A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Aetixintro » Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:00 am

I have for a time been sympathic to the Atheist claim of believing in something close to science, but here's the limit!

It can hardly be said that Atheists can believe in Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real. Atheists are undeniably going to write those sizes off as psychological compulsions! What can happen in light of this? When Dawkins point out that Atheists can have just a positive attitude as the Religious believer, he fails to give the other story that Atheists may also at the same time and of some proportion of their group, not believe in any Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real and this can happen without breaking any duties inherent in the Atheistic system! Thus, I can soundly say that Dawkins and the Atheists are insincere about their message of Atheism and in Dawkins case, I think he fails an ideal of being a good scientist specifically for these two reasons of Ethics/Morals and Meaning!

Let's say the whole world turns Atheistic. This should be conceivable! The whole world goes to Hell, ends in catastrophe because riots have broke out and human kind has failed to make the exodus to other planets! Human life and consciousness end just there, it's all over! The "soul" of the Atheist says "so what? We would have been f**ked anyway, it has just been a matter of time and, ta-da, that time is now". My point is that the lack of dedication in Atheism of Ethics/Morals and Meaning may lead the human kind terribly awry! Still, the Atheists, spearheaded by Dawkins, fail to give recognition to this aspect! To the Atheists, there are no inherent duties to anything, social Darwinism including war and famine are just as rightful as promoting the good values!

From Existence Is Pointless, Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:40 am: "I give you this picture. Imagine that you have a good deal of pebbles strewn out on the floor. All these pebbles represent truths. Atheism has this tendency to be the act of laying one's arms around most of these pebbles, but not all. Religiousness has this tendency to lay the arms around a much greater area than just the pebbles so you get a lot of empty room within those arms as well. What I'm trying to say is that Atheism is likely to cut the future too limited while Religiousness gets the future too wide and includes too much. Therefore, being religious can represent a better critical thought than Atheism! I think it's too easy to suggest Atheism represents critical thought!"

Atheism may really f**k this over while Religious people just believe in some surplus in the worst case scenario!

What do you think about this?

[Edit:] There's nothing in the Atheistic system that commits the Atheist to Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real. A Religious believer, of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Scientology, various others, is always committed to Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real because they are integral in the Religious systems! This is simply not the case in Atheism!

Let's just remember that Hitler and Stalin have not been primarily motivated by Christian beliefs! Even though, lately, Muslim Radicalists are guilty of terrorism resulting in 4000(?) deaths in USA, you forget to mention to hundreds of thousands who have died in the wake of the war against terrorism! There are good historical reasons for showing why the non-Atheist societies are not as successful as the post-Christian ones! Besides, Religious believers come across as more predictable in human relations than Atheists.

While the end of human kind to the Atheist is just the end, the end to the Religious believer is a catastrophe! I still fail to see why Atheists necessarily are committed to Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real and I mean real. Clearly, there's an ontological void with the Atheist in regard to Ethics/Morals and Meaning! Even so, why don't you address my point of Atheistic Social Darwinism? I believe this is widespread with Atheism, yes? Being idealistic about Atheism isn't typical with Atheists, isn't this so?

Alright, I'm looking forward to answers! I believe the Religious believers and I will win this! Cheers! :D

[Edit:] This discussion is also going on here, http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thre ... 38784.html with greater speed and progress (more posting!). :)

ala1993
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:20 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by ala1993 » Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:42 am

I have for a time been sympathic to the Atheist claim of believing in something close to science
This implies that you do not think that atheists 'believe' in science (or, more likely, that what they 'believe' to be science is something else). What do you understand by 'science' in this context?

It can hardly be said that Atheists can believe in Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real
I don't really understand what you mean by 'for real' here. Do you mean an objective ethical code/morality/application of meaning?


Also, I'd just like to point out that your use of the word 'believe' is interesting; it suggests that you understand not only atheism but any claim of knowledge made by an atheist to be 'belief'. Is this the case?

When Dawkins point out that Atheists can have just a positive attitude as the Religious believer, he fails to give the other story that Atheists may also at the same time and of some proportion of their group, not believe in any Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real and this can happen without breaking any duties inherent in the Atheistic system!
However, he has written about the manner in which religious believers can have destructive attitudes towards others through a dogmatic application of an ethical code or set of principles. Please don't assume selfishness and dogmatism to be qualities possessed only by those who do not believe in a god.
the lack of dedication in Atheism of Ethics/Morals and Meaning may lead the human kind terribly awry
Unlike, for example, the Crusades against the Muslim countries by the Christians, the crimes committed in the name of Allah by Islamic Fundamentalists, the Zionist belief in the promised land which has led to tens of thousands being displaced from their homes in Palestine, the lives lost during the troubles in Northern Ireland throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the battles between Pakistan and India over the ownership of Kashmir, the brutal theocratic political structures in Saudi Arabia and Iran (and so on). Religion has led humankind 'awry' for centuries. Traces of it can be found in the Nazi belief in a master race and the dominance of the German state, in the cult of personality which has surrounded dictators such as Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Kim Jong Il. The scientific approach - the atheist approach - is one of doubt, of care, of scepticism but also of a fundamental equality of all people. Religion tells us to aim for something 'higher' and more 'pure' while science simply wants to gain a clearer understanding of what we already have.

Let's just remember that Hitler and Stalin have not been primarily motivated by Christian beliefs! Even though, lately, Muslim Radicalists are guilty of terrorism resulting in 4000(?) deaths in USA, you forget to mention to hundreds of thousands who have died in the wake of the war against terrorism
I've addressed the first claim in the previous paragraph. As for the second one (regarding the so-called war against terror), would you be willing to go on record as claiming that religion has played no part whatsoever in the US deployment of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? A nation in which, in order to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, someone must demonstrate that they are Christian and that they attend church and you are claiming that there is something secular about the war on terror. Interesting.

Religion is not a set of rules for living, but rather the attitude taken towards these rules. While an atheist will see something practically beneficial about not harming others, a religious person will come to see it as a means to something great. We can detect traces of the religious attitude in sports personalities, Wall Street bankers, film stars, entrepreneurs and soldiers - each wants to make their mark on life as an individual.


Lastly, on the subject of 'social darwinism' - the Christians attempted to wipe out the Muslims during the Crusades, the Catholics and Protestants shared an equal desire to do away with the other; there are groups of Christians in the US who wish to eradicate homosexuality. These are three examples of a religious attempt at social darwinism. I would even go so far as to claim that anyone who believes in such a practice is themselves religious, even if they do not subscribe to a theistic belief system. An atheist would be critical of SD, as it would be unscientific to simply accept it.


Your go.

nameless
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:32 pm
Location: Here! Now!

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by nameless » Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:00 am

Aetixintro wrote:Let's just remember that Hitler and Stalin have not been primarily motivated by Christian beliefs!
Hitler would disagree with your 'judgement'.
He was quite the avowed Xtian.
See: Hitler's Christianity

Wootah
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:43 am

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Wootah » Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:23 pm

nameless wrote:
Aetixintro wrote:Let's just remember that Hitler and Stalin have not been primarily motivated by Christian beliefs!
Hitler would disagree with your 'judgement'.
He was quite the avowed Xtian.
See: Hitler's Christianity
Nameless, I probably don't have time to read your whole link but if you could point which church did Hitler attend? Which denomination was he? Which command of Jesus was he following? on the site please.

Second issue is when you with your no belief views searched the Internet you must of come across counter views to the one you posted. Wouldn't it behoove a no beliefs, only ideas man like yourself and wouldn't it be expected to post both sides to your assertion?

This site makes a really good effort at trying to be unbiased and see what the truth is.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... -christian

Here is a pro-Christian site.
http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

And my personal view from reading most of the above 3 sources. Hitler was not a Christian, although he no doubt knew the theology like most people would. He did see himself on a mission from God or just his destiny.

But I will leave the last word to the Straight Dope, well may you read it,
As for your chat-room experiences, well, my friend and source David Gehrig noted that Hitler still sets the gold standard for "easiest rhetorical cheap shot." He related a comment from Usenet that there is an empirical law: As a Usenet discussion gets longer, the probability that someone in it will compare someone else in it to Hitler asymptotically approaches 1. In other words, atheists looking for a quick cheap-shot may claim Hitler was a Christian; similarly, Christians looking for a quick shot may claim he was an atheist. Know what? Hitler was a vegetarian! Oooh, those evil vegetarians!

nameless
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:32 pm
Location: Here! Now!

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by nameless » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:30 pm

Wootah wrote:
nameless wrote: Hitler would disagree with your 'judgement'.
He was quite the avowed Xtian.
See: Hitler's Christianity
Nameless, I probably don't have time to read your whole link but if you could point which church did Hitler attend? Which denomination was he? Which command of Jesus was he following? on the site please.
No. If you don't want to hear the truth to maintain your beliefs, I couldn't care less.
If the truth matters to you, you, like anyone else, can read the link. I don't need to reprint it here. 'Mein Kampf' is also available at your library to find many instances, in his own words, of his Xtianity.
Your attempted strawmen mean nothing. The facts speak for themselves in Hitlers own words. If someone considers themselves a Xtian, who are you to question them? As far as I can see, if they admit the appropriate beliefs, they are a Xtian, period. Simple. It makes no difference what 'church', if any (note the Vatican's platform on non-interference), he attended. Church attendance is not a prerequisite to being a Xtian. Nor is being a member of a denomination, nor is that ridiculous mention of jesus's commands... nor is passing any other tests that you might egoically care to devise. The simple testimony of the mouth is sufficient. I don't imagine that their (your) god will ask your opinion when (his) 'judgement day' arrives.
Second issue is when you with your no belief views searched the Internet you must of come across counter views to the one you posted. Wouldn't it behoove a no beliefs, only ideas man like yourself and wouldn't it be expected to post both sides to your assertion?
Good try, but I offered his own words! What do you want, him to refute his own words? Didn't happen, so there. *__-
This site makes a really good effort at trying to be unbiased and see what the truth is.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... -christian
Excerpt why we should listen to this guy's opinion (from the site);

Who is this man called Cecil Adams?
Who is Cecil Adams?

Cecil Adams is the world's most intelligent human being. We know this because:
(1) he knows everything, and
(2) he is never wrong.
How do we know that Cecil knows everything and is never wrong?

Because he said so, and he would never lie to us.


And his opinions are irrelevent as Hitler's Xtianity is accepted, except by the hypocrites, by the words from his mouth's testimony.
And my personal view from reading most of the above 3 sources. Hitler was not a Christian, although he no doubt knew the theology like most people would. He did see himself on a mission from God or just his destiny.
Believe what you must. Again, I have no horse in this race and couldn't care less except to offer data to correct an error in the thread.
But I will leave the last word to the Straight Dope, well may you read it,
Irrelevent. (But funny nontheless!)
As for your chat-room experiences, well, my friend and source David Gehrig noted that Hitler...
Blah, blah, blah... Your "friend and source"... My 'source' is Hitler himself, not some anecdotal opinion of some 'bud'. (Attempted fallacy of authority?)
Sorry, your cries of 'foul' fail.
It is obvious that you do have a horse in this race. I'm not claiming objectivity, but I am not biased, here, by beliefs that must be upheld.
The bible gives no person authority to determine another's faith. That is not your business. You have eye-beams of your own to tend to.
His words are sufficient. If you can find any of his words that deny the Xtianity that he professes, I'll be happy to go to the link and read them, in the name of fairness and 'truth'.
Until then, Hitler is a Xtian as far as I am concerned...
(and in Heaven).
*__-

Wootah
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:43 am

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Wootah » Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:59 pm

And nameless graces another thread with no impact ... the power of ideas without beliefs revealed again. Honestly I don't think you engage in the content of over 1/2 of the threads you post in.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Aetixintro » Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:49 pm

ala1993 wrote:What do you understand by 'science' in this context?
It's just the ordinary stuff! If science makes the definite case for the soul, Atheists are likely to believe in the soul! I believe most Atheists are in agreement with science, but, of course, without any belief in the "supernatural" such as "ghosts", "souls", "Heaven" or "God".
ala1993 wrote:Do you mean an objective ethical code/morality/application of meaning?
Yes! Ontologically, Ethics/Morals and Meaning exist in reality, undeniably, for the Religious believers, not for any psychological reasons! This must be clear!
When you mention "knowledge", it's a bit complicated and outside of this thread. It's my understanding that knowledge is knowledge for everyone, no matter what Religious beliefs you have, incl. Atheism. You should rather address the "leap of faith"!
ala1993 wrote:Please don't assume selfishness and dogmatism to be qualities possessed only by those who do not believe in a god.
This is good, I don't! I find it striking though:
Can you tell me
the devotion of people who think they are mere biological organisms with limited time (Atehists, like it or not)
as opposed to
the devotion of people who think they are souls with nurturing duties of that to achieve rewards of infinity and "Heaven" or punishment of "Hell"
please?
Or this:
If you can get away with, not being caught by the police, a vicious act, I see two different mind-sets of the Atheist and the Religious.
Atheist: "Hah, I've gotten away with it!"
Religious: "Oh shit! I'm going to burn in "Hell" for this. My soul is shit!"
ala1993 wrote:The scientific approach - the atheist approach - is one of doubt, of care, of scepticism but also of a fundamental equality of all people. Religion tells us to aim for something 'higher' and more 'pure' while science simply wants to gain a clearer understanding of what we already have.
The Western civilisation can still be regarded as very successful! Actually, it's the most successful we know about, of course, all the while being led by Christians. Incidentally, many are Christians even today, shaping unions like the EU and make agreements of ecological nature, also doing at least as much science as the Atheists do! I'm not certain about the ratio of Atheists/Religious scientists... It should be interesting to know what it is. Ascribing scientific approach to Atheism is unfair! What does science tell Atheists to behave like? You should supply definite examples!
ala1993 wrote:I've addressed the first claim in the previous paragraph. As for the second one (regarding the so-called war against terror), would you be willing to go on record as claiming that religion has played no part whatsoever in the US deployment of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? A nation in which, in order to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, someone must demonstrate that they are Christian and that they attend church and you are claiming that there is something secular about the war on terror. Interesting.
I believe the war on terror is first and foremost political! The acts of terror threaten our security and whole chain of action is set underway! This is as much Atheist as Theist/Deist.
Yet this is indeed initiated by the malpracticing Muslims. Can we leave out the War on Terror, please? I don't know what to make out of it! Many nations take part in the prevention of new terror acts incl. the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
ala1993 wrote:While an atheist will see something practically beneficial about not harming others, a religious person will come to see it as a means to something great. We can detect traces of the religious attitude in sports personalities, Wall Street bankers, film stars, entrepreneurs and soldiers - each wants to make their mark on life as an individual.
This should be good! This is my point too, the position of Atheism is fundamentally weaker in providing "support beam"/vesting incentives for Ethics/Morals and Meaning beyond being "mere biological organisms with limited time"!
ala1993 wrote:These are three examples of a religious attempt at social darwinism. I would even go so far as to claim that anyone who believes in such a practice is themselves religious, even if they do not subscribe to a theistic belief system. An atheist would be critical of SD, as it would be unscientific to simply accept it.
I believe there haven't been any conscious attempts of SD, otherwise Christians should have won the world dominance or something. Quite the opposite, the Christian ideal is one of charity and hospitality. It's the Atheists who explain human made disasters as SD because it conforms to evolution within the Atheistic scientific ideal! It's the Christians who first look it up in the Book to decide on a good course of action!

nameless
All is good, I withdraw on Hitler's Christianity! It should be clear that his practice, however, is not in accords with Christian teachings! Besides, WW2 is initiated on political grounds of reuniting Kaliningrad with the rest of Germany and so Hitler attacks Poland, GB declares war!

(This for now!)

Wootah
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:43 am

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Wootah » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:11 pm

Last digression unless further warranted.
http://creation.com/the-darwinian-roots ... art-review

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Aetixintro » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:22 pm

Hah, with Wootah's link I have been right in naming Social Darwinism one of the beasts as in Darwinism! Beautiful, Wootah, thanks a lot for the link!

nameless
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:32 pm
Location: Here! Now!

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by nameless » Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:52 pm

Wootah wrote:And nameless graces another thread with no impact ... the power of ideas without beliefs revealed again. Honestly I don't think you engage in the content of over 1/2 of the threads you post in.
It must be a bitch not to like something that i have offered, yet be incapable of logical, rational, scientific or philosophical refutation of that which disturbs you that you, as do so many 'believers', resort to ad-hom attacks.
It appears that logically, rationally, scientifically or philosophically, the 'lack of impact" is yours.
That my offerings 'disturb you' is meaningless without that vexation leading to good critical thought whereby we might all benefit.
Save the ad-homs, they just make you appear philosophically helpless...

ala1993
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:20 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by ala1993 » Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:34 am

Hi nameless - it's probably better, when you're attacking someone's alleged use of ad hominem moves, not to use them yourself. Just saying.

nameless
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:32 pm
Location: Here! Now!

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by nameless » Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:43 am

ala1993 wrote:Hi nameless - it's probably better, when you're attacking someone's alleged use of ad hominem moves, not to use them yourself. Just saying.
What, exactly, are you "just saying" is an ad-hom attack?
Whatever..

(I notice that you, neither, are speaking to the issue at hand (Hitler's Xtianity) but of persons. Can we not focus on the issue and not niggling personal comments, which seem to come when one has nothing "better" to offer? Just saying...)

Mike Strand
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Mike Strand » Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:54 pm

Atheism is no real threat, unless it becomes itself a religion followed by fanatics who desperately want to convert other people.

Is it a threat at Christmas-time not to believe in Santa? What do we do? We act in the "spirit of Santa" by giving each other presents. By analogy, we can act in the "spirit of God" by pursuing greater knowledge and power and good will for each other, in order to work together to improve the odds of our survival as a species and to improve the quality of life.

Wootah
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:43 am

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Wootah » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:08 pm


chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by chaz wyman » Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Aetixintro wrote:I have for a time been sympathic to the Atheist claim of believing in something close to science, but here's the limit!

It can hardly be said that Atheists can believe in Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real. Atheists are undeniably going to write those sizes off as psychological compulsions! What can happen in light of this? When Dawkins point out that Atheists can have just a positive attitude as the Religious believer, he fails to give the other story that Atheists may also at the same time and of some proportion of their group, not believe in any Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real and this can happen without breaking any duties inherent in the Atheistic system! Thus, I can soundly say that Dawkins and the Atheists are insincere about their message of Atheism and in Dawkins case, I think he fails an ideal of being a good scientist specifically for these two reasons of Ethics/Morals and Meaning!

Let's say the whole world turns Atheistic. This should be conceivable! The whole world goes to Hell, ends in catastrophe because riots have broke out and human kind has failed to make the exodus to other planets! Human life and consciousness end just there, it's all over! The "soul" of the Atheist says "so what? We would have been f**ked anyway, it has just been a matter of time and, ta-da, that time is now". My point is that the lack of dedication in Atheism of Ethics/Morals and Meaning may lead the human kind terribly awry! Still, the Atheists, spearheaded by Dawkins, fail to give recognition to this aspect! To the Atheists, there are no inherent duties to anything, social Darwinism including war and famine are just as rightful as promoting the good values!

From Existence Is Pointless, Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:40 am: "I give you this picture. Imagine that you have a good deal of pebbles strewn out on the floor. All these pebbles represent truths. Atheism has this tendency to be the act of laying one's arms around most of these pebbles, but not all. Religiousness has this tendency to lay the arms around a much greater area than just the pebbles so you get a lot of empty room within those arms as well. What I'm trying to say is that Atheism is likely to cut the future too limited while Religiousness gets the future too wide and includes too much. Therefore, being religious can represent a better critical thought than Atheism! I think it's too easy to suggest Atheism represents critical thought!"

Atheism may really f**k this over while Religious people just believe in some surplus in the worst case scenario!

What do you think about this?

[Edit:] There's nothing in the Atheistic system that commits the Atheist to Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real. A Religious believer, of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Scientology, various others, is always committed to Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real because they are integral in the Religious systems! This is simply not the case in Atheism!

No, atheism give me the freedom of thought to commit to a moral and ethical code of my own choice.
I am free to reject the stoning of women for adultery.
I am free of God, Queen and Country.
I am free to make the choice in my life of who I want to sleep with.
I am free of worshiping a jealous and unforgiving god.
Atheism does not inform my ethics - it enables them.



Let's just remember that Hitler and Stalin have not been primarily motivated by Christian beliefs! Even though, lately, Muslim Radicalists are guilty of terrorism resulting in 4000(?) deaths in USA, you forget to mention to hundreds of thousands who have died in the wake of the war against terrorism! There are good historical reasons for showing why the non-Atheist societies are not as successful as the post-Christian ones! Besides, Religious believers come across as more predictable in human relations than Atheists.




While the end of human kind to the Atheist is just the end, the end to the Religious believer is a catastrophe! I still fail to see why Atheists necessarily are committed to Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real and I mean real. Clearly, there's an ontological void with the Atheist in regard to Ethics/Morals and Meaning! Even so, why don't you address my point of Atheistic Social Darwinism? I believe this is widespread with Atheism, yes? Being idealistic about Atheism isn't typical with Atheists, isn't this so?

Wrong. Not even Dawkins accepts Social Darwinism.


Alright, I'm looking forward to answers! I believe the Religious believers and I will win this! Cheers! :D

Where is your challenge?



[Edit:] This discussion is also going on here, http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thre ... 38784.html with greater speed and progress (more posting!). :)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests