I've had enough of listening to Dawkins feed lie after lie? to the public.
What we need in our society is not an English zealot intent on converting the United States to atheism.
Instead, we need a generation of young people to be brought up to think for themselves and to have honest dialogue on these issues.
I for one will not sit back while the openly dishonest, such as Richard Dawkins, are given the platform.
47 comments
"We need a generation of young people to be brought up to think for themselves and to have honest dialogue on these issues."
I agree, and furthermore I don't believe that immediately excludes people from having any particular religious beliefs.
"I for one will not sit back while the openly dishonest, such as Richard Dawkins, are given the platform."
And in the spirit of the honest dialogue we both endorse, perhaps you'd like to say where Dawkins has been "openly dishonest"?
"Instead, we need a generation of young people to be brought up to think for themselves and to have honest dialogue on these issues. "
*snerk*
*snicker*
BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
*pant*
*gasp*
*whew*
That was rich!
"Instead, we need a generation of young people to be brought up to think for themselves and to have honest dialogue on these issues."
What a novel idea. Now, if only U.S. churches could churn out people that were actually capable of doing so, you might have what you desire. Until then, the unindoctrinated (with the majority of atheists being among their ranks) are the closest we will get to that goal. Not what you hoped for, eh?
If there were a truly honest dialog on religion, your side would lose.
So careful what you wish for....
"we need a generation of young people to be brought up to think for themselves and to have honest dialogue on these issues."
SUP.
I have thought about this myself, and I agree with Dawkin's as far as I remember. He's an atheist, right? Right. Then I mostly agree with him.
@ "Delmania"
Your comment is utterly laughable. There's no such thing as a secular or atheist fundamentalist. The term is an oxymoron. It's not possible to be a fundamentalist if there is no text or creed to have blind faith in. Atheists do not base their lack of faith on anything but reason and logic, which is in fact the opposite of fundamentalism.
I've had enough of listening to Dawkins feed lie after lie? to the public.
What we need in our society is not an English zealot intent on converting the United States to atheism.
Instead, we need a generation of young people to be brought up to think for themselves and to have honest dialogue on these issues.
I for one will not sit back while the openly dishonest, such as Richard Dawkins, are given the platform.
...we need a generation of young people to be brought up to think for themselves and to have honest dialogue on these issues.
I like the way this sounds. Nonetheless, I know you fundie freak-jobs mean that those young people should be indoctrinated with whatever your personal beliefs are.
"we need a generation of young people to be brought up to think for themselves and to have honest dialogue on these issues. "
You bet! That's why Dawkins is here, to show how dishonest you fundies are.
@ ...
Again I ask...
WHAT IS IT with people putting the word ONLY in the wrong place in the sentence. While in this particular example, it makes no difference (because you can, in fact, only see improperly positioned question marks, as opposed to hearing them or tasting them), it usually annoys the hell out of me.
As for whether it is possible to be a secular fundie, I think the term "fundamentalist" cannot apply, since it implies having some fundamental principles that one adheres to, and by that definition, every secular scientist is a fundamentalist adhering to the basic tenets of reality. However, one can, in fact, be a total proselityzing jerk even if one is not religious. There are plenty of very reasonable people of faith and there are actual non-religious folk hell-bent on proving to those people that they are deluded, which is entirely unnecessary.
I thought Dawkins was encouraging people to think for themselves. Gee, I must be wrong.
But then again, someone spouting "lies" pretty much forces you to "think for yourself", right?
Since Dawkins is a scientist, it's remotely possible that he has been wrong about every scientific claim he has made. Creationists, however, are the actual liars.
"I've had enough of listening to Dawkins feed lie after lie?"
I don't know. Have you?
"to the public."
That's not even a proper sentence. If want your opinions taken seriously I suggest you get a better handle on English grammar.
"What we need in our society is not an English zealot intent on converting the United States to atheism."
Yes, I'm sure that's Dawkin's plan.
"Instead, we need a generation of young people to be brought up to think for themselves and to have honest dialogue on these issues."
Agreed. Unfortunately you can't have that when the majority of the population is stuck in the Bronze Age as far as their understanding of how things work goes.
"I for one will not sit back while the openly dishonest, such as Richard Dawkins, are given the platform."
Dishonest in what way? Be specific.
How can you be "openly dishonest?" If you're dishonest, isn't there deception in there somewhere by definition?
Oh, well, words only mean what fundies want them to mean at the moment.
"What we need in our society is not an English zealot intent on converting the United States to atheism."
But its ok for Roman fucks to cover the United States with Christianity. Makes sense.
"Instead, we need a generation of young people to be brought up to think for themselves and to have honest dialogue on these issues."
We do, they're called Atheists.
"I for one will not sit back while the openly dishonest, such as Richard Dawkins, are given the platform."
Prove that he's being dishonest.
yes Richard Dawkins is a fundie atheist (pace @Seamus D: it is possible to be such, he is totally unforgiving of even moderate religion. He considers and says that they are ignorant).
Unfortunately his stridency has something to do with the overwhelming influence and infiltration of Xianity into what should be secular establishments
@ apYrs
Dawkins is certainly critical of religion, even moderate views, but the term "fundie atheist" still makes no semantic sense. It would be better to say "militant" or "aggressive," but even these honestly do not apply to Dawkins.
@ SeamusD and pratical_god
"The term is an oxymoron."
Very good, you're learning.
Rather than explain, I'll give you an example.
Religious fundamentalist: Believe!
This guy: Think for your damn self.
I bet 10,000 dollars that you can't find someone with absolutely no bias to teach 'true free-thinking', but I bet 100,000 dollars that this generation will acknowledge evolution.
I saw at least three comments agreeing that Dawkins is somehow an over the top Atheist Fundie. Maybe this guy and you three can tell me where you find the Atheist Dogma Manifestos or where Dawkins demands you believe under threat of eternal punishment.
Sure Dawkins has pulled some arrogance out, it's mostly when his opponents are unqualified theocracists lieing about science or history. Hitchens was even more so but neither of them base their arguments on lies or special pleadings. It's not so much arrogance at that point as it is saying "Well, sit down and listen to real facts and you might learn something, you uneducated, superstitious, bafoon"
"Instead, we need a generation of young people to be brought up to think for themselves and to have honest dialogue on these issues."
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
