-you don't have to respect ppl's beliefs, but respect the ppl. Give them the facts, give them room. Trolls never convince anyone..plus you don't need to troll when you have the facts.
- & the power of inherent language. Understand your words (& beliefs/biases) or they will control you. Correct others on their misuse, most ppl appreciate learning something new.
& don't be quiet..be vocal! Expose ppl to how much we really understand about our Universe, many have no idea!
Vercotti: ...Well, I was terrified. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug
2nd Interviewer: What did he do?
Vercotti: He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious.
It is the criticisms of the God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth that I have read at Creation (dot) com that have ensured I will never convert to atheism.
@ozredneck22 Let me get this straight. You're saying that an organization who''s every publication rife with lies has convinced you never to consider anything that might be true?
@AronRa Their dedication and sincerity almost convinces me they must have something going. But every time it is no. Their insanity is so thorough that it's only apparent by their religious motivations. It scares me that I could have ended up the same way had I not differed from my Catholic family early on. But most people aren't like that, they simply don't think about it since it is the norm in the US.
@ozredneck22 The God Delusion is one of the poorest philosophical works I've ever read. It absolutely blows my mind that atheists read that book in droves and consider it to be a master work. Then again, I suppose that explains a lot.
@bahdahdoop Yeah, I just found out that Dawkins calls himself an agnostic not an atheist, he claims God may exist but that it is very very improbable that He does. I suppose the evidence for atheism being true is not as strong as it is portrayed when you strip away all the "song and dance".
Dawkins = SEXIST!!! See the way he turned that microphone around? He stopped it for a second while it pointed at that poor woman's face.
How dare he sexualize her like that pointing his phallic symbol at her in PUBLIC!!! He THOUGHT he was turning the microphone around; this just shows how privileged people have lost their minds, he was SCREWING his PHALLUS, asserting his manhood, belittling UberAtheists (women atheists) everywhere.
And he doesn't even offer a tissue afterwards. Shame on us.
1) Lunchtime discussion on Oxford on the 'Oxford Debate'
2) "Is God a Delusion?" lecture with panel response (unless Dawkins shows up to debate!)
Run, Dawkins, run!! Keep running from Dr. Craig, from debate, from truth. That's the best thing you can do to keep your followers!!!!!!!!
In case you followers don't know, he's been avoiding Dr. Craig, for he... is afraid to death of debating him!!! LOL... Even an atheist publicly accused him of cowardice!!!
ARon and Richard were the only ones that had any actual solutions. Aron's were more of something Richard does and he mentioned that he wanted to do that at the very end as well, but I've always loved his points about how children are labeled this way. That is indoctrination at its most basic to call your kids a "Christian child" or anything else. Another thing that really bothers me is when I hear someone say things like "We're a Christian family". Just using "WE" at all is arrogant.
..Interesting..there is ridicule of Atheist folly on my channel, but they don't like it one bit...and are not persuaded to turn away from their foolishness.
No matter what I see of Richard, I am not persuaded to like him one bit.
Mogley52, you're wrong. Science does not point to the existence of anything supernatural, in fact, it has constantly refuted the existence of the supernatural. Also, you probably copied and pasted all that stuff from another website, lol.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
@Mogley52 Nah you're wrong. Science doesnt point to a supernatural creator-intelligence any more than it points to a supernatural creator-sausage-sandwich.
Also atheism can't be refuted, since it's not a belief, it would be like trying to refute someone's non-belief in unicorns.
Also everything in the universe was formed during the big bang, but our physics doesnt even describe what the singularity was fully yet.
As far as "supernatural" goes, natural laws are constantly being extended.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
SCIENCE DOESN'T EXPLAIN AWAY GOD: Natural laws may explain how an airplane or living cell works, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of either. Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as flawed or useless.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE: If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you can't prove it was made by either chance or design. No one observed its origins. Either it was designed or the random forces of wind and waves made the castle. You didn't find fingerprints. Did the wind wipe the fingerprints away? How do we know that there were fingerprints in the first place? By chance or by design? Both sides should present their case. Read the article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can become contorted by gravity. Einstein's equations showed that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator!
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
do you know believers want you to be stupid so they can just steal and make you poop because they are cowards to do it in front of you. that is all about check the origins of religion all thre bible full of lies against nature and life.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Whoa whoa whoa. Holy shit. I can't believe Dawkins even stated that. You can't champion rights, parental or otherwise, in one breath and then state "protect them from the "INDOCTRINATION" of their parents". Attention, fascism has just entered the building and check free speech for a pulse too. You can provide for separation of church and state with respect to education, etc. and put the better argument out there. He was great up until then. Fence? What fence? He just burned it down.
@ff7masta You're entitled to your opinion even though you obviously have no clue what the difference between the constitution and individual rights/fundamental rights/bill of rights are. I wouldn't argue that dawkins is brilliant and insightful on many things, but he obviously would have problems identifying the parties, actors, and issues in a basic constitutional law hypothetical. As for melodramatic, I used the example he chose as a theme (fence) in the beginning and applied his suggestion.
What? Ridicule is acceptable? Come over here and be subjected to the GOP and Fox News, Bill O'Reiley, Glen Beck, and those Phelps Westrbrook Baptists. Now I see this man is ridiculing a member of the atheist community (skeptichic). I'd wish that Dawkins would take a page from M Jackson and start with the man in the mirror with his Conciousness Rasing chatter. You've lost the next generation. Maybe it's time to step down. We've got tons of your valid and useful opinions.
@tazer95 My point is the man is a fool if he believes that ridiculing ones ideas is not the same as ridiculing the person. His recent condescending email regarding skepchick has gone viral and given fodder to the deranged MRM radicals and brought out the ugly side of the atheist community. Ridicule gives permission to lower life forms to show their ass. It feeds on their need for validation. This man knows he has influence and he used it to bash a fellow panel member after this conference.
...Yet, Stewart still makes a rather compelling argument against Fox, even to it's die-hard viewers, and he's *still* shaving Fox's ratings off bit-by-bit!
But yeah, given that I'm a member of one of the demographics that Dawkins is trying to reach w/this strategy, take it from me that it definitely WOULD work, and, honestly, it sounds like a fuckin' BRILLIANT idea!
...yet think they're alone because they happen to live/grow up in a HEAVILY Christian area and don't know nor have never met (m)any other agnostics.
Like, Jon Stewart's use of comedy to convince people that Fox News REALLY IS just Republican propaganda is a *perfect* example of this strategy! I mean, you don't get very far calling die-hard Fox News viewers ignorant morons, do ya? Especially if everony AROUND the think they're actually legit, too! Yet, Stewart still makes a rat
2nd of all, he's not trying to reach the hard-core believers, just the MODERATES. You know, those who are on the fence; those that have doubts about a few contradictions they noticed when they actually thought about it, yet suppress those doubts; those who know their religion makes NO sense, yet haven't heard any other argument; or those sane people who *know* they don't believe and that the religion makes NO sense at all, yet think they're alone because they happen live/grow u
No, you really don't get it -- that's exactly what he's advocating AGAINST!
B4 I go on, tho, I think it should be pointed out that I think he really only used the word "ridicule" because he's British. I believe an American would've used the word "comedy," instead.
Telling someone about torture is not torture. Telling someone they are ridiculous is not the same as ridicule. Ridicule means using mockery and derision, not just a discussion of mockery and derision.
So you do plan more than telling them they are ridiculous, but instead plan on using mockery and derision? Then you plan on being hurtful and a bully. It is that simple. Why stop there? Why not lie & threaten too? Your hands won't be any dirtier.
@jshowa2 If I might make a distinction, getting a confession isn't the same as obtaining military information. In the extraction of a confession no new information is sought. I think Napoleon's point is that torture is useless there. Totrure is usefull in extracting false confession. I'm in Scotland, and here Scottish rules of evidence exclude confession.
That whole soliloquy is just a cover for saying "I can do anything I want". Reread what you wrote. Basically, you said you can justify anything if it meets your own "individual relativism". I have heard pedophiles give similar justifications for why they do the things they do. After all, it meets their own individual relativism. Mockery and ridicule is simply something the bad guys do and the good guys never do. It is one way to tell them apart. It isn't in a gray area.
@tuggleprentiss He's referring to ridiculing the beliefs. Humour is an effective way of facilitating inquiry and overcoming negative emotions attached to inquiry. Like Darkmatter2525's vids they are extremely funny videos ridiculing christian beleifs. In fact Joe Rogan's ridicule of the story of Noah's ark honestly began my apostasy from Islam, I had always had doubts but that gave me the perspective and emotional motivation to seriously question my beliefs.
@strangestdude "Humour is an effective way of facilitating inquiry "
I am all for humor. Ridicule like we are talking about here is not humour. It is intentionally hurtful derision and mockery. You can do a funny parody of Noah's ark and that is not ridicule. It is parody. Ridicule and mockery have an expression of contempt for the other person. If you mean parody, say parody. There is a difference between being comic and being contemptuous. My objection is to the contemptuous, not humour.
@tuggleprentiss Fair enough. But we have a different definition of the term, your using it to mean mockery of a person, I think it can also mean mockery of a belief. And I believe Mr Dawkins was using it in the latter context.
Mockery is so imbued with scorn & contempt, I can't see that is good for anyone to feel, nor convincing to any audience listening. If you want to do parody, a comic representation of your message, chiding, I am fine with that. Scorn & contempt just have a meanness or bullying aspect that is not right, even directed at a belief. Good people wouldn't use it. You (or Dawkins) may mean a benign parody or comic ribbing. But some on these threads hear ridicule or mockery and don't limit it to that.
Then you know you are being a bully when you do it. Some people are fine with that I guess. I would speak not to those intentionally bullying, but instead to those who may not realize they are. Hopefully most atheists are not fine with bullying tactics.
"... a chance that just telling them they're ridiculous will change there mind?"
First off, telling someone they are ridiculous and actively ridiculing someone are two different things. Ridicule is mockery and derision. Not a caring discussion with someone about how that someone may be appearing to others. Actively mocking and ridiculing is another thing entirely.
" ... without getting your hands dirty? "
Personally I don't want my hand dirty. If you do, why not take the next step and lie?
@jshowa2 "If you think life has to be fair somehow, it shows you are really naive about reality."
I have no illusions that life is fair. There are people who are mean to us, lie to us and mock and ridicule us. Those people are bad guys. Bullies. Why do you want to be one of them?
@jshowa2 "And if you want to go with evidence that ridicule is effective, I can dig some up if you want."
And if you want to go with evidence that lying is effective, I can dig some up if you want. My point isn't how effective it may be, it is how reprehensible it is.
@jshowa2 " If mocking and intimidating were useless, why is it still here? Why hasn't it been selected against? It obviously has some sort of biological advantage."
Torture and telling falsehoods are still here too, so those have some sort of biological advantage too. Not everything with a biological advantage, e.g. killing or blinding your opponent, or telling lies about them, is something fair to do.
@tuggleprentiss "The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile."
- Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon to Berthier 11 Nov 1798, Corres., V, no. 3606 p. 128 quoted in - Napoleon on the Art of War
@jshowa2 -- No it isn't. When you carefully explain to someone that what they believe is irrational, that is argumentation. Ridicule involves derision and mockery and expression of contempt. I have no problem with you explaining to someone why their beliefs are irrational. But that is what posters here are saying they WON'T do because they believe the theists are so thick and stupid. Instead they plan on ridicule, something different than the argumentation you suggest doing.
@jshowa2 "because you realize all the strategies available to you"
I guess you realize whips, cattle prods and lying are available too, right? Ridicule isn't the only way to tap into emotions, but it is an illegitimate way. There are lots of appropriate ways to appeal to emotions through sentiment. Ridicule is intentionally destructive and cruel.
@jshowa2 "You may not accept it, but it is a valid tactic."
Then cattle prods and whips are valid tactics too. They work sometimes too. Certainly lying works better. All of those, especially ridicule, are the tactics of bullies, thugs and the cruel. Just saying something is bogus and you don't believe it is not ridicule. Ridicule is mockery and derision. Where do you draw the line with your tactics?
So if you need to prod, why not cattle prods? Whips? Maybe that would turn the tide. Using illegitimate means whether cattle prods or ridicule or lying just shows the world who you are. It shows the user as a bully. Not someone winning the day with superior logic, but instead through pain, physical or emotional or mental.
@crusader331 It's not really bashing on religion, it's more an attempt to gain their own foothold in a world which is traditionally religous and therefor their views are being attacked. So they simply counter attack - religions are now under attack cos of the atheist movement succes but it is only because of the way religion treated non believers. It's a battleground - and the winner gets to define what is true and what is good. I personally hope the atheists wins
It's going to be tough to get rid of certain phrases like "Catholic child" or "Jewish child" because these labels have ethnic connotations as well as religious connotations.
Did he just say that we should change which truth claims we accept on the basis of ridicule and sarcasm as opposed to reason? If Dawkins really wants to raise our consciousness then he'll show how ridiculous the views of Dr. Craig are by filling the empty chair later this year. I'm looking forward to it.
@chiefkyle1 - Well that's just silly. You claim to be "a protected class" (I suspect only in your drag queen fantasies, but...) as if that magically excludes you from bigotry. It does not, and anyone who is even casually acquainted with civil rights knows this is nonsense. The juxtaposition, indeed, the foundation of atheism and civil rights, is the ability to think rationally. Once you introduce evidence and rationality, such things as superstition, sexism and bigotry are natural casualties.
@chiefkyle1 I suppose Dawkins should keep his mouth shut about evolution and AronRa should not mention phylogeny? Again, how is drawing attention to sexism leftist?
@Gilmaris ...wrong, would you still take me serious? No. Because anyone can see that the idea of dragons, much less invisible dragons that I talk to, is completely absurd. That's just one example. You could easily think up many, many more. That's why it's important to go by reason and logic and rational thinking when thinking about things.
I am glad there is scientific community that doesn't allow itself to be categorized by its own deodand. As' I hope that everyone is an individual, each to one's own thought process. Double check there any of contemplations of any human; and don't be so egoistic-to say 'if a scientist is not an Atheist?' His or her hard work and discipline and high IQ is not worthy of us.' That is a real danger to get into this mode of stapling Christianity as a idiopathic compass. Beware of your
@mamaschristmasbunny Exactly. I mean did you see a beautiful mind? Once the fellow realized he was insane he was able to work around his insanity and still put out good mathematical works. In the same way christians can compartmentalize their eccentricity from real world science and put out good science. The problem is when don't compartmentalize.
@chiefkyle1 I believe that if Atheists are to associate as a group, or in an organized manner, it is important that we bring as little baggage as possible. Atheists are humans and as such are susceptible to all manner of bigoted ideas. How is that leftist?
Speaking of Dawkins, do you think he is a legitimate make sex symbol in the athiest, rational thinking science cross over community? I think he could be.
One problem with Dawkins' poorly-defended case for ridicule is that cross-cultural ridicule has additional negative corollaries that some atheists can't persevere when launching into ridicule-based assaults on Islam.
Like it or not, religions become iconic of ethnic cultures, so ridicule-attacks on Islam coming from those within western culture could be perceived by the very people we need to reach as attacks on their culture per se, which risks burning the bridge for them out of religion.
@thkaal1: if you saw their actions giving him water as "servicing him", and you saw that they did so as women, not people, then I think you need to have a long talk with someone about feminism and how your views on gender roles are colouring your observations of a potentially neutral situation.
4 SRS. yo. The first thing I thought when I saw the water being brought over, after Dawkins only had tickles, then hte person next to him helping, was "that's really kind, and reflects well on this group
@omegavalerius It's more a seperation of judgement, I both judge them individually from eachother. If I would to judge a person, I wouldn't care about what beliefsystem they have, I would jusge them by their actions. Same with religion.
@DoggySpew but a person's character is in a large part determined by beliefs, especially religious beliefs. and to know one's religious affiliation one can indeed make a judgement of their character.
it is like meeting someone who is a member of a neonazi party. you already know from the party membership that the person's character is despicable without even further analyzing it. same goes for members of religions, especially abrahamic religions: they are *all* morally bankrupt by definition.
"same goes for members of religions, especially abrahamic religions: they are *all* morally bankrupt by definition."
On the contrary... They are simply attributing their own well held morality to a magical course.
Nothing thrashes about more pathetically than a christian who claims that the bible is god's irrelevant and immutable perfect word, when confronted with the moral bankruptcy of the bible.
They conform and cherry pick their "perfect word" to their own secular morality.
@DeathofSpeech Actually, I don't think they call the bible "irrelevant", irrelevant means "of no importance" and to Christians, the bible is very important (the more fanatic they are, the more important it is). I believe the word you were looking for is "inerrant" (without flaw). And sure, they cherrypick the acceptable stuff from the gory one, but the real danger is when they accept the gory one as justified-by-the-source.
I disagree with you there. Your affiliation to a group, no matter how corrupt that group may be, does not automatically make you corrupt as well. Your example of the neonazi group association for instance: There alot of people who "didn't know any better" and left the group. Oscar Schindler, the guy who saved thousands of jews in WW2, was a Nazi party member.
That's why I judge people and their affiliations separately, even if in the end those people overlap with them.
@DoggySpew@DoggySpew I do judge people by the affiliations they deliberately hold on to. People who are forced into an affiliation that they do not actually identify with do not fall under that judgement, of course. But it can be found out pretty fast whether someone in fact adheres to the abrahamic deity or is just following the herd.
Theism is the muck and pulp piled at the bottom of an out house pit. Theists are the people that are willing to bathe in that filth. It's not that theists are bad people, it's that they have a repulsive and unclean habit. I don't hate them, but they stink so bad that I want to puke if they get too close. If you are a Theist... I urge you to bathe in the fresh running water of critical thought. It'll take some time to wash the flies, reek and filth off; but it'll be worth it. You won't look back.
@ReignbowSmite I think that people try to gain happiness my joining religions, but don't realize that they sacrifice more happiness then they gain. It's sort of like selling your soul to the devil for eternal youth.
Dawkins wasn't bad, but I have to say that AronRa was the best speaker! I think that there will be many great days ahead for him. He's already eloquent. I'm pretty sure he can become a well-known speaker in the world.
@MrWagman11 Certainly. But then, you're not the sort of person that needs to be persuaded. The sort of people who need persuading are those who really only care about the moral and/or social implications of faith. To change those minds, we need to establish the sense that believing nonsense will force them to pay a price in social terms--the price of looking foolish.
I wonder if I had ever been able to get rid of my theist indoctrination if not for ridicule. Not personal attacks of course but ridicule of theistic belief. It made me feel uncomfortable with the things that I believed in and forced me to study those beliefs more closely, which eventually lead me to freeing myself from them.
@ObakeOnna Probibly not. We are still primates. You can rationalize your belief even after it has been shown to be false, just as your ansester might still believe that he should be the alpha of his troop even though the current alpha demonstrated that he was obviously bigger and stronger. Humilitation of those beliefs, on the other hand, goes beyond any rationalizing. Your theist beliefs just needed a good " thrown poop to the face" in front of the females.
@Felhaven I'm not sure if I can agree with that hypothesis, because it assumes that all humans regardless of gender think like male apes. While women aren't stuck with hierarchies practically set in stone at birth like most primates, I don't think there's enough evidence to show that human women think like male chimps either.
@ObakeOnna Prehaps not. However, human females and males think more alike than other primates. Primarily because humans are near unique in the fact that females compete for male attention. In other species this is simply not found.
In any case i was simply making the point that humiliation reached benieth the conscious mind to the instints below. Case and point is teenagers doing dumb things for fear of being mocked or rejected.
@burnyourcrutch You don't have to be able to make a "meaningful decision" to make a decision.
...and anyway: most adult christians/muslims/whatever barely know a thing about the bible/koran/whatever or their faith in general. That doesn't stop them from being christians/muslims/whatever.
My cousins really believed in what they were indoctrinated in (i.e. islam), and still do.
If they believe in the religion, they are adherents of it.
@ZarlanTheGreen to be honest, if you can't make a decision on you're own, you're still a child. Religious people act like children consistently in my experience...
@ZarlanTheGreen I don't agree with that, he's talking about children pre-indoctrination. And tbh even after indoctrination, if you didn't rationalise a choice then you aren't really x denomination, you're just someone parroting what your peers told you.
If there was no choice to be made, it's not fair to say that they are something, if they've never known anything else.
@emikochan13 "he's talking about children pre-indoctrination."
He said children. No more, no less.
"And tbh even after indoctrination, if you didn't rationalise a choice then you aren't really x denomination, you're just someone parroting what your peers told you.
If there was no choice to be made, it's not fair to say that they are something, if they've never known anything else."
So by your definition, MOST christians/muslims/jews/whatever AREN'T christians/muslims/jews/whatever?
@ZarlanTheGreen Yes that's what I'm saying, How many religious people actually follow their books? (thankfully a minimal amount in the developed world)
I always say actions speak louder than words. If you don't actually follow what you say you follow, you're on the fence.
I disagree with Dawkins on Catholic School Girls, I see it as (Catholic School) Girl not Catholic (School Girl) Catholic refers to the school not the Girl
I really like Richard's emphasis on ridicule. I've been of the opinion for a while now that ridicule, especially with the power of numbers, could be very a powerful tool in causing doubt and making people reevaluate their beliefs. The theist beliefs are very foolish, but they can't see that from the inside, nor would they doubt it because of their feeling of saftey in conformity. To make a theist feel like the outsider for once could be very healthy for them I think, and ridicule acomplishes it.
@FreeOneSolo But if a belief hasn't in any way been proven wrong, then it isn't really stupid, is it? For example, the belief in a flat earth is stupid in light of evidence for a round earth, but for early man, without access to this evidence, the belief in a flat earth is downright scientific.
I think you'll find, by the way, that theists are very opposed to stupid ideas as well. I don't think you'll find a single theist who thinks of his beliefs as stupid.
@Gilmaris Actually, yes, it is very much possible for a belief to be stupid, even if it hasn't been proven wrong. We ridicule a lot of beliefs that haven't been (and maybe never could be) proven wrong just because they are too outlandish or extraordinary to be taken seriously. Of course, everyone will have their own personal view on what is stupid and what isn't, but still.
Great points by Dawkins
-you don't have to respect ppl's beliefs, but respect the ppl. Give them the facts, give them room. Trolls never convince anyone..plus you don't need to troll when you have the facts.
- & the power of inherent language. Understand your words (& beliefs/biases) or they will control you. Correct others on their misuse, most ppl appreciate learning something new.
& don't be quiet..be vocal! Expose ppl to how much we really understand about our Universe, many have no idea!
SirThaddeusWalters 3 months ago 6
If they couldnt hear Richard then how did they reply to his question of can you hear me?
HowardWolowitzFan 4 months ago
@HowardWolowitzFan They probably just meant they couldn't hear him good and wanted the mic to be louder.
KevinLockard23 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HowardWolowitzFan because it's obvious what he's saying
Pirate44444 4 months ago
4:47 Freud :DD
twooffour 4 months ago
Why didn't you upload pt3?
purplederple 4 months ago
Vercotti: ...Well, I was terrified. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug
2nd Interviewer: What did he do?
Vercotti: He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious.
ozredneck22 5 months ago
Dawkins is hilarious at 4:45, ...."you don't have to use violent language, you can use wit, sarcasm and ridicule...."
From Monty Python’s Piranha Bros episode 14.....(Continued)
ozredneck22 5 months ago
It is the criticisms of the God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth that I have read at Creation (dot) com that have ensured I will never convert to atheism.
ozredneck22 5 months ago
@ozredneck22 Let me get this straight. You're saying that an organization who''s every publication rife with lies has convinced you never to consider anything that might be true?
AronRa 5 months ago 25
@AronRa Their dedication and sincerity almost convinces me they must have something going. But every time it is no. Their insanity is so thorough that it's only apparent by their religious motivations. It scares me that I could have ended up the same way had I not differed from my Catholic family early on. But most people aren't like that, they simply don't think about it since it is the norm in the US.
pat5168 5 months ago
@ozredneck22 The God Delusion is one of the poorest philosophical works I've ever read. It absolutely blows my mind that atheists read that book in droves and consider it to be a master work. Then again, I suppose that explains a lot.
bahdahdoop 1 week ago
@bahdahdoop Yeah, I just found out that Dawkins calls himself an agnostic not an atheist, he claims God may exist but that it is very very improbable that He does. I suppose the evidence for atheism being true is not as strong as it is portrayed when you strip away all the "song and dance".
ozredneck22 1 week ago
ATHEISTS USE MACS
jonhdoe1395 5 months ago
@jonhdoe1395 :P
JesusWasADerelict 5 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
Makes sense to me. Showing people how ridiculous they are can actually make them see that they are believing something incredibly stupi.
moonlightavenger 5 months ago
Dawkins = SEXIST!!! See the way he turned that microphone around? He stopped it for a second while it pointed at that poor woman's face.
How dare he sexualize her like that pointing his phallic symbol at her in PUBLIC!!! He THOUGHT he was turning the microphone around; this just shows how privileged people have lost their minds, he was SCREWING his PHALLUS, asserting his manhood, belittling UberAtheists (women atheists) everywhere.
And he doesn't even offer a tissue afterwards. Shame on us.
riggermortisify 5 months ago 2
@riggermortisify i lol'd so hard
edwardvhalen 5 months ago
Aron Ra got to meet Richard Motherfucking Dawkins. I can't stress how lucky I think this guy is.
PlaguedByEarth 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
England - Tue Oct 25, 2011
1) Lunchtime discussion on Oxford on the 'Oxford Debate'
2) "Is God a Delusion?" lecture with panel response (unless Dawkins shows up to debate!)
Run, Dawkins, run!! Keep running from Dr. Craig, from debate, from truth. That's the best thing you can do to keep your followers!!!!!!!!
In case you followers don't know, he's been avoiding Dr. Craig, for he... is afraid to death of debating him!!! LOL... Even an atheist publicly accused him of cowardice!!!
feanando 5 months ago
ARon and Richard were the only ones that had any actual solutions. Aron's were more of something Richard does and he mentioned that he wanted to do that at the very end as well, but I've always loved his points about how children are labeled this way. That is indoctrination at its most basic to call your kids a "Christian child" or anything else. Another thing that really bothers me is when I hear someone say things like "We're a Christian family". Just using "WE" at all is arrogant.
Reip187 5 months ago
..Interesting..there is ridicule of Atheist folly on my channel, but they don't like it one bit...and are not persuaded to turn away from their foolishness.
No matter what I see of Richard, I am not persuaded to like him one bit.
xy11xy 6 months ago
Mogley52, you're wrong. Science does not point to the existence of anything supernatural, in fact, it has constantly refuted the existence of the supernatural. Also, you probably copied and pasted all that stuff from another website, lol.
LockardKevin 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 Nah you're wrong. Science doesnt point to a supernatural creator-intelligence any more than it points to a supernatural creator-sausage-sandwich.
Also atheism can't be refuted, since it's not a belief, it would be like trying to refute someone's non-belief in unicorns.
Also everything in the universe was formed during the big bang, but our physics doesnt even describe what the singularity was fully yet.
As far as "supernatural" goes, natural laws are constantly being extended.
EdsEnemy 6 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE DOESN'T EXPLAIN AWAY GOD: Natural laws may explain how an airplane or living cell works, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of either. Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as flawed or useless.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE: If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you can't prove it was made by either chance or design. No one observed its origins. Either it was designed or the random forces of wind and waves made the castle. You didn't find fingerprints. Did the wind wipe the fingerprints away? How do we know that there were fingerprints in the first place? By chance or by design? Both sides should present their case. Read the article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can become contorted by gravity. Einstein's equations showed that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 months ago
do you know believers want you to be stupid so they can just steal and make you poop because they are cowards to do it in front of you. that is all about check the origins of religion all thre bible full of lies against nature and life.
jcliveron 6 months ago
Go atheism we are at war at nonsense and mind destruction.
jcliveron 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
and what's that stupid stupid girl doing sitting at that table?
