04 May 2008, 9:12 pm
god I hope one of them doesn't mess with my brother (anywhere)
04 May 2008, 9:14 pm
I've been wanting to say this since I first saw this thread.... ok.
I'm Christian TO THE EXTREME!! !! 
04 May 2008, 9:18 pm
04 May 2008, 9:19 pm
KingofKaboom wrote:
I've been wanting to say this since I first saw this thread.... ok.
I'm Christian TO THE EXTREME!! !!
I'm Christian TO THE EXTREME!! !!
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
sinsboldly
Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
04 May 2008, 9:56 pm
05 May 2008, 12:19 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
I think extreme christians take The Bible to literally, even though extreme atheists are far more annoying.
Yeah, they take Dawkins too literally...
Edit: Actually, delete that all. Dawkins r0x0rs.
05 May 2008, 12:27 am
KingofKaboom wrote:
I've been wanting to say this since I first saw this thread.... ok.
I'm Christian TO THE EXTREME!! !!
I'm Christian TO THE EXTREME!! !!
There's this place called United States of America, you'd fit in there pretty well, no one thinks there either.
Kalister1 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
I think extreme christians take The Bible to literally, even though extreme atheists are far more annoying.
Yeah, they take Dawkins too literally...
This made no sense whatsoever. Dawkins does not write in allegory; his prose is extremely literal. The Bible is easily misinterpreted, though its quite apparent that Christians, until the modern day, took their "good book" quite literally.
Have you ever read Dawkins? Some atheists don't agree with Dawkins at all; many of what would be described as "post modernists" would completely disagree with most of his points.
The only reason atheists are called "extreme" is because religious people have become used to getting it all their own way. They aren't used to the idea that your thoughts are not sacred, that ideas are meant to be debated. The ideas behind Christianity aren't meant to be put into this arena; their fallacies become readily apparent under even the lightest of scrutiny.
Thank you very much I was going to reply to iamnotaparakeet, but you've already done close enough to what I was going to say.
Last edited by z0rp on 05 May 2008, 12:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
05 May 2008, 12:27 am
Kalister1 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
I think extreme christians take The Bible to literally, even though extreme atheists are far more annoying.
Yeah, they take Dawkins too literally...
This made no sense whatsoever. Dawkins does not write in allegory; his prose is extremely literal. The Bible is easily misinterpreted, though its quite apparent that Christians, until the modern day, took their "good book" quite literally.
Have you ever read Dawkins?
A little, but the guy is a prick. I can read some amount of Hebrew, can you?
Yeah, Christians, before the 1800's, were very unenlightened to the fact the Bible can be misinterpreted any infinite number of ways to fit in with anyone's views on anything....
05 May 2008, 12:45 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
I think extreme christians take The Bible to literally, even though extreme atheists are far more annoying.
Yeah, they take Dawkins too literally...
This made no sense whatsoever. Dawkins does not write in allegory; his prose is extremely literal. The Bible is easily misinterpreted, though its quite apparent that Christians, until the modern day, took their "good book" quite literally.
Have you ever read Dawkins?
A little, but the guy is a prick. I can read some amount of Hebrew, can you?
Yeah, Christians, before the 1800's, were very unenlightened to the fact the Bible can be misinterpreted any infinite number of ways to fit in with anyone's views on anything....
Daniel Dennet gave his book to a group of Christians to review. Revision after revision came back, with the Christians complaining. No matter what Dennet did, the Christians had a problem with him being too vitriolic. Eventually Dennet came to the conclusion that Christians will always see outspoken atheists this way; they are too used to them being in the closet, and any change in that will be seen as being aggressive.
Dawkins is in the same boat, he tries as hard as possible to try to be politically correct, but it never works. He is very self confident, and that many times comes off as overbearing. In some interviews he laments the fact that Christians will never see him as politically correct, but in the more recent ones he has come to accept the fact that the problem lies with them, not him.
Yes. The Bible very much can be, and thats where the inherent danger lies.
I can read the English translation, and get the same story as anyone else can. Some details are left out, like the fact that "virgin Mary" was originally "young woman Mary", but the story is the same.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
05 May 2008, 1:39 am
05 May 2008, 1:43 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Re: Dawkins
Vitriol wouldn't be so bad if his arguments weren't loaded with BS and fluffy rhetoric.
JimmyJazz wrote:
It's funny that so many of the same people who mock 'blind followers' of a given faith blindly follow Richard Dawkins, a fellow who has made a living off presenting the same weak arguments the Internet Atheist Militia™ makes, except instead of sounding like an angsty teenager whose only experience with religion is being forced to go to church by their parents, he comes off as a middle aged pompous ass whose only experience with religion is being forced to go to church by his parents.
Lots of religious folk are kooks. Lots of atheist folk are morons. This argument must account for at least two thirds of all the information on the internet, and there's a reason neither side will ever win.
Lots of religious folk are kooks. Lots of atheist folk are morons. This argument must account for at least two thirds of all the information on the internet, and there's a reason neither side will ever win.
Vitriol wouldn't be so bad if his arguments weren't loaded with BS and fluffy rhetoric.
So says the guy who has never read him.
His arguments are very logical, and very well grounded. You should read him before commenting. Maybe read Nietzsche afterwards, and then you'll know the meaning of vitriolic. (The Anti Christ is a good start)
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
05 May 2008, 1:47 am
05 May 2008, 1:48 am
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
05 May 2008, 2:08 am
05 May 2008, 2:14 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
What I have read of his falls under the category of crap.
Well, Im curious, what was the argument, and your disagreements? I've read a couple of his books, and seen all his interviews, so I'm pretty sure I can elucidate anything you might have a problem with.
To clarify, I dont agree with him on all counts. I'm not a humanist, and I have more of a foundation in philosophy than he does. I also think we may have a disagreement to the limits of empiricism.
Like his argument that for something to create another thing the first must be more complex than the second. That's stupid. Are we more complex than a supercomputer? And isn't evolution the process of simplicity to complexity anyway? He defeats his own argument.
Yes, we are much more complex than a super computer. Its very complicated to get into, but if you PM me I'll explain it more (I'm studying to be an electrical engineer). We are so much more complicated than a super computer, that its a possibility we'll never be able to create A.I! The human mind is so complex, that we don't even understand most of it, yet we understand the super computer completely. Also, you forgot the engineering maxim: The machine is only as good as the creator.
Well, a god that is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience would be extremely complex, much more so than the universe. From a logical standpoint, it is impossible for him to be omnipotent as well (Can he microwave a burrito so hot it that it would burn even him? He has to give up the power not to be burnt, or the power to microwave it to divine burning temperatures, making him not omnipotent)
You are mistaken. The simpler organism doesn't "create" the more complex one, it evolves into it through mutations (which are random, though thats debatable) filtered through natural selection (which is not), leading to adaptations.
I hope I've cleared up those things for you. Take care
I think you should actually read his books, and not just read snippets, for you to completely understand his arguments.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
05 May 2008, 2:21 am
