Dawkins Goes Ballistic

The religion of anti-religion strikes again.

Shadow To Light

Tweety Dawk is getting serious now – he is using all caps!

First of all, while it may be Dawkins’ personal opinion that Christianity is a “dopey unsubstantiated superstition,” that’s all it is – a personal opinion. Dawkins is entitled to his opinions, but let us remember they are the opinions of a closed-minded, anti-religious activist.

Second, as for “unsubstantiated,” I have documented on this blog that nothing could count as evidence for Christianity in the mind of Richard Dawkins. He even admitted that he has only been paying “lip service” to the need for evidence. So spare us the dishonest posturing, Richard.

Third, notice all the chest-thumping with the “how dare you” challenges. Dawkins comes off as an old man shouting at the kids…

View original post 60 more words

About The Codgitator (a cadgertator)

Catholic convert. Quasi-Zorbatic. Freelance interpreter, translator, and web marketer. Former ESL teacher in Taiwan (2003-2012) and former public high school teacher (2012-2014). Married father of three. Multilingual, would-be scholar, and fairly consistent fitness monkey. My research interests include: the interface of religion and science, the history and philosophy of science and technology, ancient and medieval philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience. Please pray for me.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Dawkins Goes Ballistic

  1. Branch says:

    When you think about it, Dawkins isn’t very intelligent.

  2. drprice2 says:

    If Dawkins wasn’t such an inspiration to so many people, I could take his rants in stride. But really, his mindset translated into state action means war. As in literal bullets literally flying. Such a regime would be ipso facto illegitimate.

    I don’t consider myself a particularly bellicose man, but threatening to take away the right of parents to form their children according to their values is a totalitarian threat, and it brings out my inner revolutionary.

  3. Tony Jokin says:

    I believe that Dawkins in some of his books actually claims that there is no such thing as an objective morality. Everything is just merely an evolutionary by product.

    So by his own position, it would seem that giving children religion is an evolutionary by product in which case one should follow it because it is probably advantageous for survival. Secondly, it makes no sense to object against giving religion to children because he has admitted he has no actual moral basis. So it is not clear what “law” he thinks that one has dared to transgress in giving an child religion. Certainly no law of natural science (the only thing he thinks true) was broken in giving a child religion haha.

  4. CiteCoisasQueIrritam says:

    Dare.

Be kind, be (relatively) brief, be clear...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s