How could anyone want to, and I quote; "love to beat the shit out of this stupid bitch".
According to that particular individual's youtube profile he is 19 years old. It is not unheard of for young men with a certain level of anonymity to 'shoot their mouths off'. Maybe he was being sincere - who can say? - but I wouldn't read too much into it.
Reading the comments on that page it seems the general consensus is that the woman is incredibly annoying/irritating with a variety of ways of expressing this sentiment.
the terrible hatred that seems to run through peoples veins, and spite, and poison for creationists.
Welcome to humanity. You'll find the odd Creationist that expresses worse sentiments - such as their hope that one day they will get to laugh at atheists as they are tortured. You'll find the occasional atheist who is subject to repeated acts of vandalism in a Creationist dominated area and even the occasional direct threat of violence, social ostracisement and so on.
Matthew 7:3 and all that.
We must be very, very guilty of some major crime for promoting the love of Christ.
Surely you don't really think that 'promoting the love of Christ' is what people find distasteful about Creationists?
Dangerous Dawkins' Dark Designs for Deity Destruction
That doesn't make him any less virulent or relentless in his pursuit to destroy all religion. That far of an extreme is dangerous, just like extremist religions, because it leaves a vacuum that needs to be filled with something.
So, vocally criticizing arguments and writing those arguments down and imploring people to think about why they believe what they believe, and pointing out that there are many religious views which cannot support themselves...is just as dangerous as
1) The Catholic Church's policy towards a) AIDS b) Child molestation 2) The idea that people that leave their religion should be disowned by their family and friends and cut off from the community completely. 3) Telling children their best friend who has recently died is being tortured for all eternity. 4) Blocking research into lifesaving treatments because of a belief about the soul. 5) Blocking homosexual marriage
And, incidentally, I picked views that many people believe are quite moderate religious views.
If Dawkins' was calling for "Death to believers!", a government supported abolishment of religion then you might have a point.
But because he attempts to persuade people to not believe, attempts to point out flaws in certain arguments and so on - he is 'dangerous'?? FSM forbid someone should say things about stuff that other people don't like!
You might think that his persuasive abilities are not very effective, you might think he is abrasive and you might find his personality irritating. But I don't think you can compare him with dangerous religious extremists who implore policies that either indirectly lead to people dying or implore people to directly kill other people.
Your point about how religion leaving a 'vacuum' that 'must be filled' may or may not be true. Dawkins has addressed this possibility in many discussions about religion so he is certainly not ignorant of the human need for community and solidarity.
Personally, I found Dan Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" and "Consciousness Explained" to be more 'dangerous' pieces of writing than anything Dawkins has come up with.
Most of Dawkins' arguments are 'none of the arguments for the proof of god stand up, there are lots of reasons to think an interventionist god doesn't exist, and believing that such a god does can have some real negative consequences so perhaps as a species we should believing it.' - is that really all that dangerous?
I think Dawkins is a good writer and I think he has a lot to offer natural science, but he seriously needs to stop preaching, because that is in fact exactly what he does. He preaches, not teaches
I've learned a lot about biology from Dawkins' books, and learned some fascinating things about the history of evolution by watching lectures he has given. There are different styles that work for different people. You don't like his style, you think it is 'preachy'. That's fine - there's still David Attenborough as an alternative.
Re: Dangerous Dawkins' Dark Designs for Deity Destruction and Dennett's Dire Deeds
You can't see the difference?
Of course I can - that's why I presented them as cases that are different. The question is, do you think criticising ideas is as dangerous as convincing others not to use condoms in an AIDS epidemic?
It is not that I don't believe they don't make valid points, because they do. I am simply at odds with their extreme methodology.
Writing and saying critical things? That is extreme. Does that make you an extremist, too?
I'm saying that he is planting seeds of hate when he uniformly accuses everything religious as dangerous. That's extreme and counterproductive.
Planting seeds of hate? Uniformly accuses everything religious as dangerous?
Really?
Dennett is another one who's methodology I find questionable.
Is writing about religion and trying to find out what it is and why people have it is questionable? Can you be any more general? Can you give an example of Dawkins 'planting a seed of hate'? Is there something specific in Dennett's work you find questionable?
Is it his proposal for compulsory religious education for children?
Can't remember the last atheist group feeding the poor and hungry, but seem to recall many groups or various religions helping the multitude.
Atheists tend to quietly donate to secular charities rather than those with a specific religious viewpoint. I'm sure most true Christians anonymously do too - Matthew 6 and all.
How can you have read The God Delusion and not seen this? It is frequent in the book!
Dawkins thinks a case can be made that faith is a great evil. Is this planting a seed of hate? Technically, the quote doesn't even specify religious faith - though Dawkins does say he addresses religious dogma and faith because of its special status in society...the last quote mentions this. Is this planting seeds of hate or isit is a single sentence which tells us his position regarding 'faith'?
There are two quotes in which he expresses his opinion of YHWH as depicted in the Old Testament. Hardly planting seeds of hate to describe a character in a book in a negative light, is it? If you replace "God of the Old Testament", with "Sauron of the Lord of the Rings" does it still sound the same?
And yes, Dawkins is 'attacking...everything supernatural', by which Dawkins reassures his readers that they won't easily get to play the "Dawkins is not criticising any deity that I believe in!" card. Does this qualify as a seed of hate? The Bible 'attacks' many ideas - by this standard do you suggest that the Bible plants the seeds of hate?
Finally there is a quote in which he gives us opinion on theology as an academic subject. The argument is that theology (as opposed to biblical history and literature which is what the elipses have taken out, presumably because it paints Dawkins in a better light than whoever compiled the quotes wanted) can't answer questions about star formation etc, so let the theologians tackle questions that cannot be answered.
If you think that this is planting the seeds of hate, that's your judgement - though I would like to see your reasoning behind arriving at it. I think your 'hate' detector is simply over-sensitive when it comes to matter of religious discourse. He doesn't attempt to dehumanise believers as some might dehumanise homosexuals, or illegal immigrants or Muslims or what have you. He doesn't paint a picture of believers as seething with some intrinsic 'sin' or moral corruption.
Who is more inclined to be 'planting seeds of hate':
1. Those who criticise the leaders of a nation, based on the perceived consequences of their policies. Those who also criticise those that follow the leaders direction without question - arguing that it might be for the good in our leader's case, but that it creates an environment in which a leader can commit terrible acts.
2. Those who shrink at vocal criticism of the leaders, and accuse those that do criticise the leaders thusly as 'planting the seeds of hate' and attempting to 'destroy {leader x}' and characterise the critics as 'unpatriotic' etc?
There are many examples of humans trying to cultivate hate throughout history and in the news today. If Dawkins is trying to create his own harvest, I would argue that he is particularly incompetent.
No, one is omnipotent, omniscient and eternal, Sauron is not.
So why doesn't it sound the same? What do the properties you provide (assuming that YHWH is as you describe) have to do with whether criticising them constitutes 'planting seeds of hate' and why? Incidentally, Sauron may well be eternal - does that change things?
Would it make things significantly different if I replaced Sauron with Eru Ilvatar? Is criticising Eru Ilvatar planting the seeds of hate?
YES, God hates sin and disobedience.
I didn't ask about the opinions of the characters of the bible. I asked about the effect upon its reader. Do you think the bible is attempting to make some of its readers 'hate'?
Further and sorry I forgot this the first edit. Its not about hate, its about the fact that Mr Dawkins, Harris and others ARE the very things that they attack and hate. They have all the same qualites, even before a topic is discussed, they are just blind to that fact and bury thier heads in the sand and ascribe it to everyone else but themselves. I believe the term is Secular Fundamentalist
It isn't about hate, it is about how Dawkins is the very thing he hates? Sounds to me it is about hate. But kbertsche made statements about how Dawkins 'plants the seeds of hate' if you don't stand by his comment then that's fine.
If you would like to expand on how Dawkins is as you describe, then by all means do - otherwise it is just an empty thing to say. The subject had turned to asking about specific examples of the claims people were making about certain atheists. Do you have an example of
a) Dawkins criticising something. and b) Falling foul of his own criticism?
So which of Dawkins' stated opinions on Yahweh's character are seeding hate? That he regards him as fiction or that he thinks he has an unpleasant personality? Can you find any non-religious character for which you would argue saying the same things would imply the same (planting seeds of hatred)?
The holocaust analogy really doesn't work, for a number of reasons. For instance: The holocaust is an event, not an individual. Holocaust denial doesn't necessarily imply anti-semitism, but the two are empirically closely linked.
I want an agreed non-fiction analogy that generates very strong feelings and for which some have given their lives. I can't think of any human individuals that fit this description.
How about the veneration (hyperdulia) of Mary?
He said agreed non-fiction. That would probably mean that the deeds/status that causes veneration needs to be agreed to be non-fictional. I don't think Mary counts
I asked a question that you didn't directly reply to, but this answer is close enough so I'll reply here.
If one has a very deep emotional vesting in an idea or belief, especially one where persecution and hatred already exist, he is more likely to view negative comments as promoting or contributing to hatred.
Which is precisely the point Dawkins was driving towards when he said
Dawkins writes:
Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.
By merely vocally questioning faith based beliefs, we atheists are in danger of being accused of seeding hatred. Brooks no argument indeed.
I'm not sure that I can give a convincing answer for why, but I believe it is true
Your all-encompassing condemnation of all things religious make it seem as of you've lost all objectivity on the subject
I missed the part where Mark24 condemned all things religious.
...and are therefore, in my opinion, in the same arena and city which Dawkins resides.
And neither has Dawkins:
Dawkins in reply to the question about whether there might be community benefits to religion writes:
Yes there very possibly are. I should qualify that by saying that as a Darwinian, usefulness to communities is not what it's about. Darwinism is all about usefulness to individuals, or rather their genes, to be more precise. So usefulness to communities is an added benefit, and I'm sure you can list benefits to communities that accrue from religion.
Dawkins concedes psychological benefits such as consolation and inspiration (but adds that other sources of the same things can be found through non-religious means) and also concedes that it is feasible that having a faith in certain religious ideas might have a health benefit (increased lifespan studies etc).
Maybe it is you that has 'lost all objectivity' on this subject?
Do you really think that all Dawkins does is criticize religion, the religious and religious ideas and 'proselytize for atheism?'
That is probably colouring your view of him considerably. I've seen him do plenty of other things, like helping with funding for scientific education where governments or normal private donations have failed.
Sure, he has helped some people 'come out' about their atheism and I believe he has worked with groups that help this process out - especially with regards to religions which ostracise non-believers from their family and community (such as a lot of Islam and some Christianity). And he is trying to help people understand that it is OK to not believe in God, and he does admit that there are several tactics to doing this and that his tactic isn't the universal ultimate best one.
Here is something that wasn't atheism that he spent his time and money on:
No, that's just his main focus. I'm sure he has other extra-curricular activities as well, like everyone else.
Is that a fact that it is his main focus, or is it just your perception of him?
By coming across as hating religion, who by that tactic would want to turn?
But he doesn't come across as 'hating religion' to everyone. There are several people who some people think 'hate religion', despite them explicitly saying otherwise.
It's the same principle as the bible-thumping, fire and brimstone teacher. No one would respond to that kind of preaching well.
Except for the fact that some people do respond to that kind of preaching well. I'm not convinced that Dawkins' style of rhetoric is analagous to a fire and brimstone preacher - what properties do you refer to specifically?
Why don't they understand that?
It seems clear that sitting around and pretending that there are no social problems surrounding religion hasn't worked since special interest groups keep plugging away and engaging in political pressure etc. Some atheist groups are more 'accomodationist', and others are more confrontational. Each has its place in discourse - do you have any evidence that one is more 'successful' than the other?
Dawkins doing an interview about his latest book about evolution. The interviewer asks him about atheism and he says:
quote:...I get a bit fed up of being wheeled out as 'the atheist'...
(about 3:55 in) He was given a platform to discuss his atheism and he expresses that he is getting tired of the media constantly asking him about it even when he is there to talk about something else.
Bloody militant zealot! He even goes on to deny that it is important to destroy religion.
What is more reasonable? That mass droves of people, some who even find his position on religion favorable, see his message as being too extreme and therefore counterproductive to his own goals, or that all those people, including myself, are just crazy and misunderstand him?
I think the more reasonable position is that this is a false dichotomy. Whenever this topic comes up, I find it very difficult to find out exactly what and why people feel the way they do about Dawkins, and they have difficulty in explaining it.
The question as to whether Dawkins' tactic is productive or otherwise is an emprical one (though difficult). I think it has served a valuable function in 'shaking things up' and getting it talked about and giving some people, in some cases, the support they needed to 'come out'. His stated aims included 'to raise consciousness about these issues and to challenge the social taboo surrounding criticising religious ideas - especially those that impact politics' (not a quote, incidentally), which I think he has done rather excellently.
However, this is a different question as to whether Dawkins is an extremist, a fundamentalist, as bad as fire and brimstone preachers, militant or seeding/promoting hatred. And this is the position where people start finding it difficult to support and explain.
I think that at least some people come to the conclusion that Dawkins is a firebreathing extremist as above, and use that (mis)impression of him to conclude that his methods are counterproductive.
The defensive reaction I feel when a preacher tells me I'm going to Hell is likely the same reaction a religious person feels when Dawkins suggests that religious thought is harmful and irrational. I think that emotional reaction has far more to do with the labels than any objective reasoning. It's really just a way of saying "you've offended me."
True, but there is a key difference: At least Dawkins has the courtesy of explaining why he feels that religious ideas are harmful while also conceding that he might wrong. The preacher is less likely to make tentative statements, and is almost certainly not going to explain the rationale behind hell and your condemnation to it beyond the dogma of the church as based on the selected writings of anonymous Greek authors.
But yes, the emotional reaction is likely to be a big part of a lot of criticism people like Dawkins (and even more so the gentle and pleasant Dennett!) face.
(--in cheek but with serious underbelly) 
™ Version 4.2
