Dawkins and Christianity

[mordant]

When it is posted at us, or to generalize us, it feels accusatory. It feels like "See? See???? Look at what your people are doing!!"

Sometimes it IS accusatory but in reality it's fair game because Christianity claims to have a superior morality.

Also I think this quote of Dawkins in the link referenced in the OP is very relevant:

"I seem to be perceived as aggressive and strident and I don't actually think I am strident and aggressive. What I think is that we have all become so accustomed to seeing religion ring-fenced by a wall of special protection that when someone delivers even a mild criticism of religion, it's heard as aggressive when it isn't. I like to think I'm more thoughtful and reflective," he said.

I would add as a former evangelical that evangelical culture (especially midwestern and Bible Belt) is very much "make nice -- if you don't have something 'nice' to say, don't say anything at all". In other words, there's TREMENDOUS social reinforcement for faux gentility where NO ONE, not even a fellow Christian, feels anything but guilt for calling out bullshit. The result is that bullshit abounds and the shame people SHOULD have for promulgating bullshit is instead felt for opposing it. And it makes sense that things have evolved this way, because the failed epistemology of religious faith DEPENDS on bullshit for its very survival. So agency inference, confirmation bias, ad hominem, ad populum, and similar things must not be debunked or disrespected, at least not in the service of apologetics.

Stephen Fry once said something to the effect that the religious effect to be "offended" as if it gives them some special rights. "You're offended -- so fucking what?"

It took me the better part of two decades to overcome my operant conditioning to avoid offending others merely because they FEEL offended -- even if all I'm doing is stating simple impersonal facts.

Oh what a tangled web we weave ...

[GUBU]

I forgot to mention that I really do not have a problem with a crucifix being displayed at ground zero, as long as it was not purchased by tax dollars.  

Just because it offends some people does not warrant its removal.  That is a slippery slope.

I do because placing such a symbol privileges some of the victims over others. It says that the christians wo died at the Twin Towers on 11/9/01 are more worthy of those with other faiths or none.

[GUBU]

Have you an actual quote of Dawkins saying that? Or just links to anonymous christard propoganda? Well actually it's both, because you follow the link from your link, it links to breitbart which links to an obscure seven year old blog post quoting something which it purports to be Dawkins, and then compounding it by saying it says x when it says y, a blog post which also was trying to say that gay people were trying to join the EDL which hates gays more than it does muslims. Yeah, your link is a pile of lying shit. Not surprising given you're posting it.

Given that Dawkins considers christianity as big a threat as islam is to the world, I am very confident that this is about as truthful as Lady Hope lying about converting Darwin on his deathbed.

 Why do you question what is your tactics with the Bible, you go to biased sights to get your info against the Bible and parade it around as the truth. And then there's this by two others "OUT of CONTEXT," really, tell me you didn't mean it, you accuse Christians of saying this and then you turn around and say the same thing, so that you know that's called a double standard. You guys need to get real and accept your does of medicine.

GC

That's not what I did scum-bucket, and you know it. Frankly I bet the real reason for your new account wasn't that you lost access but you wanted to ditch your well deserved reputation for misreprentating others.

What I actually showed was that the Dawkins "quote" was from an anonymous blogger and, at best, unattributable. Most likely (to at least seventh sigma) it was a bare faced lie. And then I went on to say that even if a true quote it doesn't say what you lying shitbag christards make out it says.

So stuff your special pleading and attempts to denigrate me you little piece of shit.

[Cecelia]

Not a fan of Dawkins.

Christianity is a poor defense against radical Islam. In fact there might not be a poorer defense other than, maybe, prayer.

[rjh4 is back]

 Why do you question what is your tactics with the Bible, you go to biased sights to get your info against the Bible and parade it around as the truth. And then there's this by two others "OUT of CONTEXT," really, tell me you didn't mean it, you accuse Christians of saying this and then you turn around and say the same thing, so that you know that's called a double standard. You guys need to get real and accept your does of medicine.

GC

That's not what I did scum-bucket, and you know it. Frankly I bet the real reason for your new account wasn't that you lost access but you wanted to ditch your well deserved reputation for misreprentating others.

What I actually showed was that the Dawkins "quote" was from an anonymous blogger and, at best, unattributable. Most likely (to at least seventh sigma) it was a bare faced lie. And then I went on to say that even if a true quote it doesn't say what you lying shitbag christards make out it says.

So stuff your special pleading and attempts to denigrate me you little piece of shit.

Tazzycorn,

Maybe I missed something, but I think you might be mixing me and GC together. I posted the article. I don't have a problem with the criticisms given as I think they are fair, i.e., it is not clear what, if anything, Dawkins really said.  And, I just wasn't trying to make it out to say anything, I wanted to know people's opinion regarding it.

It was GC that objected to your post. So it seems like your first sentence is to GC.

But the second seems to be at me as it was me that recently got the new account and had the old merged therewith. That being said, I wonder whether the "well deserved reputation for misrepresenting others" was supposed to be for me or GC.  If me, could you explain what you are talking about, i.e., where do you get that I have a reputation for misrepresenting others?

The rest clearly is directed to GC, not me.

[GUBU]

Tazzycorn,

Maybe I missed something, but I think you might be mixing me and GC together. I posted the article. I don't have a problem with the criticisms given as I think they are fair, i.e., it is not clear what, if anything, Dawkins really said.  And, I just wasn't trying to make it out to say anything, I wanted to know people's opinion regarding it.

It was GC that objected to your post. So it seems like your first sentence is to GC.

But the second seems to be at me as it was me that recently got the new account and had the old merged therewith. That being said, I wonder whether the "well deserved reputation for misrepresenting others" was supposed to be for me or GC.  If me, could you explain what you are talking about, i.e., where do you get that I have a reputation for misrepresenting others?

The rest clearly is directed to GC, not me.

No when I responded to god's shitter's diarrhea, I meant to give him a spanking.

Your another flavour of liar for jebus.

[Godscreated]

---

 Why do you question what is your tactics with the Bible, you go to biased sights to get your info against the Bible and parade it around as the truth. And then there's this by two others "OUT of CONTEXT," really, tell me you didn't mean it, you accuse Christians of saying this and then you turn around and say the same thing, so that you know that's called a double standard. You guys need to get real and accept your does of medicine.

GC

---

That's not what I did scum-bucket, and you know it. Frankly I bet the real reason for your new account wasn't that you lost access but you wanted to ditch your well deserved reputation for misreprentating others.

What I actually showed was that the Dawkins "quote" was from an anonymous blogger and, at best, unattributable. Most likely (to at least seventh sigma) it was a bare faced lie. And then I went on to say that even if a true quote it doesn't say what you lying shitbag christards make out it says.

So stuff your special pleading and attempts to denigrate me you little piece of shit.

 First of all I did lose my ability to access my account and it was probably the spam blocker that was set up that caused it. Second i do not have do do a thing to denigrate you, you do that well enough with the hate and language you fling around at Christians.

GC