• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

The end of Religion is inevitable?

Among other "gaffes", he did once (strongly) imply a child was a literal terrorist on Twitter, leading to all sorts of horrible dogpiling that was most definitely not his intention as a smart man who knows exactly what dogpiling is (on social media).
Link?
 
That doesn't explain what "hoax" is being referred to. Dawkins is technically correct to point out that the kid is the same age as child terrorists. He is not correct to assume or imply the kid is therefore a terrorist himself.

The person really at fault is the teacher who overreacted in the first place. Unless Dawkins is claiming that didn't happen, and the overreaction was the hoax? There's not enough information here, and this happened long enough ago that I don't remember what I read about it.
 
That doesn't explain what "hoax" is being referred to. Dawkins is technically correct to point out that the kid is the same age as child terrorists. He is not correct to assume or imply the kid is therefore a terrorist himself.

The person really at fault is the teacher who overreacted in the first place. Unless Dawkins is claiming that didn't happen, and the overreaction was the hoax? There's not enough information here, and this happened long enough ago that I don't remember what I read about it.
The article is a perfectly serviceable overview in my opinion, so I don't know what else I can provide.
 
Dawkins is just another ******* trying to stay relevant in social media at the expense of others and in this case a kid. Quite sad really.
 
My understanding is Dawkins and some of the others fell in with the "anti-SJW/Woke" crowd. Which includes transphobia.
 
The article is a perfectly serviceable overview in my opinion, so I don't know what else I can provide.

You should be aware that you can edit until the proverbial cow jumps over the Moon before it comes home - but the original post still comes through via email notifications.

What "better" did you expect? This happened long enough ago that I don't remember the details. I'm asking for information and getting snark instead.

Dawkins is just another ******* trying to stay relevant in social media at the expense of others and in this case a kid. Quite sad really.
I'm not going to apologize for thinking that in his "interview" with anti-abortionist Wendy Wright, he mopped the floor with her (reasoning-wise, not literally). Holy crap, she's awful.
 
You should be aware that you can edit until the proverbial cow jumps over the Moon before it comes home - but the original post still comes through via email notifications.
And you should know that the edit function exists to correct mistakes, among other things. The timestamps alone should show that. You can play tit-for-tat if you want, in which case I'll leave my gut feelings up in future? Not give the benefit of the doubt? Not consider my own mistakes?

Sounds good, right :D

(disclaimer: some of this was edited in)

Like I said. The article was evidence enough. It's already a tangent, and if that (from a mainstream news source) wasn't enough to evidence the point, I wasn't going to keep on looking up coverage of the same issue. Him being good with an anti-abortion activist doesn't make up for his own mistakes.
 
The thing is, the target of your "mistake" got hit anyway. The only ones who didn't are those who didn't see your post until after you edited it.
 
The thing is, the target of your "mistake" got hit anyway. The only ones who didn't are those who didn't see your post until after you edited it.
Be thankful I'm not a massively famous atheist who likes to cause dogpiles on children because they made a clock, then. I don't know what you want me to say.

You're getting snark because you asked for information, I gave it, and then you tried to pick it apart. And I really don't want to hash this out further, so either respect that or PM me I guess.
 
Check your PMs. And it would be great if, in future, I say something positive about Dawkins that you wouldn't come back at me like this, either in public or with something that's going to show up in my email notifications.
 
Finally, I take it as a given that we are by nature question-asking and meaning-seeking beings, and hence, we are religious by nature. We ask questions about our origin, our purpose, and our ultimate destiny, and we come up with workable answers to those questions. More importantly, we develop art, mythology, and ritual by which we both seek to embody our quest for meaning and seek some personal encounter with the God or the gods who form the object of our devotions. Religion is baked into our nature.
 
Interesting read, but founed on several "false" premises:
  1. Christianity is the only supernatural religion and needs to rule all other religions and secular governments
  2. The Devil is real
  3. Quoting six bible verses makes it all true.
Weak sauce but not unexpected from those who claim the world is 6000 years old.
 
Last edited:
Well, I saw a large black shape fly past my widow twice today. Two different windows. Swans? One swan circling?

Where will it land, I was thinking.
 
What a frightful experience it must have been for your widow.
 
You don't have to be so dogmatic in the use of Occam's Razor. It can be used for mundane things if one wishes.
It can. Belief in an afterlife to gotcha those who believe in a different one without introspecting that at the same time we atheists might have it wrong is pretty far from "mundane".
 
It can. Belief in an afterlife to gotcha those who believe in a different one without introspecting that at the same time we atheists might have it wrong is pretty far from "mundane".

What evidence do we have of an afterlife?

Furthermore shouldn't simple cessation of movement in a dead body be all that's necessary for evidence of it just going black?
 
Top Bottom