Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms

If you want to debate or discuss the topics within this video, please visit atheistdiscussion.com. Thank you.

It's funny they are almost similar, aren't they? Can't sense climate change with the 5 senses directly, or on a micro scale. It's only on a macro scale that the effects of human's activities are noticeable. Look at any one square meter of the earth, and it's condition is cannot be used to support/refute climate change. On the other hand as an entire planet..

Are you familiar with Isaac Newton and his statement about religion? Yeah, and I don't (no, I'm not being sarcastic) believe in the Easter bunny and Santa Claus either. What did he mean when he said, if I have seen further it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants?

Your reply is ridiculous, but I like your statement about nonsense on stilts.

No it isn't. Refuting something that has some relevance is good science, and refuting something that is a waste of time is not. Kind of like my response to you here. i.e, should I spend time refuting some raving lunatic that believes pink, flying sphagetti monsters exist on pluto? Time well spent all right.

badbuhhdist, you pick on Dawkins for having a supposedly unscientific sense of triumph, yet you also tell us about your completely unscientific seed metaphor. If you're allowed to take something as silly (but harmless) like that seriously, than an atheist like Dawkins has every right to convey and emotion without some kind of "evidence". dawkins is on our side, so stop wasting your time and go attack religious people, not fellow atheists.

Because refuting something that you don't believe in is the exact definition of science.

I didn't know there was a Nobel prize for philosohpy.

Here the answer for one;

Understanding is quite certainly triumph. To understand the truth to evolution is to end one of the biggest and most deceptive lies in the history of the human race. It is to change the knowledge of an entire species for the better. Understanding is not triumph, he doesnt say that. It is the effect of understanding. If that is not a triumph, I dont what is.

I really wish I didnt have to explain this.

Hmm, where did I say anything about religion? Are you (gulp) actually comparing Richard Dawkin's beliefs to a religious belief? That is atheist blasphemy my friend!

Atheists are way too sophisticated to have the meaning they give their lives compared to the meaning religious people their lives.

;-)

Oh, and just to clarify, I'm a long time atheist (member of The Union of Concerned Scientist, Secularists of America, and the ACLU)

I noticed you conveniently did not answer them. But maybe it is because you've got your tongue too far up Mr. Dawkins asshole ;-)

Next time you come up for air, feel free to answer the questions...

I think those questions have been answered for people who don't live up inside their own assholes.

Why even try refuting something that you believe doesn't exist?

And religion is not "nonsense" on very tall stilts?

"Could you clarify your point a little bit?"

I can try...

There is no science that supports Dawkin's belief. He would need to be able to answer some pretty weighty questions; what/where is 'R. Dawkins' (the self)? What exactly is 'the world' (reality) and how is 'understanding' any measurement for 'triumph'? I'd say a couple Nobel prizes are waiting for him if he answered just one of those questions.

Until then, Dawkins belief is just nonsense on stilts ;-)

deliciously heretical, o badbuddhist!

I don't fully understand the first two sentences of what you wrote, but the knowing wink at the end has piqued my curiosity:) Could you clarify your point a little bit?

very poor opinion, almost contradictory, oh wait, thats what it exactly is.

I came out 32 yrs ago.

The whole idea of being an atheist is that we've already thought about it. We're the ones who have looked into it. Searching for people like Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett will give you something to think about.

Dawkins saying he will feel 'triumphant' at the time of his death for understanding the world is unsupported by science. It is a myth as great as any found in religion... but I'm sure it's helping him give his life meaning ;-)

He should have the balls to clarify that it is not Dawkins the scientists speaking at that point, but Dawkins the religious person speaking.

But what is shocking to me is the likely possibility that he actually does not know the difference.

I can't believe this atheist is going to say this to Richard Dawkins after his sermon...


AMEN brother!!!

My experience is that thoughts start as sort of a 'seed'. From this seed, the mind can let it go (and the 'seed' never reaches full consciousness) or it can grow to become a brief thought, a song that gets stuck in your head, to a full blown mental obsession. The process in this sense is the same (seed to fruition) while the exact experience can be highly individualistic. Since we share many things (physically, culturally, 'spiritually') we can label these experiences... hatred, song, chair, etc

i thought the buddha was a teacher, not a god.

I don't refer to myself as an atheist. If others ask me if I am an atheist, I say "yes", but I don't think of myself that way. It defines me in terms of religion. Regardless of someone's occupation, they can call themselves "scientist" if they have the "evidence-demanding" attitude. I call myself a RATIONAL man. This puts the connotation of irrationality on theistic claims.

yeah youre right there are many forms of Atheism. Well I did a little bit of research and discovered that I am some form of Atheist as my beliefs are in concordance with the main principles of the Buddhist teachings but without the Buddha.