Explosive talk given by by Richard Dawkins, highly recommended (page 2)

nvrgnbk

Religion is about connecting with the infinite source of Being from which we came, in which we live, and to which we will return.

It is?

LOL IP_SEC I think you know very well what I meant. But anyway, to answer equally as bluntly, no I don't think knights came and bam (unless bam was meant as reference to sexual activity in which case I wouldn't be too sure - in case of Knight Templars that might have meant bamming each other, according to some authors anyway)

No revolutions don't necessarily last a day or two a year or even a century. They may start as result of different dynamics whether interruptive natural events of bubbling up of ideas until critical mass is achieve at which moment chain reaction is inevitable. What is revolutionary on the timescale is how much time it is required for change to take place compared to a lifetime of the species or organism. For instance, human have existed as homosapians some 100.000 years but it was only in the last 10.000 that civilization sprang through that was revolutionary compared to the timescale of human existence.
At least from Ancient Greece have we dreamed about flying but it was only in the last 150 years first starting with German pioneer Otto Lilienthal then by Wright brother who actually brought it into human consciousness that humans can fly using machines and within a decade or so there were thousands of pilots all over the world doing the same. In Recent years, starting in 1950s government financed space flight was done by mainly Americans and Russians. Anyone dreaming of spaceflight could do it only through those two channels or (ok few more now but government channels nontheless) It took Burt Ruttan's SpaceShipOne and winning of Asari X prize to even bring into public consciousness that you don't have to be straight A MIT graduated astronaut to have a privilage of seeing earth from space. Suddenly, there are several companies one of which is Richard Brandson Virgin Galactic, hastily making plans to tap into space tourism. Just few years ago even very mention of that would have been laughed out.

I could go on and on, but in each of those instances it took something that interrupted status quo after which world was never the same again.

chrisjoel

It's hilarious how the Dawkins attacks religion for being absolutist and forcing conformity when the Dawkins itself despises anyone who doesn't share it's point of view

In my opinion...if there is such a thing as righteous indignation then thats what this is. Call it "getting pissed off" at all the nonsense and all the Bullshit done in the name of religion. From holy wars to magical water that is supposed to cure your disease. I see nothing wrong with with Mr Dawkins expressing anger when there is no aquiecing (sp)? to the athiestic point of view because until God himself takes the podium Science is doing all the talking right now. Science had to catch up to God..now God should catch up to Science. When someone displays the charachteristics that show they are unwilling to to be corrected (unlike science) then this makes Mr Dawkins and those like him feel that they are wasting their breath. Fortunately they have my vote for getting pissed off at Religion instead of laughing at Religion from inside private rooms. Mr Dawkins Hip Hip Horay!

BurnTheShips

Happy birth day BTS

Thank you IP_SEC.

34 years is weighing more heavily on me today than I think it should.

Burn

BurnTheShips

In my opinion...if there is such a thing as righteous indignation then thats what this is. Call it "getting pissed off" at all the nonsense and all the Bullshit done in the name of religion. From holy wars to magical water that is supposed to cure your disease. I see nothing wrong with with Mr Dawkins expressing anger when there is no aquiecing (sp)? to the athiestic point of view because until God himself takes the podium Science is doing all the talking right now. Science had to catch up to God..now God should catch up to Science. When someone displays the charachteristics that show they are unwilling to to be corrected (unlike science) then this makes Mr Dawkins and those like him feel that they are wasting their breath. Fortunately they have my vote for getting pissed off at Religion instead of laughing at Religion from inside private rooms. Mr Dawkins Hip Hip Horay!

IP_SEC

LOL IP_SEC I think you know very well what I meant. But anyway, to answer equally as bluntly, no I don't think knights came and bam (unless bam was meant as reference to sexual activity in which case I wouldn't be too sure - in case of Knight Templars that might have meant bamming each other, according to some authors anyway)

Hahah zag you made me truly laugh out loud for the first time today!

No revolutions don't necessarily last a day or two a year or even a century. They may start as result of different dynamics whether interruptive natural events of bubbling up of ideas until critical mass is achieve at which moment chain reaction is inevitable. What is revolutionary on the timescale is how much time it is required for change to take place compared to a lifetime of the species or organism. For instance, human have existed as homosapians some 100.000 years but it was only in the last 10.000 that civilization sprang through that was revolutionary compared to the timescale of human existence.
At least from Ancient Greece have we dreamed about flying but it was only in the last 150 years first starting with German pioneer Otto Lilienthal then by Wright brother who actually brought it into human consciousness that humans can fly using machines and within a decade or so there were thousands of pilots all over the world doing the same. In Recent years, starting in 1950s government financed space flight was done by mainly Americans and Russians. Anyone dreaming of spaceflight could do it only through those two channels or (ok few more now but government channels nontheless) It took Burt Ruttan's SpaceShipOne and winning of Asari X prize to even bring into public consciousness that you don't have to be straight A MIT graduated astronaut to have a privilage of seeing earth from space. Suddenly, there are several companies one of which is Richard Brandson Virgin Galactic, hastily making plans to tap into space tourism. Just few years ago even very mention of that would have been laughed out.
I could go on and on, but in each of those instances it took something that interrupted status quo after which world was never the same again.

Ok zag what you are describing is still a very slow process. Yes there may be a spark be it an asteroid or climate change or a new idea on origin of species. But for the change to be lasting it must be a growth, an evolution of ideas which will not happen over a decade or maybe even a century of time. I really think we are on the same page. No?

Its just that Dawkins wants it NOW! Hell, I want it now, but for it to be of substance, to last it cant happen over night Dawkins wants change by means of militant atheist? No? That is doomed to be just another page in the history books of failed revolutions.

Kiera

Dawkins basic tenet of belief is that

a) all those who believe in God are stupid

and

b) only stupid people believe in God.

My questions to Mr. Dawkins is as follows -

a) Are there stupid Athiests ?

and

b) Are those who blindly follow the beliefs of Mr. Richard Dawkins stupid ?

BurnTheShips

Drat. This is the buggiest board.....

THIS is what I meant to post:

In my opinion...if there is such a thing as righteous indignation then thats what this is. Call it "getting pissed off" at all the nonsense and all the Bullshit done in the name of religion. From holy wars to magical water that is supposed to cure your disease. I see nothing wrong with with Mr Dawkins expressing anger when there is no aquiecing (sp)? to the athiestic point of view because until God himself takes the podium Science is doing all the talking right now. Science had to catch up to God..now God should catch up to Science. When someone displays the charachteristics that show they are unwilling to to be corrected (unlike science) then this makes Mr Dawkins and those like him feel that they are wasting their breath. Fortunately they have my vote for getting pissed off at Religion instead of laughing at Religion from inside private rooms. Mr Dawkins Hip Hip Horay!

There is no conflict here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

Today historians acknowledge that many scientific developments, such as Kepler's laws and the 19th century reformulation of physics in terms of energy, were explicitly driven by religious ideas. [12] Religious organizations figure prominently in the broader histories of many sciences, with many of the scientific minds until the professionalization of scientific enterprise (in the 19th century) being clergy and other religious thinkers. [13] Even the most prominent examples of conflict, such as the Galileo affair and the Scopes trial, were not purely instances of conflict between science and religion; personal and political factors also weighed heavily in the development of each. [14]

Burn

zagor

And one more thing. Even this thread already demonstrated that we need penetrative discussion that dig deep and let people see evidence for themselves. Just earlier BurnTheShips was of one opinion about evolution and few comments further has expressed something that can be only characterized as religions fundamentalism. No offense intended. I am not for putting people down for their beliefs but if they decide to participate in public discussion then they have to be ready to elaborate it for the sake of those observing the discussion and/or be proven wrong equally publically. If that is militant so be it.

BurnTheShips

Just earlier BurnTheShips was of one opinion about evolution and few comments further has expressed something that can be only characterized as religions fundamentalism.

Indeed? I would like to see an explanation of that.

Burn

Explosive talk given by by Richard Dawkins, highly recommended

Share this