Atheist Richard Dawkins Targets Romney’s Faith: ‘Can You Really Vote for Such a Massively-Gullible Fool?’
Famed atheist and biologist Richard Dawkins is known for taking a combative approach when it comes to his attempts to debunk — and dismiss — faith and religion. While his malicious comments are nothing new, the statements he’s been making about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith are noteworthy. In his most recent Twitter rant, Dawkins alleged that Romney’s beliefs should disqualify him for the U.S. presidency.
Atheist scientist Richard Dawkins (Photo Credit: FILE)
The atheist leader claims that Romney is “a massively gullible fool” for being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
“No matter how much you agree with Romney’s economic policy, can you really vote for such a massively gullible fool? He is a Mormon Bishop!,” Dawkins Tweeted on Sunday.
In an effort to further dissuade Americans from casting a vote for Romney, the British academic also wrote, “Could you really vote for a man who thinks the Garden of Eden was in Missouri?”
But Dawkins wasn’t done there. He went on to insult Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon faith. ”Romney’s prophet Joseph Smith is a fraud,” he continued. And, as for the Book of Mormon, Dawkins held little back.
“Bible & Koran genuinely old, written in the language of their time. Book of Mormon written by 19th (century) charlatan. Romney too stupid to see it,” he said in yet another message.
The Christian Post has more about the Dawkins’ weekend Twitter activities:
The professor then links to an article titled The Mormon Delusion, a play on his own work challenging Christianity and the belief of God, where in Jamie Smith, an atheist writer and blogger, criticizes many aspects of Mormon history, and says of Joseph Smith: “A fraud. A con artist. A brilliant story teller, but ultimately, a liar and an awful historian.” Smith adds: “His cult should not be taken seriously, should have no power over the world.”
Focusing on some of the controversial aspects of Mormonism, Dawkins reminded his Twitter followers of a passage in the Book of Mormon that refers to the white race as “the chosen seed” and warns against taking part in interracial relationships. The Mormon Church, however, disavowed that teaching in the 1970s, and Romney has dismissed any notions that he agrees with the idea that interracial relationships are a sin.
Dawkins made headlines recently for some other harsh commentary. In addition to calling creationists “ignorant,” Dawkins, in an interview with Playboy, alleged that the evidence for Jesus’ existence “is surprisingly shaky.”
In the past, he has lambasted Romney’s Mormon faith, too, claiming that Joseph Smith was a “convicted conman using [a] magic hat to read gold plates.”
(H/T: The Christian Post)
–
Related:
- Richard Dawkins Echoes Bill Nye: ‘Who Cares About Creationists’ & Their ‘Deep, Profound Ignorance’
- Atheist Richard Dawkins Tells Playboy: We Are ‘Apes,‘ Evidence for Jesus’ Existence ‘Is Surprisingly Shaky’ & Christ Dying for Humanity‘s Sins Is a ’Truly Disgusting Idea
- Atheist Richard Dawkins Bashes Romney & His Mormon Faith: Joseph Smith Was a ‘Convicted Conman Using Magic Hat to Read Gold Plates’
In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.
Popular Stories
Report: Hofstra Student Was Shot, Killed by Cop Trying To Rescue Her 386 Comments
Sarah Palin Posts Pic of Alaska Snow: ‘Global Warming My Gluteus Maximus’ 382 Comments
White House: ‘Irrelevant Fact’ Where Obama Was During Benghazi 309 Comments
Bill Maher Mocks Tea Party Victims With Fake IRS Questions: State the ‘Approximate Location of Your Trailer Park’ 243 Comments
CNN Poll: Obama’s Approval Rating Unchanged Since Scandals Hit 194 Comments
Faith
- John Kerry Reportedly Had a Breakfast Meeting With Father of Gaza Flotilla 'Martyr' Last Week -- and There's Apparently Picture Evidence Read More
- 'Pedophile Protection': Rapist Takes Young Girl to Planned Parenthood for an Abortion to Hide His Crime Read More
-
Congressman: IRS Demanded to Know Content of Pro-Life Group's Prayers
Read More
-
You Criticized Obama: Famed Christian Radio Host Alleges Outrageous IRS Intimidation
186 Comments
-
Network Releases Statement on Pat Robertson's Controversial Advice to Cheated-On Women
164 Comments
Business
- This Map Shows the 'Riskiest' Places in the World 107 Comments
-
Krauthammer's Impressed With Obama's IRS Answers: He Makes Bill Clinton's Parsing Look Unsophisticated
Read More
-
Congressman: IRS Demanded to Know Content of Pro-Life Group's Prayers
Read More
- America off Limits: Soviet Tourists Were Banned from Visiting These Areas During the Cold War Read More
-
These Are the 4 Most Important Takeaways from Today's IRS Hearing
157 Comments
Technology
-
Woman Who Lost All Limbs to Flesh-Eating Bacteria Gets $200K Bionic Arms
Read More
-
Why Are These Zoo Keepers Baffled by This Anteaterâs Babies?
Read More
-
Largest Lunar Explosion in NASA History Caught on Video
135 Comments
-
Ever Wonder How It'd Look to Have Your Face Eaten by a Bear? Here's Your Answer
Read More
-
New Energy Secretary Named With Unanimous Confirmation
153 Comments
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (364)
Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:35amI have a problem with Mormonism else I’d be a Mormon. We all arrive at our chosen faith by our heart and mind working with the Holy Spirit. Point is, that I’m sure Romney could take issue with my non-denominational Christian faith somehow if he chose.
So the question to me is why is this guy not offering the same critique of Black Liberation Theology?
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:40amDawkins is thinking with his “head” again, as evidenced by the recent Playboy interview.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:09pmVery good point Rothbardian. If Mormons are gullible fools, why isn’t the Christian Obama? Dawkins is just trying to be insulting, like usual.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:10pmLocked, Obama is not a christian. Read his first book, the one he wrote before hitting the campaign trail, he’s a blatant atheist. He panders to our christian majority like any president must.
Report this comment
Jim in Houston
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:11pmWho the hell is Richard Dawkins and why should I give a sh#t what he thinks?
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:17pm@yeti:
Quick, to the presses. Start with MSNBC and end with Fox. You can illuminate the world!
Report this comment
jay1975
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:18pm“We all arrive at our chosen faith by our heart and mind working with the Holy Spirit.” That is not true, people come to the faith of their parents primarily. If it was the “Holy Spirits” doing, then everyone would come to Jesus. Muslims raise Muslims, Jews raise Jews, Christians raise Christians etc. Religion is hardly chosen so much as it is foisted on the easily impressionable. There are obviously some who come to religion later and for other reasons, but the vast majority of faithful believe what their parents believed because their parents believed it and so on. Your “Holy Spirit” argument only works for other Christians, but does nothing to explain how Jews and Muslims come to their faith.
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:34pm@jay:
You cannot be “faithful” and also “believe what their parents believed because their parents believed it” at the same time. Kids are raised in the environment their parents/guardians create. But eventually each person, as a teen or adult, must stand on their own. The world is replete with stories of peeps leaving the faith, as well as atheists becoming as devout as anyone.
Religion is an agent of socialization, there are many others.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:05pmCome on Jello, religion is a psychological defense mechanism used to assuage our natural fear of death and you know it. I wouldn’t have a problem with that if your ilk hadn’t made it their business to kill one another when they disagree.
Report this comment
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:32pm@ Yeti,
Killing out of fear of death?
You’re making no sense again.
It’s ABUSE of their OWN principles that causes religions to “justify” the killing of others.
Show me how the Christian idea of what happens when you die proceeds inevitably to acting out of fear.
You can’t, because it’s a distortion. Fear of death is antithetical to the beliefs Christians hold, when represented properly and in context.
Yet another non sequitur from the pretended purveyor of higher reasoning.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:56pmYo Andy:
First: Christ is a relation … but then you would not “know” that because you have never “met” Him.
Second: For a christian. TO DIE IS GAIN … so why would I fear that.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 3:03pm@4truth2all
“Second: For a christian. TO DIE IS GAIN … so why would I fear that.”
No offense, but that’s kind of a creepy way of putting the point of Christianity. Just because I look forward to eternal life doesn’t mean I think of dying as “gaining”… more like a progression. The next stage, if you will.
Leave that kind of feeling, that to die is to better yourself, to extremists with bomb jackets!
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 3:09pmYo Locked:
Sorry you don’t get …to bad for you !!!
It in NO WAY IS SIMULAR TO Islam. Apologies, but don’t talk so stupid. What do you think eternity with Christ in paradise is …. A LOSS?
Report this comment
Cesium
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 3:37pmAs an atheist and molecular biologist, I “tend” to mostly agree with Dawkins on the supernatural. I don’t agree with his public dismissal of the value in learning about religions and their interpretations. The shift from Mesopotamian religions into Judaism and Islam was less about what people believed in supernaturally (this was the focal motivator) and more about how we began to address and shape our perspectives on governance, freedom, and life as it relates to emotion and civility. eg Judaism was a paradigm shift in perspective that was critical in abolishing human sacrifice. It taught us how to live by practical laws not by rule of king, redefined the value of being alive and how to preserve society, showed the earliest indications of humans applying protocol to prevent and manage disease, and established animal welfare. I really wish dawkins would open up more civil discourse and concede the importance about how religion affected human psychology at one time in a very productive and positive way prior to disciplined science as he discusses at times in his books. Although I more so agree with him on the lunacy of non-ancient religions like mormonism, as a “conservative” atheist, I would still vote for Romney for economic and freedom related ideals. It seems Dawkins at least concedes to that but discounts Romney for his faith. Mormon beliefs are not any more bat-sht crazy than any other candidates religious ideas about the supernatural. It’s moot.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 3:54pmYo Cesium:
Hope you are doing ok … disagree with the history for reasons of which you know. Agree about how disagreeable Dawkins as a person is. One can not believe as I do and not be a mean nasty about it.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 4:30pm@4truth2all
“It in NO WAY IS SIMULAR TO Islam. Apologies, but don’t talk so stupid.”
How is what I said stupid? You said that death is a gain. You followed up by calling it a paradise. Terrorists think the same thing. Hence why I said your comment is creepy. I don’t follow Christ because of the great perks at the end of the line; I follow Him because He is the Truth. I think you’re missing the beautiful scenery along the path because you’re too focused on the destination, no?
“What do you think eternity with Christ in paradise is …. A LOSS?”
I already said what I think it is: the next stage. Nowhere did I say it was a loss. I’ll like it, but in the same way that I wasn’t ready for college when I was in first grade, I’m in no rush to “skip grades” and shuffle off the mortal coil no matter how wonderful it is.
Report this comment
Cesium
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 4:31pm@4truth.. I think part of the problem with “Tweeting” for anyone is the urge to vomit an acute opinion without confrontation. After all Dawkins is the sole person credited for coining the neologism “meme” that we so frequently use today to describe a current concept in thought from some chance person’s/peoples idea that will either stay in society for a period of time or be selected out (like evolution).and he established this word as an objective acknowledgment of how perspective and the psychology of a culture and civilization is subject to it’s own evolution based on neurological memory and how those thinking patterns are established and propagated in child rearing and development by the parents perspective and thought process.. ie a christian child believes jesus is his savior, a jewish child does not or, A christian child learns to emotionally fear eternal damnation, a jewish child rather fears the living consequences that arise when one deviates from rabinical teaching and how that affects their lives and the people around them (but less obsession about after life consequences) These’s are types memes, they exemplify how different the psychology in thought is between the examples I gave with Christianity and Judaism. Dawkins should also be more vocal in distinguishing the difference between new Judeo thought and previous mesopotamian “meme’s” Like me he is more thoughtful in his academic writing than his off the cuff remarks.
Report this comment
Square Dancer
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 4:56pmWho is this naive little man, anyway. And why should I care what he says?
Report this comment
sportsmom8
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 8:18pmBring it on Korihor!!! I know you know there is a God! You will lose!!!
Report this comment
Marine25
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 8:41pm@cesium
“Mormon beliefs are not any more bat-sht crazy than any other candidates religious ideas about the supernatural. It’s moot.”
Well put.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 9:07pmYo Cesium:
I would agree that behavior is learned
Two places in scripture come to mind .. so excuse me for my batiness. One speaks of the sins of the father being punished to the 3rd generation. This would be taken as learned behavior ( God does not punish me for something my father did, short explination) Example: alcohalism … father is, the son becomes … science likes to give us excuses by saying it is our genes. Don’t think so! Call me bat crazy if you wish. The other is in Job where it says … “Look to the animals and they will teach you”. Well, we know that even in the animal kingdom animals learn by observation. I would also say that this “being like ” does not always hold true, and any person can become more bat like .. like batman … he’s a good guy .. or they can go the opposite way and become flamingo’s
Report this comment
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 9:21pmI think the problem I see across the board is that people in our day and culture have a hard time espousing what they believe to be the truth without demeaning or attacking others personally. Calling others stupid or idiotic or unintelligent is really just an unintelligent way to try and make an argument or point. It demonstrates a lack of substance when you have to purposely try to characterize others in a negative light to try and make your point lQQk superior. It is a fallacious tactic that is always a red falg to me. I believe those who communicate in this manner have security issues either about their ability to convey conceptual ideas in a cohesive influential manner, or they lack confidence in their position’s validity (maybe they just cannot control their emotions or they actually believe in a narcissistic way that they are more intellignet). Many have lost humility and civility when exchanging ideas. At least in my eyes those who espouse their thoughts in this manner are easily dismissed as either marginal (lQQking for attention), unreasonable, militaristic (ideologue), or self-aggrandizing. The ability to make your case based on the substance of what you communicate always trumps “playground name calling” among the more “evolved” individuals. Thank you….
Report this comment
darkknight91
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 9:26pmHey little Dick Dawkins, I’ll vote Mormon before moron every time. Go fist yourself, you godless troll.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 10:49pmYo Easyhip:
If you feel that I do this please call me out. I can at times be blunt and usually am just trying to get the other to “see’ their own words. Was just having some fun with Cesium I think he understands that … he’s a smart guy … grace
Report this comment
DLV
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:19pmSleazy- I agree with you. It’s pretty shameful. I view it the same way as people who swear too much. Their vocabulary is lacking and all they can do is use the F word. Watch the movie Gone Baby Gone and you’ll know what I mean.
Is it just me or is Dawkins’ name showing up wayyyyyy too much recently? The man loves his attention…..
Report this comment
pdw
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:49pmWhat can you expect from a man with NO morals?
Report this comment
Cesium
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 2:08am@Sleazy.. This point comes back to our last discussion. You had claimed to have solved the problem of eternal mind in place of eternal energy by concluding eternal mind is possible where all knowledge exists and therefore, “first memory” is not paradoxical. Thus, god’s mind is forever and thus his knowledge would be complete (assuming knowledge for god is finite in that it is ALL knowledge). The problem is, this creates another dilemma for you concerning the character of a mind that is “good” opposed to malevolent or sinister. A god with all knowledge outside time would in a way be like the universes’s largest hard drive with all information regarding the forms and trajectories of all energy in the universe..All calculations completed for each peak and crest, for each vibration. My argument is that If god is good, he cannot know the final trajectories of energy and matter. But if he does not know the future he has incomplete knowledge, which means there must be a “first memory.” Therefore, your argument would have to be correct! ..that god must have solutions to all calculations too where all knowledge exists. Unfortunatley for you, if god has all knowledge he has to be indifferent/malevolent. ie. every movement of atoms and action potentials in Hitler’s body would already be calculated in a realm of all knowledge. Therefore, with “eternal mind” rather than energy, human experience shows this mind is certainly not “good.” at best indifferent (like evolution).
Report this comment
gdd2010
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 2:51am@4Truth2all, “Second: For a christian. TO DIE IS GAIN … so why would I fear that.” You are misrepresenting that line of scripture, btw. It means to die of the flesh (you know, the worldly desires) so that you may live in Christ. The ultimate goal of a Christian is to Die in the flesh (not desire the worldly things) and to be born of the Spirit (Christ mindedness).
Report this comment
adeleeeee
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 5:14amHe thinks he talks smart. Atheist, LGBT communities have no idea that they are heading toward to the greatest crisis in their life time; that is, in danger to their live with their belief and life style. They attacked Judeo-Christian without eye blinks and embracing the freedom defined by themselves. Sooner or later they will witness their doom day in real life time. Muslim will come after them, beheading them and they will become beggars begging for their life!
They should read history… no one treats atheist and LGBT nicely. The only person will stand out for them is Christian with boldness…. sigh.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 8:16amYo GDD2010:
Thankyou, I absolutely agree . However, in using those words I never said nor implied they were in reference to scripture, I would also refer you to what Paul says concerning his presence here vs. his presence with the Lord. You and others misunderstand my intention and the truth of what I did say …peace
Report this comment
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 8:40am@ 4TRUTH2ALL…I was not even thinking of your comments my freind when writing what I did. I believe irony, sarcasm, and exaggeration to be effective tools for argumentation when not relied upon to often. Paul used these in many of his written communications to emphasis absurdity or illogical reasoning. I was referring to the personal attacks of calling people inferior or fool (or some version of a demeaning characterization). You must do the same with me as well. Of course as we know none of us is perfect in what we say (thank goodness for grace), but what are we characterized by? That is more what I was referring to. Peace be to you my freind.
CESIUM…Hello and good morning. First, I would be so bold to claim I have solved anything about eternal anything since it is illogical to assume we even know how to conceive of such ideas with proper understanding. I would say that since God has created all things including energy and people he does have knowledge of evil (Gen 3…..“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. ….that was God speaking). However, he also created men with a will or volition that they might choose good or evil. So being the sovereign mind that He is, he was able to use evil to bring about good and defeat it with goodness (evil men of their own doing put Jesus to death, an evil intent, but by Jesus’ death was able to bring about tremendous good, the redemption of all who believe). CONTINUE….
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 8:47amYo Cesium:
If I may … God did not cause or bring evil into existance ( into the equation) His desire was/is that we be completely innocent of it. However, man ( nor angels) listened to God ( allowing deception) and mans actions brought this to pass. Did God know this would be … yes. Does a father lock his children in the house all day because of the possibility they might get hurt outside … no
God gave men free will knowing what they would do with it … they would turn AGAINST Him … it’s like letting your kids outside and they never come back … how sad is that! And yet this loving God provides a way back into the house … The redemption found in Jesus, God’s own son whom the father poured ALL His wrath apon to His death. These are not the actions of malevolence, these are the actios of forgiveness and grace with come from love. You do not see things as they are … my apologies, but I must again say that pride is the reason you do not see this … sincerely
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 9:00amYo Cesium:
Was reading EASYHIP’s responce to you and how God uses evil in allowing Jesus to die to work His GOOD plan.
I would add to that … a sign was put over Jesus on the cross saying “King of the Jews”. ( you must know this). This sign was a mockery … but in this mockery was the truth. So, in there foolishness was truth. In this attempt to dispute they THEMSELVES provided the truth. This “principle” was lifted up with Christ and over Christ on the cross for all eternity to see … good day
Report this comment
IndianaJan
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 9:35amPerfect answer!! Black Liberation Theology is the correct answer!
But really, Dawkins is really helping Romney by saying outrageous things like this. Consider the source, and then take into account that Atheists, especially British Atheists, don’t carry much weight in a Presidential election. Dawkins’ books have done very well here, but I don’t think he is a heavyweight opinon otherwise.
Report this comment
Cesium
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 10:52am@sleazy… Good morning to you sir! I understand your point but I’m basically showing that we can only have free will if god does not know the solution to the trajectories of energy and matter (including action potentials and movement of neurotransmitters) at any given moment laying ahead of us. If he does know all those things, he knew as a whole how we would behave yet has the hubris be angry and dish out punishment… The idea that god is an eternal energy devoid of mind yet has the eternal capacity for intelligence (getting back to morgan freeman’s statement) makes more sense. Our intelligence is that manifestation of god/energy. In this scenario we do indeed have free will. This idea, would not be wholly incompatible with judaism either but it definitely de-anthropomorphizes god in a way that is incompatible with most religions in general. ie there is no supernatrual intelligence guiding us beyond the magic of energy. The intelligence guiding us is our intelligence, not given to us…it is manifested through evolutionary processes using the eternal energy. I don’t exactly understand the fate of energy expanding at an accelerated rate, but someone wrote an interesting article about it in wiki.. after all solid material decays, only energy is left. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe.
Report this comment
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 11:46am@ CESIUM..My second post failed to appear, in it I addressed some of your concerns you responded to in your subsequent reply. Let me try to reiterate. To have knowledge of prior events is not necessarily a violation of free will. Let me give you an example. I have watched my kids before when they were young and asked them to stop doing something (don’t touch something). Knowing human nature and that my children will test me, I have watched them knowing as they edge closer to what I asked them not to touch that they were in fact going to do what I asked them not. I knew their actions before they performed them. I allowed them to violate my expressed will because my other will was to teach them to obey what I have asked of them. So I have honored their ability to choose to obey me or not all the while having a greater purpose in mind. This is a simple demonstration of why it is not illogical for 2 sentient beings to have wills that are free without violation of either. Allowing my child to choose to disobey was not hubris on my part, nor evil because I could have stopped him, I knew he was going to disobey and may have even gave him a tap on the back of the hand to emphasis the need to obey me, but my greater objective was to teach him to resist evil (rebellion against my authority) and embrace good (obedience to my authority). I would argue energy has no forethought no intelligence no power of conceptualization. Only an eternal mind could create the reality we experience. TY
Report this comment
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 11:51am@ DLV….I agree with you that vulgarity is often the venting of emotion when descriptive appropraite vocabulary escapes one’s cognitive capacities of expression. However, when I hit my finger with a hammer no other word seems to convey the pain, frustration and anger I feel at the moment as exclaiming…s#@t. Thankfullyl where sin abounds grace much more abounds….God bless.
Report this comment
DLV
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 12:49pmSleazy- Ya again I agree with you. However, this is one of the very few instances I disagree with conservative christians. The third commandment do not take the lords name in vain, Christians like to extend that to swearing, where I look at it as saying Jesus Christ in a negative way or saying anything godly and holying and damning it. For me, swear words by themselves don’t seem bad to me. They are only socially bad. The reason I say this is because meanings of words change over time. For instance, Gay used to mean happy but now it means homosexual. In the 50s Gay was a positive word and now people like to say it as a negative, what if it turns into a swear word? This seems to me that God’s law is subject to change on a words defintion. So back in the 50s it was not a sin to say Gay but maybe in 2020 it means a swear so now it’s a sin? God’s laws should never be subject to the social norms of man. God only expresses sin in that if you say it in a hateful way. But the F word also means to have sex with. The word “sex” isn’t bad so in the context of the F word meaning sex why is it suddenly bad? That’s where I disagree with Christian. That said, like I said above you would never ever ever ever ever ever catch me saying Jesus Christ in a negative way. It makes me cringe whenever someone says it in such a way.
Report this comment
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 2:12pm@ DLV…While I agree words change meaning over time, they still have a clear meaning in the current time period so that when we use them we definitely convey an idea. So when something is considered a vulgarity in a certian social time period would it be prudent for us to avoid this speech? While I understand where you are coming from how do you line up your thoughts with Eph 4:29? Do you at least consider cuss words unwholesome? Are they not at least out of step with a Christians new character? I always associate swearing with the world so I guess for me I would be sinning against my conscieince. While I certainly wouldn’t throw stones at someone for a cuss word here or there I guess if it was a common practice of a christians speech I would loving ask them to pray about how that is perceived by others and children. To me James addressed salt water and fresh water not being able to flow from the same spring as an illustration that the flavor of our speech should be as different from the world as our behavior. Before I was saved I swore profusely in addition to blaspheming God’s name in vain. Now I just can’t justify swearing in my own mind because I know it is really of the world, but this is just my humble opinion. Ultimately, I know enough people who are offended by swearing so that even if I had liberty in Christ to swear then I would not use my liberty to cause others to stumble. Thanks for your comment, curious what your thoughts on this topic? Thank yo
Report this comment
madmanGTR1
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 9:10pmGood point, also Cesium’s is good. Most every president, shortly after in office struts around with a bible going to church simply for the press. Whether they were known previously for attending church regularly has no bearing. A little Machavellean (sp?). Romney, though is genuinely a good guy, and will be FAR better for our country than the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I do read a lot of Dawkins, for the scientific content, but he has no business in our presidential race.
Report this comment
DLV
Posted on September 13, 2012 at 12:30pmWhile I agree words change meaning over time, they still have a clear meaning in the current time period so that when we use them we definitely convey an idea. So when something is considered a vulgarity in a certian social time period would it be prudent for us to avoid this speech?
Right. But my point is that humans set what words are vulgur and what words aren’t. One thing I love about God is that he is consistent humans aren’t and the S word and the F word could mean positive things with enough time who knows. In certain contexts the F word and S word are just different words for sex and poop both of those words are acceptable to say, but if we were to use the S and F words in those contexts it suddenly is not okay? I see the F and S word become a problem when someone uses them as negative, demeaning, insulting that would be unwholesome and thats where I think the vulgarity comes in otherwise it’s just slang for sex and poop. In the right context, I don’t see a problem certain cuss words. Just like saying Jesus in a postive context is fine but then throwing his name down in an insulting demeaning manner is not fine. Same word/words different context. If something is considered a vulgarity in a time period it’s by human standards, and for social reasons I would not say the F and S word at all but I don’t see the problem with using them. But to answer your question if something is considered vulgur in a time period we should avoid them for social reasons. Cont.
Report this comment
DLV
Posted on September 13, 2012 at 12:32pmWhile I understand where you are coming from how do you line up your thoughts with Eph 4:29?
Ah good passage. But I think the unwholesome talk passage speaks for itself when it says only what “is helpful for building others up…” This is what I’ve been saying all along. Saying the F and S word in a negative light or insulting manner is not okay, I never advocated it was. This passage seems to be saying that don’t say anything mean or demeaning and only what is helpful. I would agree. But the F word and S word in the contexts I have explained above are not demeaning they are just slang for other words. Crap is generally not considered a cuss word. But when you tell someone they are a piece of crap I would argue this is far worse then using the F word to talk about sex… See my point? That said, for social reasons I would never teach my kids about cuss words, but the point is for social reasons. They wouldn’t know how to use it, they would in all likelihood end up insulting people and I just created a mess. In the right context when they were older I wouldn’t care at all. To me it’s the meaning behind the words is what matters all the time not the word itself and the F word doesn’t necessarily need to be always bad. People just make it always bad. Cont.
Report this comment
DLV
Posted on September 13, 2012 at 12:32pm“Do you at least consider cuss words unwholesome? Are they not at least out of step with a Christians new character?”
Again, cuss words and any other word used in a demeaning way like F U is always out of step with Christian character. My point is always about context context context. The most harmless word could become a sin if used in the wrong way. What if the word “tree” became a cuss word in the future. What would describe vegetation is now being used unwholesomely should we stop using it all together or just use it to talk about vegetation? I’ll go with the second.
I always associate swearing with the world so I guess for me I would be sinning against my conscieince. While I certainly wouldn’t throw stones at someone for a cuss word here or there I guess if it was a common practice of a christians speech I would loving ask them to pray about how that is perceived by others and children.
I associate swearing with the world as well because they always use cuss words to put down and demean which is what 4:29 was talking about. I would never swear around children because since they are humans they are going to use it in the wrong way. I hope I’m getting my view across okay….
Report this comment
DLV
Posted on September 13, 2012 at 12:33pm“Before I was saved I swore profusely in addition to blaspheming God’s name in vain. Now I just can’t justify swearing in my own mind because I know it is really of the world, but this is just my humble opinion”
Right it’s about context again. You were using swear words like any word to put down and insult
Ultimately, I know enough people who are offended by swearing so that even if I had liberty in Christ to swear then I would not use my liberty to cause others to stumble. Thanks for your comment, curious what your thoughts on this topic? and take God’s name in vain. Not okay. My point seems to be made.
If people were offended by my speech I wouldn’t swear even in the right context. But again, cuss words are just words that are deemed not right by society but like I’ve been saying all throughout this response it’s about context. I don’t even care if my friends said jokingly “F U man.” Again you would have to be close to not take this as an insult but when my close friends say it to me and I know they are joking, I see it as they are reaffirming our bond together in which case I like it because they are responding positively to me. It’s about people and context. Interesting discussion so far. Thanks.
Report this comment
SexyPancake
Posted on November 14, 2012 at 4:49pmYes darkjello, I would suppose he is. However thinking with one’s head is much preferable to the religious practice of not thinking at all, or the right-wing policy of gut thinking. Who would have thought that a human beings brain would be the organ most equipped to produce and interpret elaborate ideas?
Report this comment
ZAP
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:35amLets see Muslim or Mormon hummmmmmmmm………..
Report this comment
CatB
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:43amMormon or MORON (Muslim)? … I will vote for the Mormon! And the Catholic .. and no I am neither .. but I do know that both believe in God.
R & R 2012!
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:49amAnd that’s why you’re part of the most cheaply bought, gullible voting bloc in the history of Western civilization
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:58am@yeti:
CATB is not a progressive, liberal, or democrat. Friendly fyi homeslice.
Report this comment
DLV
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:59amI’m sick of seeing Dawkins’ stories pop up on the blaze. Honestly, the man has had five stories in the past month. The Blaze really needs to stop reporting on him. I really do not care what he thinks. Andyetit- You’ve really gotta stop commenting as well. It simply flies over your head that you’re on a conservative website. Go to an atheist website and comment there because you’re getting your sick jollies spewing off lies. It really isn’t funny and quite frankly I’m sure a lot of people here are sick of it.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:03pmHas there ever been a demographic in human history with a worse command of one-liners than American christians?
Report this comment
MODEL82A1
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:05pmAnd you, ANDY, are part of the hilariously ignorant, yet self-righteous voting block who supports all the policies that have bankrupted Europe. You know all about Economics and Science and stuff. Gosh, you’re SMART!
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:07pm@DLV
“The Blaze really needs to stop reporting on him. I really do not care what he thinks.”
They don’t put him up because we care about what he thinks: they put him up because his name attracts hits on the site. Dawkins is a showman. He doesn’t debate religion or science; he insults religion in an attempt to get people angry. Angry people stay invested in the argument. It’s win-win.
It’s the same thing creationists like Ken Ham do; it’s not unique to the non-religious. They’re both selling their own views by inflaming passions through insulting rhetoric.
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:11pm@yeti:
You can smugly enjoy your “one-liner” victory, while we try to save America from economic ruin.
Religious folks founded this great country. We built it! Doubters need not apply.
Your “tolerance” is epic. And your ego is noteworthy. Good day.
Report this comment
floridareader
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:12pmBetter to vote for someone that puts his trust on a Higher power rather than someone that rely on the image that look back in the mirror.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:20pm‘Religious folks founded this great country. We built it! Doubters need not apply.’
You realize that this sentence is completely antiethical to the most basic principle of American government, right? Do you think that Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, or Madison would agree with you? Do you know who these people are?
Report this comment
DLV
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:23pmlocked- “They don’t put him up because we care about what he thinks: they put him up because his name attracts hits on the site. Dawkins is a showman. He doesn’t debate religion or science; he insults religion in an attempt to get people angry. Angry people stay invested in the argument. It’s win-win.”
Well, he does attract hits, I’ll give him that I just wish they would put up some new atheist because quite honestly, I have a no tolerance policy for people (Atheists and Christians) who name call instead of debate. I told how atheists should debate Christians properly check out my response on the creationists respond to Bill Nye article. You’re right. He is showman and doesn’t really talk about anything science just insult insult insult.
That said, the creationists article is the only thing I have heard from the creationist side of the isle. I haven’t seen one article here about Ken Ham.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 3:04pmYo Locked:
For you to compair Dawkins and Ham as the same ……well …. I just don’t know what to say other then they are probably the complete opposite in every way…. not very discerning …
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 3:18pmYo Andy:
And you are most proficient at no liners … 1 may not be much but it is still more then 0
In reality you really are not worth responding to … so stupid me.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 4:34pm@4truth2all
“For you to compair Dawkins and Ham as the same ……well …. I just don’t know what to say other then they are probably the complete opposite in every way…. not very discerning …”
Opposite sides of the same coin. They don’t use fact, are purposefully inflammatory (Jesus rides dinosaurs, anyone?), and do their best to be popular, not accurate.
You might be right in that they’re opposites, but they’re also the same. It’s like Romney and Obama. Opposites… but really the same.
Report this comment
PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 6:31pmYou don’t have just two choices to pick from. My gosh people. How brainwashed are you. Plus you got a Lutheran Gary Johnson sitting on the sidelines.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 8:16pmYo Locked:
No … would be the answer … I really dislike when someone tries to tell me about me when they know nothing of me … not so wise
Neither do I wish for death … NEVER alluded to this… you read that into it …no
I suggest you read what Paul says in line with this … good day
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 8:29pmYo Locked:
I thought you said you were for truth?
I believe that Ken Ham does stick to the truth of scripture.
I also believe that you judge the man’s heart as you claim to know his motives.
I do not believe he in any way is interested in purposely being inflammatory.
What is the Jesus and the dinosaur thing?
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 1:46pm@4truth2all
“No … would be the answer … I really dislike when someone tries to tell me about me when they know nothing of me … not so wise”
When did I tell you about you?
“Neither do I wish for death … NEVER alluded to this… you read that into it …no
I suggest you read what Paul says in line with this … good day”
Nor did I say you did. I said exactly what I said. You shouldn’t read into it any further than that.
“I thought you said you were for truth?”
Sure am.
“I believe that Ken Ham does stick to the truth of scripture.”
I disagree. Feel free to point out the dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden to me, though.
“I also believe that you judge the man’s heart as you claim to know his motives.”
I judge by his actions. His motives could be anything, but the actions are pretty clear.
“I do not believe he in any way is interested in purposely being inflammatory.”
I disagree. Mocking and then challenging Bill Nye to a creationist/evolution debate (as he just did the other day) is inflammatory and done only to gain popularity for his own cause. Misrepresenting belief and science for his own gain is inflammatory.
“What is the Jesus and the dinosaur thing?”
I should rephrase this to “Dinosaurs are in the Garden of Eden and were on Noah’s Ark.”
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 13, 2012 at 8:35amYo Locked:
In the event you followed.
My apopogies … I posted in above thread to answers here .. in post 9/11 @4:30 … you stated ,”I think you’re missing (cont.) This was my reference to you telling me about me. My responce may have been a bit strong, but do you not make assumptions about me, though you do ask a question AFTER the fact?
Please provide the link where Ken Ham is mocking … I would say that it was Bill Nye clearly doing the mocking … child abuse … is not mocking? let alone plain stupid!
As far as challenging to a debate what’s the problem with that .. put up or shut up … Mr. Nye … Ken was willing to respectfully discuss the issue in defence of scripture … the LORD… not to tell you about you, but your bias seems to cloud your judgement.
Dino’s and the big boat … I take it that you do NOT adhere to scipture concerning creation/ Genesis/evolution ? That you follow the theories of men instead of the facts/ Word of God. That you pick and choose want suits the worlds/your thinking …no
Report this comment
MODEL82A1
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:35amThis headline should read “Liberal Richard Dawkins…”. All Liberals are Liberals First and all their other special interests come a distant second. Dawkins would mock and refuse to vote for an Atheist Republican.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:52amThis is simply incorrect. Republicans would refuse to vote for an atheist republican, so it’s a moot point. What traction could an atheist gain in the party of hysterical christian paranoia?
Report this comment
MODEL82A1
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:57amANDY, I am an atheist Republican and will proudly cast my vote for Romney. Now take your cockeyed, Lefty theories back to the Daily Kos.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:13pmYou realize that your beliefs are a complete non sequitur, right? The question was whether or not Dawkins would vote for an atheist republican. I think he certainly would, but it’s a moot point because no atheist could ever win the republican nomination. Do you see how your last post contributes nothing to this line of discourse?
Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:31pmDawkins has made a lucrative career out of calling Christians “gullible fools’. Obama calls himself a ‘Christian’. Now we are supposed to believe Dawkins feels the ‘Christian’ candidate is more credible than the Mormon candidate based on theology? It defies all logic.
Report this comment
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:33pm@Andy,
True LEFTY atheist projections.
You’re the one unable to follow simple logic.
Model’s point: for Lefties, ideology trumps religion
Your counter: for Righties, ideology IS religion
Model’s counter: My example proves your point wrong, and my point stands independently of yours.
Your reply: You’re not engaging my point. Listen to me! It’s MY question that’s important. Whine whine, insult intelligence.
Objective people, which leftie atheists claim to be but aren’t, find more non sequiturs in the leftie atheist camp than with the “paranoid” Christians. (Whose ideas ARE undeniably under attack, btw)
Report this comment
audiemurphy
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:24pmWe are all aware of man’s poor peripheral vision in that his views are often narrow and heedless of what is going on on each side of him. Man’s problem is often one of length of view, too. This poorness of perspective often produces wonderful and pathetic paradoxes men who have been given the blessings of life by the grace of God, cry that life is senseless men who have been given breath and voice by God, use the powers of speech to deny God’s existence men who have been given the capacity to feel, exult so much in this gift that sensual things sublimate spiritual things and some men who see our reaching out to distant places in our solar system conclude that this special planet is a random, unplanned mutant and refuse to connect the order of physical laws (that makes such journeys into space possible) with an Orderer.
Report this comment
Balpit
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 5:09pm@Gonzo
It’s certainly very telling how Dawkins savages Romney while leaving Obama unscathed.
And keep in mind Dawkins himself said that Obama is “probably an atheist”.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 8:37pmYo Balpit:
It is very telling and a statement to the “spirit” over each of these men.
Report this comment
RightUnite
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:35amI would rather vote for Romney than the massively stupid OBAMA.
Report this comment
saneromeo
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:33amI’m more worried about psuedo intellectuals and their beastly religion of (unprovable) atheism. How is it scientists get a pass when it comes to declaring opinion as fact, when they don’t bother using the scientific method anymore? Pray for Mr. Dawkins.
http://saneromeo.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/exodus-232-thou-shalt-not-follow-a-multitude-to-do-evil/
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:40am‘How is it scientists get a pass when it comes to declaring opinion as fact’
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, there is some irony contained in this sentence? Or has religion robbed you of your sense of irony?
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:46amMost scientists believe in God.
In our past, the % was overwhelming.
Curious that our knowledge has exploded in spite of all these “gullible fools”.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:51amYou are drastically misinformed (or simply brainwashed). The national academy of sciences in this country is 92% atheist. There is no intelligent person, past or present, that shares your point of view.
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:00pm@yeti:
Francis S. Collins disagrees with you. So do the vast majority of CURRENT doctors, PA-Cs, ARNPs, and CRNAs. Boom!!!
Report this comment
cgnick
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 2:05amYour ignorance of science is evident by your statement. Religion is not good for critical thinking skills and you are proof.
Report this comment
Aaronicus
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:33amI can’t stand this loser. So his philosophy of life is somehow better? We were nothing, the nothing had nothing happen to it and it exploded… -_- Then by a happy accident humans evolved from the same nothing! How is anything Joseph Smith taught more fantastic than that?
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:41amOnly one of those two philosophies includes polygamy, zealous racism, and the anti-historical drivel.
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:49am@yeti:
Your “logic” is abominable. LMBO! Sad. You are dramatic no doubt. Best of luck.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:57amWhat a devastating rejoinder. Give me a moment to rethink my entire opinion of mormon doctrine.
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:03pm@yeti:
Your “opinion” is wrong. I sincerely hope you do reconsider.
Do you also hate progressives because of Wilson, FDR, and LBJ?? Pot meet kettle.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:22pmI have no response for that last one because if there’s a point in there it is a complete mystery to me. My opinion is wrong? Do you think you could win a middle school debate on chocolate v. vanilla ice cream if you pulled out that doozie? Kindly rephrase.
Report this comment
thibx
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:32amyes i can and will plus you are an idiot.
Report this comment
watersRpeople
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:30am“I do not know him, I don’t know him, I tell you I do not know the man.” Rrrh, rrh, rrhrrhhh.
Report this comment
Elena2010
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:30amThe fool in his heart says there is no God.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:36amThe person who thinks you can prove the bible using the bible belongs in the terrified infancy of our species.
Report this comment
DimmuBorgir
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:41amSo using scientific theory to prove scientific theory is different how??
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:46amI’m past the point in my life where I’m willing to stoop down to accommodate the abject stupidity of comments like this from religious types. If you don’t know the difference, you’re living in an intellectual desert.
Report this comment
watersRpeople
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:48amAndYetItMoves,
I know, the Bible can not be used to prove the Bible, but I tell you that Simon Peter was an Atheist – was.
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:51am@yeti:
So, by your logic, we should not stoop down to your level to explain economics in the REAL world?
Report this comment
watersRpeople
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:53amDimmuBorgir,
For someone who believes in science – science does prove science. Just as well as someone who already believes in the Bible – the Bible does prove the Bible. Yet if you only always see the inside of your home, then how do you know you have a roof? If you never leave the inside of your home, then how do you repair the siding?
Report this comment
Bob_R_OathKeeper
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:54amAndYetItMoves – You poor fool, you spend so much time here in this thread hating something “you don’t believe in” and answer the question above by Dimmuborger, let’s see some more stupidity roll from that immature brain of yours. I used to think like you and hopefully you’ll live long enough to be enlightened, if not……….I pity you.
Report this comment
Bob_R_OathKeeper
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:56amLOL at you YETI, I figured you’d answer that question exactly the way you did, you pathetic, immature kid.
Report this comment
Bob_R_OathKeeper
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:59amYETI, when you can explain how you can get something from nothing, I’ll listen to your drivel, until then, FO kid.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:59amSomething tells me (it’s either your writing style or your willingness to defend a religious doctrine you clearly don’t understand) that you won’t be stooping to me on any subject that does not involve angels and burning bushes.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:03pmI can tell by your command of the English language how enlightened you must be. Tell me, does calling me immature diminish my position? Is it immature of me to be concerned that a man who believes in a doctrine that requires an encyclopedic ignorance of the past 2000 years of human thought might win the keys to the nukes?
Report this comment
DimmuBorgir
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:04pmSo really… you don’t have an answer to that one.
Don’t worry I won’t look down on you if you want to say you just have more faith in science.
Report this comment
DimmuBorgir
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:09pm@ ANDTYETITMOVES
Do you always have to talk down to people you disagree with? You know nothing about me and yet you’re assuming I’m somehow ignorant when it comes to the different sciences. Actually I’d say not only do you assume I’m ignorant but in some way against science. I simply asked you to take your head out of your A$$ and explain how your beliefs are somehow more valid than someone else’s?
Report this comment
DimmuBorgir
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:11pmNot only is andyetitmoves a master of science but apparently he’s also a strict english teacher.
instead of arguing your views, how about you critisize my lack of punctuation, capitalization and missspeling?
;)
Report this comment
Bob_R_OathKeeper
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:12pmI love the smell of deflection, it smells like……….victory. Nice try kid.
Report this comment
DLV
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:13pmAndyet- and yet you’re on this website speaking to christians. Seriously get off commenting troll! You have got to be one the rudest atheists on this site. If you actually wanted a debate instead of namecalling look for how I said atheists should engage in debate on the creationists respond to bill nye story. Otherwise, shut your yap.
Report this comment
RLTW
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:14pmYeti
The person who dismisses God can only do so by ignoring human history and the moral virtues Judeo Christian beliefs have given us.
In ignoring history you ignore the foundation that grounds man to his own past. I’d rather be anchored in God and history then float about grounded in nothing.
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:16pm@yeti:
I have divined that your IQ is at least 130. Wow! You must be right about everything you are preaching here. Thanks for stepping down from your intellectual cloud to grace us with your inspiring comments about how stupid, dumb, ignorant, and brainwashed we all are.
Tolerance is your forte!
Report this comment
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:47pm@Darkjello,
Yeti’s mistake is NOT that he is intolerant towards bad ideas–we should ALL reject such ideas–it’s rather that his judgment is faulty.
He refuses to even understand the ideas before he rejects them as bad. He can’t engage an idea without distorting it first to suit his line of attack to support his own belief system.
He’s essentially a coward (like many a troll here), and although his wit is sharp, his ideas aren’t really all that logically solid (despite his protests).
How did Romney amass a fortune if his brain didn’t function logically? Why do all his business partners, and even business enemies roundly praise him as a good, hyper-competent man to work with? Why did professors in Ivy League prestigious universities (where all the cool atheists go as everyone knows) give him passing grades, let alone the spectacular ones he received, if his beliefs disqualified him from making sound, logical, well-reasoned, history and fact-based judgments.
Yeti, the Christians here also have well-working brains, despite your protests, and happily they don’t listen much to the likes of you or Dawkins.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 8:51pmYo Happy:
Concerning the Yeti … a sharp wit without wisdom only draws blood
Report this comment
fedupandvoting
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:30amwe need Romney’s expertise..The US Presidency JOB also regards the laws of anti Discriminatory practices.. regardless of sex, race, religion etc..anyone can apply…Dawkins is being totally discriminatory abd a bigot and that is foolish! Who would hire a closed minded fool/bigot.. like Dawkins?
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:38amThere is no such thing as bigotry where ideas are concerned. If Dawkins distrusted Romney because of his skin color (something many on these threads can relate to), then he would be a bigot. When he calls Romney a fool for believing the cradle of human life is in Jackson County, MO, he is just being intellectually honest.
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:52am@yeti:
Intellectualization and confabulation, the main 2 ingredients of Dawkins’ success.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:05pmJust because you can’t understand a simple point does not give you license to write it off as ‘intellectualization.’ I know your predecessors have been doing this for the past 2000 years or so, but in the age of the internet you’re losing ground quickly.
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:40pmYou only think people have been on the planet for “2000 years”?
I thought you worshipped science. Curious indeed.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:51pmAgain, your ignorance derails a line of discourse. What presumably happened 2000 years ago that I might be referring to? Think hard now.
Report this comment
nerdherder2
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:19pmANDITMOVES Is very critcal of everyone else’s faith, but he fails to see that his faith is blinder than most. He believes that everything exploded from nothing (the big bang). He believes that amino acids formed RNA and life against any attempt to duplicate it. His faith is more than most Christians have, because his defies logic.
Report this comment
just happy
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:29amWith all the whacko Christians and other believers in God we have done pretty well so far. Ended up advancing to this level of innovation in history, which is a little ahead of most of the rest of the world, so go spout off where you are surrounded by others who are deluded like you and thanks for giving us us all a laugh. (at you)
Report this comment
Watcher1952
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:29amHave you noticed that according to this dweeb…everyone is ..stupid, ignorant, gullible…etc….except him. It has been my experience that those who call others names usually are reflecting upon themselves. Besides why does something that he does not believe in bother him so much……..DWEEB
Report this comment
RightUnite
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:37amI’m just curious as to what this friggin moron has to gain for supporting the current freak of nature in the WH.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:47amProbably because people of inadequate intelligence such as yourself are trying to pass the doctrine that he does not believe in into law.
Report this comment
SONOFNANYE-HI
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:58amI have often wondered the same thing. Is it a case of trying to pasify their own doubts by villifying others of beliefs they are desparately trying to avoid? Is the possiblility they are wrong somehow knawing at them? I don’t know, but I find the ones who are comfortable in their Atheistic beliefs are not the ones to call others names for not believing the same. It’s the ones that are not comfortable like Dawkins that I wonder about.
Report this comment
SONOFNANYE-HI
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:41pm@ANDYETITMOVES, So exactly what doctrine into law are you referring to? And nice civil tone there “HATER”.
Report this comment
Lucy Larue
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 7:26pmMerci! The most cogent comment on this thread!
Dawkins is a JERKwithOFF! He is a Faux Intellectual!
He is dumber than a sack of hammersThe UNIVERSE goes beyond infinity…,yet Dawkins has been to the mountaintop and discovered truth. UGH!
He needs to make a surface delve into METAPHYSICS. I say surface because he is incapable of DEPTH!
Weary I am of his ilk
Even Einstein acknowledged divine inspiration.
Report this comment
coyote1hell
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:29amBarack Hussiene should be diqualified for his Muslem-Brotherhood relations…..
Report this comment
biohazard23
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:28amYawn. More spew from what’s-his-name again. He’s no better than Fred Phelps. They’re both miserable, hate-filled beings, bless their hearts.
Report this comment
caleejr
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:27amthis sentiment can be applied to Obama – believing in ‘collective’ salvation….does this make him a “massively gullible fool” as well?
Report this comment
by faith
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:27amI agree with all 3 Dawkins tweets…still voting for Romney
I would seriously consider voting for Dawkins over Obama
Correction I am not voting for Romney, I a voting AGAINST Obama
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:39amYou have seen the light, I respect that. ;)
Niall Ferguson is an atheist too, he is focusing on economics NOT Smith’s life story.
Report this comment
by faith
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:48amDon’t get me wrong, I’m no atheist.
Obama is the devil we know, my only choice is the other guy
Report this comment
rockmanlinux
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:27amWhen being a Mormon bishop is the biggest slam they find on a guy…they are having to really reach for straws. #transparent
Report this comment
Wayner
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:32amI didn’t know the guy was famous and I usually consider myself pretty well informed more or less!!
“The FOOL has said in his heart, there is no God”
Report this comment
Trident
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:11pmCould you also say “the fool says in his heart, “there are millions of gods”?
Report this comment
mcsledge
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 1:38pmTrident – Read Paul
Report this comment
smores
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:26amDoesn’t Obama believe in God too? How are his voters any less “massively gulliable” and how is he any less a “fool” – according to Mr. Dawkin’s definition.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:35amObama is an obvious, blatant, unmistakable atheist. Anyone who has read his first book or paid attention to his presidency knows this by now. He panders to religious buffoons like any president must. Romney, on the other hand, has chosen to stick with his guns in spite of the damage it will likely do to his campaign.
Obama has said that in a nuclear world we can’t afford to be literalists about religion. Romney refuses to discuss his presumable belief that he will rule his own planet as a god after death. He is campaigning for the keys to the bombs, personally I’d like to know.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:04pm@Andyetitmoves
“Obama is an obvious, blatant, unmistakable atheist.”
Now we have an issue then. Do you vote for a guy who doesn’t lie about his personal beliefs, or one who blatantly does so? You give flak to the loonies who claim he’s a Muslim, but you’re doing the same thing they are: saying he hold a certain religious viewpoint when he has never said he’s anything but a Christian.
Report this comment
TitleofLiberty
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:17pm@Yeti, you have the IQ of a Yeti and you don’t see the irony on your chosen nickname from where you can hide and attack anybody that is ‘down’ from your level. Can you explain to me how the ‘father’ of quantum Physics and modern chemistry, one Henry Eyring, was a devout mormon? If your stupid statement that “There is no intelligent person, past or present, that shares your point of view” is true, can you explain this to me? If this statement is false -which I just proved- where else are you lying, whether from your own ignorance or because you are willfully doing it to try to make someone else as miserable as you are?
Finally, why are you defending a man that does not share your absolute knowledge that there is no God? He is 98% sure there is no God, that is not good enough, is it? He thinks that an Alien race brought up by some darwinian mechanism seeded our planet, in other words, he believes in intelligent design, not just by God but by something else, never mind how those aliens came to be, oh yes, evolution, the greatest of all beings, the miracle of all those things happening in the right sequence being repeated over and aver again which makes its Mathematical possibility exponentially more impossible.
BTW, before you attack me, I am a molecular biologist and a devout mormon -gasp, I am not real, I can’t exist because you said so- and I graduated from BYU, the mormon church owned university where I took 3, not one, not two but THREE evolution classe
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:29pmAh yes, a molecular biologist from mighty Brigham Young University. The University whose namesake was known to say things like this:
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”
- Journal of Discourses, 10:109, March 8, 1863
All that you’re telling me is that you are an educated person who believes that the first man and woman were born in Jackson County Mo, that Native Americans are the descendants of a lost Israeli tribe, and that the story of Lucy Harris does not melt the entire farse at its foundations. Some might say that this disqualifies you from being characterized as educated, you can probably guess where I stand on that one. Can I ask what it was like learning about biology in a microcosmic totalitarian community? Were you instructed to inform on your classmates if they showed signs of impiety? Were you allowed to bring up the faith’s unfortunate baggage, like the quote I just provided from the man whose name is on your degree?
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:43pmOh and speaking of, I should probably add that you presumably believe that God changed his mind about black people in 1978 as Mitt does, correct?
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:45pm@yeti:
Thanks for showing, again, your complete and total lack of knowledge about mormons.
You like to debate, you know how to copy and paste, but your hubris has blinded you to reality.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:57pmAnother knockout punch, Jello. If only Joseph Smith had hired you to run his PR department… I’ve never encountered a more devastating Christian apologist.
Report this comment
title_of_liberty
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 4:13pm@Yeti stop trolling. Ther have been many brilliant Mormon inventors, scientists etc. I’m sick of atheists who assume religious people are stupid. They have contributed far more to society’s advancement in technology and knowledge than atheists and secularists have.
I am a 17 year old Mormon young man and I will have completed a business degree before I leave on a mission two years from now.
PS: awesome name and comment Title :)
Report this comment
TitleofLiberty
Posted on September 12, 2012 at 1:37am@yeti. Thanks for reacting to my post the way yo did you ignorant swine, you have corroborated everything I thought of you and now I can laugh -with my perfect knowledge of who you really are inside- at your misery. The fact still remains that you are a man of faith. Faith that all of this comes from nothing since you have no proof of it. Faith that somewhere, somehow, something mathematically implausible happened that made all of this a reality. Faith that someday science will be able to explain things that you don’t see, that you will never see but that you know that exist. Have a nice life.
Report this comment
watersRpeople
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:25amThe stomach of an Atheist is bitter at the thought of a God, then they feel sick inside puking into their mouth and saying “There is no God”, and then they eat those words again for a moment easing the bitterness – for but a moment to say only yet again “Blah, there is no God.” It isn’t what goes into your mouth that defiles you, but what comes out.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:24amRomney’s faith doesn’t make him a bad candidate. And the values of the Mormon religion are actually pretty darn good (I like the emphasis on community and preparedness, personally).
His policies, of course, do make him a bad candidate. But Dawkins wouldn’t talk about that, because it’s not edgy enough and won’t get him in the news.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:32amThis coming from the party that has slandered the sitting president as a muslim usurper. Bring up Romney’s ludicrous religion and it’s ‘classic liberal hate mongering.’ Republican yokel doublethink at its finest.
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:44am@yeti:
You nailed it genius. Owebama is the bestest ever, and Romney is a mormon!! The entire election hangs on these 2 “facts” and stuff.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:55amDoes this pass for debate where you come from? Did you think that I would read this and then reconsider my position? The world would stand to benefit immensely if unintelligent people knew themselves a bit better.
Report this comment
Locked
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:01pm@And
“This coming from the party that has slandered the sitting president as a muslim usurper.”
I do not recall hearing an official Republican position stating Obama is a Muslim. Some folks in the GOP undoubtedly think so, but saying the entire party does is like saying the entire Democratic party is atheist. Gross exaggeration.
“Bring up Romney‘s ludicrous religion and it’s ‘classic liberal hate mongering.’ Republican yokel doublethink at its finest.”
Ludicrous or not, whatever your opinion on the matter, there is not a faith requirement for president. Obama’s a Christian: do you not vote for him because of it? (Presumably you’re an atheist; if not, my mistake). I don’t agree with the Mormon religion, and thus I’m not a Mormon. But I can see where he could get some good values out of it.
But that’s not the issue here. Dawkins is anti-faith of any kind. Which is kind of ironic, because if Romney’s faith is the reason Dawkins won’t vote for him, then why would he vote for Obama (who is a Christian)? Aren’t they both “gullible fools”?
Report this comment
COFemale
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:24amCan you believe anything from someone who does not believe in anything but his own selfish arrogant self? What a DH.
Dawkin’s is entitled to his opinion, but he is not free from criticism. Nobody but his lackey minions will confirm his words. Can’t believe anything from a product of Satan.
Report this comment
johnjamison
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:29amHe needs to go back to banging Ms. Garrison.
Report this comment
woodyee
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:23amGuulible fool?
Mr. Dawkins, “Creationists” know all about Darwinism. It is you Darwinists that refuse to learn about the Bible; and in answer to your question, we’ve already elected a fool – in 2008. We’re not about to repeat the same mistake by re-electing YOUR fool; that’s tantamount to electing a fool’s fool…
Report this comment
The_Jerk
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:21amDawkins was born in Kenya. Wonder if hew knew Obama’s old man?
Report this comment
SingerGuy
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:32amI didn’t realize that Frank Marshall Davis was from Kenya. :-D
Report this comment
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:21amTo ask him the same question, how can the massively gulliable, vote for such a fool (Obama)?
Report this comment
just happy
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:24amand your proof that it wasn’t is?????????. and your proof that it was somewhere else is???????
And it matters to fixing our economy HOW?????
Report this comment
The_Jerk
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:25amHow did, not how can. Proves the stupidity of Americans.
Report this comment
DarkJello
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:27amDawkins is British. Why should any American listen to him?
He should stick to biology. Apparently the interview by Playboy went to his “head.”
Report this comment
watersRpeople
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:20amRichard Dawkins is the bigger fool, because an Atheist does the bidding of God, but say there is no God.
Report this comment
DEWY9121
Posted on September 11, 2012 at 5:03pmHow?
Report this comment