Richard Dawkins suffers stroke.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's a shame you can't simply admit you were talking out of your ass, when everyone here can see that is exactly what was happening.

Dishonest much?

Why yes, yes you do.

You're still here? Why don't you prove your point and then we can debate!

You're still here, Piñata?

It's funny how you aren't even bright enough to see how you're being batted around ... and too stupid to quit coming back for more.

In case you forgot, you were saying that he pushes his atheism on you, but then you backed up from that and said you don't care one way or the other about his views ... but you didn't have the intellectual honesty to simply say you were running your mouth.

Hopefully, you'll write that down, so that you can use your seventeen neurons for more important things, like remembering where you put the cap for the toothpaste.

[Clueless Morgan]

You're still here? Why don't you prove your point and then we can debate!

Why don't you demonstrate your case by providing an example of Dawkins "pushing atheism" onto theists rather than merely citing a hugely subjective list of prominent figures who are atheists that just happens to list him as #1? I've seen a lot of Dawkins' presentations and read several of his books and I'm not sure where your impression of him "pushing atheism" is coming from - except maybe from your own subjective opinion of him as a theist.

I'm genuinely interested in what actual examples (rather than appeals to authority, I.e. Internet rankings) you can come up with.

[abaris]

All Atheist's do not regard him has a superior being in the community of Atheism.

I don't consider anyone of the prominent atheists as superior beings. But if I would, it would be Dawkins, since, as opposed to his collegues, he has a sense of humor and a presentation style that actually makes me smile instead of feeling like listening to an agitator.

[Pat Mustard]

I am hearing though through some sources that his mental capacity is still in tact.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016...aland-tour

I don't agree with his pushing of atheism on people, but I hope he recovers. I don't wish harm on anyone.

You're a fucking retarded anus, you know that?

[Old Baby]

What constitutes pushing your beliefs on someone?

Is it merely talking about those beliefs with people, or do you have to actually make it to a list before it's considered pushing?

I just find it so ironic and hypocritical any time some theist remarks on atheists pushing their beliefs on people. The very act of a Christian discouraging atheists from pushing their beliefs is *gasp* pushing THEIR beliefs!

[scoobysnack]

See you are the atheist I can respect. Everyone has a different perspective, and even though I believe in God or in my opinion accept and understand their is a God, I don't get my panties in a bunch like some people do, and neither do you if people disagree with us. Like you explain even in atheism there are various levels, just like there are denominations in various religions. Keep up the good work, even though we disagree on some issues, we also agree on other issues. I'd prefer to find common ground with people on this forum, but I'm not afraid to give my perspective even if it clashes with their paradigm.

As much as people will disagree i'm not here to troll, or just piss in the sand box. I'm here because I have an opinion, just like everyone else. Even though I'm not an atheist, I actually enjoy this forum. From a programming perspective it's one of the nicer ones.

         Thanks, I try to my best to be a fair minded Atheist. Has long as your views are not harming a other persons well being, stick to your guns. If you say to a parent who's child is really sick that you don't need hospital. Your views are hurting someone then. I'll play devils advocate on self here for bit, let's say there is a god. He or she is not going to have the ability to do everything to help. If you were to apply logic to this problem, modern medical care would be a gift of man to mankind and not a gift a from god. He or she be a terrible god if the tribe had no self reliance, right? Would it be right for that child to suffer cause of parents think that a god is going to help there child get better?... Now, on to my view. When I was younger and first became an Atheist. I was pissed off about how much I missed out on cause of a flawed system. All those years of being a child and fearing the teachings of a system that by commuting those actions had little to no punishments. Then learning the real history of how much harm that religion has caused through out human history. I wanted to bring down the whole system that had enslaved entire populations for centuries and punished those who challenged that system. I then became more educated and realized that this system will never be brought down fully.


          I wish there was more chill religious people like you in society. Were getting there though, the hardliners are starting to die out and the new generations are taking control of a outdated system and bring it up to a new version. I'm just waiting the pope to bring a other fashion that has been around for way to long to an end. The Pro-life movement needs to finally come to an end, I'm growing tired this argument that is like a cold that keeps coming back. Atheist or Religious you can't argue with math on this one. There is way to many people on this planet and something needs to be done. There's no reason for big families to be created, when you get over four kids your getting greedy on the resources. Right Scoobysnack?

I disagree with your point on the pro-life movement. I posted a bunch of stuff in the planned parenthood thread here that exposes it as an offshoot of the eugenics movement from a hundred plus years ago. Check out my post here which has a link to the US government document National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200) Implications of Worldwide Population Growth

Here's the link directly to the post: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34693-po...pid1209038

Part of the problem with falling fertillity rates is that if you have less people entering the workforce then are retiring, it results in the collapse of economies. They have to remain at least stable. In fact it's one reason governments support immigration is because the native population are not having kids, and over time they need people to come in to fill the positions needed to keep economies going. When doing the math we need to have 2.11 fertility rate just to keep things stable. Once you go below that everything starts collapsing, and the lower you go, it's impossible to reverse. This is an interesting short video talking about if you get below a fertility rate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weWgnOimfnA

Then there is the guy just hired by the pope in the vatican who thinks the world is over populated by 6 billion people:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...any-of-us/

There are methods already in place to soft kill us, but if they decide to start the hard kill measures, watch out.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Smote by Yahweh, no doubt.

Bullshit, everyone knows Allah smote or smitten him. Cant be that age thing.

He is a bit of a stuff shirt, but still, hope he gets as well as he can. Great contributor to understanding science.

Dawkins may not be everyone's favorite public speaker, and he does like to do that a lot, but he remains first and best at explaining the workings of modern evolutionary theory, and the relation of that mechanism to the development and evolution of cultural memes, including theistic ideas. If you haven't read his books, beginning with The Selfish Gene, then you really don't know what you've missed. As a brilliant author, Dawkins will be missed when he eventually goes.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Best bit from the linked article:

'He also coined the term “meme” to describe a self-replicating unit that transmits cultural ideas, a rather loftier description than its current manifestation as an infinite cascade of sad frogs named Pepe.'

Boru

That was The Selfish Gene, and is a great read which I recommend to any who think Dawkins contributed little more than his socially clumsy face to rational culture. He really has been quite brilliant in his writing style, and his ability to explain theoretical processes.

[Sterben]

         Thanks, I try to my best to be a fair minded Atheist. Has long as your views are not harming a other persons well being, stick to your guns. If you say to a parent who's child is really sick that you don't need hospital. Your views are hurting someone then. I'll play devils advocate on self here for bit, let's say there is a god. He or she is not going to have the ability to do everything to help. If you were to apply logic to this problem, modern medical care would be a gift of man to mankind and not a gift a from god. He or she be a terrible god if the tribe had no self reliance, right? Would it be right for that child to suffer cause of parents think that a god is going to help there child get better?... Now, on to my view. When I was younger and first became an Atheist. I was pissed off about how much I missed out on cause of a flawed system. All those years of being a child and fearing the teachings of a system that by commuting those actions had little to no punishments. Then learning the real history of how much harm that religion has caused through out human history. I wanted to bring down the whole system that had enslaved entire populations for centuries and punished those who challenged that system. I then became more educated and realized that this system will never be brought down fully.


          I wish there was more chill religious people like you in society. Were getting there though, the hardliners are starting to die out and the new generations are taking control of a outdated system and bring it up to a new version. I'm just waiting the pope to bring a other fashion that has been around for way to long to an end. The Pro-life movement needs to finally come to an end, I'm growing tired this argument that is like a cold that keeps coming back. Atheist or Religious you can't argue with math on this one. There is way to many people on this planet and something needs to be done. There's no reason for big families to be created, when you get over four kids your getting greedy on the resources. Right Scoobysnack?

I disagree with your point on the pro-life movement. I posted a bunch of stuff in the planned parenthood thread here that exposes it as an offshoot of the eugenics movement from a hundred plus years ago. Check out my post here which has a link to the US government document National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200) Implications of Worldwide Population Growth

Here's the link directly to the post: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34693-po...pid1209038

Part of the problem with falling fertility rates is that if you have less people entering the workforce then are retiring, it results in the collapse of economies. They have to remain at least stable. In fact it's one reason governments support immigration is because the native population are not having kids, and over time they need people to come in to fill the positions needed to keep economies going. When doing the math we need to have 2.11 fertility rate just to keep things stable. Once you go below that everything starts collapsing, and the lower you go, it's impossible to reverse. This is an interesting short video talking about if you get below a fertility rate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weWgnOimfnA

Then there is the guy just hired by the pope in the vatican who thinks the world is over populated by 6 billion people:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...any-of-us/

There are methods already in place to soft kill us, but if they decide to start the hard kill measures, watch out.

            I'm aware of the fertility rates are dropping down into record lows, on the other hand though the growing slogan is that children are not for me is becoming more popular.  When you looks at the cost of raising just one child in a proper fashion is very costly. Private schools/home schooling, food and medical care, entertainment, and other issues the arise average's about 2.5 million dollars per child. How is a couple or single parent expected to pay for such a life long commitment? The smaller percentage of those who even want to have children can not afford them. The anti-child movement is growing in numbers at a rate no one would of predicted. Women at rising rate are getting there tubes tied at earlier ages, men in there 20's are getting Vasectomy's at higher rates as well. I've known a couple of co-workers without kids who got the operation done and there barely in there early 20's. I know it's not direct evidence, but it you take the growing trends of permanent solutions in birth control of this generation you see why the drop in fertility rates is happening. Can you blame people for not wanting children? I understand that something needs to be done about the rates, but if you can't raise a child properly all your producing is a higher chance for the child to be in prison.


            Let's try to work up a solution for this problem. We has a society need to make having children more affordable, the costs are just to damn high! People need to have less children per family unit so that way better quality can be achieved. If you start with these two issues it would bring the rates up a slight bit.

[Jackalope]

When you looks at the cost of raising just one child in a proper fashion is very costly. Private schools/home schooling, food and medical care, entertainment, and other issues the arise average's about 2.5 million dollars per child.

I'm calling bullshit on that. I make substantially more than the national average, and I guarantee my child has and will cost nothing close to that figure through college.