Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedoph...

Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not so bad

There are 3152 comments on the Examiner.com story from Sep 14, 2013, titled Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not so bad. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

"The God of the Qur'an is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#1682 Dec 24, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
But suppose your house is a cave. Is that built by a designer or a product of natural processes?:
Believing in a creator may be normal for most people but only until they understand how natural processes can result in increased complexity (especially chemistry and evolution) then the problems of how a creator capable of creating this universe can just exist without explanation become more evident.
but we still cannot get products of a natural process without having specific rules to guarantee a continues process and improvements to eventually get the final products as we have today, no matter what you say, we would always need a start.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1683 Dec 24, 2013
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
but we still cannot get products of a natural process without having specific rules to guarantee a continues process and improvements to eventually get the final products as we have today, no matter what you say, we would always need a start.
Ok so lets say there is a definite start to the universe. That can't be a God because a God would require a cause.
If you want to claim God doesn't need a cause then you are claiming that an incredibly powerful and intelligent entity just exists without reason. That makes even less sense than the universe just existing without cause as the universe is far simpler. The universe only needs to create basic physics whilst a God requires an incredible intellect and the power to use it.

A universe without God is simply simpler.
LCNLin

United States

#1684 Dec 24, 2013
Richard Dawkins shift to being agnostic may have been to sell more books?

There seems gold in theology?

Richard Dawkins Net Worth 135 Million

http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb...
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#1685 Dec 24, 2013
jesus was an Atheist.
Mahmood

Peterborough, Canada

#1686 Dec 24, 2013
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
of course you could, I only recommended mubarakpuri's book because it was highly appreciated by big Muslim scholars and got so many prizes for the accuracy and depended on authentic and original sources, and Yusuf Islam's way in narrating is really good and exciting.
there are numerous books and biographies written by Orientalists who dont know the true and actual essence of Islam thus some of them failed to reflect an accurate image of Mohammed Peace be Upon him.
I have read many biographies of Mohammad written by Muslims as well as Orientalists. Contrary to popular Islamic opinion, the orientalist have written whatever Muslims have penned . People like Montgomery Watt & Maxime Rodinson have not written anything which can be construed as lie - they only vary in opinions. For example Watt does not feel strongly about the execution of the Banu Qurayza whereas Maxmime Rodinson is critical, that is the only difference.

What exactly do you mean by "original and authentic sources"?

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#1687 Dec 24, 2013
Mahmood wrote:
<quoted text>
I have read many biographies of Mohammad written by Muslims as well as Orientalists. Contrary to popular Islamic opinion, the orientalist have written whatever Muslims have penned . People like Montgomery Watt & Maxime Rodinson have not written anything which can be construed as lie - they only vary in opinions. For example Watt does not feel strongly about the execution of the Banu Qurayza whereas Maxmime Rodinson is critical, that is the only difference.
What exactly do you mean by "original and authentic sources"?
yeah, fair enough but I think those orientalists wrote their books depending on their point of view, one's gotta be a muslim to understand the actual message of Islam accurately, by original and authentic sources I meant the grade of Hadiths as you know hadiths of Mohammed varies between authentic (Sahih), good(Hasan) and weak

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#1688 Dec 24, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so lets say there is a definite start to the universe. That can't be a God because a God would require a cause.
If you want to claim God doesn't need a cause then you are claiming that an incredibly powerful and intelligent entity just exists without reason. That makes even less sense than the universe just existing without cause as the universe is far simpler. The universe only needs to create basic physics whilst a God requires an incredible intellect and the power to use it.
A universe without God is simply simpler.
if the existence of god requires a cause or was the result of a specific cause, he wouldnt be a god anymore that would make him with a beginning and if he had a beginning , he would certainly have an end and thus is a creature and supposed to be created by another creator.
So when the Quran states about god "He is the First and the Last, the Ascendant and the Intimate, and He is, of all things, Knowing."

this verse solves the dilemma, suppose you made up 2 pens and somehow you were able to give them minds and let them think about their creation..!! I think it would be impossible to convince those pens that their creator isn't used by someone else for writing and doesn't have a very big Stock of Ink, the point is the rules within our world shouldn't and cannot be applied to the creator because he is the one who created these rules in the first place, within our dimension and our lives everything needs a creator and we can never have something out of nothing, this rule cannot be applied to the one who created it.
and among other things we cannot say where is God ..!! simply because he is the one who found the where and when.
if you are asking if god existed he should be created by another god and so on , I think you are on the right path to find what you have been looking for.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#1689 Dec 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I don't need any bearded muslim paedophile to tell me how to wash my privates.
I keep myself very clean.
<quoted text>
Me or any Muslim shouldn't kill you because of fatwas, being good and kind to your parents , neighbors ...etc is a result of many fatwas , you can say whatever you want but you cannot say fatwas are ridiculous, you not needing any of these fatwas certainly doesnt make any of them ridiculous, not to mention that fatwas prove that Islam is flexible and was sent by god to be the last religion that covers every aspect in life.

and whats your problem with beards ?? don't you think that shaving beards would make men look exactly like women, would you be attracted to hairy women ??
I think the differences in looks between men and women is one of the causes for attraction,
that's why women are rarely attracted to sissy boys, and men are rarely attracted to masculine girls as well, that's my opinion and doesn't represent what Islam teaches.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1690 Dec 24, 2013
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
if the existence of god requires a cause or was the result of a specific cause, he wouldnt be a god anymore that would make him with a beginning and if he had a beginning , he would certainly have an end and thus is a creature and supposed to be created by another creator.
So when the Quran states about god "He is the First and the Last, the Ascendant and the Intimate, and He is, of all things, Knowing."
this verse solves the dilemma, suppose you made up 2 pens and somehow you were able to give them minds and let them think about their creation..!! I think it would be impossible to convince those pens that their creator isn't used by someone else for writing and doesn't have a very big Stock of Ink, the point is the rules within our world shouldn't and cannot be applied to the creator because he is the one who created these rules in the first place, within our dimension and our lives everything needs a creator and we can never have something out of nothing, this rule cannot be applied to the one who created it.
and among other things we cannot say where is God ..!! simply because he is the one who found the where and when.
if you are asking if god existed he should be created by another god and so on , I think you are on the right path to find what you have been looking for.
You're still missing my main point which is that if something can just exist without explanation then why can't that be the laws of physics rather than a God?
The laws of physics (or there precursor) has to be a lot simpler than an amazingly powerful and intelligent God.

Putting God outside this universe just creates another universe that also needs explaining and so solves nothing.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#1691 Dec 24, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still missing my main point which is that if something can just exist without explanation then why can't that be the laws of physics rather than a God?
The laws of physics (or there precursor) has to be a lot simpler than an amazingly powerful and intelligent God.
Putting God outside this universe just creates another universe that also needs explaining and so solves nothing.
your theory doesn't work , because its not about which way is simpler or more complex, because god is out of the equation , you cannot explain or measure him , if we succeeded to measure god like physics laws or tried to understand how he existed;that would make us like the 2 pens which think their creator was created out of plastic and/or is used for writing.

Besides if those laws of physics were created or evolved out of nothing that would be more frequent within our world and then we may find in our daily life things out of nothing.

even if the universe was found out of nothing we then would need nothing and nothing should have come out of nothing to make a difference between nothing and something.
there must have been something before nothing so we can tell the difference between nothing and something.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#1692 Dec 24, 2013
I'm not a paedophile so I'm not scared of female pubic hair.

People did good things before your religion was invented. Therefore fatwas are pathetic.
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Me or any Muslim shouldn't kill you because of fatwas, being good and kind to your parents , neighbors ...etc is a result of many fatwas , you can say whatever you want but you cannot say fatwas are ridiculous, you not needing any of these fatwas certainly doesnt make any of them ridiculous, not to mention that fatwas prove that Islam is flexible and was sent by god to be the last religion that covers every aspect in life.
and whats your problem with beards ?? don't you think that shaving beards would make men look exactly like women, would you be attracted to hairy women ??
I think the differences in looks between men and women is one of the causes for attraction,
that's why women are rarely attracted to sissy boys, and men are rarely attracted to masculine girls as well, that's my opinion and doesn't represent what Islam teaches.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#1693 Dec 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I'm not a paedophile so I'm not scared of female pubic hair.
People did good things before your religion was invented. Therefore fatwas are pathetic.
<quoted text>
nobody mentioned pubic hair, I meant hairy like in the face.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#1694 Dec 24, 2013
Me too.
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
nobody mentioned pubic hair, I meant hairy like in the face.
LCNLin

United States

#1695 Dec 24, 2013
Richard Dawkins is a man who pummels others for the inconsistencies of their beliefs. That, perhaps, is why it's so interesting to read Dawkins' recent interview with Isaac Chotiner, and see how inconsistent and uncertain Dawkins himself can be.

The result might not please certain atheists, but it makes Dawkins out to be, well, a human being.

If you've ever wondered what Dawkins thinks about Jews winning Nobel Prizes, or whether someone who so fetishizes empirical evidence is even capable of reading novels (“I never quite understood why you would read fiction to understand the human condition”), then this is the interview for you.

A couple of gems:

Isaac Chotiner: One thing I've noticed is that you often use the argument that religion is something that we choose, unlike, say, race or sexual orientation. I wonder what the word 'choose' means if you go to, say, a poor, religious, Muslim country.

Richard Dawkins: You don't really get much choice…I would like to find a way in which people in Saudi Arabia could learn that they can be something other than a Muslim. Some people may not realize this. Of course, there is the problem that you can get in trouble or get stoned.

IC: Small side effects.

In the past, Dawkins has made blanket statements about the Muslim world without regard to politics, colonial history, the stifling effectof petropolitics, or, you know, any other sort of context. Do we have some admission here that religious beliefs are shaped by more than intellectual free will and faith?

Maybe, maybe not. But Chotiner is ready with some follow-ups. In regard to Dawkins’ tweet about Muslims winning fewer Nobel Prizes than the scholars of Trinity College, Cambridge:

RD: That was unfortunate. I should have compared religion with religion and compared Islam not with Trinity College but with Jews, because the number of Jews who have won Nobel Prizes is phenomenally high.

IC: OK, but what do you make of that?

RD: Race does not come into it. It is pure religion and culture…

IC: I still want to know what you draw from this. Do you think the Torah is more progressive than the Koran?

RD: No, I doubt it. I don't think that.

IC: So then what?

RD: I haven't thought it through. I don't know.

Did Richard Dawkins just say that a religious tradition can contribute to producing better scientists? I’m pretty sure he just did. More amazingly: did Richard Dawkins just say I don’t know?


I don’t mean to sound critical: throughout the interview, Dawkins comes across as a thoughtful listener, open to examining his own points, and even, perhaps, open to seeing some nuance in a tricky set of issues. The shame is not that he’s a bit inconsistent. The shame is that we don’t see this side of him more often.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/...
Jim

London, UK

#1696 Dec 25, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
Richard Dawkins shift to being agnostic may have been to sell more books?
There seems gold in theology?
Richard Dawkins Net Worth 135 Million
http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb...
LCN the Creationist troll still lying about Atheists on Christmas day about Dawkins. Just sad.
Jim

London, UK

#1697 Dec 25, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
Richard Dawkins is a man who pummels others for the inconsistencies of their beliefs. That, perhaps, is why it's so interesting to read Dawkins' recent interview with Isaac Chotiner, and see how inconsistent and uncertain Dawkins himself can be.
The result might not please certain atheists, but it makes Dawkins out to be, well, a human being.
If you've ever wondered what Dawkins thinks about Jews winning Nobel Prizes, or whether someone who so fetishizes empirical evidence is even capable of reading novels (“I never quite understood why you would read fiction to understand the human condition”), then this is the interview for you.
A couple of gems:
Isaac Chotiner: One thing I've noticed is that you often use the argument that religion is something that we choose, unlike, say, race or sexual orientation. I wonder what the word 'choose' means if you go to, say, a poor, religious, Muslim country.
Richard Dawkins: You don't really get much choice…I would like to find a way in which people in Saudi Arabia could learn that they can be something other than a Muslim. Some people may not realize this. Of course, there is the problem that you can get in trouble or get stoned.
IC: Small side effects.
In the past, Dawkins has made blanket statements about the Muslim world without regard to politics, colonial history, the stifling effectof petropolitics, or, you know, any other sort of context. Do we have some admission here that religious beliefs are shaped by more than intellectual free will and faith?
Maybe, maybe not. But Chotiner is ready with some follow-ups. In regard to Dawkins’ tweet about Muslims winning fewer Nobel Prizes than the scholars of Trinity College, Cambridge:
RD: That was unfortunate. I should have compared religion with religion and compared Islam not with Trinity College but with Jews, because the number of Jews who have won Nobel Prizes is phenomenally high.
IC: OK, but what do you make of that?
RD: Race does not come into it. It is pure religion and culture…
IC: I still want to know what you draw from this. Do you think the Torah is more progressive than the Koran?
RD: No, I doubt it. I don't think that.
IC: So then what?
RD: I haven't thought it through. I don't know.
Did Richard Dawkins just say that a religious tradition can contribute to producing better scientists? I’m pretty sure he just did. More amazingly: did Richard Dawkins just say I don’t know?
I don’t mean to sound critical: throughout the interview, Dawkins comes across as a thoughtful listener, open to examining his own points, and even, perhaps, open to seeing some nuance in a tricky set of issues. The shame is not that he’s a bit inconsistent. The shame is that we don’t see this side of him more often.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/...
You behave like this because even you don't believe jesus is coming back to judge you.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1698 Dec 25, 2013
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
your theory doesn't work , because its not about which way is simpler or more complex, because god is out of the equation , you cannot explain or measure him ,
Yes we can.
If something exists it can be measured somehow. This includes anything outside of this universe such as a God.
hazem selawi wrote:
if we succeeded to measure god like physics laws or tried to understand how he existed;that would make us like the 2 pens which think their creator was created out of plastic and/or is used for writing.
Pens can write down the code for dna or the formula for quantum physics. Don't underestimate pens.
hazem selawi wrote:
Besides if those laws of physics were created or evolved out of nothing that would be more frequent within our world and then we may find in our daily life things out of nothing.
So maybe universes are popping into and out of existence all the time like bubbles. Just as long as they can't form inside a bubble we'll be fine.
hazem selawi wrote:
even if the universe was found out of nothing we then would need nothing and nothing should have come out of nothing to make a difference between nothing and something.
Yes it's a mystery but there are plenty of scientists working on this and maybe one day they will solve it (or maybe it's unsolvable) but just proclaiming the pink sky pixie did it isn't an answer.
hazem selawi wrote:
there must have been something before nothing so we can tell the difference between nothing and something.
Ok so suppose there was something, why would that need to be a God rather than say energy?
As far as we know energy can't be created or destroyed so maybe that just existed without cause and then by quantum fluctuation, condensed down into particles?

A God is still the most complex option and thus the most unlikely.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1699 Dec 26, 2013
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
or maybe their scientific understanding doesn't contradict with their faith
Then it is faith, not scientific understanding

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1700 Dec 26, 2013
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
oh the aggressive girl is back..!!!, lets put aside all religions and try to discuss what is normal and what is abnormal, I think believing in a creator is completely normal and was done from the very first appearing of human beings, on the other hand not believing in a creator is abnormal simply because you cannot say lets prove someone built my house.
beside the god I worship existed way before Abraham and chose so many prophets to deliver the message before Abraham.
Hey does female aggression turn you on? Does it make you hard and have wet dreams? Or is it against your god book that tells you aggressive females should be stoned?

FYI, I am far from aggressive, however I have no tolerance for deliberate ignorance.

What you think is besides the point.

I think that believing is black magic is way out there on the fare side f sanity and you are over that dividing line with the rest of the god did it by magic with nothing to back up that faith but a 4000 years old (and much discredited) book

Nope human beings have only believed in an “omnipotent” god for around 4 to 8 thousand years. Unfortunately for you human beings have been on this earth far longer than any belief in god

On the other hand, understanding the findings of science is normal and can be falsified (unlike god did it buy magic) and proven(unlike god did it buy magic

The god you worship is known as the abrahamic god, you have no evidence, no proof that you god was imagined before Abraham. List one – just one prophet that can be unquestionably shown to have existed before Abraham

I can prove that someone built my house, I have receipts and a 20 year guarantee.

P.S. I have noted that you claimed to put aside all religion while at the very same time, in the very same paragraph make claims for your god myth. Does this not strike you as deliberately ignorant or at least hypocritical?
LCNlin

United States

#1701 Dec 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it is faith, not scientific understanding
Often a combination of both, faith and science.
Life is complex
Peace

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 How God Messed Up My Happy Atheist Life 2 min emperorjohn 10
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 min emperorjohn 13,097
Atheism is not a belief 1 hr emperorjohn 268
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Chimney1 30,877
There are no such things as gods or fairies 2 hr JustASkeptic 10
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 3 hr karl44 4,335
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr superwilly 255,176
More from around the web