Dawkins has gotten into divergences with atheists who are highly influeced by Democratic party politics of identity and claim he is a Islamophobe and woman-hater. However, I see it as a classical case of the kettle calling the pot black. Since Dawkins himself believes that the state should be used to further atheism in public schools. So, he may be to the right of people who believe criticizing minorities is a crime worthy of revoking one's freedom of expression, but he is to the left of people who say the state should not interfere with people's freedom of conscience. Both are firmly within Dem party leftist politics ground. What do you think are their similarities and differences?
I think you've been watching too much Fox News. Your question is a variant on the logical fallacy of question begging:"When did you stop beating your wife? i.e., the obvious intent is to smear Democrats by implying that they are experiencing a conflict between an alleged desire to further atheism in public schools and to uphold some unreasonable policy of political correctness toward identity groups. Before we go further, pray tell us who are these "atheists who are highly influenced by the Democratic party politics of identity" and what have they said about Dawkins. Dawkins has always been critical of religious fanatics, so it wouldn't surprise me if he's taken a jab at Islamic fundamentalists (along with Christian fundamentalists). But we have to have the statements to know whether they are fair or cross the line. I think Sam Harris is a far worse offender. Likewise, we have to know what the critics have said to judge their fairness and accuracy. But what does this have to do with party politics? Is Dawkins a Democrat? I didn't know he was even an American citizen. How many Democrat atheists are we talking about. And how do Republican atheists feel about the subject?
You fail to understand the above post with yet another uninspired, knee-jerk post of your own. Have you ever heard of Atheism+? Do you know anything about "Elevatorgate" or the accusations against Dawkins by fellow atheists PZ Myers and skepchick? From your reply it sounds like you haven't, and if that's the case, study moar before you give me attitude. I wouldn't know, I'm not one of them. There's A LOT more to life than some below-60 IQ make-believe rivalry between the two parties.
Interesting that you brought up the context of democrats,leftists, public schools, etc. . How did they get into the act?
I didn't bring it up. New Atheists and Atheists Plus have. At the end of the day, either you're going to admit your ignorance on the subject and study it (asking polite questions was allowed the last time I checked), or you're going to keep fumbling with your ad hominem or getting your panties in a wet bunch because I don't act like your Democratic party is beyond reproach. Google is your friend. Which is it going to be, big boy?
Actually the debate I was finding was intellectual, and perhaps what came out was that the problem of deciding the Supreme Being to truly exist or not is after-all rejected from the hoped conclusion by the "atheistic" debaters. The subjects involved in the debate besides being over my head or liking were in the final analysis born of false accusations done on this and other web-sites. So we must let this subject go by and forgive each other -- basically we were all without exception inconsistent. The supreme being subject really has the unnecessary existence label to some people, but I guess not to me. Unicorns don't exist. DO they exist? considering both horses and Warhols exist. So the consistent system of realizing the existence of to me anything and everything under the sky has no need for an essential being. I withdraw this thread.
That you Manservant Hecubus could not resist and made your comment for the probe of foreigners for their Habits of love and ... whatever else. I might say that there lurks a belief system in thou. I might re-establish the thread worthy of debate. Ahaaa.. in the mean time I shall check upon feminists--- which were atheists and which were religiously bound? Anita Bryant... eh? Sarah Palin, eh?:devil::bobby:
He's making an appeal to the past in alluding to my supposed hatred of women as the reason why I do not side with Rebecca Watson in Elevatorgate. So, my position has nothing to do with the fact that inviting a woman to your room for coffee isn't sexual harassment by the wildest stretch of the imagination, but with the fact that I am supposedly a 'woman-hater." Boo-hoo. A woman hater who believes that women should have all the individual freedoms men have, of thought, speech, association, life, coming and going, property, pursuit of happiness, voting, abortion, and even to sexual freedom without stigma (something that a lot of self-described feminists are iffy on). What other 'rights' are left for women to have that I'm supposedly against? The right to be better than men of course! The right to be put on pedestals! The right to have two weights and two measures whenever men are involved! The right to generalize about men, but not have men generalize about them! That women must be considered as strong and independent as men even though men should "do the pursuing"! The right to say women can be as slutty as they wish without stigma but a man who invites one over for coffee is a rapist! The right to proffer sexual favors exclusively to men who shower them with material goods but to be "above" prostitutes! The right to have sexual harassment and reproductive claims apply only to women! In short, that men should be apologetic for their sexuality and their very manhood! I'm not. That's why I'm a "woman-hater." --------- Edit: Mind you, I have had mutually respectful, lasting relationships with women (platonic and not) all my life. But that doesn't matter to feminists because feminists are not concerned with women of flesh and bones. You can bet your bottom dollar I have better relationships with women than all these little closet/amateur feminists here on Hipforums. Women to them is an ethereal concept on a pedestal; feminists love women as a concept, but they do not love individuals who are women. The same feminists who are so in love with women as a concept, cannot see the humanity of women who take the initiative with men or freely choose to pursue porn or prostitution as a career. To feminists, they are scum. Feminists are almost literally in bed with the religious right nowadays, since both have an agenda in common: a UN law that claims that prostitution and rape are one and the same.
I never heard about any of this over-reactive bullshit until this thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqU9JFbtucU"]Don't Take This The Wrong Way - YouTube
And the results of your guessing is to consider that in all broad Reason, sharia concepts go for the side of health. That's just the way the politics is in Nigeria.:biggrin:
Your post got him a subscription. I've seen some other vids of his prior, and I always thought he just yells too much and is overexcited. But this was excellent. That is precisely my question: what's the point of being an atheist if you're going to hold on to Christian morality?
From the judged standpoint of the improbability of the event we could conclude progressive Evolution, and it would be against the New Atheism's God as delusion. The lady, I guess it is alright to call her a 'girl', the 'delusion' is decided by the protagonist in the youtube video to be determined the true reality to consider without any judgment of probability. It is improbable (simply put not-probable). It he felt was to consider by the judgment of evolution that the prerogative was a faith that was good faith in the man and beyond resolution, bad faith in the woman. She, the interesting Dawkins supporting atheist, was making faith of free sexuality and progressive family breeding after-all, a hypocrisy. Yeah, sure. the fear of strangers is important too, but I agree with the protagonist. What is involved is the concept of the religious meaning of mating and sexual advancing of males on women. This is a concept of reality and a reality. We have reached the improbability which for classic atheists was 'animating' injustice and denying the essential meaning for random trust in your fellowman. Can e trust God instead. Truly she doesn't trust probability of life in a good secularist world any more than in God. God is/was the secularist world. What does Richard Dawkins believe about that? God is not a delusion anymore than the secularist world was. Is this our compromise to the Jihad? They compromise their status for human rights and transcendental charity; we realize secularism for sharia Law and the wealth that defines God beyond formal charity for those tolerating as chauvinistic believers. But R. Dawkins makes the point that any God greater than all secularism is a delusion raising the roof for violence at homo-sexuality if needs be. Jihad makes the Ego receive a value of a non-message from the Prophets. You see I believe with the protagonist that the prophesy and the proof of God from whence it came is an improbable agent. We need more than comments about evolution to disprove the Existenz of the transcendental Negation determining God for literally some miraculous presence. But atheists feel as much as women threatened of their respectability in the community that they don't believe in miracles.:bobby:
I found his video searching for "elevatorgate". I agree with the video and Dawkins. There's nothing sexist about a guy asking for some strange, or in Rebecca Watson's case, some super strange. I understand Atheism may appeal to nerdy antisocial awkward types or arrogant intellectual clicks. It would still be delusional to think that your atheism privileges you from other natural human behaviors.
This goes to show how little atheist New atheists and Atheists+ are. To quote Max Stirner: "Our atheists are pious people, really."
But why believe that Richard Dawkins demands we support the progress of the faith in love by not trusting revolution in the other side of the paradigm? That was all subjective doubt in God's existence, or subjective trust for our prejudicial attitude of conflicting anger. I want a scientific revolution. Even if objective means materialistic.
I was fucking a bitch one time and she was an atheists, and evertime my dick slammed her cervix. she screamed "OH GOD OH GOD". the nerve of some people..
