So that justifies death threats? (Reply #32)

In the discussion thread: Why is Dr. Dawkins and some others such controversial figures? [View all]

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:39 PM

32. So that justifies death threats?

I asked why people wish Dawkins was roasting in hell, not pseudo-intellectual arguments about minutiae in one of his books.

I find it illuminating and disturbing that some can't tell the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

78 replies	Author	Time	Post
Why is Dr. Dawkins and some others such controversial figures? [View all]	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	OP
You have a point, but you could easily say the same thing about Tim Tebow	RZM	Dec 2011	#1
Don't know, never followed that particular controversy...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#5
This is random thoughts, so maybe not as eloquent as I could be.	Goblinmonger	Dec 2011	#7
I don't think he's so controversial over here in the U.K.	mr blur	Dec 2011	#2
Exactly, also a big fan of David Attenborough myself...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#4
"Fundamentalist materialist"	tama	Dec 2011	#8
A fellow "Scientist" who believes in telepathy and generational memory...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#9
...or like Ernst Mayr who also disagreed with Dawkins	Lost-in-FL	Dec 2011	#19
Being both	tama	Dec 2011	#21
A great experimentalist? He derives conclusions from...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#27
Are talking about the same guy?	tama	Dec 2011	#33
Ancedotal evidence is useless without repeatability, do you understand...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#42
Read again.	tama	Dec 2011	#48
Who are these "authoritarian orthodoxies" the ones who couldn't...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#54
Perhaps	tama	Dec 2011	#55
An honest person would say the results are inconclusive...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#61
That's what Sheldrake	tama	Dec 2011	#63
What evidence?	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#75
Belief	tama	Dec 2011	#77
There is no valid	edhopper	Dec 2011	#14
It is quite common	tama	Dec 2011	#22
Stop misrepresenting science. You can believe whatever the fuck you want...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#28
Stop misrepresenting science. You can believe whatever the fuck you want...	tama	Dec 2011	#34
Like telepathy	edhopper	Dec 2011	#50
Like the belief	tama	Dec 2011	#51
Oh good	edhopper	Dec 2011	#64
To tell you the truth	tama	Dec 2011	#70
So basically you got nothing as far as evidence is concerned? n/t	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#76
How was your day?	tama	Dec 2011	#78
He's willing to take them on.	rrneck	Dec 2011	#3
Because he's critical of religion, and possibly also because he's pro-evolution	LeftishBrit	Dec 2011	#6
"...under direct attack by many people who use misinformation, lies, and ignorance as their weapons.	Jim__	Dec 2011	#10
This is interesting...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#11
That is the conclusion of the argument.	Jim__	Dec 2011	#12
You attack the whole Dawkins's God Delution based on a paragraph made to be a 'filler'?	Lost-in-FL	Dec 2011	#25
No. I'm merely pointing to one paragraph that demonstrates why his book was attacked.	Jim__	Dec 2011	#29
So that justifies death threats?	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#32
There are people who like philosophy	tama	Dec 2011	#39
I prefer conversations that are useful and relevant to the discussion at hand...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#41
You are entitled to your opinion	tama	Dec 2011	#43
"Fuck Kant"?	tama	Dec 2011	#38
The difference between me and a coffee house philosopher is...	Lost-in-FL	Dec 2011	#46
You are always wrong	tama	Dec 2011	#52
...	Lost-in-FL	Dec 2011	#58
First mover	tama	Dec 2011	#23
Big Bang cosmology doesn't require either "metaphysical" presumption...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#26
Indeed	tama	Dec 2011	#36
Then all things in motion do not need to be put in motion.	edhopper	Dec 2011	#16
What is the basis for your "then"?	Jim__	Dec 2011	#18
Aquinas says all thing must be put in motion.	edhopper	Dec 2011	#20
No, he doesn't: Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.	Jim__	Dec 2011	#30
Poor phrasing on my part. Emphasis on put, as in - all things in motion MUST be put in motion.	edhopper	Dec 2011	#49
Dismantled Aquinas'argument?	Jim__	Dec 2011	#56
I see that he did.	edhopper	Dec 2011	#65
Big Bang	tama	Dec 2011	#24
What does the Big Bang have to do with a branch of philosophy?	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#31
What does 'causality" have to do with a branch of philosophy	tama	Dec 2011	#35
Science moved beyond philosophy by the late 19th century...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#40
And philosophy came back	tama	Dec 2011	#44
So not only are you misrepresenting science, but history as well?	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#53
20th century	tama	Dec 2011	#57
Since when were all of them philosophers?	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#60
For the purpose of this discussion	tama	Dec 2011	#62
What you don't seem to understand in your all too broad	edhopper	Dec 2011	#66
Perhaps you are unawere	tama	Dec 2011	#71
Quite well aware	edhopper	Dec 2011	#72
Partial explanation	tama	Dec 2011	#74
They threaten the power structure.	Deep13	Dec 2011	#13
"Challenging people's core values and beliefs always makes them a bit grouchy."	tama	Dec 2011	#37
Simply because he is an outspoken atheist.	Lost-in-FL	Dec 2011	#15
Spoken like a true believer.	MarkCharles	Dec 2011	#45
Ahem...	Lost-in-FL	Dec 2011	#47
Then you FAILED to state how.	MarkCharles	Dec 2011	#68
Don't give yourself a heart attack over nothing.	Lost-in-FL	Dec 2011	#69
MC, you might get a little less needlessly upset if you go into A&A and write	iris27	Dec 2011	#59
Why would I spoil the fun ?	MarkCharles	Dec 2011	#67
Pretty sure everyone else got it, because most here do take note of who posts what.	iris27	Dec 2011	#73
I can't say I read the whole thing---	digonswine	Dec 2011	#17

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.