Richard Dawkins Reads His Hate Mail

[gnomon]

would a better option be to argue against him and try and counter his arguments?

Now don't go asking people to actually put forth any effort.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Now don't go asking people to actually put forth any effort.

Well it took me at least 2 pages of thread to convince people that indeed Dawkins does attack religion.
Now I would like to discuss the actual arguments he puts forward that denigrate religion all I need is someone to defend them.

Are you willing to do that Gnomon or are you all hot air and no substance as you seem to be?

 

[gnomon]

Well it took me at least 2 pages of thread to convince people that indeed Dawkins does attack religion.
Now I would like to discuss the actual arguments he puts forward that denigrate religion all I need is someone to defend them.

Are you willing to do that Gnomon or are you all hot air and no substance as you seem to be?

I already did that or have you forgotten.

Check back a few pages when you posted that cut and paste job from Wikipedia. I remember your response. It was nothing more than wondering why I refused to just accept your assertion that the lines taken from Wikipedia were an attack on religion.

You did not wish to address my post then.

I know damn well you will not do it now.

But I have no problem wasting time while watching some football.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I already did that or have you forgotten.

Check back a few pages when you posted that cut and paste job from Wikipedia. I remember your response. It was nothing more than wondering why I refused to just accept your assertion that the lines taken from Wikipedia were an attack on religion.

You did not wish to address my post then.

I know damn well you will not do it now.

But I have no problem wasting time while watching some football.

I cut and pasted nothing from wikipaedia...what planet are you on?
There is nothing to address in your posts (which post anyway?)
The comments I posted earlier speak for themselves..or would you like me to paint a picture for you?

What part of 'Children raised religiously is a form of mental abuse' do you not understand is an attack on religion for example?

When someone can actually say the comments I listed are not an attack on religion and why then I will respond appropriately.

I dont like your attitude Gnomon and you will very quickly realise that I don't take any prisoners you mendacious....

 

[Revoltingest]

Please, please, people....let's all be respectful.
To recycle an old quote.....There is no God, & Dawkins (pbuh) is his prophet.

 

[gnomon]

I cut and pasted nothing from wikipaedia...what planet are you on?
There is nothing to address in your posts (which post anyway?)

It's right here:

'Dawkins sees religion as subverting science, fostering fanaticism, encouraging bigotry against homosexuals, and influencing society in other negative ways.[25] He is most outraged about the teaching of religion in schools, which he considers to be an indoctrination process. He equates the religious teaching of children by parents and teachers in faith schools to a form of mental abuse. Dawkins considers the labels "Muslim child" or a "Catholic child" equally misapplied as the descriptions "Marxist child" or a "Tory child", as he wonders how a young child can be considered developed enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity's place within it. The book concludes with the question whether religion, despite its alleged problems, fills a "much needed gap", giving consolation and inspiration to people who need it. According to Dawkins, these needs are much better filled by non-religious means such as philosophy and science. He suggests that an atheistic worldview is life-affirming in a way that religion, with its unsatisfying "answers" to life's mysteries, could never be. An appendix gives addresses for those "needing support in escaping religion".'

The God Delusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You stated earlier that you did not reference Hitler. I can go dig that one out as well.

I dont like your attitude Gnomon and you will very quickly realise that I don't take any prisoners you mendacious p*ss in the wind...

That's fine. I'm under the impression a good many members do not like my attitude. That doesn't bother me.

edit: And I'm not saying you are wrong for cutting and pasting from Wikipedia. You source the material which is far better than many people do on message boards.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Please, please, people....let's all be respectful.
To recycle an old quote.....There is no God, & Dawkins (pbuh) is his prophet.

Respect has to be earnt.

Besides us Luciferians are taught one thing that some dont agree with...treat others how you are treated by them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Besides us Luciferians are taught one thing that some dont agree with...treat others how you are treated by them.

That option does have some merit.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

It's right here:

You stated earlier that you did not reference Hitler. I can go dig that one out as well.

That's fine. I'm under the impression a good many members do not like my attitude. That doesn't bother me.

edit: And I'm not saying you are wrong for cutting and pasting from Wikipedia. You source the material which is far better than many people do on message boards.

Listen Gnomon...I thought you meant I had cut and pasted the comments Dawkins makes from Wikipaedia...sorry my bad.

As for Hitler he only came up along with Stalin and Mao when I was demonstrating it wasnt just religious organisations that killed people...
I was citing secular political ones, such as the Nazi party...why that matters to any of you I dont know...I am not comparing Hitler with Dawkins...I was however making the point that both Stalin and Dawkins despise religion and had both stated that it is necessary to attack religion for the sake of reason and ultimately human progress.

Now will anyone tell me why the Dawkins comments I posted are NOT an attack on religion?

 

[outhouse]

2 pages of thread to convince people that indeed Dawkins does attack religion.

you havnt convinced anyone, we just choose not to converse with you unless need be.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

you havnt convinced anyone, we just choose not to converse with you unless need be.

I dont count you...you are of....limited capability.
I just ignore you basically.

 

[gnomon]

Listen Gnomon...I thought you meant I had cut and pasted the comments Dawkins makes from Wikipaedia...sorry my bad.

As for Hitler he only came up along with Stalin and Mao when I was demonstrating it wasnt just religious organisations that killed people...
I was citing secular political ones, such as the Nazi party...why that matters to any of you I dont know...I am not comparing Hitler with Dawkins...I was however making the point that both Stalin and Dawkins despise religion and had both stated that it is necessary to attack religion for the sake of reason and ultimately human progress.

Now will anyone tell me why the Dawkins comments I posted are NOT an attack on religion?

Fair enough and dropped in regards to those comparisons. Dawkins himself in the chapter Childhood, Abuse and Religion mentions very quickly that "Cruel and evil people can be found in every century and every persuasion." (Dawkins 312)

When you had mentioned Stalin before my reply was that Dawkins was for the teaching of comparative religion, and even the importance of the Bible, but I failed to emphasize it was for the literary value of the works alone. He implies for the value of historical and social knowledge as well. This is all mentioned by him in The God Delusion.

 

[logician]

Well it took me at least 2 pages of thread to convince people that indeed Dawkins does attack religion.
Now I would like to discuss the actual arguments he puts forward that denigrate religion all I need is someone to defend them.

Are you willing to do that Gnomon or are you all hot air and no substance as you seem to be?

Wow, someone attacks religion. Christianity attacks atheism and other forms of "non-religion" 24/7 on the channel of your choice.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Wow, someone attacks religion. Christianity attacks atheism and other forms of "non-religion" 24/7 on the channel of your choice.

Dawkins is not just 'someone'...he does more than attack...he encourages others to attack religion also...and as he has said himself..to attack religion simply for the sake of it.

You might approve...but I ******** dont....for good reasons I don't mind sharing with you if you cant see why.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

When you had mentioned Stalin before my reply was that Dawkins was for the teaching of comparative religion, and even the importance of the Bible, but I failed to emphasize it was for the literary value of the works alone. He implies for the value of historical and social knowledge as well. This is all mentioned by him in The God Delusion.

That is however clearly different from what he says in other circumstances...as shown in the comments I list that he has made..in fact he contradicts himself repeatedly.

I do not believe his assertion you mention...I think that is a relic of an earlier time....when he was a real scientist...before he started saying and believing far more destructive things.

Like the fact he now thinks religion should be purged for the sake of reason..(last comment)...how do you reconcile that with his slightlly more tolerant statement from the God Delusion?

I think it is Dawkins that suffers from the discontinuous mind...and he seems to infect others with it.

(I've met Dawkins btw...he was an arrogant old fart...back then)

 

[gnomon]

That is however clearly different from what he says in other circumstances...as shown in the comments I list that he has made..in fact he contradicts himself repeatedly.

I do not believe his assertion you mention...I think that is a relic of an earlier time....when he was a real scientist...before he started saying and believing far more destructive things.

Like the fact he now thinks religion should be purged for the sake of reason..(last comment)...how do you reconcile that with his slightlly more tolerant statement from the God Delusion?

I think it is Dawkins that suffers from the discontinuous mind...and he seems to infect others with it.

(I've met Dawkins btw...he was an arrogant old fart...back then)

Source where Dawkins has ever said that he believes religion should be purged. In prior comments you said Dawkins wishes to suppress religion. Now it is purged. Please source these comments made by Dawkins.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Source where Dawkins has ever said that he believes religion should be purged. In prior comments you said Dawkins wishes to suppress religion. Now it is purged. Please source these comments made by Dawkins.

Ok purged is if his philosophy of religious supression ie attacking religion was adopted by society in general and put into practice.

You might think that far fetched and highly unlikely and to be fair at the moment his influence is for now moderate to little, generally speaking.
But that does not mean he does not engender division or fan the flames of mutual hostility now between the scientific community and the religious communities, because he does.
Many christians and their churches have dug in obstinately regarding evolution and creationist teaching when perhaps they might have been prepared to listen to a voice of objective and non derogatory reason prior to the antipathy directed toward them by Dawkins (and people like him) in his books essays and talks...in fact it is entirely counter productive and non conducive to Dawkins own agenda...people are stubborn, you call them idiots and demonise their faiths and christians in particular will only be more convinced you are not speaking altruistically and thus falsely...the more likely they will not engage you in discourse and simply ignore you or respond with anger.
If you wish to convince people of a truth you do not have to undermine them or their faith first...its bigoted..and arrogant to assume you know better.
Typical of the truly concieted and those married to some ideal...

 

[gnomon]

Ok purged is if his philosophy of religious supression ie attacking religion was adopted by society in general and put into practice.

You might think that far fetched and highly unlikely and to be fair at the moment his influence is for now moderate to little, generally speaking.
But that does not mean he does not engender division or fan the flames of mutual hostility now between the scientific community and the religious communities, because he does.
Many christians and their churches have dug in obstinately regarding evolution and creationist teaching when perhaps they might have been prepared to listen to a voice of objective and non derogatory reason prior to the antipathy directed toward them by Dawkins (and people like him) in his books essays and talks...in fact it is entirely counter productive and non conducive to Dawkins own agenda...people are stubborn, you call them idiots and demonise their faiths and christians in particular will only be more convinced you are not speaking altruistically and thus falsely...the more likely they will not engage you in discourse and simply ignore you or respond with anger.
If you wish to convince people of a truth you do not have to undermine them or their faith first...its bigoted..and arrogant to assume you know better.
Typical of the truly concieted and those married to some ideal...

You still need to show where Dawkins states he wants to purge religion.

Stating that someone fans the flame of mutual hostility doesn't prove anything. It may very well show that those who feel hostility in the debate are the ones who have an issue with their own perception.

[youtube][youtube]F-S7M0KZTsU[/youtube]
YouTube - Richard Dawkins on the Big Debate 1 of 6[youtube]

Here is a debate which involves Dawkins, faith schools and where he explicitly states his views that labeling a child with a religion is abusive. He also explicitly states that teaching about religion is important. Combine the two and it's clear he is more concerned with opening children's minds to multiple points of view so that they can decide for themselves. A view expressed by psychologist Nicholas Humphrey in his speech to Amnesty International years before Dawkins wrote his book. If you watch the videos on this debate about faith schools you will see not only Dawkins but others who adhere to religious faiths also holding a view against faith based schools.

I point out this video because you kept talking about Richard Dawkins statements regarding child abuse. Well, this is one of the major points along that line of debate. I don't necessarily agree with Dawkins use of the term abuse. I do agree with his view on calling children Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc. merely because their parents are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc.

It's a debate. It is an important debate. It's an interesting debate. More important, it's a debate in which all participants engage respectfully. If you watch the second video of the debate you will see a Muslim who chairs faith based schools challenge Dawkins use of the term wicked and that faith teaches that all human beings are to be respected.

Faith does not teach that. Faith is a subjective term dependent upon the specific religion being discussed. Numerous examples can be found among the world's religions in which faith, as taught by among certain religious groups, teaches disrespect to outright bigotry. Especially against homosexuals. In the second video of the debate on Youtube Dawkins challenges this claim made about faith by bringing up teachings of apostasy. Unfortunately, the question is stopped by the moderator. It's a pointed and relevant question.

That's just one debate series. I've seen numerous debates with Dawkins as well as other so called New Atheists. Every charge of hostility, smugness, deprecation, etc. put against them just falls flat. It's a great way to ignore what people like Dawkins, Harris, Shermer, Hitchens, Dennett, etc. are actually saying. The funny thing is that the people they engage in these debates; pastors, rabbi's, mullahs, theologians and other religious scholars are respectful, no name calling by anyone and when labels such as dangerous, wicked and other such terms are applied they are applied towards those who justify their faith by doing physical harm to others. Or as in the case above Dawkins opinion on labeling children.

It's one thing to simply disagree with such an opinion as calling the labeling of children with a religious belief abusive. It's another thing altogether to use that to label someone bigoted, oppressive or arrogant.

 

[darkendless]

Dawkins is not just 'someone'...he does more than attack...he encourages others to attack religion also...and as he has said himself..to attack religion simply for the sake of it.

You might approve...but I ******** dont....for good reasons I don't mind sharing with you if you cant see why.

Well then. Better start hating on a whole lot of religions that attack each other and stick their busy fingers in a number of things.

Religion deserves to be attacked for the simple reason that if it can't stand up to attacks, what merits its role in society? We put up with a lot of religious crap and could do just as well without belief in something that isn't there.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

You still need to show where Dawkins states he wants to purge religion.

Stating that someone fans the flame of mutual hostility doesn't prove anything. It may very well show that those who feel hostility in the debate are the ones who have an issue with their own perception.

[youtube][youtube]F-S7M0KZTsU[/youtube]
YouTube - Richard Dawkins on the Big Debate 1 of 6[youtube]

Here is a debate which involves Dawkins, faith schools and where he explicitly states his views that labeling a child with a religion is abusive. He also explicitly states that teaching about religion is important. Combine the two and it's clear he is more concerned with opening children's minds to multiple points of view so that they can decide for themselves. A view expressed by psychologist Nicholas Humphrey in his speech to Amnesty International years before Dawkins wrote his book. If you watch the videos on this debate about faith schools you will see not only Dawkins but others who adhere to religious faiths also holding a view against faith based schools.

I point out this video because you kept talking about Richard Dawkins statements regarding child abuse. Well, this is one of the major points along that line of debate. I don't necessarily agree with Dawkins use of the term abuse. I do agree with his view on calling children Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc. merely because their parents are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc.

It's a debate. It is an important debate. It's an interesting debate. More important, it's a debate in which all participants engage respectfully. If you watch the second video of the debate you will see a Muslim who chairs faith based schools challenge Dawkins use of the term wicked and that faith teaches that all human beings are to be respected.

Faith does not teach that. Faith is a subjective term dependent upon the specific religion being discussed. Numerous examples can be found among the world's religions in which faith, as taught by among certain religious groups, teaches disrespect to outright bigotry. Especially against homosexuals. In the second video of the debate on Youtube Dawkins challenges this claim made about faith by bringing up teachings of apostasy. Unfortunately, the question is stopped by the moderator. It's a pointed and relevant question.

That's just one debate series. I've seen numerous debates with Dawkins as well as other so called New Atheists. Every charge of hostility, smugness, deprecation, etc. put against them just falls flat. It's a great way to ignore what people like Dawkins, Harris, Shermer, Hitchens, Dennett, etc. are actually saying. The funny thing is that the people they engage in these debates; pastors, rabbi's, mullahs, theologians and other religious scholars are respectful, no name calling by anyone and when labels such as dangerous, wicked and other such terms are applied they are applied towards those who justify their faith by doing physical harm to others. Or as in the case above Dawkins opinion on labeling children.

It's one thing to simply disagree with such an opinion as calling the labeling of children with a religious belief abusive. It's another thing altogether to use that to label someone bigoted, oppressive or arrogant.

Ridiculous apologetics...

Your video debate means bugger all to me...and does not counter anything I have said...it doesnt address what he has otherwise stated.

I can read everything else he has said and written

Instead of posting videos of yor hero Dawkins how about defending the comments he makes...?

Oh you did...you said it's alright/acceptable to call the religious labelling and teaching of children a form of abuse...LOL

Then you go on about the negative things that might be taught by a particular religion...as if I was denying it...


Please don't bother replying...I can see that it is simply not worth the effort for me to continue on this thread.

And frankly I am bored of it as well..

I know where Dawkins is coming from even if you dont...and I really don't care if you wish to continue to pretend dawkins a nice fair minded guy who doesnt have a problem with religion....it hardly makes any difference after all to the grand scheme of things...others can read the thread and maybe read some of Dawkins work as well and come to their own conclusions...the prosecution rests..its up to the jury in my opinion.


Anyway...fancy a beer?

You are alright Gonomon btw...I mean no offence to you...I just think you underestimate the effects of denigration.