The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

"You can't debate about religion without being rude"

Not claiming to know the unknowable is a sign of intellectual honesty. Scientists and atheists are not afraid to say "I don't know" yet are portrayed as smug and condescending know-it-alls anyway.
 
kallipolis said:
I prefer Dawkin's clearly enunciated words broadcast by radio...causing a stir, especially amongst evangelical atheists....that he is agnostic....not atheist...rather than rely on the verbal diarrhea of Dawkin's disciples attempting to re-edit his words....to suit their prejudices.....
Click to expand...

Okay, I've reached that point in the video, and if anything Dawkins is affirming less of an uncertainty in the non-existence of God than before -- in the God Delusion, he puts himself at a 6 on a scale of 1 to 7, but in the discussion with Rowan Williams he puts himself at 6.9, indicating that he has moved closer to absolute certainty that there is no God than when he wrote the book.

SO the hype is just sensationalism. They're claiming the opposite of what his words say.
 
bort138 said:
Not claiming to know the unknowable is a sign of intellectual honesty. Scientists and atheists are not afraid to say "I don't know" yet are portrayed as smug and condescending know-it-alls anyway.
Click to expand...

The anti-religious cartoon thread is a superb illustration of just how smug and condescending atheists frequently are. I'm not sure what it shows about "know-it-all" attitudes, because mostly it shows that lots of atheists don't care if they know or not, they're still going to be smug and condescending.
 
A comment on that Dawkins -- Williams discussion: it wasn't really a debate, more a panel discussion. And it was 'way too short; both of them have a wide range of knowledge and are worth listening to. And it's especially nice to see Dawkins when he isn't being obnoxious and arrogant.

It's worth a watch:

 
Kulindahr said:
A comment on that Dawkins -- Williams discussion: it wasn't really a debate, more a panel discussion. And it was 'way too short; both of them have a wide range of knowledge and are worth listening to. And it's especially nice to see Dawkins when he isn't being obnoxious and arrogant.

It's worth a watch:

Click to expand...

If you can show any videos where he is being "obnoxious and arrogant"
 
Kulindahr said:
The anti-religious cartoon thread is a superb illustration of just how smug and condescending atheists frequently are. I'm not sure what it shows about "know-it-all" attitudes, because mostly it shows that lots of atheists don't care if they know or not, they're still going to be smug and condescending.
Click to expand...

You've contributed several anti-Islamic cartoons so would that make you a smug, condescending Christian then?

My point was that in the media and in debates, atheists are perceived as know-it-alls by the general public even though when pressed they will admit that they do not know and are willing to reevaluate their position if presented with sufficient evidence. Theists rarely ever admit that they don't know and frequently state that nothing could change their mind, yet it's the atheists who are the know-it-alls and close-minded ones.
 
Telstra said:
If you can show any videos where he is being "obnoxious and arrogant"
Click to expand...

Watch the video that started this discussion. You know, the one you posted. It shows Dawkins at his worst.

I've seen the video on the Dawkins-Williams before (I didn't know this was the discussion we were talking about); it is one of Dawkins' best. The two don't even bother with discussing the deal-breakers, and take on the better questions. I'd like to see them meet up again. It'd be worth watching.
 
I did watch.
It wasn't "obnoxious and arrogant". It was just being honest.
 
The other thing missing here is the distinction between informal language and formal language.

An agnostic, formally speaking, is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." (OED) In other words, they assert the impossibility of ever answering the question.

An atheist, formally, is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." (also OED)

These distinctions should be observed by anyone following the public discussion, but they are not. Including, sometimes, by Professor Dawkins.

Instead people default to informal everyday usage:
  • atheist means a person who claims to know with certainty there is no god or gods
  • agnostic means someone who hasn't made up his mind yet, or someone who would like to believe but experiences some kind of skepticism or doubt, or someone who doesn't know while not registering an opinion on whether we can know or not, or someone who counts a god as being unlikely but possible, or someone who counts a god as being probable but not confirmed.

In formal speech, Dawkins certainly is an atheist. In everyday speech, he is not.
 
Kulindahr said:
If you aren't claiming that no gods exist, then you are not, properly speaking, an atheist. So the dishonesty here is yours -- you're trying to obfuscate by playing with definitions.

Atheism is the belief that there are no deities. If you don't believe that no gods exist, but aren't affirming that any do, then you're saying you don't know, and that's agnosticism. Saying "I don't accept your claim that God exists" while not denying it is agnosticism -- your position above is agnostic.
Click to expand...

