I don’t like you, Wed, Jan 30 2013 #(524)

Jan 30, 2013

I don’t like you richard dawkins, its not that your an atheist. Its that your trying change peoples religious reasoning to follow your proporgated dogma. Its how you present your argument, and you totally inetituded to see your hipocracy. You say that any man of reason will not believe in god, and the god is the cause of all wars.

Who are you to decide who is reasonable and who is gulible and foolish. When does your ideology of a perfect world without religion manifest in to a world faught over interpritation of fossils and other paleolithic evidence. When is that your campaign of reason become one of hate.

Is it when you claim your ideology is supeior to mine? Is it when you try to end a religion by replacing it with up to date man based religion. Is it when you embrace science as the only and conclude that anything unexplained in this world has yet to be discovered, and not simply the work of god who claim does not exist.

When are you going to smarten up and realise that your message of peace will soon become a message of war, a reason to destroy religion and its followers under the banner of the ideology that if you are illogical and unreasonable then you are fool who deserves to die. Don’t say it won’t happen, all religion starts out with good intentions and usually ends with genicide or some other act of inhumanity.

When are you going to stop using the term, “If your a smart person, then you must see where god fails”. This isn’t a term of reasoning, this a term you use to blindsight and destroy the concience and indepence of the common people. All men and women on some level think they are smart, so when you say that if you were smart you would believe this; you are in defintion trying to convert people who are ignorrent fools and moronic theologins unsure of their own connection to the world. They hear you say these bloated words, and long to become like you.

Your smart Mr. Dawkin, but you are not wise.
From a man who is rational and believes in a god. which by your definition is a paradox.
.

11 comments on “I don’t like you, Wed, Jan 30 2013 #(524)

  • Which deity do you believe in?

    You have many choices – tick a box! A measured and careful understanding of the origin of the universe and the evolution of life demolishes religious ‘faiths’ outright! The King James Bible is the greatest joke book ever written!

    If you are serious, you should study the idiotic and manipulated origins of your bible and its stories – just trying to help! David!

    Slightly edited by moderator to bring within Terms of Use.

  • David #1
    Jun 15, 2017 at 8:22 am

    I see you have found this old piece of asserted nonsense, which has been ignored until now.
    We don’t normally comment on matters such as spelling and grammar, because several posing on this site have English as a second language, and we therefore look at the content more than the writing.

    However, in the case of this article the poor spelling, and irrational assertions pontificating about the skills of reasoning, do make a point about the psychological projections of the author!

    @OP – I don’t like you richard dawkins, its not that your an atheist. Its that your trying change peoples religious reasoning to follow your proporgated dogma.
    Its how you present your argument, and you totally inetituded to see your hipocracy.
    You say that any man of reason will not believe in god, and the god is the cause of all wars.

    Who are you to decide who is reasonable and who is gulible and foolish.

    Perhaps those who have a deep understanding of reasoning and evidence, are those competent to decide! Those who do not know how to spell the words or look them up, probably have a very limited grasp of their meanings!
    Those who make fallacious arguments are in no position to pontificate on “reason”!

    When does your ideology of a perfect world without religion manifest in to a world faught over interpritation of fossils and other paleolithic evidence.

    What indeed do the negative social and political effects of religion in human societies, have to do with fossils? – Although religious backward preconceptions and irrationality, may motivate the ignorant to argue about inferences from fossil evidence on irrelevant issues.

    When is that your campaign of reason become one of hate.
    Is it when you claim your ideology is supeior to mine?
    Is it when you try to end a religion by replacing it with up to date man based religion.
    Is it when you embrace science as the only and conclude that anything unexplained in this world has yet to be discovered,

    Is it that this author has absolutely no understanding of the scientific method or logical reasoning, and churns out strawman claims, false dichotomies, false equivalences, and other forms of fallacious thinking?

    and not simply the work of god who claim does not exist.

    Ah! He knows god-did-it by default, – so who needs a depth of understanding, science, knowledge of what HAS been discovered, evidence or reasoning????

  • Erk Alan – okay, I have made a mistake – but I am new to this program.

    Which is the best chat forum to put down some points? As a just retired lawyer at 56 with years work in the Australian Federal Ct and High Court, I deal with facts and realities.

    I cannot stand ‘sloppy’ reasoning. I have a few points to make in support of rational thinking – but which is the best spot for me to send any further comments? They are intended to assist sensible thinking!

    David
    Master of Laws (Sydney Uni)

  • Hi David

    Welcome to RichardDawkins.net.

    We don’t have a forum as such, but you’re welcome to post relevant comments on any of the articles posted. We do ask that all comments be broadly on the topic of the original article, though we normally take a more relaxed view of what constitutes “on topic” after a certain point in the thread. It’s hard to imagine comments in support of rational thinking ever being completely off-topic; we do just ask that users don’t post anything that will distract from the Original Post before it’s had chance to be discussed properly.

    If you go to http://www.richarddawkins.net/tcp and scroll down to section 14 at the very bottom, that should give you a good feel for the kind of discussion environment we’re trying to create here.

    Good to have you with us!

    The mods

  • David #3
    Jun 15, 2017 at 11:16 am

    Erk Alan – okay, I have made a mistake – but I am new to this program.

    I don’t think you did! You quite properly spoke in support of carefully thought through rational thinking.

    My comment was about the opening paragraph above and about attitudes of those who are largely unacquainted with this. – As with some examples in this lengthy recent discussion:-
    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/11/i-had-to-take-my-dirty-panties-to-a-rabbi-and-so-has-every-orthodox-jewish-woman

    I have a few points to make in support of rational thinking – but which is the best spot for me to send any further comments? They are intended to assist sensible thinking!

    Old posts tend to fade out unless someone picks up on them quickly, so for current conversations, the most recent articles on RD Home or RDnet news are best. You can use your browser history to follow up on your previous posts if they are hard to find.

    As a just retired lawyer at 56 with years work in the Australian Federal Ct and High Court, I deal with facts and realities.

    My own background is in science and education, but my daughter is an English lawyer.

  • Just another tip to add to Alan’s:

    If you open any article and scroll down the page, you’ll find a list of the 5 Most Recent comments posted anywhere on the site. It’s a handy way to see the threads that have been active most recently. We’ve asked the technical managers of the site to put that on the home page too, so once they’ve had chance to do that, it should be a bit easier to find.

    The mods

  • Gulp! I’ll get back in my chair – only for the moment – but I am trying to keep on the rails.

    Apart from Richard’s books and others like his, there are some fascinating (well obvious) books about the origin of bible ‘stories’ and their evolution. If Darwin’s Origin of Species (I have a copy of course) doesn’t make people think, then these very detailed books must make people of religious leaning really question their beliefs!

    And Alan, I naturally add to that science and the scientific method of testing and re-testing one’s position.

    Thanks Alan and the Mod team. Cheers, David!

  • David #7
    Jun 15, 2017 at 4:27 pm

    Apart from Richard’s books and others like his, there are some fascinating (well obvious) books about the origin of bible ‘stories’ and their evolution.

    Many people make the mistake of assuming that theists have a depth of knowledge about their own religions. Most of them don’t!

    Apart from the Edited edition of “THE NT Bible” from Athanasius of Alexandria, there is the Canaanite backdrop to the Old Testament – and that is only the versions of the Jewish/ Christian/ Islamic religions, on which I commented on this link.

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/11/i-had-to-take-my-dirty-panties-to-a-rabbi-and-so-has-every-orthodox-jewish-woman/#li-comment-221970

    There are also debates on serious issues about the frontiers of science and technology. (If theist fundamentalists read some of these, they might not think they can blind people on this site with [pseudo-] science or gods hidden in space!)
    Some high quality information, others are flawed (as in the OP of this thread”) but which are interesting for analysis and discussion.

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/07/nasa-is-seriously-considering-terraforming-part-of-the-moon-with-robots/

  • Ah, many thanks Alan…

    As I say, I just wish to make few points – without being rude to anybody – I suggest that science, and not faith in inexplicable positions, is the proper path of inquiry.

    David, Sydney, Oz! I have 2, maybe 3 points, to enter the debate about rationality and proper reasoning. I hope for the moderators and Richard that I am on track!

  • David #9
    Jun 16, 2017 at 11:42 am

    I suggest that science, and not faith in inexplicable positions, is the proper path of inquiry.

    Frequently the “inexplicable positions” are only “inexplicable to the ignorant who post them. – as they discover when some specialist scientist or historian replies! The explanations often sail right past them, but other readers get the point.

    I have 2, maybe 3 points, to enter the debate about rationality and proper reasoning.

    You could keep a look out for discussions like this one.

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/04/were-rarely-rational-when-we-vote-because-were-rarely-rational-period/

    But having said that, comments on the rationality of arguments, on scientific evidence, and on scientific methodology, often turn up in other discussions.

    Theists with airs of authority often quote some of their apologist “philosophers” who THINK they are brilliant at reasoning, but it is usually the fallacious or circular type! 🙂

  • Many thanks Alan.

    I want to develop 3 thoughts, and put them down in more detailed form, if I am permitted.

    It fits in with the terms of reference and behaviour with this site. Rather late at night in Sydney, Australia, but I’ll get back with some common sense propositions.

    David

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.