Internet thread: Share the fun!

ISI paid Stefano! OMGGGGGG PANIC!!1!11!!11!!!!!!!



Edit: I understood "AMAZING" what a mistake. Now on topic, rF2 has actually a great AI behaviour, hope ISI will look at this and let us create downloadable championship/career "mods" because this AI deserves It.

 

Care to sign?

http://www.animalsasia.cc/savehalongbears/

 

Please sign and more importantly pass this on guys: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions/...Freedom of Expression&utm_content=Raif link 1

 

One of my favourites:

 

^^ class video lol

 

Deepak Chopra is such a charleton.

 

He really is, oh my word, I can barely watch that clip without my blood pressure rising. Ill informed, manipulating charlatanry.

 

Same thing happens to me when I watch Richard Dawkins. That guy makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.

 

Oh I feel quite the contrary. A few years ago he really opened my eyes to atheism. Suddenly here was a guy who was putting words and reasoning to what I had been feeling for many years about religion. Now I've just discovered Mr Hitchens, and can't wait to read his work.

Dawkins also opened my eyes to the wonders of evolution theory. In my eyes he's truly a hero and a great idol.

 

Time for an upgrade. I am going with Militant Anti-Theist.

 

Slightly disturbing ending.

Why is that buddhatree? May i ask what it is about Dawkins that makes you embarrassed to be an atheist?

 

I like AC, I bought it on Steam Early Access, so this is not bashing or anything.
rF2 is just better, but this is very funny, even if you don't remember the pinball game.

 

[video]https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152708417141633[/video]

 

I'll let this quote answer for me:

- Albert Einstein

 

Paradox of tolerance!

buddhatree, Jesus would be proud!

 

Buddhatree, i hope i'm not putting words in his mouth but it's my understanding that Dawkins intolerance only extends to religious pernicious beliefs. He has said numerously, that people can choose to believe whatever they like (despite the fact he may think they are incorrect beliefs) so long as they do not negatively affect the rights of others or cause harm. He takes issue with specific religions because of their specific pernicious beliefs either preached by their religious holy books outright and/or derived from its members interpretations of it's holy books. He doesn't despise all religious people, he despises specific religions based on some of their specific teachings (e.g. apostasy, condoms are more evil than aids, etc, etc). His animosity therefore applies to the specific religious people who hold and act on their specific pernicious beliefs and not because they hold just any type of religious beliefs. He thinks it unwise to hold any belief on faith but doesn't necessarily hold that against someone, completely depends on what that specific belief in faith is.

Then there's the side of Dawkins who actively challenges religions on the basis of their truth* claims.

Might i add, atheism is not the negative claim that a concious god/gods of the universe does not or could not possibly exist, just the rejection of the positive claim that a/some god/gods exist based on insufficient evidence to justify the claim/belief that god/gods exist. However when people like Dawkins argue against the existence of "man made" (for lack of a better word) religious claims of god/gods, he basis that on logical, reasoned and contradictory evidence that their claim has insufficient justification to accept* as being true. There is good* evidence for the contrary and therefore he deems there to be sufficiently good justification to hold the polar opposite/negative claim that their specific* god/gods do not or likely do not exist.

No doubt Dawkins seems fanatical, however he has never said he is unwilling to see contradictory evidence to his rejection of the claim that some god exists. However unlikely he views that possibility, that door is never shut. I think he's very passionate about his beliefs but i think how passionate, fanatical or not someone is is an irrelevancy to the underlying truth of what someone says and believes.

I also think when Einstein said what he said, his interpretation of atheism was of those that fervently believe/claim that there is no possibility of a concious god/creator of the universe (the absolute negative claim).

Best video explanation on the topic ever.


(edit: wording correction highlighted with *)