Richard Dawkins: sexist

still going strong I see.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-athe...

He's male. Being sexist is an occupational hazard.

Ha! Yes, and a man who will be listened to by many instead having his sillier utterances greeted with eye rolls and pats on the hand. Sam Harris is also running into trouble by running off his mouth about the ladies and then doubling-down, politician-style, instead of just apologizing.

Of course, this has nothing to do with atheism. A thread about men saying sexist things lately would be largely dominated by prominent Republican Christians, like Mark Driscoll (whose infarctions far outdo anything Dawkins and Harris have said), Franklin Graham and Mike Huckabee, as well as Justin Lookadoo, for comic effect.

> 2

I beg your pardon.

I am the exception.

And, please, have a nice day.

Again, I fail to see the import of this feller, this Dawkins. Hasn't he made an ass of himself often enough that only his books should be paid attention to by now?
Secondarily, how does a scientific case for atheism become so, well, religiously adopted? Does atheism need scientific support?

Atheism, religion, science....whatever. To my way of thinking the argument regarding the reality of a supreme being, or lack there of, will go on as long as humanity exits. There is simply no way to prove either side of the argument. The fact that, as long as history has been recorded, many humans have believed in a power greater than themselves, is undeniable. So too is the reality that many human's believe themselves to be the center of "it all", what ever "it all" equates to in their idea of life as we know it.

It is also true that individuals change their minds about the reality of a divinity based on personal experience. I fail to see what the big deal is, other than the damage done by those who insist that the universe run in accordance with their personal belief system. These, self minded, people are not only that way about religion, or God, or any one thing in particular, they feel, for the most part, this way about anything and everything, often using their religion to support the most ridiculous personal beliefs. We tend to get angered at the religion when it is the individual who is at fault.

It would be far more beneficial to try and figure out how some individuals can live such a self centered existence. How they can fail to see the beauty in diversity, instead insisting that those who differ are somehow "wrong" often using the name of God to judge this wrongness harshly. History shows us that often these individuals have decided that the world would be better off without any difference what so ever and have tried to erase any and all of those who do not match their personal view of life.

The mystery isn't in what we do not know but rather in what we do, the variables of human nature. How some can be so broad minded and others can be so self focused. To me the first seems to be the definition of all that is "divine" while the second is quite the opposite. Don't most religions focus on the effort to become more like the first ? The sad fact is that "God" is so often used by the second group to create for themselves a more perfect world. Making for ever more hell on earth. THAT is the great mystery.

"Militant atheism" is sort of getting to be a bore -- like going to church...

I found one of the benefits of atheism is the freedom from having to go to church. And later I found it freed me to enjoy certain churches like San Giovanni e Paolo...

Yes indeed...

>7 Michael_Welch: ""Militant atheism" is sort of getting to be a bore"

Militant anything gets to be a bore. Including a society hell bent on glorifying all that is militant. (under the guise of being individualistic of course) Giving up the whole "militant" attitude would free up people in too many ways to count.

That's a point...

>2 southernbooklady: It truly is. Hopefully future generations will find it easier to avoid if we bring them up right.

I wish Dick Dawkins had started getting in the womyns' craw sooner.

When I was but a wee college schoolboy I decided I had to see what the fuss was about, so during my next expedition at the bookstore I flung by the nonfiction aisle to grab one of his books more or less randomly. And there there was a woman I did not know who jumped out of nowhere and tried to engage in conversation with me, because she was a fan of Dawkins and had read all his books and by now is probably a level five Laser Lotus in his zany cult and absolutely had to explain to me while I was absolutely right to read his books while I just mumbled and stared at the shelves until she went away.

It was horrible.

>13 Kuiperdolin: I'm sorry you had to speak with a lady, Kuiperdolin. I hope you never again had to face such a horrific challenge.

Don't worry, I use Amazon now.

Richard Dawkins is getting to be a bore too...