This thread is about Richard Dawkins and his agenda
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/richard-dawkins-should-be_b_541387.html
Tink, here's a response, to the above Huff Post article "Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering up Atheist Crimes?", by Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago. He has also written a book called 'Why Evolution Is True', so his starting position is clear.
I found this an interesting read plus the reader comments that follow his post.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/huffpo-arrest-richard-dawkins/
As recently as 1979, the Cambodian genocide killed 1.7 million people. These were murdered by communist atheists. War crimes tribunals are now being set up in Phnomh Penh. It is perfectly reasonable to be critical of the many bad things done in the name of religion, but I don't see Dawkins loudly decrying the actions of atheists in Cambodia. Why? Because his preference appears to be to emphasise religiously motivated barbarism over the many atheistically motivated wrongs.
Many now see Dawkins as something of a narrow-minded fundamentalist himself, increasingly redolent of a man with no sense of smell going around shrieking to everyone that their sense of smell is a delusion.
Perhaps Dawkins imagines that by promoting his grim personal philosophy as the ultimate truth, and by viciously attacking ancient moral systems upon which Western Civilization is founded, he will bring about some sort of atheist utopia. He seeks to magnify wrongs done by religions, and to breeze over the immense horrors brought about by some atheist belief systems. Yet we have seen what atheist utopias can look like.
As usual Solly mate, an excellent pick up from an interesting article.
A quote from Jerry Coyne.
The godhaters are just as mad as the godbotherers.
gg
The godhaters are just as mad as the godbotherers.
gg
Tink, here's a response, to the above Huff Post article "Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering up Atheist Crimes?", by Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago. He has also written a book called 'Why Evolution Is True', so his starting position is clear.
I found this an interesting read plus the reader comments that follow his post.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/huffpo-arrest-richard-dawkins/
Thanks Solly. Both of these article should be compulsory reading for Tink, Fishbulb and Atlas........... the first as an example of totally flawed logic, lack of factual information and apalling journalism full of conjecture and bias; and the second to give a sensible, logical, factually correct (claims can be substantiated), non-hysterical view.
People do not have to like Dawkins, or even to agree with him, but that is not a reason to make absurd statements about what he does or doesn't do/think/believe.
His particular bile is reserved for the Judaeo-Christian traditions. You will not see him spouting off so vociferously about Mohammed. He is too cowardly for that. . .
As I said at the start of this, if Dawkins was interested in helping 'Crimes to Humanity' he would be cleaning his own backyard.
End of story.
Atheists don't have the bottle to attack Islam with the same ferocity as they attack Judaism and Christianity. Is it because they hate Western thought, or just pure cowardice?
gg
.Why should anyone join an "atheist" organization? Simply put -- they don't exist. The very good reason of why most atheists would never dream of joining an atheistic organization is because most atheistic organizations are not atheistic at all, they're shills for ideological commitments other-than-atheism. And when I say other-than-atheism, I of course mean self-described leftist organizations. Humanism, vegetarianism, identity politics, and all sorts of patent nonsense go under the umbrella of atheism, as any jaunt around the net or an appearance at your local atheist organization will show you
Dawkins is about getting rid of the crap. ie. there is no evidence that God, Santa or fairies exist. He is a philosopher and does not present/pretend to be as a Pope or guru or leader.
I cannot agree with the last two posts, you are correct gg in that commentators against him have distorted the reality of his philosophy and for good reason, religion as a multi trillion industry so they are going to kick and scream at anyone with the audacity to threaten that.
In his book he does not differentiate between religions, Islam, Muslim or the other Christian derivitives. Buddism is regarded differently as that is more based in nature and a spriit within the self; and spirit in this sense not of the heavenly kind though some do believe this.
Dawkins is about getting rid of the crap. ie. there is no evidence that God, Santa or fairies exist. He is a philosopher and does not present/pretend to be as a Pope or guru or leader.
The criticism of Dawkins is unwarranted, he is entitled to his opinion first of all and to state his distinct conclusions backed up by the facts as we know them at this time.
Dawkins is an extremerly well educated, gentle and peaceful man who seeks only the truth.
Religion is based on fairy tales which of course give people a nice fuzzy feeling inside. The Pope not only presides over this but the offenders within his ranks.
So cant he live in a world with other people and other beliefs?
Thats HIS opinion
everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, based on each ones individual experience
Everyones entitled to their own beliefs - exactly right.
I cannot agree with the last two posts, you are correct gg in that commentators against him have distorted the reality of his philosophy and for good reason, religion as a multi trillion industry so they are going to kick and scream at anyone with the audacity to threaten that.
In his book he does not differentiate between religions, Islam, Muslim or the other Christian derivitives. - but he is most vocal where Christianity is concerned. I don't blame him, if he tried that with Islam he'd be in exile like Salman Rushdie was - Buddism is regarded differently as that is more based in nature and a spriit within the self; and spirit in this sense not of the heavenly kind though some do believe this.
Dawkins is about getting rid of the crap. - there you go elevating some dufus higher than he deserves - ie. there is no evidence that God, Santa or fairies exist. He is a philosopher and does not present/pretend to be as a Pope or guru or leader.
The criticism of Dawkins is unwarranted, - bull****, he criticises to his hearts content, he's aware the favour must be returned - he is entitled to his opinion first of all and to state his distinct conclusions backed up by the facts as we know them at this time.
Dawkins is an extremerly well educated, gentle and peaceful man who seeks only the truth. - I'm sure that's what people think the Dalai Llama is like as well. They thought the same about Mother Theresa. Any cult of personality is a dangerous thing.
Religion is based on fairy tales - populist assumption - which of course give people a nice fuzzy feeling inside. The Pope not only presides over this but the offenders within his ranks.
there is absolutely no evidence for the truth of
any religious dogma.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?