Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stupid People Being Suckered in by Religion: Negative Correlation With Intelligence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    What if there's a vengeful God who will reward Muslims and burn Christians in Hell?

    What if there's a vengeful God who keeps Christians around as playthings to test the critical thinking of non-conformists only to exact brutal assrapery on the souls of the faithful come judgement day, rewarding the freethinkers with an eternity of all-new, all-original lectures by Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and James Randi?

    What if there's a vengeful God who does the same nasty business to anyone who doesn't eat his cereal with ketchup?

    What is the point of reiterating Pascal's wager, whose many flaws have been obvious for centuries now?

    Comment


      #47
      No one knows for a fact, but common sense would surely dictate how HIGHLY unlikely that is...

      Comment


        #48
        That isn't the question that supposedly stumped Dawkins is it?

        Comment


          #49
          How come people seem to be satisfied with Dorkins answering a question with a question?

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by Petter
            What if there's a vengeful God who keeps Christians around as playthings to test the critical thinking of non-conformists only to exact brutal assrapery on the souls of the faithful come judgement day, rewarding the freethinkers with an eternity of all-new, all-original lectures by Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and James Randi?
            So teh Christians burn in Hell for ever, and the atheists listen to Dawkins and Sagan lectures forever? I know which one sounds like the better deal to me...(begins to read the Book of Esther).

            Comment


              #51
              It's a question that I'm fairly sure he has addressed in the past, in various books; certainly The God Delusion. One problem with engaging the ID brigade over and over again is the growing exasperation with their consistent failure to see the holes in their own tired arguments.

              On a tangent -- would you believe I've actually seen people use Darwin's 'skepticism' about the human eye in real debates? I am referring to the wankery of taking this bit out of context:

              Originally posted by Charles Darwin
              To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
              (If you think this presents a real problem rather than being a rhetorical device, I will beat you verbally until you bleed.)

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by Shawarma
                How come people seem to be satisfied with Dorkins answering a question with a question?
                How come religious folk seem to be satisfied that they KNOW the existence of a god which there is absolutely zero evidence of?

                Comment


                  #53
                  Originally posted by Petter
                  What is the point of reiterating Pascal's wager, whose many flaws have been obvious for centuries now?
                  They are only flaws because you don't understand the correct answer. The correct answer to pascals wager is to solve for x where x = the god with the highest likelihood of being the biggest prick to you in the afterlife.

                  So when shall we schedule your baptism?

                  Comment


                    #54
                    It's fun answering questions with questions....

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Because religious KNOWING is something you KNOW because GOD SAID IT, in many cases said it to them PERSONALLY!

                      Beat that, Dorkins.

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by Shawarma
                        Because religious KNOWING is something you KNOW because GOD SAID IT, in many cases said it to them PERSONALLY!

                        Beat that, Dorkins.
                        I am pretty sure that is why his book is called "the god DELUSION"

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Irony aside (Vince), the point (not for you, but for readers who may lack the astuteness of identifying implicit rather than explicit points) is that even if there were some evidence to indicate the existence of supernatural entities, that observation in itself provides no insight whatsoever into the psychology of that same presumed deity.

                          Christians who argue for ID and leap to the conclusion that any problem with evolutionary theory must mean that the Bible is (largely) true are guilty of a double false dichotomy fallacy, on top of misunderstanding the scientific process of refining theories: Not only would the utter failure of the Darwinian theory of evolution by means of natural selection not necessarily mean that some divine designer exists, but further, even the knowledge of the existence of a divine designer would prove nothing about the nature of said designer -- whether benevolent deity, vengeful Christian sky-tyrant, elephant-headed pantheon member, Spaghetti Monster, or perverse trickster who rewards people who take ketchup with their cereal, sodomise their guinea pigs every alternate Tuesday, or refuse to use anything but treacle for shampoo.

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Holy fuck! now I gota start raping Guinea pigs to stay out of hell?

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Well, unless you can come up with some reason why "Slavishly believing in bronze-age dogma" should be any more pleasing to the sort of deity that is most likely to have designed our sort of universe if, evidence to the contrary, is designed, you may as well do that as go to church.

                              Suffer the guinea pigs; spare the altar boys.

                              Comment


                                #60
                                This is Dawkin's answer to the watchmaker arguement too, right? Because even if we accept that there must be a watchmaker, we can't determine anything about his character by examining the watch? (Finally, Philosophy of Religion class is useful for something)

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X