Was this uncalled for?

Discussion in 'Debate Corner' started by Scarred Nobody, Oct 3, 2010.

  1. Scarred Nobody Where is the justice?

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    1,359
    After watching a documentary called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I was doing my research of Richard Dawkins. I seached on YouTube yesturday and found this:

    [video=youtube;QyHojo9Q3nw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyHojo9Q3nw[/video]

    Now, putting religious views aside for a moment, do you beleive that what Richard Dawkins said at the begining was uncalled for? I don't want this to turn into a religous debate, more of a moralistic one, one involving respect for another.

    Now, I believe that this was completely uncalled for. He took what millions of people believe and perverted it into something disturbing and horrible. He even defends what he says, saying that he was stating fact. That may be true, but up to a point. He crossed the line and just plain out poked fun and criticized what people believe.
     
  2. Always Dance Chaser

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    220
    Richard Dawkins is a media whore who says outlandish things like this to get attention. I'm not offended in any way by what he said, but I can understand how many people would be and I will agree that what he said was way out of line.

    Also Expelled was an amazing documentary.
     
  3. AmericanSephiroth Traverse Town Homebody

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Location:
    Loveless Ave. missing the point of it all
    15
    181
    on a personal level i believe religion impedes progress and should be removed from intellectual society itself but again maybe what he said was a bit offensive to some(not me) but i do not condemn him for it anyone should be able to say what they please when they please. 2 simple rules for life if you don't like what you see..... look elsewhere if you don't like what you hear..... don't listen
     
  4. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    I don't get why some people in the audience were laughing, nothing he said was funny. I'm guessing there was some opposition to Christian belief in the audience since only they would find that analogy amusing.
    Never heard of Richard Dawkins as far as I remember, so I can't say whether this is normal for him, but at the least he's being passive aggressive, if not then openly intolerant. That's not a real scientist to me. That's a man with massive amounts of knowledge, yet he is still completely ignorant.
     
  5. Scarred Nobody Where is the justice?

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    1,359
    He is someone who I believe is just openly intolerant; one of his books being called "The God Dellusion". Anytime he is really confronted, he shows his true colors and cowards away.
    In another vid I've found, he was asked "What if you're worng?". He answered by begining by saying that your religion is from where you are from, calling gods and dieties things such as "Flying Speghetti Monsters" and "The Doo-doo at the Bottom of the Ocean" (not making that up). Then he said "What if you are wrong?" and the entire audience applauded.

    I'm thinking "but, you didn't answer the question". He worded his responce rather oddly, and he didn't make it sound like a decent answer. He avoided the question completely; maybe because he thinks he's better than anyone else.
     
  6. Rena88 Twilight Town Denizen

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Location:
    Candy Mountain XP
    34
    210
    Yeah, most of what Dawkins ever talks/debates about is mainly geared towards slamming any kind of belief system. I watched the video of "The God Delusion" debate between Dawkins and John Lennox a couple years back. I think Dawkins lost that debate pretty badly. I mean, I get if you have established yourself as a person totally free from the influence of any kind of religious association, but that doesn't give you the right to be disrespectful of someone else because they DO have a religious association.
     
  7. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    Sounds like he knows how to play the crowd but fumbles when trying to actually debate something. I get how you can write about God being a delusion of our own need to create a higher power in order to blame, talk to, be comforted by, etc, and still make it sound relatively tolerant, but this is so blunt that he seems likely he doesn't really care.
    And the Bible is actually an effective tool in moralising people and making them think about their actions. He doesn't seem to consider that Christians have any devency in them. It's possible he came from a religious family and lost faith, but i'm reading too much into it.
     
  8. Patsy Stone Мать Россия

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    133
    I am so angered by this thread. Richard Dawkins did absolutely nothing wrong. He wasn't even blashpemous. As per usual, religious people take whatever they can as ammunition against those more intelligent than themselves. All he did was state fact, and the loser who decided that stating fact was wrong is a loser. I really don't see how stating fact is wrong. Unless of course your religious beliefs tell you to ignore facts and to attack anything that goes against your faith.

    Tony Burke is just that, a berk. Dawkins did not ridicule anything, all he did was state fact. If it is wrong to state fact then it is wrong to exist.
     
  9. Scarred Nobody Where is the justice?

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    1,359
    So, it's alright to discard common curtosy and manners if it's stating fact? I was looking beyond my religion when I was thinking about this; if it were about any other god that I do not beleive in, I would still find this very insulting. Even thoughs who are not insulted by this can see why people are upset. What really gets me mad is that he didn't find anything wrong with what he said. What if I starting yelling out "Evelutionists are idiots who will pay for their sins" (again, this is hypothetically speaking)! In a way, that would be a fact, but people would find that wrong. I would never, ever say that, but if I ever did say anything that is knowingly insulting, I would at least appologize for it. We learn that kind of stuff at age three. I hate how Dawkins can be so uncaring towards mankind and their feelings. He allows his ignorace to blind himself from the bigger picture.
     
  10. Luna Lovegood nani panda-kun

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Shirokuma Cafe
    294
    I am not Christian, so I am not directly insulted by what Dawkins said. Yes, he did state fact. That is not what is being questioned in this thread. What is causing such a commotion is what he said after stating a fact. After briefly describing the new testament, he said, and I quote: "What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?" This statement is not an argument. It is not a debate. It is ridicule, and it is an insult, and to say that in a civilized, televised debate is childish. It doesn't matter if he's talking about Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, or what have you. If he were to phrase the "question" in a more civil way that did not so blatantly insult someone's belief system, there would not be such an uproar.
     
  11. Patsy Stone Мать Россия

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    133
    It was an opinion and nothing more. He had every right to say it, free speech and all that. It was his opinion upon what the New Testament said.
     
