Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Richard Dawkins a bigot?

Stupidape
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 6:50:40 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?
He thinks a little mild molestation of boys by men is acceptable. Wonder why he's opposed to a father figure?...lol
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 7:09:15 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?


Probly.
But it's not like he has people that agree with him meet up once every week .
That's over the top.

And he don't have a special shaped building for people who believe what he does to meet in .
Way over the top.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 7:52:50 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

That definition seems overly broad. It could apply, for instance, to sports fans, which is not how the word is usually used.

A definition more in line with the usual meaning of the word is "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...).

I don't know that Richard Dawkins treats religious people with hatred, and there is little evidence that he is motivated by prejudice (a "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...)). If anything, his strong opinion is based on both reason and experience. Also there is a difference between treating an idea with intolerance and treating a person with intolerance.
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 9:57:34 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Richard Dawkins has no religion since he is an atheist.

He is quoted as saying "I tolerate religion..........."

You are completely wrong on both counts.
You may want to research your facts next time.
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 10:00:21 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Justified criticism (supported by evidence and lengthy rational argument) is not intolerance or bigotry.

Richard Dawkins has no religion that I am aware of unless you are one of those foolish people who call atheism a religion. Atheism is no more a religion than baldness is a hairstyle.
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 1:24:11 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 6:50:40 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

He thinks a little mild molestation of boys by men is acceptable.

This is what he actually said:

" I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can"t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today."

It is clear he condemns paedophilia.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 3:50:37 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

I happened to watch a Dawkins documentary in Netflix just the other day, and he did not strike me as being even remotely bigoted. It is clear that he is an atheist, but he spoke and acted very respectfully toward the various religious people he interviewed. And he seemed to genuinely be interested in their point of view (as opposed to only seeking ways to dismiss or discredit them).

So I would say, no, he's not.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 4:47:55 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Perhaps in a way. There certainly seems to be a similarity. His prejudice seems to focus on Abrahamic religion as the target.

To present a correlation, a bigot will use an example of a crime committed by someone of a race or ethnicity they oppose to paint brush that entire group as criminals. When some Muslim terrorists targeted the Twin Towers, Dawkins focused on Abrahamic religion as being the focus of the problem of religious war and terrorism, even though the act was committed by just one of the 3 religions within this group. And not only that, but a particular faction within that specific religion.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 6:31:00 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

yep but for some reason it only works one way...odd isn't it..
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2016 7:39:09 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 1:24:11 PM, chui wrote:
At 11/17/2016 6:50:40 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

He thinks a little mild molestation of boys by men is acceptable.

This is what he actually said:

" I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can"t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today."

It is clear he condemns paedophilia.
No, it actually isn't clear. He can't find it in him to condemn it by the same standards doesn't mean that he necessarily has different standards he's condemning it by, he simply means that today's standards of condemning it are different than how it was condemned in the past. He doesn't say he condemned it.
He also goes on to say it didn't have an effect on us. Whoever the us is he means.
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2016 9:30:06 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 4:47:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Perhaps in a way. There certainly seems to be a similarity. His prejudice seems to focus on Abrahamic religion as the target.

To present a correlation, a bigot will use an example of a crime committed by someone of a race or ethnicity they oppose to paint brush that entire group as criminals. When some Muslim terrorists targeted the Twin Towers, Dawkins focused on Abrahamic religion as being the focus of the problem of religious war and terrorism, even though the act was committed by just one of the 3 religions within this group. And not only that, but a particular faction within that specific religion.

Dawkins has openly and rightly explained that he chooses Christianity as an example since that is the one faith that he has an in-depth knowledge of. He is articulate and accurate enough not to expound ideas on something he does not have a thorough knowledge on.

Thre is also nothing bigoted about an observation based on the facts that all three Abrahamic religions are continuously at each others' throats, forever spewing hatred at each other.
And brushing off this disgusting vitriol as being just the domain of particular factions is sheer arrogance.
Hatred against others is endemic throughout all factions of religion.
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2016 9:43:16 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/18/2016 7:39:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/17/2016 1:24:11 PM, chui wrote:
At 11/17/2016 6:50:40 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

He thinks a little mild molestation of boys by men is acceptable.

This is what he actually said:

" I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can"t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today."

It is clear he condemns paedophilia.
No, it actually isn't clear. He can't find it in him to condemn it by the same standards doesn't mean that he necessarily has different standards he's condemning it by, he simply means that today's standards of condemning it are different than how it was condemned in the past. He doesn't say he condemned it.
He also goes on to say it didn't have an effect on us. Whoever the us is he means.

You are right there. It is not clear, from that particular article that he condemns paedophilia but then he certainly does not support it either.

