Dawkins Does Exist.

43

Shouts

5

Bashes

Posted by DingoDango Promoted 48 days 21 hours ago 1396 views

Informative / Informative General | 17 comments |

Stumble it!

I shook his hand. Case closed.

Comments

These comments in RSS.

Comment View Threshold:

Dock, on 7/18/2008 9:56:22 AM
Total Posts: 2333, Joined: 11/12/2005

Dawkins needs to go ahead and just accept Jesus.

http://cc.org

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

nova, on 7/18/2008 12:31:43 PM
Total Posts: 714, Joined: 4/10/2006

Dango missed the point me-thinks. The idea is many people haven't seen Dawkins. Also most people who follow Dawkins prattling don't use the very science Dawkins talks of nor do they even have a basic understanding of it.

So all the people that follow Dawkins are exhibiting the same kind of faith religious people use toward god.

Also if you need some pompous arrogant dick to write a book to tell you why religion sucks. I think you should be religious.

| Comment Score: Lame | Edit Comment

theduck1980, on 7/18/2008 2:41:48 PM
Total Posts: 132, Joined: 5/12/2007

No. The point is incredibly simple. The 'Dawkins doesn't exist' thing was stupid because he quite obviously does exist!

While most people haven't seen him in person, we have all seen his pictures, seen him on tv/internet, heard him on the radio & we have all read about him - which is of course three more things than anyone can say about their God or Gods. It is of course true, you can't believe everything you read, especailly VERY old literature - but seeing & hearing is believing

& Nova, there are plenty of people out there who aren't sure about religion to say the least... A lot of them having been raised by religious parents who gave them no choice in the matter. It is only fair that they should have a argument for boths sides available to them if they need help making a decision

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

seahawks76, on 7/18/2008 2:57:18 PM
Total Posts: 1416, Joined: 6/14/2006

Nice disguise Dingo.

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

OmegaVader, on 7/18/2008 5:00:14 PM
Total Posts: 120, Joined: 1/14/2006

nova wrote:
Dango missed the point me-thinks. The idea is many people haven't seen Dawkins. Also most people who follow Dawkins prattling don't use the very science Dawkins talks of nor do they even have a basic understanding of it.
So all the people that follow Dawkins are exhibiting the same kind of faith religious people use toward god.
Also if you need some pompous arrogant dick to write a book to tell you why religion sucks. I think you should be religious.

you and every reliigous person are idiots. the faith in gods and the faith in the objective existence of some quite probable entity are not the same degrees or quality of faiths whatsoever. In fact, it would take more faith to believe all evidence of Dawkins was doctored than to believe he exists. And it takes absolute faith to believe in any god; indeed, the one God requires nothing but pure faith. The slightest bit of reasoning of his exsitence angers him. Talk about ignorance! It is preached by the church.

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

Mike, on 7/19/2008 4:35:53 AM
Total Posts: 473, Joined: 11/13/2005

Is it just me or is this entire argument just completely retarded?

Props on meeting god though.

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

PrinceThrakhath, on 7/19/2008 7:10:12 AM
Total Posts: 351, Joined: 12/2/2007

It is one thing to believe in Dawkins but another to have good reason to assume his existance. A picuter from a book signing event is a very good such reason.

The argument also applies to God, but he has yet to turn up for a book sining event, which is strange because he has supposedly written the most importan book in the history of the world and enjoys an enormous, if somewhat deranged, fan club. This gives us several reasons not to assume God's existance.

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

spaceroach486, on 7/19/2008 8:16:46 AM
Total Posts: 367, Joined: 6/11/2006

So, I fist-bumped Jesus. Of course, I was on shrooms at the time.

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

Immaculate1, on 7/19/2008 8:31:37 AM
Total Posts: 7687, Joined: 7/16/2006

Dawkins does exist.

However, I seriously doubt that 'unidentified object' shaking his hand is real.......

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

trashman, on 7/19/2008 9:29:42 AM
Total Posts: 1572, Joined: 9/23/2006

"Also if you need some pompous arrogant dick to write a book to tell you why religion sucks. I think you should be religious"

No we really need pompous arrogant dicks writing books telling us to stop thinking for ourselves, and put all our faith in a "god" that can only be understood by them.

If you talk about pompous arrogant dicks, god is your number one, and you should be the last one complaining about Dawkins.
especially when faith is revolved around a freaking book, which is not HIS.

Dawkins doesn't extort people to believe in him, he doesn't threaten people with unimaginable anguish if they do not believe in him, worship him, pray to him or ask for his forgiveness (yeah btw who does god have answer to, seems like a pretty dictatorial motherfucker to me?)

In other words people worship the most freedom hating, self indulging, vain , arrogant, non existing being, thought up by ..........people (well, we mirror ourselves on pretty much everything (we'd even put a face on a robot, so god being a total asshole is not that strange to me)

ever noticed that with loving religious people , god is the most loving thing out there, but when it comes to the hardcore fanatics god allways seems to be the most vicious bastard .

So what, he is schyzofrenic or what?
Ump sorry, i can not question his motivation because he has labeled that (questioning his motivations) as being arrogant, which is a sin.

so sorry, but fuck off

the difference between god and dawkins is that god will make you suffer for eternity if you do not read his book, while dawkins only makes you suffer when he is on tv, or the radio (which you can turn off) but never if you do not read his book.

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

Comments per page: 10