You won't get any replies till next week though, and your question has to be moded up

http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/12/10/18/1329231/ask-richard-dawkins-about-evolution-religion-and-science-education?sbsrc=md

So yeah, probably won't get an answer. But the discussions on the page are nice

Aye... atheists do not have the mental capacity to answer questions on their own alleged personal beliefs. Rather they run around letting Dawkins do the thinking for them... all they do is regurgitate his ideas then preen around as if it was their own.

davidylan: Aye... atheists do not have the mental capacity to answer questions on their own alleged personal beliefs. Rather they run around letting Dawkins do the thinking for them... all they do is regurgitate his ideas then preen around as if it was their own.

davidylan?!

davidylan, dyla david landi lin dave?

Wiegraf is everything ok?

davidylan: Aye... atheists do not have the mental capacity to answer questions on their own alleged personal beliefs. Rather they run around letting Dawkins do the thinking for them... all they do is regurgitate his ideas then preen around as if it was their own.

Most atheists, like myself, have never read any works of Dawkins.
Most atheists were people who had inner doubts and stirrings about the religious ideas and beliefs that they were forced-fed from infancy.

Therefore works by Dawkins and his kind only help budding atheists to explore, and at times, bring them closer to validating their doubts and inner stirrings.

CrazyMan: Wiegraf is everything ok?

I'm practicing my davidylan is all.

plaetton:

Most atheists, like myself, have never read any works of Dawkins.
Most atheists were people who had inner doubts and stirrings about the religious ideas and beliefs that they were forced-fed from infancy.

Therefore works by Dawkins and his kind only help budding atheists to explore, and at times, bring them closer to validating their doubts and inner stirrings.

i.e. you mean many atheists really have no opinion of their own but need to validate themselves by regurgitating from Dawkins? Didnt i just say the same thing above?

davidylan:

i.e. you mean many atheists really have no opinion of their own but need to validate themselves by regurgitating from Dawkins? Didnt i just say the same thing above?

Lol, even funnier is this part.

plaetton:

Most atheists, like myself, have never read any works of Dawkins.
Most atheists were people who had inner doubts and stirrings about the religious ideas and beliefs that they were forced-fed from infancy.

Therefore works by Dawkins and his kind only help budding atheists to explore, and at times, bring them closer to validating their doubts and inner stirrings.

Notice the words he is using "force-fed" and "validating their doubts"

how does one validate a doubt? last I heard, it was beliefs that needed strengthening.

another funny phrase is "force-fed". As if it is the usual practice for parents to lay out options for their babies to choose which parental style best suits them.

Lol, some people and their reasoning sef...

I suppose dawkins is doing something right, the haters seem to be attracted...

wiegraf: I suppose dawkins is doing something right, the haters seem to be attracted...

Lol, of course since haters are now the yardstick of rightness. . . . . Bin Laden was equally doing something right. The haters were attracted too.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, of course since haters are now the yardstick of rightness. . . . . Bin Laden was equally doing something right. The haters were attracted too.

You get it, yes. From his pov the west were haters

wiegraf:

You get it, yes. From his pov the west were haters

Good for you then.

Your point-of-view based rightness system is pretty interesting by the way

Mr_Anony:
Good for you then.

Your point-of-view based rightness system is pretty interesting

Thank you for the 'interesting' compliment, though who said it was a rightness based system? The good for me should be good for you for understanding it with ease (it's not nuclear physics, but still).

To bore you some more, just like freedom loving human rights hippies were haters to bin laden, davidylans like davidylan (who is not a troll, because he believes what he says and isn't being disingenuous just to frustrate for lulz, so we'll just call his unique condition davidylan), and serial rapists of logic like you are haters. So, from dawkins pov, haters (davidylans and logic rapers) show up, he must be doing something right.

wiegraf:

Thank you for the 'interesting' compliment, though who said it was a rightness based system? The good for me should be good for you for understanding it with ease (it's not nuclear physics, but still).

To bore you some more, just like freedom loving human rights hippies were haters to bin laden, davidylans like davidylan (who is not a troll, because he believes what he says and isn't being disingenuous just to frustrate for lulz, so we'll just call his unique condition davidylan), and serial rapists of logic like you are haters. So, from dawkins pov, haters (davidylans and logic rapers) show up, he must be doing something right.

Lol, again good for you.

ask Dawkins questions? i no get that kain time. maybe the thread is for his fans sha.

Image123: ask Dawkins questions? i no get that kain time. maybe the thread is for his fans sha.

No, I'm thinking it was made specially for you...

Mr_Anony:

Lol, even funnier is this part.



Notice the words he is using "force-fed" and "validating their doubts"

how does one validate a doubt? last I heard, it was beliefs that needed strengthening.

another funny phrase is "force-fed". As if it is the usual practice for parents to lay out options for their babies to choose which parental style best suits them.

Lol, some people and their reasoning sef...

Roaring with laughter

Na dem de form intellectual pass ni

Ihedinobi:

Roaring with laughter

Na dem de form intellectual pass ni

You know that u aint an intellectual

Agh, I'll bite just to be rid of all the gloating.

Mr_Anony:
how does one validate a doubt? last I heard, it was beliefs that needed strengthening.

A doubt is a belief, isn't that obvious? Now you blatantly trolling.
I dislike the word belief, you'll toss it in with faith.

Mr_Anony:
another funny phrase is "force-fed". As if it is the usual practice for parents to lay out options for their babies to choose which parental style best suits them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively, often in the context of education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma. The term is closely linked to socialization; in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations, while socialization refers to cultural or educational learning."

Look up references if you think wiki unreliable

Logicboy03:


You know that u aint an intellectual

lol. Says the guy who thinks that offspring are supersets of their parents

wiegraf:
No, I'm thinking it was made specially for you...

for one who thinks there is no God, you're not in good position to further thinking.

Image123:
for one who thinks there is no God, you're not in good position to further thinking.

Did you spend hours 'thinking' that up?

wiegraf:
Did you spend hours 'thinking' that up?

you've run out of what to say already. this ain't instant messaging or some chat app

Image123:
you've run out of what to say already. this ain't instant messaging or some chat app

Bros, if you don't have anything of value to add, you could always shut up.
You probably waltzed in because you're pissed I inferred you're delusional bigoted slowpoke elsewhere. This is all very true and it be best you came to accept it and moved on with your life. Note you added absolutely nothing of value to this thread. Of course it's not for you if you aren't interested, a 5 year old could tell you that.
So, do you have anything of value to contribute?

Mr_Anony:

Lol, even funnier is this part.



Notice the words he is using "force-fed" and "validating their doubts"

how does one validate a doubt? last I heard, it was beliefs that needed strengthening.

another funny phrase is "force-fed". As if it is the usual practice for parents to lay out options for their babies to choose which parental style best suits them.

Lol, some people and their reasoning sef...

lol no mind am. Let him stay there pretending to be "intellectual" when all he is doing is regurgitating websites from his atheist masters here.

1. the "force-fed" idea is nonsense. Is wiegraf now claiming he was also "force-fed" his language, traditional customs, mannerisms? All those things he learned from his parents have now become "indoctrination"? What should parents now do? Just have kids and let them grow like a blank state?

2. You may be able to validate a doubt but it is interesting to note that atheists themselves are NOT SURE of their own feelings about God but need to rely heavily on other atheists to feel confident they are making the right decision. If indeed their thoughts on religion was built solely on "facts" or "reason" as they continuously bleat then why do they need Dawkins to validate their doubts?

Mr_Anony:

Lol, even funnier is this part.



Notice the words he is using "force-fed" and "validating their doubts"

[b]how does one validate a doubt? last I heard, it was beliefs that needed strengthening.

[/b]another funny phrase is "force-fed". As if it is the usual practice for parents to lay out options for their babies to choose which parental style best suits them.

Lol, some people and their reasoning sef...

Goodness me! The bolded is one of the most m0r0nic things I've read on here. That's the thing about pretentious glib remarks that try too hard to show you're clever when you only string up yourself and dig yourself into a hole. Anyone with a basic grasp of English would find the bolded pretty hilarious. Must try harder next time, sunshine.

Ihedinobi:

lol. Says the guy who thinks that offspring are supersets of their parents

As usual, the anti-intellectual makes a straw man argument. I never one day suggested what you just stated.


Worse off, the argument shows his own ignorance about basic mathematic principles.


If A is a set of my children's ancestors

and B is a set of my ancestors,


My children's set of ancestors becomes a superset of my ancestors




Please, everyone Ihedinobi should be classified as an anti-intellectual henceforth unless he apologizes to my superior intellect.

davidylan: Aye... atheists do not have the mental capacity to answer questions on their own alleged personal beliefs. Rather they run around letting Dawkins do the thinking for them... all they do is regurgitate his ideas then preen around as if it was their own.

I hate to break it to you sunshine but for centuries, there have been people with the independence of thought to reject claims of a big daddy or daddies in the sky. Long before the renaissance, long before Darwin and centuries before Dawkins. The fact you're rather slow on the uptake and incapable of independent thought other than what you've been brainwashed with shouldn't be applicable to other rational human beings.

wiegraf:
Bros, if you don't have anything of value to add, you could always shut up.
You probably waltzed in because you're pissed I inferred you're delusional bigoted slowpoke elsewhere. This is all very true and it be best you came to accept it and moved on with your life. Note you added absolutely nothing of value to this thread. Of course it's not for you if you aren't interested, a 5 year old could tell you that.
So, do you have anything of value to contribute?

i don't even recall your saying such unpleasant words about me, perhaps my nature got the better of me. Hope your sorry soul didn't record it in a diary? like i earlier said, you don't qualify for the thinking business. trust me, i give you v.valuable advise.

Daviddylan?!

dyladadi landi david lan?!

Ok, for now, I'll indulge you, not sure why though..

davidylan:
lol no mind am. Let him stay there pretending to be "intellectual" when all he is doing is regurgitating websites from his atheist masters here.

Irrelevant, but just want to note that someone 'regurgitating websites from his atheist masters' would probably be better off than someone 'regurgitating dogma from his middle-eastern shepherd masters that lived 2000 ago'. I've personally not seen any atheists claiming to be intellectuals before, you could point them out if you will. I do remember a certain someone talking about purchasing a PHD or something. Not sure if he's bragged about his 'intellectuality' though as I usually ignore his comments, but said person is a theist. It's not our fault if we have a reputation for being erudite (and I personally don't even have a large knowledgebase, eg reading bible etc, I just go with common sense and logic for the most part, so I don't qualify as erudite as far as religion is concerned).

davidylan:
1. the "force-fed" idea is nonsense. Is wiegraf now claiming he was also "force-fed" his language, traditional customs, mannerisms? All those things he learned from his parents have now become "indoctrination"? What should parents now do? Just have kids and let them grow like a blank state?

Language and mannerisms are not doctrine, certain customs may be. What do you mean by mannerisms anyway? Regardless, if a parent pushes his favored doctrine on a child and the child is "expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned", then the child is being indoctrinated. With religion it's not just parents though, but communities/society as well, especially in the 3rd world.

davidylan:
2. You may be able to validate a doubt but it is interesting to note that atheists themselves are NOT SURE of their own feelings about God but need to rely heavily on other atheists to feel confident they are making the right decision. If indeed their thoughts on religion was built solely on "facts" or "reason" as they continuously bleat then why do they need Dawkins to validate their doubts?

The bolded, what do feelings have to do with anything? Anyways, most atheists are very sure about facts related to the existence of gods, there's absolutely no evidence to support the notion and most of philosophy supporting it is risible, gods don't exist. Similar to how (I hope) you don't believe in fairies.
You also seem to think that collaboration is a bad thing. How could a scientist look one in the eye and say that? Isn't that deeply ingrained into the scientific method? Form a hypothesis, test and confirm it objectively, find out what the rest of the community thinks about it? SMH
If someone has been bred in a theistic environment, indoctrinated into some faith or the other and living in said environment, the fact that he has been taught not to question doctrine will come into play if the person starts having doubts. The environment the person might be in may not have access to knowledge related to his beliefs- or disbeliefs, as well. So, if a person starts to suspect something is amiss, amidst the current that is society dragging him back into religious folly, said person might require some knowledge to aid in clearly shaping his world view. It's learning new stuff, for a scientist to suggest learning new stuff is a bad thing is frankly unheard of.
Your issue here also seems to be feeling vs thinking. Lots of people simply prefer dealing with fact rather than feelings. They aren't forcing you to do things their way (probably), so deal with it.

On a personal note I didn't get much from Dawkins as well, but it was very well written, he has a nice clear thinking mind. It helped me solidify my views as well as discover the views of other atheists, and theists too actually. Hitchen's I didn't get to chapter 3, as I was gaining nothing of value from him, except maybe lists of facts, not how stuff works per say. Sam Harris on the other actually pointed out stuff I had not noticed on my own. blah blah blah

Image123:
i don't even recall your saying such unpleasant words about me, perhaps my nature got the better of me. Hope your sorry soul didn't record it in a diary? like i earlier said, you don't qualify for the thinking business. trust me, i give you v.valuable advise.

They aren't unpleasant eediot, they are fact

*just passing*