What do you think about Dawkins?

[Winner]

Frankly, I only skimmed through them and strongly disagree with your hypothosis. I'd rather save myself from reading such atheistic dribble.

Again you prove my points - please, do continue!

I've already seen your previous post in regards to atheism and how your country picks on the religious because they are a minority.

Not my country as a state, but many of its people, yes. Thank the God - society which strives for rationality is a healthy society. Believers are not discriminated against*, which seems to be a common practice in some parts of the US, but they are not off-limits for criticims of their religion and that is a good thing.

(* - religious leanings of our politicans are not even known, usually. I think that our current prime minister is a Jew, our president is some kind of spiritual non-christian and most of other politicans are either agnostics or atheists. The point is that religion is such a non-issue in our politics, that your assertion that we pick on religion seems ridiculous to me).

I simply posted what I voted, I did not expect some atheistic inquisition .

Don't be melodramatic - am not going to burn you at stake, which is what you would have done to me if we had lived 600 years ago. You added some pretty damning personal view to your answer.

No need to jump on me like a ravid pyro who just saw a spy (thanks El Mach)

I'm not living proof of your hypothosis. I have not been to church in months and it's been a long time since I have prayed to God.

How does your practice of religious rituals influence the validity of my argument? You do believe in God, and this belief is enough. Dawkins attacks the notion of God and refutes it as a delusion, which is why you're so defensive about it.

So tell me, who else should shut up? Me? Your political opponents? Everybody who questions any of your ideas?

 

[cardgame]

has nothing better to do than bash religion and people who are religious.

Sounds similar to what you do to atheists here, from what I've seen. No offense.

Along with making people deconvert and turn away from God.

How is this a bad thing?

 

[GenMarshall]

Bolding is mine. This implies that he feels strongly about it. I also know he's a believer and his other comments were similar in nature.

Wrong, I don't feel strongly about it.

Since I explained that I think believers feel strongly about Dawkins because he untermines their religion that the rational part of them knows is wrong, I think it's pretty fair to use CivGeneral as an example of this.

No, Im not going to be an example of anything. I do not wish to be treated like your religious classmates. I do not see Dawkings as "undermining" my religion, I see him as an annoying offensive atheist using fighting words. If someone called me delusional for believing in God, I have the right to be angry.

In my view, Dawkins is so hated by many believers because they are insecure about their religion (and they have every reason to be).

I'm not insecure about my religion. As stated earlyer, I have not been to church in months. I'm more in the aperhetic area.

He offers criticism. If you view criticism as an attack, that really is your problem. Not his.
It is strange that a religious person would argue against proselytising.

That's laughable, his critism is coated in fighting words, offensive language (use of the words "delusional", etc)

But Dawkins is not trying to convert anyone. He has no business in trying to convert people, what he does is trying to promote the Theory of Evolution in spite of Intelligent Design and such.

Well he's doing a good job at it. Not to mention other atheists would like to see him silenced since Dawkins is giving atheism a bad name. Also, Religious people do prefer the Theory of Evolution over ID/Creationism.

 

[cardgame]

That's laughable, his critism is coated in fighting words, offensive language (use of the words "delusional", etc)

If someone believed in a tiny Teacup floating around in space, wouldn't you think of them as delusional?

Anywho, your criticism is coated in fighting words, offensive language (use of the words "militant", etc)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's laughable, his critism is coated in fighting words, offensive language (use of the words "delusional", etc)

From "morons" we go to "delusional". Delusional just means of false belief or opinion. That's offensive language to you?

Well he's doing a good job at it. Not to mention other atheists would like to see him silenced since Dawkins is giving atheism a bad name. Also, Religious people do prefer the Theory of Evolution over ID/Creationism.

Like to see him silenced? I don't think so. Dawkins is not giving atheism a bad name, many just disagree with the way he conveys his message. He did give many atheist confidence to dare to declare themselves atheist. Since it still seems to be the only minority which it is ok to discriminate against. You keep talking about those poor offended religious people, but I do believe it is those deer religious people which are the cause of some very pissed of atheists. And I am talking about people losing their job, being ostracised and kids being harassed. (If you want examples, I gots them )

I do think that in America a majority of the people believe in a created world.

 

[Algeroth]

We have no problem mocking teenage Objectivists who state that there is a rational way to life, they have found it and everyone not acting accordingly is subhuman parasite. I see no reason to approach evolutionary biologists with any more delicacy.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Guys, be aware that CivG is diagnosed with (IIRC from some earlier posts) depression, bipolar disorder, and possibly passive-aggressive disorder. It's ridiculous to say that CivG "proves" anything about theists in general if you think his posts are annoying.

 

[Winner]

Wrong, I don't feel strongly about it.
No, Im not going to be an example of anything. I do not wish to be treated like your religious classmates. I do not see Dawkings as "undermining" my religion, I see him as an annoying offensive atheist using fighting words. If someone called me delusional for believing in God, I have the right to be angry.

Prove it, or admit that you do feel strongly about it and get over the fact that you are a living proof of my hypothesis (among others on this forum, don't worry you're not alone).

If someones call you delusional because you believe in a very improbable thing without evidence, you have absolutely no right to be angry.

I'm not insecure about my religion. As stated earlyer, I have not been to church in months. I'm more in the aperhetic area.

What has religion to do with going to church? You do believe in God, don't you? It is obvious that you are insecure about it, since you react angrily to pretty much anybody who, like Dawkins, questions this faith.

That's laughable, his critism is coated in fighting words, offensive language (use of the words "delusional", etc)

Not fighting words, not an offensive language, just arguments. If you can't counter his arguments, you simple aren't right. If I called my opponents on this forum "offensive jerks" every time they say something I disagree with, I'd get banned in a day.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Guys, be aware that CivG is diagnosed with (IIRC from some earlier posts) depression, bipolar disorder, and possibly passive-aggressive disorder. It's ridiculous to say that CivG "proves" anything about theists in general if you think his posts are annoying.

Good thing I didn't.

 

[GenMarshall]

Again you prove my points - please, do continue!

Sorry, I'm not proving any of your points.

which seems to be a common practice in some parts of the US, but they are not off-limits for criticims of their religion and that is a good thing.

Criticism of religion should remain off-limits. It's a terrible thing to allow. Allowing atheists to criticize religion does nothing but offend religious people.

How does your practice of religious rituals influence the validity of my argument? You do believe in God, and this belief is enough. Dawkins attacks the notion of God and refutes it as a delusion, which is why you're so defensive about it.

It actually does influence the "validity" of your argument. I'm not defensive about it, I don't like the language he uses to place forward his ideas. Remove the words like "Delusioned" and other things that describes a person with less mental capacity, and I could care less what he says.

Sounds similar to what you do to atheists here, from what I've seen. No offense.

Sorry, I don't bash atheists.

How is this a bad thing?

Yer taking our people!

Anywho, your criticism is coated in fighting words, offensive language (use of the words "militant", etc)[/QUOTE]
Are you trying to get a cracker, Mr Parrot? Sorry no cracker for you. There is such thing as Militant Atheist.

 

[Yared]

Guys, be aware that CivG is diagnosed with (IIRC from some earlier posts) depression, bipolar disorder, and possibly passive-aggressive disorder. It's ridiculous to say that CivG "proves" anything about theists in general if you think his posts are annoying.

I've met people like CivG before IR. By posting that you just basically told me that they're acting like they're mentally ill lol:.

ADD ON:

Criticism of religion should remain off-limits. It's a terrible thing to allow. It does nothing but offend religious people.

Dude... You just owned yourself by saying this.

Yer taking our people!

Hahahah you're saying it like we're mind washing them. Did you ever considered that they choose to leave religion out of their own conclusions and not because we forced them? Atheists don't have that kinda power.

 

[cardgame]

Criticism of religion should remain off-limits. It's a terrible thing to allow. It does nothing but offend religious people.

There is such thing as Militant Atheist.

@ bolded: WTH. Why do you hate freedom?

Link to video.

There is also such a thing as people being delusional.

 

[GenMarshall]

Prove it, or admit that you do feel strongly about it and get over the fact that you are a living proof of my hypothesis (among others on this forum, don't worry you're not alone).

Again, I am not living proof of your hypothesis. In his works, remove his words that are offensive to the religious, and I could care less about him. Or at least be more inclined to read em.

If someones call you delusional because you believe in a very improbable thing without evidence, you have absolutely no right to be angry.

I have absolutely have the right to be angry and offended if someone calls me delusional.

What has religion to do with going to church? You do believe in God, don't you? It is obvious that you are insecure about it, since you react angrily to pretty much anybody who, like Dawkins, questions this faith.

No, it is not obvious that I am insecure .

Not fighting words, not an offensive language, just arguments. If you can't counter his arguments, you simple aren't right.

Calling someone delusional is not part of an argument. It's akin to calling someone stupid or having lack of intelligence as if they were a mental moron.

Dude... You just owned yourself by saying this.

Dude, I did not "owned" myself. You failed to notice the edit

 

[Winner]

Sorry, I'm not proving any of your points.

Criticism of religion should remain off-limits. It's a terrible thing to allow. It does nothing but offend religious people.

Yes you are!

Why are religious people offended by criticism of their religion? Tell me - if you disagree with my explanation (they're insecure about it), I suppose you have an alternative one.

It actually does influence the "validity" of your argument. I'm not defensive about it, I don't like the language he uses to place forward his ideas. Remove the words like "Delusioned" and other things that describes a person with less mental capacity, and I could care less what he says.

Belief in something which isn't real is a delusion - correct? Therefore, if you call a guy who claims to see dead people walking around him delusional, it's correct description of the state of his mind.

Sorry, I don't bash atheists.

You did, repeatedly (Ziggy quoted you on that).

 

[bathsheba666]

Dawkins..

Well, he seems to be everywhere, and know everything..

Perhaps he's god?

 

[Masada]

Quote please.

I must admit I found the quotes quite interesting, I've seen similar by him. The question is why he doesn't seem to stressthe aspects of the first quote which would allay hostility and build a more conciliatory tone. Is it a footnote in an hour long lecture or is it a message he underscores repeatedly in a lecture? I'm leaning towards the former rather than the latter, which is unfortunate.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
Richard Dawkins

For such an intelligent man, that is a rather poor generalization.

*

I must admit that I'm now tempted to read some of his tomes on biology, I'm less than conversant on the subject.

 

[Yared]

Belief in something which isn't real is a delusion - correct? Therefore, if you call a guy who claims to see dead people walking around him delusional, it's correct description of the state of his mind.

I agree with Winner here. To some extent, it's not delusional (IMO) to think that there's a god - you've just associated a feeling with him being there.

But when you start staying that Jesus died and then came back? Sorry but that's delusional to me.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think his quote is good, since you can 'understand' the world to your satisfaction with far less knowledge than you can without it; there's no question of 'why seven days?' or 'how did God create the world?' Indeed through much of history questions like that were banned.

 

[GenMarshall]

Yes you are!

Sorry, but no I'm not. I'm not insecure about my religious beliefs. With only two absolute options (Believe in God, or Does not Believe in God) , which am I suppose to chose if I am in the process of questioning MY OWN belief in God (And yes, the "not being in church for months does apply here").

Belief in something which isn't real is a delusion - correct? Therefore, if you call a guy who claims to see dead people walking around him delusional, it's correct description of the state of his mind.

An offensive description of a person's state of mind. I would only say to myself that the person is nuts or delusion, but I wound never say it in front of his/her face. My preference is to take the non-offensive route, not the offensive route that Dawkins took.

You did, repeatedly (Ziggy quoted you on that).

Again, I don't bash atheists.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I must admit I found the quotes quite interesting, I've seen similar by him. The question is why he doesn't seem to stressthe aspects of the first quote which would allay hostility and build a more conciliatory tone. Is it a footnote in an hour long lecture or is it a message he underscores repeatedly in a lecture? I'm leaning towards the former rather than the latter, which is unfortunate.

Well, he's only human. Doesn't always take the best approach in my opinion either. As I said before, he should let the science do the talking, and let people make up their own minds.

But I can understand he has gotten a bit bitter given what he must face when he opens his email for instance.