Rebecca watch out!! There's some coffee on that table!!!
Aaahhh!!!
lol
imscaredofcoffee 7 months ago 19
Debate Dr William Lane Craig Professor Dawkins!!!!
Christistruth1 7 months ago
Hearing Dawkins talk about ridicule as a weapon with elevator chick sitting next to him is so funny! Can you say ''foreshadowing''! LOL
metalskinstudios 7 months ago
@metalskinstudios And then there's ridicule that you get from theists, which coincidentally is quite similar to Rebecca's...
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@SomethingSea1 I hear you! Is it true she's calling for a boycott of Dawkins' books? That would be the icing on the dumb cake, right there! LOL
metalskinstudios 7 months ago
@metalskinstudios It's true... she's acting like the religious zealot she is.
SomethingSea1 7 months ago
@metalskinstudios Nice.
pacifiedfools 7 months ago
Idiotic retard.
29Ocelot 7 months ago
I love how honest and straightforward Dawkins is about ridiculing 'ridiculous beliefs.'
LockardKevin 7 months ago
Whoa whoa whoa. Holy shit. I can't believe Dawkins even stated that. You can't champion rights, parental or otherwise, in one breath and then state "protect them from the "INDOCTRINATION" of their parents". Attention, fascism has just entered the building and check free speech for a pulse too. You can provide for separation of church and state with respect to education, etc. and put the better argument out there. He was great up until then. Fence? What fence? He just burned it down.
PawnBACM 7 months ago
@PawnBACM You're so stupid and melodramatic.
ff7masta 7 months ago 2
@ff7masta You're entitled to your opinion even though you obviously have no clue what the difference between the constitution and individual rights/fundamental rights/bill of rights are. I wouldn't argue that dawkins is brilliant and insightful on many things, but he obviously would have problems identifying the parties, actors, and issues in a basic constitutional law hypothetical. As for melodramatic, I used the example he chose as a theme (fence) in the beginning and applied his suggestion.
PawnBACM 7 months ago
@ff7masta Knowledge is power there bud. It is neither stupid nor melodramatic. It gets it done too; properly. watch?v=5h56ArkHblA
PawnBACM 7 months ago
Comment removed
PawnBACM 7 months ago
Ridicule is not a good method to convince people, but instead will just get their backs up and they will stop listening (IMO).
MegF142857 8 months ago
What? Ridicule is acceptable? Come over here and be subjected to the GOP and Fox News, Bill O'Reiley, Glen Beck, and those Phelps Westrbrook Baptists. Now I see this man is ridiculing a member of the atheist community (skeptichic). I'd wish that Dawkins would take a page from M Jackson and start with the man in the mirror with his Conciousness Rasing chatter. You've lost the next generation. Maybe it's time to step down. We've got tons of your valid and useful opinions.
OldHippieChickster 8 months ago
@OldHippieChickster I really don't get your point.
tazer95 7 months ago
@tazer95 My point is the man is a fool if he believes that ridiculing ones ideas is not the same as ridiculing the person. His recent condescending email regarding skepchick has gone viral and given fodder to the deranged MRM radicals and brought out the ugly side of the atheist community. Ridicule gives permission to lower life forms to show their ass. It feeds on their need for validation. This man knows he has influence and he used it to bash a fellow panel member after this conference.
OldHippieChickster 7 months ago
@OldHippieChickster Are you suggesting that ridiculing one's religion is the same as ridiculing the person? That's absurd.
tazer95 7 months ago
@OldHippieChickster /watch?v=_JxJ_qYOGg8
tazer95 7 months ago
@tuggleprentiss
...Yet, Stewart still makes a rather compelling argument against Fox, even to it's die-hard viewers, and he's *still* shaving Fox's ratings off bit-by-bit!
But yeah, given that I'm a member of one of the demographics that Dawkins is trying to reach w/this strategy, take it from me that it definitely WOULD work, and, honestly, it sounds like a fuckin' BRILLIANT idea!
macgeek2004 8 months ago
@tuggleprentiss
...yet think they're alone because they happen to live/grow up in a HEAVILY Christian area and don't know nor have never met (m)any other agnostics.
Like, Jon Stewart's use of comedy to convince people that Fox News REALLY IS just Republican propaganda is a *perfect* example of this strategy! I mean, you don't get very far calling die-hard Fox News viewers ignorant morons, do ya? Especially if everony AROUND the think they're actually legit, too! Yet, Stewart still makes a rat
macgeek2004 8 months ago
@tuggleprentiss
2nd of all, he's not trying to reach the hard-core believers, just the MODERATES. You know, those who are on the fence; those that have doubts about a few contradictions they noticed when they actually thought about it, yet suppress those doubts; those who know their religion makes NO sense, yet haven't heard any other argument; or those sane people who *know* they don't believe and that the religion makes NO sense at all, yet think they're alone because they happen live/grow u
macgeek2004 8 months ago
@tuggleprentiss
No, you really don't get it -- that's exactly what he's advocating AGAINST!
B4 I go on, tho, I think it should be pointed out that I think he really only used the word "ridicule" because he's British. I believe an American would've used the word "comedy," instead.
macgeek2004 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"ridiculous has the root word ridicule in it.'
Telling someone about torture is not torture. Telling someone they are ridiculous is not the same as ridicule. Ridicule means using mockery and derision, not just a discussion of mockery and derision.
So you do plan more than telling them they are ridiculous, but instead plan on using mockery and derision? Then you plan on being hurtful and a bully. It is that simple. Why stop there? Why not lie & threaten too? Your hands won't be any dirtier.
tuggleprentiss 8 months ago
@jshowa2 In the point of extracting confession the interrogator doesn't care who did it. He's got his man, all he wants is a snigature.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@jshowa2 If I might make a distinction, getting a confession isn't the same as obtaining military information. In the extraction of a confession no new information is sought. I think Napoleon's point is that torture is useless there. Totrure is usefull in extracting false confession. I'm in Scotland, and here Scottish rules of evidence exclude confession.
gamesbok 8 months ago
Of course there is no such thing as a Catholic child. We must remember to respect and value all the little Finian taigs.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@jsho "... a fine line "
That whole soliloquy is just a cover for saying "I can do anything I want". Reread what you wrote. Basically, you said you can justify anything if it meets your own "individual relativism". I have heard pedophiles give similar justifications for why they do the things they do. After all, it meets their own individual relativism. Mockery and ridicule is simply something the bad guys do and the good guys never do. It is one way to tell them apart. It isn't in a gray area.
tuggleprentiss 8 months ago
@tuggleprentiss He's referring to ridiculing the beliefs. Humour is an effective way of facilitating inquiry and overcoming negative emotions attached to inquiry. Like Darkmatter2525's vids they are extremely funny videos ridiculing christian beleifs. In fact Joe Rogan's ridicule of the story of Noah's ark honestly began my apostasy from Islam, I had always had doubts but that gave me the perspective and emotional motivation to seriously question my beliefs.
strangestdude 8 months ago
@strangestdude "Humour is an effective way of facilitating inquiry "
I am all for humor. Ridicule like we are talking about here is not humour. It is intentionally hurtful derision and mockery. You can do a funny parody of Noah's ark and that is not ridicule. It is parody. Ridicule and mockery have an expression of contempt for the other person. If you mean parody, say parody. There is a difference between being comic and being contemptuous. My objection is to the contemptuous, not humour.
tuggleprentiss 8 months ago
@tuggleprentiss Fair enough. But we have a different definition of the term, your using it to mean mockery of a person, I think it can also mean mockery of a belief. And I believe Mr Dawkins was using it in the latter context.
strangestdude 8 months ago
Mockery is so imbued with scorn & contempt, I can't see that is good for anyone to feel, nor convincing to any audience listening. If you want to do parody, a comic representation of your message, chiding, I am fine with that. Scorn & contempt just have a meanness or bullying aspect that is not right, even directed at a belief. Good people wouldn't use it. You (or Dawkins) may mean a benign parody or comic ribbing. But some on these threads hear ridicule or mockery and don't limit it to that.
tuggleprentiss 8 months ago
@tuggleprentiss "It is intentionally hurtful derision and mockery."
That's something I'm fine with.
tazer95 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tazer95 "That's something I'm fine with."
Then you know you are being a bully when you do it. Some people are fine with that I guess. I would speak not to those intentionally bullying, but instead to those who may not realize they are. Hopefully most atheists are not fine with bullying tactics.
tuggleprentiss 7 months ago
"... a chance that just telling them they're ridiculous will change there mind?"
First off, telling someone they are ridiculous and actively ridiculing someone are two different things. Ridicule is mockery and derision. Not a caring discussion with someone about how that someone may be appearing to others. Actively mocking and ridiculing is another thing entirely.
" ... without getting your hands dirty? "
Personally I don't want my hand dirty. If you do, why not take the next step and lie?
tuggleprentiss 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jshowa2 "If you think life has to be fair somehow, it shows you are really naive about reality."
I have no illusions that life is fair. There are people who are mean to us, lie to us and mock and ridicule us. Those people are bad guys. Bullies. Why do you want to be one of them?
tuggleprentiss 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jshowa2 "And if you want to go with evidence that ridicule is effective, I can dig some up if you want."
And if you want to go with evidence that lying is effective, I can dig some up if you want. My point isn't how effective it may be, it is how reprehensible it is.
tuggleprentiss 8 months ago
Actually disbelieving in the president is pretty much stardard for Texans now.
Frostbite864 8 months ago
God is talking through Dawkin's mouth!! please the lord!!
luinkazofeifa 8 months ago
@jshowa2 "because no where did anyone advocate ridiculing as the only way to change minds"
I never said anyone said it was the only way. My point was that it is totally unacceptable for any decent human being to do.
tuggleprentiss 8 months ago
@jshowa2 "And I'm not solely advocating using ridicule as the only means ... "
Fine, you will try some reasonable argumentation before starting your bullying tactics. Got it. Now why do you think that makes bullying acceptable?
tuggleprentiss 8 months ago
@jshowa2 " If mocking and intimidating were useless, why is it still here? Why hasn't it been selected against? It obviously has some sort of biological advantage."
Torture and telling falsehoods are still here too, so those have some sort of biological advantage too. Not everything with a biological advantage, e.g. killing or blinding your opponent, or telling lies about them, is something fair to do.
tuggleprentiss 8 months ago
@tuggleprentiss "The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile."
- Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon to Berthier 11 Nov 1798, Corres., V, no. 3606 p. 128 quoted in - Napoleon on the Art of War
gamesbok 8 months ago
@jshowa2 -- No it isn't. When you carefully explain to someone that what they believe is irrational, that is argumentation. Ridicule involves derision and mockery and expression of contempt. I have no problem with you explaining to someone why their beliefs are irrational. But that is what posters here are saying they WON'T do because they believe the theists are so thick and stupid. Instead they plan on ridicule, something different than the argumentation you suggest doing.
tuggleprentiss 8 months ago
@jshowa2 "because you realize all the strategies available to you"
I guess you realize whips, cattle prods and lying are available too, right? Ridicule isn't the only way to tap into emotions, but it is an illegitimate way. There are lots of appropriate ways to appeal to emotions through sentiment. Ridicule is intentionally destructive and cruel.
tuggleprentiss 8 months ago
@jshowa2 "You may not accept it, but it is a valid tactic."
Then cattle prods and whips are valid tactics too. They work sometimes too. Certainly lying works better. All of those, especially ridicule, are the tactics of bullies, thugs and the cruel. Just saying something is bogus and you don't believe it is not ridicule. Ridicule is mockery and derision. Where do you draw the line with your tactics?
tuggleprentiss 8 months ago
@jshowa2 "So in those cases you have to prod"
So if you need to prod, why not cattle prods? Whips? Maybe that would turn the tide. Using illegitimate means whether cattle prods or ridicule or lying just shows the world who you are. It shows the user as a bully. Not someone winning the day with superior logic, but instead through pain, physical or emotional or mental.
tuggleprentiss 8 months ago
@rriabdb No, that's Phrenology
sasnsatx 8 months ago
Two of the greatest atheist minds acting as the bread in a fu*ktard sandwich.
Cougar139tweak 8 months ago 43
@corbettcreek1 this single sentence is the bible's greatest contribution toward keeping people stupid.
MrKentHovind 8 months ago
@rriabdb .
8 P
Morkindie 8 months ago
Richard Dawkins is religious after all... he's a Steve Job's follower in the Cult of Mac.
Brutus1581 8 months ago
@crusader331 It's not really bashing on religion, it's more an attempt to gain their own foothold in a world which is traditionally religous and therefor their views are being attacked. So they simply counter attack - religions are now under attack cos of the atheist movement succes but it is only because of the way religion treated non believers. It's a battleground - and the winner gets to define what is true and what is good. I personally hope the atheists wins
BjornSeverinLarsen 8 months ago 10
Lost souls...
BlackRonin2917 8 months ago
@BlackRonin2917 Blind mind...
BjornSeverinLarsen 8 months ago
@BlackRonin2917
I don't have a Soul and I'm not lost.
Your comment is worthless =^_^=
BlankPicketSign 8 months ago
@BlankPicketSign I really pity you if you feel that way. I guess you believe you're no different from a snake or an amoeba.
BlackRonin2917 8 months ago
@BlackRonin2917
Biologically you are wrong. I am VERY different from a snake, I am a Mammal after all =^_^=
I also have Hair and canines, things Snakes lack, I also have a very well developed brain.
What I am is Different, NOT superior. I cannot survive in 0 degrees while naked, I do not have Venom, I cannot live for 5 mouths without eating.
I am a Biological Being, I am Different, but a member of a biological family none the less.
