What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

“Not only has Dawkins ruined science. He’s ruined atheism too.”

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,322
Reaction score
1,467
Points
903

Not only has Dawkins ruined science, he’s ruined atheism too.


20 years ago, an atheist was an intellectual with whom one could have a reasonable dialogue.


Today, most people experience atheists as bellicose angry males who commonly suffer from depression, who post anonymous tirades all over the internet so they can share their misery with everyone else.


We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens.


Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell.


Agree or disagree, they will force you to think.


Wanna have a pointless shouting match with a bunch of mannerless name-callers who make up just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and think they’re doing science? Sit down with guys who read Krauss, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Walk into a roomful of Dawkins fans.


They will force you to emote.


So, dear atheist, why are you sitting here defending any of these proselytizers?


Dawkins was molested by a homosexual as a child, so naturally he's screwed up.
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,134
Reaction score
6,662
Points
2,050
"We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens."

Never read their stuff

"Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell."


Read some of their stuff

I don't defend anyone, all I want is evidence from religious people that god exist, nothing more.
 
OP
D

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,322
Reaction score
1,467
Points
903
"We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens."

Never read their stuff

"Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell."

Read some of their stuff

I don't defend anyone, all I want is evidence from religious people that god exist, nothing more.

I've read all of them from both lists, and I'm not a believer either. I do however, appreciate Judeo-Christian theology and its great historical influences on western society and culture, and see no point in bashing them; atheists and pagans just don't have any basis for sniveling over them as much as they do. I agree with Hayek on religion and its results compared to the dismal results 'rational constructionists' have generated; thier results are their proof as far as social effects and moderating forces are concerned. Turns out for the 'rationalists' that mass murder is the solution of choice for all economic and social problems, left or right wingers.
 
Last edited:

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,134
Reaction score
6,662
Points
2,050
"We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens."

Never read their stuff

"Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell."

Read some of their stuff

I don't defend anyone, all I want is evidence from religious people that god exist, nothing more.

I've read all of them from both lists, and I'm not a believer either. I do however, appreciate Judeo-Christian theology and its great historical influences on western society and culture, and see no point in bashing them; atheists and pagans just don't have any basis for sniveling over them as much as they do. I agree with Hayek on religion and its results compared to the dismal results 'rational constructionists' have generated; thier results are their proof as far as social effects and moderating forces are concerned. Turns out for the 'rationalists' that mass murder is the solution of choice for all economic and social problems, left or right wingers.

I am sure the native American Indians liked having Christianity shoved down their throats, I am sure Small Pox blankets and alcohol were just accidents, I am sure their religious missions are fair to the conquered as long as they obeyed....., They have been attacked by OTHER religions,,,,,, does this mean their are god are not the same all over the world......

I bash religionists for attacking Atheists for not being a believer, while they refuse to answer the common Atheist request for evidence that god exist... :laugh:

After 30 years of my simple question about whether god exist gets ignored or ridiculed, I am forced decide they have none, thus consider their beliefs irrational and stupid.
 

Blackrook

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
19,681
Reaction score
8,675
Points
940
God exists because we exist, and we didn't create ourselves.
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,134
Reaction score
6,662
Points
2,050
I don't defend anyone, all I want is evidence from religious people that god exist, nothing more.
There is that word again, 'evidence'. What would suffice as evidence for you that god exists? And I am not formally religious in any sense of the word, FYI.

It is the person who insist that god exist to PROVIDE the evidence, since they say god exist they must have the evidence to share others with yet they don't even try to answer it.

What do YOU think the evidence should be?

Snicker......
 
Last edited:

Thoth001

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
3,596
Reaction score
3,300
Points
1,908

Not only has Dawkins ruined science, he’s ruined atheism too.


20 years ago, an atheist was an intellectual with whom one could have a reasonable dialogue.


Today, most people experience atheists as bellicose angry males who commonly suffer from depression, who post anonymous tirades all over the internet so they can share their misery with everyone else.


We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens.


Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell.


Agree or disagree, they will force you to think.


Wanna have a pointless shouting match with a bunch of mannerless name-callers who make up just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and think they’re doing science? Sit down with guys who read Krauss, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Walk into a roomful of Dawkins fans.


They will force you to emote.


So, dear atheist, why are you sitting here defending any of these proselytizers?


Dawkins was molested by a homosexual as a child, so naturally he's screwed up.

I just don't understand that when you tell a Christian or someone in a religion that you don't follow a religion or are not a Christian, they automatically think you are an Atheist. Which I have nothing against Atheist. Afterall my dad was and Atheist and he would always tell me that once you are dead you are dead. But through my own research I have done, I don't find that to be the case. I believe we may have a misunderstanding of what Source or God is and religion is just another program to confuse us and give all our power to some outside entity, outside of ourselves.
 
OP
D

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,322
Reaction score
1,467
Points
903

Not only has Dawkins ruined science, he’s ruined atheism too.


20 years ago, an atheist was an intellectual with whom one could have a reasonable dialogue.


Today, most people experience atheists as bellicose angry males who commonly suffer from depression, who post anonymous tirades all over the internet so they can share their misery with everyone else.


We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens.


Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell.


Agree or disagree, they will force you to think.


Wanna have a pointless shouting match with a bunch of mannerless name-callers who make up just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and think they’re doing science? Sit down with guys who read Krauss, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Walk into a roomful of Dawkins fans.


They will force you to emote.


So, dear atheist, why are you sitting here defending any of these proselytizers?


Dawkins was molested by a homosexual as a child, so naturally he's screwed up.

I just don't understand that when you tell a Christian or someone in a religion that you don't follow a religion or are not a Christian, they automatically think you are an Atheist. Which I have nothing against Atheist. Afterall my dad was and Atheist and he would always tell me that once you are dead you are dead. But through my own research I have done, I don't find that to be the case. I believe we may have a misunderstanding of what Source or God is and religion is just another program to confuse us and give all our power to some outside entity, outside of ourselves.

I look at all of them as part of the history of the regions they develop in, whether it be China, India, etc. Christianity is by far the most developed theology and the best re social, legal, and political evolution than any of the others, hands down. I consider it a very lucky break to have been born in one where it had a major influence. As we can see today, it's decline hasn't been a generally positive thing for the culture here or in Europe.

I can't think of an Islamic, Hindu, or Confucian country I would chose to be born in over where I was born.
 
Last edited:
OP
D

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,322
Reaction score
1,467
Points
903
"We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens."

Never read their stuff

"Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell."

Read some of their stuff

I don't defend anyone, all I want is evidence from religious people that god exist, nothing more.

I've read all of them from both lists, and I'm not a believer either. I do however, appreciate Judeo-Christian theology and its great historical influences on western society and culture, and see no point in bashing them; atheists and pagans just don't have any basis for sniveling over them as much as they do. I agree with Hayek on religion and its results compared to the dismal results 'rational constructionists' have generated; thier results are their proof as far as social effects and moderating forces are concerned. Turns out for the 'rationalists' that mass murder is the solution of choice for all economic and social problems, left or right wingers.

I am sure the native American Indians liked having Christianity shoved down their throats, I am sure Small Pox blankets and alcohol were just accidents, I am sure their religious missions are fair to the conquered as long as they obeyed....., They have been attacked by OTHER religions,,,,,, does this mean their are god are not the same all over the world.....

Screw 'native Americans'; they were a nasty bunch of savages and murderers, who tortured others for entertainment. The small pox blanket myth has been exploded long ago, and the Indians loved booze and would could be hired to mass murder anybody for a few kegs, nobody forced anything on them, they were already into conquests and genocides long before Whitey showed up. They were also cheats and liars before then, too. Many of them today are no different.

I bash religionists for attacking Atheists for not being a believer, while they refuse to answer the common Atheist request for evidence that god exist... :laugh:

I forgot how important you are to the universe; I too am mystified as to why a god wouldn't perform magic on demand for such a central key force on the planet as you. lol

After 30 years of my simple question about whether god exist gets ignored or ridiculed, I am forced decide they have none, thus consider their beliefs irrational and stupid.

Why should they care what you think? Christianity is a 'free will' doctrine. And it is stupid to keep asking beleivers why they beleive, and as I've said there is nothing 'special' about 'rationalists' and their dismal results re anything; they in fact get worse results than the 'irrational' Christians have.
 
Last edited:

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
7,598
Reaction score
8,679
Points
2,118

Not only has Dawkins ruined science, he’s ruined atheism too.


20 years ago, an atheist was an intellectual with whom one could have a reasonable dialogue.


Today, most people experience atheists as bellicose angry males who commonly suffer from depression, who post anonymous tirades all over the internet so they can share their misery with everyone else.


We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens.


Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell.


Agree or disagree, they will force you to think.


Wanna have a pointless shouting match with a bunch of mannerless name-callers who make up just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and think they’re doing science? Sit down with guys who read Krauss, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Walk into a roomful of Dawkins fans.


They will force you to emote.


So, dear atheist, why are you sitting here defending any of these proselytizers?


Dawkins was molested by a homosexual as a child, so naturally he's screwed up.
I am an atheist and a woman-------I know who Hawkins is but not who the other three are much less read their work. I became an atheist at the age of 4 when I started to read books (I started school early.) The children's version of Adam and Eve was enough to convince me that 1) the Bible is a Fable based off the Talking snake bit and 2) that this god creature is fucking evil as he attacks people for just gaining knowledge. More importantly, I learned that adults with their christian beliefs must be insane not to grasp either of these two facts.
 
OP
D

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,322
Reaction score
1,467
Points
903

Not only has Dawkins ruined science, he’s ruined atheism too.


20 years ago, an atheist was an intellectual with whom one could have a reasonable dialogue.


Today, most people experience atheists as bellicose angry males who commonly suffer from depression, who post anonymous tirades all over the internet so they can share their misery with everyone else.


We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens.


Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell.


Agree or disagree, they will force you to think.


Wanna have a pointless shouting match with a bunch of mannerless name-callers who make up just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and think they’re doing science? Sit down with guys who read Krauss, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Walk into a roomful of Dawkins fans.


They will force you to emote.


So, dear atheist, why are you sitting here defending any of these proselytizers?


Dawkins was molested by a homosexual as a child, so naturally he's screwed up.
I am an atheist and a woman-------I know who Hawkins is but not who the other three are much less read their work. I became an atheist at the age of 4 when I started to read books (I started school early.) The children's version of Adam and Eve was enough to convince me that 1) the Bible is a Fable based off the Talking snake bit and 2) that this god creature is fucking evil as he attacks people for just gaining knowledge. More importantly, I learned that adults with their christian beliefs must be insane not to grasp either of these two facts.

So you can define how science can prove 'Happy', according to Dawkins? I read the books as literature, philosophy, a little history, a lot of sociology. I pay no attention to how assorted freaks and psychos distort the works to their own ends; that isn't the fault of the books or a blot on the theology, any more than a Nazi school book that teaches 2 +2 = 4 means we have to condemn arithmetic.
 

cnm

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2013
Messages
33,642
Reaction score
18,159
Points
2,905
Location
Aotearoa
There is that word again, 'evidence'. What would suffice as evidence for you that god exists? And I am not formally religious in any sense of the word, FYI.
This would do for me...

 

Thoth001

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
3,596
Reaction score
3,300
Points
1,908

Not only has Dawkins ruined science, he’s ruined atheism too.


20 years ago, an atheist was an intellectual with whom one could have a reasonable dialogue.


Today, most people experience atheists as bellicose angry males who commonly suffer from depression, who post anonymous tirades all over the internet so they can share their misery with everyone else.


We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens.


Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell.


Agree or disagree, they will force you to think.


Wanna have a pointless shouting match with a bunch of mannerless name-callers who make up just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and think they’re doing science? Sit down with guys who read Krauss, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Walk into a roomful of Dawkins fans.


They will force you to emote.


So, dear atheist, why are you sitting here defending any of these proselytizers?


Dawkins was molested by a homosexual as a child, so naturally he's screwed up.

I just don't understand that when you tell a Christian or someone in a religion that you don't follow a religion or are not a Christian, they automatically think you are an Atheist. Which I have nothing against Atheist. Afterall my dad was and Atheist and he would always tell me that once you are dead you are dead. But through my own research I have done, I don't find that to be the case. I believe we may have a misunderstanding of what Source or God is and religion is just another program to confuse us and give all our power to some outside entity, outside of ourselves.

I look at all of them as part of the history of the regions they develop in, whether it be China, India, etc. Christianity is by far the most developed theology and the best re social, legal, and political evolution than any of the others, hands down. I consider it a very lucky break to have been born in one where it had a major influence. As we can see today, it's decline hasn't been a generally positive thing for the culture here or in Europe.

I can't think of an Islamic, Hindu, or Confucian country I would chose to be born in over where I was born.

Those are good points. But then when you really think about it, it was the running away from the Catholic Church and King George to American to be free. Even Thomas Paine wrote about Christianity in the 1700's with the Age of Reason. It might just be, that people had a place to run to where there still was freedom. We are kind of out of spots to run now. Unless you can find some good islands. :D
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
7,598
Reaction score
8,679
Points
2,118

Not only has Dawkins ruined science, he’s ruined atheism too.


20 years ago, an atheist was an intellectual with whom one could have a reasonable dialogue.


Today, most people experience atheists as bellicose angry males who commonly suffer from depression, who post anonymous tirades all over the internet so they can share their misery with everyone else.


We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens.


Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell.


Agree or disagree, they will force you to think.


Wanna have a pointless shouting match with a bunch of mannerless name-callers who make up just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and think they’re doing science? Sit down with guys who read Krauss, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Walk into a roomful of Dawkins fans.


They will force you to emote.


So, dear atheist, why are you sitting here defending any of these proselytizers?


Dawkins was molested by a homosexual as a child, so naturally he's screwed up.
I am an atheist and a woman-------I know who Hawkins is but not who the other three are much less read their work. I became an atheist at the age of 4 when I started to read books (I started school early.) The children's version of Adam and Eve was enough to convince me that 1) the Bible is a Fable based off the Talking snake bit and 2) that this god creature is fucking evil as he attacks people for just gaining knowledge. More importantly, I learned that adults with their christian beliefs must be insane not to grasp either of these two facts.

So you can define how science can prove 'Happy', according to Dawkins? I read the books as literature, philosophy, a little history, a lot of sociology. I pay no attention to how assorted freaks and psychos distort the works to their own ends; that isn't the fault of the books or a blot on the theology, any more than a Nazi school book that teaches 2 +2 = 4 means we have to condemn arithmetic.
It has nothing to do with Happy or Dawkins--

Rational conclusion---Talking snake (animals) always mean a fable. Animals don't talk.
Evil creature attacking people for knowledge always means EVIL--and to avoid.

I have always read the books as Evil fables not accurate in anything.

It wasn't till I got older and realized that druggies often have delusions especially where it relates to their gods. People tripping on drugs make up all sorts of shit and have delusions of their greatness and place in the world. Lots of crazy drugged up people in the bible belt of texas and then las vegas claiming that they were or are the son/daughter of god or jesus or a reincarnation of jesus. Then I realized, that the writers of the bible-------were likely just druggies trying to justify their greatness back then as they do today. Once you realize that these are primative people tripping on drugs---all of their writings and claims make sense.
 

Thoth001

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
3,596
Reaction score
3,300
Points
1,908

Not only has Dawkins ruined science, he’s ruined atheism too.


20 years ago, an atheist was an intellectual with whom one could have a reasonable dialogue.


Today, most people experience atheists as bellicose angry males who commonly suffer from depression, who post anonymous tirades all over the internet so they can share their misery with everyone else.


We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens.


Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell.


Agree or disagree, they will force you to think.


Wanna have a pointless shouting match with a bunch of mannerless name-callers who make up just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and think they’re doing science? Sit down with guys who read Krauss, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Walk into a roomful of Dawkins fans.


They will force you to emote.


So, dear atheist, why are you sitting here defending any of these proselytizers?


Dawkins was molested by a homosexual as a child, so naturally he's screwed up.
I am an atheist and a woman-------I know who Hawkins is but not who the other three are much less read their work. I became an atheist at the age of 4 when I started to read books (I started school early.) The children's version of Adam and Eve was enough to convince me that 1) the Bible is a Fable based off the Talking snake bit and 2) that this god creature is fucking evil as he attacks people for just gaining knowledge. More importantly, I learned that adults with their christian beliefs must be insane not to grasp either of these two facts.

So you can define how science can prove 'Happy', according to Dawkins? I read the books as literature, philosophy, a little history, a lot of sociology. I pay no attention to how assorted freaks and psychos distort the works to their own ends; that isn't the fault of the books or a blot on the theology, any more than a Nazi school book that teaches 2 +2 = 4 means we have to condemn arithmetic.
It has nothing to do with Happy or Dawkins--

Rational conclusion---Talking snake (animals) always mean a fable. Animals don't talk.
Evil creature attacking people for knowledge always means EVIL--and to avoid.

I have always read the books as Evil fables not accurate in anything.

It wasn't till I got older and realized that druggies often have delusions especially where it relates to their gods. People tripping on drugs make up all sorts of shit and have delusions of their greatness and place in the world. Lots of crazy drugged up people in the bible belt of texas and then las vegas claiming that they were or are the son/daughter of god or jesus or a reincarnation of jesus. Then I realized, that the writers of the bible-------were likely just druggies trying to justify their greatness back then as they do today. Once you realize that these are primative people tripping on drugs---all of their writings and claims make sense.

I did learn something later in life about the Bible though that I never knew when I was a Christian in my teenage years. There is another way of reading it symbolically and not literally. A whole new story emerges when you look at the symbols.

In other words an amalgamation of ancient myths and occult archetypes. The Bible's characters, situations, parables, and lessons, just like the Tarot or Ching, are meant to be universal teachings, signposts to potentialities of human consciousness and experiences applicable to everyone at different times in their life. When read Gnostically, using our intuition and imagination, identifying and relating the various occult symbols, numbers, names, and stories, the Bible becomes an interesting, subtle, and infinitely varied metaphysical treatise.
 
OP
D

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,322
Reaction score
1,467
Points
903

Not only has Dawkins ruined science, he’s ruined atheism too.


20 years ago, an atheist was an intellectual with whom one could have a reasonable dialogue.


Today, most people experience atheists as bellicose angry males who commonly suffer from depression, who post anonymous tirades all over the internet so they can share their misery with everyone else.


We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens.


Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell.


Agree or disagree, they will force you to think.


Wanna have a pointless shouting match with a bunch of mannerless name-callers who make up just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and think they’re doing science? Sit down with guys who read Krauss, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Walk into a roomful of Dawkins fans.


They will force you to emote.


So, dear atheist, why are you sitting here defending any of these proselytizers?


Dawkins was molested by a homosexual as a child, so naturally he's screwed up.

I just don't understand that when you tell a Christian or someone in a religion that you don't follow a religion or are not a Christian, they automatically think you are an Atheist. Which I have nothing against Atheist. Afterall my dad was and Atheist and he would always tell me that once you are dead you are dead. But through my own research I have done, I don't find that to be the case. I believe we may have a misunderstanding of what Source or God is and religion is just another program to confuse us and give all our power to some outside entity, outside of ourselves.

I look at all of them as part of the history of the regions they develop in, whether it be China, India, etc. Christianity is by far the most developed theology and the best re social, legal, and political evolution than any of the others, hands down. I consider it a very lucky break to have been born in one where it had a major influence. As we can see today, it's decline hasn't been a generally positive thing for the culture here or in Europe.

I can't think of an Islamic, Hindu, or Confucian country I would chose to be born in over where I was born.

Those are good points. But then when you really think about it, it was the running away from the Catholic Church and King George to American to be free. Even Thomas Paine wrote about Christianity in the 1700's with the Age of Reason. It might just be, that people had a place to run to where there still was freedom. We are kind of out of spots to run now. Unless you can find some good islands. :D

You won't be running from Christians, you will be running from the commie materialists and assorted sociopaths and deviants replacing them, like the Democratic Party's Cadre run purges and racial violence. Thomas Paine was a blowhard; they dumped him as soon as his propaganda was no longer useful for them. They also deported James Otis. lol
 

Thoth001

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
3,596
Reaction score
3,300
Points
1,908

Not only has Dawkins ruined science, he’s ruined atheism too.


20 years ago, an atheist was an intellectual with whom one could have a reasonable dialogue.


Today, most people experience atheists as bellicose angry males who commonly suffer from depression, who post anonymous tirades all over the internet so they can share their misery with everyone else.


We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens.


Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell.


Agree or disagree, they will force you to think.


Wanna have a pointless shouting match with a bunch of mannerless name-callers who make up just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and think they’re doing science? Sit down with guys who read Krauss, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Walk into a roomful of Dawkins fans.


They will force you to emote.


So, dear atheist, why are you sitting here defending any of these proselytizers?


Dawkins was molested by a homosexual as a child, so naturally he's screwed up.

I just don't understand that when you tell a Christian or someone in a religion that you don't follow a religion or are not a Christian, they automatically think you are an Atheist. Which I have nothing against Atheist. Afterall my dad was and Atheist and he would always tell me that once you are dead you are dead. But through my own research I have done, I don't find that to be the case. I believe we may have a misunderstanding of what Source or God is and religion is just another program to confuse us and give all our power to some outside entity, outside of ourselves.

I look at all of them as part of the history of the regions they develop in, whether it be China, India, etc. Christianity is by far the most developed theology and the best re social, legal, and political evolution than any of the others, hands down. I consider it a very lucky break to have been born in one where it had a major influence. As we can see today, it's decline hasn't been a generally positive thing for the culture here or in Europe.

I can't think of an Islamic, Hindu, or Confucian country I would chose to be born in over where I was born.

Those are good points. But then when you really think about it, it was the running away from the Catholic Church and King George to American to be free. Even Thomas Paine wrote about Christianity in the 1700's with the Age of Reason. It might just be, that people had a place to run to where there still was freedom. We are kind of out of spots to run now. Unless you can find some good islands. :D

You won't be running from Christians, you will be running from the commie materialists and assorted sociopaths and deviants replacing them, like the Democratic Party's Cadre run purges and racial violence. Thomas Paine was a blowhard; they dumped him as soon as his propaganda was no longer useful for them. They also deported James Otis. lol

I agree with you on the commie materialists but I don't agree with you on Thomas Paine. If you read his books and pamphlets, you will find he was a great Patriot. Many Christians are also great Patriots. Paine was a Deist as many of the founding fathers were. But we really all need to come together to stop the destruction of the US. That is what it really comes down to.

If you ever want to read some 1700's literature, here are some books and pamphlets from Thomas Paine. I do understand why Christians would want to demonize him though.

 
OP
D

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,322
Reaction score
1,467
Points
903

Not only has Dawkins ruined science, he’s ruined atheism too.


20 years ago, an atheist was an intellectual with whom one could have a reasonable dialogue.


Today, most people experience atheists as bellicose angry males who commonly suffer from depression, who post anonymous tirades all over the internet so they can share their misery with everyone else.


We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens.


Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell.


Agree or disagree, they will force you to think.


Wanna have a pointless shouting match with a bunch of mannerless name-callers who make up just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and think they’re doing science? Sit down with guys who read Krauss, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Walk into a roomful of Dawkins fans.


They will force you to emote.


So, dear atheist, why are you sitting here defending any of these proselytizers?


Dawkins was molested by a homosexual as a child, so naturally he's screwed up.
I am an atheist and a woman-------I know who Hawkins is but not who the other three are much less read their work. I became an atheist at the age of 4 when I started to read books (I started school early.) The children's version of Adam and Eve was enough to convince me that 1) the Bible is a Fable based off the Talking snake bit and 2) that this god creature is fucking evil as he attacks people for just gaining knowledge. More importantly, I learned that adults with their christian beliefs must be insane not to grasp either of these two facts.

So you can define how science can prove 'Happy', according to Dawkins? I read the books as literature, philosophy, a little history, a lot of sociology. I pay no attention to how assorted freaks and psychos distort the works to their own ends; that isn't the fault of the books or a blot on the theology, any more than a Nazi school book that teaches 2 +2 = 4 means we have to condemn arithmetic.
It has nothing to do with Happy or Dawkins--

Rational conclusion---Talking snake (animals) always mean a fable. Animals don't talk.
Evil creature attacking people for knowledge always means EVIL--and to avoid.

I have always read the books as Evil fables not accurate in anything.

It wasn't till I got older and realized that druggies often have delusions especially where it relates to their gods. People tripping on drugs make up all sorts of shit and have delusions of their greatness and place in the world. Lots of crazy drugged up people in the bible belt of texas and then las vegas claiming that they were or are the son/daughter of god or jesus or a reincarnation of jesus. Then I realized, that the writers of the bible-------were likely just druggies trying to justify their greatness back then as they do today. Once you realize that these are primative people tripping on drugs---all of their writings and claims make sense.

Once you realize how complex and sophisticated the books they wrote were, you realize they weren't fakes and stoners. The stoners would be commies and libertoons.

Primitive technology doesn't conflate to stupid people, any more than working with technology implies brains. I trained lawn mower mechanics and burger flippers to build complex lasers; they didn't know a thing about how they worked nor why, they just had to be good with their hands and remember complex assembly processes. We have all kinds of halfwits with high self-esteem running around with little or no real education, too stupid to know they're uneducated, but they have a piece of paper from another idiot saying they're university grads,
 
OP
D

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,322
Reaction score
1,467
Points
903

Not only has Dawkins ruined science, he’s ruined atheism too.


20 years ago, an atheist was an intellectual with whom one could have a reasonable dialogue.


Today, most people experience atheists as bellicose angry males who commonly suffer from depression, who post anonymous tirades all over the internet so they can share their misery with everyone else.


We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens.


Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell.


Agree or disagree, they will force you to think.


Wanna have a pointless shouting match with a bunch of mannerless name-callers who make up just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and think they’re doing science? Sit down with guys who read Krauss, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Walk into a roomful of Dawkins fans.


They will force you to emote.


So, dear atheist, why are you sitting here defending any of these proselytizers?


Dawkins was molested by a homosexual as a child, so naturally he's screwed up.

I just don't understand that when you tell a Christian or someone in a religion that you don't follow a religion or are not a Christian, they automatically think you are an Atheist. Which I have nothing against Atheist. Afterall my dad was and Atheist and he would always tell me that once you are dead you are dead. But through my own research I have done, I don't find that to be the case. I believe we may have a misunderstanding of what Source or God is and religion is just another program to confuse us and give all our power to some outside entity, outside of ourselves.

I look at all of them as part of the history of the regions they develop in, whether it be China, India, etc. Christianity is by far the most developed theology and the best re social, legal, and political evolution than any of the others, hands down. I consider it a very lucky break to have been born in one where it had a major influence. As we can see today, it's decline hasn't been a generally positive thing for the culture here or in Europe.

I can't think of an Islamic, Hindu, or Confucian country I would chose to be born in over where I was born.

Those are good points. But then when you really think about it, it was the running away from the Catholic Church and King George to American to be free. Even Thomas Paine wrote about Christianity in the 1700's with the Age of Reason. It might just be, that people had a place to run to where there still was freedom. We are kind of out of spots to run now. Unless you can find some good islands. :D

You won't be running from Christians, you will be running from the commie materialists and assorted sociopaths and deviants replacing them, like the Democratic Party's Cadre run purges and racial violence. Thomas Paine was a blowhard; they dumped him as soon as his propaganda was no longer useful for them. They also deported James Otis. lol

I agree with you on the commie materialists but I don't agree with you on Thomas Paine. If you read his books and pamphlets, you will find he was a great Patriot. Many Christians are also great Patriots. Paine was a Deist as many of the founding fathers were.

I didn't say he wasn't a patriot, he was just a hired propagandist. Most Founder were not Deists, that's a myth, few were, actually, but Paine gets tossed up by those who want to sell a false narrative of the Founders and the establishment clause. There were far more Presbytarian and Methodist ministers and Congregationalists than the half dozen 'Deists';Jefferson was a Christian, acording to his letters anyway. The establishment clause was a reaction to the Anglicans campaign to force many states to make it a state favored sect, with taxing powers. The clause wanted to prevent them from voting themselves into nationally favored sect. Several states kept their state favored sects after the Constitutional Convention, some until 1834 or so, when demographic changes dis-established them, not the Supreme Court.

But we really all need to come together to stop the destruction of the US. That is what it really comes down to.

I certainly agree.

If you ever want to read some 1700's literature, here are some books and pamphlets from Thomas Paine. I do understand why Christians would want to demonize him though.


I have his writings, and I've read them. As you move along in your historical studies, you will find that 'The Enlightenment' era wasn't all that enlightened, and most of the Protestant anti-Catholic propaganda was total horseshit. In fact 'The Enlightenment' itself led to a wave of witch burnings and revivals of other superstitious pagan nonsense. It's worth noting that the most catholic regions of Europe had little or no witch burnings and hysterias, like Spain and Italy.
 
Last edited:

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$280.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top