[HOLY S**T!] Richard Dawkins Celebrates a Victory Over Creationists

[The Noose]

Originally Posted by TredKiller

as much as i agree tht religion has no place in schools, i believe it's values do.

and i personally don't think much of men that make there living tearing down religion (dawkins), let people believe what they will, were all going the same place.

ps: watching law abiding citizen at the momment, DEFFIENTLY worth a watch

The problem is more fundamentalism than religion as a whole. And religious values are subjective. Different religions have different values, and within each religion people interprate these values quite differently. Some arent healthy at all for any society.

I dont think its necessary to have any values originate with a religion. Because then it comes down to a faith which not everyone shares.

[Spartacus Sully]

Originally Posted by The Noose

The problem is more fundamentalism than religion as a whole. And religious values are subjective. Different religions have different values, and within each religion people interprate these values quite differently. Some arent healthy at all for any society.

I dont think its necessary to have any values originate with a religion. Because then it comes down to a faith which not everyone shares.

like some people have values to be modest while some people brag about the smallest of feats while in actuallity they probably had very little to do with the accomplisment of the feat.

[2501]

Originally Posted by TredKiller

as much as i agree tht religion has no place in schools, i believe it's values do.

and i personally don't think much of men that make there living tearing down religion (dawkins), let people believe what they will, were all going the same place.

ps: watching law abiding citizen at the momment, DEFFIENTLY worth a watch

You don't need religion to teach values and ethics.

[Spartacus Sully]

Originally Posted by 2501

You don't need religion to teach values and ethics.

so even with out religon people are still going to be warring over diffrences in values and ethics.

ethics isnt exactly a scientific matter...

[lefthook2daliva]

Richard Dawkins thinks that human life on earth was created by alien seeding.

How more unlikely is it that God exists and made us than that ****?

He's just trying to fill his pockets like everybody else...

[The Noose]

Originally Posted by lefthook2daliva

Richard Dawkins thinks that human life on earth was created by alien seeding.

How more unlikely is it that God exists and made us than that ****?

He's just trying to fill his pockets like everybody else...

A lot more.

The theory about alien seeding is just a hypothetical theory. One biological organism causing another to exist isnt a supernatural faith based belief system that people will kill and die for.

They say its possible that the more we travel into space that greater the chances are that we may spread biological matter where there werent any before. Its possible that over millions of years this matter may evolve.

Compare that to the belief that God made us and everything in 7 days. What is that based on?

Not tyring to start anything. Just saying that one is a possibility, and the other is religious beliefs based on faith, superstitions and ancient allegorical books.

[squealpiggy]

as much as i agree tht religion has no place in schools, i believe it's values do.

and i personally don't think much of men that make there living tearing down religion (dawkins), let people believe what they will, were all going the same place.

Religious values are almost always predominantly "If you are not in my club you are evil". Especially if you look at the three monotheistic monoliths. The Jews are the "chosen people" and everyone else isn't. Muslims are the only righteous people who submit to the will of Allah and everyone else is an infidel. Christians are the only ones who are worthy of heaven regardless of how good or evil they are as individuals - just as long as they BELIEVE.

Religious values are an exceptionally poor moral guideline. Take the Ten Commandments: The first four are about god exclusivity. It's apparently more important to God that you don't work on the Sabbath than it is to NOT MURDER AND STEAL!

The profession of a doctor specifically specializing in anatomy is absolutely incomparable to the study of the origin of life.

It's evidence based science like the study of the origin of life. Scientists test their theories against observations while it seems that the religious simply shake their collective head and say "No, you can't ask about that, it's all in this book."

Richard Dawkins thinks that human life on earth was created by alien seeding.

How more unlikely is it that God exists and made us than that ****?

You must be referring to Ben Stein's fraudumentary, Expelled. That's a fascinating piece of sociology. Dawkins was told that he was to be taking part in a documentary called Crossroads about the intersection of science and religion. He was asked (while still labouring under the misapprehension that this was an honest documentary) if there was any circumstance in which intelligent design could be posited and he replied that the only scenario he could consider would be an advanced alien race seeding the planet, also known as panspermia. He hastened to add that the alien progenitor race would also have to have evolved on their home planet by darwinian means... in other words if you're going to posita designer you then have to explain the origins of the designer.

Dawkins does not "think that human life on earth was created by alien seeding" and if you read pretty much any of his books then you would know that. His most recent book is a children's book called The Magic of Reality. You might want to try that one.

[lefthook2daliva]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

Religious values are almost always predominantly "If you are not in my club you are evil". Especially if you look at the three monotheistic monoliths. The Jews are the "chosen people" and everyone else isn't. Muslims are the only righteous people who submit to the will of Allah and everyone else is an infidel. Christians are the only ones who are worthy of heaven regardless of how good or evil they are as individuals - just as long as they BELIEVE.

Religious values are an exceptionally poor moral guideline. Take the Ten Commandments: The first four are about god exclusivity. It's apparently more important to God that you don't work on the Sabbath than it is to NOT MURDER AND STEAL!



It's evidence based science like the study of the origin of life. Scientists test their theories against observations while it seems that the religious simply shake their collective head and say "No, you can't ask about that, it's all in this book."



You must be referring to Ben Stein's fraudumentary, Expelled. That's a fascinating piece of sociology. Dawkins was told that he was to be taking part in a documentary called Crossroads about the intersection of science and religion. He was asked (while still labouring under the misapprehension that this was an honest documentary) if there was any circumstance in which intelligent design could be posited and he replied that the only scenario he could consider would be an advanced alien race seeding the planet, also known as panspermia. He hastened to add that the alien progenitor race would also have to have evolved on their home planet by darwinian means... in other words if you're going to posita designer you then have to explain the origins of the designer.

Dawkins does not "think that human life on earth was created by alien seeding" and if you read pretty much any of his books then you would know that. His most recent book is a children's book called The Magic of Reality. You might want to try that one.

Your sanctimonious labeling of the film in question undermines your claim to the intellectual high ground.

It was a simple series of questions and after much wriggling, that was his explanation.

I don't disregard it. He could be right. But he could be wrong as well.

Come down off your condescending pony.

[Spartacus Sully]

Originally Posted by The Noose

A lot more.

The theory about alien seeding is just a hypothetical theory. One biological organism causing another to exist isnt a supernatural faith based belief system that people will kill and die for.

They say its possible that the more we travel into space that greater the chances are that we may spread biological matter where there werent any before. Its possible that over millions of years this matter may evolve.

Compare that to the belief that God made us and everything in 7 days. What is that based on?

Not tyring to start anything. Just saying that one is a possibility, and the other is religious beliefs based on faith, superstitions and ancient allegorical books.

its preternatural faith based belief. though once the science is understood the creator of life is no longer seen as a diety but of course we ourselfs become the dieties to some other life that we have created in out efforts to understand the creation of our own life.

which still leaves us with the question as squeal pointed out, where did the origional dieties come from? a mix of luck and chance?

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by lefthook2daliva

Your sanctimonious labeling of the film in question undermines your claim to the intellectual high ground.

The film was fraudulent and of zero intellectual merit. The producer engaged in all manner of trickery and lies and event went so far as to "expel" one of the participants of the film from the premier! If you doubt my evaluation of the film then how about the moviegoing public's? They avoided this stinker in their droves! This was despite heavy promotion.

Anyone using this fraudumentary as an example of anything apart from an illustration of the depths that liars for jesus are willing to sink needs their head examined.

It was a simple series of questions and after much wriggling, that was his explanation.

I don't disregard it. He could be right. But he could be wrong as well.

Come down off your condescending pony.

Are you suggesting that Richard "Darwin's Rottweiler" Dawkins' explanation for the origin and distribution of life is panspermia? Are you honestly trying to say that based on one edited-out-of-context comment from a fraudulent documentary that his many many books on evolution don't count, including the ones he wrote after Ben Stein's dronefest?

All too easy.