Religion

edhopper

(37,645 posts)

130. I don't find that argument offensive

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 12:43 PM

Jan 2014

condescending by those who think they are special and have been touched. But not offensive. It says much more about those arguing this than about non believers.
And this is absolutely the right place to discuss whether the theology of a religion has an bearing whether the basis for that religion, i.e. whether any Gods exist is pertinent.

And those that hold their religious laws as absolute, who follow the tenets so that every aspect of their lives are controlled by their belief, that they are doing what God commands. How does your picture of God fit into that. Why would a God tell one group that woman need to cover themselves while telling another that they can't drive on Saturday, and so forth?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

198 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Richard Dawkins Hate Mail............. [View all] dimbear Jan 2014 OP

religion is a multi-billion $$ business. it doesn't like criticism that cuts into the take nt msongs Jan 2014 #1

Love Dawkins. longship Jan 2014 #2

"People really, really hate their religion being criticized." TexasProgresive Jan 2014 #3

So when people hate Richard Dawkins skepticscott Jan 2014 #4

That's a good rhetorical choice - pair up Dawkins least controversial points el_bryanto Jan 2014 #6

Well then let's compare Dawkins' worst to the pope's worst. trotsky Jan 2014 #18

Dawkins probably wins that comparison el_bryanto Jan 2014 #48

The person I was replying to skepticscott Jan 2014 #58

It depends on what you mean by hate el_bryanto Jan 2014 #63

I was quoting and replying to someone else saying "hate is hate" skepticscott Jan 2014 #76

I can't answer the question without defining the terms. el_bryanto Jan 2014 #79

I agree. Dawkins reaction when he feels criticized is the same as the cbayer Jan 2014 #7

You would have to point to Dawkins edhopper Jan 2014 #8

I would point to his reaction to the criticism of what many cbayer Jan 2014 #11

I'd rather let him defend himself edhopper Jan 2014 #15

But it's not in opposition to the religious who rigorously question their cbayer Jan 2014 #20

Other side of the same coin? trotsky Jan 2014 #24

Sam Harris is trying his best. rug Jan 2014 #42

I get you do not like his position edhopper Jan 2014 #26

There are many variations of "fatwas". cbayer Jan 2014 #32

Or in other words, "close enough" for you. trotsky Jan 2014 #39

Hmmm... Equivocation, how unusual. Warren Stupidity Jan 2014 #168

Could you elaborate? cbayer Jan 2014 #169

Sorry you don't understand what you're doing. trotsky Jan 2014 #178

LOL trotsky Jan 2014 #21

"...he calls his critics illiterate and refers to their writings as "hate mail"." Rob H. Jan 2014 #40

It is hard not to laugh at the people who hate him so much, trotsky Jan 2014 #41

"It is hard not to laugh at the people who hate him so much, rug Jan 2014 #47

So you're cool Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #52

No, nor Islamophobia. rug Jan 2014 #56

Dawkins isn't my pope Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #60

Francis isn't my politician. rug Jan 2014 #69

His/your organziation Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #71

Politicians deal with rights. rug Jan 2014 #72

And the Church or any religion edhopper Jan 2014 #74

Maybe you need a primer on the difference between church and state. rug Jan 2014 #80

Maybe the pope does. n/t Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #83

Well, now that's two of you. rug Jan 2014 #84

Maybe you need a history lesson. edhopper Jan 2014 #85

I know history. Apparently you don't know the present. rug Jan 2014 #87

I'm so glad you think the RC edhopper Jan 2014 #88

Dawkins, fortunately, does have little influence outside a circle of adulators. rug Jan 2014 #89

So what was your point in making the comparison. edhopper Jan 2014 #90

Ask goblin. He's the one that brought the Pope into it. rug Jan 2014 #91

You did it. #47 Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #92

Oh, was I talking to you there? rug Jan 2014 #94

Who made you god of DU? Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #97

See 98. rug Jan 2014 #99

Nice dodge. edhopper Jan 2014 #93

There's no dodge but I do find it comical how the last resort of what you consider "everyone" is rug Jan 2014 #95

You mean edhopper Jan 2014 #96

What and who on earth are you talking about? rug Jan 2014 #98

Nice obfuscation ploy Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #100

Uh, you do realize I was talking to ed? Have you straightened everything out? rug Jan 2014 #101

I don't care who you're talking to. Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #102

I do. Despite appearances, I do value my time. rug Jan 2014 #104

And all my post referred to edhopper Jan 2014 #106

This, hope that refreshes your memory. edhopper Jan 2014 #105

Precisely. rug Jan 2014 #107

Time to claim victory and go home. edhopper Jan 2014 #108

Who is everyone? cbayer Jan 2014 #125

rhetorical flourish edhopper Jan 2014 #128

Oh, ok. cbayer Jan 2014 #131

Head of church, head of state - the Pope is both muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #109

He rules those 109 acres with an iron fist. rug Jan 2014 #110

No - in the 20th and 21st century, the Vatican gets Permanent Observer status in the UN too (nt) muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #112

My God! I bet the Observers come with Swiss Guards. rug Jan 2014 #115

Well, there is always the UK monarchy, where the Queen is also head of the church. cbayer Jan 2014 #126

................ Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #77

. . . . . rug Jan 2014 #82

I don't think it is a matter of "hate"... rexcat Jan 2014 #129

I use anti-theist in the same way Dawkins uses it. cbayer Jan 2014 #133

Personally... rexcat Jan 2014 #134

Go overboard by identifying a group that is a distinct subset? cbayer Jan 2014 #135

The word hate was in the quote. Whatever he meant, it's a two-way street. rug Jan 2014 #141

It does not necessarily have to be a two-way street... rexcat Jan 2014 #166

No, it doesn't. It's quite unproductive. rug Jan 2014 #167

Cannot go there with you. longship Jan 2014 #152

Did not for a moment think you would go there with me. cbayer Jan 2014 #155

I am fine with that and I still call you my friend. longship Jan 2014 #157

I don't question or have any problem with his scientifically based work. cbayer Jan 2014 #158

Cost me $130. (SOB!!!) longship Jan 2014 #160

Yikes! That's one expensive battery. cbayer Jan 2014 #163

Make sure you take in some whales. longship Jan 2014 #164

We are not likely to miss the whales, we just hope they miss us, lol! cbayer Jan 2014 #165

Show us where he has couched his anti-theism as "science" skepticscott Jan 2014 #162

Sorry, more utter crap skepticscott Jan 2014 #159

Nailed it. trotsky Jan 2014 #179

Dogmatic? Horseshit. skepticscott Jan 2014 #153

But liberals, atheist, etc.. edhopper Jan 2014 #9

Do you exclude religious people from the group you define as "liberals"? cbayer Jan 2014 #23

I was quoting the list in Texas' post. edhopper Jan 2014 #29

No, I don't find all religious fold open to debate. cbayer Jan 2014 #34

I don't think I have ever found a liberal say edhopper Jan 2014 #37

I have never said that people's religious beliefs should not be questioned, but cbayer Jan 2014 #44

Why do you think holding political beliefs is different than holding religious beliefs? trotsky Jan 2014 #67

The only thing I hate is some religious twit Warpy Jan 2014 #176

This quote explains so much in this group: trotsky Jan 2014 #5

Surely you have a link that illustrates that. rug Jan 2014 #10

You could start Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #13

Made me grin. edhopper Jan 2014 #16

And having found nothing, I may end up rug Jan 2014 #19

Wow Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #22

Sure, impugn an entire group. What's the word for that? rug Jan 2014 #30

I didn't alert Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #51

And then, there's this nonsense. rug Jan 2014 #12

Have you read his book Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #14

Does he also go into the evolutionary reasons for atheism? rug Jan 2014 #27

It's in Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #53

Thanks, I'll see if the library has it. rug Jan 2014 #55

I think my son has my copy but I'll check and see Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #62

You can find The God Delusion online... DreamGypsy Jan 2014 #111

Excellent! Thanks, let me take a look at iit. rug Jan 2014 #113

Ok, here is his premise: rug Jan 2014 #118

Because people edhopper Jan 2014 #144

Nice appeal to authority there, ed. rug Jan 2014 #145

of course edhopper Jan 2014 #146

Rephrasing doesn't save your argument. rug Jan 2014 #147

I could see how the idea that edhopper Jan 2014 #154

I tend to have that reaction to claptrap. rug Jan 2014 #156

And he wonders why he gets hate mail? cbayer Jan 2014 #127

Why would anything in the post you reply to indicate hate mail should be expected? muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #143

I didn't say it was justified, just that it's not surprising. cbayer Jan 2014 #148

What's 'vicious' or 'rabid'? muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #150

Gee, I don't know. cbayer Jan 2014 #151

Actually he isn't alone in this edhopper Jan 2014 #17

"most geneticists". That's convincing. rug Jan 2014 #28

Yes edhopper Jan 2014 #33

Have you an opinion on sociobiolgy? rug Jan 2014 #38

I think it is part of the picture edhopper Jan 2014 #45

Based on this, one might conclude that there is an adaptational advantage to cbayer Jan 2014 #25

