Richard Dawkins, just miss understood

Just read these comments by the high priest of atheism

"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.''

Thoughtful and reflective, hmmm

I see Mr Dawkins as nasty and aggressive also very religious. I know this sounds like an attack it isnt meant like that.
Mr Dawkins works from a platform of total anti God. Claiming that teaching any spirituality constitutes child abuse, claiming that anybody who believes in creation is stupid.
Thats sad and I see him as a sad man. Accepting others opinions and beliefs is an important part of living in a society, weather we accept their beliefs or not.

Are my views of him skewed, is Mr Dawkins as bad as I perceive him or does anybody know a moderate side of atheisms spokesman not made public

My issue with Dawkins is his fundamental extremism, his attacks cause counter attacks and Christian extremism, just like Christian extremism arks up Dawkins and his kind.

The believers in Christ should see if their lives are a mirror of this man, just based on the opposite extreme

We should look for a balance

a reply to: borntowatch

My issue with Dawkins is his fundamental extremism, his attacks cause counter attacks and Christian extremism, just like Christian extremism arks up Dawkins and his kind. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Fundamental extremism? Dawkins? I think not. Why are Christians so threatened by Richard Dawkins? One must wonder?

originally posted by: borntowatch
Just read these comments by the high priest of atheism

"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.''

Thoughtful and reflective, hmmm

I see Mr Dawkins as nasty and aggressive also very religious. I know this sounds like an attack it isnt meant like that.
Mr Dawkins works from a platform of total anti God. Claiming that teaching any spirituality constitutes child abuse, claiming that anybody who believes in creation is stupid.
Thats sad and I see him as a sad man. Accepting others opinions and beliefs is an important part of living in a society, weather we accept their beliefs or not.

Are my views of him skewed, is Mr Dawkins as bad as I perceive him or does anybody know a moderate side of atheisms spokesman not made public

My issue with Dawkins is his fundamental extremism, his attacks cause counter attacks and Christian extremism, just like Christian extremism arks up Dawkins and his kind.

The believers in Christ should see if their lives are a mirror of this man, just based on the opposite extreme

We should look for a balance

As a big fan of Richard Dawkins, I completely disagree with almost everything you've stated here.

Can you show where he says teaching religion is akin to child abuse? Dawkins' attacks cause extremist responses from Christianity? You realize Christianity has been extreme for a couple of thousand years before Dawkins even existed?

Your diatribe here highlights exactly what Dawkins was stating - you and your ilk are the aggressive ones in the argument. Dawkins is always respectful, insightful, and intelligent.

God has a way of using the bad with the good to bring about His will for those He loves .Mr.Dawkins has been a help in pushing me to search out what and why I believe .I think us Christians can be a little lazy in our studies of our faith so a little push once in awhile is a good thing . a reply to: borntowatch

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: borntowatch

My issue with Dawkins is his fundamental extremism, his attacks cause counter attacks and Christian extremism, just like Christian extremism arks up Dawkins and his kind. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Fundamental extremism? Dawkins? I think not. Why are Christians so threatened by Richard Dawkins? One must wonder?

Threatened?
Is that a general comment or a comment aimed at me.
I am not threatened by this man, I feel as sorry for him as I would for an extremist Christian
Why are some Christians threatened, Dawkins hate speech, I guess this www.eskimo.com...

Mr Dawkins demands parents only teach his view., and yes I believe there are fundamentalist Christians who believe only evolution should be taught, that is wrong in my opinion.
That would be acting like Dawkins.

What would cause a person to be labelled a fundy Christian, what is wrong with assuming Dawkins isnt a fundy atheist?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

God has a way of using the bad with the good to bring about His will for those He loves - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well said. God created Atheists right? God is perfect right? Who are you to challenge that?

Instead of wasting life debating unprovable myths, prove Dawkins wrong with your actions. When you do, then comeback and tell everyone how right you are.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
Can you show where he says teaching religion is akin to child abuse? Dawkins' attacks cause extremist responses from Christianity? You realize Christianity has been extreme for a couple of thousand years before Dawkins even existed?

Dawkins has been responding to this in interviews and in writing for a while. Was going to sum up, but this quote explains good enough:

I assert that ‘teaching religion to children is child abuse’. That is false. I have never asserted anything of the kind. I have said that LABELLING children with the religion of their parents is child abuse. That is very different from teaching religion to children. As I said in The God Delusion, and as I repeated in my post above, I am IN FAVOUR of teaching comparative religion, and teaching the Bible as literature. What I am against is labelling a child a Catholic child, Muslim child etc. I am, of course, equally opposed to labeling a child an ‘atheist child’.

