Originally posted by Choreant 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.
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 Palynka 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.
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 Palynka Ok. You take it as an aggression when someone defends a position different than yours. That doesn't sound very tolerant to me.
it is the way, he does so. I don't deny athesitic point of view nor those who defend this stance.
Originally posted by Choreant 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 .
Not being compatible implies that there are elements of contradiction. Why you pass from contradiction to "rubbish" is beyond me.
Originally posted by Palynka Not being compatible implies that there are elements of contradiction. Why you pass from contradiction to "rubbish" is beyond me.
ok, rubbish was exagerration. But not compatible, means also parallel, while contradictory is opposite.
Originally posted by Choreant ok, rubbish was exagerration. But not compatible, means also parallel, while contradictory is opposite.
To get things in perspective, I also dislike his style, even though I'm a strong atheist.
But "extremist" is a bit of an exaggeration. My point was that to label him as an extremist because he believes he is right and expresses his opinions strongly is going too far. He doesn't impose by force (including institutional force) his views and this is what defines extremism, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Choreant 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".
So what is the purpose of man, without religion, other than to pass on genes?
Originally posted by Choreant 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 Choreant it is the way, he does so. I don't deny athesitic point of view nor those who defend this stance.
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.
Originally posted by scottishinnz 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.
I 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.
Dawkins,Dawkins
22 Jul '07 09:51
Back to Top