Post Reply
Page 2 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The New Intolerance
3 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 3:46PM #11
JCarlin
Posts: 7,058

Apr 26, 2012 -- 12:41PM, Lavengro wrote:

The New Intolerance


She seems intent on proving as many of the religious visitors to this board attempt to prove that atheism is a dogmatic belief system.  She is, as they are, wrong.  Prooftexting a few zealots is a very weak argument. 


There is perhaps a new intolerance but it does not belong to atheists, but to all reasonable people that think that religious dogmatic hate is intolerable.  The religious adherents to the new intolerance must be more circumspect, but they in fact are the most effective.  The nuns getting their knuckles rapped will in fact bring down the Pope.  All the loud atheists will not.  The quiet atheists who are a more important part of the new intolerance are working effectively with all reasonable people to combat intolerance in the schools and workplaces.  

J'Carlin
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 3:57PM #12
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:43PM, redshifted wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:30PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


From what I've seen of Dawkins, about all he does is pick at the low-hanging fruit of the worst examples of religion in practice, and then try to apply that to general principle and essense of religion.



What isn't "low-hanging fruit" when it comes to religion? If anything, Dawkins et al put religion in its proper place instead of undeservedly inflating it like most people do.




Religion is a big, juicy target. 


Hell, I'm a religious person, and I could sit around and poke fun at parts of it all day long. I don't care who might "inflate" it. 


That said, I find Dawkins no more impressive than a kid sitting in the back of the classroom, trying to disrupt the teacher and draw attention by making fart noises.


It's just two sides of the same absurd coin.


Still, at the end of the day, I'd rather just poke fun at myself. It's completely fair, easy and amusing.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 4:08PM #13
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:46PM, JCarlin wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 12:41PM, Lavengro wrote:

The New Intolerance


She seems intent on proving as many of the religious visitors to this board attempt to prove that atheism is a dogmatic belief system.  She is, as they are, wrong.  Prooftexting a few zealots is a very weak argument. 


There is perhaps a new intolerance but it does not belong to atheists, but to all reasonable people that think that religious dogmatic hate is intolerable.  The religious adherents to the new intolerance must be more circumspect, but they in fact are the most effective.  The nuns getting their knuckles rapped will in fact bring down the Pope.  All the loud atheists will not.  The quiet atheists who are a more important part of the new intolerance are working effectively with all reasonable people to combat intolerance in the schools and workplaces.  




It's a matter of sheer mass (not only in the Catholic sense..LOL)


There are far more religious people than atheists. So, of course, the number of "zealots" on one side is going to appear far more prominent. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 4:21PM #14
redshifted
Posts: 2,283

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:57PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


That said, I find Dawkins no more impressive than a kid sitting in the back of the classroom, trying to disrupt the teacher and draw attention by making fart noises.




Nah, all the fart noises are coming from those who don't like getting knocked off their high horse. Religion has a pretty bad "entitlement for no reason" problem. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 4:24PM #15
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 26, 2012 -- 4:21PM, redshifted wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:57PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


That said, I find Dawkins no more impressive than a kid sitting in the back of the classroom, trying to disrupt the teacher and draw attention by making fart noises.




Nah, all the fart noises are coming from those who don't like getting knocked off their high horse. Religion has a pretty bad "entitlement for no reason" problem. 




Of course it does. At least in the institutional sense.


So, quit entitling it.


Why should anybody need Dawkins to figure that out? 


Now, I'm going to go back to poking fun at myself. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 5:12PM #16
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,790

Apr 26, 2012 -- 4:21PM, redshifted wrote:



Nah, all the fart noises are coming from those who don't like getting knocked off their high horse. Religion has a pretty bad "entitlement for no reason" problem. 




I agree.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 5:41PM #17
redshifted
Posts: 2,283

Apr 26, 2012 -- 4:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Of course it does. At least in the institutional sense.


So, quit entitling it.


Why should anybody need Dawkins to figure that out? 



I think what Dawkins and his buddies are doing is creating a societal atmosphere where critical scrutiny of religion isn't taboo or off-limits like it's traditionally been. This is sorely needed.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 5:48PM #18
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 26, 2012 -- 5:41PM, redshifted wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 4:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Of course it does. At least in the institutional sense.


So, quit entitling it.


Why should anybody need Dawkins to figure that out? 



I think what Dawkins and his buddies are doing is creating a societal atmosphere where critical scrutiny of religion isn't taboo or off-limits like it's traditionally been. This is sorely needed.




I can agree with that general principle. 


Everybody has a part to play.


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 5:57PM #19
steven_guy
Posts: 11,751

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:03PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 2:48PM, steven_guy wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 1:15PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The reaction of some has been to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Or, in Dawkin's case, throw out the baby and keep the bathwater. I agree with the writer -- he's as dogmatic and irrational as any religious pulpit-pounder I've ever had the misfortune of hearing.



Prove it.




He proves it every time he opens his mouth.




You haven't proved it. I've read Professor Dawkins' books, seen him on television and heard him talk in public.


Prove what you said.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 6:02PM #20
steven_guy
Posts: 11,751

Apr 26, 2012 -- 5:41PM, redshifted wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 4:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Of course it does. At least in the institutional sense.


So, quit entitling it.


Why should anybody need Dawkins to figure that out? 



I think what Dawkins and his buddies are doing is creating a societal atmosphere where critical scrutiny of religion isn't taboo or off-limits like it's traditionally been. This is sorely needed.




Richard Dawkins has dragged the discussion of religion kicking and screaming out into the public forum in the USA and some other places.


I think that people will find that the good professor doesn't raise an eyebrow outside of the United States of America. In Europe and Australia Richard Dawkins isn't "controversial" in the slightest.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook