Richard Dawkins and The Ignorance of The New Atheism

[ding]

All of this convulsing and hand wringing and pearl clutching is due ONLY to people being offended that their own magical horseshit is being criticized, coupled with the fact that they think it enjoys special intellectual protections due to being popular. If Dawkins were attacking ancient myths about demons causing disease, or rain gods being mad and causing droughts, nobody would bat an eye. But criticize the idea of magical sky daddies being real and watching over us, and the convulsions begin.

Actually I'm pretty sure the opposition you are seeing is a response to your militant atheist attempt to subordinate religion and faith in God.

It's almost like you are surprised you are in a fight when you went looking for a fight.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And, Dawkins thinks pedophilia is okay

Liar.

Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again

Richard Dawkins defended "mild pedophilia" in an interview this weekend. It's not the first time.

www.theatlantic.com

Richard Dawkins defended "mild pedophilia" in an interview this weekend. And while the quote itself is quite jarring, especially to those who look to Dawkins for his influential writings on atheism (but haven't noticed some of his other strange stances), it's far from the first time that the scientist has launched a defense of the behavior — or talked about his own abuse at the hands of boarding school teachers. First, here's what Dawkins said to The Times magazine, as condensed by the Religion News Service:

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.

Like most homos. he really doesn't have any problems with kiddie rape.

He did not defend pedophilia or say it is okay. He is talking about the exercise pf condemning people of the past by standards we hold today. And he was making a general point with several examples, and that was one of them. Similarly, he would not condemn our ancestors in the 19th and 20th centuries for marrying 14 year olds. He has stated this exact example as a parallel illustration, in fact. Neither of you fake super-woke people (you and the author) are getting the point. Yes, he condemns that behavior by today's standards. He has said so. But the author needs clicks and emotional reactions, so that was left out.

If you have to play dumb to make a point, it's not a very good point.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

is a response to your militant atheist attempt to subordinate religion and faith in God

Yes ding, i literally just said that. Thank you for repeating my point back to me. Of course, since you are a drama queen, you turned "criticism" into "subversion" and "militancy" (embarrassing to watch). But it's just criticism. And the only reason you get in a rabid tizzy is because it speaks to YOUR preferred fetishes. And the only reason you hissy throwers think you deserve more consideration that someone who claims their houseplants talk to them is because your preferred fetishes are much more popular.

If Dawkins were criticizing faith in Greek mythology, nobody would bat an eye, including you. Criticize the gross Abrahamic god character and the childish faith in it, and a bunch of blubbering, angry dicks will call you a subversive militant on the internet.

Again, thanks for repeating my points back to me while also demonstrating them perfectly with your behavior. You are a fine assistant.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

LOL

I always find it amusing when Christians can't answer my simple questions about large errors in the bible.

Carry on with the bogus attack on Richard Dawkins if that will make you feel better.

The bible is not a science book. Only fools act as if it is.

Don't you people claim the bible is supposedly the "infallible word"? Seems quite foolish as well.

 

[Meriweather]

Don't you people claim the bible is supposedly the "infallible word"? Seems quite foolish as well.

What passage(s) or account(s) do you find foolish?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Don't you people claim the bible is supposedly the "infallible word"?

That's the con. Call it the unerring word of gawd when it's convenient, dismiss it as allegorical fiction when that is convenient. Don't try to nail down the slippery magical shamans. It can't be done. They have the luxuries of magic and of making things mean whatever they want them to mean, and you do not.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Don't you people claim the bible is supposedly the "infallible word"?

That's the con. Call it the unerring word of gawd when it's convenient, dismiss it as allegorical fiction when that is convenient. Don't try to nail down the slippery magical shamans. It can't be done. They have the luxuries of magic and of making things mean whatever they want them to mean, and you do not.

Even worse, their magic is more magical than than the heathens that have the audacity to believe in a different gawd than they do.

 

[Meriweather]

Even worse, their magic is more magical than than the heathens that have the audacity to believe in a different gawd than they do.

Wrong path. I do not know who taught you scripture, but I wonder if you ever read Aesop's Fables?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I do not know who taught you scripture

Correct. And it's really an irrelevant comment.

I wonder if you ever read Aesop's Fables?

Indeed I have. Wonder no more.

 

[Meriweather]

Indeed I have.

Have you ever dismissed all of Aesop because you know it would never occur to hares and tortoises to race one another?

 

[Meriweather]

Correct. And it's really an irrelevant comment.

Not irrelevant when it gives information on the approach or foundation from which you were taught.

 

[Blues Man]

I do not know who taught you scripture

Correct. And it's really an irrelevant comment.

I wonder if you ever read Aesop's Fables?

Indeed I have. Wonder no more.

One can learn a lot from Aesop's fables

The Wolf and The Crane: Don’t’ Always Expect A Reward.
Last, but not least on our list of Life Lessons From Aesop’s Fables.

The Story: A Wolf has a bone stuck in his throat. He hires a Crane for a large sum of gold, to put her head in his throat and remove the bone. When the Crane removes the bone, she demands her reward. The Wolf smiles and replies, surely you have been given enough reward by me not eating you.

The Lesson: Don’t expect a reward when serving the wicked. If you help someone, it is out of the kindness of your own heart. Therefore if you are not rewarded for your good deeds, be grateful that your situation isn’t worse. It is selfish to think you will be rewarded in all situations of kindness.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Indeed I have.

Have you ever dismissed all of Aesop because you know it would never occur to hares and tortoises to race one another?

Are you comparing fables to parables written about the "infallible word"?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Correct. And it's really an irrelevant comment.

Not irrelevant when it gives information on the approach or foundation from which you were taught.

It is when faced with an individual that has no interest in being proselytized to.

 

[Blues Man]

Indeed I have.

Have you ever dismissed all of Aesop because you know it would never occur to hares and tortoises to race one another?

Are you comparing fables to parables written about the "infallible word"?

fables can be parables

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Indeed I have.

Have you ever dismissed all of Aesop because you know it would never occur to hares and tortoises to race one another?

Are you comparing fables to parables written about the "infallible word"?

fables can be parables

Agreed. Perhaps the bible was written specifically for children.

 

[Meriweather]

One can learn a lot from Aesop's fables

Which is my point. There is a lesson, moral, theme to each fable. It is no harder to identify the theme, moral, lesson in a Bible story. So why get tangled up in things like, "Snakes don't talk." No they don't. So move on. What lesson is being taught?

 

[Meriweather]

Are you comparing fables to parables written about the "infallible word"?

Absolutely. He was a BC storyteller, and of course the stories of the Old Testament are also BC. Keep in mind most heard them, they didn't read them.

 

[Meriweather]

It is when faced with an individual that has no interest in being proselytized to.

So you weren't interested in the proseltytization. So what? That shouldn't have made you bitter towards some very good stories.

 

[Meriweather]

Agreed. Perhaps the bible was written specifically for children.

More likely, it was written for all ages. Different insights were picked up by different age groups...just like they are today. Cartoons are a great example of this. Children miss some of the points that adults get.