In God We Must

[Martinus]

Humans have biological imperatives too. Principles are artificial constructs that only humans have. It seems rather bizarre to claim that hewing to them is bestial.

I'm saying that ability to put ourselves in the other person's shoes and to be satisfied with a middle ground, where our imperatives are not victorious but exist side by side with possibly conflicting imperatives of other people is what differentiates us from animals. Is this so hard to understand?

[Razgovory]

Assuming that your summary of Dawkins' view is correct (it's not but that doesn't matter), he is just a single atheist, hardly representative.

Atheists don't turn up a soldiers' funerals waving placards about fags and the army.

They don't force women to wear burquas or children to strap on explosives.

They don't protect priests who abuse children or blame that abuse on liberalism

They don't make their followers take poison.

We don't really do anything. I've never been at a meeting for atheists. Never knocked on someone's door to bore them about the good news that God doesn't exist. Never made my kids go to atheist school. Never struck up a conversation with a total stranger to tell them they aren't really saved.

I'm not smug or sanctomonious about Christians or Jews or Muslims. I don't really give a shit what you believe in as long as you don't bang on about it.

Really?  Mr. Dawkins has positioned himself as a major leader of the "New Athiests" movement.  He has quite a few devoted followers.  I think he is quite  representative.  I suspect you are a bit naive about what some atheists have done.

[Razgovory]

Raz, Christians actually do want to curtail rights of people they consider sinful - e.g. by legislating bans on adoptions by gay people (and not even by gay couples, but also trying to ban individual homosexuals from adopting).

I don't think even Dawkins ever gone so far as to want to ban adoptions by Christians.

Do all Christians want this, Marty?  It does seem unfair to compare one man to a nebulous group.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm saying that ability to put ourselves in the other person's shoes and to be satisfied with a middle ground, where our imperatives are not victorious but exist side by side with possibly conflicting imperatives of other people is what differentiates us from animals. Is this so hard to understand?

No, I just don't fully agree. Animals may lack empathy, but they frequently must accept compromises of sorts with each other, it's not always predator vs prey interactions. This isn't the core of what makes humans unique.

[Gups]

Really? Why do you think he is representative. How do you know how many "followers" he has? Twitter?

Are they like the Pope's followers? Do they think he is infallible? Do they go to his church every week and drop money in a collection box?

I doubt you actually believe what you are writing. I'm guessing you're just passing the time.

[Martinus]

Raz, Christians actually do want to curtail rights of people they consider sinful - e.g. by legislating bans on adoptions by gay people (and not even by gay couples, but also trying to ban individual homosexuals from adopting).

I don't think even Dawkins ever gone so far as to want to ban adoptions by Christians.

Do all Christians want this, Marty?  It does seem unfair to compare one man to a nebulous group.

I am not sure I understand any more what your point is, Raz.

It seems that enough Christians want this that such laws actually get passed in certain US states (I think Arizona or Florida had this on their books). On the other hand, as far as I am aware, a law to ban Christians from adopting has never been even put to a vote.

It seems to me that ascribing to all atheists alleged views of Dawkins seems more disingenuous than ascribing to Christians actual views (as expressed in the laws they adopt) of the majority of their elected representatives.

[Admiral Yi]

I am not sure I understand any more what your point is, Raz.

It seems that enough Christians want this that such laws actually get passed in certain US states (I think Arizona or Florida had this on their books). On the other hand, as far as I am aware, a law to ban Christians from adopting has never been even put to a vote.

You're overlooking the other other arguments against gay adoption.  A person doesn't have to believe that gays are immoral sinners to think children are better off raised by a man and a woman.

[Malthus]

Why is it "bigoted" to consider someone else's worldview in raising kids harmful?

Is one a "bigot" if one considers parents who feed their children only chicken nuggerts harmful?

It is his lack of a sense of proportion that is the problem.

He's like those vegitarians who go on about how eating meat is worse than the Holocaust. They may or may not have a point about the virtues of vegitarianism, but their stridency is off-putting and when they go too far in condemning some individual group or other, can easily sound like bigotry - even to those who happen to think vegitarianism is correct.

Someone going on about how eating meat is worse than the Holocaust is more funny than offensive, because it is obviously silly but isn't attacking any one group. Someone going on about how raising kids Catholic is worse than pedophilia isn't as funny, even though it is just as silly, because it is directly targeting a specific identifiable group.

[Martinus]

I am not sure I understand any more what your point is, Raz.

It seems that enough Christians want this that such laws actually get passed in certain US states (I think Arizona or Florida had this on their books). On the other hand, as far as I am aware, a law to ban Christians from adopting has never been even put to a vote.

You're overlooking the other other arguments against gay adoption.  A person doesn't have to believe that gays are immoral sinners to think children are better off raised by a man and a woman.

Notice I wasn't talking about adoption by gay couples, but by people who are of homosexual orientation. These states do not ban adoption by single people, as long as they are heterosexual.

Also, I was talking about real bigotry (i.e. trying to adopt laws that curtail rights of others) - your "arguments" are exactly that type of bigotry and prejudice (as opposed to simply disliking someone).

[Razgovory]

Really? Why do you think he is representative. How do you know how many "followers" he has? Twitter?

Are they like the Pope's followers? Do they think he is infallible? Do they go to his church every week and drop money in a collection box?

I doubt you actually believe what you are writing. I'm guessing you're just passing the time.

Wait you actually have to be considered infallible and have a church and given donations to be considered to have "followers".  Does that fact that he is frequently invited to speak at places, and has written numerous books (which he has made quite the profit from), have any meaning to you?  Lets see, he's Vice President of the British Humanist Associations.  Everytime you here or see the word "Meme", you can thank him.  He coined the term.  I think it's fair to say he's representative and has followers.

But lets back up.  You mentioned Burqas and the forcing of women to wear them.  Tell me, in the enlightened lands of Western Europe are there any restriction on what people can wear?   Can you walk around nude all the time in most European countries?  Can I wear a T-shirt with a Swastika on it in Germany?  Or do people make you wear certain clothes or prevent you wearing other clothes?

[Razgovory]

I am not sure I understand any more what your point is, Raz.

It seems that enough Christians want this that such laws actually get passed in certain US states (I think Arizona or Florida had this on their books). On the other hand, as far as I am aware, a law to ban Christians from adopting has never been even put to a vote.

It seems to me that ascribing to all atheists alleged views of Dawkins seems more disingenuous than ascribing to Christians actual views (as expressed in the laws they adopt) of the majority of their elected representatives.

I suppose we can play this game.  What do Atheists "Want"  What laws have Atheistic regimes passed?

[Gups]

LOL Raz. High quality trolling. You really need to get a job, it's a shame that you are wasting your intelligence and eloquence on this kind of crap.

[Razgovory]

LOL Raz. High quality trolling. You really need to get a job, it's a shame that you are wasting your intelligence and eloquence on this kind of crap.

Is there something I said that was incorrect?  Please point me to what statement I made that was inaccurate.  Or are you bowing out?

[crazy canuck]

Raz, you might want to reflect on the fact that there is no point in following Marti down the road of grossly inaccurate generalizations.  You make a couple of good points about Dawkins but you your argument loses force when you start engaging in Marti style generalizations.

The thing I dislike most about Dawkins is that he also has a lot of valid points to make, particulary when he points out the stupidity of the literalist creationists who believe the Earth is only thousands of years old.  But then he loses points by assuming that because some people who call themselves Christian are raving lunatics all Christians must be equally stupid.  It is, in short, Dawkins' Marti moment.

[Gups]

LOL Raz. High quality trolling. You really need to get a job, it's a shame that you are wasting your intelligence and eloquence on this kind of crap.

Is there something I said that was incorrect?  Please point me to what statement I made that was inaccurate.  Or are you bowing out?

Bowing out. You're a pro. I'm a well-meaning amateur fitting the odd post in around lawyering.

Dawkins is the world leader of the church of atheism. All atheists follow him, except for the heretical splitters. We know this because he gets invited to speak at places and has made money from writing books.

Western Europeans have no more choice when it comes to clothing then women in Saudi Arabia.

All atheists are sanctimonious and smug, following in the footsteps of their Fuhrer Dawkins