SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[old.user4556]

As I posted above - to begin, it's about making sure we're the clearly superior moral force.

I sometimes wonder though. Humans have destroyed each other since time began. In this overpopulated world, and considering that the human race is ultimately doomed in the not too distant future, is this the start of it? Is this how it ends? At what point does being morally superior just run out of steam and say "fuck it" and go down a "final solution" route?

 

[Gwadien]

I sometimes wonder though. Humans have destroyed each other since time began. In this overpopulated world, and considering that the human race is ultimately doomed in the not too distant future, is this the start of it? Is this how it ends? At what point does being morally superior just run out of steam and say "fuck it" and go down a "final solution" route?

The final solution would be to eradicate extreme poverty across the planet, then families wouldn't have the need to have 12 kids, families would have 2.4 kids, and then some people won't have kids, thus the population will stick to 10billion.

Who's that guy who predicted that?

 

[old.user4556]

As a side not - as an evolutionist and Dawkinist - I find this whole thing utterly fascinating.

 

[Gwadien]

As a side not - as an evolutionist and Dawkinist - I find this whole thing utterly fascinating.

Dawkins it's like Trump though, as you say 'Stop Religion' 'How?' 'JUST STOP IT'

It's not realistic, so therefore a very poor theory, no?

 

[old.user4556]

He's an evolutionary biologist, not a politician. His motto is "Religion: together we can find the cure" - that leads back to you earlier point about everyone pulling together globally to do something about it.

 

[Gwadien]

He's an evolutionary biologist, not a politician. His motto is "Religion: together we can find the cure" - that leads back to you earlier point about everyone pulling together globally to do something about it.

Well no, but if you're going to say outlandish things, you need to offer a suggestion.

You can't just spout random stuff and not offer a way to achieve this, it's just saying clever things to denounce religion but not actually offering a way to 'find the cure.'

 

[old.user4556]

"outlandish" - you mean denouncing the complete and total fiction of Religion? That's not outlandish, it's the concrete fucking truth. So apologising for religion!

 

[Gwadien]

"outlandish" - you mean denouncing the complete and total fiction of Religion? That's not outlandish, it's the concrete fucking truth. So apologising for religion!

No, denouncing religion and saying that you want it gone without saying how/why is pretty outlandish, because it could either result in The Final Solution, or a 500 year plan which will gradually and nicely eradicate religion.

 

[old.user4556]

See above, he's not a politician.

 

[Gwadien]

See above, he's not a politician.

No, but if you want to become a respected theorist, you have to come up the full 3 course meal, in my point of view, if you have an amazing starter but then there's no main course or dessert, then you may as well be Nigel Farage.

As a random person who can shut down a religious person on Youtube, it's fine, but since he's an apparently respected academic, having Youtube videos of him putting down religious people doesn't cut it for me.

Don't get me wrong, I could be chatting arse, and he does have a plan to achieve this.

 

[old.user4556]

Jesus.

 

[Gwadien]

Jesus.

Oh the irony.

I consider this a victory for England, not for Great Britain.

 

[old.user4556]

Why is that ironic? Jesus was a person?

You compared Dawkins to Farage. I'm out.

 

[Gwadien]

Why is that ironic? Jesus was a person?

You compared Dawkins to Farage. I'm out.

Dawkins says obvious stuff, like RELIGION IS BAD.

Anyone can say that, but it's using his years of studying into religion could show ways of how it can be eradicated which will gain my respect, even if it is the Final Solution, atleast he sticks to his convictions rather than being vague.

 

[old.user4556]

Get it into your thick head, he's not a politician or boo boo fixer.

 

[Tom]

No, denouncing religion and saying that you want it gone without saying how/why is pretty outlandish, because it could either result in The Final Solution, or a 500 year plan which will gradually and nicely eradicate religion.

I'm reasonably certain that Dawkins believes that teaching correct science and rationality is a very good way to eliminate religion. He's entirely correct when he says that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is ignorant or ill.

 

[Gwadien]

Get it into your thick head, he's not a politician or boo boo fixer.

You don't have to be a politician to create theories.

It's like Marx saying 'Oh guys, there's this thing called Capitalism, it's a massive problem'

Or it's like Weber saying that 'North European countries are more productive than other European nations.'

Or it's like the Mr Llama saying 'People hurt each other too much'

Or it's like America saying 'They're not democratic enough'

Or it's like Louis Pasteur saying 'This milk is going out of date too quickly'

@Tom has just shown what his response to it is which is great, but I was asking why, and you couldn't answer it, it seems bizarre to follow a guy who says obvious stuff, but without a solution.

 

[Gwadien]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35058076

 

[Ormorof]

What scouse has been pointing out that simply executing all "the crazies" creates more of them

Also who gets to define "the crazies" ? The UK? US? Russia? Saudi Arabia?

 

[old.user4556]

@Tom has just shown what his response to it is which is great, but I was asking why, and you couldn't answer it, it seems bizarre to follow a guy who says obvious stuff, but without a solution.

I wouldn't answer it, not "couldn't". There is a wealth of information on Dawkins across the web - don't be ignorant, go and find it out for yourself.

It's ignorance like that that permeates religious nutters: refusing to educate themselves on the truth.

 

[sayward]

What worries me is the top boys name this year in uk is Mohammed.......

 

[Gwadien]

I wouldn't answer it, not "couldn't". There is a wealth of information on Dawkins across the web - don't be ignorant, go and find it out for yourself.

It's ignorance like that that permeates religious nutters: refusing to educate themselves on the truth.

Wait, what no.

As Tom said, it's about educating people which is the way to do it, so why don't you practice what you preach and educate me and tell me I'm wrong by saying 'actually, his solution is this.'

 

[Gwadien]

What worries me is the top boys name this year in uk is Mohammed.......

Hardly worrying, we're just more creative with giving kids names.

 

[sayward]

Hardly worrying, we're just more creative with giving kids names.

You mean the boys are not all Muslims?

 

[Fweddy]

Education is definitely the way. I went to a talk last night about Islam and Apostasy, given by an ex-muslim. I found it stunning that up until she went to college she'd always been taught that evolution was a fringe theory that had played a big part in causing World War 1. Apart from a year or two at a boarding school in Pakistan she'd lived and been educated in Britain her whole life. It must be really hard to shake things like that that you've grown up with, that everyone you know believes too.

 

[Gwadien]

You mean the boys are not all Muslims?

No, I'm saying that pretty much every muslim calls their boys Mohammed (You'd be surprised how many call them Mohammed as a first name, but actually use a second name) where as we call our kids different stuff.

 

[DaGaffer]

What worries me is the top boys name this year in uk is Mohammed.......

Has been for years. It's not an imaginative religion.

 

[Tom]

Wait, what no.

As Tom said, it's about educating people which is the way to do it, so why don't you practice what you preach and educate me and tell me I'm wrong by saying 'actually, his solution is this.'

Insisting that others "educate" you on matters you're already aware of is intellectually lazy and hardly worth a response. You have a brain: use it.

 

[Job]

They try to say it isn't by pointing out the ten different ways to spell it, which is the most pathetic sidestepping of the subject possible.

 

[Scouse]

Well no, but if you're going to say outlandish things, you need to offer a suggestion

I fundamentally disagree with this point of view.

Many issues are far to complex for a single human being to come up with an answer (this being one of them). Campaigning on the issue without having all the answers is a fundamental starting point - a rallying cry. You need to mobilise a lot of people to even begin to develop a solution. Saying what he says is "invalid" because he doesn't have the answers is just a way of shutting dissenting voices down.

For example: Capitalism is in need of reform. I don't have all the solutions - but does that mean that I can't understand the need for that reform and talk about it in an educated manner? In my experience the type of people who would disregard or attempt to illegitimise that sort of discussion are generally people with either low IQ's who find the subject to onerous to grasp or have some emotionally vested interest*.






*not talking about you here...