Same with Dawkins, I'd really like to hate his smug ass but unfortunately, he's right about pretty much everything.

If it makes you feel better, he's violently pro-Israel and wholeheartedly supported Christine Maggiore.

What he said

nip nip nip nip nip nip nip nip nippity nip nip.

Yeah sure "theSnake" I bet that's the same bullshit line you told Eve

This video is like a Bill O'Reilly video in a mirror universe. And you, theSnake, are just a conservative ass licker in a mirror universe.

So in this universe I argue loudly for things that are correct, rational, and forward thinking, but in this mirror universe I argue loudly in favor of ignorance and superstition?

Thank you for the complement, I am glad we live in this universe.

PS, this is a retarded argument and you should shut up forever.

PPS drown yourself

Seriously I am really getting tired of fellow "liberals" acting like we have to give respect to other people's ignorant opinions in the name of some kind of misguided celebration of diversity.

Um, you said Richard Dawkins is right about everything a little too dogmatically. Richard Dawkins operates on corroborated theories. There are relatively few scientific laws...

I think He'd disagree with you too.

OK, "Righter" about everything.

Well. Dawkins coming to my university and my friend who runs the atheist and agnostics club is putting him on, so I'm told. If I can get him for 2 seconds, I'll let you know what he says.

About what?

How "certain" someone is about something is a retarded way to judge how correct their beliefs are.

Dawkins gives himself a score of 6 out of 7 because he has the humility to say nobody can be 100% certain, and religious people have no such problem.

Anyone with half a brain realizes this is an underhanded "Fuck You" to religious people in its own right.

"How "certain" someone is about something is a retarded way to judge how correct their beliefs are."

This can go so many ways.

As long as you're right, you're allowed to act however you want.

On the question of if a god exists, Richard Dawkins is 87% sure the answer is no.

It's close. But it ain't enough.

shut up

Points for futurebot's powers!

1 star for this thread.

yeah 1 star for a fag dance.

"Fundamentalist" is going the way of the word "fascist"--a meaningless slur.

Dawkins is a fantastic human being and we need more atheist advocates.

OK, mentally replace the word "fundamentalist" with the word "fanatical".

The most infuriating thing about Dawkins is I pretty much agree with everything he says but I think his approach, his tactics, are not things that are going to do anything---may in fact be a detriment---to advance the cause of or otherwise make things easier for the non-religious among us. I have atheist friends and some of them are really really noisy about it and a lot of the time it's in a trying-to-catch-flies-with-vinegar kind of way. I guess it's tough to be all in-your-face with the Xtian types while simultaneously maintaining a friendly, we're-all-in-this-together kind of thing for those out there being bullied by those same Xtian types who may not know any other non-believers.

waaaah

Yeah, stupid atheists should just SHUT UP and treat religious fundies with the respect they deserve.
I mean, I too totally agree with everything Dawkins says, I just don't think people who are atheists should write books or talk openly about their beliefs, especially when it infringes on the comfort zones of Christians because, you know, when you point out the massive fallacies in a destructive global obsession that has set back mankind's progress, you just sound like a DICK, so stop already.
Also, I totally agree with doing EXACTLY what religious fundies do and put my beliefs in atheism, science, and logic on the exact same level as a supernaturally influenced religious belief of blind faith, because they're, like, totally the same thing.

Guys, we should all go out today to an Operation Rescue office and just chill, hang out, and be nice to those guys because, hey, it's cool that they advocated Tiller's death and now openly celebrate it, and being a JERK about it won't solve anything.

One book out of nine major publications and suddenly he's captain atheism to some people. If it makes you feel better his next book is all evolution.

Also, everyone should read The Ancestor's Tale.

I NEVER said anything about atheists not speaking their minds. My point is just, whatever you believe or don't believe, don't be an asshole about it.

Richard Dawkins: "The Catholic Church is corrupt and shelters pedophiles while abusing human rights and dignity. Creationists are idiots. Mormonism and Scientology were clearly invented as cults by con men who abused their power."

Internet: "Yeah, right on! Let's laugh at the nutters."

Richard Dawkins: "And this highlights some of the underlying problems with religion in general as a basis for understanding of reality and morality, including Judeo-Christianity. Justifying political actions or absolving oneself of responsibility by claiming to speak to an imagined deity is foolish. We shouldn't pretend that myths can substitute for science, or base our understanding on people claiming to speak for deities."

Internet: "Woah, slow down there religious fundamentalist. Why do you have to be so hateful?"

Yeah, and people like Pat Robertson and Robert Tilton and Rush Limbaugh have been around forever, too, and need someone to knock them down a few pegs from time to time.

Yeah, why is this dick-hole so militant about being correct about things?

Are you in some kind of bizarro universe where thoughts, ideas, and information are spread by keeping them to yourself?

What was with that Galileo going on about his helio-centric solar system? That asshole just kept banging on about it over and over like some utter bastard just to take the piss out of good Christians who know that the world is the true center of the universe. He just wanted the attention.

This is the same damn discussion that happens in every single political/civil rights movement. "Gosh, I agree with what you're saying, but since it upsets people you should blunt your criticism and try to say things nicely."

It's not a point without merit, but it seems like every time we look back at who actually got shit done, it's those who were willing to raise a fuss and be direct rather than censor themselves. Setting a good example helps, but that doesn't require leaving the public arena empty of an impassioned voice to challenge unsubstantiated slurs and scams. And if it's not Dawkins, who else?

"If we're seeing much turn in young Americans, its due regular exposure to semi-anonymous peers on the internet who are atheist, and still okay people.

It probably also comes from people like Dawkins being direct and saying things which strip the mantle of social presumption that religious beliefs can't be challenged in the same manner as others. And for that matter, this "militancy" and name calling from Dawkins is essentially an occasional swear word and insult directed as a vile person who apologetic atheists would also agree is vile. He's not Glenn Beck, and it's not the language he uses and points he makes that get him tagged as militant, but rather the subject he's addressing. In his religious debates there's typically only one person on the stage who claims that disagreement makes you a bad person rather than just wrong, and that you deserves eternal torture for it, and that person isn't Dawkins.