Source

Dawkins can come across as mocking and perhaps harsh, and the person is sometimes philosophically clumsy ... but being offended by this is a bit like being offended when you ask a Christian 'am I going to hell?' and they answer 'yes'.

Genuine question, what would balance actually look like?

a reply to: Pinke

The point was in asking the OP to validate his claim, which is not possible.

Dawkins is much more respectful toward the religious than the religious are toward atheists, generally speaking of course.

I find the OP's statement to be very hypocritical - it seems that this person is getting their information from a biased, pro-christian source, rather than reviewing these claims for his/herself.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus


As a big fan of Richard Dawkins, I completely disagree with almost everything you've stated here.

Can you show where he says teaching religion is akin to child abuse? Dawkins' attacks cause extremist responses from Christianity? You realize Christianity has been extreme for a couple of thousand years before Dawkins even existed?

Your diatribe here highlights exactly what Dawkins was stating - you and your ilk are the aggressive ones in the argument. Dawkins is always respectful, insightful, and intelligent.

silly me, I forgot the link

creation.com...

I hope that satisfies your curiosity and answers your question


and yes I realise Christianity has its extremists, but what faith, country, race, political view or sex doesnt.
Communism is a branch of atheism, just saying.

I neither feel the need to prove anybody right or wrong .I am on a Spiritual journey and one that requires belief weather I believe it or not . a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: TinkerHaus


As a big fan of Richard Dawkins, I completely disagree with almost everything you've stated here.

Can you show where he says teaching religion is akin to child abuse? Dawkins' attacks cause extremist responses from Christianity? You realize Christianity has been extreme for a couple of thousand years before Dawkins even existed?

Your diatribe here highlights exactly what Dawkins was stating - you and your ilk are the aggressive ones in the argument. Dawkins is always respectful, insightful, and intelligent.

silly me, I forgot the link

creation.com...

I hope that satisfies your curiosity and answers your question


and yes I realise Christianity has its extremists, but what faith, country, race, political view or sex doesnt.
Communism is a branch of atheism, just saying.

No - this doesn't answer anything. This is a biased, for-religion website who's goal is to slander Dawkins and other atheists in an attempt to make their audience so mad at this other school of thought that they will hate them and dismiss them offhand, without actually VIEWING/LISTENING TO THE WORDS THEMSELVES - which appears to have worked on you.

How about being a strong person and finding out for yourself, without relying on some agenda ridden website to tell you what to think?

The claims in this article have been taken out of context. If you were investigating an auto accident, would you just listen to one side and believe their interpretation of the event without consulting the other side?

a reply to: borntowatch

Threatened? Is that a general comment or a comment aimed at me.

Well, if the shoe fits........LOL

However, I was referring to the Christians who wrote the hate mail that Dawkins reads.

What would cause a person to be labelled a fundy Christian, what is wrong with assuming Dawkins isnt a fundy atheist? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Fundamentalist Christianity traditionally refers to specific sets of belief within the Christian rubric that hold to five "fundamentals," as put forth in the early 20th century. They are biblical literalists, though not all biblical literalists are fundamentalists. "Fundamentalist" has become a generalized term for anyone who is a biblical literalist, a creationist opposing Evolution, especially YEC also a Christian politician who emphasizes their religion.

1) Inerrancy of the Bible.
2) Literal truth of the bible.
3) The virgin birth and divinity of Jesus Christ. Fundamentalists hold this against encroaching materialism which denies the supernatural.
4) The doctrine of atonement through substitution, a Calvinist doctrinal innovation according to which Christ inserts his own perfect record, in place of ours, into the divine retributive mechanism. This fundamental is held in opposition to the early Church's "ransom" and "moral uplift" theories of atonement.
5) The bodily resurrection of Jesus and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ. This is a critical building block for Christian fundamentalist movements that deny responsibility for Global warming, since the end of the world is near.
rationalwiki.org...

So, please tell me, "What is fundamental atheism?

As far as religion equaling "child abuse", it sometimes can be.



Another child's death linked to Pearls and "To Train Up a Child"

The parents allegedly used a 15 inch length of plastic tubing used for plumbing to beat the children, a practice recommended in the book "To Train Up a Child" by Michael and Debi Pearl of "No Greater Joy Ministries."

originally posted by: Pinke

Genuine question, what would balance actually look like?

Answer
Just accepting that others have a different opinion and accepting them without being threatened

Real answer is a little harder to define. Working on being accepting, loving and genuine, at a guess, not being an extremist

originally posted by: borntowatch
Communism is a branch of atheism, just saying.

0/10

As usual your thread and the comments you make are completely vacuous.

I know you don't realise this, but you're causing your own downfall every time you post....

originally posted by: TinkerHaus


No - this doesn't answer anything. This is a biased, for-religion website who's goal is to slander Dawkins and other atheists in an attempt to make their audience so mad at this other school of thought that they will hate them and dismiss them offhand, without actually VIEWING/LISTENING TO THE WORDS THEMSELVES - which appears to have worked on you.

How about being a strong person and finding out for yourself, without relying on some agenda ridden website to tell you what to think?

The claims in this article have been taken out of context. If you were investigating an auto accident, would you just listen to one side and believe their interpretation of the event without consulting the other side?

You know what, you can google search it for yourself rather than wait on a reply you wont believe from me

How about you being a strong person and finding out for yourself

here is a tip, try searching this statement
Dawkins teaching religion is akin to child abuse

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Pinke

Genuine question, what would balance actually look like?

Answer
Just accepting that others have a different opinion and accepting them without being threatened

Real answer is a little harder to define. Working on being accepting, loving and genuine, at a guess, not being an extremist

But you have demonstrated in this thread that you are not accepting of people with differing beliefs than yourself. If you truly did accept these beliefs you wouldn't have written this thread in the first place.

a reply to: borntowatch

Communism is a branch of atheism, just saying.

The first Christians were Communists and so were the Essene, who proceeded them.

These men (the Essene) are despisers of riches, and so very communicative as raises our admiration. Nor is there any one to be found among them who hath more than another; for it is a law among them, that those who come to them must let what they have be common to the whole order, - insomuch that among them all there is no appearance of poverty, or excess of riches, but every one's possessions are intermingled with every other's possessions; and so there is, as it were, one patrimony among all the brethren.

Nor do they either buy or sell any thing to one another; but every one of them gives what he hath to him that wanteth it, and receives from him again in lieu of it what may be convenient for himself; and although there be no requital made, they are fully allowed to take what they want of whomsoever they please.
ancienthistory.about.com...

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: TinkerHaus


No - this doesn't answer anything. This is a biased, for-religion website who's goal is to slander Dawkins and other atheists in an attempt to make their audience so mad at this other school of thought that they will hate them and dismiss them offhand, without actually VIEWING/LISTENING TO THE WORDS THEMSELVES - which appears to have worked on you.

How about being a strong person and finding out for yourself, without relying on some agenda ridden website to tell you what to think?

The claims in this article have been taken out of context. If you were investigating an auto accident, would you just listen to one side and believe their interpretation of the event without consulting the other side?

You know what, you can google search it for yourself rather than wait on a reply you wont believe from me

How about you being a strong person and finding out for yourself

here is a tip, try searching this statement
Dawkins teaching religion is akin to child abuse

Again, you prove my point. You don't even know what Dawkins actually said, do you?

Let me enlighten you.

"[I]sn’t it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about? Yet the practice continues to this day, almost entirely unquestioned."

Let me paraphrase, because I realize this statement might be difficult to understand and misinterpreted, as we see by the zealots trying to discredit Dawkins without actually responding to the charge.. Dawkins is saying it's child abuse to remove a child's choice and brand them, almost like you would brand cattle, with some religious affiliation that they are too young to even comprehend.

I find it humorous you try to insult me by saying I'm too dense to research the issue when you are so obviously guilty of exactly that.

So, now that you have been spoonfed the actual statement that is being twisted and LIED about (pretty unchristian, no?) do you have anything intelligent to say?

a reply to: borntowatch

I see Mr Dawkins as nasty and aggressive also very religious. I know this sounds like an attack it isnt meant like that.

I agree he is aggressively pushing his beliefs non-belief... I also find the second part of this statement very ironic!!!


Peace Born!!!

Furthermore:

"A good case can indeed be made for the educational benefits of teaching comparative religion…Let children learn about different faiths, let them notice their incompatibility, and let them draw their own conclusions about the consequences of that incompatibility. As for whether any are ‘valid’, let them make up their own minds when they are old enough to do so."

--Richard Dawkins


Does this really sound like the evil and horrible person you are trying to represent?


Perhaps in the view of Christianity at large, modern literature is just as open to a variety of incompatible interpretations as the Bible is?