The Sage Nabooru Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 It seems a few loudmouths are intrisic to a particular cultural group coming into it's own in our society. Not one group seems to be respected until they force themselves into the public eye, and demand to be respected. Sure it sucks, and it's probably not the best way for a group to get acceptance within a culture, but it seems to be the way things work. I really don't think that's true. The Dalai Lama didn't get attention by beating down non-Buddhists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 And anyway....in terms of being an asshole, he pales in comparison the George W. Bush, who so got off on the idea of a kickass sequel to the Persian Gulf War, he....well.....you all know the rest. True. I would have to say that, in retrospect, Bush is the fundy arsehole of the year so far. But the year isn't over yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 Throughout Christiandom there are sparks of arseholedom that should be acknowledged like Tim Lahae and Ernest Angely and of course we discover new stars like Kent Hovind who give us pause to look up in wonder and amazement and once in a while a fundie arsehole goes supernova and explodes into hyper-brilliance such as Ted Haggard but he will burn out soon and be gone... but there remains... yes... one extrordinarily twisted and perienially fucked up dork... a head of arseholedom that to my view, year after nauseating fucking year this super major fucking asrsehole keeps shining high in the sky like a full moon each night saying the most dumb, fucked up, hateful, decietful abusive shit that flows like a New York sewer and it is none other than Pat Robertson. << Put 'me puking' emodicon here >>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrayman7040 Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 I have seen several interviews with Richard Dawkins and I have never seen the side of him mentioned above. He always seemed like a gentleman. If he is critical of all those who aren't strong atheists, so be it. More power to him. Wouldn't this be a great country if for every obnoxious Christian asshole like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwel who get ample time in the limelight, their was an obnoxious atheist out there spewing our message. We need that kind of shit for our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrayman7040 Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 I have seen several interviews with Richard Dawkins and I have never seen the side of him mentioned above, and I just started reading his book. He always seemed like a gentleman. If he is critical of all those who aren't strong atheists, so be it. More power to him. Wouldn't this be a great country if for every obnoxious Christian asshole like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwel who get ample time in the limelight, their was an obnoxious atheist out there spewing our message on the airwaves? We need that kind of shit for our team but it could never happen in this great Christain nation of ours. By the way did anyone catch the episode of South Park which parodied Mr. Dawkins? I will say one thing about that show they are equal opportunity offenders for sure. It was funnier than shit, although I doubt Richard Dawkins would agree as his charactor was assfucking the gay teacher in the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxic Posted December 27, 2006 Author Share Posted December 27, 2006 What about our old friend JP Holding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage Nabooru Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 I have seen several interviews with Richard Dawkins and I have never seen the side of him mentioned above, and I just started reading his book. He always seemed like a gentleman. If he is critical of all those who aren't strong atheists, so be it. More power to him. Wouldn't this be a great country if for every obnoxious Christian asshole like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwel who get ample time in the limelight, their was an obnoxious atheist out there spewing our message on the airwaves? We need that kind of shit for our team but it could never happen in this great Christain nation of ours. No, it would not be a great country. Because an asshole is an asshole is an asshole. Having one atheist asshole for every Christian asshole would only increase the number of assholes, and whenever you've got more assholes, you've got more shit-spewing, since that is what assholes do. To suggest that there would be less shit if there were more assholes is illogical. And perhaps you think Dawkins is such a gentleman because you agree with him. I'm sure fundy Christians everywhere would generally agree that Pat Robertson is a regular loving saint. More power to him, I suppose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 I think I agree on James Dobson being the Fundie Arsehole of the Year. Anyone who believes in beating any defenseless being (animal or child) should rot in a jail cell somewhere in the middle of Siberia. Rotting, no doubt.... I was really thinking Phelps, until I saw someone had listed the Dubyah. A man who gets elected on "xtian values" and finds no conflict between those and, oh, say torture, falsification of evidence to go to war, screwing the poor, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage Nabooru Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 I was really thinking Phelps, until I saw someone had listed the Dubyah. A man who gets elected on "xtian values" and finds no conflict between those and, oh, say torture, falsification of evidence to go to war, screwing the poor, etc. Pfft, heathen! Don't you know Christian values are only valuable if their value can be added up in dollars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. XC Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 Other candidates would be Richard Dawkins (fucking hypocrite), and the various Islamist assholes polluting the world today. I have seen several interviews with Richard Dawkins and I have never seen the side of him mentioned above, and I just started reading his book. He always seemed like a gentleman. If he is critical of all those who aren't strong atheists, so be it. More power to him. Wouldn't this be a great country if for every obnoxious Christian asshole like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwel who get ample time in the limelight, their was an obnoxious atheist out there spewing our message on the airwaves? We need that kind of shit for our team but it could never happen in this great Christain nation of ours. No, it would not be a great country. Because an asshole is an asshole is an asshole. Having one atheist asshole for every Christian asshole would only increase the number of assholes, and whenever you've got more assholes, you've got more shit-spewing, since that is what assholes do. To suggest that there would be less shit if there were more assholes is illogical. And perhaps you think Dawkins is such a gentleman because you agree with him. I'm sure fundy Christians everywhere would generally agree that Pat Robertson is a regular loving saint. More power to him, I suppose? I have also made the observation that xrayman7040 did in that Richard Dawkins acts as a gentleman and as a very kind and human person. I think calling Richard Dawkins an asshole is equivalent to calling Albert Einstein