Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
^^ We've had this before. Have you read it?
^ I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply in the UK.
I admit I have an interest in reading The God Delusion, but it and its author sickens me to the core. The title alone implies that I am deluded and insane, and I've heard that Dawkins has said that a scientist or even a person who likes science could be religious. Dawkins legitmately believes that I am insane and uneducated.
I cannot give even the slightest bit of respect for him or his hate literature.
I'm in school right now,Gelzo.
I finished all of mine yesterday anyway,
Looking at The Selfish Gene, it seems like a book I would be interested in. I'd rather you didn't insult my intelligence, Funny. My copy of The Human Brain by Issac Asimov (A book, which I may remind you, I have read over 10 times because I love it that much) in my backpack proves that I am far above the average proletariat.
Gelzo: Then please explain the rabid hatred of Christianity Dawkins has. He's expressed bigoted opinions about it before, that cannot be denied.
Dawkins believes that his own atheism is the logical extension of his understanding of evolution and that religion is incompatible with science."
He not only believes I cannot exist, in the first place, but that a belief in a god somehow make me impossible to comprehend science.
Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!
In a few sentences, Dawkins has called me not only insane, but also blatantly said that we should hate all religious people. Imagine if he said this about black people. People would rally against him.
Also:
Oxford theologian Alister McGrath (author of The Dawkins Delusion and Dawkins' God) maintains that Dawkins is ignorant of Christian theology, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently. In reply, Dawkins asks "do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"
So, in other words, you don't actually have to do the research, you can just hate a strawmanned and factually incorrect version of something and state that it represents the actual thing.
How scientific and rationalist. Or not.
Also, Myrmidon's probably going to go into an aneurysm about the Courtier's Reply right about now. I'll go into more depth about this statement when I get back home and have more time.
Looking up the Courtier's Reply, it's a complete non-sequitor. I'm not even sure how it could be taken seriously. It's like some odd mix of Ad Hominem and...something. It utterly fails at being witty and goes on to basically say that those who actually know about Theology are wrong. In other words, your opponents are wrong, and you are right. No matter what. It blatantly requires the axiom that "Dawkins=Right; Critics of Dawkins=Wrong". This is a blatant illogical and nonsensical fallacy.
I see what your statement means, then. I'm having trouble putting it in words but I get what you mean.