Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

It would be better for you to simply accept the devastating effect he had coming away from Dawkins' words left him doubting every facet of what he'd previously 'known' to be true. His life was simply turned upside down completely after read that crap.

But if he doubted that much. then he must have believed enough to deny the belief he originally had?

one was stronger than the other.

what I mean is you have the 'Bible Book' and then you have the 'Dawkins Book'

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

Carl, with respect you know nothing about him or his circumstances. If he had pre-existing conditions then you know him better than he knows himself. There was nothing along those lines in his medical history.

It would be better for you to simply accept the devastating effect he had coming away from Dawkins' words left him doubting every facet of what he'd previously 'known' to be true. His life was simply turned upside down completely after read that crap.

But Russ, you are expecting all and sundry to take your word for something.

You yourself have recently castigated a poster for singularly failing to provide factual proof of assertions which he made. Can you prove what you say in relation to the individual in question to be true?

[Russ]

If you can suggest a way for me to do so then by all means. The example you're referring to is where someone is calling their perception a fact and the proof requested could be provided with verifiable links.

I can't quite see where I've given my perception - and short of asking him to come on CF to verify what I've said I'm not sure what evidence you'd like (although going on the above I get the impression if he did people would still want more proof..).

---------- Post added at 09:40 ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

But if he doubted that much. then he must have believed enough to deny the belief he originally had?

one was stronger than the other.

what I mean is you have the 'Bible Book' and then you have the 'Dawkins Book'

Dawkins' purpose of that book was to get people to lose their belief. He put a lot of effort in to that and being the intelligent man he is, he succeeded in imposing it on a lot of people.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

If you can suggest a way for me to do so then by all means. The example you're referring to is where someone is calling their perception a fact and the proof requested could be provided with verifiable links.

You really don't get analogies, do you?

Originally Posted by Russ

I can't quite see where I've given my perception - and short of asking him to come on CF to verify what I've said I'm not sure what evidence you'd like (although going on the above I get the impression if he did people would still want more proof..).


---------- Post added at 09:40 ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 ----------



Dawkins' purpose of that book was to get people to lose their belief. He put a lot of effort in to that and being the intelligent man he is, he succeeded in imposing it on a lot of people.

Ask him to do that and, assuming he does and is prepared to provide certifiable facts to verify what you have said then I, personally, would expect that I wouldn't require much if anything more than that . That said, others on CF might have higher thresholds when it comes to proof than I.

On the matter of the Dawkins book it is worth pointing out that he is an individual. Extremely poweful churches and religions have engaged dozens, if not hundreds, of people to write and tweak a certain book to influence people. So it's not as if Dawkins was the first to do so, is it?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

So it's not as if Dawkins was the first to do so, is it?

Are you able to show evidence where I've suggested that he was?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Russ

Carl, with respect you know nothing about him or his circumstances. If he had pre-existing conditions then you know him better than he knows himself. There was nothing along those lines in his medical history.

It would be better for you to simply accept the devastating effect he had coming away from Dawkins' words left him doubting every facet of what he'd previously 'known' to be true. His life was simply turned upside down completely after read that crap.

so Dawkins has more power than God

[Russ]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

[/COLOR]

so Dawkins has more power than God

I think if he did then he'd have converted a lot more.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Russ

I think if he did then he'd have converted a lot more.

i think your right the power of Dawkins books in nothing compared to the power of faith .
and on that note don't you think its time you stopped blaming him and looked to the real reason your friend went off the path .

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

Are you able to show evidence where I've suggested that he was?

Bless.

It was a thing called a rhetorical question, Russ.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Bless.

It was a thing called a rhetorical question, Russ.

Bless ya right back Mr A it was a thing called irony.

I'll play along, if you genuinely were interested in proof of what I said - I'm pretty sure we both know you weren't - then there's a fairly well-known (amongst staunch atheists) website where "post-Christianity" people post similar experiences of their own.

---------- Post added at 10:22 ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i think your right the power of Dawkins books in nothing compared to the power of faith .
and on that note don't you think its time you stopped blaming him and looked to the real reason your friend went off the path .

It's hard for me look past any other potential reasons when he's stated numerous times what made him lose his beliefs. I have very little time for Dawkins, I won't leave a good word on him - I'll concede he's a very intelligent and influential man, nothing more - but my mate has little short of almost mortal hate for him.

Some might say while he had his beliefs he was living in a deluded world etc however he was happy, he wasn't hurting anyone and felt his like had hope and purpose.

With that taken away (especially given it was a number of rabid atheists who challenged him to give it a read) he became a broken man. On the few times I've seen the guy since, he's a shell of who he used to be.


*standard Mr A disclaimer - I have no verifiable evidence of the above

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

Bless ya right back Mr A it was a thing called irony.

I think you may misunderstand what irony actually is, Russ.

Originally Posted by Russ

I'll play along, if you genuinely were interested in proof of what I said - I'm pretty sure we both know you weren't

I'll be the judge of when I'm being interested, thanks. Get your friend on here and then we'll chat.

Originally Posted by Russ

- then there's a fairly well-known (amongst staunch atheists) website where "post-Christianity" people post similar experiences of their own.

No interest, thanks.

Originally Posted by Russ

*standard Mr A disclaimer - I have no verifiable evidence of the above

There are other things you've no verifiable evidence of, aren't there?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Just wish we could all get along and actually stop arguing/debating about our differences.It is what is dividing our society as a whole..

Just because I don't believe in a deity doesn't mean I should have the right to shove my views down the throat of someone who does believe in a deity..and the majority of those don't actually go around indoctrinating anyone.

we aren't all falling out- just blowing off steam ,a heated debate = an exiting debate .
no atheists or theists are harmed

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I think you may misunderstand what irony actually is, Russ.

OK

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

]I'll be the judge of when I'm being interested, thanks. Get your friend on here and then we'll chat.

Fair enough, how about we both happily agree not to make unverified assumptions about each other from now on, deal?

I'll ask but given the malignity aimed by some at those who take issue with anti-religionist atheism I won't be surprised if he doesn't join or does so but refrains from posting.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

No interest, thanks.

Genuinely surprised but ok.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

There are other things you've no verifiable evidence of, aren't there?

Well yes but I'm sure a man of your intellect understands the differences between beliefs and facts.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

Well yes but I'm sure a man of your intellect understands the differences between beliefs and facts.

I also understand when something is established as "fact" that verifiable evidence has been provided to establish it as such. You seem to be confusing beliefs with faith.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I also understand when something is established as "fact" that verifiable evidence has been provided to establish it as such.

Exactly, with reference to the other thread you were alluding to. So do you consider it acceptable to add a disclaimer such as mine above? I know this is all drifting away from the main topic but I do like to establish the rules where possible.