Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Yes. Absolutely.
To save me some time trying to figure out what ideology we're talking about, can you please explain which one it is?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
More Dawkins idiocy...
- Thread starter Augustus
- Start date
To save me some time trying to figure out what ideology we're talking about, can you please explain which one it is?
Augustus
…
Back to the OP, you could explain precisely how Dawkins' ideology doesn't rely on a leap of faith to prove me wrong.
You seem to prefer sidestepping anything related to the OP or anything requiring you to provide evidence rather than bombast.
unsubstantiated rhetoric
Normally, 'rationalists' pretend these qualify as religions to avoid having their ideological assumptions violated.
You've raised the bar by simply denying the commies and Nazis existed.
It's like debating with The Donald
Augustus
…
That's what the last 24 pages have been about
indeed
outhouse
Atheistically
Went over some ones head lol
The OP amounts to academia bad berry berry bad.
Because as far as I know, RD is all about academia VS fanaticism.
Why someone secular would side with fanaticism is beyond me.
outhouse
Atheistically
It's like debating with The Donald
No its like someone on welfare trying to tell Donald how to run his company.
Olinda
Member
Outhouse, do you mean that because you believe Richard Dawkins is an effective opponent to fanatical beliefs, his words may not be critically analysed? Or have I misunderstood?
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Olinda, if we've settled anything on this thread, it's the truth that we should critically asses all ideas regardless of their source.
What we've not settled is whether or not we should call people idiots and jerks and meanie-meanie-badie-bads who happen to have certain ideas come out of their breathing/eating holes.
What we've not settled is whether or not we should call people idiots and jerks and meanie-meanie-badie-bads who happen to have certain ideas come out of their breathing/eating holes.
outhouse
Atheistically
I am saying he is pro academia
And anti fundamentalism.
I also think he is over analyzed, and no one is perfect. Criticism is fine. I see most of the criticism is done from ignorance however.
Honestly, as I stated earlier. There is no effective way to address fanaticism. We address the children through TV and academia.
Olinda
Member
Well, to me the title 'More Dawkins Idiocy" means that that the author has identified something that Dawkins said that was idiotic; not that Dawkins is in any way an idiot, nor that all his statements fall into that category.
Nor does it explain the frequent sidetracks into terrorist attacks.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Try reading the whole thread.
Olinda
Member
That's fair. In this case the criticism has been a real education for me. I really enjoyed Dawkins' earlier books on evolution, but less so the strictures on the evils of religion.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Olinda, I doubt that anyone thinks Dawkins has acted entirely responsibly. He's made some big mistakes, but none as big as me.
Do you believe that you should be respected more or less than him?
Do you believe that you should be respected more or less than him?
Olinda
Member
I did. Which posts do you think "call people idiots and jerks and meanie-meanie-badie-bads who happen to have certain ideas come out of their breathing/eating holes."?
Augustus
…
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
The title. The op. And many others. Didn't you see them or understand the many implications offered?
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Har?
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
So, back to the question. Should you be respected more or less than Dawkins? Why?
Olinda
Member
sigh. . .To repeat: Well, to me the title 'More Dawkins Idiocy" means that that the author has identified something that Dawkins said that was idiotic; not that Dawkins is in any way an idiot, nor that all his statements fall into that category.
Any other posts?