I want so bad too get some Atheist gear..but unfortunately that would require me to come out Christian parents. Oh well, I guess I'll just stick to liking videos on youtube...
@wolfenprincess1 You can come out! I came out to Catholic parents! They fine with it now, you just have to basically rebel against them a little. Good luck!
@wolfenprincess1 You can come out! I came out to Catholic parents! They fine with it now, you just have to basically rebel against them a little. Good luck!
@wolfenprincess1 You can come out! I came out to Catholic parents! They're fine with it now, you just have to basically rebel against them a little. Good luck!
Holy shit, this Cartesian Theist guy in the comments swallows everything he is told. Try looking at the other side of an argument for once, not the just side you want to see. You, sir, are a fucking joke.
@CartesianTheist Sure he can win a debate, but even then True Believers like yourself usually believe you actually won instead of lost. Besides, what would they debate about ? Everything he has to say about god has been said in his books, and evolution is simple fact, there's not much debate possible there, except with other biologists about the details of the theory.
@CartesianTheist In Dawkins' own words: That would look very good on your CV, not so much on mine. It's the same reason why serious biologists don't debate young earth creationists, why astronomers don't debate astrologers, why historians don't debate holocaust deniers etcetera.
@CartesianTheist This is what you said: "I'm sorry but Hitler was certainly not a Christian if that's where you're going. He misused Nietzschean atheist philosophy to justify his actions and that is well accepted. And Einstein was no Christian BUT he was no atheist either! He made this clear." It says clearly in his personal journal and he said in public statements that he converted to Christianity later in his Career. By telling you something, that doesn't add value or meaning to your life.
@CartesianTheist Religion is a mental illness you insane individual! Accept Nihilism already! life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value! But you were probably brainwashed since birth to know that. You couldn't accept the infinitely harsh reality if you wanted. It's impossible. Your brain won't allow it. Makes me jealous really. Oh, and Hitler became a Christian ( previously a Catholic. ) late in his career. You can read it in his journal and his public statements.
@CartesianTheist Religion is a mental illness you insane individual! Accept Nihilism already! life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value! But you were probably brainwashed since birth to know that. You couldn't accept the infinitely harsh reality if you wanted. It's impossible. Your brain won't allow it. Makes me jealous really.
By the way. The wast majority of scientists today are godless people and I'm certain that in the future, when we'll have better education (hopefully, because the current status in the USA freaks me out), better living standards (unless devout men keep treating their devout wives' vagina as a clown car and have dozens of kids), when science will be able to answer more and more questions this number will get closer and closer to 100%.
Then I also want to point out how early religious upbringing and an entirely religious environment can disort the mind. Childhood indoctrination is a very serious problem, and a threat to one's mental consistency. You'll probably find this comparison offensive, but religion is like a mental illness.
These great men grew up in a world where information and knowledge was very hard to go by, where the whole world seemed to worship one heavenly father, where denouncing god socially, and quite literally was equal to suicide. Nowadays a better high school student has more knowledge and understanding about the world than them.
But you do know, how much people like to change facts. For example, how many people believe Darwin's death bed reconversion humbug, or that hitler was an atheist, or that mother teresa was this wonderful saint, or that Einstein was a devout christian. Anyways, onto my main point:
That's actually relatively easy to answer. First, I'd like to point out that these great men at some point, at the end of their intellectual capacity all threw their hands up and said, goddidit. That's very anti-scientific, but I've talked about that already. Second, I'd like to point out that we don't know how much history was changed. Don't get me wrong, this is not a desperate try to claim these people for my side, I merely show a little worry, but I accept them for theists.
You seem to assume again that logic and reason are some divine products of a soul, or whatever, and ignore the fact that it's very well established scientific knowledge that the human mind is the result of very physical interaction of elements. The science of neuroscience is very young and we know very little about the exact ways our minds work, but our understanding is evergrowing, and without a doubt one day we'll get the whole picture.
Now, are you asserting that human thinking is not the product of chemicals, neurons, etc in the brain, the nervous system and the body interacting with each other, but the product of a.. divine soul? (How is that not wishful thinking?)
Truth is a human construct. It's a word for our understanding of the universe, the way our brain interprets and processes our world. Just because our brain is flawed and errs a lot interpreting the cosmos -
I see you are very adamant about answering questions about the world with religious "philosophy" instead of rationale, logic, verifiable facts and evidence. I wonder if you resort to pseudo-philosophy, wishful thinking and fantasizing to answer questions we long have solid, easily verifiable scientific explanations. So, tell me, when you are sick, do you seek the witch doctor or a witch hunter, maybe?
A philosophical question? What? Are we in kindergarten? Please, don't insult my intelligence. And I'm sure you are capable of more than dodging this issue by saying "it's a philosophical question".
You basically cover your ears and say that: "GOD ROCKS YOU ARE STOOPID! NANANANANANANANA"
The BB is completely compat"a"ble with theism? No, it's not. Once you blame the BB on some deity, you just kicked the soda can one kick further down the road, you did nothing productive, you didn't solve the mystery. You merely created one big question: if god the cause of the existence of the universe, then what caused god?
Also, all there is and ever will be out there is 'nature'. If there would be ghosts, they would be a part of nature, if there would be gods, they would be a part of nature, for nature is a word for the world, the cosmos and everything within it. Of course scientists will be looking for a natural explanation, for science is our tool and language to describe and understand nature.
or "who am I to defy god's plan?", etc. You see, not only superstition has no place in science, but it can be very dangerous and counterproductive also! So, no, that was not an ad hominem attack, but a very reasonable criticism.
My criticism of Paul Davies is NOT ad hominem. What would medicine look like today if millennia ago people would've stopped asking questions about the origin of diseases, for example? "Flu? Goddidit" "Smallpox? Demons." What would happen if a doctor would stop looking for a proper diagnosis and treatment when she finds a case that leaves her dumbfound and shrugging her shoulders: "god works in mysterious ways" or "at least the patient will be with god soon" or
Nothing 'caused' the BB? Er, helloo? No? I don't think your understanding about 'nothing' is in line with our current understanding of 'nothing'. FYI, particles in 'nothing' pop in and out of existence. Look up virtual particles. Even Davies knows about them. Our current scientific idea about the BB does not say nothing caused the BB. We don't know for sure, but there are a fairly well established ideas about the origin of the cosmos.
I'd suggest you books to read or hell, there are even some nice videos on this topic on YouTube, for example from Lawrence Krauss, but I assume you wouldn't care a bit. After all, the information and logical pathway is out there, it's easily reachable. You just don't have the intellectual honesty and curiosity to explore and process them. Or maybe your faith is not strong enough to face the scientific truths and ideas. Shame on you.
Faith in the supernatural has no place in science. Don't you dare to call yourself a scientist if you at any point compromise for a goddidit answer for anything. It's so incredible, that people can't ask that so wonderfully simple question: "What created god?" which I asked when I was what? Five? I'm sorry to break it to you, but my five year old self is on a higher level logically and theologically than you and most of the world.
Oh really? Leading, you say? Not even close. Paul Davies' god is the god of the gaps. It is well accepted for ages now that the BB did not require a god. It's absurd, that I, or any other scientist has to waste time refuting such childish and retarded ideas. Paul Davies clings to his pitiful wishful thinking about some sky daddy, in hope for eternal life, of being united with lost ones, or a divine father and guardian or whatever.
If you think the BBT is in any way supportive of theistic arguments then you clearly do not have an idea what is our current understanding of the BBT or the nature of the cosmos.
Lmao, I think Dawkins needs to stop teaching and educating his hookers. (This is such a random video, like he is randomly in a room with two women. Lol, NTS: Never let the cameraman follow me to the Whore House)
@CartesianTheist I think theism as a philosophy flourishes if it flows from your axioms. But that can be far from reality - and that comes down to a basic difference in outlook on 'where do we get knowledge?' Is it empirical or is it something we can work out in isolation. And theists will often bring in empirical evidence as support, when in actuality there isn't a shred of support from empirical evidence. Each informs and supports the other, and if they wander too far apart one is wrong.
@CartesianTheist Scientists might disagree on some details, but in general scientists do repeatable work within a theoretical framework, and when that fails it ceases to be science. I have no doubt there are many theists in philosophy departments, and theology departments, of all kinds of organisations. For whatever reason that hasn't been fatal to their positions.
@CartesianTheist I don't pretend to know the details of microbiology, but I accept highly experienced and trained people know it, and peer review each other. I don't have to learn microbiology to accept evolution, for example. And yes - YECs know jack about microbiology, then they make claims about it that don't stand scrutiny by biologists. On philosophy, for example, I think the theistic argument from morality is mistaken, yet people make a living peddling it. Am I going to overturn that?
@CartesianTheist If theistic arguments were persuasive, better people than me would be persuaded, and I would be in turn. That hasn't happened. Also philosophical arguments head into technical areas specific to philosophy, which I really don't want to go into. Life is too short, although I do think a lot of philosophical positions are mistaken. In fact a gnostic atheist position is impossible using philosophical arguments. I think philosophy is divorced from reality a lot of the time.
@CartesianTheist No I haven't read Flew's book. At the very least it would sharpen me up - when I see books with God in the title from the other side I tend to roll my eyes - but they're usually written by someone from a religious point of view, rather than pure philosophers. The usual standard I'm exposed to is that of tracts, which do make me reach for my revolver. Maybe I'll give it a go.
@CartesianTheist My accent annoys me! - You should try listening to yourself on a dictaphone - it's a shock. No, I agree that McGrath's accent is no reason to disagree with his statements - but I get this massive flashback reminder of the stereotypical Thought of the Day guy with his 'that's a little bit like god isn't it?' statements when I hear him.
@CartesianTheist There is this gee whizz attitude in the media - such as the recent to do with Stephen Hawking saying that god was unnecessary in the early universe, which then gets the usual round of supportive or refuting comments from atheists, scientists, rabbis, etc. For me it was a non-story, but I still end up getting subjected to BBC's list of reactions from newspaper columns. My heart sinks when that happens. To use choice language - it's like a dog being unable to pass a lamppost.
@CartesianTheist I'm not trying to discredit Flew - although I admit a low opinion of him, because of his deist position, and his quotes on science. To find some common ground with you, I have a dislike of this idea that people are in two camps, and that they can betray 'their' side - as Flew was previously an atheist I suspect there might be that tendency among atheists, and if it was me I'd make a special effort not to be overcritical of Flew, because as you say, that would be ad hominem.
@CartesianTheist As for my prejudices I will openly admit I find McGrath's voice irritating, and in fact indicative that he has spent a lot of time talking to people who sound similar, as any of us with an accent would do. For example I sound like a yokel. His is the accent of the cloister.
I find that revealing. However it only reveals what it reveals. At present all the character assassination seems to be coming from you.
@CartesianTheist If I think the editors at Channel 4 or the producers think McGrath isn't interesting that not my opinion of him, but my suggestion of theirs. They have to make a documentary that people will watch. I said below that I haven't actually watched the interview yet, so I am not in a position to judge it - meanwhile you describe Ted Haggard as a sponge. On Flew, if Flew's conversion was sincere, that only reduces my opinion of his thinking. I will read some more.
@CartesianTheist Actually if you read my comment I said 'the suggestion' that Flew was losing his faculties. I haven't said he was losing his faculties. Perhaps you should read my comment again. The suggestion came from Anthony Gottlieb. I will check out the sidebar on your profile as you suggest. Your comment below said 'in his God Delusion', and my copy of that book has only a footnote on Flew on page 106 of the paperback, which does not provide an account of why Flew converted.
@CartesianTheist I'd like to hear more about Flew. I sound like a massive curmudgeon (which I am), but I don't have much time for philosophers, and Flew went down a crazy deistic argument from design with his view on abiogenesis. I don't think there is a lack of science in that area, and I think several scientific explanations are not going to present much difficulty. Oddly given the suggestion that Flew was losing his faculties, a number of atheists were actually sticking up for Flew.
@CartesianTheist Again, maybe Ted made better copy - he was at least a more outspoken person. When I can actually bring myself to watch the McGrath interview I'll have a better idea. As for the personal attack on Flew - that consisted of a footnote where Dawkins said that Flew was being used, and as an otherwise respectable recipient of a prize awarded by the deceptive people that brought us intelligent design, that would be true, if it wasn't for Flew accepting the argument from design.
@CartesianTheist Shame and exclusion are the nasty kid brothers of persecution, but that's all. Having a sign at least gives people a clear way out of whatever spot they're in, in a world otherwise devoid of clues. On McGrath, I've been looking at that, which RD is happy to post unabridged - I have to confess that I can't bring myself to watch it, partly because of that mealy-mouthed, C of E vicar way the guy speaks. It's possible it wasn't compelling TV, I can't pronounce on it (yet).
@CartesianTheist Thankfully not much persecution, but we're talking about shame and exclusion, rather than persecution. You feel Richard Dawkins has been dishonest in his writings? Do you mean he is holding something back? What is he holding back?
@CartesianTheist It's a scarlet letter A - a reference to the novel The Scarlet Letter, where adulterers are made to wear a scarlet letter A. The idea is to take an object of shame or exclusion, the term 'atheist' which itself was used as a term of abuse in religious times, and turn it into a badge of honour. So the letter A isn't some kind of move to badge-wearing uniformity, it's a response to the people who would exclude us. As a byproduct it's also a nice understated badge of recognition.
Haha - this part of the show was where he interviewed these ladies about their choices at the sperm bank!
They had each checked out a bunch of guys from the brochure who had donated sperm, so they could "select for" the genetic qualities they wanted their children to have.
They might as well have put the brochure away - how much money would each of them pay to get a hold of Richard Dawkins' sperm?!