an asshole. What Richard Dawkins does that pisses people off is that he has no problem with using the intellectual high ground to tell things the way that they are. He does not hold back on calling the God of the Old Testament a mean, murderous, jealous person and one from which we should not get our morals from. Another bit of intellectual honesty that tends to piss people off is his view that keeping faith that contradicts fact is not a virtue that should be respected in society. He also has no problems pointing out that certain beliefs tend to cause certain behaviors that are not beneficial to society. I disagree with the statement that he presents atheism as the sole savior of humanity. I am sure to a theist, that he may seem to present that case, but from my point of view, he merely points out where faith has disadvantages and I have yet to hear him say that atheism is the only correct view (although he does admit to being an atheist, but that in itself does not mean that he pushes that view on other people). Perhaps where theists think that he is pushing atheism is due to him denying intelligent design and therefor he denies a major chunk of the theists world view which seems to leave atheism as the only option; However this still leaves theism without intelligent design an option. I have yet to hear Richard Dawkins say that theism or spirituality without intelligent design are categorically incorrect. Also, when I hear his talks, when he speaks of God, he is typically referring to the Christian and Islam God. I hope that white_raven23 (or anyone else who has read and understood his books) will correct me if I am wrong. Since science has proven that Evolution is a fact and that that the theories supporting it are well established within the scientific community, Richard Dawkins has no problem whatsoever calling intelligent design crazy. Richard Dawkins views that people supporting intelligent design are ignorant of Evolution (as in being in the state of being unaware/uninformed), but not stupid (not capable of intelligent thought). In other words, he expects that people are smart enough to learn about Evolution, and that would allow them to see intelligent design as unnecessary. So he respects people, but not some ideas. This kind of respect for people further removes any support for calling him an asshole. He sells books to people who will buy them and speaks where he is invited to speak. It is not like he is going to go around knocking on peoples doors to push his ideas. This too is not an attribute of an asshole that you would find in fundamentalist religion. So I would say that Richard Dawkins and fundamentalists are worlds apart. I fail to see how a world of Richard Dawkins will be anything close to a world of Christian fundamentalists. Feel free to enlighten me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosingMyReligion Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 Other candidates would be Richard Dawkins (fucking hypocrite), and the various Islamist assholes polluting the world today. I have seen several interviews with Richard Dawkins and I have never seen the side of him mentioned above, and I just started reading his book. He always seemed like a gentleman. If he is critical of all those who aren't strong atheists, so be it. More power to him. Wouldn't this be a great country if for every obnoxious Christian asshole like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwel who get ample time in the limelight, their was an obnoxious atheist out there spewing our message on the airwaves? We need that kind of shit for our team but it could never happen in this great Christain nation of ours. No, it would not be a great country. Because an asshole is an asshole is an asshole. Having one atheist asshole for every Christian asshole would only increase the number of assholes, and whenever you've got more assholes, you've got more shit-spewing, since that is what assholes do. To suggest that there would be less shit if there were more assholes is illogical. And perhaps you think Dawkins is such a gentleman because you agree with him. I'm sure fundy Christians everywhere would generally agree that Pat Robertson is a regular loving saint. More power to him, I suppose? I have also made the observation that xrayman7040 did in that Richard Dawkins acts as a gentleman and as a very kind and human person. I think calling Richard Dawkins an asshole is equivalent to calling Albert Einstein an asshole. What Richard Dawkins does that pisses people off is that he has no problem with using the intellectual high ground to tell things the way that they are. He does not hold back on calling the God of the Old Testament a mean, murderous, jealous person and one from which we should not get our morals from. Another bit of intellectual honesty that tends to piss people off is his view that keeping faith that contradicts fact is not a virtue that should be respected in society. He also has no problems pointing out that certain beliefs tend to cause certain behaviors that are not beneficial to society. I disagree with the statement that he presents atheism as the sole savior of humanity. I am sure to a theist, that he may seem to present that case, but from my point of view, he merely points out where faith has disadvantages and I have yet to hear him say that atheism is the only correct view (although he does admit to being an atheist, but that in itself does not mean that he pushes that view on other people). Perhaps where theists think that he is pushing atheism is due to him denying intelligent design and therefor he denies a major chunk of the theists world view which seems to leave atheism as the only option; However this still leaves theism without intelligent design an option. I have yet to hear Richard Dawkins say that theism or spirituality without intelligent design are categorically incorrect. Also, when I hear his talks, when he speaks of God, he is typically referring to the Christian and Islam God. I hope that white_raven23 (or anyone else who has read and understood his books) will correct me if I am wrong. Since science has proven that Evolution is a fact and that that the theories supporting it are well established within the scientific community, Richard Dawkins has no problem whatsoever calling intelligent design crazy. Richard Dawkins views that people supporting intelligent design are ignorant of Evolution (as in being in the state of being unaware/uninformed), but not stupid (not capable of intelligent thought). In other words, he expects that people are smart enough to learn about Evolution, and that would allow them to see intelligent design as unnecessary. So he respects people, but not some ideas. This kind of respect for people further removes any support for calling him an asshole. He sells books to people who will buy them and speaks where he is invited to speak. It is not like he is going to go around knocking on peoples doors to push his ideas. This too is not an attribute of an asshole that you would find in fundamentalist religion. So I would say that Richard Dawkins and fundamentalists are worlds apart. I fail to see how a world of Richard Dawkins will be anything close to a world of Christian fundamentalists. Feel free to enlighten me. I completely agree! Very well put. I'm reading his book, "The God Delusion" and he really doesn't come across as sanctimonious to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts