Atheism Intelligent Design News

Is Richard Dawkins inherently violent?

Spread the love

One wouldn’t ask except that he is always talking against everyone else as inherently violent.

Here:

At this point in time — with his sweeping, unsubstantiated and historically ill-informed polemics — Dawkins has dug his own intellectual grave. Still, the question remains: How much of the planet’s history of can be laid at the feet of religion? For the vast majority of human existence, Armstrong argues, “religion” could not be separated from politics or economics or any other social institution; the idea of doing so would literally have made no sense to the members of any pre-Enlightenment culture. “Until the modern period,” Armstrong writes, “religion permeated all aspects of life, including politics and warfare, not because ambitious churchmen had ‘mixed up’ two essentially distinct activities, but because people wanted to endow everything they did with significance. Every state ideology was religious … Until the American and French Revolutions, there were no ‘secular’ societies.”

I’d like to know why we can’t go a day without hearing Dawkins’s opinions.

Oh wait. Now I get it. Someone is paying Dawkins to bring about the fall of the new atheist movement.

Not us! Absolutely not. We do not have anything like the money and just wouldn’t get involved anyway. It’s not how we do stuff around here.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

6 Replies to “Is Richard Dawkins inherently violent?

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    Dawkins is what some may call a malignant narcissist. The phrase “secular societies” is an oxymoron IMO. Everybody is religious, especially those who insist that they are not.

  2. 2
    Mark Frank says:

    I’d like to know why we can’t go a day without hearing Dawkins’s opinions.

    I very rarely read about Dawkin’s opinions from Dawkins. It is almost always from people writing about him – for example this OP. Uncommon Descent seems to be obsessed with the man.

  3. 3
    keith s says:

    Mark Frank:

    I very rarely read about Dawkin’s opinions from Dawkins. It is almost always from people writing about him – for example this OP. Uncommon Descent seems to be obsessed with the man.

    It’s pitiful, isn’t it?

    Mike Gene’s blog is even worse. It’s all New Atheists, all the time.

    The guy’s got problems.

  4. 4
    Joe says:

    Well, Mark, the man is a mouth-piece for atheism and blind watchmaker evolution. That means he wears a target with pride. Dawkins is obsessed with himself.

    It’s pitiful that he is a mouth-piece for people like you and keith s.

  5. 5
    the bystander says:

    He has a gene for violence which evolved over billion years and survived in his lineage, so he can’t help it.It is evolution’s fault.

  6. 6
    r1xlx says:

    Dawkins looks like a pouting schoolboy when he makes his silly fantasy statements.

Leave a Reply