4e4499f7   
   From: lawrence-OmitThisBit-logic@amd-p.com   
      
   Reaper G wrote:   
   > On Aug 3, 10:31?pm, Alan Ford  wrote:   
   >> Lawrence Logic wrote:   
   >>> Around the time that Richard Dawkins got together with Mrs   
   >>> Garrison, one of the regulars posted something about Dawkins being   
   >>> a bit of an idiot. ?I'd never actually heard of him at that point,   
   >>> but I downloaded a lecture a couple of weeks ago and found it very   
   >>> amusing and educational.   
   >>   
   >>> Over the weekend, I watched five DVD's of Dawkins and I now reckon   
   >>> he's wonderful. ?It was all "retarded fish-frog" stuff and   
   >>> everything seemed to make perfect sense.   
   >>   
   >>> Does anyone here like him or loathe him sufficiently to comment?   
   >>   
   >>> If you loathe him, is there a particular reason why?   
   >>   
   >> You see, there is no real reason to "loathe" Dawkins unless one is a   
   >> member of your typical "real American" redneck who is hopelessly   
   >> unable to think for himself and has to rely on what he believes are   
   >> "news" sources such as Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter,   
   >> Kristol, Beck, as well as the endless procession of religion   
   >> peddlers of all sorts. Combine this constant crypto-fascist   
   >> propaganda with the rampant and ever increasing anti-intellectualism   
   >> in today's USA and the result is the endless assault on reason,   
   >> education, intellect, academia and science, that is primarily   
   >> conducted by attacks on persons, as opposed to attacking their   
   >> positions and opinions.   
   >> In the case of Dawkins, who like many other prominent atheists seems   
   >> to be a constant thorn in the religious fanatics' paws, they will   
   >> inevitably throw in a completely idiotic misrepresentation of   
   >> atheism as "religion", so that they can then proceed to burn that   
   >> straw man as well. After all, it would be utterly ludicrous to   
   >> accuse someone of being a fanatic for a non-belief, but if you   
   >> "clevelry" reclassify his non-belief into the polar opposite of what   
   >> it is, you can then fling your arguments like a retarded monkey   
   >> flings turds and none is the wiser. None with an IQ of more than 10,   
   >> that is.   
   >>   
   >> For a case in point, see a response from Reaper G in this newsgroup.   
   >>   
   >> Apparently, Dawkins is "as nutty as any other Bible-thumper or   
   >> jihadist", but of course, we'll get no arguments whatsoever to   
   >> justify how he is "as nutty",   
   >   
   > Oh yes you will, Mr. Can't Respond to Me Directly.   
   >   
   > How exactly is Dawkins's desire for worldwide atheism any different   
   > from what Christians, Muslims, etc. have wanted for millenia, and how   
   > exactly would he go about achieving that?   
   >   
   >> why, in what respect, not to mention the sheer   
   >> absurdity of comparing one of the leading British intellectuals to a   
   >> horde of Islamic fanatics. We'll just have to accept that he's nutty   
   >> - after all, South Park says so, and like Jesus is G.W.Bush's   
   >> favorite philosopher, South Park is the same to some people here.   
   >> Welcome to America's culture.   
   >>   
   >> Then he'll follow it up with what is either a complete lack of   
   >> understanding of how ideas work or a shitty but sly attempt to debase   
   >> his position on religion: "the idea that the world would be better   
   >> without religion is just as realistic as the Easter Bunny"   
   >   
   >> The "idea" of the World being better off without religion has   
   >> nothing to do with reality - it is a claim that can either be argued   
   >> or taken at face value. Whether it can ever be implemented is   
   >> irrelevant to its premise. But don't tell Reaper G that - why   
   >> confuse someone with facts? Why bother arguing something with a   
   >> person who declares Dawkins "nutty" without having a decency to   
   >> maybe first read some of his books on the matter and then form an   
   >> educated opinion? Would it make any difference to those people to   
   >> point out the sheer body count that resulted in all the religious   
   >> and pseudo-religious wars throughout history,   
   >   
   > Jacobins, Bolsheviks, the Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot.   
   >   
   >> as well as   
   >> the constant suppression of thought, science and progress that   
   >> continues to this day, from "Intelligent Design" peddlers in the US   
   >> to the utter illiteracy and general backwardness of every Muslim   
   >> country where church rules the state?   
   >   
   > There's no thought, science, or progress in mocking the beliefs of   
   > others. Science, reason, and logic are wonderful things, but they're   
   > not the *only* things. Science won't bring one comfort at the bedside   
   > of a dying relative. It hasn't turned around the lives of gang members   
   > and drug addicts. It hasn't motivated people to help the poor and   
   > homeless. How many atheists have won the Nobel Peace Prize?   
   >   
   >> No, Dawkins nutty, four legs good, two legs bad, war is peace,   
   >> freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.   
   >   
   > And atheists are smarter and better than religious people.   
   >   
      
   I'm disappointed by your apparent tirade.   
      
   I don't know if you and Mr Ford have tangled previously.  Perhaps the amount   
   of froth can be verified by scientific investigation (I'd so a smiley face   
   here if I was a fan of emoticons).   
      
   Maybe it was you that I was inadvertantly referring to when I said that   
   someone here didn't like him.  I'm probably more in the Dawkins camp than   
   the God camp.  You may be less in the God camp than seemed to be the case in   
   your post, and merely object to Dawkins being an activist as much as the   
   next religious crackpot.  In a way, he's very similar.   
      
   But I think that a scientific approach makes better sense to me. "2x=y"   
   makes more sense to me than anything that advocates that x can equal 3 and y   
   can equal 5, and that the incongruence can only be explained by faith.   
      
   Add the notion that there is a single God, "each" backing those that pray to   
   it, yet religious wars are still going on?  If there's only one God, and He   
   protects those who do His will, it's kind-of funny that there are so many of   
   them, and that all of His followers aren't similarly protected.  If there is   
   really a single entity governing our world, what the heck are all those   
   bomb-clad nutters thinking?   
      
   Perhaps the fact that certain religions fear scrutiny should point to the   
   relative integrity of the particular religion.  Islam, for instance, seems   
   very intolerant of scrutiny.  People who follow Christ are generally less   
   inherently-stoopid than their Islamic counterparts, and usually try to   
   reason with dumb Moslem people.  That's why Moslems somehow commit worse   
   atrocities than those that go the other way - they're usually more extreme,   
   and their targets try to make friends with them, making them easier targets.   
      
   Doesn't it seem strange that Christianity and atheism don't mind a bit of   
   ridicule?   
      
   I'm fast becoming an atheist.  The Christians aren't bad neighbours though.   
      
   --   
   Lawrence   
   "It is the Jews!  Covetous Jews, who have taken all our money and horded it   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)