IGX

I see a number of IGX'er have been corresponding with Mr. Dawkins.

There's a certain delicious irony in the way that people cite him as an authority in free thinking.

Religious zealots are notoriously sensitive to ridicule. Read on, Mr. Dawkins.

I guess you would know about ridicule.

Fat Cat wrote:I guess you would know about ridicule.

Have fun with this one.

The man is no more religious than you are. (One of) the problem(s) with people like you and him is that you engage the world as you wish it was, not as it is. I dwell in complete reality.

Fat Cat wrote:I guess you would know about ridicule.

True.

I'm sorry for the things I said about you.

seeahill wrote:

Fat Cat wrote:I guess you would know about ridicule.

Have fun with this one.

Is gluttony still a sin? Will I be able to enjoy a beer with this man in hell?

He's agin it.

Fat Cat wrote: I dwell in complete reality.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA1

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

No. You live in Hawaii.

That's as close as I want to get.

seeahill wrote:He's agin it.

[/quote]
"It makes me pukin' sick. I don't even know if I should say this in the pulpit...can you imagine kissin' some man? His lips so soft, his body so firm? Muscles rippling and taut under a tight chambray workshirt, a glimmer of sweat slowing drying in the setting sun? The way his loins slowly engorge as the kiss begins and he presses our bodies together? It's just wrong, and disgusting, and, and, and I for one am agin it!!"

I haven't read any Dawkins yet, but in interviews he seems as pompous and certain as any fundie I've ever met. Then again, he is a voice of a tiny minority.

He's just preaching his brand of religion. Leave him alone. In the name of Jesus. Leave him alone.

I like the way Dawkins reads out the emails, faithful to their errors: "Hypocracy.....Dawkings.....it is totally sucks ass.....you must now that there is indeed a God."

Very amusing.

I can understand how this wouldn't play well to some of you.

Who can hate on Chocolate Thunder?

I've read a bunch of Dawkins. Mostly the evolution stuff.

Like the late Christopher Hitchens, he is a deeply religious Atheist They both are a little too orthodox for my tastes. Penn Gillette does a much better job preaching his faith.

I'm a fallen away agnostic. Too lazy to care about the subject.

Not Believing in fairies, river spirits and unicorns doesn't make anyone religious no matter how strident they are in their opinions. Dawkins may be a disrespectful prick but only in the most distorted world view is that dis-belief somehow a belief of a spiritual adherent.


I don't believe in sky pixies, feel free to submit evidence that there is in fact a sky pixie. To call that stance a religion is disingenuous to the absurd and frankly, insulting to people who hold a genuine faith. If that's all it takes to be religious, I want 501(c)(3) status to preach my faith in the placebo effect of neoprene knee wraps and icy hot.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Not Believing in fairies, river spirits and unicorns doesn't make anyone religious no matter how strident they are in their opinions. Dawkins may be a disrespectful prick but only in the most distorted world view is that dis-belief somehow a belief of a spiritual adherent.


I don't believe in sky pixies, feel free to submit evidence that there is in fact a sky pixie. To call that stance a religion is disingenuous to the absurd and frankly, insulting to people who hold a genuine faith. If that's all it takes to be religious, I want 501(c)(3) status to preach my faith in the placebo effect of neoprene knee wraps and icy hot.

Agnostics aren't sure God exists-- that is not faith, but it is honest.
Atheists are-- at a certain point, it requires faith. But you're right-- it isn't organized enough to be a religion, nor generally do atheists pretend it is (not that there's anything wrong with that from an atheist perspective).

But Non Belief does not require faith in any real sense. I have faith in gravity..it costs me little, I have faith there is in fact, not a bogeyman, it cost me very little. If I were to say I have faith that there is in fact a deity who asks for me adherence to certain practices and rights...well now, that's a more costly proposition and an entirely different matter.

Again, If I were a person of faith or spirituality I'd be insulted at this "faith" equation. As a person of non belief, I just find it ludicrous.

You have faith in a wide variety of things which you cannot see. You believe that others have minds. You believe in love. You believe that the past exists. To appropriate the mantle of rational thought and scientific legitimacy, to define belief in "sky pixies" as irrational, you must be able to prove that they do not exist, and you can't. Given the inconceivably vast nature of reality, you have a very limited view of it.

That is utter bullshit. I do not need to disprove or prove anything. really??? that ole saw, "you must be able to prove that they do not exist, and you can't"

That's ridiculous. One cannot prove a negative. I'll accept that it dis-belief somehow obliquely compares to belief...but you cannot for one second equate my mild form of "faith" with religion or spirituality. To do so lowers the bar on religion such that any casual and tepid "belief" is a faith. Again, do you really want not believing to have the same standing as religion?

For a 100 bucks I'll give Dawkins or anybody else a pass on the express elevator up to the custom designed Heaven of their choice!!

Blaidd Drwg wrote:That is utter bullshit. I do not need to disprove or prove anything. really??? that ole saw, "you must be able to prove that they do not exist, and you can't"

If you want to claim the scientific high ground, then yes, you need proof. Otherwise, you have nothing but your own crippled opinion.

Blaidd Drwg wrote: That's ridiculous. One cannot prove a negative. I'll accept that it dis-belief somehow obliquely compares to belief...but you cannot for one second equate my mild form of "faith" with religion or spirituality. To do so lowers the bar on religion such that any casual and tepid "belief" is a faith. Again, do you really want not believing to have the same standing as religion?

On the contrary, at its root your argument is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. You say that if I cannot prove the existence of "sky pixies" then sky pixies MUST NOT EXIST. However, this is false dichotomy. There are really four possibilities:

1. Sky pixies don’t exist.
2. Sky pixies do exist.
3. Sky pixies may exist, but sufficient evidence does not exist to make a determination.
4. The existence of sky pixies in unknowable.

Only one of us is pretending that they have the answer, that is you. I, on the other hand, hope that God exists, which is the very definition of faith (Hebrews 11:1). As for the "same standing" issue, I am making a philosophical and scientific argument, not a policy directive. I leave that to others.