Pfft! You think the ketchup just changes shape by CHANCE! Look at the design required. Look at the beauty of it. Notice how his lapel is perfectly designed to host the ketchuip stain upon it.
Only a perfect all-knowing ketchup dispenser could have created a ketchupy "A".
'A' for athiest. 'A' is also a metaphor to the book the Scarlet letter in which the 'A' stood for adultery, but the point is the main character had to wear the A as a burden in her society. in our society full of religious people, it is a burden to carry the cross of truth.
"equate morality with god" I wasn't trying to do that.
You are trying to do that. I was attempting to prove that morals can exist without them being "god-given". Perhaps you are the one who cannot conceive this possible so you could only fathom the former to be questionable?
You are asking a question of me that I have no ability to answer. I do not have insecurities that lie within the realms of religion and the bible. Please, contain fervent angst within your head. Nothing to be learned here.
Haha, what a tool. Think about it... if you gotta hide your atheism, if you gotta "come out" of the closet.. then there must be something wrong with it. Don't let this guy fool you into thinking atheism is all right, like being gay is all right. It's not all right.
I could. Why do you want me to explain? You're not looking to be swayed by my words, you just want to hear my evidence so as to debate it with what you know. But, let's not get into that. I don't like bickering. The thing is, neither can be proven to be right or not right. There is no basis to conduct it on. If you agree with nature, then it cannot be unnatural, therefore it isn't wrong. If you believe in morals, or God, then its wrong. It's a matter based on personal opinion and belief.
I don't know what sort of intellectual block you suffer from.
You can't really deny morals. If you've ever done something nice for someone and without benefit to yourself... What would you call that? Sure, there's a few ways to can beat around that type of situation, but it's pretty much solid. I hope you don't assume you know anymore than me, though.
I'm sorry, asked you five, reasonable, straight forward questions, and you could not answer one of them. Instead, you attack me. This is very creatonist of you, avoiding any debate with freethinkers whatsoever.
I will ask again. Please do not avoid them.
P.S. The lack of reciprocity in human actions is very well explained by evoltionary biologist R. Dawkins. I don't need round the clock surveillance to know killing other people is wrong, even if I can get away with it.
I'm not sure how I attacked you... You have a typical response, though. You probably claim the same thing every time someone disagrees with your views. Yes, I applaud you. I applaud your freethinking. I applaud how you pull everything you've used against me from some other source. Everything you know about your atheist ideals came from someone else's work. Freethinker my ass. I'm going to admit it... I am a moron for even responding to you. Please, hold on to what last bit of dignity you have.
Okay, don't know why you're still thinking that. Answered your 4th question. The other don't apply to me. If you can't give me that acknowledgment, then you're just a prick. I guess my first post, an obvious asshat joke, just attracted a dense asshat. I'm still more of the idiot for replying. I'm actually kind of sorry for you, though... you seem like an unhappy person. I apologize for disturbing your loyalty to ignorance, I'll move on with my 'creationist', non freethinking ways. =\
You are right, I'm not a debating person. I like to joke around, and I don't mind conversation.
I did not mean to slander you name if that is what I did -- I only mean to say what I saw happening.
I am glad we can put our differences behind us, and perhaps we'll see each other again, but I hope we can trade words of wisdom and civility, instead of wasting time.
May your Travels be Full and the Light shine upon you always, Brother.
The origin of the scarlet 'A' comes from the book "The Scarlet Letter" by Nathaniel Hawthorne where a woman was made to where one for committing adultery, in the Puritan New England.
Except your wrong. Because that would mean that he was spreading beliefs. He's not. He's spreading rational thought and evidence based belief (in whatever you conclude). Whether or not that leads you to or away from atheism, he is simply trying to get you to think rationally. Is it a coincidence that this almost always leads to atheism? Nope, it's rational, religion is not.
Hey. I agree a little but only a little. He does try to spread a message but missionaries very often, if not always, use disingenuous (or downright nasty) methods. However it bugs the shit out of me that others of my persuasion give your comment the thumbs down. You say nothing vicious or violent so your thoughts should be allowed expression. I gave you a thumbs up just to keep the idea of free expression alive at least in my own little mind. Thumbs down if you believe in censorship folks!!
My goodness. Before I continue, I'll emphasise that I'm as atheistic as anyone. But must you replace the crucifix around your neck with a pin on your lapel? Can you (the people who think RD's 'A' is so good) not see that this is just a new uniform? It is a new set of tribal colours; the very thing you are against.
The 'A' is not a symbol of worship, which is what sets it apart from the crucifix. The 'A' is a symbol of expression for a movement, and the last time I checked one doesn't need a religion to be expressive nor have a movement.
Athiesm isn't against joining groups. you sound as if Atheism has something against being a football fan and wearing your teams colours. It just means you don't believe in god, why any individual comes to their lack of belief is always different. I see your point though, it strikes and odd chord with me too, but then i can also see it's importance, people in this world need to know it's OK to not believe in God, i grew up thinking it wasn't ok for many years, it's not a good feeling.
There's nothing wrong with an atheist wearing a scarlet 'A'. Calling people who would do so or who would be public about their lack of religion "dawkinists" is ridiculous. Never forget the very important distinction: atheists never pretend that Dawkins et al are infallible, whereas theists do pretend.
I'm wary of putting a label on myself, mostly because I know a certain amount of them are incredibly stupid, and people I would never want to associate with. Just like there are incredibly stupid religious people that the smarter ones have to account for. Being without any label is best I'd say!
You have a label whether you want it or not. If even one person knows you do not believe in a god, they will consider you in the same league as atheists whether you call yourself that or not, because thats all atheism is. Its not a set of beliefs. The only thing you have in common with Dawkins is you both dont believe in gods, as far as the label of atheism is concerned. Thats the only connection you can have as thats all it is.
How about educating others instead of running away from reality and allowing people to continue misunderstanding atheism.
The label is important for people who want to find others who also dont believe. Who want to know that its ok to disbelieve. That they dont have to live with shame or being shunned/alienated.
It helps people to live in parts of the world where religion is so dominant that you dont even know how safe it is to not believe, or if you will lose friends if you stop.
I think were just talking about different tactics here. We both want to "educate others" about non-belief, but I don't want to apply any label to myself. I think the word atheism just has too much baggage and negative connotations in the U.S. to walk around saying that that's what I am. If people understood the word for what you said, which is what it actually means, I might use it. But for now it's just a way for people to marginalize non-belief and get it out of the mainstream
LOL as degrading as your choice of language is, when it comes to dawkins I'd have to say yes please, there is something about a smart nerdish scientist, with slightly bumbling personality that just does it for me.
I would love to wear such a pin. The only problem is I would probably lose my job as a public school science teacher. You see, I teach in the southern US and I am alone in my stance. Even the admin are fundies and so are the folks at the head county office and so are the elected board members. So you see, I'm persecuted and not able to voice my opinion regarding their god that they worship. Sad but true. I do sport a Darwin legged fish on my car. That was a big chance to take but I feel better.
