Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:17 AM Mar 2013

For the real cowards, the best of Dawkins.

You sure are showing the rest of us what courage really means when you call a man who isn't afraid to put it out there by calling him a coward while posting anonymously. You should be real proud.

104 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
For the real cowards, the best of Dawkins. (Original Post) cleanhippie Mar 2013 OP
AMEN! He's gone front and center on the world stage! backscatter712 Mar 2013 #1
When I see so-called "rational" people here on DU calling him a coward... cleanhippie Mar 2013 #2
Oh, he is not a coward Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #3
Says the anonymous poster skepticscott Mar 2013 #4
I notice that you have not published your real name Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #7
I noticed that the atheists did not take up my challenge to post their real names Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #35
Maybe it's because skepticscott Mar 2013 #41
In other words, you challenged me to post my real name Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #44
What a stupid fucking post. Zoeisright Mar 2013 #84
Translation: Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #96
Your accusations of bigotry are based on lies skepticscott Mar 2013 #100
Post removed Post removed Mar 2013 #101
Here's the fallacy skepticscott Mar 2013 #102
Post removed Post removed Mar 2013 #104
Project much? cleanhippie Mar 2013 #5
I do not see him as a bigot but as intelligent advocate of atheism. hrmjustin Mar 2013 #6
He is not an "intelligent critic of religion" Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #8
You make fair points. hrmjustin Mar 2013 #9
He does not make fair points at all. cleanhippie Mar 2013 #12
Debate him and tell him where he is wrong. hrmjustin Mar 2013 #13
Debating him is like debating Ken Ham or Ray Comfort. cleanhippie Mar 2013 #14
Have you debated him before. hrmjustin Mar 2013 #15
I've tried. As have others. cleanhippie Mar 2013 #16
I do debate with others. Have I never not been polite to you. hrmjustin Mar 2013 #17
Perhaps I am just being defensive... cleanhippie Mar 2013 #18
Cleanhippie I never wanted to make you an enemy. hrmjustin Mar 2013 #19
I'm not your enemy. cleanhippie Mar 2013 #20
Glad to hear it. hrmjustin Mar 2013 #21
He won't debate me, because he knows that he is supporting ignorant bigotry Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #45
Citation needed... backscatter712 Mar 2013 #49
Please note, he didn't explain why he thinks Dawkins is a bigot. trotsky Mar 2013 #26
I thought that repeatedly quoting Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #50
Except that wasn't a quote from Dawkins...you made it up skepticscott Mar 2013 #57
Link to where Dawkins says those exact words. Go ahead. Do it. trotsky Mar 2013 #58
While your "quote" is not exactly the words of Richard Dawkins it is the essential point he makes Leontius Mar 2013 #61
In other words, you're acknowledging that skepticscott Mar 2013 #64
Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may Leontius Mar 2013 #67
In other words, you're acknowledging that skepticscott Mar 2013 #68
Post removed Post removed Mar 2013 #10
+1 cleanhippie Mar 2013 #11
You're creating a strawman. backscatter712 Mar 2013 #22
Such hatred and intolerance is rooted in ignorance. Were he to actually READ Dawkins... cleanhippie Mar 2013 #23
Reading might not be a problem... rexcat Mar 2013 #31
I have read them Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #46
Then you should be able to cite passages you find "bigoted" or "ignorant." n/t backscatter712 Mar 2013 #47
I'm hearing chirping crickets... n/t backscatter712 Mar 2013 #62
I suppose I get to do my debating opponents' work for them. backscatter712 Mar 2013 #69
You're assurance that you "know" that convinces everyone, I'm sure skepticscott Mar 2013 #70
What makes him a bigot? hrmjustin Mar 2013 #27
Tell me how "raising a child to be Catholic is worse than child abuse" is not a bigoted statement Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #33
You were challenged before skepticscott Mar 2013 #39
Do you have your copy of The God Delusion? Common Sense Party Mar 2013 #53
Nothing on Page 356 shows Dawkins saying skepticscott Mar 2013 #55
I don't need to try again. Common Sense Party Mar 2013 #60
Then they cite the wrong page, and still not the quote that was claimed skepticscott Mar 2013 #65
That was clearly the quote that was claimed. Common Sense Party Mar 2013 #73
Lame...A quote is..duh...a QUOTE skepticscott Mar 2013 #74
Good grief. Common Sense Party Mar 2013 #75
Nice dodge...but more horseshit skepticscott Mar 2013 #76
hah! EvilAL Mar 2013 #40
Still waiting for you to prove skepticscott Mar 2013 #42
Do you not have Google on your computer? Common Sense Party Mar 2013 #54
I didn't make the claim that Dawkins said skepticscott Mar 2013 #56
I see. You have no interest in the truth. Common Sense Party Mar 2013 #59
You have the book...cite me the page..you lied about it once skepticscott Mar 2013 #63
Still waiting skepticscott Mar 2013 #48
Still waiting for you to link to that quote skepticscott Mar 2013 #66
We have to do their work for them. backscatter712 Mar 2013 #71
He certainly made no unequivocal statements of the type skepticscott Mar 2013 #72
True - he was talking about a specific case, not making a broad-brush statement. n/t backscatter712 Mar 2013 #77
I guess when you're preaching to the choir truth doesn't matter regardless of what church you're in Leontius Mar 2013 #90
Wow...you thought all that time skepticscott Mar 2013 #91
If you threaten your child with hell Gore1FL Mar 2013 #80
Explain how emotionally traumatizing a child with threats of hell isn't abusive. backscatter712 Mar 2013 #87
Still waiting for you to prove skepticscott Mar 2013 #88
Still waiting for you to link to that quote skepticscott Mar 2013 #97
He said "is a form of," not "is worse than." And I do support Richard Dawkins. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2013 #98
You won't get an answer skepticscott Mar 2013 #99
Evolutionary scientists can show unequivocally skepticscott Mar 2013 #28
Look up the definition of the word "faith" Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #32
If you could point out where I "lied" skepticscott Mar 2013 #38
Post removed Post removed Mar 2013 #103
Why have faith in a randomly chosen story? Gore1FL Mar 2013 #81
I don't krhines Mar 2013 #78
If by "ignorant bigot" Gore1FL Mar 2013 #79
Seems like all the god-believers can do is.. nonoyes Mar 2013 #24
Your observation seems spot-on. In fact, we can all observe that right in this thread. cleanhippie Mar 2013 #25
There are some, rexcat Mar 2013 #29
There are a lot of atheists who truly hate believers Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2013 #34
That is only an opinion based on no facts... rexcat Mar 2013 #36
Of course, you have no evidence or facts, just like your nonoyes Mar 2013 #37
man oh man is the dude a crashing boor. i tried to watch this, but frankly chewing gum struggle4progress Mar 2013 #30
Well, few can match your unfathomable spiritual depth... Silent3 Mar 2013 #85
Reading Comprehension Strategies struggle4progress Mar 2013 #86
Perhaps the brave Dawkins will offer an explanation as to why when Leontius Mar 2013 #43
Here is the video in full context. Feel foolish yet? Gore1FL Mar 2013 #82
Why should I ? Leontius Mar 2013 #89
You misrepresented his statement in context. I demonstrated you were wrong with the actual video. Gore1FL Mar 2013 #92
There was no change to his statement by any supposed "context" you claim shown by the video Leontius Mar 2013 #93
Did you even look at the video? Gore1FL Mar 2013 #94
nah just parroting a talking point. Phillip McCleod Mar 2013 #95
Hitchens was far more entertaining and humorous. Manifestor_of_Light Mar 2013 #51
I miss his Hitchslaps! n/t backscatter712 Mar 2013 #83
Dawkins has made some smart points and I think debate of religion is really important. napoleon_in_rags Mar 2013 #52