I could just as easily say that you are not a real believer in god because you are not a creationist. All those who believe in god are creationists. You may try to correct me, try to explain that it isn't necessary to be a creationist in order to believe in god, but then I could just respond by saying you are being dishonest, that you are just playing with definitions, that you are not actually a believer, and continue my strawman definition no matter how many times I am told to the contrary. But that would seem rather dishonest, and frankly, quite an offensive thing for me to do.

Labels have various meanings and definitions. I chose to use the word "atheist" to describe my position on the god claim because, like it or not, it is an accurate representation of my position. I would also choose to label myself as "agnostic" because I have no claim to knowledge about the existence or nonexistence of god/gods. I am sure you could point to a webster dictionary entry which would state that "atheism" is an affirmative belief that there are no gods, yet I could just as easily point to an entry describing it as a rejection of the god claim. You do not get to decide that I can not use the label of "atheist" to describe myself simply because you like to believe that "atheist" can only have one meaning, while rejecting all other appropriate definitions. My position is agnostic-athiest, and you hold no power over language that allows you to reject that label or accuse me of dishonesty. I hope you will find a way to understand this, because what you have been doing thus far is tantamount to accusing me of being a liar. Should you continue to do so, I will no longer consider you a reasonable individual worth conversing with, but rather a hostile and childish person that continues to spout lies and accusations that appear to have no other purpose than to inflame and insult, and the various posts in this thread that have time and time again corrected you will certainly serve to show others of your nature.
 
^Well, it has been observed that you can't debate religion without being rude. ;)
 
What is indisputable is Richard Dawkins' position on God, is not as transparently atheist as once it was...and that scares not a few of his disciples, knowing that their Guru is walking on shifting sands...time will tell....:D

Christos Anesti!
 
kallipolis said:
What is indisputable is Richard Dawkins' position on God, is not as transparently atheist as once it was...and that scares not a few of his disciples, knowing that their Guru is walking on shifting sands...time will tell....:D

Christos Anesti!
Click to expand...

LOL, i don't think anyone worship Richard Dawkins.
They just agree with his opinions and that is all.
 
Telstra said:
LOL, i don't think anyone worship Richard Dawkins.
They just agree with his opinions and that is all.
Click to expand...

I'd say that Dawkins' disciples are merely deluded.....even, angry that their messiah is today, less of the atheist he was several years ago....possibly, evidencing Professor Dawkins' growing awareness that his evangelical devotion to atheist practices has waned.... ..while appreciating that Richard Dawkins' understandings are maturing...by adopting an agnostic position...worthy of the man who knows, that he has much learn...don't we all...
 
kallipolis said:
I'd say that Dawkins' disciples are merely deluded.....even, angry that their messiah is today, less of the atheist he was several years ago....possibly, evidencing Professor Dawkins' growing awareness that his evangelical devotion to atheist practices has waned.... ..while appreciating that Richard Dawkins' understandings are maturing...by adopting an agnostic position...worthy of the man who knows, that he has much learn...don't we all...
Click to expand...

Give some names.
How can you say such and such are his disciples but you don't have even one name ? :?
 
kallipolis said:
Read the posts on this forum over the years..and your question will be answered....your name features prominently...
Click to expand...

How can you say i'm a disciple of Dawkins if i say i'm not.
Again, you know me better than me????????????????????????????????????????
 
Telstra said:
How can you say i'm a disciple of Dawkins if i say i'm not.
Again, you know me better than me????????????????????????????????????????
Click to expand...

The evidence is your well established track record on this site, posting video clips of Richard Dawkins speaking his mind on matters of God, religion etc....alternatively, that you have a sexual fixation on Professor Dawkins.....for which I can easily forgive you....:D
 
kallipolis said:
The evidence is your well established track record on this site, posting video clips of Richard Dawkins speaking his mind on matters of God, religion etc....alternatively, that you have a sexual fixation on Professor Dawkins.....for which I can easily forgive you....:D
Click to expand...

110% wrong.
Dawkins is not attractive. Also i don't know him. He might be not my thing in person.
 
kallipolis said:
What is indisputable is Richard Dawkins' position on God, is not as transparently atheist as once it was...and that scares not a few of his disciples, knowing that their Guru is walking on shifting sands...time will tell....:D

Christos Anesti!
Click to expand...

I see you have passed into satire.

Every part of that quote is worthy of a laugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top