"I really pity you if you feel that way"
Why? I am happy =^_^=
BlankPicketSign 8 months ago
It's going to be tough to get rid of certain phrases like "Catholic child" or "Jewish child" because these labels have ethnic connotations as well as religious connotations.
butchkitties 8 months ago
Did he just say that we should change which truth claims we accept on the basis of ridicule and sarcasm as opposed to reason? If Dawkins really wants to raise our consciousness then he'll show how ridiculous the views of Dr. Craig are by filling the empty chair later this year. I'm looking forward to it.
evangelical1 8 months ago
@evangelical1
"Did he just say that we should change which truth claims we accept on the basis of ridicule and sarcasm as opposed to reason?"
No, your assessment is incorrect, please watch the video twice =^_^=
BlankPicketSign 8 months ago
@chiefkyle1 - Well that's just silly. You claim to be "a protected class" (I suspect only in your drag queen fantasies, but...) as if that magically excludes you from bigotry. It does not, and anyone who is even casually acquainted with civil rights knows this is nonsense. The juxtaposition, indeed, the foundation of atheism and civil rights, is the ability to think rationally. Once you introduce evidence and rationality, such things as superstition, sexism and bigotry are natural casualties.
47f0 8 months ago
@chiefkyle1
Bullshit.
Expect no further reply, for you are a waste of my time.
Morkindie 8 months ago
@chiefkyle1 I suppose Dawkins should keep his mouth shut about evolution and AronRa should not mention phylogeny? Again, how is drawing attention to sexism leftist?
BTW She is also an atheist and a skeptic.
Morkindie 8 months ago 3
@Gilmaris ...wrong, would you still take me serious? No. Because anyone can see that the idea of dragons, much less invisible dragons that I talk to, is completely absurd. That's just one example. You could easily think up many, many more. That's why it's important to go by reason and logic and rational thinking when thinking about things.
LockardKevin 8 months ago
I am glad there is scientific community that doesn't allow itself to be categorized by its own deodand. As' I hope that everyone is an individual, each to one's own thought process. Double check there any of contemplations of any human; and don't be so egoistic-to say 'if a scientist is not an Atheist?' His or her hard work and discipline and high IQ is not worthy of us.' That is a real danger to get into this mode of stapling Christianity as a idiopathic compass. Beware of your
own
science.
mamaschristmasbunny 8 months ago
@mamaschristmasbunny Exactly. I mean did you see a beautiful mind? Once the fellow realized he was insane he was able to work around his insanity and still put out good mathematical works. In the same way christians can compartmentalize their eccentricity from real world science and put out good science. The problem is when don't compartmentalize.
ratholin 8 months ago
@chiefkyle1 I believe that if Atheists are to associate as a group, or in an organized manner, it is important that we bring as little baggage as possible. Atheists are humans and as such are susceptible to all manner of bigoted ideas. How is that leftist?
Morkindie 8 months ago
Comment removed
mamaschristmasbunny 8 months ago
@thkaal1 Fair point.
I may have drawn the bow a little too far.
Speaking of Dawkins, do you think he is a legitimate make sex symbol in the athiest, rational thinking science cross over community? I think he could be.
GraeHall 8 months ago
@chiefkyle1 Dawkins merely referencing feminism offends you? If you're that weak, then I suggest you bar yourself from social discourse entirely.
Exitus767 8 months ago
nationalism is a problem too.
LORDNAG1 8 months ago
One problem with Dawkins' poorly-defended case for ridicule is that cross-cultural ridicule has additional negative corollaries that some atheists can't persevere when launching into ridicule-based assaults on Islam.
Like it or not, religions become iconic of ethnic cultures, so ridicule-attacks on Islam coming from those within western culture could be perceived by the very people we need to reach as attacks on their culture per se, which risks burning the bridge for them out of religion.
iamgoddard 8 months ago
@thkaal1: if you saw their actions giving him water as "servicing him", and you saw that they did so as women, not people, then I think you need to have a long talk with someone about feminism and how your views on gender roles are colouring your observations of a potentially neutral situation.
4 SRS. yo. The first thing I thought when I saw the water being brought over, after Dawkins only had tickles, then hte person next to him helping, was "that's really kind, and reflects well on this group
GraeHall 8 months ago
@omegavalerius It's more a seperation of judgement, I both judge them individually from eachother. If I would to judge a person, I wouldn't care about what beliefsystem they have, I would jusge them by their actions. Same with religion.
DoggySpew 8 months ago
Dawkins speaks what I think for times. I don't judge the person for there beliefs, I judge the person.
DoggySpew 8 months ago
@DoggySpew
I think you mean to say you judge the beliefs and not the person? At least that is what Dawkins says.
omegavalerius 8 months ago
@DoggySpew but a person's character is in a large part determined by beliefs, especially religious beliefs. and to know one's religious affiliation one can indeed make a judgement of their character.
it is like meeting someone who is a member of a neonazi party. you already know from the party membership that the person's character is despicable without even further analyzing it. same goes for members of religions, especially abrahamic religions: they are *all* morally bankrupt by definition.
Meskiagkasher 8 months ago
@Meskiagkasher
"same goes for members of religions, especially abrahamic religions: they are *all* morally bankrupt by definition."
On the contrary... They are simply attributing their own well held morality to a magical course.
Nothing thrashes about more pathetically than a christian who claims that the bible is god's irrelevant and immutable perfect word, when confronted with the moral bankruptcy of the bible.
They conform and cherry pick their "perfect word" to their own secular morality.
DeathofSpeech 8 months ago
@DeathofSpeech Actually, I don't think they call the bible "irrelevant", irrelevant means "of no importance" and to Christians, the bible is very important (the more fanatic they are, the more important it is). I believe the word you were looking for is "inerrant" (without flaw). And sure, they cherrypick the acceptable stuff from the gory one, but the real danger is when they accept the gory one as justified-by-the-source.
JaguarEscarlata 8 months ago
@JaguarEscarlata
Actually no... that isn't the the word I was looking for, it was the word I used. I've been Spell Czeched and Auto-miscorrected to death.
Please don't preach at me about the importance of the bible.
You can either argue on point or don't bother.
I don't have time in my life for more Thunderf00t brand equivocation fallacies.
DeathofSpeech 8 months ago
@Meskiagkasher
I disagree with you there. Your affiliation to a group, no matter how corrupt that group may be, does not automatically make you corrupt as well. Your example of the neonazi group association for instance: There alot of people who "didn't know any better" and left the group. Oscar Schindler, the guy who saved thousands of jews in WW2, was a Nazi party member.
That's why I judge people and their affiliations separately, even if in the end those people overlap with them.
DoggySpew 8 months ago
Comment removed
Meskiagkasher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DoggySpew @DoggySpew I do judge people by the affiliations they deliberately hold on to. People who are forced into an affiliation that they do not actually identify with do not fall under that judgement, of course. But it can be found out pretty fast whether someone in fact adheres to the abrahamic deity or is just following the herd.
Meskiagkasher 8 months ago
Where's part 3 ?
DoggySpew 8 months ago
Theism is the muck and pulp piled at the bottom of an out house pit. Theists are the people that are willing to bathe in that filth. It's not that theists are bad people, it's that they have a repulsive and unclean habit. I don't hate them, but they stink so bad that I want to puke if they get too close. If you are a Theist... I urge you to bathe in the fresh running water of critical thought. It'll take some time to wash the flies, reek and filth off; but it'll be worth it. You won't look back.
elbowbiter1 8 months ago
@burnyourcrutch Well said sir!
Zeuts85 8 months ago
@ReignbowSmite I think that people try to gain happiness my joining religions, but don't realize that they sacrifice more happiness then they gain. It's sort of like selling your soul to the devil for eternal youth.
LordRakton 8 months ago
Part 3 can be found by searching youtube under communicating atheism Dawkins and scrolling down to part 3.
imthedonna 8 months ago
Dawkins wasn't bad, but I have to say that AronRa was the best speaker! I think that there will be many great days ahead for him. He's already eloquent. I'm pretty sure he can become a well-known speaker in the world.
Rationalific 8 months ago
I am influenced by reason and logic rather than ridicule.
MrWagman11 8 months ago
@MrWagman11 Certainly. But then, you're not the sort of person that needs to be persuaded. The sort of people who need persuading are those who really only care about the moral and/or social implications of faith. To change those minds, we need to establish the sense that believing nonsense will force them to pay a price in social terms--the price of looking foolish.
Zeuts85 8 months ago
@MrWagman11 You're in the minority, emotional peer pressure is king.
emikochan13 8 months ago
Moral of the story...Proper Education is the way to salvation not dogmatic religious texts.That is what i took away from the conversation.
DastardlyDereK 8 months ago
Excellent - but I would love to see the missing part 3.
goosed1 8 months ago
@goosed1
part 3:
/watch?v=Mhz0CukqDCw
when you watch it, you'll probably understand why the speaker wanted AronRa to take it down.
bulbulxp 8 months ago
I wonder if I had ever been able to get rid of my theist indoctrination if not for ridicule. Not personal attacks of course but ridicule of theistic belief. It made me feel uncomfortable with the things that I believed in and forced me to study those beliefs more closely, which eventually lead me to freeing myself from them.
ObakeOnna 8 months ago
@ObakeOnna Probibly not. We are still primates. You can rationalize your belief even after it has been shown to be false, just as your ansester might still believe that he should be the alpha of his troop even though the current alpha demonstrated that he was obviously bigger and stronger. Humilitation of those beliefs, on the other hand, goes beyond any rationalizing. Your theist beliefs just needed a good " thrown poop to the face" in front of the females.
Felhaven 8 months ago
@Felhaven I'm not sure if I can agree with that hypothesis, because it assumes that all humans regardless of gender think like male apes. While women aren't stuck with hierarchies practically set in stone at birth like most primates, I don't think there's enough evidence to show that human women think like male chimps either.
ObakeOnna 8 months ago
@ObakeOnna Prehaps not. However, human females and males think more alike than other primates. Primarily because humans are near unique in the fact that females compete for male attention. In other species this is simply not found.
In any case i was simply making the point that humiliation reached benieth the conscious mind to the instints below. Case and point is teenagers doing dumb things for fear of being mocked or rejected.
Felhaven 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@burnyourcrutch "Please clarify. Would you then say that I was both a Republican and a Christian, based on what I said?"
Maybe.
Did you believe in it?
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
@burnyourcrutch You don't have to be able to make a "meaningful decision" to make a decision.
...and anyway: most adult christians/muslims/whatever barely know a thing about the bible/koran/whatever or their faith in general. That doesn't stop them from being christians/muslims/whatever.
My cousins really believed in what they were indoctrinated in (i.e. islam), and still do.
If they believe in the religion, they are adherents of it.
Thus meaning they were, and are, muslims Q.E.D.
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen to be honest, if you can't make a decision on you're own, you're still a child. Religious people act like children consistently in my experience...
emikochan13 8 months ago
@emikochan13 "to be honest, if you can't make a decision on you're own, you're still a child."
Human beings are physically incapable, of not being able to make decisions.
"Religious people act like children consistently in my experience..."
So you agree that there is such a thing as a muslim/christian/whatever child then?
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen I don't agree with that, he's talking about children pre-indoctrination. And tbh even after indoctrination, if you didn't rationalise a choice then you aren't really x denomination, you're just someone parroting what your peers told you.
If there was no choice to be made, it's not fair to say that they are something, if they've never known anything else.
I hope that clarifies my opinion.
emikochan13 8 months ago
@emikochan13 "he's talking about children pre-indoctrination."
He said children. No more, no less.
"And tbh even after indoctrination, if you didn't rationalise a choice then you aren't really x denomination, you're just someone parroting what your peers told you.
If there was no choice to be made, it's not fair to say that they are something, if they've never known anything else."
So by your definition, MOST christians/muslims/jews/whatever AREN'T christians/muslims/jews/whatever?
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
@ZarlanTheGreen Yes that's what I'm saying, How many religious people actually follow their books? (thankfully a minimal amount in the developed world)
I always say actions speak louder than words. If you don't actually follow what you say you follow, you're on the fence.
emikochan13 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emikochan13 "Yes that's what I'm saying"
Then I say that your definitions of "christian", "muslim", "religious believer" etc are almost unusable and fairly useless.
I think words are meant to be useful in communicating meaning. You clearly don't.
"If you don't actually follow what you say you follow, you're on the fence."
Bullshit.
You are a hypocrite, sure, but you sure as hell aren't on any kind of fence, in any way.
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
I disagree with Dawkins on Catholic School Girls, I see it as (Catholic School) Girl not Catholic (School Girl) Catholic refers to the school not the Girl
rarrmonkey 8 months ago
Why i love atheist people, they accept you for who you are, even if you don't know it yourself yet.
krapptacular 8 months ago
I really like Richard's emphasis on ridicule. I've been of the opinion for a while now that ridicule, especially with the power of numbers, could be very a powerful tool in causing doubt and making people reevaluate their beliefs. The theist beliefs are very foolish, but they can't see that from the inside, nor would they doubt it because of their feeling of saftey in conformity. To make a theist feel like the outsider for once could be very healthy for them I think, and ridicule acomplishes it.
Deanbass77 8 months ago 3
I want to see part 3 T____T
MistressArte 8 months ago
as a child i was a marxist. =P jk, but my mom raised me as a jehovah's witness. well i got better.
greycloud24 8 months ago
@FreeOneSolo But if a belief hasn't in any way been proven wrong, then it isn't really stupid, is it? For example, the belief in a flat earth is stupid in light of evidence for a round earth, but for early man, without access to this evidence, the belief in a flat earth is downright scientific.
I think you'll find, by the way, that theists are very opposed to stupid ideas as well. I don't think you'll find a single theist who thinks of his beliefs as stupid.
Gilmaris 8 months ago
@Gilmaris Actually, yes, it is very much possible for a belief to be stupid, even if it hasn't been proven wrong. We ridicule a lot of beliefs that haven't been (and maybe never could be) proven wrong just because they are too outlandish or extraordinary to be taken seriously. Of course, everyone will have their own personal view on what is stupid and what isn't, but still.
LockardKevin 8 months ago