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
1. AMEN! He's gone front and center on the world stage!
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:34 AM
Mar 2013

He gets this kind of response from religious people all the time:

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
2. When I see so-called "rational" people here on DU calling him a coward...
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:36 AM
Mar 2013

I know he is doing it right. Not only does it mean his point is getting across, it is exposing the real cowards and bigots.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
7. I notice that you have not published your real name
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 01:16 PM
Mar 2013

OK, here is mine, and my e-mail address

John Hobson

hobson.john@rocketmail.com

Now, what are your real names?

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
35. I noticed that the atheists did not take up my challenge to post their real names
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:35 PM
Mar 2013

Perhaps it is because of cowardice.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
41. Maybe it's because
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:34 PM
Mar 2013

You seem potentially unsafe. But we are glad to know who you are...or at least who you say you are.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
44. In other words, you challenged me to post my real name
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:17 AM
Mar 2013

otherwise, you would say that I was a coward. So I did post my name and e-mail address and challenged you to do the same. You refuse to do so, because you are too cowardly. Why am I not surprised that, as well as supporting bigotry, you support cowardice as well.

Zoeisright

(8,339 posts)
84. What a stupid fucking post.
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 01:10 AM
Mar 2013

There is absolutely no proof that's your real name, big man. And if you are posting your real name on a divisive chat board, you are an idiot.

But that's already been proven. If you think Dawkins is a bigoted idiot, you do not know the meaning of bigoted or idiot.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
96. Translation:
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 12:02 PM
Mar 2013

I'm a coward if I do not post my real name, and I'm a fool if I do. Well, that shows the level of discourse you go in for: Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I should just leave you to your ignorant, hate-filled bigotry. That is what many of the DU atheists do best.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
100. Your accusations of bigotry are based on lies
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:31 PM
Mar 2013

But I'm sure you'll keep flinging them like poo, and never even acknowledge that you lied through your teeth, out your ass, and every other way. But you know what? It doesn't matter, because even the most hardcore apologists here know that now, and if they forget, this thread will be recalled to remind them.

Response to skepticscott (Reply #100)

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
102. Here's the fallacy
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 12:21 PM
Mar 2013

Claiming that the quote "raising a child to be Catholic is worse than child abuse" makes Richard Dawkins a bigot, and by extension, everyone who's ever supported him in any way a bigot too (as you did in post 33 and elsewhere), when HE NEVER SAID THAT!

You've been given every opportunity to prove he actually said that, and you've failed miserably. But the accusations of bigotry keep coming, based on what everyone knows are lies. Pathetic

Response to skepticscott (Reply #102)

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
6. I do not see him as a bigot but as intelligent advocate of atheism.
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 01:02 PM
Mar 2013

I don't agree at all with him, but I think him to be intelligent and not a coward at all. He gets death threats all the time and still speaks his mind.

Can you explain how you see him a bigot?

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
8. He is not an "intelligent critic of religion"
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:19 PM
Mar 2013

He says that he does not need to know anything about religion to criticize it, with statements such as"Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?" However, he also slams creationists for their ignorance of evolutionary theory, saying -- quite correctly -- that they are not attacking evolution as it actually is, but rather a caricature. Do you see the disconnect here? Basically, he is saying that creationist ignorance is bad, his ignorance of theology is good. (The formal rhetorical term is "special pleading".) Also, to equate God with leprechauns shows his tendency to attack a caricature of religion.

He has said "It has become almost a cliche to remark that nobody boasts of ignorance of literature, but it is socially acceptable to boast ignorance of science and proudly claim incompetence in mathematics." But he proudly proclaims his ignorance of religion.

It has been pointed out that, for a man who damns dogma, he is incredibly dogmatic.

No, the man is ignorant (and proud of it) and a bigot.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
9. You make fair points.
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:30 PM
Mar 2013

By the way I was surprised that you put your name out there. I think they think you are the incarnation of another poster that is no longer here. I doubt they expected you to put your name out. I would not leave that out there that much longer, but that is up to you.

I debate atheist fairly often and I enjoy it. As long as the both of us respects each other's view it usually goes well. Sometimes Dawkins does not show respect for believers, but that sometimes goes the other way as well.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
14. Debating him is like debating Ken Ham or Ray Comfort.
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:23 PM
Mar 2013

It's the same old, tired, apologetic bullshit that has already been "debated" millions of times and found lacking in every single case.

If he ever has anything intelligent or new to talk about, I'm open to considering that. Until then, it would be more productive to pick the lint from my bellybutton. And my bellybutton would provide a more stimulating experience.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
15. Have you debated him before.
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:28 PM
Mar 2013

Perhaps if you put your energy into debating him instead of insulting him you might get something from it.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
18. Perhaps I am just being defensive...
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:38 PM
Mar 2013

but your "politeness" often smacks of condescension and sarcasm. (of which I am not immune from doing either).

But I see your point.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
26. Please note, he didn't explain why he thinks Dawkins is a bigot.
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 09:26 PM
Mar 2013

You should probably challenge him on that.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
50. I thought that repeatedly quoting
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:19 PM
Mar 2013

"raising a child to be Catholic is worse than child abuse" was enough of an explanation. I suppose that those who support Dawkin's bigotry would not see it as a bigoted remark. People who live in the real world would disagree.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
57. Except that wasn't a quote from Dawkins...you made it up
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 08:11 PM
Mar 2013

You've been challenged to prove that he said that, and you can't. So your "explanation" is just more lying. But I guess that breaking a Commandment is no big deal when you're in the Army of God, fighting the Forces of Evil.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
58. Link to where Dawkins says those exact words. Go ahead. Do it.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 08:53 PM
Mar 2013

When I paste your exact "quote" into Google, all I get is your posts on DU. Isn't that odd? You'd think if Dawkins said that, somewhere out on the vast Internet that quote would come up attributed to him. But it doesn't. Only you said those words.

Quit making up bullshit. You're making up a bogus quote and viciously attacking someone for it. For shame. Does your church condone this behavior? Considering your foul and belligerent antics, if the quote WERE an actual quote of Dawkins, you might just be in the process of proving it true. I certainly don't see honesty or tolerance in your posts. Just dishonesty and hatred.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
61. While your "quote" is not exactly the words of Richard Dawkins it is the essential point he makes
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 09:32 PM
Mar 2013

in an op ed in ' Free Inquiry' vol. 22, no.4, pg. 9 entitled "Religion's real child abuse".

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
64. In other words, you're acknowledging that
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:00 PM
Mar 2013

Fortinbras Armstrong lied and made up a false quote. Why don't you give us the EXACT quote, in context, instead of made up fibs, and then we can discuss its accuracy.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
67. Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:12 PM
Mar 2013

do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of having been brought up Catholic in the first place.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
68. In other words, you're acknowledging that
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:14 PM
Mar 2013

Fortinbras Armstrong LIED and made up a false quote, and phony accusations of "bigotry" to go with it. Go on...admit it...everyone but you and he already knows it.


And since you decline to provide context, I will:

"But if your whole upbringing, and everything you have ever been told by parents, teachers and priests, has led you to believe, really believe, utterly and completely, that sinners burn in hell (or some other obnoxious article of doctrine, such as that a woman is the property of her husband), it is entirely plausible that words could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds."

True or false? Prove that this is "bigotry".

Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #8)

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
22. You're creating a strawman.
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:44 PM
Mar 2013

Perhaps you could try reading his books, especially The God Delusion, before bashing...

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
23. Such hatred and intolerance is rooted in ignorance. Were he to actually READ Dawkins...
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:47 PM
Mar 2013

how could such hatred and intolerance be internally justified?

We are seeing the one thing worse than ignorance; willful ignorance.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
46. I have read them
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:22 AM
Mar 2013

Indeed, my copies of The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker are less than ten feet from where I am sitting.

And it is on the basis of my having read Dawkins that I know that he is ignorant of religion and is a bigot.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
69. I suppose I get to do my debating opponents' work for them.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:21 PM
Mar 2013

So let me throw this out there. Dawkins did indeed say that being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse in a specific case.

Source:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251963/Being-raised-Catholic-worse-child-abuse-Latest-incendiary-claim-atheist-professor-Richard-Dawkins.html

Aaaaand, I'm gonna put a big target on my back and say that in the particular case he was talking about, HE'S RIGHT!

Why?

Because the doctrines taught to children by the priesthood and others working for the RCC constitute a form of emotional abuse. This abuse has left psychological scars in countless people that last a lifetime.

From the Daily Mail article:

In typically incendiary style, Professor Dawkins said the mental torment inflicted by the religion’s teachings is worse in the long-term than any sexual abuse carried out by priests.

He said he had been told by a woman that while being abused by a priest was a ‘yucky’ experience, being told as a child that a Protestant friend who died would ‘roast in Hell’ was more distressing.


Dawkins addresses what he said in his own article:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2012/12/22/physical-versus-mental-child-abuse

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience (composed, admittedly, of Dublin intellectuals and presumably not representative of the country at large). But I was reminded of the incident later when I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents’ church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst. She wrote

"Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as ‘yucky’ while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest – but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares."


Many Christian teachings (and not just Catholic teachings) are highly emotionally abusive, especially when taught to children. And when children are immersed in such emotional abuse for years of their lives, the results can be devastating.

The whole concept of Hell, as commonly used to scare children into compliance, is fucking despicable. As is the concept of original sin - like I said in other threads, the concept REQUIRES Christians that adhere to it to have no self-esteem. They MUST believe that they are evil, unworthy, deserving of death, and completely irredeemable. The only esteem allowed to them is that which is granted to them by religious figures.

Then in my other thread, there's the teachings of the Good News Clubs (yes, I know, different flavor of Christianity, but in most cases, only a slightly different take from the Catholic version). And they're also extremely psychologically abusive towards the children they teach. Kids are repeatedly taught about Hell, to scare them, taught that they are horrible people, taught that only Jesus can save them, and that they can't do anything good enough by themselves. They're taught that they must absolutely OBEY the orders from religious figures, even if they're orders to commit genocide (Israel vs the Amalekites, 1 Sam 15.) They're taught misogyny and homophobia. Girls are taught that they must submit to males. Homosexuality is to be regarded as disgusting and sinful.

From the other thread, I mentioned Erik Cernyar, the attorney who was onstage with Richard Dawkins. There's a reason why he's fighting hard against the Good News Clubs. He attended a Good News Club when he was a kid, and he was threatened with Hell, and he was taught the "you are evil scum" lessons. He said onstage that later in his life, he attempted suicide because of mental anguish caused by those teachings.

He attempted suicide. Thankfully, he did not succeed.

How can I put it more plainly? The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, and other Christian churches, are emotionally abusive, and cause serious psychological damage to children.

They kill.

I rest my case.
 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
70. You're assurance that you "know" that convinces everyone, I'm sure
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:30 PM
Mar 2013

but if it's so unquestionable that he's a bigot, why do you have to lie about what he's said to prove it?

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
33. Tell me how "raising a child to be Catholic is worse than child abuse" is not a bigoted statement
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:30 PM
Mar 2013

Be specific.

No, he is a bigot, and all of his supporters are supporting his bigotry.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
39. You were challenged before
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 01:53 PM
Mar 2013

to link to where Dawkins said those exact words, and you couldn't. Why don't you do it now, and then we can discuss your accusation. Until then, your claim doesn't get over the hurdle of made up horseshit.

Common Sense Party

(14,139 posts)
53. Do you have your copy of The God Delusion?
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:39 PM
Mar 2013

Of course you do. Under your pillow at night.

Please turn to page 356.

Please find where Mr. Dawkins discusses a lecture in Dublin.

We'll wait.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
55. Nothing on Page 356 shows Dawkins saying
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 08:00 PM
Mar 2013

"raising a child to be Catholic is worse than child abuse"

Or says anything about a lecture in Dublin.

Try again...or just keep lying like our friend.

Common Sense Party

(14,139 posts)
60. I don't need to try again.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 09:11 PM
Mar 2013

The God Delusion - Page 356 - Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?isbn=0547348665
Richard Dawkins - 2008 - Religion
... horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in ...

http://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Horrible+as+sexual+abuse+no+doubt+was%2C+the+damage+was+arguably+less+than+the+long-term+psychological+damage+inflicted+by+bringing+the+child+up+Catholic+in+the+first+place.%22&oq=%22Horrible+as+sexual+abuse+no+doubt+was%2C+the+damage+was+arguably+less+than+the+long-term+psychological+damage+inflicted+by+bringing+the+child+up+Catholic+in+the+first+place.%22&gs_l=hp.12...2376.2376.0.9525.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.1...1c.2.5.psy-ab.pB_sVzPU6R4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.aWc&fp=9510266df17c3918&biw=1680&bih=925

Result #2




http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA356&lpg=PA356&dq=%22Horrible+as+sexual+abuse+no+doubt+was,+the+damage+was+arguably+less+than+the+long-term+psychological+damage+inflicted+by+bringing+the+child+up+Catholic+in+the+first+place.%22&source=bl&ots=1hhE-2LfDV&sig=wcKbiAWRFAAaPyVh2qe9nlHoxyM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3eg3UZyKGpTlyAGRmYDABg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Horrible%20as%20sexual%20abuse%20no%20doubt%20was%2C%20the%20damage%20was%20arguably%20less%20than%20the%20long-term%20psychological%20damage%20inflicted%20by%20bringing%20the%20child%20up%20Catholic%20in%20the%20first%20place.%22&f=false

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
65. Then they cite the wrong page, and still not the quote that was claimed
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:09 PM
Mar 2013

Regardless, is this true or false? (from your own citation):

"But if your whole upbringing, and everything you have ever been told by parents, teachers and priests, has led you to believe, really believe, utterly and completely, that sinners burn in hell (or some other obnoxious article of doctrine, such as that a woman is the property of her husband), it is entirely plausible that words could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds."

And sheesh...do you even have the book? Have you even bothered to read it? Or do you just cherry-pick?

Common Sense Party

(14,139 posts)
73. That was clearly the quote that was claimed.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:07 PM
Mar 2013

The poster said "child abuse;" Dawkins said "sexual abuse." Close enough.

You wanted proof he said it. I gave you proof. Nothing more, nothing less.

What you make of it is up to you.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
74. Lame...A quote is..duh...a QUOTE
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:17 PM
Mar 2013

When you put something in quotes, it means the person you're attributing it to said those EXACT words..not something sorta kinda like it. If they didn't, you're lying. That's what I make of this. It was NOT "the quote that was claimed". Words mean things, and what was "quoted" was not what Dawkins said.

But hey, you know all this, but it just galls you to admit it, so you double down on bullshit. When you're ready for the truth, we can talk about what Dawkins really said, all of it, in context, and its accuracy.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
76. Nice dodge...but more horseshit
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:20 PM
Mar 2013

When you're ready to discuss the truth, rationally, instead of being an apologist for a liar, the rational folk will all still be here.

EvilAL

(1,437 posts)
40. hah!
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:58 PM
Mar 2013

Dawkins used an example of a woman that says she was abused by a priest when she was 7 or 8 and later was told that her protestant friend who died was in Hell. She got over the physical abuse easier than the mental abuse she had to deal with thinking her best friend, around 7 or 8 years old, was burning in Hell. What a nice fuckin' thing to tell a child. Telling a child their friend in in hell because they follow a different interpretation of the bible IS child abuse.. what else could it be?

Common Sense Party

(14,139 posts)
54. Do you not have Google on your computer?
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:41 PM
Mar 2013

"Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
56. I didn't make the claim that Dawkins said
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 08:02 PM
Mar 2013

"raising a child to be Catholic is worse than child abuse"

If you have Google, link to that quote. Otherwise, go away.

Common Sense Party

(14,139 posts)
59. I see. You have no interest in the truth.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 09:09 PM
Mar 2013

If you ever care to see what Saint Dawkins said, google the quotation provided. It's from his book.

I doubt you ever will, though.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
63. You have the book...cite me the page..you lied about it once
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 09:58 PM
Mar 2013

And the "quote" you cited is not what's being claimed in any case. I gave you the quote that was claimed, and you can't point to it. Is Fortinbras Armstrong lying when he claims multiple times that Dawkins said, QUOTE "raising a child to be Catholic is worse than child abuse"?

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
48. Still waiting
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 12:26 PM
Mar 2013

Can you even show that Dawkins said what you quoted him as saying? If you can't, your accusations of "bigotry" aren't really worth a steaming pile.

Come on...everyone is watching..link to that quote...or admit that you can't.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
66. Still waiting for you to link to that quote
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:12 PM
Mar 2013

Not that you ever will. Everyone here knows perfectly well that you made it up. Those that you false call "cowards" call that "lying out your ass".

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
72. He certainly made no unequivocal statements of the type
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:42 PM
Mar 2013

attributed to him. And yes, I doubt our raving friends will have a rational answer to your post. They'll just continue to fling poo and call everyone a "bigot".

