"Your Faith is a Joke" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
Is this guy for real? He just blabbered on for a whole 6 minutes about how faith is against reason? Maybe I ought to post a video about how 1 plus 1 equals 2, except I don't think I can take myself seriously afterwards. I'd be surprised if this nut job still does. The guy doesn't even make a single coherent argument and I wish I could say he's perhaps rhetorically clever like Hitchens or Dawkins but he's not.
I don't know what you saw in that video to be honest. I've been impressed by many atheists in the past such as A.C Grayling or Bertrand Russel, but this guy is just a ridiculously arrogant prick who's better at giving headaches that making sound arguments.
The thing is, it's not about respecting the content of one's belief but simply respecting his right to choose whatever he wants to believe in, no matter how ridiculous it seems to us. I think this is where this guy has it all wrong, and hence why I think he's extremely arrogant.
If I meet someone who believes that all of modern science if wrong and that the earth is, in fact, flat; I would probably think that the guy is an absolute idiot. Does that mean that he shouldn't be tolerated in society? Here's the way I see it. If this person is a productive member of his community and is causing no harm to anyone, then who are we to judge whether or not we should tolerate his beliefs?
Usually religious fundamentalists are known for their intolerance, but I always thought that they don't know any better. That they probably lack proper education and have been brainwashed from their youth.
It shocks me to see this Mr. Arrogant adopt the same intolerant attitude because you would expect a little more intelligence from an academic, but apparently I was wrong.
If I meet someone who believes that all of modern science if wrong and that the earth is, in fact, flat; I would probably think that the guy is an absolute idiot. Does that mean that he shouldn't be tolerated in society? Here's the way I see it. If this person is a productive member of his community and is causing no harm to anyone, then who are we to judge whether or not we should tolerate his beliefs?
Usually religious fundamentalists are known for their intolerance, but I always thought that they don't know any better. That they probably lack proper education and have been brainwashed from their youth.
It shocks me to see this Mr. Arrogant adopt the same intolerant attitude because you would expect a little more intelligence from an academic, but apparently I was wrong.
As if religion doesn't go out of its way to try to convert people to one religion, or make one feel guilty for not having faith in an religion, or make one feel ashamed for not respecting an unproven theory.
The message is pretty simple. Freedom of choice can be respected, but nobody should be forced to respect an idea you don't believe in. That's an actual affront against freedom of choice in itself.
The message is pretty simple. Freedom of choice can be respected, but nobody should be forced to respect an idea you don't believe in. That's an actual affront against freedom of choice in itself.
I hate to have to keep saying this every time a religious topic is discussed but belief in God is not a scientific hypothesis. Philosophical? Yes. Personal? Probably. Scientific? Absolutely not.
Here's why. Science is based on the principle of testable observation. A scientist comes up with a hypothesis and conducts an experiment to test it's validity. The question of God's existence, epistemological questions, moralistic questions, and anything to do with the subject of philosophy cannot be empirically verified by definition.
If I say to you that I am a rationalist, or a sophist, will you be intolerant of my beliefs because they oppose freedom of choice or science? I may try to suggest you become a rationalist or an empiricist, and I may do that without providing any evidence at all other than my logical reasoning. Should I be accused of intellectual treason for doing so?
Here's why. Science is based on the principle of testable observation. A scientist comes up with a hypothesis and conducts an experiment to test it's validity. The question of God's existence, epistemological questions, moralistic questions, and anything to do with the subject of philosophy cannot be empirically verified by definition.
If I say to you that I am a rationalist, or a sophist, will you be intolerant of my beliefs because they oppose freedom of choice or science? I may try to suggest you become a rationalist or an empiricist, and I may do that without providing any evidence at all other than my logical reasoning. Should I be accused of intellectual treason for doing so?
1-As if R.Dawkins didn't write "the God delusion" in attempt to make the theists forsake their faiths.If he has the right to explain his ideas and thoughts,the we also have the right to do so.
2-Then you should also not force the muslims to respect homosexuality,because simply they don't believe in it.
