So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists?

by Boudica Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:41 pm

First topic message reminder :

Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Despite being collective worship coordinator at my secondary school, I am an athiest. Not proudly so, I might add - I just don't have faith in a deity or multiples thereof. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who does. Harnessed in the right way, it can be an astonishing force for good.

I suspect the umbrella I would fall under is humanist, although I have never chosen a banner for myself. I believe in people: the family and friends around me; my students and colleagues; members of the human race in general.

The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Ultimately, if your religion fascilitates your ability to be a good, kind and humane person, brilliant. If you can be the same without a god, more power to your elbow.

So why can't we leave each other to get on with it?

by Shirina Sat Mar 02, 2013 6:44 pm

I could write you something in Japanese that was a load of rubbish, very similar to some of your ideas. you could learn it off by heart and repeat it at will but if you were not conversant with Japanese you would not understand it.

If I really wanted to know what you were writing, I would learn Japanese. Just like if you really wanted to know what science was saying, you would learn science.

But you don't. And, if you want my opinion (and you're going to get it even if you don't), I think you're scared out of your gourd to learn - I mean REALLY learn - science. It violates your comfort zone. It's fine to visit Creationist websites and learn their nonsensical science because it is rife with confirmation bias. You KNOW even before you log into them that they'll explain to you how evolution is wrong and the Bible is right. Wow, what a relief that must be to you! I've said before that religion is popular because it's simple. You don't have to learn Japanese, so to speak. You can open up the Bible, read Genesis 1:1 and pretend to know precisely how and why the universe came into existence. No thinking necessary - and no learning necessary, either. It's no wonder then that a massive amount of poorly educated people in America are die-hard Christians; why only 40% believe in evolution, and why so many barely literate Christians hate or denegrate education. There IS a causal link there.

If you read the posts you will see that I have already read studied and found all the want in both the Big Bang theories and the evolution theories

I've read your posts and know full well that you have very little understanding of what evolution proposes. As Snowy said, no offense. It doesn't make you dumb if you don't know. It DOES, however, make you ignorant, especially if you try to argue against evolution without really understanding it. Those who DO understand it can tell.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Back on the old MSNBC boards, some people would get really pissed at me for the things I've expressed in my posts. One of them, a woman by the name of "tinydeputy," actually shouted at me, "Do you have to be right all the time?!?"

Well, I'm not always right - but it may appear that way to some because, and here's the secret, I NEVER open my mouth unless I'm knowledgeable about the subject being discussed. I don't pretend to know something. That's why you don't see me in the UK Politics section trying to argue on a subject I know very little about. I keep quiet and learn instead of trying to bluff my way through a debate where my knowledge is lacking. Each and every one of us is ignorant in some way because no one knows everything. What really matters is the desire to learn - even learn knowledge for its own sake and not hold up a cross to ward of knowledge that might violate your religion or personal comfort zone.

Really learning about evolution will probably not make you an atheist and it won't send you to hell. You could at least propose arguments that are based on something other than, "Well, I don't know how caterpillars change into butterfiles so it must be God!" Also, no one expects you to become an evolutionary biologist, but you do lack even basic knowledge as you've misrepresented evolution several times.

by polyglide Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:08 pm

I am fully aware of what evolution is based on and any sane person can dismiss the idea in a couple of seconds by requesting the origin and each step of the evolution of any living animal.

DNA is totally irrelevant regarding how close one animal is to another, you can have a problem solvable only by 1,000 grains of sand, you can have 999 grains and you would not solve the problem.

Natural selection takes place , not as used by the evolutioninsts but as indicated by humans.

Place 1,000 women and a 1,000 men all being married couples, you could even include a number of homosexuals and lesbians.

Put them on opposite sides to each other in a mixture and attempt to sort out who was married to whom.

You would only be successful by luck and not by intelligent deduction.

But each one had chosen their partner by choice.

Exactly the same happens in the life of all living things but like only breeds like the choice of partners by natural selection does not in any way indicate evolution, different species may change through diet etc; but they will still be the same species, one species does not become a new species.

by Guest Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:54 pm

The evidence for micro-evolution is overwhelming. In fact, dogs are proof.

The evidence for macro-evolution is “iffy”, and leaves key questions unaddressed, among which are “how did the eye evolve?” and “how did a hippo’s nostrils migrate to the top of its head to form an orca’s nostrils?”

by snowyflake Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:00 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060523092737.htm

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/ancientwhales.htm

Hope that helps Rock.

by snowyflake Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:22 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582973/Dolphin-and-whale-mate-to-create-a-wolphin.html

Animals do mate outside their own species sometimes. Perhaps this is an example of how evolution occurs.

DNA is totally irrelevant regarding how close one animal is to another, you can have a problem solvable only by 1,000 grains of sand, you can have 999 grains and you would not solve the problem.

You are embarrassing yourself. I'm embarrassed for you. This one statement shows your utter and complete lack of knowledge in this regard. Please just stop talking drivel.

Diversity of species occurs due to natural AND sexual selection. Those animals who survive and make attractive mates are picked by the females to mate with. Today a bird flew into the side of my car.....that's natural selection (a modern day version). Unfortunate for the bird but he didn't get to mate and pass on his genes to offspring. Those animals that are clever, big, strong, healthy, attractive to females and avoid death will get to pass on their genes to the next generation. That's sexual selection.

When you were dating your wife, how much time did you spend trying to impress her so she would mate with you? You are married to her because you were successful in your mating ritual. Do you have children? I think I remember you saying you were 70 years old so perhaps you might even have grandchildren? You are an example of genetic success. You avoided death, were able to mate and produce offspring and hopefully they have too.

And I won't even get started on the biochemistry, endorphins, hormones, libido and other factors involved in humans mating with each other. It's fascinating and one of the reasons I don't believe in free will either. We are biological creatures driven by our biochemistry, neurotransmitters, environment and needs (the pyramid).

I think if you can't even get your head around DNA there is no way I can discuss the endocrine system and it's effect on the human brain to you.

by polyglide Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:00 pm

There is no evidence whatsoever that any animal has changed from one animal to another, they may change in certain ways but always retain their own DNA and belong to the same species.

Show me one example of any other animal coming from any human mating.

It is you who have lost the plot.

Selective breeding is similar to what you say but the same applies you get mongrels.

by Shirina Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:08 pm

and any sane person can dismiss the idea in a couple of seconds by requesting the origin and each step of the evolution of any living animal.

What a crock. If you think you can dismiss evolution "in a couple of seconds," then you're being willfully ignorant. Being willfully ignorant is inexcusable, especially considering how many links Snowy and I have provided for you. The irony here, in my opinion, is that most atheists have at least read the Bible and actually know more about it than many Christians. But Christians like you won't touch a real treatise on evolution with a 10 foot pole and instead insist upon arguing against evolution from a position of willful ignorance.

But each one had chosen their partner by choice.

Did they? Are you really sure about that?

First, let's distinguish sex from love. Who you decide to have sex with is a choice. You don't need love for sex. However, love ... that is involuntary. There is proof of this in human behavior all over the place. One of the worst questions to get asked by a spouse is, "Why do you love me?" Oh I hated getting asked that when I was dating - because I didn't have an answer. Sure, I could rattle off a list of positive traits that lured me to him, but as to why I loved him, well ... I didn't have a good answer. Why him and not someone else with the same or similar (or even better) positive attributes? I don't know. Or how about all the people who continue loving their spouses and paramours despite being abused by them or being taken advantage of by them? How about the untold numbers of people experiencing unrequited love and yet still go on loving. How many people do you think walked into a room and made the conscious choice, "I'm going to love that person over there."

I don't believe for a nanosecond that love is a choice. And if you don't think a keen observer can spot who loves who even in a crowd, you're kidding yourself. I used to do it all the time at parties - I could predict very accurately who would end up with whom before the end of the night. For awhile it was a big party trick I used to pull and people would actually bet real money on whether or not I was right. You stick 100 married couples in a room and randomly divide them, well, if you know what to look for, you can usually tell if there is genuine love between two people. It's not luck, either. It's reading people's body language, it's watching where their eyes go, it's watching how people mingle, it's watching their demeanors. I can almost assure you that a wife separated from her husband will constantly look across the room to see what her husband is doing and who he's talking to - trace the eye contact to the male on the opposite side and "bingo" we have a winner. That's just one technique. It's not rocket science.

Exactly the same happens in the life of all living things but like only breeds like the choice of partners by natural selection does not in any way indicate evolution

Have you ever wondered at all, polyglide, why men find breasts and hips/butts attractive? Why are those features of the female body so important? When it comes to pure lust and sexual attraction, that's what men look for. Now, what about those two features stand out above all other female features? Oh right! Both have to do with child-birthing! Wow! Larger breasts and well-defined hips were once evolutionary signs of fertility. Those women were more likely to bear healthy children as opposed to smaller women. Did you think attraction to those particular female attributes was just random chance, polyglide? Do you think men the world over held a vote and just decided whimsically that breasts and hips were what men ought to get aroused over? Do you think it was a choice?

Why do so many women seek out tall and muscular men? Men who are physically strong? Most women do even though the modern world no longer gives advantage to strong and tall men. This is an example of an evolutionary throwback. Yes, women will sometimes look for financial prowess in a man, but that doesn't have anything to do with the central core of mating - reproduction. Physically, women still dream of the broad-shouldered, thick-armed man with six-pack abs ... and why do you think that is? Why is there such a global concesus on this point?

Yeah, it's because of evolution, not choice. The evidence is all around you. It's breathing down your neck, steaming up your glasses, and screaming in your ear. Yet the best counter-argument you can come up with is, "But you don't know X so haha! It was God!"

There is no evidence whatsoever that any animal has changed from one animal to another, they may change in certain ways but always retain their own DNA and belong to the same species.

I think I might nominate you for a Golden Crocoduck Award.

Every year, Potholer54 hosts the famed Golden Crocoduck Awards where the viewers vote for the biggest breach of the 9th Commandment by creationists. Every time, Potholer54 presents multiple candidates, educating the audience on who they are and what ridiculous things they have said or believe, and let the audience vote on October 28 to name who wins the Award. Potholer54 chooses both mainstream creationists and creationists only known on YouTube. Such examples of the nominated creationists include Lee Strobel, Ray Comfort, Chuck Missler (the Peanut butter guy), Kent Hovind and others. Youtube creationists include VenomFangX, NephilimFree, emptywithoutchrist, truthfulchristan, and much more.

The Crocoduck idea came from creationist Kirk Cameron who claimed that "evolutionists" have been searching for a "missing link" for years, and throughout the fossil record we have never found a half-duck half-crocodile.

by polyglide Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:24 pm

And Kirk Camerron was right but there are numerous examples of the deluded evolutionists

The ability to recite or record other peoples works etc; does not indicate intelligence just the ability to read and write and it is not neccessary to understand what you do.
;

by Guest Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:49 pm

Dolphin and whale mate to create a 'wolphin'

Kekaimalu the 'wolphin' was the result of the union of a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale, which is actually a member of the dolphin family.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582973/Dolphin-and-whale-mate-to-create-a-wolphin.html

The headline is false advertising (the Telegraph is a for-profit enterprise); it should read “Dolphin and dolphin mate to create a ‘wolphin’”, or better yet, “Dolphin and dolphin mate to create a hybrid dolphin”

This is micro-evolution.

by Shirina Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:04 pm

The ability to recite or record other peoples works etc; does not indicate intelligence just the ability to read and write and it is not neccessary to understand what you do.

If I didn't understand what I researched, I would be talking jibberish - like Creationists who go on and on about the fabled "crocoduck."

Do I need to start another poll?

by snowyflake Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:56 pm

Darwin saw compelling evidence of micro-evolution amongst finches on the Galapagos. We need to be careful so as not to repeat his mistake by falsely identifying irrefutable evidence of micro-evolution as evidence of something else.

