I'm an atheist, but

Richard Dawkins can be a real prick sometimes and he's too loud and obnoxious and it's just embarrassing to all of us and he should just lay off the Pope.

I think that covers it.

I returned the favor, and compared the Pope to John Wayne Gacy without the crawl-space.

:fistbump:

--imm

Wasn't there a thread about that? :evilgrin:

I couldn't resist.

Dawkins doesn't give a shit about what anyone thinks about him, Hitchens is a dick. This is, of course, no different than just about any other issue. People who are known as mouthpieces for their particular side in a debate often become firebrands. I'm not sure if this is necessary for them to be heard, or if they simply become that after being heard for long enough. Either way, "Dawkins can be a real prick" is a lot like the statement "Hitchens is a giant douche." We know, dude, but most of the time we just don't care, because at least that prick is on our side for once.

That's my response to idiots who say, "But, Richard Dawkins says..."

He's just another guy with opinions. Not everyone shares them.

astonishingly inaccurate and the thing he ACTUALLY said is much more reasoned and nuanced).

But Hitchens is a misogynistic wang.

And he talks a good game about the Enlightenment and Western ideals, but ask him whether he believes Muslims have a right to due process and jury trial, and see what he has to say. And he's a drunken sot.

That said, he's a brilliant writer, and fucking shames religious people in debates. I saw one once with Dinesh D'Souza that I could only compare to the intellectual equivalent of a prison rape.

Honestly, I understand why Dawkins is so well...nasty sometimes. Being an evolutionary biologist is to be constantly dealing with creationist fools. It tends to make scientists well grumpy to have non-scientists tell them about their fields.
Hitchens is just a mean SOB if you ask me. Never liked him mutch.

That is why I like him :hi:

One cannot make his point by staying home and shutting up. And Ratzinger dug his own hole.

My OP was satirical, spoofing the kind of post one sees elsewhere on DU, such as in GD. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

:hi:

I think Richard Dawkins is a no BULLSHIT kinda guy. The thing is religion is so dominate in our society any talk negative about it will even upset those who don't believe in religion...WHY?

I see all the negative press & comments about Dawkins but what he says is the truth and I do not think he is rude at all. Seriously, many of the same theist & non theist that bitch about Dawkins will say the same about Dan Dennett who takes the most passive approach of anyone I know! The fact is even many Atheist will cry bitch & moan when another Atheist says something negative about religion "in public" or when Secular groups protest one of many Separation of Church & State issues. Basically, they think we should remain silent while religion eats society.

GO DAWKINS!


Now, I will agree Hitch can go overboard sometimes...And he does need to get the drinking problem taken care of!

and let the Pope continue to fully discredit himself. The Vatican is throwing away their moral credibility with both hands, pretty much admitting that the destroyed lives of children are well worth the continued power of the church aristocracy.

I would very much love to know what's happening to church coffers lately. I imagine they are in for some very lean times.

Maybe they'll even have to give up politics.

He has expressed his hope that Ratzinger stay on as Pope, with the ultimate aim being that his multiplying villainies result in the total dissolution of the Church. We should be so lucky.

to the point there weren't any parishes any more.

I just want the Vatican to die a miserable death.

is okay as long as they "carbon offset" their evil with some hospitals and soup kitchens?

you can't forget the SA, they're NATIONAL for cryin' out loud, which of course trumps any local charity and proves that only faith-based charities do any REAL good work...

Religion, and money, are the root of all evil.

I have no sympathy for the fantasy cults of the world, and I would like to see it all disappear.

Actually, I can't think of an organization that I feel more negatively about than the RCC. I doubt charity would stop just because the Church died. Catholicism, like all other religions throughout history, will some day be relegated to the slag-heap of history. Good people will continue to do good works without it.

I finally see why people have a problem with Richard Dawkins: he's definitely arrogant, condescending, and smug. Frankly, only 80% of the christians in this country exceed him in those areas.

Anybody who trashes the pope is A-OK in my book. That piece of shit is one the biggest assholes on this planet, and deserves every bit of stinking bile and venom that gets spewed his way.

And he took down the total farce and scam that is the Mother Teresa organization. I give him major props for that.

She didn't spend a fucking dime on her patients to relieve suffering, or even let her nuns buy anything for themselves, according to the nun who was the accountant.

It wasn't a hospital, it was a place for people to lie around and suffer until they died. No compassion, no relief of suffering. That is not a hospital, it's a damned hell of sins of omission (not relieving suffering and not helping or curing people of their diseases).

...I really don't care for romantic comedies.:shrug:

and I am not all embarrassed by him. I also do not find him to be obnoxious or loud nor is he a prick.

Are they not atheists at all? Or do they think we need to be quiet and unobtrusive and wait for the larger society to start being nice to us?

After all, that's what worked in the past for blacks, women, and gays.

in our culture, merely mentioning you are an atheist gets you branded as a bigoted prick.

Etc.

that eats Kentucky Fried Puppies

BABIES!

We need the puppies as bait to lure in the unsuspecting believers...

on a public forum- remember the codewords :)

They exist in a position of power and trust in their communities. It's not unusual for parents to willingly let the kids alone with the priests. It's the same reason the majority of child abuse is perpetrated by family members: they occupy a position of power and trust over the child.

He doesn't even try to muster a shred of civility, just unloads his contempt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2E01jA-H6A
(1min 55sec)

thanks for posting that.

but that bent weirdo got what he deserved. He aches with yearning to be a theist. Believers are living the good life and he's got his nose pressed against the glass, thinking "lucky, lucky, lucky". Check out this lament he put in the comments to a blog post:

http://theatheistsway.blogspot.com/2008/10/help-i-want-to-believe.html?showComment=1223301000000#c783815981355183608

He finished his book, BTW:

http://www.anatheistdefendsreligion.com/index.php?id=38&page=Summary_of_Book_Chapters_&div=divid_38

Hell with being nice.

Have you ever noticed that when someone is beating on "new" atheists, it's almost always Dawkins who's held to be the most nasty? Which is of course absurd as long as Hitchens is around.

I think they might be afraid of Hitchens. I don't mean they're afraid of his intellect, I mean they're wary of the fact that he relishes argument and is indefatigable. Cross Dawkins and you might -- might -- get an open letter in the Telegraph. Attract Hitchen's notice and he'll gladly fly to your town to sort you out. I think plenty of them are afraid they'll be surprised by his voice taunting them from the end of the grocery aisle one day.

it might not result in any more atheists, but perhaps it would make some of the attackers shut up. I'd settle for that.

Freedom of speech, etc., but I'm tired of the bizarre attacks and the coverage those get.

But Hitchens doesn't suffer them at all.

e.g., your latest post with the "wacky" Xer talking head. Hitchens reminds me of James Randi toying with a cold reader. He just refuses to give Friel any opening to play "gotcha" or respond with canned Xian bumper-sticker philosophy. Friel must have been ready to chew up the microphone in frustration.

Sort of on-topic: when I listen to the local Fundie/right-wing radio station, I'm constantly hearing about debates where an Xer "trounced" Dawkins or Hitchens or some other atheist/scientist/rational person.

Funny thing is - they almost never play any sound bites. If they do, it's edited so we only hear the Christophile spouting some of the aforementioned bumper-sticker philosophy.

Recently they interviewed D'oushbag D'Souza. He and the radio host were claiming he won a debate with Hitchens. I nearly wrecked the car laughing.

Every once in a while, in their pathetic attempt to appear "fair and balanced," the mask slips. e.g., just the other day the radio host said it was important for Fundies to continue "debunking evolution."

"Debunking?" That's what happens to stuff like (holy) ghost stories, not scientific theories. But that statement just proves their hubris and ignorance. Again...

Given the prevailing proclivities of his organization, I'm sure Ratz-boy just luuuurvs being laid on.

Admittedly, Dawkins is somewhat over the age limit of 13, but the Pope's no spring chicken himself.

I assume they hold the papacy in great reverence and are offended by anyone attacking it.