Allahu Akbar - Not?:(

[spidergoat]

Like using science to disprove God?

Who did that? Not Dawkins for sure. That's a strawman argument.

 

[S.A.M.]

Who did that? Not Dawkins for sure. That's a strawman argument.

Foundation for Reason and Science

Richard Dawkins believes science's ability to admit ignorance is one of its greatest strengths. On the flip side, he proposes that faith remains arrogant and all too certain of its validity without any rational set of proofs.

faith:Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Anyway, at least the money is coming in:
http://richarddawkins.net/foundation

RDF is now in the process of applying for charitable status in the US and UK.

All donations on this page are made to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, a non-profit charitable organization, with status pending approval.

Please consider donating directly to RDF in the form below. Paypal is the worlds most used service for secure electronic transactions today. If you don't have an account, the signup is free and easy. Your donations make our campaign for Reason and Science possible!

Please consider making an automatic monthly donation!

Please consider making an automatic yearly donation!

'Growing Up in the Universe' 2-Disc DVD Set: Pre-Order Now!
Oxford professor Richard Dawkins presents a series of lectures on life, the universe, and our place in it. With brilliance and clarity, Dawkins unravels an educational gem that will mesmerize young and old alike. Illuminating demonstrations, wildlife, virtual reality, and special guests (including Douglas Adams) all combine to make this collection a timeless classic.

Donate a general amount towards sending 'Growing Up in the Universe' DVDs to schools and libraries:

We will be collecting a separate pool of donations for this purpose. As we assemble our list of recipients, we will ship out copies of the DVD with the help of Burning Shed.

Please help us build our list of schools and libraries who should receive this DVD.

BUY THE DVD through our online shop. (All proceeds go to RDF)

If you are a tolerant, reasonable person that opposes religious persecution, perhaps you might accept that:

1. Faith, the opposite of reason - is unreasonable.

2. Tolerating the intolerance which exists in all major religions - is intolerant.

3. Allowing a child to be automatically given its parents' religion (often irreversably reducing the capacity for freedom of thought, religious or otherwise, as an adult) - is religious persecution.

In which case I recommend you give this 'reason based initiative' lots of tax deductable money.

You will be contributing to truly reasonable and tolerant cause, making a stand against religious persecution - in a way that only atheists can.

evangelism, anyone?

Well they do say that Prophets are charismatic and convincing.

 

[spidergoat]

Richard Dawkins believes science's ability to admit ignorance is one of its greatest strengths. On the flip side, he proposes that faith remains arrogant and all too certain of its validity without any rational set of proofs.

correct

Promoting a particular message (like global warming), has only the outward appearance of evangelism, but no religious quality.

 

[S.A.M.]

correct

Promoting a particular message (like global warming), has only the outward appearance of evangelism, but no religious quality.

Please donate to the Foundation for Reason and Science.

PS you have to prove you are reasonable and tolerant as only atheists can be.

 

[spidergoat]

Huh?

 

[GeoffP]

On the one hand they espouse freedom of thought and on the other they cannot conceal their disdain for theists.

All they do is replace religious dogmatism with atheistic dogmatism.

Hurt feelings do not translate into a violation of freedom of thought.

Religious laws, on the other hand, sometimes do.

 

[S.A.M.]

Hurt feelings do not translate into a violation of freedom of thought.

Religious laws, on the other hand, sometimes do.

Huh?

Sure but there are morons in all guises

"I would vote for a pro-war, religious person over an anti-war atheist" - Hitchens.

 

[spidergoat]

So would I, what's wrong with that?

 

[S.A.M.]

So would I, what's wrong with that?

I would vote for the anti-war atheist.

 

[spidergoat]

It all depends on what war, some are worth fighting. I wouldn't vote for anyone that would not at least consider the option as a last resort.

 

[GeoffP]

Spidergoat is right. It's calling the boundary on deciding when war is necessary that comes into in question.

And since we're debating titles and all here...Sam and IAC.

If Dawkins is necessarily and functionally an agnostic since he can't disprove God, does that mean that you're also both necessarily agnostics too, since neither of you can prove the existence of God? After all, you can't really claim to knowledge you don't ultimately have.

 

[S.A.M.]

Spidergoat is right. It's calling the boundary on deciding when war is necessary that comes into in question.

And since we're debating titles and all here...Sam and IAC.

If Dawkins is necessarily and functionally an agnostic since he can't disprove God, does that mean that you're also both necessarily agnostics too, since neither of you can prove the existence of God? After all, you can't really claim to knowledge you don't ultimately have.

Thats why its called faith honey.

And if its war you're wanting, there's always a justification for it. Of course both sides may not exactly have the same one