I think the context of his recollection is that in those days, what happened to him would not come close to being regarded as being even mild paedophilia. Today it would be regarded as such. I copped it a few times at school but I took it as being punished for doing wrong, nothing else.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2016 1:46:22 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
I'm almost certain that that is not how you spell biologist, but I can be corrected.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2016 3:43:38 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/18/2016 9:30:06 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/17/2016 4:47:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Perhaps in a way. There certainly seems to be a similarity. His prejudice seems to focus on Abrahamic religion as the target.

To present a correlation, a bigot will use an example of a crime committed by someone of a race or ethnicity they oppose to paint brush that entire group as criminals. When some Muslim terrorists targeted the Twin Towers, Dawkins focused on Abrahamic religion as being the focus of the problem of religious war and terrorism, even though the act was committed by just one of the 3 religions within this group. And not only that, but a particular faction within that specific religion.

Dawkins has openly and rightly explained that he chooses Christianity as an example since that is the one faith that he has an in-depth knowledge of. He is articulate and accurate enough not to expound ideas on something he does not have a thorough knowledge on.

Then he's not qualified to make any comments at all on the subject of 911. He doesn't know enough about Islam or Judaism to discuss middle eastern religion to comment. In fact he's not qualified to discuss Christianity unless he's specifically referring to the Church Of England.

Thre is also nothing bigoted about an observation based on the facts that all three Abrahamic religions are continuously at each others' throats, forever spewing hatred at each other.
Atheists in communist countries are forever spewing hatred against the religious.

And brushing off this disgusting vitriol as being just the domain of particular factions is sheer arrogance.
Then we need to include atheists in the mix. One of the most active terrorist groups in Sri Lanka were Marxists. There have been a number of Marxist terrorist groups.

Hatred against others is endemic throughout all factions of religion.
If you think religion is responsible for hatred, why do you think religion should be tolerated?
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2016 9:14:48 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/18/2016 3:43:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/18/2016 9:30:06 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/17/2016 4:47:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Perhaps in a way. There certainly seems to be a similarity. His prejudice seems to focus on Abrahamic religion as the target.

To present a correlation, a bigot will use an example of a crime committed by someone of a race or ethnicity they oppose to paint brush that entire group as criminals. When some Muslim terrorists targeted the Twin Towers, Dawkins focused on Abrahamic religion as being the focus of the problem of religious war and terrorism, even though the act was committed by just one of the 3 religions within this group. And not only that, but a particular faction within that specific religion.

Dawkins has openly and rightly explained that he chooses Christianity as an example since that is the one faith that he has an in-depth knowledge of. He is articulate and accurate enough not to expound ideas on something he does not have a thorough knowledge on.

Then he's not qualified to make any comments at all on the subject of 911. He doesn't know enough about Islam or Judaism to discuss middle eastern religion to comment. In fact he's not qualified to discuss Christianity unless he's specifically referring to the Church Of England.

Thre is also nothing bigoted about an observation based on the facts that all three Abrahamic religions are continuously at each others' throats, forever spewing hatred at each other.
Atheists in communist countries are forever spewing hatred against the religious.

And brushing off this disgusting vitriol as being just the domain of particular factions is sheer arrogance.
Then we need to include atheists in the mix. One of the most active terrorist groups in Sri Lanka were Marxists. There have been a number of Marxist terrorist groups.


Hatred against others is endemic throughout all factions of religion.
If you think religion is responsible for hatred, why do you think religion should be tolerated?

Not for much longer I hope.
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 3:37:57 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/18/2016 7:39:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/17/2016 1:24:11 PM, chui wrote:
At 11/17/2016 6:50:40 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

He thinks a little mild molestation of boys by men is acceptable.

This is what he actually said:

" I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can"t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today."

It is clear he condemns paedophilia.
No, it actually isn't clear. He can't find it in him to condemn it by the same standards doesn't mean that he necessarily has different standards he's condemning it by, he simply means that today's standards of condemning it are different than how it was condemned in the past. He doesn't say he condemned it.

It is clear he does not condone paedophilia now in the present. He clearly accepts modern day standards of behaviour in this regard. It is clear in the past he was, if anything, a victim not a perpetrator. This is what he refers to when he says he does not condemn it. He does not condemn actions taken by adults to boys when he himself was a boy. He is talking about his time in school. Trying to insinuate he is a paedophile is a clear distortion of what he said since he condemns this behaviour in the here and now.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 6:08:36 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

He's certainly not a very impressive scientist, he's contributed pretty much nothing to science, all of his "contributions" are pop-science books with very little original academic research published in peer reviewed journals.

In terms of contributing to science his work is paltry at best, he is primarily a writer of pop-science books for the uncritical layman.

His popularity is mistaken (by the intellectually gullible) for authority, I've read many of his books and find them shallow and error ridden as do many of his critics.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 3:56:02 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/19/2016 9:14:48 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/18/2016 3:43:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/18/2016 9:30:06 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/17/2016 4:47:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Perhaps in a way. There certainly seems to be a similarity. His prejudice seems to focus on Abrahamic religion as the target.

To present a correlation, a bigot will use an example of a crime committed by someone of a race or ethnicity they oppose to paint brush that entire group as criminals. When some Muslim terrorists targeted the Twin Towers, Dawkins focused on Abrahamic religion as being the focus of the problem of religious war and terrorism, even though the act was committed by just one of the 3 religions within this group. And not only that, but a particular faction within that specific religion.

Dawkins has openly and rightly explained that he chooses Christianity as an example since that is the one faith that he has an in-depth knowledge of. He is articulate and accurate enough not to expound ideas on something he does not have a thorough knowledge on.

Then he's not qualified to make any comments at all on the subject of 911. He doesn't know enough about Islam or Judaism to discuss middle eastern religion to comment. In fact he's not qualified to discuss Christianity unless he's specifically referring to the Church Of England.

Thre is also nothing bigoted about an observation based on the facts that all three Abrahamic religions are continuously at each others' throats, forever spewing hatred at each other.
Atheists in communist countries are forever spewing hatred against the religious.

And brushing off this disgusting vitriol as being just the domain of particular factions is sheer arrogance.
Then we need to include atheists in the mix. One of the most active terrorist groups in Sri Lanka were Marxists. There have been a number of Marxist terrorist groups.


Hatred against others is endemic throughout all factions of religion.
If you think religion is responsible for hatred, why do you think religion should be tolerated?

Not for much longer I hope.
You're purposely avoiding the question. But it's being addressed on another thread. Not that you're not going to do the same thing there of course.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 4:06:17 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 6:08:36 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

He's certainly not a very impressive scientist, he's contributed pretty much nothing to science, all of his "contributions" are pop-science books with very little original academic research published in peer reviewed journals.

In terms of contributing to science his work is paltry at best, he is primarily a writer of pop-science books for the uncritical layman.

His popularity is mistaken (by the intellectually gullible) for authority, I've read many of his books and find them shallow and error ridden as do many of his critics.

And what are your academic qualifications, please? Can we see your curriculum vitae so we know just how well equipped you are to criticize?
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 9:17:43 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 3:56:02 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/19/2016 9:14:48 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/18/2016 3:43:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/18/2016 9:30:06 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/17/2016 4:47:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Perhaps in a way. There certainly seems to be a similarity. His prejudice seems to focus on Abrahamic religion as the target.

To present a correlation, a bigot will use an example of a crime committed by someone of a race or ethnicity they oppose to paint brush that entire group as criminals. When some Muslim terrorists targeted the Twin Towers, Dawkins focused on Abrahamic religion as being the focus of the problem of religious war and terrorism, even though the act was committed by just one of the 3 religions within this group. And not only that, but a particular faction within that specific religion.

Dawkins has openly and rightly explained that he chooses Christianity as an example since that is the one faith that he has an in-depth knowledge of. He is articulate and accurate enough not to expound ideas on something he does not have a thorough knowledge on.

Then he's not qualified to make any comments at all on the subject of 911. He doesn't know enough about Islam or Judaism to discuss middle eastern religion to comment. In fact he's not qualified to discuss Christianity unless he's specifically referring to the Church Of England.

Thre is also nothing bigoted about an observation based on the facts that all three Abrahamic religions are continuously at each others' throats, forever spewing hatred at each other.
Atheists in communist countries are forever spewing hatred against the religious.

And brushing off this disgusting vitriol as being just the domain of particular factions is sheer arrogance.
Then we need to include atheists in the mix. One of the most active terrorist groups in Sri Lanka were Marxists. There have been a number of Marxist terrorist groups.


Hatred against others is endemic throughout all factions of religion.
If you think religion is responsible for hatred, why do you think religion should be tolerated?

Not for much longer I hope.
You're purposely avoiding the question. But it's being addressed on another thread. Not that you're not going to do the same thing there of course.

I think I have clarified my view. It is organised religion for which I have a distinct disliking. It uses religion and faith as a tool to push very unsavoury agenda.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 3:06:08 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 9:17:43 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:56:02 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/19/2016 9:14:48 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/18/2016 3:43:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/18/2016 9:30:06 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/17/2016 4:47:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Perhaps in a way. There certainly seems to be a similarity. His prejudice seems to focus on Abrahamic religion as the target.

To present a correlation, a bigot will use an example of a crime committed by someone of a race or ethnicity they oppose to paint brush that entire group as criminals. When some Muslim terrorists targeted the Twin Towers, Dawkins focused on Abrahamic religion as being the focus of the problem of religious war and terrorism, even though the act was committed by just one of the 3 religions within this group. And not only that, but a particular faction within that specific religion.

Dawkins has openly and rightly explained that he chooses Christianity as an example since that is the one faith that he has an in-depth knowledge of. He is articulate and accurate enough not to expound ideas on something he does not have a thorough knowledge on.

Then he's not qualified to make any comments at all on the subject of 911. He doesn't know enough about Islam or Judaism to discuss middle eastern religion to comment. In fact he's not qualified to discuss Christianity unless he's specifically referring to the Church Of England.

Thre is also nothing bigoted about an observation based on the facts that all three Abrahamic religions are continuously at each others' throats, forever spewing hatred at each other.
Atheists in communist countries are forever spewing hatred against the religious.

And brushing off this disgusting vitriol as being just the domain of particular factions is sheer arrogance.
Then we need to include atheists in the mix. One of the most active terrorist groups in Sri Lanka were Marxists. There have been a number of Marxist terrorist groups.


Hatred against others is endemic throughout all factions of religion.
If you think religion is responsible for hatred, why do you think religion should be tolerated?

Not for much longer I hope.
You're purposely avoiding the question. But it's being addressed on another thread. Not that you're not going to do the same thing there of course.

I think I have clarified my view. It is organised religion for which I have a distinct disliking. It uses religion and faith as a tool to push very unsavoury agenda.
I won't deny that you've been clear. The problem is you're answering questions that are not being asked.

If I ask you what you're favorite country is on Earth, and you answer the planet Neptune, your answer is quite clear. The problem is that it's not an answer to the question.

Maybe if I pose the question this way.

What should the authorities do about organized religion?
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 9:52:09 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 3:06:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/22/2016 9:17:43 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:56:02 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/19/2016 9:14:48 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/18/2016 3:43:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/18/2016 9:30:06 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/17/2016 4:47:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Perhaps in a way. There certainly seems to be a similarity. His prejudice seems to focus on Abrahamic religion as the target.

To present a correlation, a bigot will use an example of a crime committed by someone of a race or ethnicity they oppose to paint brush that entire group as criminals. When some Muslim terrorists targeted the Twin Towers, Dawkins focused on Abrahamic religion as being the focus of the problem of religious war and terrorism, even though the act was committed by just one of the 3 religions within this group. And not only that, but a particular faction within that specific religion.

Dawkins has openly and rightly explained that he chooses Christianity as an example since that is the one faith that he has an in-depth knowledge of. He is articulate and accurate enough not to expound ideas on something he does not have a thorough knowledge on.

Then he's not qualified to make any comments at all on the subject of 911. He doesn't know enough about Islam or Judaism to discuss middle eastern religion to comment. In fact he's not qualified to discuss Christianity unless he's specifically referring to the Church Of England.

Thre is also nothing bigoted about an observation based on the facts that all three Abrahamic religions are continuously at each others' throats, forever spewing hatred at each other.
Atheists in communist countries are forever spewing hatred against the religious.

And brushing off this disgusting vitriol as being just the domain of particular factions is sheer arrogance.
Then we need to include atheists in the mix. One of the most active terrorist groups in Sri Lanka were Marxists. There have been a number of Marxist terrorist groups.


Hatred against others is endemic throughout all factions of religion.
If you think religion is responsible for hatred, why do you think religion should be tolerated?

Not for much longer I hope.
You're purposely avoiding the question. But it's being addressed on another thread. Not that you're not going to do the same thing there of course.

I think I have clarified my view. It is organised religion for which I have a distinct disliking. It uses religion and faith as a tool to push very unsavoury agenda.
I won't deny that you've been clear. The problem is you're answering questions that are not being asked.

If I ask you what you're favorite country is on Earth, and you answer the planet Neptune, your answer is quite clear. The problem is that it's not an answer to the question.

Maybe if I pose the question this way.

What should the authorities do about organized religion?

I think that religious organisations should pay taxes like any other profit-making organisations.
Also, there should be restrictions on churches marketing their faith to minors, for example, under 18s not permitted in churches.

There should also be an independent council or tribunal in place to monitor the activities of churches and to investigate complaints such as intimidation and abuse. Traditionally, churches have been self-governing in this respect which has proven to be ineffective.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 3:40:06 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 9:52:09 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/22/2016 3:06:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/22/2016 9:17:43 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:56:02 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/19/2016 9:14:48 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/18/2016 3:43:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/18/2016 9:30:06 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/17/2016 4:47:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Perhaps in a way. There certainly seems to be a similarity. His prejudice seems to focus on Abrahamic religion as the target.

To present a correlation, a bigot will use an example of a crime committed by someone of a race or ethnicity they oppose to paint brush that entire group as criminals. When some Muslim terrorists targeted the Twin Towers, Dawkins focused on Abrahamic religion as being the focus of the problem of religious war and terrorism, even though the act was committed by just one of the 3 religions within this group. And not only that, but a particular faction within that specific religion.

Dawkins has openly and rightly explained that he chooses Christianity as an example since that is the one faith that he has an in-depth knowledge of. He is articulate and accurate enough not to expound ideas on something he does not have a thorough knowledge on.

Then he's not qualified to make any comments at all on the subject of 911. He doesn't know enough about Islam or Judaism to discuss middle eastern religion to comment. In fact he's not qualified to discuss Christianity unless he's specifically referring to the Church Of England.

Thre is also nothing bigoted about an observation based on the facts that all three Abrahamic religions are continuously at each others' throats, forever spewing hatred at each other.
Atheists in communist countries are forever spewing hatred against the religious.

And brushing off this disgusting vitriol as being just the domain of particular factions is sheer arrogance.
Then we need to include atheists in the mix. One of the most active terrorist groups in Sri Lanka were Marxists. There have been a number of Marxist terrorist groups.


Hatred against others is endemic throughout all factions of religion.
If you think religion is responsible for hatred, why do you think religion should be tolerated?

Not for much longer I hope.
You're purposely avoiding the question. But it's being addressed on another thread. Not that you're not going to do the same thing there of course.

I think I have clarified my view. It is organised religion for which I have a distinct disliking. It uses religion and faith as a tool to push very unsavoury agenda.
I won't deny that you've been clear. The problem is you're answering questions that are not being asked.

If I ask you what you're favorite country is on Earth, and you answer the planet Neptune, your answer is quite clear. The problem is that it's not an answer to the question.

Maybe if I pose the question this way.

What should the authorities do about organized religion?

I think that religious organisations should pay taxes like any other profit-making organisations.
Should atheist organizations like Freedom From Religion Foundation that are legal charities remain exempt?

Also, there should be restrictions on churches marketing their faith to minors, for example, under 18s not permitted in churches.

What about minors who want to go to church? They want to continue to go to Christian schools, sing in the choir, play in the orchestra, attend youth group functions, participating in ministerial functions, etc.? Not only would parents be denied the pleasure of having their entire families with them on Sunday, they would then have to find a service to watch over their children, something the church actually provides for them with their very young.

What do you do about home churches? Would the children then have to leave the house for 2 hours?

There should also be an independent council or tribunal in place to monitor the activities of churches and to investigate complaints such as intimidation and abuse. Traditionally, churches have been self-governing in this respect which has proven to be ineffective.
Placing an independent council within a church to monitor is a huge freedom of speech issue. You have no stepped into the waters of totalitarianism.

We basically see this today in China. They could not control the house church (underground church), so they now have government run churches that monitor and control what is being preached.

There are thousands, perhaps millions of people attending churches every Sunday. The only abuse I hear about involves priests within the Catholic church. Are you basing your notion of abuse and the ineffectiveness of churches in general on the Catholic priest issue?

If you think all churches are giving an abusive message that needs to be monitored, what difference do you think would be made in terms of what would be spoken in the pulpit?

Do you have evidence of extensive abuse taking place in every church worldwide?
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 11:13:29 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 3:40:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/23/2016 9:52:09 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/22/2016 3:06:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/22/2016 9:17:43 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:56:02 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/19/2016 9:14:48 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/18/2016 3:43:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/18/2016 9:30:06 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/17/2016 4:47:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Perhaps in a way. There certainly seems to be a similarity. His prejudice seems to focus on Abrahamic religion as the target.

To present a correlation, a bigot will use an example of a crime committed by someone of a race or ethnicity they oppose to paint brush that entire group as criminals. When some Muslim terrorists targeted the Twin Towers, Dawkins focused on Abrahamic religion as being the focus of the problem of religious war and terrorism, even though the act was committed by just one of the 3 religions within this group. And not only that, but a particular faction within that specific religion.

Dawkins has openly and rightly explained that he chooses Christianity as an example since that is the one faith that he has an in-depth knowledge of. He is articulate and accurate enough not to expound ideas on something he does not have a thorough knowledge on.

Then he's not qualified to make any comments at all on the subject of 911. He doesn't know enough about Islam or Judaism to discuss middle eastern religion to comment. In fact he's not qualified to discuss Christianity unless he's specifically referring to the Church Of England.

Thre is also nothing bigoted about an observation based on the facts that all three Abrahamic religions are continuously at each others' throats, forever spewing hatred at each other.
Atheists in communist countries are forever spewing hatred against the religious.

And brushing off this disgusting vitriol as being just the domain of particular factions is sheer arrogance.
Then we need to include atheists in the mix. One of the most active terrorist groups in Sri Lanka were Marxists. There have been a number of Marxist terrorist groups.


Hatred against others is endemic throughout all factions of religion.
If you think religion is responsible for hatred, why do you think religion should be tolerated?

Not for much longer I hope.
You're purposely avoiding the question. But it's being addressed on another thread. Not that you're not going to do the same thing there of course.

I think I have clarified my view. It is organised religion for which I have a distinct disliking. It uses religion and faith as a tool to push very unsavoury agenda.
I won't deny that you've been clear. The problem is you're answering questions that are not being asked.

If I ask you what you're favorite country is on Earth, and you answer the planet Neptune, your answer is quite clear. The problem is that it's not an answer to the question.

Maybe if I pose the question this way.

What should the authorities do about organized religion?

I think that religious organisations should pay taxes like any other profit-making organisations.
Should atheist organizations like Freedom From Religion Foundation that are legal charities remain exempt?
FRF is a non-profit organisation.
Churches are exempt from tax for no other reason than that they are churches. They make profit and should pay tax.

Also, there should be restrictions on churches marketing their faith to minors, for example, under 18s not permitted in churches.

What about minors who want to go to church? They want to continue to go to Christian schools, sing in the choir, play in the orchestra, attend youth group functions, participating in ministerial functions, etc.? Not only would parents be denied the pleasure of having their entire families with them on Sunday, they would then have to find a service to watch over their children, something the church actually provides for them with their very young.

There are still schools with choirs, orchestras, and youth groups that are not religious, most are. Parents may get pleasure out of dragging their children to their looney institutions but what say do children have? Why should innocent children be subject to fear, guilt and utter lies forced down their throats? This is tantamount to child abuse and is becoming more recognised as such by society.

What do you do about home churches? Would the children then have to leave the house for 2 hours?

Home churches are one and the same as home-schooling. What right do parents have to methodically drum their nutty beliefs into their own children using guilt and fear, for their own self-centred egotistical ends? There are many cases of children being made wards of the state and the numbers are increasing. Also, the number of lawsuits brought by children (having grown up) is growing.

There should also be an independent council or tribunal in place to monitor the activities of churches and to investigate complaints such as intimidation and abuse. Traditionally, churches have been self-governing in this respect which has proven to be ineffective.
Placing an independent council within a church to monitor is a huge freedom of speech issue. You have no stepped into the waters of totalitarianism.

Preaching fear, guilt, hatred against minorities and outright lies is not freedom of speech and is stepping into the waters of vilification, intimidation, and libel.

We basically see this today in China. They could not control the house church (underground church), so they now have government run churches that monitor and control what is being preached.

There are thousands, perhaps millions of people attending churches every Sunday. The only abuse I hear about involves priests within the Catholic church. Are you basing your notion of abuse and the ineffectiveness of churches in general on the Catholic priest issue?

What you (choose to) hear and what goes on in churches may well be two different things. Praying for miracles and preaching the fear of eternal damnation (being saved) to vulnerable people (including all children) is outright abuse.

If you think all churches are giving an abusive message that needs to be monitored, what difference do you think would be made in terms of what would be spoken in the pulpit?

Whilst it is the business of the individual to believe what one wishes, I don't think that there is a place in modern, civilized society for institutions that set out to actively promote through fear and guilt, draconian ideas of elitism, discrimination and hatred towards others.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 11:53:46 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/23/2016 3:40:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

Should atheist organizations like Freedom From Religion Foundation that are legal charities remain exempt?

The FFRF would argue in some cases no, they shouldn't be exempt. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 2:14:37 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 11:13:29 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:40:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

Should atheist organizations like Freedom From Religion Foundation that are legal charities remain exempt?
FRF is a non-profit organisation.
I know that. They receive donations. And they have a politically motivated agenda concerning religion.
Churches are exempt from tax for no other reason than that they are churches. They make profit and should pay tax.

No. They do charity work. I know I've gone over this with a number of people here. Probably including you.
Also, there should be restrictions on churches marketing their faith to minors, for example, under 18s not permitted in churches.

What about minors who want to go to church? They want to continue to go to Christian schools, sing in the choir, play in the orchestra, attend youth group functions, participating in ministerial functions, etc.? Not only would parents be denied the pleasure of having their entire families with them on Sunday, they would then have to find a service to watch over their children, something the church actually provides for them with their very young.

There are still schools with choirs, orchestras, and youth groups that are not religious, most are. Parents may get pleasure out of dragging their children to their looney institutions but what say do children have? Why should innocent children be subject to fear, guilt and utter lies forced down their throats? This is tantamount to child abuse and is becoming more recognised as such by society.

Face it Willows. You want a dictatorship. You want a dictator to control parents and their children. There a children that want to go to church. They believe in God, and do not want to participate in secular choirs, orchestras, and youth groups. Should they have a right to choose?

You want a dictator to come along and force children out of churches. There's no other way around. Your posts reveal this when you use terms like lies, nutty beliefs, etc.
What do you do about home churches? Would the children then have to leave the house for 2 hours?

Home churches are one and the same as home-schooling. What right do parents have to methodically drum their nutty beliefs into their own children using guilt and fear, for their own self-centred egotistical ends? There are many cases of children being made wards of the state and the numbers are increasing. Also, the number of lawsuits brought by children (having grown up) is growing.

So then it's not institutionalized religion you have a problem with. You want a dictator to replace the rights of the parents. And you're still methodically avoiding questions.

1. Where are the kids supposed to go during home church service since the new Australian dictator Fidel Dundee has now come in to power and won't allow kids to be exposed to Christianity?

2. Should home churches even be allowed?

3. A parent doesn't need to take a child to church, or even a home church service. They can present their belief simply as parents who teach their children the ways of life without using institutional outlets. Should parents be allowed to teach children their personal religious beliefs?

You may as well can the whole institutionalized religion jargon, as you've just revealed your real prejudice. Not that it wasn't already known. It's just that you keep revealing it with your statements.

There should also be an independent council or tribunal in place to monitor the activities of churches and to investigate complaints such as intimidation and abuse. Traditionally, churches have been self-governing in this respect which has proven to be ineffective.
Placing an independent council within a church to monitor is a huge freedom of speech issue. You have no stepped into the waters of totalitarianism.

Preaching fear, guilt, hatred against minorities and outright lies is not freedom of speech and is stepping into the waters of vilification, intimidation, and libel.

One doesn't need an institution to teach their religious views. Again, it's not the institution you have a problem with. It's the message of the Bible. That's what you have a problem with. The idea of monitoring is beyond ridiculous. Again....

1. what would you expect a monitor to find at a typical church meeting that he would need to bring correction to?

2. If churches were monitored with successful results (according to your standards), what would the difference be in a typical church service?

We basically see this today in China. They could not control the house church (underground church), so they now have government run churches that monitor and control what is being preached.

There are thousands, perhaps millions of people attending churches every Sunday. The only abuse I hear about involves priests within the Catholic church. Are you basing your notion of abuse and the ineffectiveness of churches in general on the Catholic priest issue?

What you (choose to) hear and what goes on in churches may well be two different things. Praying for miracles and preaching the fear of eternal damnation (being saved) to vulnerable people (including all children) is outright abuse.

What I choose to hear? Do you think I get lost in some sort of subliminal translation?

Then you think Christianity should be outlawed. Right?
If you think all churches are giving an abusive message that needs to be monitored, what difference do you think would be made in terms of what would be spoken in the pulpit?

Whilst it is the business of the individual to believe what one wishes, I don't think that there is a place in modern, civilized society for institutions that set out to actively promote through fear and guilt, draconian ideas of elitism, discrimination and hatred towards others.
You claim it's the business of the individual to believe what they wish because we can't enforce a thought police.

And again, institutions are not necessary to actively promote Christianity. Most of it is probably done in the home. Should a monitor be placed in Christian homes?
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 12:11:56 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 2:14:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/24/2016 11:13:29 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/23/2016 3:40:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

Should atheist organizations like Freedom From Religion Foundation that are legal charities remain exempt?
FRF is a non-profit organisation.
I know that. They receive donations. And they have a politically motivated agenda concerning religion.
Churches are exempt from tax for no other reason than that they are churches. They make profit and should pay tax.

No. They do charity work. I know I've gone over this with a number of people here. Probably including you.

Yes, token charity work, but they are not charity organisations.
Also, there should be restrictions on churches marketing their faith to minors, for example, under 18s not permitted in churches.

What about minors who want to go to church? They want to continue to go to Christian schools, sing in the choir, play in the orchestra, attend youth group functions, participating in ministerial functions, etc.? Not only would parents be denied the pleasure of having their entire families with them on Sunday, they would then have to find a service to watch over their children, something the church actually provides for them with their very young.

There are still schools with choirs, orchestras, and youth groups that are not religious, most are. Parents may get pleasure out of dragging their children to their looney institutions but what say do children have? Why should innocent children be subject to fear, guilt and utter lies forced down their throats? This is tantamount to child abuse and is becoming more recognised as such by society.

Face it Willows. You want a dictatorship. You want a dictator to control parents and their children. There a children that want to go to church. They believe in God, and do not want to participate in secular choirs, orchestras, and youth groups. Should they have a right to choose?

There are children who want to drink alcohol but society puts restrictions on their access to it, the same should be for religion.

You want a dictator to come along and force children out of churches. There's no other way around. Your posts reveal this when you use terms like lies, nutty beliefs, etc.
What do you do about home churches? Would the children then have to leave the house for 2 hours?

Home churches are one and the same as home-schooling. What right do parents have to methodically drum their nutty beliefs into their own children using guilt and fear, for their own self-centred egotistical ends? There are many cases of children being made wards of the state and the numbers are increasing. Also, the number of lawsuits brought by children (having grown up) is growing.

So then it's not institutionalized religion you have a problem with. You want a dictator to replace the rights of the parents. And you're still methodically avoiding questions.

1. Where are the kids supposed to go during home church service since the new Australian dictator Fidel Dundee has now come in to power and won't allow kids to be exposed to Christianity?

2. Should home churches even be allowed?

3. A parent doesn't need to take a child to church, or even a home church service. They can present their belief simply as parents who teach their children the ways of life without using institutional outlets. Should parents be allowed to teach children their personal religious beliefs?

You may as well can the whole institutionalized religion jargon, as you've just revealed your real prejudice. Not that it wasn't already known. It's just that you keep revealing it with your statements.

There should also be an independent council or tribunal in place to monitor the activities of churches and to investigate complaints such as intimidation and abuse. Traditionally, churches have been self-governing in this respect which has proven to be ineffective.
Placing an independent council within a church to monitor is a huge freedom of speech issue. You have no stepped into the waters of totalitarianism.

Preaching fear, guilt, hatred against minorities and outright lies is not freedom of speech and is stepping into the waters of vilification, intimidation, and libel.

One doesn't need an institution to teach their religious views. Again, it's not the institution you have a problem with. It's the message of the Bible. That's what you have a problem with. The idea of monitoring is beyond ridiculous. Again....

1. what would you expect a monitor to find at a typical church meeting that he would need to bring correction to?

2. If churches were monitored with successful results (according to your standards), what would the difference be in a typical church service?


We basically see this today in China. They could not control the house church (underground church), so they now have government run churches that monitor and control what is being preached.

There are thousands, perhaps millions of people attending churches every Sunday. The only abuse I hear about involves priests within the Catholic church. Are you basing your notion of abuse and the ineffectiveness of churches in general on the Catholic priest issue?

What you (choose to) hear and what goes on in churches may well be two different things. Praying for miracles and preaching the fear of eternal damnation (being saved) to vulnerable people (including all children) is outright abuse.

What I choose to hear? Do you think I get lost in some sort of subliminal translation?
Yes.

Then you think Christianity should be outlawed. Right?
No.
If you think all churches are giving an abusive message that needs to be monitored, what difference do you think would be made in terms of what would be spoken in the pulpit?

Whilst it is the business of the individual to believe what one wishes, I don't think that there is a place in modern, civilized society for institutions that set out to actively promote through fear and guilt, draconian ideas of elitism, discrimination and hatred towards others.
You claim it's the business of the individual to believe what they wish because we can't enforce a thought police.

And again, institutions are not necessary to actively promote Christianity. Most of it is probably done in the home. Should a monitor be placed in Christian homes?
No, but as with other forms of abuse of children in the home, authorities should be made aware of it and act accordingly.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 12:23:29 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Response: He's not a bigot. However, he is an atheist. Tomato (To-may-toe) Tomato (To-ma-toe).
Geogeer
Posts: 4,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 7:58:01 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 9:17:43 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/21/2016 3:56:02 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/19/2016 9:14:48 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/18/2016 3:43:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/18/2016 9:30:06 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/17/2016 4:47:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/17/2016 6:45:11 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Richard Dawkins holds onto his ideology strongly.

" One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Bigot

Does Richard Dawkins qualify as a bigot since he is intolerant of any religion other than his own?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Perhaps in a way. There certainly seems to be a similarity. His prejudice seems to focus on Abrahamic religion as the target.

To present a correlation, a bigot will use an example of a crime committed by someone of a race or ethnicity they oppose to paint brush that entire group as criminals. When some Muslim terrorists targeted the Twin Towers, Dawkins focused on Abrahamic religion as being the focus of the problem of religious war and terrorism, even though the act was committed by just one of the 3 religions within this group. And not only that, but a particular faction within that specific religion.

Dawkins has openly and rightly explained that he chooses Christianity as an example since that is the one faith that he has an in-depth knowledge of. He is articulate and accurate enough not to expound ideas on something he does not have a thorough knowledge on.

Then he's not qualified to make any comments at all on the subject of 911. He doesn't know enough about Islam or Judaism to discuss middle eastern religion to comment. In fact he's not qualified to discuss Christianity unless he's specifically referring to the Church Of England.

Thre is also nothing bigoted about an observation based on the facts that all three Abrahamic religions are continuously at each others' throats, forever spewing hatred at each other.
Atheists in communist countries are forever spewing hatred against the religious.

And brushing off this disgusting vitriol as being just the domain of particular factions is sheer arrogance.
Then we need to include atheists in the mix. One of the most active terrorist groups in Sri Lanka were Marxists. There have been a number of Marxist terrorist groups.


Hatred against others is endemic throughout all factions of religion.
If you think religion is responsible for hatred, why do you think religion should be tolerated?

Not for much longer I hope.
You're purposely avoiding the question. But it's being addressed on another thread. Not that you're not going to do the same thing there of course.

I think I have clarified my view. It is organised religion for which I have a distinct disliking. It uses religion and faith as a tool to push very unsavoury agenda.

Yeah, darn that concept of human rights, the basis of science and care for the poor. How disgusting.