Did you go to the websites that offer evidence of macroevolution, Rock? I know I have posted them at least twice and you have not responded on them. I would be interested in your thoughts on what the websites say about macroevolution.

by snowyflake Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:57 pm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Rock, here it is again if you want to take another look.

by snowyflake Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:17 pm

The underlined text is the key here. The headline is false advertising (the Telegraph is a for-profit enterprise); it should read “Dolphin and dolphin mate to create a ‘wolphin’”, or better yet, “Dolphin and dolphin mate to create a hybrid dolphin”

False killer whales are the only species in their genus and it mated with a bottle nose dolphin, a different species. Ducks also mate across species. Mallards and black ducks are forever quacking off with each other and producing some interesting looking ducks. Rats will mate with mice. Tigers with lions, donkeys with horses. The big difference with this mating is that the offspring has, herself, produced offspring which is unusual. Tiger/lion matings and donkey/horse matings usually produce sterile offspring.

Who's to say that cross species matings weren't all the rage in the past and may account for the intermediate species we see in the fossil evidence.

by weltschmerz Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:37 pm

The ability to recite or record other peoples works etc; does not indicate intelligence just the ability to read and write and it is not neccessary to understand what you do
----------------
The Bible is other peoples' work.

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:26 pm

Many, many "other people" over a period of several thousand years.

by boatlady Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:50 pm

And, to be fair, some of them had interesting things to say

by weltschmerz Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:55 pm

....and some wandering in the desert, dehydrated and delusional, no doubt.

by Guest Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:08 am

by boatlady Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:08 am

....and some wandering in the desert, dehydrated and delusional, no doubt.

And also some producing propaganda to incite war or to prop up an unpopular government, or bring down a government

Good point - it's a bit of a curate's egg, the Bible

All human life is there

by polyglide Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:29 am

I have bred many types of animals, in particular birds over 70 years or so.

All is not as one would expect from all that is accepted at the present time.

Dominant and recessive genes playing the major part in selecting towards a given end, this can be shape, colour and in some cases behaviour.etc;

I can assure you there is always an exception to the rule.

This of course is in selective breeding.

However, I believe that if you had a piece of land on the four corners of which you had a pack of dogs, each pack carrying different dominant genes
and the four corners were seperated and out of reach of each other, then the possibilities involve the evolving of animals that look very different behave very different but still carry the same DNA.

I base this on experience rather than any theory.

by snowyflake Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:14 pm

However, I believe that if you had a piece of land on the four corners of which you had a pack of dogs, each pack carrying different dominant genes
and the four corners were seperated and out of reach of each other, then the possibilities involve the evolving of animals that look very different behave very different but still carry the same DNA.

Every living thing on the planet carries the same DNA. That's how we know that we all descended from a common ancestor. The differences in chromosomes, genes, proteins and function is what separates us and provides us with different phenotypes but the DNA is all the same. Chimp and man share about 98% of exactly the same DNA.

Evolution is about adaptation so if the 4 groups of dogs are experiencing the same circumstances why would they evolve other characteristics? But if the food chain or the weather or the environment suddenly changed for one group and they had to find different ways to hunt then you might see evolution in real time. Maybe they cannot find any food above ground and the only way to eat would be to burrow, then perhaps, the dogs who are clever enough to find food this way might evolve with better smell to locate food underground, might be smaller to get into small holes, might become more fierce because they are fighting in small spaces etc. None of this happens overnight. But we know it does happen and scientists can prove it.

A very good book about evolution is about the finches on the Galapagos islands. It's called The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner and is available on Amazon. Well written and easy to understand.

by tlttf Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:52 pm

This would seem to sum up the problems when religion manages to gain precedence over the law!

Kentucky Seeks to Legalize Discrimination Against Gays Based on Religious Beliefs
Pending legislation in Kentucky could pave the way for increased discrimination against LGBT people.

March 11, 2013 |

A pending bill in the Kentucky state legislature could pave the way for increased discrimination against LGBT people. Patheos notes that human rights groups are going to battle against a bill that would allow residents to sidestep anti-discrimination laws if they pointed to “sincerely” held “religious beliefs” that justify their actions.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/kentucky-seeks-legalize-discrimination-against-gays-based-religious-beliefs

by boatlady Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:13 pm

Disturbing link!

