Perhaps we should all start doing 180mph while on the phone and then just claim you're in the minority because you're doing that, so they should leave you alone.