Richard Dawkins is but a speaker, just like Hitler.

did Hakins answer the question well?


  • Total voters
    14

scifes

In withdrawal.
Valued Senior Member
there isn't that much essence to his arguments, other than his charisma and how he maintains his composure when he debates. which is why atheists like him so much.

here. check this out, and look at the fools clapping their hands off.
 
"Fools" always clap their hands off for people they agree with. Religious. Non-Religious. Conservative. Liberal. Socialist. Libertarian. Authoritarian.

Doesn't really matter.

~String
 
Right, because all effective speakers are like Hitler! I can't imagine a more absurd characterization of Dawkins' well thought out and calmly presented logical argument.
 
From behind the pulpits.

Actually, I've always thought that Dawkins was a little clumsy in his presentations. His arguments are very well thought out and sound though.

The ones with the real public speaking charisma (with little moral guidance) are the ones behind the pulpits! That's how they make millions conning their congregations.

KRR

PS. Dawkins answer to the question posed in the video is pretty damn good!
 
Don't get the Hitler connection, but I'll admit that a well reasoned, coherent and rational argument can seem dangerous to some people.
 
Don't get the Hitler connection, but I'll admit that a well reasoned, coherent and rational argument can seem dangerous to some people.

Dawkins arguments are very logical and thought out so they are dangerous to the believers (afterall some believers might actually start to listen to them). They attack him and try to associate him with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, the Devil as a method of putting his arguments into question since they have a hard time countering them logically point to point...

The more effective his argument is in showing their beliefs are silly and counter to a productive human society, the more they attack in illogical, haphazard and maniacal ways.

KRR
 
In response to the thread title:

Scifes is but a Man, just like Hitler.

:rolleyes:
 
um, i really honestly didn't mean to "attack" dawkins by "associating" him with hitler, i truly find how they gained a lot of followers very similar, hitler wasn't a generous rich man, he wasn't exceptionally smart or handsome, he didn't bring prosperity to the people, yet the people were ready to go through hardships for him. the people really liked and admired him..
..and most importantly, adopted his ideals.

the way hitler charmed millions with his speeches to believing and following his ideals is very similar to how hawkins appeals to many atheists.

i really wasn't trying to demonetize hawkins by comparing him to hitler, if anything, he's not up to that level yet, i truly admire hitler and idealize his resolve, and the big scar he left on the face of the earth, even though he caused a lot of pain and distruction, and he failed in the end, i find his attempt very inspiring.
which is no where close to dawkins, an atheist who believes he'll be naught when he dies, yet wastes his life chasing around theists to tell them how much he hates them on tv.

anyway, this thread isn't about what i think of hitler or hawkins, but about the latter's arguments and people's affection to them. i just don't want people to go on tangents here, so please don't open the subject again[unless in a different thread].

i'd like to hear some more opinions about the video before i go on.
 
Well I was convinced by his argument. Im willing to invade Poland for him.
:D
i laughed, but the joke couldn't cross my subconsciousness to my consciousness :):confused:

of course you do know that i misspelled hawkins as hakins.
 
i'd like to hear some more opinions about the video before i go on.

I think his answer to the question posed is great! It shows the fallacy of religions as the source of morals. Society and the evolutionary advantage of social groupings are the source of morals, not religions. Religions just hijacked morals because they were a strong method of controlling the behavior of the masses by the religious elite.

KRR
 
there isn't that much essence to his arguments, other than his charisma and how he maintains his composure when he debates. which is why atheists like him so much.

here. check this out, and look at the fools clapping their hands off.

Other than the killing lots of Jewish people and starting a world war - and not being German, of course - you're bang on: Dawkins is exactly like Hitler. He probably even likes small dogs and children.

To eat, anyway. Strikes me as a little reptilian. Lizardoid?

"Fools" always clap their hands off for people they agree with. Religious. Non-Religious. Conservative. Liberal. Socialist. Libertarian. Authoritarian.

Doesn't really matter.

~String

Look at those fucking atheists, clapping with their hands again. Would it be too much that they clap with their feet, or their elbows for a change? It's just more proof of what they're all about.

um, i really honestly didn't mean to "attack" dawkins by "associating" him with hitler

Actually, you kind of did do that, both in the OP (see above) and that part where you titled the thread "Richard Dawkins is but a speaker, just like Hitler". I appreciate that these points are sometimes more subtle than I think.

, i truly find how they gained a lot of followers very similar

Dawkins' Potato Putsch, for example.

, hitler wasn't a generous rich man, he wasn't exceptionally smart or handsome, he didn't bring prosperity to the people

And Dawkins....has? Because you're making a contrast now.

, yet the people were ready to go through hardships for him. the people really liked and admired him..
..and most importantly, adopted his ideals.

And invaded the Archdiocese of Canterbury; yes, I can see where you're going with this.

the way hitler charmed millions with his speeches to believing and following his ideals is very similar to how hawkins appeals to many atheists.

Nicht wahr.

"From the very first day I have proclaimed as a fundamental principle: 'the Militant Atheist is either the first philosopher in the world or he is no philosopher at all.' No philosophers at all we cannot be [ED: ???], and we do not wish to be. Therefore we shall be only the first. As one who is a lover of peace I have endeavored to create for the Atheist people - like those fuckers at London College - such an army and such munitions as are calculated to convince others, too, to seek peace."

i really wasn't trying to demonetize hawkins by comparing him to hitler

Okaaay...

if anything, he's not up to that level yet

Ding fail.

i truly admire hitler and idealize his resolve

Brilliant.

and the big scar he left on the face of the earth, even though he caused a lot of pain and distruction, and he failed in the end, i find his attempt very inspiring.

Yes: rather like Satan in Paradise Lost, isn't it?

which is no where close to dawkins, an atheist who believes he'll be naught when he dies, yet wastes his life chasing around theists to tell them how much he hates them on tv.

Does he chase them around to the tune of the Benny Hill show? Does he pinch their bottoms when he catches them? Because I'd watch that.

i'd like to hear some more opinions about the video before i go on.

I think your thread is dumb and your argument looks like something that could be got by living under the sea.

of course you do know that i misspelled hawkins as hakins.

You mean Ditchens. Ristopherd Ditchens.

Not to worry, happens all the time.

By the way....did anyone know that there's actually a "Hitler. com"? :eek:
 
a comparison to hitler in the thread title - a new record for Godwin's Law?

Hahaha yeah that's exactly what I thought.

That title is blatantly saying "This is a stupid thread with no well thought out arguments, just extreme, barely logical comparisons to evil people".
 
I don't think Richard Dawkins is a good public speaker. He's not bad, but certainly not great.
 
a comparison to hitler in the thread title - a new record for Godwin's Law?
more like a new record for replying without reading.
meh, and we're still in page one.
anyway, this thread isn't about what i think of hitler or hawkins, but about the latter's arguments and people's affection to them. i just don't want people to go on tangents here, so please don't open the subject again[unless in a different thread].




Hahaha yeah that's exactly what I thought.

That title is blatantly saying "This is a stupid thread with no well thought out arguments, just extreme, barely logical comparisons to evil people".
your post is blatently saying "this is a stupid post from one who takes a glance at the title and is too thrilled to act smug he couldn't read the one page thread"
anyway, this thread isn't about what i think of hitler or hawkins, but about the latter's arguments and people's affection to them. i just don't want people to go on tangents here, so please don't open the subject again[unless in a different thread].

if you two were sitting there you would've clapped even before dawkins replied.
 
Back
Top