When did people stop living unto they were 800 + years old?

[dogtowner]

95 % of dawkinrocks post are about things a lot of people care dearly about..So I assume from his alias Dawkins is a hero of his..

you would assume correctly. saw a really funny youtube of a couple english kids one protraying dawkins and the other the host. all pretend dawkins did was run through the same assortment of random insults and name calling our pretend dawkins does.

pretend dawkins storms off in a.huff as i saw he do on other actual video clips.

only its amusing in the way satire deeply rooted in the actual is funny.

 

[cashmcall]

dawkinrocks & lolo..You know, I have been going over a little of you guy's history, and I can say this with out conviction... I may have my opinions and convictions, but you and he only have prejudices

 

[cashmcall]

The Selfish Gene, Dawkins writes, “I think ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ sums up our modern understanding of natural selection admirably.” To make his case, Dawkins offers a fitting analogy of his view...The argument of this book (The Selfish Gene) is that we, and all other animals are machines created by our genes. Like successful Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes." I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness."

If you want to get an idea of what Dawkins is describing, consider the 1929 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre that took place between two Chicago criminal gangs... The shooters had the selfish genes. Their goal was to survive at all costs and to keep their selfish gene boss happy... Given what Dawkins claims for evolutionary development, did the killers do anything morally wrong?

And yet, when we step back and observe ourselves, there is something about Dawkins story that doesn’t make sense. For if he’s correct, then people would never have an interest in doing the right thing (never mind knowing what the right thing to do is) people would never admire virtue, rise up against injustice, or sacrifice their own welfare to benefit strangers. If human beings are ruthlessly selfish at the core, then we should find unheard of that man possesses capacities which interest him in helping others, and make their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.

Now I say it comes from our Creator...

 

[dogtowner]

The Selfish Gene, Dawkins writes, “I think ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ sums up our modern understanding of natural selection admirably.” To make his case, Dawkins offers a fitting analogy of his view...The argument of this book (The Selfish Gene) is that we, and all other animals are machines created by our genes. Like successful Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes." I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness."

If you want to get an idea of what Dawkins is describing, consider the 1929 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre that took place between two Chicago criminal gangs... The shooters had the selfish genes. Their goal was to survive at all costs and to keep their selfish gene boss happy... Given what Dawkins claims for evolutionary development, did the killers do anything morally wrong?

And yet, when we step back and observe ourselves, there is something about Dawkins story that doesn’t make sense. For if he’s correct, then people would never have an interest in doing the right thing (never mind knowingwhat the right thing to do is) people would never admire virtue, rise up against injustice, or sacrifice their own welfare to benefit strangers. If human beings are ruthlessly selfish at the core, then we should find unheard of that man possesses capacities which interest him in helping others, and make their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.

Now I say it comes from our Creator...

He does appear to be stoned all the time. I guess thats why he's so popular with young people.

Reminds me of the notion that animals were invented by water as a means of locomotion.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

At least Dawkins has the decency to exist

And also, as far as I am aware he hasn't killed everyone on earth bar one family

So he is way ahead of the fictional monster you guys worship

Adults who believe in people living to be 800 dissing a scientist

You couldn't make it up it is so utterly ridiculous

Completely sums up the banjo playing retarded nature of Christians

To be fair I hope the right do stay like this as it will, when combined with their equally mad politics condemn them to opposition for ever the and bastards

Conservative science says that 'genuine' rape shuts down female fertility and that we do not need to worry about climate change because god sent a rainbow after the flood


Fuck me, what a bunch of retards

 

[Iolo2]

dawkinrocks & lolo..You know, I have been going over a little of you guy's history, and I can say this with out conviction... I may have my opinions and convictions, but you and he only have prejudices

There's nice! Wonderful to belong to the master race aye! What you can't do is honest debate: like all bossybritches, you wish to set up the rules of discussion, and like all American extremists settle everything by quotations from your Holy Books, The Old Testament and Wikepedia. It is extremely dishonest and wholly boring. Go find something useful to do instead.

 

[dogtowner]

There's nice! Wonderful to belong to the master race aye! What you can't do is honest debate: like all bossybritches, you wish to set up the rules of discussion, and like all American extremists settle everything by quotations from your Holy Books, The Old Testament and Wikepedia. It is extremely dishonest and wholly boring. Go find something useful to do instead.

at least SOME references are presented. trolls eschew that and just expect to have their statements accepted as gospel.
and i wouldnt have mentioned rules manipulation. its all trolls do.

 

[cashmcall]

At least Dawkins has the decency to exist

And also, as far as I am aware he hasn't killed everyone on earth bar one family

So he is way ahead of the fictional monster you guys worship

Adults who believe in people living to be 800 dissing a scientist

You couldn't make it up it is so utterly ridiculous

Completely sums up the banjo playing retarded nature of Christians

To be fair I hope the right do stay like this as it will, when combined with their equally mad politics condemn them to opposition for ever the and bastards

Conservative science says that 'genuine' rape shuts down female fertility and that we do not need to worry about climate change because god sent a rainbow after the flood


Fuck me, what a bunch of retards

I ask you not to get mad..you know, I’d agree with you but then we’d both be wrong.

 

[cashmcall]

The section in Dawkins book entitled "undeserved respect" claims that religious ideas receive too much respect and tend to be hands off as far as being criticized or even discussed. On this account, I agree with Dawkins. Religious ideas should be up to debate and scrutiny. That is why on this website we discuss and refute all manner of religious claims that are not consistent with the facts.

Richard Dawkins likes to pat himself on the back throughout the book. He quotes the late Douglas Adams, "...We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much furore Richard [Dawkins] creates when he does it!... Such shameless self promotion does nothing to change his image as an angry man, who like you, are only interested in bashing religion to create controversy, instead engaging in intelligent debate.

Dawkins goes on to explain how religious conflicts are mislabeled under group or ethnic strife. He cites the conflict in Northern Ireland, where the parties are labeled Nationalists and Loyalists instead of Catholics and Protestants. Likewise, Dawkins complains that the conflict in Iraq between the Sunni and Shia Muslims has been called ethnic cleansing instead of a religious conflict. However, Dawkins fails to point out what part of these conflicts is truly religious in nature. Are these disputes over religious doctrines or principles or disagreements about the nature of God? If so, he should have pointed out exactly which parts of the conflicts were religious in nature. Of course these are not conflicts about religion. They are conflicts involving different religious groups, but as with most all conflicts, the disagreements are about power.

Mr. Dawkins seems to have forgotten his studies in psychology of human group dynamics. Groups of humans in power will oppress other groups, just based upon membership within each group. The membership could involve religion, language, or just geography. In fact, the cause could be as simple as labeling each group. Psychological studies of group behavior have shown that groups of people will become adversaries with others outside of their own group. Just watch your son's next football/soccer game. However, Richard Dawkins has only one daughter, so maybe he was never involved in sports.

Dawkins conveniently leaves out of the discussion the fact that non-Christians/Atheist (you know, I can't say for sure they were atheist but they had your attitude) have killed far more people than all religious conflicts combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. In fact, the Pol Pot regime specifically preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia. And, since atheist-led states were largely unheard of before the 20th century, atheists have just begun to get in on the killing rampage.

This is your hero i'm talking about...My hero is looking pretty good..you can't see mine, and he still looks better than yours!

 

[cashmcall]

There's nice! Wonderful to belong to the master race aye! What you can't do is honest debate: like all bossybritches, you wish to set up the rules of discussion, and like all American extremists settle everything by quotations from your Holy Books, The Old Testament and Wikepedia. It is extremely dishonest and wholly boring. Go find something useful to do instead.

I can't debate? What do you want from a bossybritches? Maybe you will like the next one better..

best in all you do
bossybritches

 

[cashmcall]

I said this to you before...You can’t prove there is no God – and I can’t prove that there is, apart from using the Bible, which you assumes is not reliable. This is not what i'm trying to do here

Apart from the Bible, the existence of God cannot be ‘proved’ and trying to prove what is impossible to prove would make me as big a fool as the person i'm talking to....I am giving you opinions and convictions, nothing more

Consider, for a moment, the task I would be undertaking when I try. I am attempting to debate with somebody that believes that, in the beginning, nobody created nothing, which then became everything , and for no apparent reason.

The sad part is..I know you believe what your saying...

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Your problem is that you equate an inability to disprove existence with an inability to prove existence

And that is your fallacy

The first is a logical impossibility, the second is not

But sane people accept that if you are going to assert existence especially as dogmatically as Christians assert the existence of god you should not be surprised when you are asked for evidence beyond the words in a single book full of lies and inconsistencies

Your argument puts the existence of unicorns on a par with the existence of god and for once you are right

Your posts merely serve to prove how detached from reality you have to be to swallow the bullshit if religion

 

[Iolo2]

at least SOME references are presented. trolls eschew that and just expect to have their statements accepted as gospel.
and i wouldnt have mentioned rules manipulation. its all trolls do.

Why am I a troll? I give my opinion, based on a great deal of education and experience, and what else do you except complicate the matter with texts everyone is supposed to grovel to, but doesn't. What do you find difficult about that then, fundamentalist? Do grow up: silliness is a great bore.

 

[Iolo2]

Sorry - double post somehow.

 

[Iolo2]

I can't debate? What do you want from a bossybritches? Maybe you will like the next one better..

best in all you do
bossybritches

Fair play, you can manage a beeter tone than most weirdoes. Perhaps there is hope for you yet!