The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
+8
Kaptain Kaviar
01casey
Raine
bomby
Moozo
Jammer
Seany C
DanglyBrasco
12 posters
Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
Dr David Starkey is a cunt, that is all
GearsCT- Join date : 2008-08-26
Age : 32
Location : Northampton
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
Ok, El Lissitzky is a genius.
We're just stating random thoughts now Gears yes?
We're just stating random thoughts now Gears yes?
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
Yer, but mine has got to do with narrow minded pricks.
GearsCT- Join date : 2008-08-26
Age : 32
Location : Northampton
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins actively campaigns against religious indoctrination in schools, yet is actively supporting the teaching of Evolution as fact in schools. Him saying,oh no! dont teach that theory in schools, teach this one instead, because this is the one i believe in!
He is, a dick.
He is, a dick.
DanglyBrasco- Join date : 2008-08-26
Age : 33
Location : Angleland
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
Because there's just as much evidence for god as there is for evolution. It's practically fact, it's only the unknown that stops it from being fact. Do you not believe in evolution? This whole 'I ain't gonna believe everything what the man tells me' just seems like adolescent pseudofree-thinker bullshit.
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
So you don't believe in dinosaurs Dangly?
They existed. The Sun God, sorry, I mean Allah, whoops, GOD, however...
They existed. The Sun God, sorry, I mean Allah, whoops, GOD, however...
Kaptain Kaviar- Join date : 2008-08-26
Age : 33
Location : The Teahouse
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
Everyone knows dem atheists be making they dinosore bonez so we all be belivin' in SCIENCE and shit, either that or it be a test of faith from the big man heself, he trolling man, he trolling.
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
Its not the theories or anything i have a probem with! Its just Dawkins,and the way hepressurisez people into believing what he wants. Im more angry,and frankly shocked that the guy is allowed on television where he can spout this crap to the general public.
And im not sure i believe in evlution, what about the concept of irreducible complexity? And the terrifying thught that ife was an accident...I know its silly, but there are moments when i find it truly difficult to believe that this world we live in was almost accidental.
And im not sure i believe in evlution, what about the concept of irreducible complexity? And the terrifying thught that ife was an accident...I know its silly, but there are moments when i find it truly difficult to believe that this world we live in was almost accidental.
DanglyBrasco- Join date : 2008-08-26
Age : 33
Location : Angleland
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
That's incidental, not a causal proof to the contrary of evolution. Life was an accident, doesn't matter if it's disturbing to you or not, that doesn't have any bearing on the argument. It's almost as bad as the ontological argument. "Look at this amazing thing that I don't personally have the knowledge or time to properly investigate. Therefore, God exists".
Makes my blood fucking boil man.
Natural selection has happened and is still happening, no two ways about it. You've got the "single greatest idea in the history of thought" versus the "a schizophrenic old text / a dream / my parents told me" argument, there's no contest.
Irreducible complexity has also been proved as bullshit, nothing has been yet discovered that has not been proven to fit in with the Darwinian model. Just because I can't explain something, doesn't mean I need to invoke a supernatural creator. Do you not think that any kind of supernatural intervention is far less plausible (and actually literally impossible) when compared to a rigorously researched, thoroughly tested theory?
And loads of religious cunts are on the TV all the time? If you ban Dawkins, why don't you ban Songs of Praise?
Makes my blood fucking boil man.
Natural selection has happened and is still happening, no two ways about it. You've got the "single greatest idea in the history of thought" versus the "a schizophrenic old text / a dream / my parents told me" argument, there's no contest.
Irreducible complexity has also been proved as bullshit, nothing has been yet discovered that has not been proven to fit in with the Darwinian model. Just because I can't explain something, doesn't mean I need to invoke a supernatural creator. Do you not think that any kind of supernatural intervention is far less plausible (and actually literally impossible) when compared to a rigorously researched, thoroughly tested theory?
And loads of religious cunts are on the TV all the time? If you ban Dawkins, why don't you ban Songs of Praise?
gdf- Join date : 2008-08-26
Age : 32
Location : Aberdeen
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
FUCK YOU GDF, WE'RE TRYING TO BE AGNOSTIC HERE BECAUSE NOW ATHEISM IS MAINSTREAM AGNOSTIC IS WHERE IT'S AT! RIDE THE TREND TRAIN BABY FUCK DAWKINS FUCK DAWKINS EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN STUFF WE CANT PROVE OTHER THAN A GUY WHO DOESN'T EXIST MAKING SHIT FROM THIN AIR WHO GIVES A FUCK HOW HE WAS MADE THE IDEA THAT HE EXISTS IS ENOUGH TO KEEP THE LOGICAL PART OF MY BRAIN FROM SPEAKING ITS MIND, PUN INTENDED LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER FUCK DAWKINS FUCK DAWKINS
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
Don't ever change, Sean.
gdf- Join date : 2008-08-26
Age : 32
Location : Aberdeen
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
Evolution isn't Fairies and Unicorns. Your belief isn't necessary. Humans can manipulate evolution and it's been well documented to work on its own accord within a short space of time (See also: The species of moth, who changed colour upon the trees they lived on becoming black from air pollution to keep themselves camouflaged)DanglyBrasco wrote:And im not sure i believe in evlution,
It's not a case of Darwininan Favouritism here, the reason it's among the top theories for the origin of life (Of which there's quite a few in total, but they're lesser documented) is because the vast majority of scientists cannot uphold a stronger, testable theory that stands up to criticism and investigation as much as Darwin's theory does.
Raine- Join date : 2009-08-02
Age : 37
Location : Lincoln
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
I didnt say i believed in God either.
DanglyBrasco- Join date : 2008-08-26
Age : 33
Location : Angleland
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
Not ruling it out is as good as belief, no?
Moozo- Join date : 2008-08-27
Age : 31
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
Seany C wrote:
OK then, goodbye forever, erections.
mcgugan- Join date : 2008-08-26
Age : 34
Location : There.
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
That picture's a photoshop. They superimposed Dawkin's face onto Watson and then did a side by side comparison.
Raine- Join date : 2009-08-02
Age : 37
Location : Lincoln
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
This is the superimposed version.
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
Emma Watsons eyes look warm, sexy and kinda inviting. Dawkins' look like he is about too rape you while whispering in your ear about all the pieces of evidence they have about Evolution.
DanglyBrasco- Join date : 2008-08-26
Age : 33
Location : Angleland
Re: The Genius OfCharles Darwin, and the Cunt that is Richard Dawkins.
Dangly, I go to Catholic school and, thanks to the unwarranted bullshit that is EMA, attend religious education religiously. I'm not trying to claim that I'm therefore better placed than everyone else to weigh in on the subject (I don't know how many people here are in the same situation, for one) but I'll share some of my experience and, hopefully, go some way to explaining why I have a lot of time for Dawkins.
In the last three periods of R.E I've tried to engage my teacher in debate over some aspect of religion - I think that's quite an effort to make in front of 30 or so peers for whom the only respectable reaction to the biased indoctrination of that classroom is a bored gaze into the middle distance, and I imagined the teacher would be quite pleased to see some healthy discussion rather than deadpan lectures all the time: God exists, after all, so he has nothing to fear. Nevertheless, he used bewilderingly evasive arguments and tried to quickly change the subject whenever I applied common logic to the things he was telling the class.
In one discussion he was talking about how cars which take unleaded fuel are created that way and you shouldn't put diesel in them, in the same way that human genitalia clearly demonstrate that sodomy is immoral. That's the natural way, he went on, and that's all the Catholic church is trying to promote. I countered that the Catholic church picks and chooses what to deem natural - it found Chandler and Monica's lovemaking perfectly acceptable even after both parties found themselves unable to reproduce (perplexingly, my teacher exercised enough doublethink to conclude that this was not the fault of an omniscient higher power), for instance. He mmm'd and ahhh'd his way through this and used his teenage audience's giggling as a means of moving swiftly along.
