So friggin what? Is OP not allowed to see something on Dawkins and link to it here? Are the rest of us not allowed to click on it? And who are these mythical "other believers who post often about Dawkins"? Get help. |
And the Satanic Temple is your representative. I'll look to them for all things atheist ... and racist and misogynistic and even flat earth. |
Scratch that. We'll just form our opinions about atheists based on your behavior here and on other threads. Derailing two threads with badgering about inconsequential cr@p? Check. Responding to arguments you can't beat by insulting the poster? Check. |
And yet here you are. Derailing a perfectly fine discussion about surprising comments from a public figure. Spending your life wasting away people having discussions that you think they’re weird and obsessed because you don’t agree. We don’t care. We will continue to discuss Dawkins and Hitchens and Atheism and Christianity and other religious topics of interest to us. Move along. |
They were just simple questions - not sure why people were so threatened/triggered by them. |
Bye now. |
DP. Because you're a bully who went on for 2? 3? 4? pages on TWO different threads each. First people ignored you, because your questions about our news sources were completely OT. Then on TWO different threads you started claiming the people who ignored you just didn't want to admit they read Focus on the Family. When somebody finally took some time to answering your OT question, you went further OT to hound them about Dawkins coverage in The Guardian. You got your answer pages ago: people get their general news from The Guardian or wherever, and most of us don't read Focus, but when there's a DCUM thread we'll click on it. But no, you're still here hounding everyone. I'm with PP. Let's continue to discuss Dawkins and Hitchens and Atheism and Christianity and other religious topics of interest to us. |
Dawkins is being read to filth in the online atheist communities I frequent. Apparently he’s only a good scientist and thinker when he says things people agree with. |
Understanding motivations is always important in a discussion to put comments into context. |
Thanks for an actually substantive comment. - a person of faith |
Richard Dawkin is white. This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with cultural preference and being with his people primarily in his own racial group; which is understandable. |
Are you saying he can't compare religions and make an informed choice? |
I've read the Quran and the New Testament, both cover to cover. I choose the New Testament. No doubt Dawkins has also read them both. You're claiming he can't make a similarly informed comparison, and that's just dumb. |
I have no issue with this except I wish he had not brought Islam into it. I think there's a good argument for cultural Christianity based on history alone. |
I don’t know how people can separate Christianity from the source of Christianity. Liking something and admitting you benefit from something but disregarding the source seems like you want the fruits but not the labor. We see a lot of the same thought in our culture and society now, about many different aspects of life. All the good with none of the work or commitment. So it goes. |