creationist death threats

[greatcalgarian]

Not only the literalist (fundamentalist) can be a danger to the society. According to Richard Dawkins in his recent book The God Delusion, even the moderates can cause harm to the society:

In January 2006 I presented a two-part television documentary on British television (Channel Four) called Root of All Evil? From the start, I didn’t like the title. Religion is not the root of all evil, for no one thing is the root of all anything. But I was delighted with the advertisement that Channel Four put in the national newspapers. It was a picture of the Manhattan skyline with the caption ‘Imagine a world without religion.’ What was the connection? The twin towers of the World Trade Centre were conspicuously present.

http://richarddawkins.net/GDcalendar

 

[MaddLlama]

Dawkins is just as dangerous as the people he preaches against.

 

[Random]

Dawkins is just as dangerous as the people he preaches against.

Geez, you actually said something I agree with... Er, Frubals...is it Laura?

 

[Smoke]

Not only the literalist (fundamentalist) can be a danger to the society. According to Richard Dawkins in his recent book The God Delusion, even the moderates can cause harm to the society:



http://richarddawkins.net/GDcalendar

I'm not sure how that quote directly relates to religious moderates.

 

[Smoke]

Dawkins is just as dangerous as the people he preaches against.

How so?

 

[MaddLlama]

How so?

Because instead of preaching that people simply be sensible, his aim is to abolish religion altogether. His hatred for people who believe in God is just as venomous as a fundamentalist. Dawkins makes it clear that the only thing that will make him happy is if everyone believes just as he does, which is the rallying cry of a fundamentalist. And, I believe that fundamentalists of any religion or political ideology are dangerous.

 

[Booko]

Because instead of preaching that people simply be sensible, his aim is to abolish religion altogether. His hatred for people who believe in God is just as venomous as a fundamentalist. Dawkins makes it clear that the only thing that will make him happy is if everyone believes just as he does, which is the rallying cry of a fundamentalist. And, I believe that fundamentalists of any religion or political ideology are dangerous.

Um hm.

The extremes on any matter, when examined closely, can be seen to be the same.

 

[Smoke]

Because instead of preaching that people simply be sensible, his aim is to abolish religion altogether. His hatred for people who believe in God is just as venomous as a fundamentalist. Dawkins makes it clear that the only thing that will make him happy is if everyone believes just as he does, which is the rallying cry of a fundamentalist. And, I believe that fundamentalists of any religion or political ideology are dangerous.

Frankly, I think that characterization is entirely unjustified, and I can't understand how anybody who's read his books could possibly feel that way.

 

[MaddLlama]

Frankly, I think that characterization is entirely unjustified, and I can't understand how anybody who's read his books could possibly feel that way.

Well, I do feel that way. He considers religion to be dangerous, and I consider him to be dangerous to religion. I choose to protect my right to have a religion, and I also choose to protect myself from being labeled a blind idiot for doing so.
He takes the worlds ills and blames them on religion in general, rather than just ignorant people. He hates anything that isn't "rational". In my mind, it's only a matter of time before he realizes that he can rail against religions other than the Abrahamic kind.

I don't think that his extreme attitude helps anything. It just makes it worse.

 

[Smoke]

Well, I do feel that way. He considers religion to be dangerous, and I consider him to be dangerous to religion. I choose to protect my right to have a religion, and I also choose to protect myself from being labeled a blind idiot for doing so.

He does consider religion to be dangerous, but he's not doing anything to endanger your right to have a religion. He doesn't favor persecution or violence of any kind, which is more that you can say for many religious leaders.

I can understand that you might find his views insulting, but I can't understand how you can find them dangerous.

 

[MaddLlama]

He does consider religion to be dangerous, but he's not doing anything to endanger your right to have a religion. He doesn't favor persecution or violence of any kind, which is more that you can say for many religious leaders.

I can understand that you might find his views insulting, but I can't understand how you can find them dangerous.

I'm not so convinced that he doesn't support persecution. To me, it seems like that would be the next logical step for him.

I understand that some religious people are dangerous, physically and to society as a whole, but Dawkins seems content to fight hate with more hate, which doesn't get anybody anywhere.

 

[Smoke]

I'm not so convinced that he doesn't support persecution. To me, it seems like that would be the next logical step for him.

I disagree, but even if that were true, I don't know how somebody whom you imagine might support persecution sometime in the future could be just as dangerous as somebody who is known to actually support it in the present.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm not so convinced that he doesn't support persecution. To me, it seems like that would be the next logical step for him.

I understand that some religious people are dangerous, physically and to society as a whole, but Dawkins seems content to fight hate with more hate, which doesn't get anybody anywhere.

That is unfair! This man has stated that he opposes religious persecution and violence. But you claim he is dangerous because you believe the next logical step for him will be to abandon his stated beliefs and go against everything he has ever said. What reason do you have for believing Dawkins will suddenly turn around and support persecution? Or am I being extreme in asking you to provide reasons? Are we in danger from those who will be “extremely” reasonable?

Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t agree with everything Dawkins says. I don’t believe that the world would be better off without religion. But Richard Dawkins is not trying to rid the world of religion through oppression and persecution. He is trying to rid the world of religion through writing books, and giving talks. He has never to my knowledge expressed hatred towards people who believe in “God”. He has expressed his contempt for the idea. That is very different. Idea’s are not protected, ideas do not have rights. Trying to use reason to change peoples thinking does not equal persecution.

 

[MaddLlama]

His ultimate goal is to abolish religion. All religion, not just the "bad parts". He wants everyone in the world to think just like him. To me, that makes him just as bad as all those people who would be happier to see the world entirely Christian, and just as ineffective.

 

[fantome profane]

His ultimate goal is to abolish religion. All religion, not just the "bad parts". He wants everyone in the world to think just like him. To me, that makes him just as bad as all those people who would be happier to see the world entirely Christian, and just as ineffective.

I am not going to argue with anything you just said in this post. But the fact still remains that Richard Dawkins has spoken out against violence and persecution and to imply that he might suddenly one day start to support persecution (as you did in your previous post) is unfair.

 

[greatcalgarian]

I'm not sure how that quote directly relates to religious moderates.

Not the quote I provided, I was reading the book, but I have to return the book to the library. Richard Dawins in that book blamed the religious moderates as well.

 

[s2a]

wow, check this out...

A creationist named Michael Korn has been sending death threats to the professors of Biology at Colorado U-Boulder.
Threats have been send both by post and by e-mail.

http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2007/07/12/news/c_u_and_boulder/news1.txt
http://origin.denverpost.com/news/ci_6362396]



Quote from the first link

Yikes.

wa:do

ps, thanks to Pharyngula, from whom I learned about this.

That's just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

You should have a brief glance at Michel Korn's website, here.

Just a taste from his front page...

"There is no need to debate endlessly hairsplitting nuances of words and verses in the Old Testament. Nor to argue about prophetic fulfillments and timelines. The plain truth is that the New Testament is a complete hoax and fabrication, built upon peoples' fear of death. Xianity succeeds by instilling impossible levels of guilt in a person and then by invoking a surreal comic book action hero called Jesus. But it isn't just harmless fun to believe in this chimera. It is very dangerous in a harsh and cruel world to follow a delusional fantasy."

[PS. He's quasi-Jew-"ish", and not your typical evangelical Christian "creationist". It's difficult to decide if Korn is actually more pathetic than scary].

 

[s2a]

His ultimate goal is to abolish religion. All religion, not just the "bad parts". He wants everyone in the world to think just like him. To me, that makes him just as bad as all those people who would be happier to see the world entirely Christian, and just as ineffective.

Hmmm.

I might offer that Dawkins just wants everyone to think...period.

I don't think that's so bad...;-)

 

[painted wolf]

and yet he seems to refer to himself as Christian in the e-mail.

Pathetic or scary... pathetic people can do scary things.

wa:do

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

what about the ten commandments? thou shalt not kill? duh.

Read it a bit more carefully. It really means don't kill, unless they are of a different mindset, gender, ethnicity, etc. etc. etc. . . . A quick glance through the Bible makes it quite clear that God doesn't have too big a problem with killing.

B.