  12. Scarred Nobody Where is the justice?

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    1,359
    Yet, if I even state my own opinion about God, I would probably bee seen as insane and put in some institution. Again, he stated fact, but in the end he perverted it into something that it is not. I've read the stories, I know the sturggle. I can't see why anyone would find what he said as alright. I do stand up for free speech, but there's also something in our minds that filter what is right to say and what is wrong to say. I cannot find any kind of situation where saying something like that is okay, whether it be Christianity, Hinduism, Greek, Islam, etc.
     
  13. Patsy Stone Мать Россия

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    133
    Well, it is a horrible and depraved notion. That the supreme creator would sacrifice himself horribly to save the creation that he created imperfectly. It reeks of depravity.
     
  14. Scarred Nobody Where is the justice?

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    1,359
    Everyone is born with orginal sin because of what happened in the Garden of Eden. During the Passover week, Jews would sacrifice an animal to God in repentance for their sins and hoping for eternal life. 1500+ years later, Jesus was brought to the world. He was the prophesised Messiah, the one who was prophesised to die for man kind's sins. Jesus was born of a virgin, making him the first unclean person since Adam befor the apple. "Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life for many." Mathew 20:28(NIV). He is also refered to as the Lamb of God because he was killled during the Passover week and whoever beleived in Him would have their sins cleansed through his sacrifice.

    It is also a misconseption that Jesus is God; he is God's equal but they are two different entities. Jesus even asked to have this given to someone else because he felt weak. However, he knew in his heart that it was destiny! And people seem to also forget that he rose three days later and was lifted to Heavan a little while afterwards. He was sent here so we may also have a chance at life after this one.

    And this quote is used widly, but I see it fitting. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not parish but have eternal life" John 3:16 (NIV)

    It's a story about love, sacrifice, and trust in God. That's why I feel upset for what he stated.
     
  15. KeybladeSpirit [ENvTuber] [pngTuber]

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Gender:
    Girl ️‍⚧️
    Location:
    College
    2,178
    Jesus (God the Son) sacrificed Himself to save the imperfection that Yahweh (God the Father) created and left behind the Holy Spirit (Quite obviously, God the Holy Spirit) to keep it saved.

    But the imperfection is what I would like to address. I submit to you that human imperfection is proof that humans are functioning perfectly. Without imperfection, humans could not grow and think of the revolutionary ideas that perfection would prevent. Thus, God made an imperfect world so that it could become perfect on its own.

    tl;dr: In the beginning, the universe was empty. Then God got bored and created the world and humanity. He then, out of His love for us, allowed us to develop into what He wanted us to be at our own pace and make our own mistakes along the way.

    @tummer: No, Jesus is God. Christians, or at least Catholics, believe that Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all the same God. It goes with the idea that God is Omnipresent. They're just three different persons.
     
  16. Scarred Nobody Where is the justice?

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    1,359
    Great way to summarize the bible. And I'm not a Catholic nessesaraly, and the whole trinity thing confuses me a bit (I'm still a little new at this). I just saw the mas three different entites, God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit. It just confuses me when Jesus refers to God as "Father" and says "He will sit at the right hand". I guess I can be wrong, I still have a lot of studying to do.
     
  17. KeybladeSpirit [ENvTuber] [pngTuber]

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Gender:
    Girl ️‍⚧️
    Location:
    College
    2,178
    Think of it this way. You have a "fairy ring" in your back yard. All the mushrooms are separate entities from the surface, but they are all the same fungus. Jesus, Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit are the mushrooms while God is the whole fungus.
     
  18. Scarred Nobody Where is the justice?

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    1,359
    Love the analogy by the way. I understand what your saying. I guess I need to pay attention more.
     
  19. Ars Nova Just a ghost.

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Gender:
    hungry
    Location:
    Hell 71
    2,986
    After passing this thread several times, I was finally in a position to watch the video proper. I was tempted to do further watching to get a fuller scope of Dawkins's personality, but since the question addresses only his attitude in the video in question, I'll address only that as well.

    Concerning the accusations put forth, Dawkins is innocent. There is no ridicule present. What is present is a harsh opinion of the New Testament--one not entirely deserved, but opinions simply cannot be debated, only altered as a result of revelations from a debate. Dawkins chooses to ignore his own opinion when the responding party calls it ridicule, instead emphasizing that he is only stating facts.

    This begins a downward spiral where neither party is really responding directly to the other, but calling out the portions of Dawkins's statement which perceptibly favor them the most. For it is true that much of Dawkins's statement consisted of fact, but it is also true that taking everything he said as fact would be ridiculous. It is not fact that Jesus Christ's sacrifice was a horrible and depraved event; I don't think Mr. Dawkins would in his right mind make that claim. It seems his wording was poor.

    The way I see it, Dawkins should have acknowledged and explained that he was merely stating an opinion when he went on to call the sacrifice of Jesus Christ something "horrible" and "depraved," the Christians should have been resolute that Christ's sacrifice was a noble and admirable endeavor, and the two should have agreed to respectfully disagree. Sadly, I've no doubt that this unnecessary hangup slowed progress towards any relevant and actually debatable topics.
     
  20. Always Dance Chaser

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    220
    Gay people have a much higher chance of contracting STD's than straight people. The amount of STD's that can be received from **** sex in men is many times higher than straight sex. If you think being gay is a good idea, you can keep it.

    I just stated a fact but you can still easily say that I'm being a jerk and speaking out of line. And stating that the New Testament is ridiculous or twisted or whatever he said, I won't watch the video again, is NOT stating a fact, it's being a dick.

    Dick Dawkins is just that, a dick.