Overflow crowd turns out to see Richa...

Overflow crowd turns out to see Richard Dawkins at the College of Charleston

There are 94 comments on the Post and Courier story from Mar 9, 2013, titled Overflow crowd turns out to see Richard Dawkins at the College of Charleston. In it, Post and Courier reports that:

Crowds jammed into the Physicians Memorial Auditorium and three overflow rooms at the College of Charleston Saturday night to see Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous atheist and evolutionary biologist.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Post and Courier.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#42 Mar 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
A bit of the stawman fallacy.
You tell her what she believes.:-)
Do you get out, away from the computer often?
The definition of "cult" is: "Zealous devotion to a person, ideal or thing."

KK is a zealout.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#43 Mar 15, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
From the article:
"For instance, he questioned how people can believe Jesus literally turned water into wine or that people have souls but other animals do not.“At some point God stepped in with his divine hypodermic and injected a soul?” Dawkins quipped."
I don't see where he attributed that belief to the Bible.
Really? That's funny. Believers get their beliefs from the bible.
Jimmy

London, UK

#45 Mar 16, 2013
nobody know how to argue against dawkin's logic, so they argue at him instead.
Lincoln

United States

#46 Mar 16, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
nobody know how to argue against dawkin's logic, so they argue at him instead.
Dr.Richard Dawkins did retreat from one of his previous comments. At Reason Rally 2012 — a national atheist event — he had encouraged atheists to “ridicule” Catholics. In hindsight, he confessed.....

“I think I did go too far,” though
he claimed that
he had not intended for
ridicule to mean name-calling ..........

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#47 Mar 16, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Really? That's funny. Believers get their beliefs from the bible.
That's not the point, though. You wrote that Dawkins attributed belief that only humans have souls to the Bible, but he didn't, at least not in the quote from the article. That some believers attribute it to the Bible is completely beside the point.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#48 Mar 16, 2013
Not to mention several people in now way shape or form take their belief from the bible.
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the point, though. You wrote that Dawkins attributed belief that only humans have souls to the Bible, but he didn't, at least not in the quote from the article. That some believers attribute it to the Bible is completely beside the point.
Henry

Chemnitz, Germany

#49 Mar 16, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yes we see the atheism movement growing rapidly here in the US. The believers hate it but it is what it is. The non religious numbers in America will double in the next 10 years.
That would really be nice and overwelming!
Henry

Chemnitz, Germany

#50 Mar 16, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply because people believe something, doesn't make it true.
This is very correct!
Thinking

Barnsley, UK

#51 Mar 16, 2013
Hindus don't.
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Believers get their beliefs from the bible.
Henry

Chemnitz, Germany

#52 Mar 16, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>He also makes a false claim about the existence of a "gay gene"....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =MHDCAllQgS0XX
...without any empirical evidence as proof.
BTW, he has no proof because there isn't one. He just loves the attention he gets from morons who are impressed that he's the co-leader of an anti-religion movement, anti-Christian to be specific.
Dawkin does not have to contribute anything to religions, because religions are nothing else except myths!
Henry

Chemnitz, Germany

#53 Mar 16, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply because people believe something, doesn't make it true.
I told in an earlier post, I agree with that completely!
Henry

Chemnitz, Germany

#54 Mar 16, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
Richard Dawkins is a truly great man.
Well, I am sorry, but he really is!
Henry

Chemnitz, Germany

#55 Mar 16, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion—"a fixed false belief"
His "almost certainly does not exist" seems qualified.
Maybe a partial atheist?
Doubt if the Christian theory of Intelligent Design hurts anyone? Imagine Christian teachers work it into their lectures in the US?
ID may be a shamans tool, but that was it!
Henry

Chemnitz, Germany

#56 Mar 16, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
We run into the issue of defining atheism so often that I feel like a broken record with each "new" response, but every once in a while it is necessary to reiterate a few basic principals of lexicography in relation to the word.
While the roots of each word are interesting and informative, lexicographers compile definitions by analyzing samples of current usage. Moreover, the meanings of most words vary with context, which is why dictionaries list multiple meanings for each word. Intelligent readers are adept at seeing which meanings fit the various contexts in which words are used. It's important to remember that the goal is to facilitate understanding, i.e., for the reader or listener to understand what the writer of speaker means.
The meaning of the words "atheism" and "atheist" are probably changing faster during the current period than at in any other time in history because, for the first time, self-identified atheists are asserting a significant public voice in defining themselves. Keeping up requires subtle and supple minds that can let go of preconceptions when necessary.
This forum is a pretty good gauge for assessing the range of views on atheism by atheists themselves--it would be a good place for lexicographers to gather samples when considering future updates to the dictionaries that we depend on. In the context of discussions about atheism with atheists, the way atheists define themselves must take precedence over those of their detractors.
The same is true of most or all groups based on ideology. Would we look to Nazis to define Judaism? KKK members to define the Black experience? The Westboro Baptist Church or atheists to define Catholicism? No, fair-minded people would look to members, leaders, and writers from each of these groups for definitions of the words used to describe them. The only reason that the same has not been historically true for atheists is that the bias against us has been so universal that only that bias has figured into the definitions up until now.
Moreover, over the last few decades, that definition has been changing for atheists themselves as we reject the flawed definitions that we grew up with. It is no longer narrowly focused on the Christian God, for instance, and the passive nonbelief that was once defined as agnosticism now falls under a more inclusive atheist umbrella. Most atheists see agnosticism as being separate from atheism in that it answers a different question: "Do I believe that it is possible to know whether any deities exist?" rather than "Do I believe that deities exist?". It is thus possible to be an agnostic atheist (not believing but acknowledging that it is not possible to know for sure), a gnostic athiest (certain that no deities exist), or an atheist who has no view about whether it is possible to know for certain. I don't know whether there is a satisfactory word to describe the latter.
In view of the above, the many detractors who jump into discussions that are primarily between atheists and insist that their biased definitions take precedence over the way that atheists define themselves display a lack of both sophistication and intellectual honesty. Prejudice and antagonism tend to stultify the mind, so that is not surprising, just annoying.
In the nuclear age Dawkins is a reasonable man, but in the religious chaos of the big masses Dawkins is too late for progressive challenges!
Henry

Chemnitz, Germany

#57 Mar 16, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
We run into the issue of defining atheism so often that I feel like a broken record with each "new" response, but every once in a while it is necessary to reiterate a few basic principals of lexicography in relation to the word.
While the roots of each word are interesting and informative, lexicographers compile definitions by analyzing samples of current usage. Moreover, the meanings of most words vary with context, which is why dictionaries list multiple meanings for each word. Intelligent readers are adept at seeing which meanings fit the various contexts in which words are used. It's important to remember that the goal is to facilitate understanding, i.e., for the reader or listener to understand what the writer of speaker means.
The meaning of the words "atheism" and "atheist" are probably changing faster during the current period than at in any other time in history because, for the first time, self-identified atheists are asserting a significant public voice in defining themselves. Keeping up requires subtle and supple minds that can let go of preconceptions when necessary.
This forum is a pretty good gauge for assessing the range of views on atheism by atheists themselves--it would be a good place for lexicographers to gather samples when considering future updates to the dictionaries that we depend on. In the context of discussions about atheism with atheists, the way atheists define themselves must take precedence over those of their detractors.
The same is true of most or all groups based on ideology. Would we look to Nazis to define Judaism? KKK members to define the Black experience? The Westboro Baptist Church or atheists to define Catholicism? No, fair-minded people would look to members, leaders, and writers from each of these groups for definitions of the words used to describe them. The only reason that the same has not been historically true for atheists is that the bias against us has been so universal that only that bias has figured into the definitions up until now.
Moreover, over the last few decades, that definition has been changing for atheists themselves as we reject the flawed definitions that we grew up with. It is no longer narrowly focused on the Christian God, for instance, and the passive nonbelief that was once defined as agnosticism now falls under a more inclusive atheist umbrella. Most atheists see agnosticism as being separate from atheism in that it answers a different question: "Do I believe that it is possible to know whether any deities exist?" rather than "Do I believe that deities exist?". It is thus possible to be an agnostic atheist (not believing but acknowledging that it is not possible to know for sure), a gnostic athiest (certain that no deities exist), or an atheist who has no view about whether it is possible to know for certain. I don't know whether there is a satisfactory word to describe the latter.
In view of the above, the many detractors who jump into discussions that are primarily between atheists and insist that their biased definitions take precedence over the way that atheists define themselves display a lack of both sophistication and intellectual honesty. Prejudice and antagonism tend to stultify the mind, so that is not surprising, just annoying.
I fear it is too late in the nuclear inferno to change the horses. Humanity is on its lost twigs!
Henry

Chemnitz, Germany

#58 Mar 16, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>He also misquoted the bible by claiming it says that only people are "souls". I guess he's used to admirers not catching his deliberate misquotes. ;)
Too bad they don't get he's just another attention hoor who gets off on brainwashing people. A rose by any other name smells of cultism.
Dawkins is inside the truth. That does not mean the whole truth, because it will not enriddle for ever!
Henry

Chemnitz, Germany

#59 Mar 16, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
If wishes were horses we would all be in the calvary :-)
A really good bonmot!
Henry

Ilmenau, Germany

#60 Mar 16, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
We run into the issue of defining atheism so often that I feel like a broken record with each "new" response, but every once in a while it is necessary to reiterate a few basic principals of lexicography in relation to the word.
While the roots of each word are interesting and informative, lexicographers compile definitions by analyzing samples of current usage. Moreover, the meanings of most words vary with context, which is why dictionaries list multiple meanings for each word. Intelligent readers are adept at seeing which meanings fit the various contexts in which words are used. It's important to remember that the goal is to facilitate understanding, i.e., for the reader or listener to understand what the writer of speaker means.
The meaning of the words "atheism" and "atheist" are probably changing faster during the current period than at in any other time in history because, for the first time, self-identified atheists are asserting a significant public voice in defining themselves. Keeping up requires subtle and supple minds that can let go of preconceptions when necessary.
This forum is a pretty good gauge for assessing the range of views on atheism by atheists themselves--it would be a good place for lexicographers to gather samples when considering future updates to the dictionaries that we depend on. In the context of discussions about atheism with atheists, the way atheists define themselves must take precedence over those of their detractors.
The same is true of most or all groups based on ideology. Would we look to Nazis to define Judaism? KKK members to define the Black experience? The Westboro Baptist Church or atheists to define Catholicism? No, fair-minded people would look to members, leaders, and writers from each of these groups for definitions of the words used to describe them. The only reason that the same has not been historically true for atheists is that the bias against us has been so universal that only that bias has figured into the definitions up until now.
Moreover, over the last few decades, that definition has been changing for atheists themselves as we reject the flawed definitions that we grew up with. It is no longer narrowly focused on the Christian God, for instance, and the passive nonbelief that was once defined as agnosticism now falls under a more inclusive atheist umbrella. Most atheists see agnosticism as being separate from atheism in that it answers a different question: "Do I believe that it is possible to know whether any deities exist?" rather than "Do I believe that deities exist?". It is thus possible to be an agnostic atheist (not believing but acknowledging that it is not possible to know for sure), a gnostic athiest (certain that no deities exist), or an atheist who has no view about whether it is possible to know for certain. I don't know whether there is a satisfactory word to describe the latter.
In view of the above, the many detractors who jump into discussions that are primarily between atheists and insist that their biased definitions take precedence over the way that atheists define themselves display a lack of both sophistication and intellectual honesty. Prejudice and antagonism tend to stultify the mind, so that is not surprising, just annoying.
Among the billions of human beings there was not a single one who could verify a single god of the thousands of mythical ones!
Siro

Canberra, Australia

#61 Mar 16, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>*Your* type of atheism is just as much a cult as one based on a deity.
KKs 'atheism' is formed from the hatred of the God of Abraham, it is pure maltheism.
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
She posts intelligent posts
you seem a troll
KK does not post intelligent posts, he posts a marxist dialectic psychobabble in the same manner as Boob of QF. Why dont you note how these 'atheists' tell everyone to abandon their faith in God so as to be 'progressive'.
You may call me a troll but I say you seem to be a bet each way or as the Bible says 'neither hot or cold but lukewarm so I will spit thee from my mouth'. You try to mean everything to everyone but you will end up meaning nothing to no one.
Topix atheists are maltheists and regardless of how much you try to befriend them they will always hate you.
Siro

Canberra, Australia

#62 Mar 16, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
nobody know how to argue against dawkin's logic, so they argue at him instead.
Well you cant win an argument with a stupid person so you may as well insult him.
His logic is flawed to the extent it is non existent, he portrays himself as arrogant so as to dismiss all legit counter points of his opponents that would show him up for what he really is - a hustler.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 4 hr Frindly 3,322
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr Frindly 84,013
News BILL-BORED: Get Ready For Atheists' Annual Use ... 16 hr Eagle 12 - 9
News Scientist Richard Dawkins weighs in on Malaysia... Thu Eagle 12 - 6
High School Atheism Thu blacklagoon 3 41
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Wed Eagle 12 - 4,965
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) Wed Eagle 12 - 132
More from around the web