There's no way a sane person would think this i.dailymail.co.uk/.../...mage-20_1417534305221.jpg is hot.
Typical disgusting ableist girl, proves what i say about females is true. Disgusting creature.
I meant before he was paralyzed.
@Asker He's never been good-looking. @TimeSplitters123 Wtf's wrong with you?
What is wrong with you, you disgusting creature, he is a human being not a thing, notice how all all the women voters say Dawkins, im right about women hating on the disabled aren't i, yet they complain about sexism, homophobia, Ableism is worser then all other hate crime or discrimination added together.
@TimeSplitter123 You clearly need to vent, please, go on.
This is why men with disabilities hate on women so much and commit rape and sexual assault, and as per usual all you can do is take the piss and ridicule, disabled people are entitled to equality as well.
@TimeSplitters123 I doubt Hawking would ever be able to rape anyone.
Dawkins is an asshole, So Hawking
It's not a question of how much you like them it's a question of who looks better LOLBesides, why's Dawkins an asshole?
He is the same kind of fundementalist he claims to hate,You can't call religion a mental illness and not be an asshole
and as someone who wants to write for a living and is pretty damn good,He sucks at it
Um, in order to be a fundamentalist you have to follow a religion in the first place
Plus his reaction to 'elevatorgate' (Can we stop attaching gate to controversies, it was watergate because it took place at the watergate hotel)He is an asshole
Not really, How about the followers of stalin,How about MaoHe promotes Hatred just like his opposites on the side he opposes,There is very little difference.
Their followers were extremists but fundementalist means that you adhere to the fundamentals of a religion.
Fine Extremist then,but hatred like that has no place in a civil debate.
Richard Dawkins hates religion because it poisons peoples mind, that doesn't mean that he hates everyone who follows a religion.
Poison peoples minds, How, Some of the greatest thinkers in history have been religous; The discoverer of the big bang was a catholic priesten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre That man contributed more to the scientific field than dawkins ever will.Albert Einstein believed in Spinozas God or in other words was a Pantheist,Kurt Godel Believed in god. Here is even more on how many scientists believe in a higher powerwww.usnews.com/.../GR_PR_090716pewsurvey.jpgAround fifty percent believe in some higher poweron top of all that, the biggest kicker is that Ironically, The founder of Genetics, Gregor Mendal was a catholic monk, The same field that dawkins works in today
On top of that, Georges Lemaitre original name for the big bang theory was more badass,The theory of the Primeval Atom.Those guys contributed a whole hell of a lot to science so how were their minds poisoned
And do not make the comment that Kurt Godel Was a mathematician and not a scientist because that's just ignorance about the scientific fields
That doesn't mean that religion doesn't poison peoples minds. Yeah, some of the greatest scientists were religious, but it wasn't because of their religion that they were great scientists, and as you pointed out, scientists are less inclined to be religious than the rest of the population. That's like saying that racism isn't a bad thing because some of the greatest thinkers were racists.
No its pointing out that religion doesn't poison minds, Extremism does and Dawkins is proof of that just like the westboro baptist church is
Religion doesn't poison minds, if you want to claim that then you have to claim that about any ideology,Its not like atheism hasn't done the same thing at some points in history,The league of militant atheists from the USSR,The Cult of Reason from the french revolution.You want to say ideologies poison people minds?Seriously People who like dawkins tend to be closed minded towards any other ideas than the ones they possess, Trying to get someone like you to acknowledge that religion is just another ideology is like smashing your head against a brick wall,You are wrong, I've made some very very strong points against you and you aren't capable of realizing it.You are the same kind of close minded that Dawkins claims to oppose
Yeah, it does and I've seen it. I've met many people who aren't necessarily extremist say things like "it's OK that all non-Christians or non-Muslims suffer in Hell for eternity for what they believe". And the fact (that you pointed out) that scientists are far less inclined to be religious suggests that the less inclined you are to follow a religion, the more open minded and rational a person you will be. So those people you mentioned were brilliant scientists in spite of their religion and that indeed religion is a detriment (i. e. a poison of the mind). But you clearly cannot wrap your head around what you posted so their no point in me wasting time with someone who thinks belief in unfounded ideas without question is somehow not a detriment to society.Bye :)
Again you are the one who is closed minded and if you were as rational as you were you would realize that
You ignore or warp anthing that doesn't fit your world view,Thats not rational thats irrational, You won't admit it, you will agrue against that but your agruments are warped,Yes scientists are less likely to believe in a higher power, but fifty percent of them still do and thats not a small percentage.Agruing against someone who likes dawkins is like bashing your head against a wall.You will never change your world view,
Closed minded means refusing to change your mind in spite of evidence. Gullibility means accepting things without evidence (i. e. that Stalin committed his crimes because he believed there was no god even though there is no evidence for that). You see if you want to establish a trend, pointing out individual examples doesn't count as evidence, you have to show a large data set and as you pointed out scientists AS A WHOLE are less likely to believe in religion than not is evidence that religion restrains free thought but if you are so closed minded that you can't (or are unwilling) to wrap your head around it, there's no point in me wasting my time here (and believing in a higher power doesn't mean you believe a religion) LOL and you call my arguments "warped" but it's pretty clear who's contorting information for his own benefit so if you're going to throw such accusations at me while blatantly doing it yourself there's not point in me wasting my time with youDONE
right back at you,
Question is closed for new opinions!
Need fresh opinions from Girls & Guys?
Stephen Hawking is a better man and an actually intelligent one that doesn't more than preach.
Neither one, since both of them are idiots.
Was that a joke?
@Asker No. Just because you're able to muster theories doesn't make you a genius.
Yeah, anyone can make shit up but you have to be a genius to provide supporting evidence for it.
@Asker Yes. And do they provide evidence for their theories?
Yes they do, they've published multiple articles in the peer-reviewed literature.
richy dawkinny-kins is bae
Im saying hawkings because DORKins is an abliest traitor, plus women are bound not to say Hawkings because of his disability.
What do you mean he's a traitor?
He tried to ban Guy fawkes Night.
Richard Dawkins is my favorite intellectual. And yeah he's hotter.
Richard Feynman got all the hot chicks.