Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms

Thank you for posting this, I found it very enjoyable.

I really don't need to comment, Dawkins said it all.

 

I really don't need to comment, R_M said it all.

 

I'm a teakettle-theist. leaning more towards it isn't there.

 

nothing much to say. i agree with every word and i wish i was rich.

 

if you choose to believe in unicorns, toothfairys, teapots, or yawe. it is the onus on you to say why. not the onus on the rest of us to say why not.

loved that quote.

 

Is there a transcript? The video applet sucks for moving around on my system.

 

I agree with the need to be more unified in asking for equal rights, so in honor of the late Frank Zappa ( nice quote,RM), It is time to form the official church of the free-thinkers...the Church of American Secular Humanism...or C.A.S.H.!

We meet every Wednesday, at 4:20! See you there! ( For donations, please just make those checks out to C.A.S.H.)

 

I love it. Shame I'm not american, and I could join.

That was to CASH you said?



Herding cats...

 

OK, in the interests of inclusion, let's change the name, to Church of Almighty Secular Humanism! That way we get more members, which equal more donations.... Oh, yeah, I see how this works! Now how about a little tax-exempt status for the nice folks over at the CASH?

No income tax... no property tax...just like the Mormons, but with logic! Sweet!

 

I'm fairly sure that one of the requirements is that the religion in questions needs to be bewilderingly illogical and overbearing.

 

The zylarkopedia states that religion must by definition be bewildering. If not, quite few would get lost in it.

 

hmmm the stance, the array, the posture and light and dark colored clothing...Dawkins looked a lot like a preacher up there, discussing beliefs in front of people that believe in what he does and also reject the idea of God existing...


I'm not going to argue the whole video nor do I want to, he does bring up interesting views.

I will say that I fail to see how the idea that a creator of complex beings must be more complex "shoots itself in the foot".


I'm also going to have to disagree with the quote:

"If you choose to believe in unicorns, toothfairys, teapots, or yawe. it is the onus on you to say why. not the onus on the rest of us to say why not."

I don't believe that is true, unless I'm attempting to force my religious beliefs on you, why should I have to explain why I believe in them?


Also i think it's ridiculous to compare the idea of believing in God to a unicorn, toothfairy etc. because the logic is a lot more complex than that. We do not believe in an imaginary figure just for the hell of it looking as it as a divine leader. We look at God as our caring creator so it's in our best interest to acknowledge 'him'.

Religion can be confusing, but It doesn't necessarily have to be. Why are they're so many conflicting situations, objects, and statements existent within religion? Because Religion deals with the unexplained and mysterious. Interpretations of the universe that exceed given evidence. Is that so wrong? It shouldn't be considering we're not always going to be given answers to our own questions. Also because of the fact that most religions are very old sometimes their messages can be distorted.

 

The reason that the onus is on you to say why instead of the onus on us to say why not because there is no proof of such a thing existing. Those who say God exists are just as crazy as those who say unicorns exist. There is no reason to believe either exists, unless someone gives proof, which no one will because the proof also doesn't exist!

In my opinion, the fact that so many religions have been created over the years should be proof alone that religion is just made up bullshit by random people. Some ideas stick longer than others, but their origins are still in the imaginative brains of humans...

 

That's bullshit, it's called perceptive insight. There are many reasons to believe God exists, I'm talking about the God of Abraham which doesn't relate to simple imaginative figures. If you need hard evidence in order to consider something to be there all that means is that you lack intuition. Nothing is 100% correct no matter what. In most cases the will to prove something requires some faith, the basis of science is just a refinement of everyday thinking.

How? That doesn't make sense. If religion was constantly changing then it'd be rational to consider that...but that's not the case.

Yes and why is it that we as humans are the only things that pursue the concept of imagination and construe? Evolutionist theories don't provide answers to questions like that. Because we're smarter than animals? We share 98% of our DNA with monkeys so we obviously don't differer from them much...

 

Our brains are more developed. We have conciousness. Not much is known about conciousness yet, but scientists are really digging deep into the subject now-a-days and I believe we will know almost all there is to know about conciousness in the next 50 years. We can only hope.

And the part about so many religions existing. It makes sense because if you put into scope that your beliefs are just one in a couple million different type of beliefs, you should be able to understand that maybe everybody is wrong and just full of shit. If God existed, I think he'd make it pretty clear who was boss. This obviously isn't the case.

 

Why? Maybe she doesn't even know humans exist, or doesn't care. Maybe she isn't some kind of conscious being that has a presence in our lives.