Dawkins is also an avid naturalist, a la the Brights movement.

Your point?

Many athiests, myself included, have simply decided that it's not enough to simply coexist with religion anymore. It's depriving our children of a proper education of what we've learned scientifically even with the disclaimer that science changes constantly.

We're fighting religious fanatics with our own religious fanatics, and apparently GW's "god" told him to invade Iraq. How damaging does athiesm seem compared to religion now?

Science as religion is even more peaceful then all of your "religions of peace".

"and apparently GW's "god" told him to invade Iraq"

And his 'gods' turned out to be Pat Robertson, who called for the assassination of Chavez, and a closet gay drugtaking preacher.

ROFLMAO.

PS, I have nothing against homosexuals, just against hypocracy.

Shrapnull

Man, what a load of compost coming out of your head...

You're adopting science as a religion and making it the platform for your fanaticism and jihad against all other religions?

Guess who just left the ranks of the enlightened...

Technell

You seem to have a problem differentiating between the message and how it's delivered. If I nail a creationist to a tree and hang a sign from their corpse that says the earth is ~6 billion years old, that won't change the fact the earth is ~6 billion years old. It'll make me an asshole, yes, but the message would still be correct.

I misread that as "Ted Haggard versus Richard Dawson". I was so disappointed.

I'm not just noticing, but there are some extremely bitter people on Fark. In my opinion, some of the more annoying ones are the loudmouthed atheists, "I can't believe that you buy into that fairy tale lolz"

Different strokes, man. Maybe I'm the exception, but I think that science and religion can coexist. Maybe I'm wrong, and I know that if I was earlier to the thread, some one would blast me for it. One thing I'm certain of, though, is that science keeps drilling matter into smaller and smaller components, and hasn't found the ultimate building block for anything. fluids are made of molecules, molecules are made of atoms, atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, etc etc etc.

Both the men in the video are both incredibly arrogant. Dawkins was visibly disturbed that Haggard disagreed with him. Haggard was struggling to keep his cool, too (and ultimately lost it in his arrogance speech and kicking the guy off his property). I haven't been to church in a while, but yeah, I wouldn't go to that guy's church. Something definitely is off about that guy (apparently he caught teh gay), but even so, he seems a lot more like a cult leader than a pastor. Most of the good pastors I have enjoyed being around were pretty laid back, as opposed to being so intense about their beliefs.

By the way Techhell It's Friday, and you are way too high strung. Have a beer. Or 6.

In my experience militant atheists come from a militant fundie background. They've changed their beliefs but they are still just as irritating. I came across this review of Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" which sums up my feelings on people like him perfectly:

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don't believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.


London Review of Books

Omis, I am gobsmacked.

How oh how can you quote something about Dawkins making "vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince" when this thread is about a drug taking, lying, warmongering, closet hiding, hypocritical leader of 30 million poor deluded victims. If anything, I doubt this guy Haggard belives in God or the Bible any more than Dawkins does, and at least Dawkins is honest about it, and has studied the subject seriously and through hard work, before expressing his opinions.

This guy Haggerty is a FRAUD, 100%, his church turns out to be a political manipulation machine tied in with the Republican hard right wingers and comercialised economic theory.

Well I tell you what, after reading more about this guy Haggard, I can see how the US has got itself into such a fankle in the last few years. God help you all.

Read all about it here: This is a MASSIVE story.

http://www.harpers.org/SoldiersOfChrist-20061103288348488.html

I'm sorry Dave L, for some reason I thought half the thread was dedicated at Dawkin's arrogance. My mistake.

There is no such thing as a "scientific fundamentalist". As soon as you become fundamentalist you cease to be a scientist. The two ideas are mutually incompatible.

I think these "scientific fundamentalists" are people who are smart enough to see the logic in science, but still have the emotional attachment to the idea that there's much more to this life than science might suggest.

I can't say I blame them. It's hard to go a large part of your life believing one thing, and then be confronted with ideas that run contrary to that.

I like how ol' Ted Buttpirate shows that hypocracy is natural to him.

