Religion

longship

(40,416 posts)

7. Sheesh, rug

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 08:00 PM

Mar 2012

Why take on his arguments, when you can just call him an ass.

Just saying.

Dawkins is not an ass, he's justifiably angry at the religious lunacy in this country, and in his own. As am I.

Yes, he sometimes uses charged rhetoric to get his point across, but as a member of DU, you know that politics is always like that.

And that's what cuts to the core of the issue. Religious organizations have intruded themselves heavily into US politics in such a way that one of the two major parties has been so infiltrated that it's difficult to distinguish it from a church. This has had a profound and to many of us dangerous consequences if they ever get fully in power.

So give Dawkins a break. He's on the right side of things, and he's right to be angry.

Religion is a big problem right now.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

151 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Richard Dawkins to atheist rally: 'Show contempt' for faith [View all] rug Mar 2012 OP

A good many Protestants also think the Catholic view of the Eucharist is absurd bluestateguy Mar 2012 #1

And for centuries many millions have not. rug Mar 2012 #4

Actually, your title is exactly the point skepticscott Mar 2012 #19

By all means, recruit more asses. rug Mar 2012 #20

You're free to call rational people anything you need to skepticscott Mar 2012 #36

The term was yours. I do not disagree. rug Mar 2012 #41

Refer to your posts 6 and 12 skepticscott Mar 2012 #68

That refers to Dawkins, who is indeed an ass. rug Mar 2012 #70

Exactly..it was the term YOU used to refer to Dawkins skepticscott Mar 2012 #107

It should be simple to subject the bread and wine to chemical analysis FarCenter Mar 2012 #38

It would be if it was a chemistry experiment. rug Mar 2012 #42

Not necessarily, you could use a microscope to look for blood cells. FarCenter Mar 2012 #49

You must have skipped Philosophy classes. rug Mar 2012 #56

Skipped? Or just doesn't subscribe to bullshit? cleanhippie Mar 2012 #60

Skipped. rug Mar 2012 #72

He was probably in Science class instead. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #74

Maybe. Some people can only handle one thing at a time. rug Mar 2012 #76

A Theory of Substances made sense in a Greek context FarCenter Mar 2012 #61

Your post has much substance. rug Mar 2012 #73

'arton epiousion' tama Mar 2012 #117

And wtf does philosophy have to do with it? skepticscott Mar 2012 #71

If you could have answered that question you would have avoided the drivel that follows it. rug Mar 2012 #77

Christian theology was originally heavily influenced by Greco-Roman philosophy FarCenter Mar 2012 #81

Wow, a whole page of philosobabble skepticscott Mar 2012 #108

That is only a three paragraph excerpt of a much longer non-explanation n/t FarCenter Mar 2012 #112

Claims about tama Mar 2012 #116

Got a third choice? skepticscott Mar 2012 #136

First, tama Mar 2012 #137

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Joseph8th Mar 2012 #139

Go tama Mar 2012 #144

Working on a hospital psych ward skepticscott Mar 2012 #149

The Eucharist was originally... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #138

Unfortunate. Glad to see that the speaker who said "Stand your ground" got no applause. cbayer Mar 2012 #2

I'm a spiritual person. I can't say I hold to 1 belief only. However... Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2012 #3

Protestants believe that Catholic Eucharist is literally evil cannibalism. provis99 Mar 2012 #5

That's incorrect. rug Mar 2012 #6

Sheesh, rug longship Mar 2012 #7

This is why he's an ass. rug Mar 2012 #12

I very respectfully disagree longship Mar 2012 #24

That might work if religious believers are in fact in thrall and enchanted. rug Mar 2012 #27

We're together on that longship Mar 2012 #29

This Sunday school teacher likes the cut of your jib, longship villager Mar 2012 #33

Gees. Thank you very much longship Mar 2012 #34

Agreed.... We need both ... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #140

Aikido of politics tama Mar 2012 #39

Don't assume Dawkins' agenda is only political longship Mar 2012 #47

My problem tama Mar 2012 #88

Well that would be a sweeping generalization longship Mar 2012 #91

I was not tama Mar 2012 #97

Please define pseudo skeptical org longship Mar 2012 #109

Truzzi tama Mar 2012 #113

Hmph! longship Mar 2012 #115

When someone proclaims that people should show contempt and ridicule, that humblebum Mar 2012 #48

Calling somebody an ass is an ad hominem longship Mar 2012 #53

You are correct tama Mar 2012 #118

Okay, you don't like him longship Mar 2012 #121

He's pouring gas on the flames tama Mar 2012 #122

Inquisitor? longship Mar 2012 #124

I'm enjoying tama Mar 2012 #125

It doesn't matter who advocates such a position, advocating such a position is humblebum Mar 2012 #126

Well you know that old Whore of Babylon stuff just keeps on rolling for some. Leontius Mar 2012 #13

Quite an accusation. Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #85

here's plenty, from DUers, Protestants, non-Protestants, and ex-Protestants: provis99 Mar 2012 #96

I have looked at your list. Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #120

obviously, no amound of evidence or facts will satisfy you. provis99 Mar 2012 #133

People make fun of other's fantasies all the time, indeed, those who take such fantasies... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #8

Who makes fun of other people's fantasies? And what kind of people are these? cbayer Mar 2012 #10

Debunkers of conspiracy theories, Mythbusters did a rather good episode... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #15

Debunking something or not agreeing with it is not the same thing as making cbayer Mar 2012 #17

Not agreeing with it implies its on equal footing with the facts or is equally logical... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #21

So does the fact that you called a group of creationists skepticscott Mar 2012 #35

They're usually in the corner popping each other's pimples. rug Mar 2012 #14

Didn't somebody say the purpose of the rally wasn't to ridicule religion or promote Leontius Mar 2012 #9

define anti-religious bigotry please. n/t Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #16

The organizers apparently said that. The limited information in the article indicates that cbayer Mar 2012 #18

Why is the humorlessness of atheists so close to the humorlessness of fundamentalists? villager Mar 2012 #11

We aren't humourless - mr blur Mar 2012 #22

Not gauged by this post. rug Mar 2012 #28

So then, the fact that some of us find much atheist and skeptical "reasoning" to be humblebum Mar 2012 #50

It is OK to ridicule it and show contempt for it, as for any ideas or beliefs LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #55

I think that any group that exhorts open ridicule and contempt is humblebum Mar 2012 #63

Then you are pro-censorship. LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #67

Non-sequitur tama Mar 2012 #119

Atheists make fun of beliefs, and we are called humorless, the religious attack people... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #23

Making fun doesn't mean you know how to tell a joke. kwassa Mar 2012 #25

That's true, but Carlin was hilarious! Especially when he made fun of religious beliefs. n/t Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #26

But he honed his humor and timing growing up on the West Side in Corpus Christi parish. rug Mar 2012 #30

Carlin was funny about many different subjects. kwassa Mar 2012 #31

Of ALL atheists???? LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #46

It is easy to show contempt for fundamentalists. Dawson Leery Mar 2012 #32

Suppose that a lot of people in this country skepticscott Mar 2012 #37

An awe inspiring show of tolerance from the leaders of atheism. LARED Mar 2012 #40

It was I'm afraid - there was no call at all for intolerance dmallind Mar 2012 #44

Advocating ridicule and contempt SCREAMS intolerance. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #52

Advocating ridicule and contempt is in the middle range of intolerance LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #57

lol, not exactly. eqfan592 Mar 2012 #59

You would have a point if anyone called for ridicule and contempt of PEOPLE... cleanhippie Mar 2012 #62

Nice rationalization, unfortunately reality doesn't work that way. humblebum Mar 2012 #65

There IS a difference between ridiculing a belief and a person. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #66

The thing is, however, that you do not just criticize atheism as a belief LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #69

I would challenge you to backup your statement about hatred, and humblebum Mar 2012 #75

OK -since you asked me to back it up - here's the quote I mean LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #78

Is his statement any worse than continually linking and comparing Leontius Mar 2012 #80

No, but I don't think this this happens very often. LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #87

I was not implying that you do. As for it not happening very often Leontius Mar 2012 #93

OK...but one point... LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #104

We essentially agree with each other but I would like to point out that historical distortions Leontius Mar 2012 #106

It varied muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #111

By their actions tama Mar 2012 #123

Yeah, because the oppression of women, gays, atheists by today's believers cleanhippie Mar 2012 #110

Where did I ever indicate that "advocating repression, torture and mass murder" was a humblebum Mar 2012 #92

The ONLY reason why Soviet atheist movements were evil... LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #103

It steps on the wrong side tama Mar 2012 #114

There you go again, defining words to suit your agenda LARED Mar 2012 #105

How do you rationalize this statement? LARED Mar 2012 #100

Intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance. nt Joseph8th Mar 2012 #141

Reason did prevail, despite the lying sack of shit reporter dmallind Mar 2012 #43

Dawkins' words are quoted in the article. rug Mar 2012 #45

If by "quoted" you mean "quote mined", maybe Rob H. Mar 2012 #51

Sounds like he was quoted accurately. rug Mar 2012 #54

It's tied directly to this: Rob H. Mar 2012 #58

Well said. (Nt) eqfan592 Mar 2012 #64

The "need to be ridiculed with contempt" has scant basis in reason. rug Mar 2012 #83

And transubstantiation has NO basis in reason Rob H. Mar 2012 #98

The belief is based on faith, the explanation on reason. rug Mar 2012 #99

When the explanation is "Just because" its not based on logic or empiricism. n/t Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #130

I see you're unfamiliar with the concept of datum, rug Mar 2012 #134

Quote mining is bearing false witness, how does your god feel about that? n/t Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #79

Hard to say since you're assuming a fact not in evidence. rug Mar 2012 #84

This coming from someone who believes in Transubstantiation, sorry, I don't think you have any... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #90

If your posts are any indication, I think I know what you have a grasp of. rug Mar 2012 #94

"...you're assuming a fact not in evidence." Rob H. Mar 2012 #101

Why don't you watch it and hear for yourself? mr blur Mar 2012 #82

I watched it on the live stream I posted yesterday. rug Mar 2012 #86

The truth that they won't, can't, admit is that using mockery and ridicule is much like Leontius Mar 2012 #89

Since no answer is forthcoming, you may be right. rug Mar 2012 #95

I've never participated tama Mar 2012 #102

Thank you for your answer. mr blur Mar 2012 #150

sounds too strong for dawkins deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #127

Hate speech. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #128

really? REALLY? deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #129

So then, I guess displaying "ridicule, hatred, and contempt" for atheism is humblebum Mar 2012 #131

if you can do it without the tinfoil hat... deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #132

1st of all about "you'd have to find a major flaw in the rejection itself." humblebum Mar 2012 #135

actually, I know EXACTLY what I reject, regardless of what others are convinced of. deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #148

Ohhh... we're plenty used to it. Joseph8th Mar 2012 #143

Straw man. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #146

Yes "ridicule and show contempt" for superstitions ... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #142

Definitely laughable. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #145

Sexist stereotypes aside, what do you mean by "make him feel his ignorance"? cbayer Mar 2012 #147

Dawkins is right. Superstitious BS should be mocked. Odin2005 Mar 2012 #151