Did Richard Dawkins direct Atheists to deride ?

1. 51

   paarsurreyposted 14 years ago

   Did Richard Dawkins direct Atheists to deride and ridicule religion?

   replyreport
2. 70

   Cagsilposted 14 years ago

   Religion needs no help to derive ridicule. Religion present an imaginative ideology based on wrongly using faith, so as to turn people against themselves, while others usurp power and wealth.
   
   So please...religion needs no help.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      hanging outposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I thought the monetary system was what provided people with power and wealth? Gee i didn't know my pastor was so powerful and rich.
      Seems to me the bankers initializing WW2 to crush the jewish banking system  and create the federal reserve bank, would be more upon the route of obtaining power and wealth. Religion is not the wealthy business it seems to be, sure maybe for joel osteen. I don't see any churches in my town buying property and becoming wealthy.
      So please...

      replyreport
3. 51

   paarsurreyposted 14 years ago

   I think it started with  Richard Dawkins . He started to organize the Atheists to make them a "meme". He taught them to ridicule others. Am I right? Is it a good ethics or moral?

   replyreport
   1. 62

      pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      well atheism is as old as religion itself...both are product of human brain..and ridiculing each other goes on since human came into being..atheism doesnot need single person to start it...

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Quran/Islam/Muhammad forbade people to ridicule others just for fun:
         
         [49:12] O ye who believe! let not one people deride another people, who may be better than they, nor let women deride other women, who may be better than they. And defame not your own people, nor call one another by nicknames. Bad indeed is evil reputation after the profession of belief; and those who repent not are the wrongdoers.
         
         [49:13] O ye who believe! avoid most of suspicions; for suspicion in some cases is a sin. And spy not, nor back-bite one another. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his brother who is dead? Certainly you would loathe it. And fear Allah, surely, Allah is Oft-Returning with compassion and is Merciful.
         
         http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=11
         
         Why should Richard Dawkins put the Atheists on the wrong track of derision and ridicule?
         
         Why could he not introduce good ethics and morals for the Atheists?

         replyreport
         1. 62

            pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            well it doesnot matter what muhammad or quran states...you would find many muslims all across the world who ridicule others and that applies to all faith..so books matter quiet less when it comes to practical life...

            replyreport
            1. 51

               paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               But we have to see the roots for the correct teachings. Richard Dawkins being in the modern age; and the atheists asserting that they can bring things ethical and moral better than Quran; they have just failed. Have they not failed?

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  so has quran and other religious book...we can't be selective man..we need to understand core of human being...humans are humans no matter how we tag them and religion if was answer..we have had enough time with it...why world is not better place by now?...it cannot be..religion is not the answer and ofcourse just rejecting religion is not the answer too...answer lies beyond capacity of both...we need to address that..yes buddha's words can be starting premise...but i am not talking about buddhism is only way sort of thing..because it too is not...
                  
                  you think religious people have more morals..well they can be bought , they can threaten people , they can even kill people to prove that they are right..history is filled with that..why?..because upper clothing doesnot change inner self...we are jungle beings..we were hunters to start with..yes religion did induce things which people adhere till they are not pushed to the wall...
                  
                  ideally we can built more moral thing by making humans understand that how they are inter connected as species and what they would get (tangible) by abiding to good way of life..

                  replyreport
               2. 77

                  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  No.

                  replyreport
                  1. 51

                     paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't agree with you.

                     replyreport
                     1. 62

                        pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        quite expected...you can't agree to anything which is not in lines of quran...it is understandable...

                        replyreport
                     2. 77

                        skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Sure.
                        
                        Atleast i have no objections if you disagree with me unlike quran which says disagreement with it or believers should lead to hell, isn't it ?

                        replyreport
                        1. 62

                           pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           

                           replyreport
         2. 77

            skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Height of contradiction. Same quran has verses against non-believers and punishment for them. I think some people really need to peek into their books. Or else alla YAMAHA will be angry.
            
            Just for the records-
            
            Zakir naik ridicules christianity, hinduism, budhism and teaches other muslims not to celebrate their festivals or have tolerance for their religion and respect.
            
            Saudi king paid huge amount to a biologist to relate embryo with quranic verses.
            
            Islamic people teach their community about evils of america and white people.
            
            If this shite is not supposed to be ridiculed then i wonder what is supposed to do with it. Crap needs to be addressed as crap.

            replyreport
            1. 51

               paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Zakir Naik or Saudi Arabia do not rerresent Quran; Quran itself explains which I had quoted.

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  well does that matter?..zakir naik is hailed as Islamic scholar..he has massive following ..Saudi=Islam as per general perception..what they do or say has influence...

                  replyreport
               2. 77

                  skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Richard dawkins doesn't represent atheism.
                  
                  Paar doesn't represent islam ever since he stopped using i'm peaceful ahamadi islamic. 
                  
                  People who manipulate ideology are responsible for the dissection of that ideology by those who look at it skeptically.
                  
                  If that's not enough read previous post from pisean.

                  replyreport
      2. 0

         Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         exactly, speaking of which, I'll have to get around to reading some atheist books at some stage. 
         
         I looked Richard Dawkins up, and he gets death threats - gee, I wonder who from - the monotheist religions, perhaps?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            hanging outposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            If you don't know exactly it is best not to promote your hate theories even if you add the word perhaps.
            perhaps the scientific community?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               RD is a scientist and an atheist that speaks up about the foolishness of religion, so what sense does it make for scientists and atheists to send him hate mail?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  hanging outposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  why would they not? perhaps the queen of england or some free masonist.
                  if you do not know
                  you shouldn't say.

                  replyreport
   2. 77

      skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Is it right to write verses on non-muslims, non-believers ? is it right to spam the forums with religion ? is it ethical ? moral ?

      replyreport
4. 51

   paarsurreyposted 14 years ago

   I think it started with Richard Dawkins as a policy

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Atheists were around long before RD - are you afraid of RD because he is bold enough to be outspoken?

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No; not in the least; I am not afraid of him. I pity the Atheists Skeptics Agnostics; by following the advice of RD; they have been derailed from the way of reasoning and arguments; the only merit they had previously; now they are left with hardly any merit.
         
         He does me no harm; I had been writing on his discussion forum; he never came face with face with me.
         
         The Atheists Skeptics Agnostics now need no adversary RD is enough for them
         
         There is no compulsion in matters of faith and religion

         replyreport
5. 62

   luvpassionposted 13 years ago

   I thought he was the host of the Family Feud. way back in history.

   replyreport
6. 59

   hanging outposted 13 years ago

   Again we have another example of a logic and mathematical, scientific mind trying to comprehend something that really requires just exactly the opposite, a little faith or belief. I can imagine a man in a wheelchair, who doesn't think his brain is from God, blaming God for his being in a wheelchair and giving no credit to God for his intelligence, although being in the wheelchair probably influenced his genius.
   There are some christians that i know, who are okay with being in a wheelchair and who don't blame God. Of course there will always be others who don't come to terms with their handicap outside of God even as there are those who will never understand why there are starving in africa while some christians get to go to disneyland.
   It is all blessings when God enters the life! and yes, otherwise it may be construed a curse. God refreshes the mind and puts everything in its proper perspective.
   There's tons of Christian miraclism in this, but no logic, logic can never understand what God is doing. Being in the wheelchair gave him time to think and learn. His learning ability alone may have come from God, perhaps God was thinking oh man if this guy ever comes to believe in me the day he walks will be so glorious! But some people think he should never be this way.. not the Garden, not the garden. we live outside the garden in a bit of a different situation.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ... no logic whatsoever.
      
      
      
      Or, the fact that his legs don't work has nothing to do with his brain at all. You aren't in a wheelchair, presumably?
      
      
      
      You're sure about that or are you fabricating stories again?
      
      
      
      And, you aren't one of those starving in Africa, presumably?
      
      
      
      Properly fed and properly starving, just for Christians to enjoy this perspective.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I just read about the enthusiastic youth pastor that yanked someone out of their wheelchair because he believe god had healed them.  The person slumped to the floor

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      RD's not in a wheelchair...you're thinking of that other genius...can't think of his name right now

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You mean Stephen Hawking?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            yeah, is that who they're thinking of?

            replyreport
            1. 51

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               No, Richard Dawkins is a Biologist and one of the leaders of the Atheists Skeptics Agnostics.

               replyreport
            2. 59

               hanging outposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               oh there's two of them
               lol
               I do not follow science.
               stephen hawking is in the wheelchair
               RD is someone i do not know of
               let me check youtube lol
               okay gotta luv youtube.. stephen hawking is in the wheelchair
               not sure which one was the other guy there was a grey haired fellah and a brown haired fellah.
               I suppose for the majority of posts it doesn't matter who i referred to.

               replyreport
7. 85

   I am DB Cooperposted 13 years ago

   Richard Dawkins is an active atheist. I would say that most atheists are passive, in that they have their view that there is no God yet they accept that much of the world is run and will continue to be run by religious ideology. Dawkins does not accept this, and that's why he challenges religion wherever it might be creeping into and disrupting secular society.

   replyreport