Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is Richard Dawkins inherently violent?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

One wouldn’t ask except that he is always talking against everyone else as inherently violent.

Here:

At this point in time — with his sweeping, unsubstantiated and historically ill-informed polemics — Dawkins has dug his own intellectual grave. Still, the question remains: How much of the planet’s history of can be laid at the feet of religion? For the vast majority of human existence, Armstrong argues, “religion” could not be separated from politics or economics or any other social institution; the idea of doing so would literally have made no sense to the members of any pre-Enlightenment culture. “Until the modern period,” Armstrong writes, “religion permeated all aspects of life, including politics and warfare, not because ambitious churchmen had ‘mixed up’ two essentially distinct activities, but because people wanted to endow everything they did with significance. Every state ideology was religious … Until the American and French Revolutions, there were no ‘secular’ societies.”

I’d like to know why we can’t go a day without hearing Dawkins’s opinions.

Oh wait. Now I get it. Someone is paying Dawkins to bring about the fall of the new atheist movement.

Not us! Absolutely not. We do not have anything like the money and just wouldn’t get involved anyway. It’s not how we do stuff around here.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Dawkins looks like a pouting schoolboy when he makes his silly fantasy statements.r1xlx
November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
He has a gene for violence which evolved over billion years and survived in his lineage, so he can't help it.It is evolution's fault.the bystander
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Well, Mark, the man is a mouth-piece for atheism and blind watchmaker evolution. That means he wears a target with pride. Dawkins is obsessed with himself. It's pitiful that he is a mouth-piece for people like you and keith s.Joe
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
I very rarely read about Dawkin’s opinions from Dawkins. It is almost always from people writing about him – for example this OP. Uncommon Descent seems to be obsessed with the man.
It's pitiful, isn't it? Mike Gene's blog is even worse. It's all New Atheists, all the time. The guy's got problems.keith s
October 29, 2014
October
10
Oct
29
29
2014
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT
I’d like to know why we can’t go a day without hearing Dawkins’s opinions.
I very rarely read about Dawkin's opinions from Dawkins. It is almost always from people writing about him - for example this OP. Uncommon Descent seems to be obsessed with the man.Mark Frank
October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT
Dawkins is what some may call a malignant narcissist. The phrase "secular societies" is an oxymoron IMO. Everybody is religious, especially those who insist that they are not.Mapou
October 28, 2014
October
10
Oct
28
28
2014
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply