• 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!

Richard Dawkins Reads His Hate Mail

Status
Not open for further replies.
St Giordano Bruno

St Giordano Bruno

Well-Known Member
At least I thoroughly enjoyed laughing along with him at the time as I was watching it on youtube. I say if you want something to cheer up your day, watch it again. :D
 
gnomon

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Primordial Annihilator said:
Try reading some books he has written. ;)
Click to expand...

Try backing up your assertions.;););););););)

Sorry, had something in my eye. Probably the poor commentary I was reading in this thread.

On to the thread as a whole here is an interesting question. Anyone actually bother checking out the entire reddit interview that included this clip?
 
Primordial Annihilator

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
gnomon said:
Try backing up your assertions.;););););););)

Sorry, had something in my eye. Probably the poor commentary I was reading in this thread.
Click to expand...

Are you saying his books do not contain attacks on theology and it's supporters?

Otherwise...try responding for a relevant reason. :sarcastic

Pfft...
 
Last edited:
Primordial Annihilator

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
So when Dawkins suggested that raising children as religious was a form of child abuse would you avoid addressing that also?

Playing games?

I dont play games...LOL
 
gnomon

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Primordial Annihilator said:
So when Dawkins suggested that raising children as religious was a form of child abuse would you avoid addressing that also?

Playing games?

I dont play games...LOL
Click to expand...

Avoid addressing what?

I think Dawkins creates division and antipathy between christians and atheists, he creates an US and THEM situation...with his constant attacks.
Click to expand...

There's your point of reference. outhouse asked you to be specific with the attacks and avoid quote mining.

Can you do that? I know it might include you actually having to reference a direct context from his material.

Can you do it?
 
gnomon

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Primordial Annihilator said:
The God Delusion is a 2006 bestselling[1] non-fiction book by British biologist Richard Dawkins, professorial fellow of New College, Oxford,[2][3] and inaugural holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

Read this Gnomon...I think then you will see why I do not see why I should have to trawl the internet to educate you.

Just read his books...
Click to expand...

I've read the book.

I've watched his documentaries. I've watched his debates.
 
Primordial Annihilator

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
'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".'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
 
gnomon

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Primordial Annihilator said:
Then why ask silly questions and respond to a genuine relevant question with the word GREEN?
Click to expand...

In a normal debate process if you assert something the onus is on you to back it up with relevant information.

Not to tell someone to go read a book and then answer a question with a question.
 
Primordial Annihilator

Primordial Annihilator

Well-Known Member
gnomon said:
In a normal debate process if you assert something the onus is on you to back it up with relevant information.

Not to tell someone to go read a book and then answer a question with a question.
Click to expand...

Is the synopsis enough for you or not?

Or do you think I care enough to actually highlight text?

You answered Green in an evasive manner btw....I am just lazy.
 
Last edited:
gnomon

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Primordial Annihilator said:
'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
Click to expand...

******* great.

A cut and paste job with no commentary. I'll take it this the best we'll get from you.

So here goes:
1) Dawkins sees religion as subverting science, fostering fanaticism, encouraging bigotry against homosexuals, and influencing society in other negative ways.

This is not an attack on religion. It's a fact.
Subverting science: legal challenges by the Discovery Institute along with other organizations attempting to remove the standards of science from educational institutions and replacing them with non-scientific standards.
Fostering fanaticism: One only need to go to New York City to see that. Or check out the children burned, doused in acid, attacked with machetes, etc. for allegedly being witches. There is more than enough fanaticism to be drawn from religious organizations to prove this point of fact.
Encouraging bigotry against homosexuals: Last I checked it was every moderate to liberal individual pointing out the primary religious opposition to equal rights for homosexuals. The religious for putting homosexuals to death in certain parts of the world. And it's only the religious organizations pushing these agendas.
Influencing society in other negative ways: How many religious organizations from Scientology, all those involved in the practices above, faith healers, etc. to point out that those who refuse to use any reason in place of blind faith to make people realize that there are many religious organizations causing social harm.

2) He equates the religious teaching of children by parents and teachers in faith schools to a form of mental abuse.

Indeed he does. In specific reference to the Catholic faith schools, telling children they are going to burn in hell, the physical and mental abuse that occurred in reality at many of these institutions, etc.

3) 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.

True. How can a child who has not had the experience of the various worldviews considered to be making their own choice to be a Muslim, Christian, atheist, etc. This is not an attack on anything.

4) 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".

Oh how horrible. Such a mean spirited attack against religion! Different ways of understanding the world! Uncalled for, Mr. Dawkins.

Seriously.

That was horrible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top