Dawkins said it right

I had the good fortune to attend a lecture by Richard Dawkins in Sept
'06 in Birmingham UK when on a visit there. He also signed my copy of
the God Delusion which pleased me, I'm rarely pleased due to evolved
cynicism created over the years, watching grown men dressed in stupid
regalia spouting off about some phallocentric ancient dogma that has
no relevance today. Anyway, I truly believe that, with a modicum of
intellect and a truly pragmatic overview, one cannot even enter the
god theory into serious debate. Every word I hear pro porters of
religion utter just makes me cringe, it is so nonsensical. On the
other hand I do acknowledge that faith does give some people comfort
and everyone has the right to believe in what they want to I myself
cannot give myself over to blind faith and just hope that I'm right as
it may give me some comfort, its delusional.
There are always 2 sides to any debate, one could debate the non
existence of the jello monster and you will have someone debating its
existence and followers of the leader of the jello monster order of
the lime jelly, this doesn't give it any credence. I know there is a
school of thought that will argue tooth and nail that god exists as
per the bible, or the less deluded will water it down to a "more
acceptable" ID, and will have some so called men of science on there
side but out of a population of 6.5 billion that is inevitable,
HOWEVER, the vast majority of right minded men of science and
intellect will see the whole charade as delusion. How can anyone who
seriously wants to discuss the big questions seriously argue against
the VAST MAJORITY?
Dawkins had a great point when he remarked that surely such a
fantastic brilliant existence of an all powerful omnipotent deity,
interventionist or otherwise, would surely come at the end of an
evolutionary epoch,in other words the pinnacle of evolution!, Is it
not completely logical that that would be the eventual outcome not the
premise?
Its hard to debate seriously with a side that argues nonsense, I'm
sorry if that offends but IMHO there is absolutely NO DOUBT that the
major organised religions are completely flawed and based on
irrelevance and wishful thinking, I don't believe any of it and
wouldn't even recant on my deathbed just in case, that is how 100%
sure I am.
As mentioned, I do accept that people have the right to believe in
what they want to its a real pity that such belief still causes so
much suffering in the world.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Liberal white supremacist makes donations to Planned Parenthood
    ... There comes a point in the debate, that it's more effective to argue ... than to argue with Snit. ... "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Chakrabarti backs Gaunt in unlikely alliance
    ... If you disagree with something that someone says or does, because you think an alternative view or approach would be more correct, then surely you can argue that more effectively if you just debate the issue on its merits alone. ... I simply can't see what purpose is served by resorting to personal abuse - and it certainly doesn't say much for the quality of the view held. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Debates & Debating
    ... Are you saying that the pursuit of 'debate' is ALL cases learing to argue ... and in ALL cases without the conviction of truth? ... :> rationalization for lawyers arguing cases for their ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Any comments? (Answers to Pete)
    ... debate on the existence of whatever - people here still think ... creationism should be taught in schools. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Is this a fallacy?
    ... it's a waste of time to argue with someone who won't ... In my naivety I thought to debate the faithfully brain dead, ... My religion teaches me to convert others. ... Therefore, if you refuse to convert to Christianity, you're preventing me ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading