Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know you don't care. Its about "war". My points are valid, I see. Stalin, moa, Lennon, and many African leaders today tossed out, imprison, or killed those that used common sense. They executed people that preach liberty and justice for all before "team colors".
It's not what we believe. It's how we believe.
If common sense is getting in the way, you might wanna rethink this 'way" of yours.
It is not about standing up for oneself. That is an admiral trait. I teach it to my children at my expense I might add. It is how we use this "stand up for yourself". Many use it as an emotional appeal as stone cold logic. its decietfull. In this case, "stand up for yourself as logic for the justification in dehumanizing religious people".
point two. This getting in the way thing. At the expense of commonsense and honesty. Or placing emotional reasoning/needs ahead of logical risks benefit analysis?. That's not how I roll. Truth, honesty, and liberty for all people first. My axioms are independent of belief in no god.
When I address religious literalism, the real enemy, I use commonsense, reason, and control. Keeping a close eye on separation of church and state. All the While watching out for the rights of the non literal religious person as well as the non literal athiest.
Oh well..that was ok, until you got to the idea of a 'literal athiest'. I suppose that's the one goes Quack..
Look at how you word your question, asking "who wrote?" ... You're presupposing Intelligent Design. The first step you need to take to understand the truth is to break out of this pseudoscientific mindset.
Simple answer is, no-one "wrote" it.
Just saying "Dawkins did it" is boring, and ignores thousands of stochastic models that prove how it could have arisen through random shuffling of letters on a computer over millions of years, without the need to invoke some superstitious "Dawkins" figure.
Look at how you word your question, asking "who wrote?" ... You're presupposing Intelligent Design. The first step you need to take to understand the truth is to break out of this pseudoscientific mindset.
Simple answer is, no-one "wrote" it.
Just saying "Dawkins did it" is boring, and ignores thousands of stochastic models that prove how it could have arisen through random shuffling of letters on a computer over millions of years, without the need to invoke some superstitious "Dawkins" figure.
You are absolutely right...I mean, look at the ancient literary record all arranged according to chronological order of subject matter, grammar...even typeface! Quite clearly the "God delusion" is the product of thousands of years of gradual literary development (which is a proven scientific discipline, not a mere 'Opinion') and "Dawkins" is a mere convenience -label for the present result. To say there is an intrinsic reality behind "Dawkins" is mere wishful thinking.
Look at how you word your question, asking "who wrote?" ... You're presupposing Intelligent Design. The first step you need to take to understand the truth is to break out of this pseudoscientific mindset.
Simple answer is, no-one "wrote" it.
Just saying "Dawkins did it" is boring, and ignores thousands of stochastic models that prove how it could have arisen through random shuffling of letters on a computer over millions of years, without the need to invoke some superstitious "Dawkins" figure.
Look at how you word your question, asking "who wrote?" ... You're presupposing Intelligent Design. The first step you need to take to understand the truth is to break out of this pseudoscientific mindset.
Simple answer is, no-one "wrote" it.
Just saying "Dawkins did it" is boring, and ignores thousands of stochastic models that prove how it could have arisen through random shuffling of letters on a computer over millions of years, without the need to invoke some superstitious "Dawkins" figure.
Inspired by the spoof 'Dawkins delusion' radio show:
That's brilliant (1)! It even sounds like him. Of course all it does is fit the Dawkins material to the Biblical apologetics argument (ignoring the bits that don't fit or fiddling them until they do) and making it work as a brilliant spoof - but not to be taken too seriously. (2)
(1) as brilliant as the 'not the 9 o' clock' spoof denunciation of the 'Life of Christ' by the python religion.
(2) for example a real Dawkins is so well attested by evidence that it would be silly to disbelieve that he is the writer of the books, the content is predictable meaningful apart from the arrangement of words, whereas the encoded Meaning in ID is not demonstrable is any valid scientific way (the Dover trial put that claim to bed) and mainly, nobody is required to believe Dawkins on faith, but just to give his views open -minded consideration. That is why the spoof is very good, but is just a spoof - not an argument - if it was (just suppose) intended to be one.
Inspired by the spoof 'Dawkins delusion' radio show:
Brilliant!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
not a mere 'Opinion') and "Dawkins" is a mere convenience -label for the present result. To say there is an intrinsic reality behind "Dawkins" is mere wishful thinking.
