hehe, I didn't think about it like that.
and believe it or not, the link was posted at b3ta.
Religion is shit!
thats an odd place for anything half serious
but a great place to find many many witty things
but a great place to find many many witty things
Last edited by kaos on Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Oh right. I just saw Richard Dawkins and 2 hours and went for it. Some more viewing for me.Bogey wrote:I just dowloaded those videos you linked to, and they're different from what I posted. I posted a lecture with question and answer session at a university in America. The link you posted is a TV program for channel 4.
Still, glad you posted it. Something more for me to watch. But I thought I'd point it out for the purpose of others in this thread interested. It's a completely different video.
Hahaha, yeah I saw that before I saw the RD videos. It was following a few links from the site I was reading that at, which lead me to YouTube, which then lead to Torrentspy.
Last edited by Matt on Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Super Goat Weed
- Anti-Hero
- Posts: 3407
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:13 pm
he's an expert at twisting things
Einstine was a Deist, and did believe in a God, just not one that took a personal interest in the world. His relgion (yes he did have one) was that God designed the world, and then left it to it's own end. If you listen to the quotes he reads from Einstine, this is evident. It's his own twisting of the facts that allows him to call him an athiest, Basicly his whole foundation for the book is faulty, and the rest of the video is more of the same.
His attack on the Trinity is basicly, we can't understand it, so it can't be real. Hell, science still dosn't know how our brain works, does that mean it doesn't? There's many mysteries in the rational world, that dosn't mean they aren't true. I've always thought of the trinity working the way compound eyes do in insects, with different sections doing different things, but all in all accomplishing the same task as part of a unit. Again, is that something we can understand? I have no idea what it would be like to view the world through a pair of compound eyes, but insects seem to do a fine job of it, so it obviously works.
I do agree with his bit about Mary though. I've always wondered how a character given little more then a passing glance in scripture grew to such proportions. Actually, i have a fairly good theory about that, but i'll save that for later.
I could go on displaying the alternate view of everything he says, but what it boils down to is this; He does what he accuses the people of faith of doing, that is, he says we pick and choose what we believe based on the 'good bits' of scripture, while ignoring those that are distastefull. To be honest, he didn't say anything i haven't heard before or was suprised to find in scripture. What he does it takes them out of context, twisting them to make them appear worse then what they actually are. Picking and choosing, as it were, what to say and what not to say to place the religious in the worst possible light.
I will say this, the man is brilliant, his illustrations are amazing, and he's deserved the literary awards he's achieved. Natrually i disagree with him, and should we get into a debate on this subject, and i'm sure we will, i'd like the opportunity to cast some light into the shadows he strategically avoided in his lecture.
I've also read one of his books, although it was ages ago, the Blind Watchmaker. More of the same really, but that's how you argue a point, you show it from the best possible angle, much like a jewler placing lights at different places to make precious stones sparkle as much as possible.
Einstine was a Deist, and did believe in a God, just not one that took a personal interest in the world. His relgion (yes he did have one) was that God designed the world, and then left it to it's own end. If you listen to the quotes he reads from Einstine, this is evident. It's his own twisting of the facts that allows him to call him an athiest, Basicly his whole foundation for the book is faulty, and the rest of the video is more of the same.
His attack on the Trinity is basicly, we can't understand it, so it can't be real. Hell, science still dosn't know how our brain works, does that mean it doesn't? There's many mysteries in the rational world, that dosn't mean they aren't true. I've always thought of the trinity working the way compound eyes do in insects, with different sections doing different things, but all in all accomplishing the same task as part of a unit. Again, is that something we can understand? I have no idea what it would be like to view the world through a pair of compound eyes, but insects seem to do a fine job of it, so it obviously works.
I do agree with his bit about Mary though. I've always wondered how a character given little more then a passing glance in scripture grew to such proportions. Actually, i have a fairly good theory about that, but i'll save that for later.
I could go on displaying the alternate view of everything he says, but what it boils down to is this; He does what he accuses the people of faith of doing, that is, he says we pick and choose what we believe based on the 'good bits' of scripture, while ignoring those that are distastefull. To be honest, he didn't say anything i haven't heard before or was suprised to find in scripture. What he does it takes them out of context, twisting them to make them appear worse then what they actually are. Picking and choosing, as it were, what to say and what not to say to place the religious in the worst possible light.
I will say this, the man is brilliant, his illustrations are amazing, and he's deserved the literary awards he's achieved. Natrually i disagree with him, and should we get into a debate on this subject, and i'm sure we will, i'd like the opportunity to cast some light into the shadows he strategically avoided in his lecture.
I've also read one of his books, although it was ages ago, the Blind Watchmaker. More of the same really, but that's how you argue a point, you show it from the best possible angle, much like a jewler placing lights at different places to make precious stones sparkle as much as possible.
I was thinking more that he ment religion all together.
its just seems that christianity is the most dominant one that everybody knows so that one tended to lead the topics.
but generally yeah, I was looking at it as an all together thing.
its just seems that christianity is the most dominant one that everybody knows so that one tended to lead the topics.
but generally yeah, I was looking at it as an all together thing.
Last edited by kaos on Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Super Goat Weed
- Anti-Hero
- Posts: 3407
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:13 pm
Sorry for the double post, just watching the Q & A, and he got owned by that Liberty guy asking about critical thinking. Completely avoided the question. All he did was crack a joke at it. Actually he did that with quite a few good questions.
He mentioned Behe's book "Darwin's Black box durring his Q&A as well. He was the one who'se work "converted" an outspoken athiest and researcher of DNA to deisim Anthony Fluu (sp?). In case you were interested, i've got a link to videos of some of his work as well:
http://www.meta-library.net/perspevo/presmb-frame.html
One question i would ask is this, while i really truly do apreciate his bluntness and honesty about his views, dosn't he feel that his rather harsh statments will do more harm to the acceptance of his beliefs then good?
on a side note, his tie is really ugly
He mentioned Behe's book "Darwin's Black box durring his Q&A as well. He was the one who'se work "converted" an outspoken athiest and researcher of DNA to deisim Anthony Fluu (sp?). In case you were interested, i've got a link to videos of some of his work as well:
http://www.meta-library.net/perspevo/presmb-frame.html
One question i would ask is this, while i really truly do apreciate his bluntness and honesty about his views, dosn't he feel that his rather harsh statments will do more harm to the acceptance of his beliefs then good?
on a side note, his tie is really ugly
-
Super Goat Weed
- Anti-Hero
- Posts: 3407
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:13 pm
no.
If they already consider me an infidel, then i've already pissed them off by my existance.
If they don't consider me an infidel, then this obviously dosn't apply to them.
If they already consider me an infidel, then i've already pissed them off by my existance.
If they don't consider me an infidel, then this obviously dosn't apply to them.
Last edited by Super Goat Weed on Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Masteroftheweb
- Vagabond
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 5:35 pm
- Location: Earth, Sol, Milky
- Contact:
Do you mean the critical thinking question that Ben mentioned? The guy who asked it related it to Dawkins' explanation of morals. He essentially preempted Dawkins and put words into his mouth and made out that his explanation for where we get morals from through evolution would be applied to critical thinking aswell. So essentially the guy "owned" himself. Dawkins actually did answer the question by providing examples of where it would have helped us survive leading to survival of the fittest. But frankly the format of the question was so arrogant in the first place, I'm surprised he gave it any thought at all.
Yeah. I agree with Bogey. I'm also going to be bold and just state that Ben is religious and also very arrogant in his ways, so this type of response was not shocking to me in the least.
Basically, from what I've seen, Dawkins is a very intelligent man who has put lots of though into his theories. He doesn't go and challenge peoples religions because it's hip and cool. He does so because he believes they're seriously harmful towards humankind; I agree.
In the ones I posted: The Root of All Evil. He suggests that all religion is harmful, destructive and ignorant to hard, solid fact. The people he speak to, prove this. Even the New York Jew who moved to Palestine and converted to Islam, who starts to threaten him just for being atheist. Maybe the only person who wans't, was a British priest (possibly a Bishop or something, I don't remember) who was very down to earth and up-to-date with his thinking.
I love Richard Dawkins. I honestly wish he was my father, as lame as he would be, I'd be able to own Christians with such precision. I'd be his protégé.
Basically, from what I've seen, Dawkins is a very intelligent man who has put lots of though into his theories. He doesn't go and challenge peoples religions because it's hip and cool. He does so because he believes they're seriously harmful towards humankind; I agree.
In the ones I posted: The Root of All Evil. He suggests that all religion is harmful, destructive and ignorant to hard, solid fact. The people he speak to, prove this. Even the New York Jew who moved to Palestine and converted to Islam, who starts to threaten him just for being atheist. Maybe the only person who wans't, was a British priest (possibly a Bishop or something, I don't remember) who was very down to earth and up-to-date with his thinking.
I love Richard Dawkins. I honestly wish he was my father, as lame as he would be, I'd be able to own Christians with such precision. I'd be his protégé.
Last edited by Matt on Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
