Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

IM currently reading the 4th installment of the Twilight series called Breaking dawn.

I'm re-reading Snowblind, by Robert Sabbag at the moment.
An excellent book about one mans venture into the cocain smuggling trade in 70's 'merica.

Map of Bones By James Rollins. Its kind of like splinter cell meets Davinci code

Wasp factory by Ian Banks great read , read it years back and am enjoying some of the details i forgot

City of God , again .

Twichaldinho wrote:I'm re-reading Snowblind, by Robert Sabbag at the moment.
An excellent book about one mans venture into the cocain smuggling trade in 70's 'merica.

I've been meaning to get that, how does it compare to Mr Nice?

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:

TRANCE wrote:Anyone who reads Dawkins or subscribed to his Youtube videos are sound in my eyes.

Dont like him, alot of his theory is extremely flawed. He ignores the basic human instinct for violence and asserts religion is the reason for this need, it is not, more so when he attempts to explain everything in terms of evolution. If we take on aspects because they are adaptive as Dawkin asserts, then why do we take on religion? It cant be completely bad, or perhaps all our actions are not adaptive characterists steming from Evolution.

Marx's explanation of religion seems to be a basis for some of his thinking, but of all of Marx's theories are naturalistic reductionist, everything gets boiled down to economic factors. He never entered debates regarding the existence of God. So his references to him are a little confusing.

His basic arguments are very good, i just have problems when he gets a little deeper.

Personally, I have absolutely no time for religion, it's the worse man made invention created by man. It's great listening to Dawkins dulcet tones on Youtube and as far as I'm concerned, the world would be a better place with more like him as opposed to religious fanatics.

Everyone starts out being an atheist and no one is born with belief in anything. Where someone who is religious, you'll usually find their parents were also. Religion divides people, controls people, deludes people and debilitates where I honesty think they have lost the capacity for clear and realistic thought as it's all based on founded fables, mythologies and superstition with the Bible depending on the ignorance of the person reading it. It is an extremely impoverished view of the world to be religious in my opinion and even though I don't believe in God, despite the fact that I am a good person, is that not a more noble reason for being good only because religious people are frightened of being punished by God.

Does all this sound overly arrogant of me, well yes, but I really abhor all religion with a passion no matter what type it is and I honestly feel sorry for those who are religious and I revere Dawkins greatly, myself.

TRANCE wrote:Personally, I have absolutely no time for religion, it's the worse man made invention created by man. It's great listening to Dawkins dulcet tones on Youtube and as far as I'm concerned, the world would be a better place with more like him as opposed to religious fanatics.

Everyone starts out being an atheist and no one is born with belief in anything. Where someone who is religious, you'll usually find their parents were also. Religion divides people, controls people, deludes people and debilitates where I honesty think they have lost the capacity for clear and realistic thought as it's all based on founded fables, mythologies and superstition with the Bible depending on the ignorance of the person reading it. It is an extremely impoverished view of the world to be religious in my opinion and even though I don't believe in God, despite the fact that I am a good person, is that not a more noble reason for being good only because religious people are frightened of being punished by God.

Does all this sound overly arrogant of me, well yes, but I really abhor all religion with a passion no matter what type it is and I honestly feel sorry for those who are religious and I revere Dawkins greatly, myself.

Firstly, a interesting fact for those who are apposed to religion is that Europe was its most peaceful when the Vatican power was absolute. Those who claim the world would be better without religion are flawed on many grounds, firstly it was religious organisations that began many instances to stop cruelty slave trade for example. Secondly, imo, it show a complete mis-understanding of the nature of nationalism and religion. The combination of which often leads to violence, its comparable to saying lets ban knifes because people stab each other with them , completely ignoring those who do not use knifes in such a fashion. Thirdly to assert something which gives people comfort is wrong and should be taken away from them, is something which i find extremely arrogant, how can one be prepared to say to another human being that you cannot find comfort in something?

The argument everyone is born atheist is in my view completely wrong, no-one is born atheist, atheism is defined as the belief in no God. A child new born is not born wit the cognitive ability to much such a decision, in fact everyone is born Agnostic. Atheism is by no means the defult position, to assert that is completely wrong.

Religion itself does not divide people etc, in fact it is people who do this. It is not means related to religion alone, the same can be said of money and national pride. The same can be said of livestock and land. To assert that religion is the only concept which is used as such is also wrong. It could also be said that as far as improvised views go, to be loving created is not as improvised as evolution, this is not questioning validity of evolution, but i wouldnt say atheism is less improvised than religion.

You also fall into the trap of alot of atheists, you judge all religions by Judo-Christian standards, if you exaime Janisim and Buddhism the criticisms do not apply at all.

Another point is i find it interesting how atheists will laugh at Christians saying who created God, while offering the same explanation of the big bang.

I am not saying an Atheist viewpoint is wrong, in fact i would describe myself as an Agnostic Pantheist with Atheist tendancies, however many arguments offered by Atheists for the demise of religion are falwed. There are many other Atheist thinkers out there with better theories in regard to religion than Dawkin.

Sorry, but people who don't like their beliefs being laughed at, shouldn't have such funny beliefs and how does that saying go........give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion and he'll starve to death while praying for fish.

TRANCE wrote:Sorry, but people who don't like their beliefs being laughed at, shouldn't have such funny beliefs and how does that saying go........give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion and he'll starve to death while praying for fish.

Sorry, but people who wish to rubbish a particular institution should give a solution rather than a amusing quote. As i said before, read the Australian Atheist Alliances for arguments which eclipse that of Dawkins.

An ignorance laughing at someones belief, which may give them comfort through difficult and testing times, to me is completely disgraceful.

If your argument was to proof or dis-proof the existence of a deity, then perhaps laughing may be more apporiate, but to laugh at a concept and gives people comfort. That is wrong.

Boner wrote:

Twichaldinho wrote:I'm re-reading Snowblind, by Robert Sabbag at the moment.
An excellent book about one mans venture into the cocain smuggling trade in 70's 'merica.

I've been meaning to get that, how does it compare to Mr Nice?

In simple terms, it doesn't.
Mr Nice is the Daddy of Dope smuggling books. But both the Robert Sabbag books about smuggling ( Snowblind-cocain and Smokescreen-pot ) are excellent books, well written and humerous (sp). My fave of the two is Smokescreen, simply for the character in it called J.D Reed. If anyone has read it, they will know why.
But if you are going to compare it to Mr Nice, you may be a little dissapointed.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:Sorry, but people who wish to rubbish a particular institution should give a solution rather than a amusing quote. As i said before, read the Australian Atheist Alliances for arguments which eclipse that of Dawkins.

An ignorance laughing at someones belief, which may give them comfort through difficult and testing times, to me is completely disgraceful.

If your argument was to proof or dis-proof the existence of a deity, then perhaps laughing may be more apporiate, but to laugh at a concept and gives people comfort. That is wrong.

Sorry, but I can't help if my arrogance has rather perturbed you or that you indeed seem to be wanting to preach something to me. I know for a fact I am a good person and do not need religion to prove this fact. Atheists are peaceful pacifists and do not threaten to fly planes into buildings or become suicide bombers or delusionally believe in a book where sticks turn into snakes. I tell you what is wrong with all this and that's children being brought up and forced to believe in a religion and not to think for themselves, that is what is wrong here and like I said previously, it's an extremely impoverished look at life to be religious and you can never convince a believer of anything as they have a deep seated need to believe based on their upbringing and what was naively taught to them or should I say brainwashed.

Nah, I have no time for religion, myself.

TRANCE wrote: Sorry, but I can't help if my arrogance has rather perturbed you or that you indeed seem to be wanting to preach something to me. I know for a fact I am a good person and do not need religion to prove this fact. Atheists are peaceful pacifists and do not threaten to fly planes into buildings or become suicide bombers or delusionally believe in a book where sticks turn into snakes. I tell you what is wrong with all this and that's children being brought up and forced to believe in a religion and not to think for themselves, that is what is wrong here and like I said previously, it's an extremely impoverished look at life to be religious and you can never convince a believer of anything as they have a deep seated need to believe based on their upbringing and what was naively taught to them or should I say brainwashed.

Nah, I have no time for religion, myself.

No your right, atheists are all peaceful pacifists. Lenin? Stalin? Polput, yea all peaceful people.

Again how is a view which states loving creation more improfised than a view which preachs accidental chance? It does not, your argument is flawed.

No obviously you cant convince a believer of anything new, thats why theres never been any reform movements. The Quakers obviously dont show this? Interesting how quick someone is to call brainwash when they're mindlessly repeating the arguments of another without questioning, or in fact adressing the criticisms of said persons theory.

Again, since you are assuming validity of your theory but also not addressing any questions. I am a panthesit. Therefore i do not preach, however you assert truth to your positions therefore your speech is more preachy than mine, i ask questions, you dont address them. Because Dawkins thinking is flawed, as is yours.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:
No your right, atheists are all peaceful pacifists. Lenin? Stalin? Polput, yea all peaceful people.

Ludicrous statement.

It's only where someone who is doing something bad, under complete religious conviction that their God is telling them to it, convinced they are doing a righteously good thing, 9/11 bombers spring to mind, that I have a problem with.

TRANCE wrote:

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:
No your right, atheists are all peaceful pacifists. Lenin? Stalin? Polput, yea all peaceful people.

Ludicrous statement.

It's only where someone who is doing something bad, under complete religious conviction that their God is telling them to it, convinced they are doing a righteously good thing, 9/11 bombers spring to mind, that I have a problem with.

Ludicrous statement? So they never carried out atrocities in the name of ridding religion from their society? History lessons might help man.

You call my statement ludicrous, think about what you've just said. You dont have a problem with people doing things wrong unless its in the susposed name of God that you have a problem? So that Ian Huntlys an alright chap, so's Hitler i dont know what the fuss was about him, at least he wasnt religious. Dude epic fail.

Again are you actually going to answer any questions criticising your man Dawkins?