I also live in the South. I'm attending the Atheist convention here in Atlanta mid April. I'm impressed by the darwin plaque you have on your car. Personally, I think of that as more 'out' than a scarlet A pin. More people recognize the fish-with-feet. ;-)
I live in a rather liberal town, and teachers here are also discouraged from expressing their opinions on religion and politics. It's more of a matter of separation of Church and State, as well as of imposing one's personal opinion on students. I don't know if it's the best option, but it's one that makes sense to me.
Science class especially, cannot allow teacher opinion or spin. That's why we can trust it's findings. I'm all for discussing religion or mythology in literature or theology classes but it's not welcome in Science.
I am confronted daily by my fundie students, either directly through questions or under their breath with remarks not respectful of classroom etiquette. It's pretty tiring on a daily basis.
I can imagine. I took a fantastic Biology course a few years back, and 3/4ths of my peers were die-hard creationist Christians. My professor was awe-inspiringly patient and unyeilding - and Hindi. Her students in return either dropped the class or stuck around long enough to write ranting, nearly-racist performance reviews (e.g. "Go back to your own country"). I ended up writing my own additional performance review at home and delivered it straight to the dean of the campus.
Glad to hear that you had a good bio teacher. My favourite teacher was my bio teach in high school and it was at a Catholic school in Canada. Religion was never talked about in there and never heard any spin from the teacher. We studied T ofE with reckless abandon. We soaked it up. Too bad your fellow classmates couldn't see the truth at that time in that class and just enjoy the info. Their pastors did a good job in brainwashing them to distrust the science teacher. Sad stuff for sure.
*highfive* I have my button on my messenger bag. I work in Hollywood, however, and I think most people assume the "Out Campaign" has something to do with gay rights.
bread makes me poop
southrules 1 week ago
he gets all the girls
PaladinswordSaurfang 2 months ago 6
I want so bad too get some Atheist gear..but unfortunately that would require me to come out Christian parents. Oh well, I guess I'll just stick to liking videos on youtube...
wolfenprincess1 3 months ago
@wolfenprincess1 Then I believe this is for you: atheists.org/atheism/billboards2011
AstrumAeternum 2 months ago
@wolfenprincess1 You can come out! I came out to Catholic parents! They fine with it now, you just have to basically rebel against them a little. Good luck!
huizar4289 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wolfenprincess1 You can come out! I came out to Catholic parents! They fine with it now, you just have to basically rebel against them a little. Good luck!
huizar4289 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wolfenprincess1 You can come out! I came out to Catholic parents! They're fine with it now, you just have to basically rebel against them a little. Good luck!
huizar4289 2 months ago
@wolfenprincess1 Don't be afraid! <3
judaswithoutacause 2 months ago
i'm a believer AND i believe in evolution
namiyouffie64 3 months ago
@namiyouffie64 That's brilliant because evolution doesn't say anything about god, creation or religions.
GreenerNautilus 2 months ago
@namiyouffie64 Fair enough
Makes more sense than just God by itself
Or maybe you might what to say "himself"
badjon117 1 week ago
0:22 - 0:23 for evil
Woaaw 4 months ago
Ordered this today!
yuriythebest 5 months ago
why does an idea spread?
hmm lets see... Because it makes more sense than the previous idea!
lol christians need to evolve
Met0llicA 6 months ago
Holy shit, this Cartesian Theist guy in the comments swallows everything he is told. Try looking at the other side of an argument for once, not the just side you want to see. You, sir, are a fucking joke.
pimpymcdougall 7 months ago
@CartesianTheist Sure he can win a debate, but even then True Believers like yourself usually believe you actually won instead of lost. Besides, what would they debate about ? Everything he has to say about god has been said in his books, and evolution is simple fact, there's not much debate possible there, except with other biologists about the details of the theory.
sogghartha 8 months ago
@CartesianTheist Then why was it again you wanted him to debate Craig ?
sogghartha 8 months ago
@CartesianTheist In Dawkins' own words: That would look very good on your CV, not so much on mine. It's the same reason why serious biologists don't debate young earth creationists, why astronomers don't debate astrologers, why historians don't debate holocaust deniers etcetera.
sogghartha 8 months ago
0:11 Wow, that's cool :D really? LMAO
insanewarlock666 10 months ago
I love his giddyness while talking about it :)
MonsterEnergyMan 11 months ago 13
I thought he had a Star Trek pin on lol
JabberCT 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist i get him.Why lose time with an idiot when you have ladies to visit ? PS : most atheist could win in an argument with that idiot
doomygloomy1 11 months ago 2
Warm fuzzies, Mr. Dawkins.
ThorGoLucky 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist If Hitler claims himself as one, then in HIS point of view, he IS a Christian.
sandj777 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist This is what you said: "I'm sorry but Hitler was certainly not a Christian if that's where you're going. He misused Nietzschean atheist philosophy to justify his actions and that is well accepted. And Einstein was no Christian BUT he was no atheist either! He made this clear." It says clearly in his personal journal and he said in public statements that he converted to Christianity later in his Career. By telling you something, that doesn't add value or meaning to your life.
sandj777 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Religion is a mental illness you insane individual! Accept Nihilism already! life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value! But you were probably brainwashed since birth to know that. You couldn't accept the infinitely harsh reality if you wanted. It's impossible. Your brain won't allow it. Makes me jealous really. Oh, and Hitler became a Christian ( previously a Catholic. ) late in his career. You can read it in his journal and his public statements.
sandj777 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Religion is a mental illness you insane individual! Accept Nihilism already! life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value! But you were probably brainwashed since birth to know that. You couldn't accept the infinitely harsh reality if you wanted. It's impossible. Your brain won't allow it. Makes me jealous really.
sandj777 1 year ago
it's the british accent that makes ladies wet... i wish i was british instead of this stupid amercian accent
Airr91 1 year ago
what a ladies man :)
Hermoor 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
If you haven't seen this before, here's Neil deGrasse Tyson on the God of The Gaps:
watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY
It's interesting and entertaining. Talks about scientists who were theists.
One about Stupid Design:
watch?v=FNiTsYCkyI8
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss:
watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Briefly talks about QV. Quite interesting, and humorous.
I could spam you with thousands of videos and stuff, but on a few minutes notice these are the ones that are relevant to the topic.
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
By the way. The wast majority of scientists today are godless people and I'm certain that in the future, when we'll have better education (hopefully, because the current status in the USA freaks me out), better living standards (unless devout men keep treating their devout wives' vagina as a clown car and have dozens of kids), when science will be able to answer more and more questions this number will get closer and closer to 100%.
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Then I also want to point out how early religious upbringing and an entirely religious environment can disort the mind. Childhood indoctrination is a very serious problem, and a threat to one's mental consistency. You'll probably find this comparison offensive, but religion is like a mental illness.
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
These great men grew up in a world where information and knowledge was very hard to go by, where the whole world seemed to worship one heavenly father, where denouncing god socially, and quite literally was equal to suicide. Nowadays a better high school student has more knowledge and understanding about the world than them.
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
But you do know, how much people like to change facts. For example, how many people believe Darwin's death bed reconversion humbug, or that hitler was an atheist, or that mother teresa was this wonderful saint, or that Einstein was a devout christian. Anyways, onto my main point:
d3st88 1 year ago 21
@d3st88 Have you read "Hitler's Table Talk"?
627dre 6 months ago
@CartesianTheist
That's actually relatively easy to answer. First, I'd like to point out that these great men at some point, at the end of their intellectual capacity all threw their hands up and said, goddidit. That's very anti-scientific, but I've talked about that already. Second, I'd like to point out that we don't know how much history was changed. Don't get me wrong, this is not a desperate try to claim these people for my side, I merely show a little worry, but I accept them for theists.
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
You seem to assume again that logic and reason are some divine products of a soul, or whatever, and ignore the fact that it's very well established scientific knowledge that the human mind is the result of very physical interaction of elements. The science of neuroscience is very young and we know very little about the exact ways our minds work, but our understanding is evergrowing, and without a doubt one day we'll get the whole picture.
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
- it doesn't mean that there are no universal natural 'truths' about our cosmos. In the most raw sense, truth equals to the universe.
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Now, are you asserting that human thinking is not the product of chemicals, neurons, etc in the brain, the nervous system and the body interacting with each other, but the product of a.. divine soul? (How is that not wishful thinking?)
Truth is a human construct. It's a word for our understanding of the universe, the way our brain interprets and processes our world. Just because our brain is flawed and errs a lot interpreting the cosmos -
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
I see you are very adamant about answering questions about the world with religious "philosophy" instead of rationale, logic, verifiable facts and evidence. I wonder if you resort to pseudo-philosophy, wishful thinking and fantasizing to answer questions we long have solid, easily verifiable scientific explanations. So, tell me, when you are sick, do you seek the witch doctor or a witch hunter, maybe?
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
A philosophical question? What? Are we in kindergarten? Please, don't insult my intelligence. And I'm sure you are capable of more than dodging this issue by saying "it's a philosophical question".
You basically cover your ears and say that: "GOD ROCKS YOU ARE STOOPID! NANANANANANANANA"
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
The BB is completely compat"a"ble with theism? No, it's not. Once you blame the BB on some deity, you just kicked the soda can one kick further down the road, you did nothing productive, you didn't solve the mystery. You merely created one big question: if god the cause of the existence of the universe, then what caused god?
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Also, all there is and ever will be out there is 'nature'. If there would be ghosts, they would be a part of nature, if there would be gods, they would be a part of nature, for nature is a word for the world, the cosmos and everything within it. Of course scientists will be looking for a natural explanation, for science is our tool and language to describe and understand nature.
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
or "who am I to defy god's plan?", etc. You see, not only superstition has no place in science, but it can be very dangerous and counterproductive also! So, no, that was not an ad hominem attack, but a very reasonable criticism.
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
My criticism of Paul Davies is NOT ad hominem. What would medicine look like today if millennia ago people would've stopped asking questions about the origin of diseases, for example? "Flu? Goddidit" "Smallpox? Demons." What would happen if a doctor would stop looking for a proper diagnosis and treatment when she finds a case that leaves her dumbfound and shrugging her shoulders: "god works in mysterious ways" or "at least the patient will be with god soon" or
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
None of them consider a god a good explanation, by the way.
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Nothing 'caused' the BB? Er, helloo? No? I don't think your understanding about 'nothing' is in line with our current understanding of 'nothing'. FYI, particles in 'nothing' pop in and out of existence. Look up virtual particles. Even Davies knows about them. Our current scientific idea about the BB does not say nothing caused the BB. We don't know for sure, but there are a fairly well established ideas about the origin of the cosmos.
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
I'd suggest you books to read or hell, there are even some nice videos on this topic on YouTube, for example from Lawrence Krauss, but I assume you wouldn't care a bit. After all, the information and logical pathway is out there, it's easily reachable. You just don't have the intellectual honesty and curiosity to explore and process them. Or maybe your faith is not strong enough to face the scientific truths and ideas. Shame on you.
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Faith in the supernatural has no place in science. Don't you dare to call yourself a scientist if you at any point compromise for a goddidit answer for anything. It's so incredible, that people can't ask that so wonderfully simple question: "What created god?" which I asked when I was what? Five? I'm sorry to break it to you, but my five year old self is on a higher level logically and theologically than you and most of the world.
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Oh really? Leading, you say? Not even close. Paul Davies' god is the god of the gaps. It is well accepted for ages now that the BB did not require a god. It's absurd, that I, or any other scientist has to waste time refuting such childish and retarded ideas. Paul Davies clings to his pitiful wishful thinking about some sky daddy, in hope for eternal life, of being united with lost ones, or a divine father and guardian or whatever.
d3st88 1 year ago
lol, intelliGENeration, Richard is a Playa
OyonTheAdept 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
If you think the BBT is in any way supportive of theistic arguments then you clearly do not have an idea what is our current understanding of the BBT or the nature of the cosmos.
d3st88 1 year ago
Lmao, I think Dawkins needs to stop teaching and educating his hookers. (This is such a random video, like he is randomly in a room with two women. Lol, NTS: Never let the cameraman follow me to the Whore House)
"What does the A mean on your lapel?"
"None yo business bitch!" LMFAO
RectorEk 1 year ago
@RectorEk
Laughed my ass off.
d3st88 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist I think theism as a philosophy flourishes if it flows from your axioms. But that can be far from reality - and that comes down to a basic difference in outlook on 'where do we get knowledge?' Is it empirical or is it something we can work out in isolation. And theists will often bring in empirical evidence as support, when in actuality there isn't a shred of support from empirical evidence. Each informs and supports the other, and if they wander too far apart one is wrong.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Scientists might disagree on some details, but in general scientists do repeatable work within a theoretical framework, and when that fails it ceases to be science. I have no doubt there are many theists in philosophy departments, and theology departments, of all kinds of organisations. For whatever reason that hasn't been fatal to their positions.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist When all philosophers agree with each other then I'll include philosophers in that bracket.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist I don't pretend to know the details of microbiology, but I accept highly experienced and trained people know it, and peer review each other. I don't have to learn microbiology to accept evolution, for example. And yes - YECs know jack about microbiology, then they make claims about it that don't stand scrutiny by biologists. On philosophy, for example, I think the theistic argument from morality is mistaken, yet people make a living peddling it. Am I going to overturn that?
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist If theistic arguments were persuasive, better people than me would be persuaded, and I would be in turn. That hasn't happened. Also philosophical arguments head into technical areas specific to philosophy, which I really don't want to go into. Life is too short, although I do think a lot of philosophical positions are mistaken. In fact a gnostic atheist position is impossible using philosophical arguments. I think philosophy is divorced from reality a lot of the time.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist No I haven't read Flew's book. At the very least it would sharpen me up - when I see books with God in the title from the other side I tend to roll my eyes - but they're usually written by someone from a religious point of view, rather than pure philosophers. The usual standard I'm exposed to is that of tracts, which do make me reach for my revolver. Maybe I'll give it a go.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
what were they saying before she said "like the religion?"
freethinker923 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist My accent annoys me! - You should try listening to yourself on a dictaphone - it's a shock. No, I agree that McGrath's accent is no reason to disagree with his statements - but I get this massive flashback reminder of the stereotypical Thought of the Day guy with his 'that's a little bit like god isn't it?' statements when I hear him.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist There is this gee whizz attitude in the media - such as the recent to do with Stephen Hawking saying that god was unnecessary in the early universe, which then gets the usual round of supportive or refuting comments from atheists, scientists, rabbis, etc. For me it was a non-story, but I still end up getting subjected to BBC's list of reactions from newspaper columns. My heart sinks when that happens. To use choice language - it's like a dog being unable to pass a lamppost.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist I'm not trying to discredit Flew - although I admit a low opinion of him, because of his deist position, and his quotes on science. To find some common ground with you, I have a dislike of this idea that people are in two camps, and that they can betray 'their' side - as Flew was previously an atheist I suspect there might be that tendency among atheists, and if it was me I'd make a special effort not to be overcritical of Flew, because as you say, that would be ad hominem.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist As for my prejudices I will openly admit I find McGrath's voice irritating, and in fact indicative that he has spent a lot of time talking to people who sound similar, as any of us with an accent would do. For example I sound like a yokel. His is the accent of the cloister.
I find that revealing. However it only reveals what it reveals. At present all the character assassination seems to be coming from you.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist If I think the editors at Channel 4 or the producers think McGrath isn't interesting that not my opinion of him, but my suggestion of theirs. They have to make a documentary that people will watch. I said below that I haven't actually watched the interview yet, so I am not in a position to judge it - meanwhile you describe Ted Haggard as a sponge. On Flew, if Flew's conversion was sincere, that only reduces my opinion of his thinking. I will read some more.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Actually if you read my comment I said 'the suggestion' that Flew was losing his faculties. I haven't said he was losing his faculties. Perhaps you should read my comment again. The suggestion came from Anthony Gottlieb. I will check out the sidebar on your profile as you suggest. Your comment below said 'in his God Delusion', and my copy of that book has only a footnote on Flew on page 106 of the paperback, which does not provide an account of why Flew converted.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist I'd like to hear more about Flew. I sound like a massive curmudgeon (which I am), but I don't have much time for philosophers, and Flew went down a crazy deistic argument from design with his view on abiogenesis. I don't think there is a lack of science in that area, and I think several scientific explanations are not going to present much difficulty. Oddly given the suggestion that Flew was losing his faculties, a number of atheists were actually sticking up for Flew.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Again, maybe Ted made better copy - he was at least a more outspoken person. When I can actually bring myself to watch the McGrath interview I'll have a better idea. As for the personal attack on Flew - that consisted of a footnote where Dawkins said that Flew was being used, and as an otherwise respectable recipient of a prize awarded by the deceptive people that brought us intelligent design, that would be true, if it wasn't for Flew accepting the argument from design.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Shame and exclusion are the nasty kid brothers of persecution, but that's all. Having a sign at least gives people a clear way out of whatever spot they're in, in a world otherwise devoid of clues. On McGrath, I've been looking at that, which RD is happy to post unabridged - I have to confess that I can't bring myself to watch it, partly because of that mealy-mouthed, C of E vicar way the guy speaks. It's possible it wasn't compelling TV, I can't pronounce on it (yet).
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Thankfully not much persecution, but we're talking about shame and exclusion, rather than persecution. You feel Richard Dawkins has been dishonest in his writings? Do you mean he is holding something back? What is he holding back?
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist It's a scarlet letter A - a reference to the novel The Scarlet Letter, where adulterers are made to wear a scarlet letter A. The idea is to take an object of shame or exclusion, the term 'atheist' which itself was used as a term of abuse in religious times, and turn it into a badge of honour. So the letter A isn't some kind of move to badge-wearing uniformity, it's a response to the people who would exclude us. As a byproduct it's also a nice understated badge of recognition.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
Now those three women would want their child to be like him.. wouldnt they ;) ;)
X3QT0R 1 year ago
She never heard of atheism? I'm surprised.
mikeyman211 1 year ago
Dawkins throwing some game at the ladies.EPIC
erdnallewen 1 year ago 34
@erdnallewen hahahaha...he is married too but yeah he is playing it up here.
Trenaur 1 year ago
@erdnallewen lol
theonlymatheus 1 year ago
@erdnallewen
Haha - this part of the show was where he interviewed these ladies about their choices at the sperm bank!
They had each checked out a bunch of guys from the brochure who had donated sperm, so they could "select for" the genetic qualities they wanted their children to have.
They might as well have put the brochure away - how much money would each of them pay to get a hold of Richard Dawkins' sperm?!
jazzx251 1 year ago
I think the black haired girl wanted to make a withdrawal from the good professors account.
brianellis1 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist
Not soon enough.
I want to express my stupidity too! Why is that the prerogative of stupid people? Where are our shrines?
I demand to be able to worship something, in spite of being smart! >:-(
lardhat 1 year ago
"I just invented it"
I will believe that when i see some evidence. It was most likely a ketchup stain that evolved into the letter "A"
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
Pfft! You think the ketchup just changes shape by CHANCE! Look at the design required. Look at the beauty of it. Notice how his lapel is perfectly designed to host the ketchuip stain upon it.
Only a perfect all-knowing ketchup dispenser could have created a ketchupy "A".
Intiom 1 year ago 15
'A' for athiest. 'A' is also a metaphor to the book the Scarlet letter in which the 'A' stood for adultery, but the point is the main character had to wear the A as a burden in her society. in our society full of religious people, it is a burden to carry the cross of truth.
SheepRCool17 2 years ago 4
"equate morality with god" I wasn't trying to do that.
You are trying to do that. I was attempting to prove that morals can exist without them being "god-given". Perhaps you are the one who cannot conceive this possible so you could only fathom the former to be questionable?
You are asking a question of me that I have no ability to answer. I do not have insecurities that lie within the realms of religion and the bible. Please, contain fervent angst within your head. Nothing to be learned here.
norevelation 2 years ago
It is catching on Rich, Just bought one :)
ColossalRofl 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If God did not exist there either atheists. jajajajajajajajajjaajajajjajaja Biatch.
xXhola777Xx 2 years ago
Is this english? I don't understand what you're saying at all.
silentwisp7 2 years ago
Haha, what a tool. Think about it... if you gotta hide your atheism, if you gotta "come out" of the closet.. then there must be something wrong with it. Don't let this guy fool you into thinking atheism is all right, like being gay is all right. It's not all right.
norevelation 2 years ago
Of course, you will now tell us why either of these two concepts are not right.
Or am I assuming?
IcedPhoenix666 2 years ago
I could. Why do you want me to explain? You're not looking to be swayed by my words, you just want to hear my evidence so as to debate it with what you know. But, let's not get into that. I don't like bickering. The thing is, neither can be proven to be right or not right. There is no basis to conduct it on. If you agree with nature, then it cannot be unnatural, therefore it isn't wrong. If you believe in morals, or God, then its wrong. It's a matter based on personal opinion and belief.
norevelation 2 years ago
Why is homosexuality (in humans and other animals) wrong?
Why is not believing in sky fairies just because your pastor told you so wrong?
Why are all other gods except your own wrong?
Why are morals suspected to be intrinsecally to be god-given?
Why do you impose your morality over others?
IcedPhoenix666 2 years ago
I don't know what sort of intellectual block you suffer from.
You can't really deny morals. If you've ever done something nice for someone and without benefit to yourself... What would you call that? Sure, there's a few ways to can beat around that type of situation, but it's pretty much solid. I hope you don't assume you know anymore than me, though.
norevelation 2 years ago
I'm sorry, asked you five, reasonable, straight forward questions, and you could not answer one of them. Instead, you attack me. This is very creatonist of you, avoiding any debate with freethinkers whatsoever.
I will ask again. Please do not avoid them.
P.S. The lack of reciprocity in human actions is very well explained by evoltionary biologist R. Dawkins. I don't need round the clock surveillance to know killing other people is wrong, even if I can get away with it.
IcedPhoenix666 2 years ago
I'm not sure how I attacked you... You have a typical response, though. You probably claim the same thing every time someone disagrees with your views. Yes, I applaud you. I applaud your freethinking. I applaud how you pull everything you've used against me from some other source. Everything you know about your atheist ideals came from someone else's work. Freethinker my ass. I'm going to admit it... I am a moron for even responding to you. Please, hold on to what last bit of dignity you have.
norevelation 2 years ago
Again, you dodge my questions.
IcedPhoenix666 2 years ago
Okay, don't know why you're still thinking that. Answered your 4th question. The other don't apply to me. If you can't give me that acknowledgment, then you're just a prick. I guess my first post, an obvious asshat joke, just attracted a dense asshat. I'm still more of the idiot for replying. I'm actually kind of sorry for you, though... you seem like an unhappy person. I apologize for disturbing your loyalty to ignorance, I'll move on with my 'creationist', non freethinking ways. =\
norevelation 2 years ago
I will not confront you, my friend. I don't respond to slander. Moreover, you are not a debating person.
See you in another video perhaps when your reasoning/discussing skills have improved.
Peace be with you.
IcedPhoenix666 2 years ago
You are right, I'm not a debating person. I like to joke around, and I don't mind conversation.
I did not mean to slander you name if that is what I did -- I only mean to say what I saw happening.
I am glad we can put our differences behind us, and perhaps we'll see each other again, but I hope we can trade words of wisdom and civility, instead of wasting time.
May your Travels be Full and the Light shine upon you always, Brother.
norevelation 2 years ago
HAHAHA! 2 of the dumbest humans vs the most intelligent human hahaha!
Nikrou 2 years ago
He just wore that to start conversations. He's just macking on those two. ;)
l337pwnage 2 years ago
Its amazing and pathetic that in some families its easier to come out as a gay thatn an atheist.....
Ryosuke1208 2 years ago 3
he is so cute. i got to see him in person at portland in oct and wow, he's larger than life, a rock star!
NotTooObvious 2 years ago 3
i'm thinking about buying it. Yeah, i will.
Lekeeon 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Sick of Christians and Atheists arguing?
atheistfriends 2 years ago
Lack of religion ... WOW ... !! WTH
khaz6pill 2 years ago 4
@khaz6pill
wat?
ctvwr 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
"I only just invented it. :D" haha! x
itsjustanillusion 2 years ago 12
Rich, smart as hell, accomplished to the hilt, in a room full of women.
HOOT NAH LA TE DAH !!
Wish I were him!
nolobede 2 years ago 15
he's a lady's man too! :)
intelliGENeration 2 years ago 55
i just invented it. lol
gratefulghost 2 years ago 56
The origin of the scarlet 'A' comes from the book "The Scarlet Letter" by Nathaniel Hawthorne where a woman was made to where one for committing adultery, in the Puritan New England.
c0n0rH3aN3y 2 years ago 10
I wear my Scarlet A with pride!
I appreciate and respect Dawkins,
but I'm not in a "Dawkins fan club."
I'm just proud and happy to be a rational human being!
Imaginefree69 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Atheist like the religon" Richard Dawkins indeed sells atheism kinda religon like i don't like that
VIDEOARTER 2 years ago
"...or the , eh, lack of religion?" Go for full quotes.
1234qwergh 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I just wanted to say that by her slip of the tongue she reveals an intresting asspecct of Dawkins which is a quasi religous (missionary) atheism.
VIDEOARTER 2 years ago
Spreading rationality does not a religion make.
Mindliner 2 years ago 8
Not using grammar does not a sentence make
quiveringlemon 2 years ago 7
Her slip of the tongue reveals her own lack of thought.
It says nothing whatsoever about Dawkins.
That would require a slip of HIS tongue.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago 8
Except your wrong. Because that would mean that he was spreading beliefs. He's not. He's spreading rational thought and evidence based belief (in whatever you conclude). Whether or not that leads you to or away from atheism, he is simply trying to get you to think rationally. Is it a coincidence that this almost always leads to atheism? Nope, it's rational, religion is not.
suplux92 2 years ago 13
Hey. I agree a little but only a little. He does try to spread a message but missionaries very often, if not always, use disingenuous (or downright nasty) methods. However it bugs the shit out of me that others of my persuasion give your comment the thumbs down. You say nothing vicious or violent so your thoughts should be allowed expression. I gave you a thumbs up just to keep the idea of free expression alive at least in my own little mind. Thumbs down if you believe in censorship folks!!
croutonfada 2 years ago 18
Lol at "Is it catching on?"
"I hope so"!
BraveUlysses01 2 years ago 4
My goodness. Before I continue, I'll emphasise that I'm as atheistic as anyone. But must you replace the crucifix around your neck with a pin on your lapel? Can you (the people who think RD's 'A' is so good) not see that this is just a new uniform? It is a new set of tribal colours; the very thing you are against.
TheIllestVillain 2 years ago
Don't ever think the opinion of an atheist can be generalised. They exist in every corner of the political spectrum.
The 'A's are simply a group within atheism. They can be seen as Dawkinists within atheism in the same way Marxists are a group within socialism.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
Well put, Baileys.
The 'A' is not a symbol of worship, which is what sets it apart from the crucifix. The 'A' is a symbol of expression for a movement, and the last time I checked one doesn't need a religion to be expressive nor have a movement.
