I LOVE RICHARD DAWKINS!

Damocles said:
He didn't answer it. If he's wrong, he'll be going to wherever the Juju at the bottom of the sea sends immoral unbelievers and he knows it. He expects immediate answers to the "apostate" question from a Muslim who won't be killing somebody who stops being a Muslim, then attempts to talk around the question rather than answer it himself...
Click to expand...
He most certainly did answer her question and you completely missed Dawkins point. Dawkins mearly pointed out that her question was rhetorical in nature and not logical. There is no an "real" answer for her question other then to ask her the rhetorical question "Well what if you're wrong?" or "But what if I'm right?"
 
Mott the Hoople said:
He most certainly did answer her question and you completely missed Dawkins point. Dawkins mearly pointed out that her question was rhetorical in nature and not logical. There is no an "real" answer for her question other then to ask her the rhetorical question "Well what if you're wrong?" or "But what if I'm right?"
Click to expand...
No, he didn't answer the question. He simply attempted to mock her into submission, and unfortunately succeeded amid cheers and laughter he talked around it.

The reality is, if he is wrong then he will have to suffer the consequences just like the rest of us. That is the only honest answer to the question. After answering directly and honestly (like he expected somebody else to in a video posted earlier in the thread), then you can start mocking ideas.

By sheer chance what if her Juju is the real one? Then he'll be going to hell, just like I will.
 
the whole point damo is there are an infinite amount of possibilities that one could come up with concerning what type of god exists. The question is therefore pointless
 
G 2 i n d said:
the whole point damo is there are an infinite amount of possibilities that one could come up with concerning what type of god exists. The question is therefore pointless
Click to expand...
Regardless, the reality is, in a non-Muslim state there is no penalty for becoming apostate, therefore his question was "pointless" when dealing with a Muslim from Britain. Yet he wanted an immediate and direct answer, then instead of giving any direct answer to the question he hypocritically never answered it and didn't make the point of it being "pointless" ...

He simply tried to be funny while he attempted to shut her up by mocking her and getting her peers to laugh at her.

He's a hypocrite who expects from others what he is unwilling to give.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
He most certainly did answer her question and you completely missed Dawkins point. Dawkins mearly pointed out that her question was rhetorical in nature and not logical. There is no an "real" answer for her question other then to ask her the rhetorical question "Well what if you're wrong?" or "But what if I'm right?"
Click to expand...

??...why would the question be rhetorical?.....the answer to his question is "then I will simply cease to exist"....what is his answer to hers?......
 
Damocles said:
Regardless, the reality is, in a non-Muslim state there is no penalty for becoming apostate, therefore his question was "pointless" when dealing with a Muslim from Britain.
Click to expand...

they were not arguing the legalities of nations, they were arguing to what extent islam is a peaceful religion. He was questioning the muslim on islamic law, (which is supreme for muslims), and considering that according to islamic law (what they were arguing about) the penalty is death. this is why islam is such a violent and barbaric religion, for more so than christianity.
 
G 2 i n d said:
they were not arguing the legalities of nations, they were arguing to what extent islam is a peaceful religion. He was questioning the muslim on islamic law, (which is supreme for muslims), and considering that according to islamic law (what they were arguing about) the penalty is death. this is why islam is such a violent and barbaric religion, for more so than christianity.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what they were arguing, the young woman wasn't "arguing" anything at all.

The reality is, that his question was "pointless" among those whom they were arguing, yet he expected an immediate and direct answer to his pointless question, then when asked a "pointless" question he gave no direct answer, never answered, and only mocked her into silence.

He simply bullied somebody who had no means to answer. She had 10 seconds at a microphone and he had the bully pulpit.

He's a flat hypocrite, used fallacious reasoning and peer pressure to attempt to "dismiss" the woman, he made no point, he simply mocked and refused to answer the question. He would not do what he expected from others.

You can celebrate hypocrisy because you would be one laughing and clapping, used by a man whom you agree with to bully a "believer" into silence...
 
