Richard Dawkins espouses Militant Atheism: "Mock them, Ridicule them." Attack Religious People with Insults!

by MagicMItchJensen 65 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • MagicMItchJensen
    MagicMItchJensen

    Richard Dawkins has said frequently if we don't agree with religious or spiritual people we need to "insult them!" tell their their out of their "Fucking gourds!" and make sure you really show them how stupid they are for believing in something they can't prove!"

    I have had the pleasure of listening to Richard Dawkins, he's not stupid, his gift of speech make's us all look like dum-dums! My question though is his offer to attack religious people and insult them is very dangerous. Why would he want people to insult others who are radicals or zealots. It's been pointed this method of conversation can get you killed, look how Islam handles people insulting the Prophet in Texas, USA "When Fools do stupid things to cause trouble!". What if someone made him get on a plane so he could go a region where religious tolerance does not exist to mock them, either Richard would get publicly lashed (1,000 lashes over a weekly period) or stoned to death, why put deadly ideas inside the heads of people who put their trust in all the words you say?

    How is that helping eliminate hateful, intolerant groups like ISIS by showing your better than their leaders? If you want to add more fuel to the fire, Richard doing a great job! Rational people who care about their audience do no espouse ideas that could lead to the deaths and beatings of people who are followers and take the words of him literally by following through and doing stupid things like insulting the people, is that what this is all about? There is no good reason to behave like Stalin, if people disagree with you, put them in a work camp or Re-Education camp like the Khmer Rouge did? Is that how educated people behave, I thought rational thinkers preached peaceful dialogue, not warmongering hateful words insulting the core beliefs of your fellow humans.

    How long would Richard Dawkins be allowed to insult the clerics or Mullahs in the Middle East or Asia? Christians don't attack Richard Dawkins, they let him speak freely without telling him their going to kill him. What if Richard Dawkins had people insult Islamic leaders only to get them killed, would he be blood guilty? Why would anyone tell others to "Mock Them! Insult them! Tell them their Stupid!"? So is this his goal, what's behind a radical agenda, to start a war against religious people who are not afraid to die because they have hope? When Secularist start wars with religious people, it's the Secularist who get killed off because the religious people have hope of another life to come. The Secularist knowing this is their only life will do all they can to avoid death, their not afraid to disown everything they believe to stay alive. I think creating a war against religious people is stupid because he think's they will sit back and tolerate abuse indefinitely, others on online chats learned the hard way insulting religious people is dangerous to your health. I'am very peaceful, I don't like innocents getting hurt, that's why Richard's idea makes me very upset!

    Richard Dawkins espouses Militant Atheism: "Mock them, Ridicule them."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqqp8KVuQU

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    Religious ideas need to be ridiculed, stupidity and ignorance should not be left unchallenged.

    Better to be mocked and ridiculed than beheaded, burnt at the stake or imprisoned, which is religion's answer to "heresy".

  • oppostate
    oppostate

    Well, if atheists are right about everything, then disprove someone's faith.

    Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.

    To ridicule what you think ridiculous doesn't make you right, and doesn't make you a scientist, it just makes you a ridiculer.

  • Doltologist
    Doltologist

    I must admit, Dawkins way was my way too but I've read a lot of posts, written a lot of posts, responded to a lot of posts and been responded to a lot over the past few days.

    My feeling is that I was wrong and so is Dawkins.

    There is a better way and that is to challenge without insulting.

    However, I understand where Dawkins is coming from I think.

    In the past, religious leaders went totally unchallenged. They considered themselves to be above the law. They were able to use and abuse mankind. Many of them did. I'll just mention mind control and paedophilia.

  • DATA-DOG
    DATA-DOG

    It's hard to make people think without insulting their intelligence. So, sometimes you need to insult their intelligence, or bring attention to their ignorance.

    Imagine how most of us would act if we weren't trapped as JWs. We would call BS on everything to everyone. Many would leave, that's why the WTBTS has shunning as a weapon.

    DD

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW

    It`s unfortunate Dawkins would say something that stupid..

    There`s too many crazy people who are more than willing to kill you for that..

    If Zealots on both side of the fence want to die for their beliefs,Fine.....But..

    Don`t put others peoples lives in danger,because "Your Stupid"..

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams
    How old is the vid in the OP? Is it possible Dawkins has softened his attitude since this speech?
  • Hold Me-Thrill Me
    Hold Me-Thrill Me
    Dawkins is an inciter. He likes to light flames.
  • paulmolark
    paulmolark

    What is funny is the men of his age range who have abandon the church see him as their new GOD. Then spend just as much time quoting Dawkins now as they did quoting scripture. People need something to follow. I am an atheist, I get annoyed by religion as much as anyone else. However, I can't spend my time being smug and snarky all the time.

    "My question though is his offer to attack religious people and insult them is very dangerous. Why would he want people to insult others who are radicals or zealots."

    Do you think Dawkins sans protection would walk into a Mosque and say these things? A BAPTIST CHURCH? Do you think most people who are intelligent would walk up to someone and say, "You are out of your fucking gourd?" No... this frail old half-dead fucked would get beat the fuck down. However, he will encourage his disciples to do it because it makes him seem cool.

  • MagicMItchJensen
    MagicMItchJensen

    Richard Dawkins has not changed his view, you might wish he has softened this since two years ago, why don't we apply the "rule of time past" to all arguments made. Hell we can forgive the Watchtower since all of their weird End Time claims are old but we won't because we know the Watchtower will continue to preach "Doom and Gloom", "Don't live Now because the End is Near!". Why is it when people post videos of famous leaders on their side of the argument its said "How old is that Video?" I heard Dawkins say the same thing less than two years ago, he's gotten in trouble making weird claims about Pedophiles, Rape and other topics most find abhorrent here.


    oltologist33 minutes ago

    I must admit, Dawkins way was my way too but I've read a lot of posts, written a lot of posts, responded to a lot of posts and been responded to a lot over the past few days.

    My feeling is that I was wrong and so is Dawkins.

    There is a better way and that is to challenge without insulting.

    However, I understand where Dawkins is coming from I think.

    In the past, religious leaders went totally unchallenged. They considered themselves to be above the law. They were able to use and abuse mankind. Many of them did. I'll just mention mind control and paedophilia."


    Doltologist, your refreshing view, you know where this all leads and nobody is trying to hide the fact about the cover-ups in religious circles dealing with pedophiles and death. I find it dishearting when authors people rally against say wicked things their followers quicky say "Hey, when did he say that?" and someone says "Oh, he said that one year ago!" they say "Oh, he probably softened his approach, let's all forgive and forget how he feels because people change." People don't change that quick unless their about to get kicked off the Debate Circuit and lose all their audience that provide them with a very nice living. Change only comes when they lose money, not because someone said "Hey, your going to get people killed, get out there and tell people you were wrong!" To date Richard has never changed his mind, he stand's firmly behind his beliefs people should mock anyone religious or spiritual dealing with the metaphysical realm.

    It's wrong to say "What's the time line of Richard Dawkins video" , to a reply of "He is still behind this kind of mockery, in fact he's said some very stupid things about child-sex, rape and topics everyone here with some form of ethics will angrily denouce! Doltogoist, your reasonable, you see what he is saying is wrong so why do people try to qualify unambiguous hate speech?


Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit