An atheist's call to arms

Reason

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
8,674
RichardDawkins.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A

I thought this presentation was very well done and happen to agree with most of Dawkin's points.

Your thoughts on the video? Your thoughts on "Non theism"?
 
Watching now...


o.O Youtube removed time constraints from their videos?
 
I'm at 16:00 right now.... I think he's off when he says that Atheists should exercise their "political muscle". It's not possible. He compares the pandering to the Jews, but seems to not realize that Jews and Christians are not so much in conflict. Atheists are in conflict with EVERY faith. For a politician to not only tolerate, but encourage Atheists, they are opening themselves up to bigotry from the "lion's share" religion, as well as all others. Not seeking conflict, this is also why Atheism is not a popular topic, and why many "non-theists" (myself included) hide their lack of religion.

Dawkins keeps talking about a growing number of Atheists and Agnostics. Unless non-bigots and/or Atheists/Agnostics are a majority, there is no point in trying to bring up Atheism or Agnosticism when trying to win support (as would be the case in running for political office).


Edit: Oh... Dawkins was getting to that :o ;)
 
Last edited:
Yep, sorry it's tough argue with people who think you need the fear of God to make good decisions. If you look at it scientifically tough fear actually makes people make stupid choices.
 
Anyway why's Dawkins always gotta be the go to atheist? I'll check out his video I guess but there's little point in trying to assert a lack of religion.
 
Anyway why's Dawkins always gotta be the go to atheist? I'll check out his video I guess but there's little point in trying to assert a lack of religion.

He's refuting it quite well. He talks about Atheism vs. Agnosticism and other labels at around 20:00.
 
I don't really believe in the majority of evolutionary theory. It just sex and genes to me.
 
It's very little natural selection. It's female selection specific mate, what embryo doesn't get tossed, and so on. It's actually very complicated and far from pretty sometimes.
 
Genetics and biology. Your DNA and gene set in a population is usually very stable. The only way you can really effect a massive consistent change for speciation is selective breeding. If you get random with it or hope that super duper mutant comes along it's not gonna do anything. The mutant might not breed and it doesn't just mean it gets passed to offspring. Not to mention the effect is extremely diluted it's one freaking animal. Natural selection just helps cull some of the breeding stock. It's not gonna ever be this survival of the fittest it's kinda just what works. There's only so many ways to stack those genetic legos and get it to pass thru the female reproductive track.
 
Atheists are in conflict with EVERY faith. For a politician to not only tolerate, but encourage Atheists, they are opening themselves up to bigotry from the "lion's share" religion, as well as all others.
It doesn't have to be that way, and it shouldn't be that way. Every faith, in some way, is in conflict with every other faith because everyone wants to think that their beliefs are "right" thus making everyone else "wrong." Politicians *should* tolerate *all* belief systems.
 
Darwin didn't have a remote understand of genetics which is why I'm like I don't really agree with this elegant simplicity of natural selection crap. Anyway if selective breeding counts as natural selection cool I guess I believe in evolutions principles. Animals kinda screw it out and find something that works to me though.
 
Darwin didn't have a remote understand of genetics which is why I'm like I don't really agree with this elegant simplicity of natural selection crap. Anyway if selective breeding counts as natural selection cool I guess I believe in evolutions principles. Animals kinda screw it out and find something that works to me though.

If I remember correctly, he read enough Mendel to have SOME clue about what he was doing. :o (haven't read his stuff in years, though)
 
Don't think so if I remember biology class, he believed something else about it.
 
Darwin didn't have a remote understand of genetics which is why I'm like I don't really agree with this elegant simplicity of natural selection crap. Anyway if selective breeding counts as natural selection cool I guess I believe in evolutions principles. Animals kinda screw it out and find something that works to me though.

What does Darwin have to do with this?

Its like saying, "I dont believe in modern fighter jet technology. The Wright Brothers didnt have a remote understanding of jet propulsion."
 
I believe that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, even atheists.:cool:
 
What does Darwin have to do with this?

Its like saying, "I dont believe in modern fighter jet technology. The Wright Brothers didnt have a remote understanding of jet propulsion."

Um yeah I guess it'd be something like that? I kinda believe in the modern fighter jet theory over the Wright Brothers on jet propulsion.....? I just said I don't really believe natural selection plays a large role in evolution. Thus if evolution=natural selection as it seems to for alot of people, I'm not sure I agree much with that at all.
 
Anyway like I said before I believe your a hybrid of different primate species and maybe something else. You really didn't evolve your crazy characteristics they come from some fairly unique elements in human body and this mixed lineage. Basically got some primate genes a unique reproductive cycle, plus some unique physiology, and the body takes care of the rest. Sounds crazy but that's what I believe. I don't believe you waited for such strange stuff to develop randomly.
 
I believe that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, even atheists.:cool:

LOL, I was wondering about armed athiests in this.

I tihnk Dalkins worships at the alter of Douglass Adams. Is the hitchhiker series his Torah?
 
Back
Top