• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Richard Dawkins' Hate Mail

Hate mail helps to pay a professional skeptic's rent and justify an amateur skeptic's obsession. It is a kind of food.

biomorph said:
Not by atheists, only by competing other religions..........now wash yours.......:D
Click to expand...

Demonising Islam is a political spout rather than a religious one. Atheism doesn't make one immune to political manipulation.
 
JihadJane said:
Hate mail helps to pay a professional skeptic's rent and justify an amateur skeptic's obsession. It is a kind of food.
Click to expand...
how come?

they don't need to look good from making it up, they do that from having sound logic.

the open honesty of the skeptic speaks for itself, the truth is of course the death threaters and the like just get shown up for what they really are by their own words.
there is simply no need to make it up, there really isn't


Demonising Islam is a political spout rather than a religious one.
Click to expand...

well if islam wants get political (which it does) then that is justified. It then gets justifiable flack from politics and non believers.
Keeping religion out of politics is something Islam really finds hard, how come?

Anyway Islam does not need demonising from anyone, it does it to itself quite nicely through its own blatent insanity, you have read the Q'uran have'nt you?

Atheism doesn't make one immune to political manipulation.
Click to expand...

Examples?

Also you it seems, just as the others i'm critically calling out here also seem (true to what I've stated) not yet seen fit to call to account the radicals within it.

All you seem to have done so far is justify it through dodging the issue, which is spot on. Why? do you support religious violence?

For instance should all gays be stoned to death?
do you consider suicide bombers "true believers"?
Do you think that these sort of people are justified in anyway?

Or would you denounce that sort of lunatic behaviour?
If you do, then you have denounced Islam surely?

if not why not? if you do so, why not now?
 
Last edited:
Twiler said:
It seems rather surreal that people actually send such messages. I wonder what the historians of future generations will think of this?
Click to expand...

i'll guess they'll think the nutjobs are quite insane, which they are.
Who would think otherwise?
 
People, it was a joke.

When I say that I obviously didn't mean that EVERY CHRISTIAN was like this.

But yes, when Richard Dawkins said that "HA-HA" statement, I think I had tears rolling down my face.

Biomorph, you make excellent points, by the way.

Alex.
 
Legend said:
People, it was a joke.

When I say that I obviously didn't mean that EVERY CHRISTIAN was like this.

But yes, when Richard Dawkins said that "HA-HA" statement, I think I had tears rolling down my face.

Biomorph, you make excellent points, by the way.

Alex.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and in my dealing with the religious in real life often they do express dismay at being "mis-represented".

The most common points they bring up are-

1/ Those people are not "real" Xtians (or whatever)
2/ We are not all like that
3/ My god gave me free will
4/ my god "forgives and we are all fallible
5/ those ones are not following scripture (followed by a lot of cherry picking)
6/ An atheist has no right to judge
7/ Its a "cultural" fault
8/ some believers go too far
9/ Rehash of the above list (either rinse, repeat) or just a rephrase of some previous excuse.
10/ god will judge them

I probably could add some more from the archive, but they never never (from recall) actually condemn the actions outright.

They cant, if your holy book say's do it, it is very hard to defend the action, however rehensible without compromising the faith. God is never wrong....

Obviously some stop believing, but they would not openly do that from the actions of the others, even if that is the case.
Usually there is some other excuse........even in denial, they find it hard to actually admit the faith they followed was barmey (later maybe).

The meme is strong......
 
Indeed.

It's like when people say, "Italians are mafia people!" They don't mean every Italian is a member of the mafia, it's a collective statement that's based on some experience; it doesn't literally condemn every breathing Italian as a mafia person.

God I hate those interpretations.

Alex.
 
Legend said:
Indeed.

It's like when people say, "Italians are mafia people!" They don't mean every Italian is a member of the mafia, it's a collective statement that's based on some experience; it doesn't literally condemn every breathing Italian as a mafia person.

God I hate those interpretations.

Alex.
Click to expand...

...people actually say "Italians are mafia people!"?

Indeed. And blacks are gangsters, whites are rednecks, and internet posters are asshats.

Generalizing statements are generalizing statements. You shouldn't have to clarify the statement, but make the original statement with more clarity.

There's really nothing more to it than that.
 
I'm not Italian but have Italian heritage. My Nonna always says, "Sicilians are mafia people!" Family friends forbid their sons to marry women from Abruzzo.

Many people say things like that.

Is it the fact that you must clarify a statement like, "All Italians are mafia people!" to this:

A certain amount of Italian people display attributes of people involved with the mafia. This is not to say that all Italian people are mafia people, but it is something I've personally experienced and I'm making this statement for ________ reason.

As overdone as that was you get the picture.

OR

Should people actually make an inference that the person doesn't mean 100% of 'X' are "Xs".

It's common sense.

Alex.
 
Lonewulf said:
You shouldn't have to clarify the statement, but make the original statement with more clarity.

There's really nothing more to it than that.
Click to expand...

Well put, the word "some" is often left out to make the point, however, the point is also lost by not doing so...:p
 
biomorph said:
how come?
Click to expand...


In the same way that acts of terrorism are food to those who profit from the "War on Terrorism".

they don't need to look good from making it up, they do that from having sound logic.

the open honesty of the skeptic speaks for itself, the truth is of course the death threaters and the like just get shown up for what they really are by their own words.
there is simply no need to make it up, there really isn't
Click to expand...

Who said anything about it being made up?




well if islam wants get political (which it does) then that is justified. It then gets justifiable flack from politics and non believers.
Keeping religion out of politics is something Islam really finds hard, how come?

Anyway Islam does not need demonising from anyone, it does it to itself quite nicely through its own blatent insanity, you have read the Q'uran have'nt you?
Click to expand...


Demonising Islam primarily serves Anglo/US global strategic interests rather global enlightenment!


Examples?
Click to expand...

- Many atheists have been made to believe that the "War on Terror" really is a war against terrorists.

- Many were taken in by Barack Obama's vacuous rhetoric.

Also you it seems, just as the others i'm critically calling out here also seem (true to what I've stated) not yet seen fit to call to account the radicals within it.

All you seem to have done so far is justify it through dodging the issue, which is spot on. Why? do you support religious violence?

For instance should all gays be stoned to death?
do you consider suicide bombers "true believers"?
Do you think that these sort of people are justified in anyway?

Or would you denounce that sort of lunatic behaviour?
If you do, then you have denounced Islam surely?

if not why not? if you do so, why not now?
Click to expand...

I am an atheist and, though not a pacifist, believe that violence and taking the life of another, without their consent, is criminal in all circumstances except self-defence.
 
Last edited:
I love listening to Dawkins read hate mail. The words sound so unnatural coming from his mouth, and you know he gets a kick out of reading such bizarre arguments.

I imagine an encounter like one of these in real life has been something like Dawkins discussing something rather civilly with a believer, then the subject of God comes up, ending with Dawkins *proving God does not exist and the person just throwing a fit, turning red, screaming, and Dawkins remaining calm confident in the evidence IS there. God isn't.
You can see in interviews when Dawkins is offended when someone, such as Yousef Al-Kattab in The Root of All Evil?, but takes it with grace and barely raises his voice. I've never seen Dawkins get angry to the extent of yelling, but I have never met him either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom