LOL! Can't get enough of the Karaoke Dr »

How dumb Dawkins really is

By: Qwaider

On:Friday, October 30, 2009 11:04:26 PM
In:Thoughts
Viewed: (7190) times

Currently 4.6/5 Stars.
1
2
3
4
5

Rated 4.6/5 stars (164 votes cast)

Richard Dawkins, one of the most outspoken obnoxious Atheism prophets you can ever hear of. Boasting famous words like "God Delusion -his book" and harboring frivolous pursuits like advertising on buses in London that God is unlikely to exist.

He thinks, it's "liberating" for people to go atheist. A fact that is really remains to be proven. However, what we know as a fact is that people with religion appear to live fuller, happier lives. As far as anyone is concerned...

But it's fantastic to see how stupid and truthfully ignorant. If not utterly and completely stubborn this Dawkins really is. The Quran (and I really don't want to get into religion), mentions these stubborn people. Kuffar, which really means denial more than anything else

Case in point, how he would embrace anything, however unlikely, as an explanation. But not God...

I would go out on a limb here and say, more than half the self proclaimed Atheists are really not atheists. They think they are, they brand themselves in that way. But they're really not. They're just regular people who believe that not having a religion is a carte-blanch to anything they can do. That rules no longer apply to them

Anyway, Looking at Dawkins childish juvenile response at University of Oklahoma, and they way he tried to martyr himself at the altar of science made me laugh at how fake and ignorant he really is

How sad, pathetic and cheap this guy is.

Followers of Dawkins, WAKE UP, he's only after your money. Nothing else! He doesn't care about you, science or truth

PS, I'm a firm believer of Evolution, just not the completely hands off version!

It's sad that he was quoting Isaac Newton, who was a firm believer. Not only that, but he was looking for ways, through science to prove god existed.

Just imagine where we ended up at the trailing edge of the age of enlightenment

Memories....

#1
Andrew from Harrisburg, PA
Said
On: 10/31/2009 12:42:37 AM
SpamScore=[1.08]

I, myself, am an Atheist and find this post kind of askew. Some Atheists brand themselves, that is true. Some believe that it gives them a blank check to do anything they please. However, I must strenously oppose this view. Many people commit horrible acts to others in the name of religion. Namely, my former President George W. Bush and his cabinet. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were, first and foremost to protect the terrorist state of Israel against Palestine, but, it was a (two birds with one stone) kill. Many of the memo's going through the Pentagon and CIA were littered with Judea-Christian versus and he even called this whole war a "Crusade" (Christian Jihad.)

I'm an Atheist in that I do not find any evidence to support that an intelligent entity has any sort of control over our universe. I firmly believe that there are forces that we can not quantify or measure as of yet. I will even go further to say that some forces may never be able to be quantified or measured.

I'm an Atheist that does not support theocratic rule nor the terrorist state of Israel. Please, do not stereotype all atheists by the measure of some who have gained more popularity among western media. I'm not only an Atheist, but a Socialist and I'm openly Gay. I see the tyranny that many of our Christian churches tries to perpetuate.

Your own personal religious viewpoint is not to be the rule of law or be shoved in anyone's face or implemented in anyone's life involuntarily. That is simply what Atheism should state.

Also, do not forget, many Christians here in America support Israel and denounce Palestine as having any validity at all. You want human rights and inclusion that you deserve, you can't expect to take that away from others.

#2
Qwaider
Said
On: 10/31/2009 1:32:53 AM
SpamScore=[-49.68]

Hi Again Andrew, thank you very much for your comment
Now, I am in total agreement with you. Some people take -something- as a permission to do whatever they feel like. Regardless of their religion (or lack of).

I'm a believer as you can see, but I do not, and WILL NEVER deny any person their right to believe whatever it is that they want to believe. It's their choice and I respect that.

I agree with you that it's impossible to "measure" god or prove his existence. As a scientist I can also, authoritatively tell you. No one can also deny it and "measure" or prove it. Putting that argument aside for a second. I hope you're able to see what Dawkins is trying to achieve. He wants people to freely allow people to be atheists while branding anyone who believes an Idiot or a fool. So excuse me if I object to that, but what proof does he have the people who have a believe are idiots? Mocking them with "Stalk" theory isn't helping but increase my formulated idea about him that he's opportunistic and he's only driven by internal motives which helps his books rise on the confusion left in the wake of controversy.

Let me be clear one more time. I don't blame atheists for anything. I don't stereotype them as evil or anything. To the contrary, some of the most prominent atheists happen to be personal idols and role models for me. Their beliefs are completely beside the point.
I'm also not partial against socialists, gays or even communists. I am passively neutral to many of these. However, I don't hold Christianity to blame for this. I hold PEOPLE who misrepresented the great faith responsible.

#3
Mariam Ayyash
Said
On: 10/31/2009 1:28:40 PM
SpamScore=[-1.64]

the guys says he's 97-99% sure, but Murphy says, if there is a small chance that something wrong is going to happen, something wrong is going to happen :) that being said, no one thought of asking ur smart-dude what if it turns out that the 1% is true? you know that the immidiate first certain proof of God is, unfortunately, death, that is why we call death the "house of certainty", but alas, once u find out for sure if the 1% is correct, there's no way turning back, ya 7afeez

as for those who say that religion caused wars, people, wake up, the first and second world war got nothing to do with religion, people will fight over anything, sons of Adam fought over a girl! we are all going to die anyway, different reasons and causes, different motivations, and death is one... stop driving that as an excuse its just soooo laaaaame

#4
nobody
Said
On: 10/31/2009 4:05:23 PM
SpamScore=[-0.1]

I'm not going to get into a religious debate here, because I have no desire to cure you of believing in an imaginary friend -- not that I think I could -- and I won't be back to check any response to this message:

Your hate for Dawkins has blinded you. What you don't know about atheism (and evolution) could fill a library. You are a Muslim because you were brought up to be a Muslim, and you've never managed to break away from your programming long enough to really think things through -- like a scientist. Try to open your eyes, Quaider! There are plenty of good books out there on atheism and because you live in the States you have access to them. Your level of ignorance in the 21st century is really inexcusable.

Your comment:
"PS, I'm a firm believer of Evolution, just not the completely hands off version!"

That is freakin hilarious! If you truly understand Evolution you wouldn't need to place a God anywhere in the equation.

#5
nobody
Said
On: 10/31/2009 4:21:31 PM
SpamScore=[-0.12]

"He thinks, it's "liberating" for people to go atheist. A fact that is really remains to be proven. However, what we know as a fact is that people with religion appear to live fuller, happier lives. As far as anyone is concerned..."

Just how would you prove someone feels liberated?

"people with religion appear to live fuller, happier lives."

Correlation does not imply causation. Ever hear of it? Besides, what's your point? Believe in a fairytale and live happier, or know the truth and be miserable? What a brave man you are.

It's true. Isaac Newton wasted many years of his life chasing phantoms... just think of what more he could have accomplished if he didn't have his beliefs. Incidentally, Newton was a man of the Enlightenment, and being so he had the good sense to keep his God-pursuits out of the public eye -- he would have embarrassed himself otherwise and he knew it.

#6
Haitham
Said
On: 10/31/2009 4:56:40 PM
SpamScore=[1]

It is funny that u r making fun of Dawkins! This man is a genius and you just simply say that he is stupid!

#7
Omar
Said
On: 10/31/2009 5:11:06 PM
SpamScore=[1]

I have never read anyone stupid except for yourself! I can't believe that there are people who can talk with the same idiotic and ignorant way like you do!

Dawkins is a genius, he's a fighter, and he is a liberator unlike someone swimming in piles of ignorance and blindness like yourself! Don't give me lectures about me calling you names, because if calling people with names was invented to anyone, then it would be people who fight the freedom of thinking, and get so blind that they look at free men as idiots and ignorants and call them names!

#8
Qwaider
Said
On: 10/31/2009 9:16:09 PM
SpamScore=[-42.45]

Mariam,
That's quite interesting :)

Noboday(1)
I am seriously not trying to get into a religious debate here. I know where I stand you know where you stand and I'll leave it at that.
I don't hate Dawkins, I find him dumb and stupid.
I know more about atheism and evolution (although one doesn't lead to the other no matter what anyone tries to tell you)
How could you could possibly know that I'm a Muslim -just- because I were brought up like a Muslim? You're making an -excuse me- ignorant assumption based on no date, and no knowledge of me. You're no good than someone who believes in fairy tales yourself as you're "jumping" to conclusions.
As a scientist inside me keeps thinking. There are things that we're unable to answer. Some answer could indicate the existence of god. AND possibly Aliens. But not the Aliens that Dawkins believes in without seeing.
I was exposed to Atheism and grow up in a family that harbors -alternate- thinking all my life. I CHOSE my beliefs.
By the way, access to atheistic books is available everywhere from the old dark communist east to the modern west. They've always been around
Accusing me of being "ignorant" shows how rude you are. It's not your place to accuse anyone of that.
Again, I'm a firm believer of Evolution, Big bang and science in general. I believe that nature got "some" help initiating things. In fact, even Dawkins (not stupid ignorant people like you) also believe that nature got help. He believes it was Aliens, I believe it was God.
By the way, if YOU understood anything. You would respect yourself and try to behave your ignorant self

Nobody(2)
If a cancer patient end up getting better because he firmly believed that he's going to be cured then what harm would it do? Many people know and understand the effect of depression on people's lives. Why make them feel worse? Is it courage to make people miserable?

Correlation is a scientific method used by Darwin himself to come up with his theory. It's true it doesn't imply causation but that's what believers usually say when people bring up evolution. Funny you would mention that in defense of your absolutely baseless claims. But thanks for that!

Isaac Newton lived in a time where the Church was still deeply rooted in the western society. How do you even think? He would have been hailed. Anyway, that's why Phds have tenures. So that they are allowed to pursue anything they want. Without fearing ridiculed by lesser minds like .. yourself!

Haitham
Yes, with all due respect, I think he's dumb, stupid and above all arrogant AND stubborn. He's not doing these things to benefit man kind. He's just building an empire on the ruins of the greatest controversy.

Omar
If I'm so stupid why do you even bother Mr Omar the Genius!? I can't believe there are rude people like yourself. You should feel privileged that I left your rude comment up there. Didn't your mother teach you how to talk to people? A 6 year old person has better argument, more tact and more polite way of rejecting or objecting to arguments. Perhaps you need a little discipline to learn how to speak to people first before you come here and show how stupid and rude you really are.

If you think Dawkins is really not after your money and that he's the "Fighter and liberator" they you really are lost. The guy is lost himself. He has absolutely no argument, and regurgitating all the same junk that has been said over the ages. Just less "elegantly"

What gives you the impression that I am against freedom of thinking? THINK whatever you like. and LET ME THINK whatever I want.
If I think Dawkins is an Idiot, THAT'S MY CHOICE IN THINKING. You, little boy, have absolutely no right to tell me (or anyone) what to think. Now run along and learn how to SPEAK to people before you come here and show how stupid you really are

#9
bambam
Said
On: 11/1/2009 1:01:22 PM
SpamScore=[-0.05]

Besides the point that Dawkins is hardly the first or the last public freethinker. this post has absolutely no point to make besides calling a guy stupid. Now in order for us not to think the same of you would have to back that proclamation with something more than "I think he is stupid there for he is stupid"
and just curious how can an atheist believe that the first cause for this universe was aliens? where did you even get the idea that he believes in aliens? meh pointless but had to post it.
ENJOY
BAM

#10
nobody
Said
On: 11/1/2009 4:00:22 PM
SpamScore=[-0.14]

First, I know you're a Muslim because you've written about it in the past... unless you've changed your mind recently, so it is you jumping to conclusions about me.

Dawkins does not believe in aliens. Have you ever bothered to read any of his books? He was simply stating that it makes more sense to think that life on this planet got its start from elsewhere, rather than having some sky-god "blink" us into existence in a matter of days. Think about it. Again, after watching one video, you are the one jumping to conclusions.

You stated:
"If a cancer patient end up getting better because he firmly believed that he's going to be cured then what harm would it do? Many people know and understand the effect of depression on people's lives. Why make them feel worse?"

This is the crux of the problem. I talking about truth, and you're talking about believing in a god as an insurance policy or to make somebody feel good. Two different things.

You stated:
"Correlation is a scientific method used by Darwin himself to come up with his theory. It's true it doesn't imply causation but that's what believers usually say when people bring up evolution."

I have no idea where you're going with this... what exactly is your point?

Again, Isaac Newton was a man of the Enlightenment and no respected scientist (much like today) promoted belief in a deity. The Enlightenment was about rejecting church dogma for scientific methods. Sure the common man on the street believed. Newton was asked what he was most proud of towards the end of his life, and he felt being a lifelong virgin was his proudest achievement. As brilliant of a man as he was, does this sound like a man with his priorities in order? Do you see what belief in a higher power can do to a man?

#11
Qwaider
Said
On: 11/1/2009 5:13:31 PM
SpamScore=[-42.47]

Bambam, you're smart, figure it out
It's weird that someone, anyone, can claim the thrown of "free thinking" just by going back, time and time again to ideas and thoughts that have been around for centuries.
Excuse me, but Dawkins brought nothing new.
The point of this post, is to show how Dawkins is willing to believe any unlikely reason for sparking life. ANYTHING (and evidently anyONE) AT ALL but not God!

NoOne
First, being Muslim doesn't mean I have no mind. Therefore, you really jumping to conclusions here.
Yes, I've read Dawkins, he brought nothing new. I've been exposed to such ideas since I was 9. If you find this stuff, new. I suggest you read a little more (with all due respect)
Regarding the "blink": Big bang theory, states that the universe was created in a Bang. So, it's likely. But, that is not the point. The point is: Did someone "wish it"? That's the true "crux"
As for correlation, you brought that up. I showed you that it's first "scientific" and second, that it doesn't answer the original question. However, it was used to come up with many theories

#12
Slash
Said
On: 11/2/2009 12:17:36 PM
SpamScore=[1]

The thing about religious debates is that the almost always lead to the two parties talking in a condescending manner to each other; and while it might be true - all though i highly doubt it - that your initial intention was not to flame that sort of debate rather crucify dawkins, attacking him without justification is what sent a hint of condescendence that would light the spark. ("How sad, pathetic and cheap this guy is ... obnoxious Atheism prophets ... kuffar ...etc").

while i personally think that Dawkins would probably be the oprah book club representative of atheists (yup, not good) taking a dan brown approach in philosophy to reach the masses, it's not necessarily a bad thing.

what's bad however is to constantly attack people (you and people who were offending you with their comments) based on their believes ... stop taking this personally everyone! you believe what you want to believe and no one can touch that! you only find the need to defend what you think is weak enough to need protection.

to each his own o ray7oona

i would recommend you drop dawkins, and read Carl Sagan, Ludwig Feuerbach, Percy Bysshe Shelley or even Plato if you really want to understand the opposing opinion.

#13
dash
Said
On: 11/2/2009 1:01:46 PM
SpamScore=[2]

Ever lasting conversation of two opposite sides each trying to look smart and to prove a point! obvious distortion of reality and massive discrimination against oneself! since when we have to explain our selves to human beings who are too prejudice and shallow to understand that people have minds of their own and in the 21 century they don't need to argue about believes like they did in the 17th century. when are you going to start arguing about music, art, politics or sociology instead of discussing a topic that is 2000 years old!

#14
Qwaider
Said
On: 11/2/2009 7:01:55 PM
SpamScore=[-42.49]

Hi Slash, thank you for your comment. How's the Guitar career going?
Truth is, I have a beef specifically with Dawkins. Because he openly attacks and ridicules believers and disrespects religions. Not out of powerful argument but rather as I mentioned sad claim to fame. And I say Dawkins and I didn't mention hundreds (and perhaps thousands) who were discussing Atheism in more elegant ways.
What made me really look down at Dawkins is when he was faced with one of the most important questions. He opted to go with any explanation (however unlikely) but not God.
A good scientist will not disregard ANY possible explanation before one of two things happen. (a) He proves it impossible! Or (b) He finds a better explanation. Here Dawkins Picked just equally as possible explanation as long as it doesn't say God.

As for your wonderful and wise words, I totally agree. I didn't respond without provocation. If someone is going to be a 9 year-old smartass with me, I will give him an earful. But anyone who would like to respectfully debate this, I am ready and able to do this all day long and I will enjoy such a mature and polite discussion.

By the way, Carl Sagan, is one of my all time favorites. I followed every single thing he did even as a little boy.

I'm not sure you noticed, but I mentioned this a lot in the past. I have been exposed to the opposing opinion all my life. I completely respect but disagree with this opinion.

Dash
Thank you for your comment,
The truth of the matter, other debates are not on hold while this one progresses. That's our nature as humans.
This will likely go on for as long as humans exist.
I point I would appreciate if you can take, and reflect on your comment;
If someone has a belief he's not a "trapped mind" to be liberated or stuck in the dark ages, or Believes because he was born like this. People choose to believe.
Denying people this choice, is the epitome of tyranny. Ridiculing THEM because of it, is as bad as any other form of racism and the complete opposite of all modern liberties

#15
RP
Said
On: 11/3/2009 7:20:41 AM
SpamScore=[1]

God is not included in science, and for a good reason. You can't prove anything with this fantasy. How useful has this God been in medicine or in technology?

You need to believe a god is somehow involved with evolution, but there is simply no objective evidence that points to that. The best believers in some form of theistic evolution can do is to point to things we don't know (yet), and then put their god into that gap. That's not science, it's magical or wishful thinking.

As for disrespect for religion. Religions have had their respect for long enough, including being supported by laws that condemn people to jail or, still in some cases, to death. It is religion that has trouble respecting the opinions of others, and its followers make the best case for that claim. One only has to see the opening post how they react to opinions that differ from their own (absolutist) views.

It must be very comfortable living with such dogmatic and absolute certainty, however the world is not made in black & white, there are shades of grey (as well as colours!). Strangely, despite this certainty, they tend to come across as very insecure, especially when their archaic beliefs are ridiculed, and snap like little terriers at the ankles of better men and women.

#16
Qwaider
Said
On: 11/3/2009 10:40:18 AM
SpamScore=[-42.59]

RP
Thanks for your comment
God should never be included in any scientific pursuit. Everything we need is right there. In front of us, it's our duty to make sense of it.

Now let's talk evolution a little bit. Statistically, evolution is more unlikely to happen. So what exactly focused things to evolve, mind you in way more than favorable odds. Let alone spark the first life. These questions that have no answer and a bunch of the most bizarre and unusual theories from Aliens, to meteors and everything in between. Most are considered scientific... but not god!

Now I agree with you, many religions have abused the authority and influence. They have made it harder for modern day believers to defend their point of view. But you have to understand, religion can't be reduced to humans or poor decisions of these humans. Religion is far greater than that. In it's heart there is both good and great potential for evil. That's where our common sense, and humanity comes in. To regulate and moderate what could otherwise be an explosive combination.

I also agree with you, many humans have misrepresented their faith, and their beliefs. However, That isn't the rule. I am positive that there are more mild and tolerant believers than anything else. I wish people would give us a chance to shine and really distinguish ourselves from the lunatics who have captured the front pages