4e4499f7   
   From: zzz.zzz@qqq.net   
      
   Reaper G wrote:   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   There is little reason to respond to any of your nonsense because your   
   debating techniques and reasoning skills are on the level of an   
   elementary school kid. I'll illustrate below.   
      
   > 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?   
      
   They are different in the respect that Dawkins is advocating a rational,   
   logical and scientific approach to all aspects of life, including to the   
   so-called "spirituality" (a bullshit term if I've ever seen one), as   
   well as insisting on the strict and non-negotiable separation of the   
   church and the state. The key word is *advocating*, i.e. promoting a   
   view by peaceful means, as opposed to what the religious fanatics have   
   been doing for millenniums now - religious genocide, the Inquisition,   
   the pogroms, torture, murder, rape, wars, Crusades, forced conversions,   
   suicide bombings, etc.   
   How is Dawkins different from all this??? Well, I suppose he isn't, if   
   you're a moron.   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   First learn to differentiate between crimes committed by people who   
   happen to be atheists and crimes committed in order to promote/achieve   
   atheism (hint: there aren't any).   
   All the people you named above also drank water and wore shoes. I   
   suppose drinking water and wearing shoes make you a mass murderer.   
   Accusing Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot of crimes on the basis of their atheism   
   makes as much sense as accusing Hitler of crimes based on his Christianity.   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   How is this relevant to anything Dawkins, or even I said?   
      
   > Science, reason, and logic are wonderful things, but they're   
   > not the *only* things.   
      
   Yes, and?   
      
   > Science won't bring one comfort at the bedside   
   > of a dying relative.   
      
   It isn't supposed to, but then, neither is religion.   
      
   > It hasn't turned around the lives of gang members   
   > and drug addicts.   
      
   This is getting better and better. After scraping the bottom of the   
   barrel for something, anything he can find in his desperate search for   
   the defense of religion, the best he can find is dubious conversions of   
   fanatics who hit rock bottom and substituted one addiction with another.   
      
   > It hasn't motivated people to help the poor and   
   > homeless. How many atheists have won the Nobel Peace Prize?   
      
   And this is precisely why debating anything with you isn't worth the   
   trouble.   
      
   1. Nobel Peace Prize is the least prestigious of all Nobel awards and   
   since it's reason d'etre is mostly political, it's merit is shaky even   
   without examining its recipients   
      
   2. The list of the recipients includes such humanitarians with blood on   
   their hands as Arafat, Rabin, De Klerk, Mother Teresa, Al-Sadat, Begin,   
   Kissinger, Le Duc Tho, as well as mostly irrelevant and/or impotent   
   people and organizations such as Gore, IPCC, IAEA, UN, Annan, Sato,   
   Dalai Lama, UN Peacekeeping Forces, Mott and others   
      
   3. Since the prize has been awarded to organizations (UN, MSF, ICBL,   
   UNPF, IPPNW, UNHCR, AI, ILO, UNCF, Red Cross...) in addition to   
   individuals, the list of recepients symbolically, at least, extends to   
   literally hundreds of millions. How many of those millions are atheists?   
   I don't know. Why is this relevant to begin with? Is the measure of a   
   philosophical worldview valued by the number of its proponents?   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   This is your strawman. You burn it.   
      
      
      
   --   
   If you don't beat your meat   
   You can't have any pudding   
   How can you have any pudding   
   If you don't beat your meat?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)