Freedom of speech: What limits do you draw?

[Abu Ruman]

Originally Posted by Saladin

Its not like we are mocking them or drawing funny pictures of them burning in Hell or something. As I said earlier, these are our believes,opinions, our faith, everyone is free to criticize or disagree with them, however exorbitant mockery, like the ones we've seen in denmark, are unacceptable.

Dont make excuses. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

The last time I checked, no one is very excited to learn their neighbor supports some celestial dictator sentencing the former to an eternity of torture and damnation (note this anti-human fervor differs from secularists who arent calling for any harm against religious people, but rather scrutiny of their beliefs).

So make your pick. Otherwise, like I said - just grow up.

[Abu Ruman]

Originally Posted by chafic

Richard Dawkins in his "God delusion" writes: "The God of the Old Testament (And he's pretty much the same god of all Abrahamic religions) is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

I really do sympathize with Dawkins. Unfortunately, the man is too bright for his own good. He's just way ahead of his time's thinking.

As an evolutionary biologist, he ought to know that irrationality and dogma are hardwired elements of human nature. Whether the stupid primates learn to suppress this element before it destroys them - only time can tell.

[Dalzi]

Originally Posted by Gaius Julius Caesar

Dawkins also admittedly said, that you don't need to understand religion to disprove it. His portrayal of God exposes his insecurities.

Dawkins, like Darwin, is a mental retard with pshycological problems. The way he describes the God of the Old Testament proves to anyone "mffalle" the books that he has no clue what he's on about. I like how those insecure weaklings describe without showing any analysis lol. If there's anything that can take anger from you and replace it with peace and calmness, it's reading the words of God. I suggest reading before babbling tekhreef.

Cheers!

[Frisbeetarian]

So? That's God and those are His rules. Who cares if people care or not? Such are the limits and that's where we draw them. Period.

4 billion people dont believe in these limits.

Dawkins, like Darwin, is a mental retard with pshycological problems. The way he describes the God of the Old Testament proves to anyone "mffalle" the books that he has no clue what he's on about. I like how those insecure weaklings describe without showing any analysis lol. If there's anything that can take anger from you and replace it with peace and calmness, it's reading the words of God. I suggest reading before babbling tekhreef.

Cheers!

WoW! Such knowledgeable refutation.

[Dalzi]

Originally Posted by friendofzeus

4 billion people dont believe in these limits.

All limitations that are and have been stemmed from there. If you don't know God, you don't know where to draw limits. If you don't know God, yet you know where limits should be drawn, it's because your culture knows God. If you're been drawn away from where limits should be drawn, it's because you're drawn away from God. The creator of those is far more "intelligent" that the dumbies who are trying to outsmart him . How funny! Reminds me of the Ape theories lol. And of course the meaning of "justice", some seem to think that killing a person for fun and then having fun after is justice. You can't go anywhere with those because they don't have the capacity to understand. Insecure people.

WoW! Such knowledgeable refutation.

It's more knowledgeble than you can ever imagine ;). He's clueless. He doesn't even understand God! lol There is no meaning to life without God and no justice to living without God. Had it been this and finish, then it wouldn't be fair.

When you want to say something about a book. You bring forward an analysis, a study that shows how you came to your conclusions with exact reference and linkage. Otherwise zipping is the best option.

[chafic]

Originally Posted by Dalzi

When you want to say something about a book. You bring forward an analysis, a study that shows how you came to your conclusions with exact reference and linkage. Otherwise zipping is the best option.

So you read "The God Delusion"? Saw "The Root of all evil"? "The enemies of reason"? Anything at all?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Originally Posted by chafic

So you read "The God Delusion"? Saw "The Root of all evil"? "The enemies of reason"? Anything at all?

It's called "The God Delusion", so it's incumbent on the author to read & analyze the scriptures. Dawkins has already admitted he doesn't need to know scriptures to disprove God. As usual, basing his theory on ignorance and his insecurities.

[chafic]

Originally Posted by Gaius Julius Caesar

It's called "The God Delusion", so it's incumbent on the author to read & analyze the scriptures.

Absolutely not. Dawkins is discussing the idea of intelligent design regardless of its mythical context in different forms of scriptures (from the oldest religions to the newest..or even when for the idea existing outside the framework of religion).

Originally Posted by Gaius Julius Caesar

Dawkins has already admitted he doesn't need to know scriptures to disprove God.

I don't know where he said it but that is very right, for the reason I mentioned above. Regardless, be sure that Dawkins knows the scriptures better than most of us do.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Originally Posted by chafic

Absolutely not. Dawkins is discussing the idea of intelligent design regardless of its mythical context in different forms of scriptures (from the oldest religions to the newest..or even when for the idea existing outside the framework of religion).



I don't know where he said it but that is very right, for the reason I mentioned above. Regardless, be sure that Dawkins knows the scriptures better than most of us do.

Intelligent Design is Biblical & Quranic. Has Dawkins analysed these Holy Scriptures? If not, then how can he write a book disproving Creationism, unless he made up his own version of Intelligent Design just so he can disprove it. It's illogical to try to disprove something you have not carefully analyzed and conceptualized.

[chafic]

Originally Posted by Gaius Julius Caesar

Intelligent Design is Biblical & Quranic. Has Dawkins analysed these Holy Scriptures? If not, then how can he write a book disproving Creationism, unless he made up his own version of Intelligent Design just so he can disprove it. It's illogical to try to disprove something you have not carefully analyzed and conceptualized.

Absolutely not. The argument about intelligent design (or creationism) as a counter to evolution is purely a scientific rational one that doesn't have to be bound by religions, which could simply be used as examples of forms of intelligent design, and it serves well the argument (but again, the version doesn't matter).
Have you read his book Gaius Julius Caesar? If yes, I don't understand how can you make such statements.