Religion
Related: About this forumFor 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.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)He gets this kind of response from religious people all the time:
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)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)He is an ignorant bigot.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)who flings poo that he can't back up from behind a phony name.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)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)Perhaps it is because of cowardice.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)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)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)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)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)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)
Post removed
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)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)
Post removed
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Say hi to humblebum for me.
And have a nice day.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)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)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)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)It is 100% nonsense. Apologetic nonsense.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)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)Perhaps if you put your energy into debating him instead of insulting him you might get something from it.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Thanks for the pro-tip though. You might try that yourself.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)but your "politeness" often smacks of condescension and sarcasm. (of which I am not immune from doing either).
But I see your point.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am just polite here.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I'll take your words at face value next time.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)You should probably challenge him on that.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)"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)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)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)in an op ed in ' Free Inquiry' vol. 22, no.4, pg. 9 entitled "Religion's real child abuse".
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)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)do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of having been brought up Catholic in the first place.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)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)
Post removed
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Perhaps you could try reading his books, especially The God Delusion, before bashing...
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)how could such hatred and intolerance be internally justified?
We are seeing the one thing worse than ignorance; willful ignorance.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)but comprehension might.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)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)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)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:
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
"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)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?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Be specific.
No, he is a bigot, and all of his supporters are supporting his bigotry.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)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)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)"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)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)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)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)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.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)You're beyond hope or reason.
Goodbye.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)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)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?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that Dawkins even said what you keep claiming he did. Keep looking.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)"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)"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)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)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)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)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".
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)See my response in post #69. Dawkins was right.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)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".
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)does it.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)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.
Gore1FL
(21,035 posts)You are committing child abuse.
When did Dawkins say it was worse?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)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)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)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".
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)So. Am I a bigot?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)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)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)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)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)
Post removed
Gore1FL
(21,035 posts)How could that ever compare to actually discovering what is real and what is true?
krhines
(115 posts)Need to know anything about Santa Claus to know he's not real.
Gore1FL
(21,035 posts)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)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)Nice summary.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)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)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)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)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)and baseball caps don't interest me. and i already encounter more than enough self-righteous blowhards in everyday life
Silent3
(15,020 posts)...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.
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)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.
Gore1FL
(21,035 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)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)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)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)I assume you did not because you wouldn't continue to dig if you had.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)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)I miss the guy. He could demolish his opponents with grace, style and wit.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)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.