Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Brian Colquhoun on February 25, 2010 at 12:19pm

Vehemence is a strange choice. He's very mildly spoken, even if impassioned. I'm generally the same. Perhaps slightly louder.

He's not at all narrow-minded.

And he's certainly not intolerant.

Narrow-mindedness won't work in science. Basically you have to follow the evidence. Since there is no evidence for a magical sky man, it's pointless and naive to consider the existence of one. You may as well believe in a whole host of deities or mythical creatures.

I'm not sure about what he is intolerant. Unfortunately religion permeates itself in such a vile way throughout society that much of the dogma should not be tolerated. There's certainly never any cries to be tolerant to other sorts of dangerous beliefs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on February 25, 2010 at 12:23pm

"Dawkins is a fundie" roflmfho!!! That's the funniest thing I have EVER heard!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 25, 2010 at 12:49pm

Sadly, you will hear that a lot from religionists and accommodationists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Graham E. Lau on February 26, 2010 at 4:25am

roflmfho...

It took me a minute, but I figured this one out. Randy Osterberg Flies Lamely Making Feeble Hooting Orations. Got it. Glad I'm not so old that I can't understand the plethora of acronyms that exist on the internet.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michel-san on February 25, 2010 at 12:41pm

Very well put!

I think the issue of intolerance here is really an issue of "well founded intolerance". If someone told me my skin was black I'd intolerant because I can see it's not!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 25, 2010 at 12:50pm

Well said, Adriana. Thanks for saving me the time of responding!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on February 25, 2010 at 1:44pm

Wait! But you just responded to say thanks for saving you the time of responding... which took the same amount of time......?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 25, 2010 at 1:53pm

No, no. It was much easier, I assure you! ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shine on February 25, 2010 at 5:43pm

Tolerance must not be confused with acceptance of falsehoods. If somebody tells me the Earth is 6000 years old, I'm not being "intolerant" by expressing an absolute refusal to believe that crap, I'm not being narrow-minded either.

Very well said, Adriana. How can refusal to accept a proven falsehood be considered "intolerant?" It just doesn't make any sense. Or, at the very least, it completely perverts any meaning of the word "intolerant."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Graham E. Lau on February 26, 2010 at 4:32am

I honestly can't think of a post by Adriana for which I disagree. Is that a double negative? Who cares.

Anyway, I completely agree (see above).

Richard Dawkins is definitely forward and open about his knowledge of the world. In a way, I find his open attitude towards religion far more tolerant than those who question religion but sit on their hands when it comes time to ask questions because they feel they need to "respect" those viewpoints. As Adriana stated, Dawkins maintains a respectful and polite demeanor when he debates religion.

Intolerance would be sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la la" while someone with an opposing viewpoint tried to tell you what they thought, which is exactly what religious fundamentalists do when it comes to philosophy and science.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 26, 2010 at 7:22am

I honestly can't think of a post by Adriana for which I disagree.

I know, me too. We must be drinking the Adriana Kool-Aid.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shine on February 26, 2010 at 7:28am

But it's ok because it's smart Kool-Aid. Speaking of which, pass the pitcher!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page