• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

"British" Muslims in New Low

The main disciple


hdc115.JPG

 
Arguing the case for Atheism 101:

Science! Darwin! You're an idiot! Fairy tales! I love Richard Dawkins!

Rusty 3:16 says: 'I'll see you in Hell'.

Richard Dawkins is an idiot (on thological matter), he can't differenticate bewteen monathetic repression by a Abrahamic order and free thinking and option spiritual philospies like Taoism , Buddhism and Thelema (for instance). So to site him as an expression of athestic argument (who currently have as many closed minded didiots as plenty of theologerons) is a bit daft.

The people protesting eitehr clueless idiots or manioulated idiots by , ISamic peoples with own agenda, goverment indiots with own agenda , bored media with own agenda .

People reporting , rained in in some cases idiots , who print what will get readers or viewers .

One big ignorate mess as we argue about generalisations and observations, and immediatly claim a moral high ground as we dont kill people /hrrash them in the way of our enimies (btw we do it in our own).

Humanity maybe needs to twick that Relgion is a describtive noun and just maybe its the intent it's used and the peopel expressing it that need to be looked at and not the word itself !
 
Richard Dawkins is an idiot (on thological matter), he can't differenticate bewteen monathetic repression by a Abrahamic order and free thinking and option spiritual philospies like Taoism , Buddhism and Thelema (for instance). So to site him as an expression of athestic argument (who currently have as many closed minded didiots as plenty of theologerons) is a bit daft.

How is it daft to reference this buffoon? His booksales make him the poster boy for the ignorant atheist.
 
I heartily recommend ‘The Dawkins Delusion - Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine’ by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath.
 
I agree 100%. My earlier point was that ignorant atheists reference him and chant the usual slogans relating to fairy tales rather than partaking in any serious debate.
I have to agree on that , it is a very dogmatic view point where atheist will dismiss on the gorunds it dosnt fit in with their methods of reasoning , not alwasy the subject their disucssing
 
Surely the simple answer is that you two believe in the fact the there's "something more" out there, and me & Richard Dawkins, and the millions of other athiests who seem to have been written off as "closed" minded believe there isn't.

I can't see how the two can meet and have an intellegent debate? When we finally pop our clogs, one of us is going to be pretty annoyed :D
 
Surely the simple answer is that you two believe in the fact the there's "something more" out there, and me & Richard Dawkins, and the millions of other athiests who seem to have been written off as "closed" minded believe there isn't.

I can't see how the two can meet and have an intellegent debate? When we finally pop our clogs, one of us is going to be pretty annoyed :D

..and sad to confirm very dead.
 
Atheists look for proof other than "faith" which is a man made cover-all-bases way of dealing with subjects that none of us have any answers for besides more man-made theories (heaven, hell etc etc etc.) I don't think that makes them idiots.
 
Freeman Dyson makes some good points

“ Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.”

Dyson disagrees with the famous remark by his fellow-physicist Steven Weinberg that "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things—that takes religion."

“ Weinberg's statement is true as far as it goes, but it is not the whole truth. To make it the whole truth, we must add an additional clause: "And for bad people to do good things—that takes religion." The main point of Christianity is that it is a religion for sinners. Jesus made that very clear. When the Pharisees asked his disciples, "Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?" he said, "I come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance." Only a small fraction of sinners repent and do good things, but only a small fraction of good people are led by their religion to do bad things
 
Atheists look for proof other than "faith" which is a man made cover-all-bases way of dealing with subjects that none of us have any answers for besides more man-made theories (heaven, hell etc etc etc.) I don't think that makes them idiots.

My belief in the divine is not purely driven by 'faith' with no respect for science and logic. That's my main issue with Dawkins and his ilk - they claim the monopoly on rationality and reason when their 'faith' is as dogmatic as any religious fundamentalist. The theory of intelligent design came about as a scientific response to the theory of evolution. Both are theories with plenty of holes, but the second has its figurehead on our £10 note and a series on the BBC. I do not reject science for blind faith, but I do reject the intellectual high ground that atheists claim for their exclusive use.
 
Surely the simple answer is that you two believe in the fact the there's "something more" out there, and me & Richard Dawkins, and the millions of other athiests who seem to have been written off as "closed" minded believe there isn't.

I can't see how the two can meet and have an intellegent debate? When we finally pop our clogs, one of us is going to be pretty annoyed :D

Im not saying Atheists are closed minds (many a good friend of mine is such), however some of their approchs as with Relgiogious people can be along the lines of "becuase i said so " .

Nap's i totally agree, now i don not believe there is any "supernatural" jusst parts of nature we are unaware of and have yet to communicate or ratioanlise with an appropriate method.

Also tis best not to lump all relgions (as Darwkins does do ) in with christianity (ok Dyson does it there as well , not all relgions have inherat sinners or a concept of original sin for instance).

Isaac Newton studied Astrology , he still found most of it uter twaddle but at least he studied before he criticed it.
 
The theory of intelligent design came about as a scientific response to the theory of evolution. Both are theories with plenty of holes, but the second has its figurehead on our £10 note and a series on the BBC.

One of the figureheads of intelligent design has his image on a beach towel in Turin.

What's your point?
 
Back
Top