Further underlines the need for a separation between 'religion' and 'law'

by Guest Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:14 pm

by Shirina Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:52 am

Patheos notes that human rights groups are going to battle against a bill that would allow residents to sidestep anti-discrimination laws if they pointed to “sincerely” held “religious beliefs” that justify their actions.

Yes, and when does THAT stop? Will Kentucky next allow honor killings? Perhaps dragging a gay person behind a truck until dead will be legalized as long as the murder was done for "sincerely" held "religious beliefs."

Note this specifically-purposed law’s place in the hierarchy of laws within the United States of America, its territories and possessions.

The US Constitution barely protects us from a Christian theocracy - barely and poorly protects us. There are FAR too many fanatics in this country who believe that the 1st Amendment only offers protection OF religion and not protection FROM religion - which means religious fanatics can enforce their superstitions as civil law, law that we are ALL required to follow whether we believe in their Bronze Age myths or not.

There are FAR too many fanatics in this country that turn to the Bible for law instead of the Constitution. It reminds me of what Ben Stein said on national television - "I look to the Bible for what is right and wrong, not the Supreme Court." Ben Stein speaks for millions, nay, tens of millions of Americans. This is why the Constitution offers about as much protection against religious tyranny as it would as body armor against a bullet. It is precisely why fanatics have flagrantly violated the US Constitution on numerous occasions, everything from criminalizing the teaching of evolution in school to allowing organized prayer in public schools to these despicable anti-gay laws in 31 state constitutions. In fact, we still have seven states that have clauses in their constitutions prohibiting atheists from holding public office. Why?

What it always takes is an atheist to file suit, but whoever does such a thing is reviled and hated by a major chunk of the population. Whoever stands up to this religious nonsense offers a sacrifice that is equal to any religious martyr.

by Guest Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:12 am

Shirina wrote:
Note this specifically-purposed law’s place in the hierarchy of laws within the United States of America, its territories and possessions.
The US Constitution barely protects us from a Christian theocracy…

The United States Constitution completely and thoroughly protects We the People of my country, co-owners of my republic, from theocracy of any sort. Read, paying attention to the underlined words and the meanings thereof.

United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Moreover, this complete and thorough protection from theocracy of any sort is absolute within the United States of America, its territories and possessions. Read, paying attention to the underlined words and the meanings thereof.

United States Constitution, Article 6, Paragraph 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

by snowyflake Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:37 am

The United States Constitution completely and thoroughly protects We the People of my country, co-owners of my republic, from theocracy of any sort. Read, paying attention to the underlined words and the meanings thereof.

If Kentucky can pass this into law it makes a mockery of the US constitution. If personal religious belief can be the grounds for disobeying the law, there will be anarchy in America. Hopefully, common sense will prevail.

Ben Stein is a giant phallus.

by Guest Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:33 am

by Guest Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:33 am

by snowyflake Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:12 am

Ben Stein exposed Richard Dawkins’ intrinsic hypocrisy.

Not true. Watch the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

Like I said. Ben Stein is a giant phallus.

by Shirina Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:35 pm

No it does not.

Yes ... it does. As I asked: Does this Kentucky law mean that we have to respect the right of certain Muslim families to commit honor killings? Would it give worshipers of Quetzacoutl the right to perform human sacrifices? OH! Let me guess. The Kentucky law only applies to Christians imposing their "sincerely held" religious beliefs onto the rest of us. I think I get it now.

Yes, Kentucky, I believe, is the same state that wanted to amend its anti-bullying law to allow kids to bully in the name of their religion. Isn't that something? How nice. That way, if people want to pick on the fat kid, they can point to the sin of gulttony as a reason and avoid all consequences for being a plain old asshat and making someone else's life miserable. What a wonderful state Kentucky is, and, I would like to know, why do legislatures keep proposing this kind of tripe on the taxpayer's dime if they damn well KNOW it's unconstitutional?

I know precisely why. These fanatical lawmakers are hoping to slip one in beneath the radar. You know, those quiet little bills sort of "slipped in under the door" when no one is looking. Obviously, Kentucky lawmakers have ZERO respect for the US Constitution or they wouldn't even be submitting these proposals to the state in the first place. The right to bully, I do not think, is something Jesus would approve of and yet here we are.

Ben Stein exposed Richard Dawkins’ intrinsic hypocrisy.

Ben Stein did no such thing.

by Guest Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:03 pm

by Shirina Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:17 pm

This Kentucky law doesn’t mean a damned thing if it is contrary to the United States Constitution, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

The fact that we have 31 anti-gay amendments in various state constitutions in support of Christian Old Testament values shows that the Kentucky law can mean a damn thing whether it is contrary to the US Constitution or not. The fact that, for over 200 years (until an atheist stood up to the plate), organized taxpayer-funded prayers were performed in public schools shows this, as well. The fact that, for over half a century, it was a criminal offense to teach evolution in school because it opposed religious teachings once again shows that the US Constitution doesn't seem to matter. The fact that we used to have Sunday closing laws right on into the 1970's shows ... well, I think you get my point.

There have been A LOT of unconstitutional laws passed both at the state and federal level, and they remain in effect until someone challenges them. And that's the tactic the fanatics in this country uses to sneak a de facto theocracy in through the back door. Let's pass laws we know are unconstitutional and hope no one bothers to challenge them - and often, they are left unchallenged, especially in states with a lot of religiosity. Fortunately, many atheists are taking a stand against it.

Ben Stein did exactly such a thing. I saw him do it.

Explain.

by Guest Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:05 pm

by Guest Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:09 pm

by snowyflake Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:33 pm

Ben Stein exposed Richard Dawkins’ intrinsic hypocrisy

Ben Stein did nothing of the sort. What hypocrisy? And why do you call it intrinsic? Richard Dawkins replies to Stein in language he has always used. He doesn't believe in God. He wrote a book explaining why he doesn't and the science behind his reasons. There was no hint of hypocrisy on Dawkins part so please explain what you mean by 'Ben Stein exposed Richard Dawkins intrinsic hypocrisy'.

Ben Stein is a giant phallus and a charlatan misleading people into thinking that the theory of evolution lead men to horrors like the Holocaust. That is a morally reprehensible misrepresentation of science.

by Guest Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:15 pm

by Shirina Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:33 pm

By his own words, Dawkins is a theist, the direct opposite of an atheist.

Dawkins wasn't talking about "gods," he was referring to the possibility that life on earth could have been seeded by a sufficiently powerful extraterrestrial civilization - but who are still nothing more than biological entities with advanced technology. He did NOT say that he believed in supernatural gods.

If in fact he leads people, even one person, into thinking that the Holocaust was ought but the evil of immoral men perpetrated on a people in an unprecedented manner and to an unprecedented degree, then he is in fact reprehensible and immoral.

Well, if you want to talk about hypocrisy, let's talk about Ben Stein. He essentially claims that science is the root of all of man's evils. It's his "nuh uh, my religion isn't responsible for any bad thing" defense. Of course, he said this while appearing on Fox News, a television station that uses untold numbers of scientific principles to beam his words and image across the world. I'm fairly certain that Ben Stein drives a car, goes to a doctor, talks on a cell phone, listens to music, and happily uses the products and services science has given us while simultaneously condemning science. So here is where the true hypocrisy lies, Rock, not with Richard Dawkins.

by snowyflake Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:57 pm

Dawkins is as much a theist as I am, Rock. Watch the video again please and take note of his words.

This movie of Ben Stein's was so heavily edited that key points that Dawkins makes on evolution were removed. Not exactly an unbiased opinion on Benjamin's part was it? His sole aim was to discredit and humiliate Dawkins without presenting all of the facts. That makes Ben Stein a liar and a manipulator and a charlatan. The movie 'Expelled' from which this clip comes from is nothing more than pro-creationist propaganda and anyone with any scientific knowledge can see it for the sham that it is.

by Guest Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:53 am

by snowyflake Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:53 am

Rock, this is beneath you. You are taking one youtube clip and proclaiming attributes to someone who has clearly and irrefutably denied god/gods/God. By doing so, you imply that one heavily edited statement is therefore truth. As you well know, it is not.

Please, for future reference, you do not need to define words to me. I am perfectly capable of opening a dictionary if I find a word too difficult for my poor little old brain.

by Sponsored content