Richard Dawkins Is An Idiot...

...and his "followers" are even worse. Consider the following clip:

Here we have Dawkins, the Atheist High Priest, admitting his own ignorance of Buddhism before proceeding to make sarcastic remarks about it. "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'll throw out cheap insults anyway."

And his retarded audience eats it up. "Yaaaay! He made a Buddhist pun!" Are atheists really so driven by their hatred of anything spiritual that they're willing to sacrifice their own logical integrity (something they claim is fundamental to their belief system) in their attempts to crap all over it?

Any ATS atheists want to defend their Master on this one? He's exposing himself for the ignorant jerk that he is.

NthOther
...and his "followers" are even worse.

Are atheists really so driven by their hatred of anything spiritual that they're willing to sacrifice their own logical integrity (something they claim is fundamental to their belief system) in their attempts to crap all over it?

Any ATS atheists want to defend their Master on this one? He's exposing himself for the ignorant jerk that he is.

First off he's no one's master, the "master stuff" falls into you religious folks area of expertise.

Hatred? Do you really think atheists hate you? I sure don't, we don't even know you very well. However calling people "ignorant jerks" is sure to not win you much sympathy around here.

What happened to love each other? Showing your faith by example? This post told us more about you and your faith than it did Richard Dawkins.

reply to post by NthOther


Um, admitting that he doesn't know a lot about Buddhism doesn't make him an idiot. I'd wager he's a lot smarter than you, OP.

Dawkins is a straight up materialist, he doesn't believe in any sort of supernatural, metaphysical stuff. I'm totally fine with that. I do think he's missing out on a very awesome dimension of reality, but it's his right to choose what he will and will not experience in his lifetime.

well he has his own agenda and spreads and discusses his own beliefs.
but the majority of atheists could really give a crap about him.

most atheists dont need or want representation. thats 1 step away from organized religion or a deity; the evils that atheistic beliefs (or lack of) tend to not follow.
kind of against the entire point lol

reply to post by NthOther


I'm an atheist but I've never heard of the guy.

If you wish to believe in a god then that's your right, I couldn't care less. Why is it the religious people always try to "spread the word"? Why do you care if I, or anybody else, believes in your god? Does it make him or her more powerful if he or she has more followers or does it just make you feel better if you think you're right?

Why are you so angry at people who don't share your beliefs?

Bassago
What happened to love each other? Showing your faith by example? This post told us more about you and your faith than it did Richard Dawkins.

And what faith might that be? Just because I'm not an atheist doesn't mean I adhere to the tenets of any particular religion. I'm simply pointing out that the Grand Poobah of Atheism doesn't let his own ignorance stop him from making snide comments.

And yes, that makes him an incredible jerk.

reply to post by NthOther


Do you read what you type before you post?

You are a huge hypocrite.

NthOther

Bassago
What happened to love each other? Showing your faith by example? This post told us more about you and your faith than it did Richard Dawkins.

And what faith might that be? Just because I'm not an atheist doesn't mean I adhere to the tenets of any particular religion. I'm simply pointing out that the Grand Poobah of Atheism doesn't let his own ignorance stop him from making snide comments.

And yes, that makes him an incredible jerk.

He's not even making snide remarks.

I thought he was being quite respectful towards Buddhism.

reply to post by NthOther


Uh, no. Richard Dawkins is not the high priest of atheism or the master of all atheists. He is a famous atheist, scientist and author who gets a lot of press -- in no small part by saying provocative things. There are a lot of atheists, in particular feminists (and in real particular, female feminists) who have big problems with him.

See, unlike in organized religions, the philosophy of atheism has no established authority. Joseph Stalin was also an atheist, yet most atheists didn't accept him as their spiritual/philosophical leader either.

But the OP outright lies about the content. Dawkins says he doesn't know a lot about Buddhism and then makes a pun about it being likely that he could be enlightened about it (in Buddhism, one strives for enlightenment), and the crowd gently laughs at this joke. So what? He didn't say anything offensive about Buddhism, and the crowd wasn't roaring over some anti-religion raw-meat remark being thrown to it. The OP called Dawkins an idiot, so I think that I would be quite justified in calling the OP the same for making such a fallacious claim about this video segment, but I won't. Rather I will just let any and all viewers of this thread judge for themselves by viewing the video and then reading what the OP has to say about it.


However, I could give any number of instances of Christians, Jews, Muslisms, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. saying and/or doing some crazy and/or offensive things, but that doesn't mean all religionists believe and do the same. HOWEVER, most religions do have hierarchies and official tenets, and some of these leaders say some crazy things, and some of the religions have some crazy tenets. And they often speak very ill of non-believers and even people of other religious faiths. Heck, in case you weren't aware Catholics and protestants have had a long history of killing each other and talking smack about each other's religion and culture.

NthOther
Here we have Dawkins, the Atheist High Priest,
...and his "followers"
atheists want to defend their Master

Actually that says a lot more about religion that it does of Dawkins.
In my experience, religious people are so caught up in the idea of "leaders" and "followers" and "scriptures" that they cant fully comprehend of the idea of NOT having a leader.
So they assume that athiests must have one.

Its also the reasons that creationists spend some much time, indeed any time at all, trying to destroy Charles Darwin and everything he wrote, in the mistaken belief that, like their own religion, it would somehow matter if a "holy book" or "prophet" was destroyed.

No, sorry religious people, it doesnt work like that.

MrInquisitive

Uh, no. Richard Dawkins is not the high priest of atheism or the master of all atheists.

Well he certainly seems to think so...

reply to post by NthOther


This is funny, a lot of Eastern religions are based on reality. For example, Confucianism is basically just a bunch of advice about how to get along in life and with other people. Buddhism is about being happy with who you really are, and not being distracted by materialism and power -

Eastern religions are different than Western ones, because while Western ones make things up, Eastern ones observe and report.

It would be a mistake to have an Atheist culture without having some kind of guidelines for people to have a happy life. It could be way too easy to get into rampant power, materialism and sex without substance and soul.

Besides, religion is culture, humans are cultural by nature.

I'm not going to attack Atheism however - it has its benefits as well.

The reality is, our world is a polytheistic one.

reply to post by NthOther


Dawkins: "There are many different branches of Buddhism, and some are not so much religions as ways of life."

Okay he does get it.

reply to post by NthOther


You don't need an article...just the headline is truth enough

*sigh* Oh look another religious person claiming Atheism is a religion....
Iam not an atheist but Iam not religious at all, Religion is a curse on humanity and I think that the religious are holding us all back as a specie (just reading threads on ATS prove that).
Hawkin is an idiot? what does that make you OP a single cell organism?

NthOther
...and his "followers" are even worse. Consider the following clip:

Here we have Dawkins, the Atheist High Priest, admitting his own ignorance of Buddhism before proceeding to make sarcastic remarks about it. "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'll throw out cheap insults anyway."

And his retarded audience eats it up. "Yaaaay! He made a Buddhist pun!" Are atheists really so driven by their hatred of anything spiritual that they're willing to sacrifice their own logical integrity (something they claim is fundamental to their belief system) in their attempts to crap all over it?

Any ATS atheists want to defend their Master on this one? He's exposing himself for the ignorant jerk that he is.

Not surprised you only got 1 star for this ignorant post.

Richard Dawkins talks a lot more sense than your God, no wait. No one has ever heard a God talk..

I'm not sure Dawkin's has many followers left, he is, in my humble athiest opinion, the very worst spokesman athiesm could possibly have.

reply to post by NthOther


He's a man who spends his life fighting against something that he says doesn't exist. Doesn't sound too bright from the start, to me.

incoserv
reply to post by NthOther

 

He's a man who spends his life fighting against something that he says doesn't exist. Doesn't sound too bright from the start, to me.

He's not fighting against religion itself, he's fighting against the fact that too many people believe in something that 'he believes' doesn't exist. There's a difference.

1 - I never heard of this fella before. Or if I have ... I"ve forgotten.

2 - I think he nailed it. He said he doesn't know much about buddhism. He said there are different types of buddhism. He said that some of them do not believe in the supernatural. So I think he got it all right.