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
90. I guess when you're preaching to the choir truth doesn't matter regardless of what church you're in
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 09:55 PM
Mar 2013

does it.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
91. Wow...you thought all that time
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 09:58 PM
Mar 2013

and this is what you posted? How about engaging on substantive facts for a change? Prove that anyone here is acting as if the truth doesn't matter.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
87. Explain how emotionally traumatizing a child with threats of hell isn't abusive.
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 11:32 AM
Mar 2013

Explain to that woman Dawkins was talking about why telling her when she was little that her friend who'd died was in Hell wasn't the most ultimately shitty thing to do to a child.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
88. Still waiting for you to prove
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 01:35 PM
Mar 2013

that Dawkins even said what you're accusing him of, let alone that what he said constitutes "bigotry" in anyone's mind but yours and your ilk.

Tick tock...and rest assured that this entire thread will be bookmarked and brought up again, if you start making the same dishonest statements in a new one.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
97. Still waiting for you to link to that quote
Tue Mar 12, 2013, 07:56 PM
Mar 2013

You can't can you? And you don't even have the gumption to admit you lied through your teeth, and used that lie to label other people as "bigots".

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
99. You won't get an answer
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:28 PM
Mar 2013

He's run away to hide on this one. He's been caught in a big fat lie and he knows it.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
28. Evolutionary scientists can show unequivocally
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 09:53 PM
Mar 2013

that the things they study actually exist and that the phenomena they study actually occur. Theologians have yet to show that the "god" they go to such lengths to describe and understand even exists outside of the imagination of religious believers. That's the difference and why there is no "disconnect" as you claim. There's no "there" there to understand, only the invented ideas and behavior of religious believers, which he DOES know a lot about, despite your lies.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
32. Look up the definition of the word "faith"
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:28 PM
Mar 2013

And Dawkins has shown that he really does NOT know very much about religion, and the one who is lying is you. But then, if you support a bigot in his bigotry, you are pretty much forced to lie.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
38. If you could point out where I "lied"
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 01:50 PM
Mar 2013

You would have. And if you could point out where Dawkins has been a bigot, you would have. But like others on this board, the cry of "bigot!" is just a convenient dodge to let you avoid actually proving anything.

Response to skepticscott (Reply #38)

Gore1FL

(21,035 posts)
81. Why have faith in a randomly chosen story?
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:05 AM
Mar 2013

How could that ever compare to actually discovering what is real and what is true?

Gore1FL

(21,035 posts)
79. If by "ignorant bigot"
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:59 PM
Mar 2013

you mean "fact-based scientist," then I agree!

Otherwise, you are probably just calling names without being able to come up with linked examples.

 

nonoyes

(261 posts)
24. Seems like all the god-believers can do is..
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:49 PM
Mar 2013

criticize this man for all sorts of crazy reasons, all unsubstaniated.

Some claim he's a bigot for not agreeing with their religious beliefs, some claim Dawkins is igorant, when he holds a well-respected academic degree and teaches and does research. Some claim he is a coward for voicing his views about religions in public to the world, on video, with his face and name and location available for all the world to see.

Strange accusations from people who hide on bulletin boards to mount their assaults. I haven't seen any of them make a video and show their face, reveal their location. Cowards come in many forms on the internet, most of them blindly, and with bigotry, accusing others of being cowardly or stupid. Just an observation I made.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
25. Your observation seems spot-on. In fact, we can all observe that right in this thread.
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:52 PM
Mar 2013

Nice summary.

rexcat

(3,622 posts)
29. There are some,
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:06 PM
Mar 2013

especially catholics, who truly hate atheists. There church leadership has taught a fair amount of intolerance to their "flock" concerning the faithless over the past 2000 years. I have personally felt this type of bigotry from other catholics who find out I am an atheist and especially from my very catholic in-laws (for the past 32 years). This may be the reason why John as such a hard time accepting anything atheists say on DU.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
34. There are a lot of atheists who truly hate believers
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:33 PM
Mar 2013

But then, you prefer to complain about the speck in your opponents' eye, while ignoring the beam in your own.

Are believers without fault in this regard? Of course not.

rexcat

(3,622 posts)
36. That is only an opinion based on no facts...
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:49 PM
Mar 2013

For the most part atheists want to be left alone and not discriminated against but that is not going to happen anytime soon in this country. It is my opinion based on my many encounters with catholics that they are some of the most bigoted when it comes to atheists. The church leadership from the pope to the priests down to the "flock" are, for the most part, on the same message when it comes to atheists.

 

nonoyes

(261 posts)
37. Of course, you have no evidence or facts, just like your
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 01:44 PM
Mar 2013

evidence of a god. You make it up, or parrot what you have heard from other people who made stuff up.

Yup, I know your number, you're one of those who make stuff up, or believe in stuff other people made up.

Care to bring us some facts for your bold and anonymous assertion that "atheists who hate believers"?

No, I didn't think so.

Try very hard to get this major concept into your biased brain. People who question and challenge authority and mythology of the last 3000 years are NOT "atheists who hate believers".

struggle4progress

(118,041 posts)
30. man oh man is the dude a crashing boor. i tried to watch this, but frankly chewing gum
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:33 AM
Mar 2013

and baseball caps don't interest me. and i already encounter more than enough self-righteous blowhards in everyday life

Silent3

(15,020 posts)
85. Well, few can match your unfathomable spiritual depth...
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 02:13 AM
Mar 2013

...your humanity, your sense of the important human dimensions, your hunger for authenticity, yadda, yadda. It's a wonder you haven't simply ascended bodily into heaven.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
43. Perhaps the brave Dawkins will offer an explanation as to why when
Tue Mar 5, 2013, 05:02 PM
Mar 2013

asked on a network that has a large audience in the Islamic world he suddenly claimed to be too ignorant of the "God" of the Koran to comment, then again, perhaps not.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
89. Why should I ?
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 09:51 PM
Mar 2013

Dawkins is the one who made the statement in question I didn't. The full video has no impact as to the context of his statement about his knowledge of the God of the Koran.

Gore1FL

(21,035 posts)
92. You misrepresented his statement in context. I demonstrated you were wrong with the actual video.
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 10:18 PM
Mar 2013

Being proven wrong after being loudly wrong often makes most people feel foolish. I apologizing in for assuming you fit into the category of "most."

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
93. There was no change to his statement by any supposed "context" you claim shown by the video
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 10:40 PM
Mar 2013

he still makes the same statement to the same question he was asked. Print or video, same question, same answer no "context" was changed and your repeating you're wrong, you're wrong doesn't make your false claim true. By the way psychology doesn't seem to be your strength.

Gore1FL

(21,035 posts)
94. Did you even look at the video?
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 11:29 PM
Mar 2013

I assume you did not because you wouldn't continue to dig if you had.

 

Phillip McCleod

(1,837 posts)
95. nah just parroting a talking point.
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 11:37 PM
Mar 2013

that's all the anti-atheist crowd has.. bumper-sticker quotes and bible passages that one has to first believe in to care about.

 

Manifestor_of_Light

(21,046 posts)
51. Hitchens was far more entertaining and humorous.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:26 PM
Mar 2013

I miss the guy. He could demolish his opponents with grace, style and wit.

napoleon_in_rags

(3,991 posts)
52. Dawkins has made some smart points and I think debate of religion is really important.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:38 PM
Mar 2013

I've actually come around a bit to seeing it his way in recent years.

But at the same time, I think he suffers from a a bit of a crystal palace complex: He hangs out at Oxford (right?) with all these smart people, where he comes to the conclusion that its this wrong idea, religion, that lies behind dumb stuff happening in the world. I hang out in a much less elite setting, with all kinds of people spanning the spectrum from mentally disabled to gifted. I know that people with simple minds, have simplistic cosmologies. Simplistic ideas of God (sky man in clouds) or if they are secular, similar ideas will form about leaders, historical figures, etc. People with powerful minds will have sophisticated theologies that don't conflict much with science, or complex world views if secular. But what I unfortunately sometimes hear from the atheist movement is contrasts between 80 IQ theologies with 120 IQ secular world views. However, changing that religious world view doesn't get rid of the 80 IQ.

That said, more and more I think its important to really zoom in to what's really happening in this world, as revealed by science and science alone to find solutions to our problems. To a scientist, no idea must be sacred, everything must be up for question. So the fact that Richard Dawkins is causing people to question sacred ideas, to me means he's actually empowering people for better scientific thought. For that I am grateful.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»For the real cowards, the...