Later on I managed to bring him back to the concept of Catholicism preserving the natural way of things. I told the class about how our bodies apparently aren't designed to wear shoes, and that if we wore nothing on our feet we'd be able to run much faster and would quickly build up a defence to the pain. God didn't invent shoes, but the church cares not.
"So you're saying we shouldn't wear shoes?" he pondered and the class chuckled at the atheist boy at the back, clutching at straws to explain life without God. I think he knew quite well what I was getting at.
Had I been in Oxford, striking up conversation with Dawkins, he'd no doubt give me a lot more time and he'd probably think everything I said over and come back with something relevant. He'd win, of course, but it'd be by virtue of him being an intelligent man with well-researched opinions and not due to him manipulating peer pressure to escape a sticky situation.
I think a lot of criticism Dawkins comes in for is due to his patronising voice inflection and strength of belief - something I think is backed up by your point about the BNP and Arabs. You seem to have applied the characteristic of fervor to other posts, and drawn conclusions about what we'd think of him. For the record, I would consider a BNP-aligned Dawkins racist, because the BNP are racist. I wouldn't consider an Arab Dawkins to be a terrorist, because being an atheist with strong opinions doesn't make you a terrorist and neither does being an Arab.
(Probably worth bearing in mind that you've only heard one side of the story with regards to my R.E classroom. My teacher would tell a story that would paint him in a better light, and the truth would be somewhere in the middle)
In the last three periods of R.E I've tried to engage my teacher in debate over some aspect of religion - I think that's quite an effort to make in front of 30 or so peers for whom the only respectable reaction to the biased indoctrination of that classroom is a bored gaze into the middle distance, and I imagined the teacher would be quite pleased to see some healthy discussion rather than deadpan lectures all the time: God exists, after all, so he has nothing to fear. Nevertheless, he used bewilderingly evasive arguments and tried to quickly change the subject whenever I applied common logic to the things he was telling the class.
In one discussion he was talking about how cars which take unleaded fuel are created that way and you shouldn't put diesel in them, in the same way that human genitalia clearly demonstrate that sodomy is immoral. That's the natural way, he went on, and that's all the Catholic church is trying to promote. I countered that the Catholic church picks and chooses what to deem natural - it found Chandler and Monica's lovemaking perfectly acceptable even after both parties found themselves unable to reproduce (perplexingly, my teacher exercised enough doublethink to conclude that this was not the fault of an omniscient higher power), for instance. He mmm'd and ahhh'd his way through this and used his teenage audience's giggling as a means of moving swiftly along.
Later on I managed to bring him back to the concept of Catholicism preserving the natural way of things. I told the class about how our bodies apparently aren't designed to wear shoes, and that if we wore nothing on our feet we'd be able to run much faster and would quickly build up a defence to the pain. God didn't invent shoes, but the church cares not.
"So you're saying we shouldn't wear shoes?" he pondered and the class chuckled at the atheist boy at the back, clutching at straws to explain life without God. I think he knew quite well what I was getting at.
Had I been in Oxford, striking up conversation with Dawkins, he'd no doubt give me a lot more time and he'd probably think everything I said over and come back with something relevant. He'd win, of course, but it'd be by virtue of him being an intelligent man with well-researched opinions and not due to him manipulating peer pressure to escape a sticky situation.
I think a lot of criticism Dawkins comes in for is due to his patronising voice inflection and strength of belief - something I think is backed up by your point about the BNP and Arabs. You seem to have applied the characteristic of fervor to other posts, and drawn conclusions about what we'd think of him. For the record, I would consider a BNP-aligned Dawkins racist, because the BNP are racist. I wouldn't consider an Arab Dawkins to be a terrorist, because being an atheist with strong opinions doesn't make you a terrorist and neither does being an Arab.
(Probably worth bearing in mind that you've only heard one side of the story with regards to my R.E classroom. My teacher would tell a story that would paint him in a better light, and the truth would be somewhere in the middle)
Rebellious Backbencher- Join date : 2008-08-26
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Page 2 of 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum