Newsflash: People denouncing long-honored practices sometimes get a tone in their voices that the people being denounced for the practices may not care for especially.
This is what you’ve got? He has a poor approach? He’s almost as strident as those he’s denouncing? Believe me, if all I had against Christian fundamentalist proselytizers was their tone, I’d probably go to church once in a while to give thanks.
Wow, you’re SO superior, it’s practically dreamy. “We get it.” “We”? Really? You’re speaking for yourself and…who? Your imagined contingent of like-minded Dawkinites? As if Dawkins needs anyone to defend him; he’s probably one of the least likely to need ANYONE to defend him.
I’ll stop by the bookstore later and copy down some quotes for you. Then I’ll wait patiently while you type out your response as to why the quotes I provided don’t actually support my impression of his book, then I’ll post something about how I was just being honest about my impression of him based on his book, and you’ll say how I may have quoted passage X but I failed to quote passage Y, and it’ll go on and on for a while. Meanwhile, theists will see this thread and laugh and point and say, “See? They can’t even agree on atheism! Atheism is just like evolution-it’s JUST A THEORY!”
I agree, it is hardly an objection at all. I just see him as akin to the Mick Jagger of theological proselytising, and he comes across as a twat no matter what he is singing.
And by doing so instantly put themselves in the category of “ignorant fools”. Evolution “just a theory” ? Gravity is “just a theory” too.
OK, either I just “whooshed” you or you have your anus clenched too tightly.
Well, this thread certainly hasn’t gone remotely in the direction I intended…
My original point, for what it’s worth, was not about how much of an asshole DT or Dawkins is or is not… because if neither of them is actually an asshole, someone else certainly is. My point was, even IF they are both massive raging assholes, that’s ALL they are is assholes. And being an asshole is a bad thing, but it’s nowhere near as bad as trying to pass laws to deny people basic human rights due to bigotry or trying to get your superstitious twaddle taught in public schools alongside real science.
Of course it’s pretty obvious and unsurprising that Christian extremists would do worse things than atheist extremists, given that there are way more of them, they’ve been in cohesive power for a long time, and their belief system actually instructs them to do things; as opposed to atheists, who are few, who lack cohesion, and whose “belief system” simply does NOT include a particular belief, and includes no particular instructions whatsoever.
So why start the thread at all? Because of posts like this one which set up an equivalence between Dawkins et al (who write books and sometimes show up on talk shows and, arguably, are assholes) and Christian Fundamentalists, who want their laws and rules to apply to all of us, and who want their beliefs to be enshrined on our money, etc. (That may not be the greatest example, but I keep seeing posts which basically set up that equivalence, and after a while I was sufficiently irked.)
As for whether Dawkins is in fact an asshole, here’s a quote:
“Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place.”
Here it is in context.
That’s actually a pretty good example, because even though reading the quote in context makes it at least somewhat less outrageously offensive and preposterous, it touches on such an explosive topic (child abuse) that it’s never going to be fairly assessed. Bringing up child abuse is like Godwinizing the discussion, and telling someone that the belief system that they build their entire life around is worse than child abuse, or even saying something that sounds ilke that, is a good way to piss them off and end any possibility of meaningful intellectual discourse.
I claim that by publicly making the above statement, Dawkins did the atheist cause (to the extent that their is an atheist cause), and his own ability to meaningfully convey and communicate his points, way more harm than good.
What isn’t rational is your presuming to have intimate knowledge of my life experience, and projecting your own experiences onto me. By your misinformed measure, the past 25+ years of my life have been governed by “gut feelings”. Frankly, I think what you have described more aptly applies to the years prior, when I was an atheist. When one has no heart, gut is all there is.
Then state plainly what you would do with me.
Nothing, besides restrain you from harming others in the service of your delusions.
And no, that doesn’t mean pre-emptively tossing you into a jail cell ( which I’m sure would be your next accusation ).
Well OK, except that until relatively fairly recently in history, secular morality and religious morality were the same because there was no distinction. So that’s basically saying that now that there is a difference, in the places where they differ, religion is not creating a “good”. It’s not saying that secular morality was superior somehow in the past since there wasn’t much of a secular morality in the past.
*for this, I’m defining religion very broadly to encompass such things as superstition and the like
I guess that depends on what you think his “cause” is. If his cause is to help the body of atheists expand by having more Christians question their faith and deconvert, I’d agree with you.
But his cause simply might be to sell more books and is not related to the cause of atheism at all. If that’s his cause, then he’s pretty successful at it since many more people are drawn to hyperbolic claims like the ones he makes.
That doesn’t mean a damn thing, except maybe that you’re delusional yourself. What do you mean by restraining me? Putting me in cuffs? Pinning me down with your knees? What harm do you imagine that I will do or have done? By what pretext do you presume me to be harmful?
Most atheists I know rely on a solid moral code along with their “gut feelings”, and they’re open to the possibility of change. Most staunch religious folk I know are far less likely to revise their views. But the initial analogy wasn’t about saying that religion is a gut feeling; it was about the quantity/quality of proof (or poof, as in the OP) being equivalent.
I know that you believe in religion based on nothing more than your desire to have it be so. There isn’t any evidence other than your emotional need for religion to be true. People fool themselves all the time. Seriously, you’re doing it right now.
No they’ve been guided by a bronze age book written by people who were ignorant, tribal and persecuted. Your gut tells you that believing in the nonsense those bronze age dudes wrote is a good idea. Gut overrides reason most times.
I would imagine he means keeping people who believe in religions from legislating their superstitions into law among other things.
Catholicism tells human aid workers to pretend condoms are worthless against aids. There is an example of actual suffering caused by religion. I’d say that stopping people from doing that would be a good thing.
There wasn’t much morality of any kind in the past.
You are delusional, and therefore likely to do destructive things because you are acting on false premises. Even if you mean well. If you decide that God doesn’t like antibiotics, you shouldn’t be allowed to refuse them to your children and kill them, for example. You shouldn’t be allowed to have the government lie about condoms spreading AIDS, if that’s part of your delusions. You shouldn’t be allowed to practice faith healing and kill people that way, either.
Me and everyone reading this thread. Excepting you, of course.
That makes no sense at all. Even putting my former Christian hat on, it makes no sense at all.
FWIW, I’m happy to se those out there, like Dawkins, who will stop pussyfooting around the religious. I see no reason atheists should not speak out when confronted with theists who wish to impose their view. There can be no rational discussion when one party holds a view that is, well, irrational. I see no reason to give respect to a worldview that is patently false I see no reason to keep coddling anybody who a.) has a delusion that there is/are god(s) and b.) wants to put this belief into my life in any way, including passing laws that effect me.
Note that both a.) and b.) must be true before I would address the theist on the matter. If they do not intrude on my life, then why intrude on theirs?
I suppose this takes me out of the anti-religion camp, come to think of it.
Naw it still means “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”
As such, it’s not only germane, it’s perfectly accurate.
Why would it? Anybody who hates members of a religious group, indiscriminately, based on a prejudice is a bigot.
Well, yes, people who believe that the unwashed masses are godless heathens who must be browbeaten into following a religion is also a bigot. Bigotry can work both ways, of course.
No.
First off, if they were rational instead of a bigot, they’d respond to those specific religious people who’d been bastards to them, not to the entire religion. Second, they wouldn’t drag their hatred for those specific members of that specific religion onto all other religions. That’s bigotry.
Yeah, bigotry is disgusting. Racism is disgusting. Blind hate and prejudice are disgusting. That Der happens to be a bigot doesn’t change because I say it a bunch.
You sure showed me. I totally missed the election where you were appointed spokesperson for everyone else. :rolleyes:
Damn, Finn, you parsed my ass off while I was gone.
Bigot has many meanings. One of those meanings is that one is completely dedicated to ones own view point on a matter, and totally intolerant of other groups of people’s viewpoint or beliefs. I maintain that almost all people that are dedicated to their religions and really believe that a man’s soul is damned to eternal torture if he is not giving his life to Christ are probably bigots, then. The word has no meaning in a conversation about passionate believers or nonbelievers if the word applies to both