What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Know a Book Lover? Give Them the Sony Reader Touch view!
bestbuy.com - It's sleek and light, stores hundreds of books and has a long lasting battery.
589 Comments
- evilregis, on 10/15/2009, -4/+107Except for the fact that there is substantial evidence supporting one and not a single iota of proof of the other.
- veganpa, on 10/15/2009, -6/+101Folks can't fault his logic or answer his arguments, so they just call him names like "angry."
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/15/2009, -3/+96Dawkins has never been an angry atheist and never a shouting demagogue. You can't get more well-mannered and soft-spoken than Dawkins, he's just not subservient to religion.
- TrevorBradley, on 10/15/2009, -1/+53@fiji5555: I'd gladly change my mind in the light of tangible, verifiable evidence. That's what science is all about!
I'll be waiting over here then... - pinkertonne, on 10/15/2009, -6/+57Hey, you think you can keep that christian horse ***** the ***** off digg?
- brickwall99, on 10/15/2009, -0/+49Um no, Bill O'reilly avoided the argument. He also has the advantage of Richard being on his show!
Only religious nut jobs believe his won the 3-4 minute debate he had with O'Reilly.
Put them on stage for an hour to discuss religion and see what happens.
Bill O'Reilly is a god damn retard and doesn't understand jack ***** about science. - inactive, on 10/15/2009, -2/+48An atheist does not deny God, one simply doesn't acknowledge God. This idea that atheism is about denying God is rubbish that has been perpetuated by the religious because it helps them make the argument that atheism also requires faith.
There are many people who call themselves agnostic for this very reason. They have always understood atheism to be the outright denial of God, and they are not foolish enough to make that claim. - brickwall99, on 10/15/2009, -3/+43@fiji5555 - Your belief in god is not proof of him.
Provide some better evidence. (I tire of saying this because if there was any evidence we would have found it by now.) - TrevorBradley, on 10/15/2009, -0/+39I've been listening to the audio book version. It's a fantastic book, better perhaps even than The Ancestors Tale which was magnificent. Very topical as well, relaying many very recent events in evolutionary biology.
Dawkins is one of the great presenters of science of this decade. - brickwall99, on 10/15/2009, -2/+35You're going to need to do better than reading from a ***** fiction book to prove anything.
Good luck. lmao - ohplease, on 10/15/2009, -4/+36When you have as much proof of God as there is of evolution we can have a talk. The only reason the concepts of evolution and God are at odds are because the people that spoon fed your beliefs to you are following an outdated manual.
Faith should be like a favorite color, no one should be able to tell you what yours is. Yet that's what you're buying into, someone else's imagined concept of divinity.
You're not defending what you believe in, you're defending what someone else told you to believe. How sad is that? - EarlOfLade, on 10/15/2009, -1/+31And I guess you have never read the whole bible either, but let me use the words of Prof. Dawins in the God Delusion:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" - brickwall99, on 10/15/2009, -3/+31He's got a pretty good god damn reason for ***** swearing in his posts. :)
- inactive, on 10/15/2009, -1/+29But he loves us! ... And he needs money!
- bigbadgoat, on 10/15/2009, -3/+29I don't get why people get so offended by swearing. It adds emphasis, it's effective in getting your point across.
So I'm gonna ***** swear if I god damn well please. Got it prick? - csueiras, on 10/15/2009, -3/+28Yeah, keep that ***** off my digg.
- nixxed, on 10/15/2009, -0/+24Uh.. really? Because I saw that interview and uh... I would love to hear you motivate your assertion. Really I would.
- roddack, on 10/15/2009, -1/+25Intelligent Falling?
- brickwall99, on 10/15/2009, -1/+24This tard again...
Please explain to us how evolution is science fiction. I'd love to hear your explanation.
On another note I plan to take a bunch of my friends and put the bibles in the science fiction section :D
Edit: You need to work on your grammar (and science knowledge, maybe general education altogether), among other things. - code, on 10/15/2009, -1/+24i'd recommend you read the actual article. this is about evolution, not yours or anybody elses political biases
- kylescousin, on 10/15/2009, -3/+26Richard Dawkins has actually studied more of the bible and the koran than most christians have.
There lies the problem, you take the bible as the absolute truth, the word of God... Don't you see how little sense that makes? That book was written in ancient times by dozens of authors, altered and rewritten multiple times, by, let's face it, pretty naive and ignorant authors in a pre-scientific time.
Their words have absolutely not truthful value. - brickwall99, on 10/15/2009, -3/+25You need to listen to some of his debates/discussions again or read his book The God Delusion.
He very CLEARLY states that religion is the enemy to science and humanity, period. - eh123, on 10/15/2009, -4/+26Dawkins is the man.
- roysorlie, on 10/15/2009, -2/+23Anything that can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof.
Especially when one considers a being as absolutely incredible as a god. Incredible claims demand incredible evidence. But incredible claims without any evidence can clearly be dismissed. - sphykik, on 10/15/2009, -2/+22Oh shut up please, Dawkins was a scientist before he was an author. Anyone who says he's in this just to make money doesn't know what the ***** they're talking about.
- brickwall99, on 10/15/2009, -2/+22Both sides huh?
Please elaborate what is foolish in reference to science. - Mujokan, on 10/15/2009, -5/+25I'm an atheist and I deny the various gods of the various religions in exactly the same way that I deny that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole and that the Tooth Fairy leaves money under your pillow.
The non-provable "god" some have proclaimed in the modern era, for whom nothing can be said with certainty, I think is basically mental masturbation. - jknevitt, on 10/15/2009, -5/+24The onus is not on science to disprove the existence of God; the onus is on theists to prove the existence of God. In all other fields of intellectual reasoning, the burden of proof lies with the person who insists "this is so", not the other way around -- something is considered false until it is proven true. Why should religion get a free pass when nobody else does?
- AustinJambo, on 10/15/2009, -1/+20Saying that someone is a "bigot" because they don't agree with the hypothesis that there is a creator isn't exactly helpful, either.
If the religious could just keep their beliefs to themselves, or at least not constantly try to "convert" people, I'd be happy to live and let live. Instead, there is the insidious, anti-scientific nonsense over Intelligent Design and stem cell research. When we are young, we have to pledge allegiance to "one republic, under God." Our currency says, "In God we Trust." We have churches on almost every street corner, thousands of "mega-churches" that exercise undo political influence, and a culture which by and large thinks of atheists as somehow deficient of character or morality.
So spare me the false persecution complex. Believe whatever you want, just leave me out of it. - jknevitt, on 10/15/2009, -0/+18By your logic, the only point to life is to witness God, which is frankly insulting to those who lead purposeful, meaningful lives in the happy absence of religion.
- evilregis, on 10/15/2009, -3/+21Just a theory.
- brickwall99, on 10/15/2009, -2/+19Because there is no ***** evidence for it.
How about we take people seriously that believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
He is equally unsupported by evidence just like god.
Why do you refute the existence of the greek gods? The greeks surely believed as strongly in their gods as do you yours, and neither you nor them had or have any proof of their existence.
Just because science doesn't have all of the answers doesn't mean there isn't an answer. People used to think the Earth was flat, now we know it's round.
People used to think everything revolved around the Earth, now we know it doesn't.
Learn some science, logic, and critical thinking man, please. - eobet, on 10/15/2009, -0/+16@ fiji5555: You don't have to "believe" in evolution. To quote Terry Pratchett, that's like believing in a table.
- Mujokan, on 10/15/2009, -3/+19Dawkins has his strengths and weaknesses. If he became a target for many it's because of both. He's a great scientist but doesn't always understand the more human dimension so well. But he doesn't have a responsibility to be perfect. Despite what some say, he's not the Pope of Atheism, just another (very talented) popular science writer.
- inactive, on 10/15/2009, -2/+18Gravity?
- eh123, on 10/15/2009, -3/+19It's forgivable when you're arguing with idiots all the time.
- brickwall99, on 10/15/2009, -13/+28Bring it on you religious wack jobs, plenty of us rational thinking people here to debate your stupid ass arguments.
I hope you can do better than quote something from the bible. - evilregis, on 10/15/2009, -1/+16Le sigh.... did I really need to add /s to that?
- roysorlie, on 10/15/2009, -1/+16markgi: That a fallacious argument. People don't have "faith" in science. The word faith implies belief without proof. Science offers proof.
Believing in invisible all powerful father-figures in space, virgin births, talking burning bushes and that the earth is 6000 years old not only requires you to believe without proof, it requires you to dismiss logic, reasoning and mountains of empirical evidence.
Big ***** difference. - roysorlie, on 10/15/2009, -5/+20So what if he did? There is nothing wrong with being arrogant, especially when you are so obviously correct.
If you argued 2+2 = 5 because a father-figure in a 2000 year old book says so, then it would be fully within my right to arrogantly disabuse your point and correctly assert that 2+2 does, in fact, equal 4. - MikeyTwit, on 10/15/2009, -3/+18Yeah, logic and reason are so foolish.
You sir are an idiot. - jacobsam, on 10/15/2009, -2/+16The desire for an afterlife is no justification for an afterlife. The desire for a *why* is no reason to create a why. The assumption that there is a soul is no excuse to declare another 'soulless'.
Dawkins, in fact, addressed your Pascal Wager-esque justification for belief in The God Delusion. If you want to worship a god to CYA, you are not worshiping the God of the bible, who has commanded his chosen to wipe out populations for much less than lack of conviction in 'His' name.
This is why we can't have nice things. We have too many people abandoning critical thought and rational reasoning so they can convince themselves they will be ALIVE when they DIE. - roddack, on 10/15/2009, -1/+15Neil deGrasse Tyson
- Mejari, on 10/15/2009, -3/+17You mean like it's my "choice" to believe in gravity or not? A person's choices do not influence what facts are true or false. I can choose to believe I can fly, but logic will still tell me that if I jump off my roof I'm going to fall down and break every bone in my body.
And no, his arguments are not answerable, not answerable with logical rebuttals. The rebuttals usually consist of ignoring evidence or fabricating their own. I have done a lot of research (not as much as Dawkins, obviously) and I have not come across a creationist claim that has been verified in any way.
Evolution very much falls into your "that which it can observe" category. We see evolution happen all the time and we see the evidence for it all around us. - carbonetc, on 10/15/2009, -0/+14Do you find the need to be spoonfed a purpose a bit childish? Did your parents decide for you what you would believe, who you would love, where you would live, what your career would be, the pastimes you would enjoy, etc? Why do you so desperately need a deity to do so? What is it about carving their own paths in the universe that theists find so distasteful?
And I'm sure you've been told a hundred times why Pascal's Wager doesn't hold water. If I thought you'd read it, I'd remind you. - TrevorBradley, on 10/15/2009, -0/+14Neil's arguments on religion are passionate and well thought out, which is why he's not part of the current debate. He preaches elegantly to the choir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY&fea ...
Don't get be wrong, Neil's arguments are fantastic. And I am torn about his argument about Dawkins' sharpness... I'm just not convinced his strategy is correct.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
(The second clip is fantastic, you need to see it if you haven't already) - mparker21311, on 10/15/2009, -2/+16I'd rather be an Evolutionist than an Evolution Denialist *cough cough* Creationists *cough*
- rocknog, on 10/15/2009, -0/+14I love the fact that whenever I read any quotes by Dawkins, I always hear them in his voice.
Also, I have to say, the controversy over him is ridiculous. He's not angry - he simply expresses his views. I suppose one could fault him for not understanding people and not understanding religion, but that doesn't make his arguments any less valid, only less sensitive. And when you're talking matters of science, I hardly think you can fault one for not taking emotions into account. - Crimeodial, on 10/15/2009, -1/+14That's a non point. I don't think you'll find any anti religious people who like Islam, you just hear the most backlash against christians, because that is the major religion in the western world.
- carbonetc, on 10/15/2009, -0/+13"Only ones with spiritual eyes will ever see it."
This is the conflict in a nutshell. Science attempts to systematically weed out human biases, allowing us to triangulate facts about the world despite our individual perceptual handicaps. You, on the other hand, celebrate bias and deem it a virtue. -
Show 51 - 100 of 593 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is