Richard Dawkins

@madara Some statement that are often (not always) based on religion.

Anti-gay : “Gays are unnatural and dangerous and should be “cured” in order to improve society”
anti-atheist : “You can´t be moral without believing in god”, “Atheists serve the devil”, “I´d never vote for an atheist candidate”
anti-women: “Women should not be allowed to have abortions”, “women were created to serve their husbands”, “women can not be (spiritual) leaders”:
Anti-science: “Evolution is just a theory, we should teach our children creationism instead”, “the earth is 6,000 years old”, “stem cell research is immoral”

I don´t think these statements contradict each other.

“Either you’re gay and you hate women or you’re anti-gay and you are attracted to them there’s nothing in between.”

What the duck?!?

@Easy_Rider : I was talking about you and Colin( sorry if I left the impression that I was excluding you) .

Clearly. I’m not reasonable because I called Paule anti-gay or a woman hater. Wait. Wait. Wait a minute…

I think we should drop any discussions about religion .Everyone is entitled to believe in what they want without forcing it upon others ( and let’s have some good time making fun of Spatterson :)) ).

Oh please do. Hopefully some of the lingq members who have actually met me in person will join in. As one of my mentors taught me “if you can’t laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at”. I wake up an give a good long laugh in the mirror. That way I’m free to laugh at you

The last ten posts went straight over my head. You guys have completely lost me.

@ Easy_Rider

I think your interpretation of the point Dawkins was making in your last post is correct. As far as I know, he never referred to knowledge of the Bible alone as the reason to say that most of the people identifying as christian on the census are not really christian, but he certainly mentioned it among other things, such as belief that Jesus was the son of God and whatnot. I don’t think this is arrogant though. He was not saying that he knows better than these people, he was just clearing up a confusion that can arise due to the ambiguous use of the term ‘christian’.

The term ‘christian’ can have different meanings. The term ‘christian’ can refer exclusively to somebody who believes in the standard christian beliefs, goes to church, does other standard christian things. The broader use of the term can also refer to people who come from christian families, and identify as christians, even if they don’t really believe any of the christian beliefs, don’t do any of the christian stuff. The point Dawkins was making is that most people who identified as christian on the census were christian by the second definition, and not by the first. This is an important distinction because as soon as the census results came out, it was clear that a lot of people would use the results to justify arguments or political policies that would only make sense if the majority of people in the country were christian by the first definition, and would not make sense if they were in fact chritian by the second definition.

Be my guest El Spatterson.
Yep your mentor is pretty smart .

@ MADARA

Why should we not discuss religion? So long as your account doesn’t get deleted, I don’t see anything bad that can happen. This has been a very civilized discussion so far. A lot of us disagree about a lot of things, but that is to be expected.

@Colin

Well, I see your point. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don’t think this interview was by any means Dawkins’ worst moment.

But we’ll just put it down to his being a reptilian agent, and leave it at that! :smiley:

I think it’s pretty clear. MADARA just doesn’t want me to remind her(him?) that there are multiple versions of the Qu’ran. I scared him(her?) off

Religion can be discussed only with people that know how to tolerate others and that really want to find out about what other people believe in and how that ideology is formed . Calling people idiots is not the good way to follow through in these kinds of discussions .

Oooo! I think I’m going to call my mother like ‘‘my little pony’’ or whatever she is called.
And I’m a guy by the way.

It would seem that Spatterson gave up. Well maybe you’ll have a chance for a rematch sometime .

Probably his wife told him to stop typing.

My evidence is on wikipedia. Your evidence is… well… non-existent. No rematch needed. You’re wrong.

BTW, just curious, since you’re a man… are you married? Do you make your wife wear the hijab, burka, or neither? Personally, I let my muslim wife wear what she wants

Yes you are right. Even he can’t escape from the orders of the ''minister of interior ‘’.
Oh and if I remember correctly he said that he is married with a Muslim woman. Well Muslim women can’t marry Atheists I can tell you that for sure. I mean just look at his attitude towards Islam.

My attitude towards Islam is neutral. I’ve said it again and again… as long as you’re not beheading people or hindering human rights I don’t care. I really don’t know where you get your horseshit from… but it’s best you leave it at the door.

Oh I consider freedom of choice-of-clothing a human right btw.

I’m only 21 so I still have to wait until I can get married ( after I finish college and stuff).
‘‘My evidence is on wikipedia.’’ Not all things there are accurate you know. And I thought we were making fun of ourselves so lets leave our beliefs aside , shall we ?

Oh , Spatterson got mad. I should take it easy in order to give you the impression that you can win.