I just read something entertaining from an Atheist and thought I would link to it for the Dick fans out there.
Even some Atheists are noticing and exposing this joker. That is quite refreshing.
Richard Dawkins is a bigot
January 4, 2010
Richard Dawkins is a bigot
I just read something entertaining from an Atheist and thought I would link to it for the Dick fans out there.
Even some Atheists are noticing and exposing this joker. That is quite refreshing.
Richard Dawkins is a bigot
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dam ya Dawkins did exaggerate in his remarks concerning the Catholic church! but did you read the comments Dan? I do agree with what people point out, that Dawkins is doing just what I said, exaggerating, not being a complete fool or telling ridiculous lies. He also talks about the Catholic Church as an organization, not the people who adhere to it...
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I have never been a huge fan of Dawkins concerning his approach toward religion. He does raise good points sometimes, but he should watch his language, which is what he does when speaking directly to theists, so that's a bit hypocrite of him.
In other words, I just finished reading his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" and I loved it, but I am not going to bother reading "The God Delusion"...
Oh and Dan, I am curious, did you actually watch the South Park episode you put a photo of? the two parts of it? It's one of the best episode ever done in my own opinion, and I have seen almost all of them ;)
And this proves.....?
ReplyDeleteYaeger: what this proves, of course, is that if Dawkins is a bigot, then evolutionary theory is wrong, and Jesus is Lord. Or something like that.
ReplyDeleteRight, and all the digs that Dan has taken against atheists, like calling secular camps "Death Camps" does not make him a "bigot"?
ReplyDeleteIf Dawkins is a "bigot", then people like Dan are worse.
Dan, someone has hijacked your g-mail e-mail address and is using to to scam funds. You may want to look into this.
ReplyDeleteI think Dawkins is an intolerant person. But that doesn't change my opinion of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteDan: what Sye said. I just got this message from your gmail account:
ReplyDeleteHi,
Just writing to let you know my trip to London, England has been a mess. I was having a great time until last nite when I got mugged and lost all my cash and credit cards, It has been a scary experience, I was hit at the back of my neck with a club. Anyway...... I'm still alive and that's whats important. I'm financially strapped right now and need your help. i need you to loan me some $$, I'll refund it to you as soon as i arrive home.Write me back so i can tell you how to get it to me.
Dan
Lucky that I read Sye's warning, or I might have really thought that you were suddenly in London, and sent you thousands of dollars.
Sye et al,
ReplyDeleteI know, this joker has also been forwarding all my private gmails, even today's, to another email in Nigeria.
I have corrected it, I hope, and I am gathering info. Did the email come from the IP address of 10.114.237.30?
The guy even forwarded the email to his Mobile phone in Nigeria, his phone number is 2348034473507.
What a pain. Does any geek know how this guy got into my account? There is no way he got my password. Virus? How did he breach the firewall in my router?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThis sucks... but you don't need to worry too much. If it was really only your gmail, then this has nothing to do with your personal computer so no virus, no firewall break, or anything like that.
But I have no clue as to how he could have hacked your account. Perhaps it's not even a person, physically I mean, but just some program that is able to intercept encrypted data, retrieve passwords from it, and then mess up accounts, I really don't know...
I guess you already changed your password but I would also recommand changing the information you provided for password retrieval. Gmail uses an alternative email adress and a security question if I recall correctly. You'll find that easily in their help sections for sure.
Hope this helps
Thanks Hugo.
ReplyDeleteYea all that was changed and I sure hope it was just a program hack instead of my personal computer breached.
We will soon find out if my bank account is cleaned out from my account number 6764432345665 :7)
I did find this about the subject though.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/5ZP010UQKK.html
Why is he a bigot?
ReplyDeleteSimply because he states that if you doubt, even dare to doubt, that humans are related to bananas and turnips you are to be likened to Holocaust deniers?
I gave him the evidence hereReductio ad Hitlerum Award.
aDios,
Mariano
Mariano, you've been caught out in the very post that you linked to.
ReplyDeleteA continuing theme on your blog is you "poisoning the well" against individuals and against atheists in general...an example is where you distort how atheists and charities work.
People like YOU are the bigots, Mariano.
Reynold: Mariano and I go back a long ways, at least in cyberspace terms, and while I disagree with almost everything he says, I wouldn't call him a bigot. He calls people names, true; but who among us doesn't at times? To me, a bigot is someone who would not invite a member of a disliked group into his home, and while I don't know Mariano personally, I get the feeling from him that he is not this kind or person. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteI disagree; to me, a bigot is someone who tries to slander and demonize a whole group of people. Mariano does that constantly to atheists on his blog. Note the articles that are linked to by the buttons on the right hand side of his blog: "atheist child indoctrination", "atheist public image issues", and "atheist 'charity'".
ReplyDeleteRemember, that that seems to be the criterion that Dan and Mariano are saying that people like Dawkins are "bigots" because of what he says about the Catholic church.
ReplyDeleteI'm just pointing out that in that regard, people like Mariano are far worse.
zilch:
ReplyDelete...a bigot is someone who would not invite a member of a disliked group into his home
Is that the impression that Dawkins leaves? I'm not sure that's the impression he leaves with me...
Reynold: no, I don't get the impression that Dawkins is a bigot either. But I will admit that my idea of what constitutes a "bigot" is not well defined, and that I go by my gut feeling. So I don't mind if you or anyone else disagrees with me on this point- it's more of an emotional thing than anything reasoned out.
ReplyDeleteHey Dan
ReplyDeleteJohn Hagee says you are going to hell. One of your heros no less.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sn6vfWPoAA&feature=player_embedded
Dan: just so you know- I don't think you're going to Hell.
ReplyDeleteI don' think Dan is going to hell either.
ReplyDeleteJohn Hagee does.
Froggie,
ReplyDelete*cough *cough
Ouch!
I really do appreciate that, but John Hagee certainly is not one of my heroes by any stretch.
I will say this, I certainly deserve hell in a huge way. Without Christ I would be in hell that is for sure. What John Hagee doesn't understand is that I am saved through Christ and he, nor any man, can judge me or send me to hell. God alone will guide my life to the path that I need to be on.
Mr. Hagee may be right and God will guide me to the proper place that I must be in. If God closes a door for Patty then He will certainly open a door for me and it will be obvious.
I will say, this was a mere experiment to allow Patty to continue her award winning career without jeopardizing our family. If that is not meant to be I will allow God to show me, certainly not let some dude that doesn't even know me tell me I am wrong.
Maybe Hagee should look into that gluttonous body of his before he judges others. Ohh snap.
Thanks froggie, I feel even more sure of myself after listening to that dribble.
What evidence do you have that Richard Dawkins is a bigot? A bigot to me means an irrationally prejudiced person. Same as those Christians who say homosexuals are sick and perverted, or those Christians who still belong to the KKK. They are the true bigots.
ReplyDeleteI think you should read "the God delusion" before you condemn Dawkins. He is always extremely polite and gentlemanly in his debates and writings. He does use humour, which may be misinterpreted by some, if they are not English and well educated.
Clare,
ReplyDelete>>What evidence do you have that Richard Dawkins is a bigot?
The article provided made the case quite clearly.
Defining a Bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" clearly defines RD and his rants and hatred towards Christians, wouldn't you agree?
>>Same as those Christians who say homosexuals are sick and perverted...
As a Christian, I don't believe they are sick or perverted, just lost like the rest of us without Christ. I did a post about being gay in the past. I love gays enough to tell them the truth that is all.
>>I think you should read "the God delusion" before you condemn Dawkins
I don't have to read the Satanic Bible to condemn Satan do I? You do have me there as I have only read parts of it and have seen many, many interviews and if it is any consolation I have watched "The Blind Watchmaker"
>> He is always extremely polite and gentlemanly in his debates and writings. He does use humour, which may be misinterpreted by some, if they are not English and well educated.
O'rly? Smug disconnection may be interpreted as, I guess, a form of humor.
BTW, you are quite a talented artist, welcome.
I am glad you like my paintings Dan.
ReplyDeleteRichard Dawkins is only contemptuous of some of the more idiotic Christian fundamentalist ideas (you may not have them!) He is always considerate and polite to individuals, even those who disagree with them.
By the way, what is the Satanist Bible? Do you really beleive in Satan? Most mainstream Christians no longer believe in Hell or Satan as anything other than metaphors.
Clare,
ReplyDeleteYes I do believe in Satan as a real entity.
>>Most mainstream Christians no longer believe in Hell or Satan as anything other than metaphors.
Well they would be wrong then. Let me show you why you shouldn't read the Bible like Aesop's fables. Look in Hosea 1:1, see the time line, the Bible talks about specific and exacting historical events with details of surroundings and time frame. People say "You can't believe the Bible it has a bunch of stories" Fantasy stories don't include details like the Bible which should be taken as fact.
The principle point here is that God communicated through prophets and was specific about the details. God inspired the Bible and we know we should take it as truth, not fiction, because it is written plainly as a historical narrative.
The Bible is a historical narrative? Then why did Constantine change so much of it in 400CEWhy did Martin Luther ponder over whether he should include Revelations in his Bible? Why are there 14 different references to the world being flat. Which Bible are you referring to? How about the Sinai Bible that shows all the corrections made is 400CE or so?
ReplyDeleteSo whales are fish, rabbits chew their cud, plants were made before light so how did they photosynthesise. The earth is the centre of the universe etc. etc.
Why was there no reference to the virgin birth or resurrection in older versions of the Bible? and lots more!
There are no references to hell or Satan in the old testament- only death. Jews do not believe in hell.
Read your Bible all the way through and see if you still think it makes sense.
Clare,
ReplyDelete>>Why are there 14 different references to the world being flat.
I did a post about it (bit.ly/flatearth)
>>Which Bible are you referring to?
I have said before as far as the different translations, there is a sliding scale so I take all of them into account and not trust any 'one' thing that man has done. I stay close to literal and conservative as possible. The translations start from very conservative and literal translations like Young's Literal, Darby then to KJV then on up to the top (or bottom in my perspective) of the more modern and liberal translations like NLT, NASB, and the most liberal New Jerusalem Bible (NJB). I do not even bother with, imho blasphemous, paraphrased bibles like "The Living Bible"
To sit and argue about the Bible and how it's full of mistakes or that there are different interpretations or translations or God allows certain evils to happen or that Christians are bad people by there actions, etc. That is not an argument to prove that God does not exist. These are complaints and gripes.
In a past post the case was made that "Biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5% and none of these copying errors affects doctrinal truths."
>>So whales are fish, rabbits chew their cud, plants were made before light so how did they photosynthesise.
First you cannot fault the Bible for modern speciation and classifications. That is just not fair.Oh and if you didn't know, Rabbits do chew cud (already digested food), in rabbits it is called cecotrophy (Normal practice of the rabbit consuming some of the droppings directly from the anus). Rats and rabbits re-digest cellulose a different way then cows. They eat feces and literally re-digest them a second time. So the bible was right, they are a filthy and are unclean for us. Plus, I believe if you quickly read this post before you go any further that it will help you out a great deal.
>>Why was there no reference to the virgin birth or resurrection in older versions of the Bible?
There was! (Isaiah 7:14)
>>There are no references to hell or Satan in the old testament- only death.
O'rly? Have you read Job at all?
Read your Bible all the way through and see if you still think it does not make sense, because it does.
What about the Catholic Bible or the Mormon Bible? Are they correct too/ The Catholics and the Mormons obviously think so.
ReplyDeleteCan you give me the exact quote in job about Hell and Satan?
Why do the Jews not believe in Hell if the Old Testament is the inspired word of God.
There is no historical evidence of Job or anyone mentioned in the Bible before David and Solomon.
Clare,
ReplyDelete>>What about the Catholic Bible or the Mormon Bible?
What about them? Like I said, most religions like Catholicism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Muslims are all false religions. God says that there is nothing that we can do to earn our way to heaven and that is what all these religions are about, that if you follow the 5 pillars or confess your sins to a man or if you say hail to Mary, fast, meditate and do good works enough that it will get you to heaven. Nothing can be further from the truth. The only thing we can do (not works) to be saved is described in Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized (act of obedience, or Trust) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Certain religions believe they can do something to earn salvation, it is a gift from God, nothing you do will earn your way to heaven. Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Works count after salvation to show gratefulness, but will not get you to heaven. That is why they drove the planes into the towers, because they believed they could "do something to earn" heaven, but they were wrong and most all religions are wrong. Jesus even had the harshest words for the scribes and Pharisees.
>>Can you give me the exact quote in job about Hell and Satan?
I mentioned Job because God is having a conversation with Satan. (Job 1:7-9)
Your original claim was that Satan was never mentioned in the OT. You said, "There are no references to hell or Satan in the old testament- only death." So, once again, you were proven wrong.
Psalm 9:17,Psalm 16:10, Job 11:8, Job 26:6 (KJV) mentions hell. (Sheol, Strong's H7585, meaning the place of no return, without praise of God, Place of exile.)
>>Why do the Jews not believe in Hell if the Old Testament is the inspired word of God.
From my past post (tinyurl.com/CNCCK) "Jesus, at the time before the cross, wasn't cursed for us, he was an Old Covenant prophet (Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David) after the cross he became the High Priest (Christ’s New Covenant Church Kingdom)
In order for there to be a change in the LAW, there had to be a change in the Priesthood. Jesus did NOT become High Priest of His New Covenant Kingdom until He was Resurrected from the dead. If Jesus, before the Cross, had given NEW Covenant Law, there would have been NO New High Priest to Mediate it. When He was alive we were still under the Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David."
My point is that under the old covenant there was, possibly, not a true understanding of hell for the lost. But after Christ, and the rejection of Christ, there certainly is the promise of hell (lake of fire).
>>There is no historical evidence of Job or anyone mentioned in the Bible before David and Solomon.
First then, by that logic, if things was never found yet then it does not exist? Much like the billions of evolution's transitional fossil records and multiverses or intelligent life on other planets? Great, then you are a Creationist until the evidence says otherwise.
Secondly, there is ample evidence of Job's record in history by the mere fact it is in the Bible and scrolls of antiquity. Unless you are prepared to argue that the entire recorded history is not counted as recorded history itself.
Stop putting up straw men arguments! OK, Job may have mentioned Satan, but not Hell. I should not have lumped satan and Hell together. I can see I need to be very specific with you, as you are a concrete thinker. "Place of exile or no return" is not necessarily the same as Hell.
ReplyDeleteNo evidence for Job as a historical figure has nothing to do with transitional fossils (which number in the thousands, by the way) How many more do we have to find? If you are a Creationist, it is pointless for me to argue with you. Were you brought up that way, or did you discover it later in life?
How do you know for sure that the Catholics and the Mormons are wrong? They sure don't think so.If Christians cannot agree with each other, how do you expect an atheist to agree with you?
Clare,
ReplyDelete>>OK, Job may have mentioned Satan, but not Hell.
O'rly? Try Job 11:8,Job 26:6
>>I can see I need to be very specific with you, as you are a concrete thinker.
Stop putting up straw men arguments! :7)
>>"Place of exile or no return" is not necessarily the same as Hell.
According to who? You?
>>No evidence for Job as a historical figure...
According to who? You? There is evidence, just none that you accept.
Ezekiel 14:14,20 mentions Job as a real person. Was Noah and Daniel real people?
Dr. Roger Hahn says "Most Bible scholars believe that there was a historical person named Job who is reflected in the prologue and perhaps epilogue."
>>has nothing to do with transitional fossils (which number in the thousands, by the way)
Shouldn't that number be in the billions, if the earth is supposedly 3 billion years old that is?
>>How many more do we have to find?
Millions would suffice.
>>If you are a Creationist, it is pointless for me to argue with you.
Thanks for your time, see ya.
>>Were you brought up that way, or did you discover it later in life?
I was raised an atheist and went to public school, so my upbringing pushed me towards the secular viewpoint until I found the truth about such lies in my late 20's.
>>How do you know for sure that the Catholics and the Mormons are wrong?
By their fruit.
The Bible says to evaluate everything to see if it is of God by its fruit, good tree = good fruit; a bad tree can never bear good fruit. We don’t even have to address the Catholic Church and the mass pedophiles, and the crusades to determine the fruit, it is obvious.
A friend said to me "Our religion is from the Creator. It is a result of our hope and trust in God. It is the natural fruit. False religions have stolen from God and not the other way around. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation."
Plus, I did a post about Mormons.
>>They sure don't think so.
Neither does Darwinian evolutionists. We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
>>If Christians cannot agree with each other, how do you expect an atheist to agree with you?
Bwahahaha, and I suppose all Atheists agree with each other? Give us a break. How do you expect us to agree with you?
I will say though, the mere fact there are different denominations negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40. So we are fallible and must trust the authority of God's Word, instead of mankind's interpretations.
Correction: Were Noah and Daniel real people?
ReplyDeleteShow me evidence of Noah, Job, Daniel's existance as real people without referring to the Bible. The Bible is not evidence of anything. So God wrote a book saying he was God? Circular logic-give me a break! I could write a book saying I was God. Would you believe that?
ReplyDeleteand yes, atheists generally agree on the basic principles.
Clare,
ReplyDelete>>The Bible is not evidence of anything.
You cannot discount the Bible, it is a very integral part of our history as cherished antiquity. You have heard of Julius Caesar and I am sure you believe that he existed, right? Well there were 10 manuscripts of antiquity that explained who he was as we know him today. 10 that is it, in one language, everything we know today about him came from just those 10 manuscripts, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph.
By contrast, the New Testament antiquity of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was claimed to be written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. and there are 5,000+ known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages.
Dr. F. F. Bruce, the late Ryland’s Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, asserts of the New Testament: "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."
Professor Bruce further comments, "The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical writers, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."
Your presuppositions though, will determine if you will accept documented historical proof or not.
>>So God wrote a book saying he was God? Circular logic-give me a break!
All forms of reason is circular in nature, one must use logic to explain logic. Why are your senses valid?
It has been explained already though,
* (1) The writings in question are true on all specific points we can verify. (With arguments in each case.)
* (2, from 1) Hence, we have good reason to assume that they are completely truthful throughout.
* (3) The writings describe many events that demonstrate the existence of God.
* (4, from 2 and 3) Hence, these descriptions must be truthful, so God must exist. (It actually suffices for just one of them to be truthful.)
* (5) If the writings had been authored by man, they would not have been true on all of these points. (With arguments in each of these cases.)
* (6, from 1 and 5) Hence, they must have been authored by someone other than man.
* (7, from 2 and 5) Hence, we have good reason to assume the existence of someone who, unlike man, is completely truthful, and who authored these writings.
* (8, from 7) This someone is God.
What we see here is not an instance of circular reasoning, but two different arguments, only partly deductive, for the existence of an all-knowing higher being who wrote the writings in question.
>>I could write a book saying I was God. Would you believe that?
Show us the evidence that you have.
>>atheists generally agree on the basic principles.
O'rly? You cannot even agree as to the term itself. Atheism usually means not to believe in God. This can be a mere lack of belief. It can also be a positive belief that He does not exist.
Plus if that is truth the why the different types of atheism (religions)? There is no single "atheistic" stance on most topics other than the non-existence of God.
Are you an Implicit or explicit atheist? Weak or strong atheist? Apatheism? Antitheism? Do you hold the beliefs of Militant atheism? Theoretical atheism? Practical atheism?
Are your arguments for atheism Logical, Evidential, Moral, or Experiential?
Plus, I want to mention that the research in the American Sociological Review finds that atheists are the group that Americans least relate to for shared vision.
@Clare
ReplyDeletePersonnaly, I agree with you completely. But if I can give you just one little advice... walk away...
Dan is a fundamentalist who will believe nothing but the "truth" of the Bible, which is nothing but truth obviously but who cares... My point is that there is no way you could discuss with someone like him.
I did try to do so a few months ago and quickly realized that it was not worth it. If you enjoy discussing whit someone like Dan it's ok, you might enjoy it as much as I did, but I do want to warn you that he is brainwashed by his own ideology and arrogance. He truly believes what he believes and nothing could change his mind. So, if you want learn about a psychotic religious mind Clare, go for it, keep talking to Dan, but I can assure you that all you would get is only entertainment, perhaps a bit of enlightenment on what it is like to be a fundamentalist Christian, nothing more.
Go read through previous posts by Dan, and most importantly the comment section. He is not only a Christian fundamentalist, he has a worldview which is based on the pre-supposition that God exists, so there is nothing to talk about. Oh, and he thins that your worldview is based on the idea that there is no god (which I am sure it is not) so that's one more reason not to address him at all.
Finally, if you are curious to know what convinced me of that Clare, try to read all the exchanges between STAN and DAN. Stan was really brave and persistent when trying to discuss with Dan, and eventually gave up, being tired of his pre-supposiationalism ideas that make no sense in our REAL world.
So, to conclude, have fun discussing with Dan if you enjoy it, I will keep reading, but I am just warning you so that you don't waste your time. Life is short, enjoy it!!
Cya, take care,
Hugo
p.s. Dan, when will you understand that the Bible was written by men only, without any help, not by any supernatural god? You are pathetic to think otherwise... I do not even understand how you can be a monotheist as the Bible clearly mentions other gods... oh no wait, it's no the KJV Bible that says that, it's the texts that were used to forge the Bible; but you just don't care...
Hugo, Thanks for the advice. YOu ae quite right. I began to realise myself that Dan is psychotic and needs professinal help- not arguments from me.So yes, I am wasting my time, and I will walk away. It is unfeeling of me to try and change Dan's beliefs, when he really has no control over what he thinks.
ReplyDeleteTake care Dan.
Sorry, Dan, I disagree with your use of the link. Not only do I not care that Richard "Daffy" Dawkins is a bigot, but that site blasts several other people. When you paint with a broad enough brush, you can cover just about everyone. I almost turned myself in as a bigot because somewhere, somehow, someone can twist my own words (or even tag me legitimately) as a bigot.
ReplyDeleteYou had some really great comments, though.