Religion

muriel_volestrangler

(106,223 posts)

51. Your worldview is so limited, you think any disagreement means someone

Reply to okasha (Reply #37)

Wed Aug 28, 2013, 06:21 PM

Aug 2013

regards the other person as a 'heretic'. I feel sorry for the narrowness of your experience.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

139 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Doubting Dawkinses another breed of fanatic [View all] rug Aug 2013 OP

At least Dawkins does not attempt to disenfranchise, kill, or imprison those who do not agree panzerfaust Aug 2013 #1

From the article: rug Aug 2013 #2

That quote does show she's an idiot muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #5

She can fuck off? Wow, touch a nerve there? cbayer Aug 2013 #8

No, saying 'fuck her' is not violent; her saying others are not *yet* violent muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #9

I'm afraid she is speaking for many, Muriel, and they are getting louder. cbayer Aug 2013 #11

The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks he's right, and that you need to join his team muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #13

That's exactly the point. Dawkins is behaving like an evangelical religious leader. cbayer Aug 2013 #14

I'd love to see you make a proof that that statement equals idiocy. rug Aug 2013 #15

You got to the "Burn the heretic" okasha Aug 2013 #37

Your worldview is so limited, you think any disagreement means someone muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #51

I was referring to the penchant okasha Aug 2013 #54

I think that's too broad. There are atheists on the site that have also raised cbayer Aug 2013 #60

I didn't mean to imply that all DU atheists okasha Aug 2013 #63

Thanks for clarifying. cbayer Aug 2013 #65

Isn't that a prejudiced example? Brettongarcia Sep 2013 #134

This proves my point - you think that because the writer is an atheist, I shuold hold back muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #72

No, what I think is that Dawkins' fans okasha Aug 2013 #105

And you haven't been following the thread muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #106

What I characterized as your "burn the heretic" post okasha Aug 2013 #108

Torcaso. okasha Aug 2013 #35

Touche. rug Aug 2013 #43

"... atheist militants are not much of an advertisement for a world ... meant to be more tolerant... Jim__ Aug 2013 #3

So she's a follower of Dawkins on Twitter, but she objects when he tweets? muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #4

Oh, you know she objects to what he tweets, not when he tweets. rug Aug 2013 #16

cbayer wants him to shut up muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #19

You can take that up with her. rug Aug 2013 #20

Evidence of fact? I thought you were joking muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #22

I have no problem confusing fact from opinion. rug Aug 2013 #24

So do some atheist bloggers - quite a few actually. cbayer Aug 2013 #21

No, he's not right wing, and that's another smear muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #23

Where did I say he was right wing? cbayer Aug 2013 #26

He made his reputation off his science muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #28

I had never heard of him until he went anti-theist. cbayer Aug 2013 #29

He was famous in the worldwide scientific community muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #30

Well, as I have said, I think he provided a service in kicking cbayer Aug 2013 #31

*You* had never heard of him... pokerfan Aug 2013 #33

I didn't say no one had ever heard of him. cbayer Aug 2013 #36

It was an international best-seller pokerfan Aug 2013 #39

Probably not in the Christian bookstores, that's for sure. cbayer Aug 2013 #44

I still have an early edition pokerfan Aug 2013 #61

I was overwhelmingly preoccupied with my studies at that time and that may cbayer Aug 2013 #62

In Time's All-Time Top 100 Nonfiction Books muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #48

Well, that's something. cbayer Aug 2013 #55

Somehow I don't think okasha Aug 2013 #40

Where's that pic okasha Aug 2013 #38

This one? rug Aug 2013 #45

Thanks! okasha Aug 2013 #46

This one? pokerfan Aug 2013 #69

Do I even need to point out what is wrong with this quote edhopper Aug 2013 #6

Surely you realize Lowenstein was not referring to atheists who find hope in religion. rug Aug 2013 #17

I mean to an atheist edhopper Aug 2013 #27

I don't think she's asking atheists to accept religious beliefs. rug Aug 2013 #42

I understand what she is saying, and I know she is not saying that. edhopper Aug 2013 #47

To be precise, she is saying that many believers receive benefit from their beliefs. rug Aug 2013 #50

No she is not saying that edhopper Aug 2013 #53

Where did she say that? Are you making things up? rug Aug 2013 #59

I refer to thiis edhopper Aug 2013 #64

Well, we must disagree. rug Aug 2013 #67

Guess we just have different edhopper Aug 2013 #71

Enduring a life of misery LTX Aug 2013 #18

So they cling to a falsehood? edhopper Aug 2013 #25

You speak from a position of western privilege. LTX Aug 2013 #32

No edhopper Aug 2013 #34

Of course not. LTX Aug 2013 #41

Alcohol and drugs are also a way people cope edhopper Aug 2013 #49

You do realize that not everyone okasha Aug 2013 #52

Of course not. It's called an analogy edhopper Aug 2013 #56

The problem is that it's not a particularly apt analogy. okasha Aug 2013 #57

Fair criticism edhopper Aug 2013 #66

The point is that in most cases okasha Aug 2013 #68

Depends on how deep edhopper Aug 2013 #70

I find this kind off hand dismissal of religious beliefs frustrating. LTX Aug 2013 #73

Yes, it was a flip answer edhopper Aug 2013 #74

I agree -- to an extent. LTX Aug 2013 #75

But that is more of the edhopper Aug 2013 #77

With that clarification, I think we are on the same page. n/t LTX Aug 2013 #80

You are aware that the basis for all religion is not based in reality? cbayer Aug 2013 #79

I think that may be a bit unfair. LTX Aug 2013 #83

Then the member should clarify and not make statements which can so cbayer Aug 2013 #84

I am not and never said edhopper Aug 2013 #85

You again make the definitive statement "things that are not there". cbayer Aug 2013 #88

As far as all facts in evidence edhopper Aug 2013 #91

So you take the position that if there is not facts in evidence that cbayer Aug 2013 #93

Reiread the part edhopper Aug 2013 #95

It is not the de facto position of most atheists that believers are wrong, btw. cbayer Aug 2013 #97

You seem to be wrong about that too. edhopper Aug 2013 #102

So you were talking about the SS Defacto? cbayer Aug 2013 #103

I am completely in the wrong here edhopper Aug 2013 #107

I've done the same thing and on more than one occasion. cbayer Aug 2013 #109

I don't see a problem edhopper Aug 2013 #110

I don't have a position on the veracity of beliefs or non beliefs. cbayer Aug 2013 #111

Well that is your position edhopper Aug 2013 #112

I've never found a good word to describe where I am (at this time). cbayer Aug 2013 #113

You thinking about higher evolved species sounds like edhopper Aug 2013 #114

But that doesn't answer the question about whether something higher evolved might cbayer Aug 2013 #115

You could call them gods edhopper Aug 2013 #116

And when alcohol or drugs become a problem for an individual, there cbayer Aug 2013 #58

So a moderate amount edhopper Aug 2013 #78

I don't know what kinds of drugs you may or may not tried, but they don't cbayer Aug 2013 #81

Well, this divide could get deeper or Dawkins could step aside (as cbayer Aug 2013 #7

'Step aside'? Aside from what? muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #10

Shutting up would be a good place to start, particularly when it comes to twitter. cbayer Aug 2013 #12

Oh my! edhopper Aug 2013 #86

I didn't say he had to and he is certainly not going to because I said so. cbayer Aug 2013 #87

Considering edhopper Aug 2013 #89

I have said many times that he deserves much credit for cbayer Aug 2013 #90

What specific "outrageous" position edhopper Aug 2013 #92

This will be circular and not productive, but I will give you my primary objections. cbayer Aug 2013 #94

Yes edhopper Aug 2013 #96

Wow. Where did you get that? cbayer Aug 2013 #98

I will put it to a vote. edhopper Aug 2013 #99

You will put what to a vote, lol? cbayer Aug 2013 #100

See my new thread. edhopper Aug 2013 #101

Yes that will be some rational, scientifically based data fully grounded in reason. cbayer Aug 2013 #104

You're an anti-theist yourself skepticscott Sep 2013 #124

Ugh, leave me alone. cbayer Sep 2013 #126

Already addressed, and you know it skepticscott Sep 2013 #135

Use your Ignore feature, thats what its for. cleanhippie Sep 2013 #139

I would ask you to reconsider whether all those merit shutting up. eomer Aug 2013 #118

Whether they merit shutting up or not doesn't really seem to be the issue. cbayer Aug 2013 #119

I want everyone to shut up from promoting sexism. I want no one to shut up on the two I listed. eomer Aug 2013 #120

A discussion such as you propose would be interesting, but can cbayer Aug 2013 #121

We agree on the important parts. eomer Aug 2013 #122

Big congratulations on you first sermon! cbayer Aug 2013 #123

Dawkins does not have a "bully pulpit" edhopper Sep 2013 #125

Your definition is too narrow. Of course he has a bully pulpit. cbayer Sep 2013 #127

I won't get into a round and round edhopper Sep 2013 #128

Well, let's use different words then. cbayer Sep 2013 #129

Yes edhopper Sep 2013 #130

And he will continue to say whatever he wants to... cbayer Sep 2013 #131

That's why he edhopper Sep 2013 #132

He hasn't written a book in 7 years and SRO is always defined by venue. cbayer Sep 2013 #133

I hope it's not edhopper Sep 2013 #136

Why are you using falsehoods about Dawkins skepticscott Sep 2013 #138

You, for one skepticscott Sep 2013 #137

richard dawkins foundation criticizes the vatican based on a satire news site.... madrchsod Aug 2013 #76

One of our esteemed members also fell for this and posted it here. cbayer Aug 2013 #82

Lol! Not all evidence is indeed evidence. rug Aug 2013 #117