22 Jul '07 09:51>
Originally posted by PalynkaOf course, I mean the "force", rather the intellectual agression, than the real one.
Really? How is he imposing his views by force?
Originally posted by ChoreantYou might not say it, but you'd be simply not admitting what your belief entails.
But I can believe a God, to which are many ways. It is even based in christian teology, thus I cannot say that musilms are wrong.
Originally posted by PalynkaIt is not compatible, of course. But it is not contradictory. If it is like you say, all the philosophical system are rubbish, beacuse you've got thousands of others, unsimilar .
You might not say it, but you'd be simply not admitting what your belief entails.
What Muslims believe regarding Muhammad or the Qu'ran is not compatible with a Catholic viewpoint. Denying so is simply putting your head in the sand.
Originally posted by ChoreantNot being compatible implies that there are elements of contradiction. Why you pass from contradiction to "rubbish" is beyond me.
It is not compatible, of course. But it is not contradictory. If it is like you say, all the philosophical system are rubbish, beacuse you've got thousands of others, unsimilar .
Originally posted by ChoreantTo get things in perspective, I also dislike his style, even though I'm a strong atheist.
ok, rubbish was exagerration. But not compatible, means also parallel, while contradictory is opposite.
Originally posted by ChoreantSo what is the purpose of man, without religion, other than to pass on genes?
Athesim, as it once was, begun as a counterstirke to religious stupidity. This atheism is very good idea. I am a sworn Christian,however I'm not robbed of thinking nor logical reasoning. I asnwerd myself more question about my beliefs, during discussions with atheists, than I had in church. But, Mr. Dawkins goes much further. If he says, that the only purp ...[text shortened]... points at me, and my similar as a fools, I am free to say that I consider him blind".
Originally posted by ChoreantWhat's wrong with the way he defends Atheism. Perhaps, if you want Dawkins on a leash, you should clean your own proverbial house. Dawkins attacks on religion are mainly result of religions attacks on science.
it is the way, he does so. I don't deny athesitic point of view nor those who defend this stance.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI do attack extremism,and Dawkins's one is comparable to most bitter religious jerks. But,on the contrary to them, he announces himself as a freethinker.
What's wrong with the way he defends Atheism. Perhaps, if you want Dawkins on a leash, you should clean your own proverbial house. Dawkins attacks on religion are mainly result of religions attacks on science.