A prejudged mind tends to see things in a blurry way. rug Jan 2014 #31

Not at all edhopper Jan 2014 #35

No, but specific traits that do not lend an adaptational advantage will most cbayer Jan 2014 #36

I'll explain again edhopper Jan 2014 #43

No need to explain again. I understand what he is saying perfectly well. cbayer Jan 2014 #46

And it takes a long time edhopper Jan 2014 #49

Yes it can take a long time, but it can also happen cbayer Jan 2014 #50

That might be true edhopper Jan 2014 #57

It doesn't negate it, I agree. cbayer Jan 2014 #59

His argument edhopper Jan 2014 #64

I understand that that is his position and it doesn't surprise, cbayer Jan 2014 #66

I think looking at religion as an adaptive trait edhopper Jan 2014 #73

One of the points here is that if and when it outlives any cbayer Jan 2014 #75

First edhopper Jan 2014 #78

Yes, we do disagree on that. cbayer Jan 2014 #81

Well we do have the understanding edhopper Jan 2014 #86

It can certainly be discussed without any theological input cbayer Jan 2014 #117

Really? edhopper Jan 2014 #123

I'm a little tired of being told that I am saying that people shouldn't discuss things here. cbayer Jan 2014 #124

I don't find that argument offensive edhopper Jan 2014 #130

In looking back at the subthread, I think I misread what you were saying cbayer Jan 2014 #132

Thanks for that edhopper Jan 2014 #137

I'm not a believer, so that is what may confuse you. cbayer Jan 2014 #138

I know edhopper Jan 2014 #139

You may or may not be one. The definition is pretty clear. cbayer Jan 2014 #140

Would i like there to be no religion? edhopper Jan 2014 #142

Didn't say you would like that. I said that what an anti-atheist wants. cbayer Jan 2014 #149

Maybe it has persisted because in the recent past, you could get your head cut off for calling out.. PassingFair Jan 2014 #184

There was an adaptational advantage Goblinmonger Jan 2014 #54

Well, that would come along with any advantages. longship Jan 2014 #61

I like the type I/type II explanation cbayer Jan 2014 #65

Well, my examples were just to give people an idea of how it might work. longship Jan 2014 #68

It certainly is not a settled field. cbayer Jan 2014 #70

k/r Dawson Leery Jan 2014 #103

There is a third possibilty. idendoit Jan 2014 #114

Based on what? nt el_bryanto Jan 2014 #116

Probably his rant on elevatorgate. rug Jan 2014 #119

It is very healthy to question religion. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #120

Healthy in the sense that it's good for a person's breadth and vista, not necessarily healthy dimbear Jan 2014 #121

I can't wait till we get one. rug Jan 2014 #122

In the middle ages, there was a friendly custom called trial by ordeal. Questions were settled dimbear Jan 2014 #136

It's very healthy to be able to accept the truth about religion skepticscott Jan 2014 #161

Can you please elaborate more on your statement? hrmjustin Jan 2014 #170

Is this the new tactic skepticscott Jan 2014 #171

My friend all I ask is for you to expand on your thoughts. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #172

Ah, so the similarity of your post 170 skepticscott Jan 2014 #173

ok scott! The iorny was I really was asking an honest question. so sorry to bother you. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #174

Yes, people tend to type badly skepticscott Jan 2014 #175

Scott I give you my word I was just asking you to expand on your answer. If I didnot explain it hrmjustin Jan 2014 #177

Obsequiousness neither becomes you nor convinces me skepticscott Jan 2014 #180

What did you mean by this? hrmjustin Jan 2014 #181

I'll try to explain in a less confrontational way. edhopper Jan 2014 #185

Thanks! Faith and doubt are always present in me. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #186

I know you are a believer. edhopper Jan 2014 #187

My faith has evolved over time. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #188

Thanks. edhopper Jan 2014 #189

Give us some examples�3 or 4 will do. skepticscott Jan 2014 #190

huh? hrmjustin Jan 2014 #191

Give us some examples skepticscott Jan 2014 #192

Well I used to believe praying to saints worked, and now I really don't believe it anymore. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #193

Well, I asked twice and still only got half an answer skepticscott Jan 2014 #194

I guess I came to the realization that God does not decide things. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #195

I offer you this quote from Epicurus, Greece 300 BC edhopper Jan 2014 #196

And why would "faith" not let you believe skepticscott Jan 2014 #197

Well those of us with fait are capable of critical thinking. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #198

Code red, code red. cbayer Jan 2014 #182

Lol! I really do value his opinion. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #183