Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hedshaker · 01-17-2006, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helpmabob

However, my point was that the programme was a solid hour of one-way traffic - that much you will find hard to deny. But this method only tells half a story, maximum.

Of course, the nature of the program was to show the other side of the argument, something we see precious little of, yes? How often do "songs of praise" and other superstition based programs present a balanced picture?

Quote:

He obviously has allies in Channel 4 who see his point of view.

Care to offer some evidence for that?

Oolon Colluphid · 01-17-2006, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

On a side not, today I was in a church (Church of the Nazarene) sorting out a networking problem for them. It was populated by genuinely nice people. When asked if I attended church I said "Goodness no, I'm an agnostic atheist!"... Stunned silence and then the follow-up question "Why do you reject Christ?". At that point I just shrugged my shoulders and said "Oh, lots of reasons". I then explained that I adopted a naturalist stance and was really too much of a rationalist to believe in what I regarded as superstition.

... and that, since a rational, naturalistic stance is the very reason you can fix their GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING NETWORK PROBLEM, you see no reason not to use it for all aspects of life.

Ask them why they called you in, rather than praying for God to fix it.

:devil3:

Oolon Colluphid · 01-17-2006, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

You don't seem to allow that many people in the world are Christians.

In other words...

Hedshaker · 01-17-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Richard Dawkins? Well I'm right with you there. He's an arsehole. An embarassment to the humanist community....

fatpie42, you forgot to include the all important "in my opinion" to you venonous attack on Richard Dawkins' character. I disagree strongly with your unwarrented bile and since Richard Dawkins isn't here to defend himself, may I, on his behalf, redirect the bolded text above right back at you!

:down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down:

fatpie42 · 01-17-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrbitV2

fatpie42, you forgot to include the all important "in my opinion" to you venonous attack on Richard Dawkins' character. I disagree strongly with your unwarrented bile and since Richard Dawkins isn't here to defend himself, may I, on his behalf, redirect the bolded text above right back at you!

:down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down:

Hey I never say "in my opinion" when I say that God does not exist. However, if I am trying to convince other people to see things my way I DO say "in my opinion" becuase of the context.

I don't give a monkeys what you think of Dawkins. I find him arrogant and obnoxious. If you want to debate that topic, THEN I will say 'in my opinion' or 'it seems to me that'. I was not giving my reasons above; simply my conclusions.

Hedshaker · 01-17-2006, 08:10 AM

Last nights program was another excellent episode pointing out the absudity of religion...

More lively debate on the progam and it's impact, here:

http://community.channel4.com/groupe...frm/f/69460501

Enjoy :thumbs:

Hedshaker · 01-17-2006, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Hey I never say "in my opinion" when I say that God does not exist. However, if I am trying to convince other people to see things my way I DO say "in my opinion" becuase of the context.

I don't give a monkeys what you think of Dawkins. I find him arrogant and obnoxious. If you want to debate that topic, THEN I will say 'in my opinion' or 'it seems to me that'. I was not giving my reasons above; simply my conclusions.

Yes you're a brave man while the subject of your poisonous attack isn't there to defend himself. You must be very proud of yourself.

What's the matter, don't like a bit of your own medicine?

:down:

Xrikcus · 01-17-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrbitV2

fatpie42, you forgot to include the all important "in my opinion"

His opinion is fair, and I don't think it's necessary to put "in my opinion" with such a statement, noone would read it as a statement of fact. His opinion is also wrong, but why should he not hold it?

Of course, it would be nice with some quotes to say exactly why he thinks Dawkins is an arsehole, but nothing's perfect. Maybe they were given, I haven't read back that far...

fatpie42 · 01-17-2006, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrbitV2

Yes you're a brave man while the subject of your poisonous attack isn't there to defend himself. You must be very proud of yourself.

What's the matter, don't like a bit of your own medicine?

:down:

Oh give me a break. So I can't say that Hitler is a bastard because he's not here to defend himself? Or are you going to say that I would have to say "in my opinion Hitler was a bastard"

If you want to ask WHY I think that Dawkins is arrogant then ask. If you want to give me the thumbs down sign for sharing my opinions then you can expect to be ignored from now on.

Oolon Colluphid · 01-17-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

If you want to ask WHY I think that Dawkins is arrogant then ask.

I'm asking. Please provide precise, in-context quotes to substantiate it.

01-17-2006, 08:10 AM	#126
Hedshaker Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: https://soundcloud.com/dark-blue-man Posts: 3,526	Bravo Richard Last nights program was another excellent episode pointing out the absudity of religion... More lively debate on the progam and it's impact, here: http://community.channel4.com/groupe...frm/f/69460501 Enjoy :thumbs:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.