Richard Dawkins Reads Hate Mail (Video)

Discussion in 'Grasscity Forum Humor' started by garrison68, Jan 23, 2015.

  1. http://youtu.be/qhYT4vE1gvM

     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Dawkins is as much of a goofus as the people he denounces. Anyone who claims to know one way or the other is a tard.
     
  3. So you are putting one of the world's greatest scientists in the same category as the people who wrote those letters?  BTW, he did not denounce anybody in the video. 
     
    So much for humor on GC.  :hello:
     
  4. Yeah, the video is funny. The people sending him hate mail are stupid as fuck. But so is he.
     
  5.  
     
    Claims to know what....science has answers for stuff in life, your life is made possible thanks to science. Religion doesn't have anything but false hope. Takes a big man to point that out to all the nutjobs in the world.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. He claims to know there is no God. He doesn't know that. Just like no one knows for sure that there is one. It's silly to claim you know such things.
     
  7. I would like you to reference an actual quote from Richard Dawkins, or his writings, which verifies your assertion that he claims to know there is no god.  
     
  8. http://youtu.be/gW7607YiBso
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Are we talking about the famous atheist Richard Dawkins?
     
  10. Yes, and you said that he claims to know that there is no god.  I'd like that claim to be substantiated with some proof.  
     
  11. He is an atheist. I am pretty sure that a strong belief that there is no God is part of the deal. He doesn't claim to be agnostic.

    Yes the people in his hate mail video are retarded as fuck. But so is he, although slightly less so, as there is no evidence that any religion is correct. It is still retarded to say you know there is no God.
     
  12. If he did not make a statement that confirms what you said, then you are making an unproven claim which has no validity at all.  Being "pretty sure" about the positions of somebody is not a reliable source to back up your claim.  
     
    Not believing in something, which is unproven at best, is not the same thing as saying that you "know" it does not exist.  Dawkins is intelligent enough to know this.  If you cannot prove that he personally ever claimed that he knew there was no god, then I think that you should think about not saying it.  I do not happen to believe in Unicorns, but I do not "know" for a fact that they never existed.  
     
  13. Then I guess you would be a unicorn agnostic. Dawkins proudly identifies himself as an atheist, which by definition is someone with a strong belief that there is no god. If that is not his actual stance then he needs to reidentify himself as an agnostic.
     
  14. YOUR definition of an "atheist" is wrong. As I explained before, not believing in something which there is no evidence for is not the same thing as claiming that you know it doesn't exist.  You said, several times, that Dawkins claimed that he knew that a god did not exist, but now you're trying to define atheism as you understand it, which is wrong.   
     
  15. This is the definition of Atheism, from American Atheists, which was founded by the late Madalyn Murray O'Hair.  
     
    \tWHAT IS ATHEISM?No one asks this question enough.
    The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
    Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
    Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world's theists? Atheists will define themselves.
    Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
    The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.
     
  16. From dictionary.com.

    atheist
    [ey-thee-ist]
    noun
    1.
    a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
     
  17. Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in God but he doesn't send hate mail to priests and nuns. So Richard is not on the same level as Dawkins haters. You could call him a dick because he's disrespectful to theists or you could call him a dick because his name is Richard. But you can't blame him because religious people are so sensitive, the only way not to offend them is by being quiet.
     
    His utterances are predominantly science based so I have nothing but respect for him. The fact that he has the balls to stand up against these religious bullies gives him an extra point.
     
    But I do believe he has the right to say that God does not exist without being labeled as a bad person because this man is one of the scientists who have proven evolution to be real. Evolution does not coincide with any of the Abrahamic religions (neither does any of the sciences for that matter) so you could either say that those religions are false based on the hundreds of years of scientific research or you could say they're right and ignore all the empirical evidence we have of the contrary being true.
     
    I can't say that God does not exist. But I can say that the major religions are false based on the fact that they're all ambiguous texts that we know for a fact are written by men (who claim they spoke to God). These texts are full of errors in science, history, logic and morality. And of course they tend to contradict themselves. So based on these "holy books" we can determine that God is not connected to them.
     
    If there was a God and he had sent down a text it would be so flawless that we wouldn't have these discussions. Or at least we'd be able to prove Gods existence using mathematics. For Gods sake (lol) most of the laws and theories in physics were theorized using mathematics before they could be proven to be real. If God is as real as black holes or the theory of relativity.
     
    I'll respect religion when it brings any God to the world. Until then I'll reserve my respect for Dawkins.
     
    But there could be a God without these religions, if so this God doesn't give two shits what we do or say because he doesn't want to communicate with us. Therefor you can say whatever you want.
     
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page