Richard Dawkins

[downfader]

As a Catholic I think he talks out of his hole

 

[Spinney]

As a Catholic I think he talks out of his hole

As an atheist, I think the pope talks out of his hole.

 

[Glow worm]

As an atheist, I think the pope talks out of his hole.

:

 

[Smokin Joe]

As a Catholic I think he talks out of his hole

The Pope's mob are rather too fond of shoving things into holes...

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

As an atheist, I think the pope talks out of his hole.

Will you be in Birmingham during the visit to protest? Paedophile protectionist issues?

Don't see Dawkins covering anything like that up do we?

 

[TVC]

Interesting programme though it could have been edited down by 30mins or so. The most troubling bit about it was the mid west American Christian fundamentalists whose right wing, multi-phobic, control of significant parts of the general population mean that they have real political power.

 

[XmisterIS]

Interesting programme though it could have been edited down by 30mins or so. The most troubling bit about it was the mid west American Christian fundamentalists whose right wing, multi-phobic, control of significant parts of the general population mean that they have real political power.

I agree with your sentiments entirely and I find funamentalist right-wingers who call themselves "Christians" as abhorrent as any other kind of fundamentalist!

The trouble with Dawkins is that he focusses on these extreme fringe types; trying to make it look as if all Christians/Muslims/etc are intolerant fanatics intent on nuking Europe/the Middle East/Planet Earth. Nothing could be further from the truth!

 

[Spinney]

The trouble with Dawkins is that he focusses on these extreme fringe types; trying to make it look as if all Christians/Muslims/etc are intolerant fanatics intent on nuking Europe/the Middle East/Planet Earth. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Not quite.

For example, paeodphile priests have been known about for some time. Do you see the ranks of Catholic church-goers rising up to expose these priests and get them to stand trial (and, more importantly, to make sure they can never get near children again)?

No.

Then although they are not in the league of the intolernant nuking-the-arabs/gays/abortion doctors letting-children-die-because-they-think-prayer-works-better-than-medical-attention USA fundies, surely that kind of "tolerance" is also evil?

Are the vast ranks of muslims in this country standing up and saying loudly that although it is against their religion to draw Mohammed, they do not think people should be threated/killed for doing so? No.

etc.

 

[Jezston]

I certainly think Dawkins is a species of fundamentalist, which is about as attractive a characteristic in atheists as it is in religious people.

Quite. Dawkins blames religion for much of the hatred, and destruction and ignorance in the world, when it is more simply any ideology that says we are right and anyone different is a threat and needs to be stopped. Dawkins applies the same ideology to his atheism.

 

[Jezston]

Not quite.

For example, paeodphile priests have been known about for some time. Do you see the ranks of Catholic church-goers rising up to expose these priests and get them to stand trial (and, more importantly, to make sure they can never get near children again)?

No.

Then although they are not in the league of the intolernant nuking-the-arabs/gays/abortion doctors letting-children-die-because-they-think-prayer-works-better-than-medical-attention USA fundies, surely that kind of "tolerance" is also evil?

Are the vast ranks of muslims in this country standing up and saying loudly that although it is against their religion to draw Mohammed, they do not think people should be threated/killed for doing so? No.

etc.

1. Just because it doesn't get media attention doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I've heard plenty of counter to your 2nd examples.

2. Why should they?

 

[numbnuts]

Not quite.

For example, paeodphile priests have been known about for some time. Do you see the ranks of Catholic church-goers rising up to expose these priests and get them to stand trial (and, more importantly, to make sure they can never get near children again)?

No.

As a Catholic if I found out that my priest was abusing kids it would be straight to the police without question

 

[automatic_jon]

As an agnostic I don't think there is enough data either way. However little men like Dawkins jumping up and down shaking their fists really makes me shy away from the militant atheist camp. Arguing that science disproves the existence of God(s) seems to begin from a misunderstanding of the nature of the divine.

Having been brought up with a generally Christian background and had an insight into Islam as an adult (only white guy in the mosque) I can see why people have faith and I really wish I did. But if Dawkins et al really do believe beyond all doubt that these people are wrong I don't understand why they can't just let them be wrong. Belief is a very personal thing and telling people what they should and shouldn't believe is the worst type of egotism, for atheists as well as missionaries.

 

[jimboalee]

Richard Dawkins.

Now there's a man who's spent the best part of his career 'shoot stirring'.

 

[jimboalee]

As an agnostic I don't think there is enough data either way. However little men like Dawkins jumping up and down shaking their fists really makes me shy away from the militant atheist camp. Arguing that science disproves the existence of God(s) seems to begin from a misunderstanding of the nature of the divine.

Having been brought up with a generally Christian background and had an insight into Islam as an adult (only white guy in the mosque) I can see why people have faith and I really wish I did. But if Dawkins et al really do believe beyond all doubt that these people are wrong I don't understand why they can't just let them be wrong. Belief is a very personal thing and telling people what they should and shouldn't believe is the worst type of egotism, for atheists as well as missionaries.

There is a small band of 'Scientists' who are of the opinion "God" is the product of ancient ET encounters

 

[Spinney]

As an agnostic I don't think there is enough data either way. However little men like Dawkins jumping up and down shaking their fists really makes me shy away from the militant atheist camp. Arguing that science disproves the existence of God(s) seems to begin from a misunderstanding of the nature of the divine.

Having been brought up with a generally Christian background and had an insight into Islam as an adult (only white guy in the mosque) I can see why people have faith and I really wish I did. But if Dawkins et al really do believe beyond all doubt that these people are wrong I don't understand why they can't just let them be wrong. Belief is a very personal thing and telling people what they should and shouldn't believe is the worst type of egotism, for atheists as well as missionaries.

I don't think Dawkins has ever said that science disproves the existence of God. He just sees no evidence for a god (or gods) and, in the absence of any such evidence, declines to believe in in/them.

People believing what they want to believe is fine (and I don't think Dawkins disagrees with this). It is when people want other people to believe what they believe, or at least obey the rules that they believe their god has set.

I have no problem with people who want to die for their beliefs - it is when they want others to die for their beliefs that it is a problem.

Or when a belief leads to things such as banning of contraception, even to the extent of disapproving of the use of condoms which can protect against HIV and other infections as well as preventing unwanted pregnancies. That's the problem with people believing in the great sky daddy (insert other deity of choice here).