"I don't show an air of superiority over the people because I know sooo much more. And if you only read the books I know and if you only knew the scientists I knew, then you would be great like me."

Wow, classic hypocracy, all in two sentences. No wonder.

Clintonkun
"I don't show an air of superiority over the people because I know sooo much more. And if you only read the books I know and if you only knew the scientists I knew, then you would be great like me."
"Wow, classic hypocracy, all in two sentences. No wonder."


"Great Like Me"

What is it the Bible says? "The Meek Shall Inherit The Earth" [Psalms 25:8].


As they say, the higher they get, the harder they fall.

This guy was on the phone to Bush every Monday as well...it's incredible...

You would think that if Bush really did talk to God, he would warn him about some of the creeps he hangs out with.

Or maybe God is laughing his ass off when Bush gets out of hearing range.

TightHeadProp

No, I'm not saying that science is a literal religion, get farking clue.

There is no "jihad" against religion by the athiests, because "jihad" doesn't exist to an athiest. What DOES exist, is respect, and we are losing it for anyone that continues to believe in ghosts that control every facet of existence. In today's day and age, how stupid would it be for one to believe in Thor? Now ask yourself, how is he any different from he who you call god?

They're a series of nearly identical mythologies, Christians just happen to believe in the Jewish ones.

Don't read the reviews of "The God Delusion." Read "The God Delusion." It's good and rather funny. Just finished it today. Dawkins is a hell of a writer and makes a good case.

I love how theists automatically have to equate any seriously and passionately held position as being the same thing as religion. Just because that is your reference point doesn't mean people can't see the facts for what they are and make rational judgments about them while being passionate about the ultimate conclusion, particularly when that conclusion is viciously attacked.

Techhell: DAWKINS is a pile of shiat. I won't dispute his knowledge in biology and evolution, but everything else that comes out of his mouth in the 2 hours of YouTube clips is utter bullshiat, and worse, he gives every other Atheist a bad name. He's as arrogant and elitist and condescending as any Christian, Muslim or other religious person. He blatantly insults religion, those who believe in various religions, he goes out of his way to destroy the faith of people in an effort to save them. Direct quote: "It may seem tough to question these poor desperate peoples faith, but isn't bracing truth better than false hope?"

nah..what dawkins does is takes the theist security blankey (religion) and waves it front of them and shows them what farking losers they are because they still need their wubby.

then the theist gets mad and start throwing toys at him because he took their wubby...they spit vitriol and throw tantrums and accuse mean-ol-man by saying things like:
"he's an elitist prick" and "what an asshole." however, they can never quite explain why their need the wubby...just that it makes them feel good.

/life sucks..get a helmet. (not a wubby)

As an atheist,I do believe that Dawkins is right. However, he does carry a aura of superiority about him that most evangelicals and even average Americans find distasteful. I'm not saying that his personality is outright wrong, but if you look at the culture of America, people tend to dislike people that are smarter than them. Look at any politician, especially now during midterms. They're trying their hardest to look like an average American, even though they (hopefully) are more intelligent. So at least in America, Dawkins seems to be confrontational, which may be a good thing depending on how he wants to go about. If he wants to be heard by the people he targets, he needs to dumb himself down. Once again, I'm not saying it's necessarily his fault, I'm saying it's more the evangelicals' fault.

Also, I do believe that while religion is fundamentally incorrect, moderate forms of it have produced great outcomes for society. Religion does instill some sense of morality, ethics and social responsibility to those who are unable to derive those without it. However, it should not interfere with independent thought.

P.S. Wasn't Haggard being quite arrogant when he was telling Dawkins about how arrogant we was? I mean he said that as you age you get less arrogant but Dawkins at least appeared to be quite older.

Wanna see how arrogant this slimeball Haggard is?

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6rSjrBhUIA

Be sure to watch all of "Faith: The Root Of All Evil" which can easily be found free online. Richard Dawkins at his best.

Do you suppose the South Park guys got wind of Haggard BEFORE it hit the news? That would explain a lot about the timing of the Dawkins episode...

I don't communicate an air of superiority over the people because I know so much more.

Gotta love evangelicals.