OperatorC 2 years ago 5
Athiesm isn't against joining groups. you sound as if Atheism has something against being a football fan and wearing your teams colours. It just means you don't believe in god, why any individual comes to their lack of belief is always different. I see your point though, it strikes and odd chord with me too, but then i can also see it's importance, people in this world need to know it's OK to not believe in God, i grew up thinking it wasn't ok for many years, it's not a good feeling.
kendrawhisp 2 years ago 6
Its not a mark as much as a symbol of pride and enlightenment. Atheists are against religion, not symbols.
poooterer 2 years ago 4
There's nothing wrong with an atheist wearing a scarlet 'A'. Calling people who would do so or who would be public about their lack of religion "dawkinists" is ridiculous. Never forget the very important distinction: atheists never pretend that Dawkins et al are infallible, whereas theists do pretend.
JBfan88 2 years ago 8
I'm wary of putting a label on myself, mostly because I know a certain amount of them are incredibly stupid, and people I would never want to associate with. Just like there are incredibly stupid religious people that the smarter ones have to account for. Being without any label is best I'd say!
nigerlover18 2 years ago 3
its a false view of the world that you have.
You have a label whether you want it or not. If even one person knows you do not believe in a god, they will consider you in the same league as atheists whether you call yourself that or not, because thats all atheism is. Its not a set of beliefs. The only thing you have in common with Dawkins is you both dont believe in gods, as far as the label of atheism is concerned. Thats the only connection you can have as thats all it is.
waltermh111 2 years ago
How about educating others instead of running away from reality and allowing people to continue misunderstanding atheism.
The label is important for people who want to find others who also dont believe. Who want to know that its ok to disbelieve. That they dont have to live with shame or being shunned/alienated.
It helps people to live in parts of the world where religion is so dominant that you dont even know how safe it is to not believe, or if you will lose friends if you stop.
waltermh111 2 years ago 12
I think were just talking about different tactics here. We both want to "educate others" about non-belief, but I don't want to apply any label to myself. I think the word atheism just has too much baggage and negative connotations in the U.S. to walk around saying that that's what I am. If people understood the word for what you said, which is what it actually means, I might use it. But for now it's just a way for people to marginalize non-belief and get it out of the mainstream
nigerlover18 2 years ago 5
Yes, I see the 'A' more like the gay triangle of the rainbow-
not so much joining a club as making the presence of atheists visible
to the average unthinking member of society.
As the Whos in Whoville cried,
We are here, we are here, we are here!!
Imaginefree69 2 years ago 9
My name is Josh, I'm from Cleveland, OH and I am an atheist. That felt good! :-)
Josh111485 2 years ago 13
I just came out myself and said the same thing on my first post :-) You might want to join his website
xrt199 2 years ago 3
If the camera wasn't rolling, he would have said, "The A stands for Assman.", and then plowed these two hos. Go Dawk.
JeremiahBasil 3 years ago 9
Bah, he can do better than that!
Kagrath 3 years ago
Of course he can, but like Richard said in the Blind Watch Maker, "Pussy doesn't have a face." Dawkins never turns down a chance to smash a dizzy ho.
JeremiahBasil 3 years ago
LOL as degrading as your choice of language is, when it comes to dawkins I'd have to say yes please, there is something about a smart nerdish scientist, with slightly bumbling personality that just does it for me.
kendrawhisp 2 years ago 12
Go for it. When Dawkins isnt' t peering down a microscope he's staring up some hot vag. I'm sure he'd be happy to toss you some wood.
JeremiahBasil 2 years ago 6
Charming! :-)
croutonfada 2 years ago 17
Totally agreed. I met him at a conference, and it was pretty difficult not to blush. Yes please for me as well!
sarah95pekoe 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
good grief!
spybungo 3 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAAH!
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
haha player.... He seems so happy with his little pin, lol, what a lad.
gassfactor 3 years ago 6
Lol Richard Dawkins seems so proud of himself! Me love him!
GnomeyHead 3 years ago 5
mee too...for years
unoalice22 3 years ago 3
I would love to wear such a pin. The only problem is I would probably lose my job as a public school science teacher. You see, I teach in the southern US and I am alone in my stance. Even the admin are fundies and so are the folks at the head county office and so are the elected board members. So you see, I'm persecuted and not able to voice my opinion regarding their god that they worship. Sad but true. I do sport a Darwin legged fish on my car. That was a big chance to take but I feel better.
saxmanchiro 3 years ago 9
I also live in the South. I'm attending the Atheist convention here in Atlanta mid April. I'm impressed by the darwin plaque you have on your car. Personally, I think of that as more 'out' than a scarlet A pin. More people recognize the fish-with-feet. ;-)
szrgirl 3 years ago
I live in a rather liberal town, and teachers here are also discouraged from expressing their opinions on religion and politics. It's more of a matter of separation of Church and State, as well as of imposing one's personal opinion on students. I don't know if it's the best option, but it's one that makes sense to me.
ixof6ix 3 years ago
ixo
It's the only option, IMO.
Science class especially, cannot allow teacher opinion or spin. That's why we can trust it's findings. I'm all for discussing religion or mythology in literature or theology classes but it's not welcome in Science.
I am confronted daily by my fundie students, either directly through questions or under their breath with remarks not respectful of classroom etiquette. It's pretty tiring on a daily basis.
saxmanchiro 3 years ago 4
I can imagine. I took a fantastic Biology course a few years back, and 3/4ths of my peers were die-hard creationist Christians. My professor was awe-inspiringly patient and unyeilding - and Hindi. Her students in return either dropped the class or stuck around long enough to write ranting, nearly-racist performance reviews (e.g. "Go back to your own country"). I ended up writing my own additional performance review at home and delivered it straight to the dean of the campus.
ixof6ix 3 years ago 2
ixof6ix
Glad to hear that you had a good bio teacher. My favourite teacher was my bio teach in high school and it was at a Catholic school in Canada. Religion was never talked about in there and never heard any spin from the teacher. We studied T ofE with reckless abandon. We soaked it up. Too bad your fellow classmates couldn't see the truth at that time in that class and just enjoy the info. Their pastors did a good job in brainwashing them to distrust the science teacher. Sad stuff for sure.
saxmanchiro 3 years ago 3
Is the A intended to stand for Agnostic as well? e.g. it is proper to put it beside
Darwin's name?
Roedygr 3 years ago
Good question. I hope so.
LeKryon 3 years ago
Is this from the Nathaniel Hawthorne book, "The Scarlet Letter"? It might sound like a stupid question :P
iPodAddict181 3 years ago
Unless Dawkins is an adulterer, no.
Trekky623 3 years ago
It was inspired by the scarlet letter though...it's about coming out as an atheist and turning a marking of ridicule into a our own badge of honor.
kjg28 3 years ago 2
"like the religion?" lol!
Ramanujan88 3 years ago 16
haha
unoalice22 3 years ago
*highfive* I have my button on my messenger bag. I work in Hollywood, however, and I think most people assume the "Out Campaign" has something to do with gay rights.
Stykera 3 years ago 7
I've got the button too! On both my messenger bag and my favourite jacket =)
But I've never seen anyone else wearing one... :S
sarith21 3 years ago