Damocles said:
No, he didn't answer the question. He simply attempted to mock her into submission, and unfortunately succeeded amid cheers and laughter he talked around it.

The reality is, if he is wrong then he will have to suffer the consequences just like the rest of us. That is the only honest answer to the question. After answering directly and honestly (like he expected somebody else to in a video posted earlier in the thread), then you can start mocking ideas.

By sheer chance what if her Juju is the real one? Then he'll be going to hell, just like I will.
Click to expand...
But what if her JuJu isn't? What if her JuJu is? It's not only a rhetorical question, it's a circular argument.
 
Damocles said:
Regardless, the reality is, in a non-Muslim state there is no penalty for becoming apostate, therefore his question was "pointless" when dealing with a Muslim from Britain. Yet he wanted an immediate and direct answer, then instead of giving any direct answer to the question he hypocritically never answered it and didn't make the point of it being "pointless" ...

He simply tried to be funny while he attempted to shut her up by mocking her and getting her peers to laugh at her.

He's a hypocrite who expects from others what he is unwilling to give.
Click to expand...
That's not true either Damo. I grew up an apostate (protestant) in a Catholic community. With in that society there were definate punishements of exclusion and descrimination because I was not a member of Holy Church or a believer in "The One True Faith". So Dawkins point is certainly valid. It was his Muslim critic who evaded Dawkins question. Let's be honest about that.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not true either Damo. I grew up an apostate (protestant) in a Catholic community. With in that society there were definate punishements of exclusion and descrimination because I was not a member of Holy Church or a believer in "The One True Faith". So Dawkins point is certainly valid. It was his Muslim critic who evaded Dawkins question. Let's be honest about that.
Click to expand...

When I was at primary school, many moons ago, the nuns taught us that only Catholics could go to Heaven and the best that others could expect was to get to Limbo.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
??...why would the question be rhetorical?.....the answer to his question is "then I will simply cease to exist"....what is his answer to hers?......
Click to expand...
Because the answer is obvious and doesn't need to be stated. If Dawkins is wrong, he's fucked! That's the answer. But his counter argument is also correct that it also applies to her if the great JuJu being under the water is right and she is wrong or if the Muslims are right and She is wrong, etc.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
But what if her JuJu isn't? What if her JuJu is? It's not only a rhetorical question, it's a circular argument.
Click to expand...
Answering a question with a question, deliberately to mock does not constitute the honest answer he expected from others when he had questions.

He is being deliberately hypocritical, giving him excuses by attempting the same thing doesn't change that fact.

Again, you may like the hypocrisy because you were entertained and agree, however he could have still answered the question directly and honestly then mocked her, entertained us all and I wouldn't dislike him.

Mocking isn't what I am talking about, I just dislike hypocrisy like that. If you expect honest answers from others, then give them when asked questions. Whether it was "circular reasoning" doesn't change that there was only one answer to the question that would be honest. If he is wrong he will suffer the consequences or reap the rewards as the Real Juju decides after he dies.
 
G 2 i n d said:
they were not arguing the legalities of nations, they were arguing to what extent islam is a peaceful religion. He was questioning the muslim on islamic law, (which is supreme for muslims), and considering that according to islamic law (what they were arguing about) the penalty is death. this is why islam is such a violent and barbaric religion, for more so than christianity.
Click to expand...
That's not true. No religion in human history has ever even been remotely close to Christianity when it comes to religious fueled violence.
 
tom prendergast said:
When I was at primary school, many moons ago, the nuns taught us that only Catholics could go to Heaven and the best that others could expect was to get to Limbo.
Click to expand...
Yea they told me that shit to my face knowing I was a Methodist. I remember my Catholic play mates as a kid comiserating with me cause I was going to hell. LOL
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not true. No religion in human history has ever even been remotely close to Christianity when it comes to religious fueled violence.
Click to expand...

The Mayan and Aztec religions, the numerous Celtic religions, and so forth. These all practiced human sacrifice, and they were forever on the warpath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top