<google@hover.ca> wrote in message
news:1163896014.081932.171750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Marching around from place to place with his nose in the air, wreaking
with scorn and arrogance, he proceeded to "engage people in dialogue"
by asking a few general questions, and then straightaway attacking
everything stood for. He travelled to some of the holiest places in the
world, only to stand around looking like someone had shoved a
broomstick up his *****, clearly disgusted with everything he saw, but
all the while insisting that he had "come to learn a thing or two"
about why people acted the way they did.

Being an ardent athiest myself,

The poster is wildly misrepresenting Dawkins's activities and conduct during
the programme. Furthermore, no genuine atheist would use the word 'holiest'
so casually. Indeed, a genuine atheist would actually be able to spell
'atheist' correctly. I call Loki troll.

M.

The poster is wildly misrepresenting Dawkins's activities and conduct during
the programme. Furthermore, no genuine atheist would use the word 'holiest'
so casually. Indeed, a genuine atheist would actually be able to spell
'atheist' correctly. I call Loki troll.

<google@hover.ca> wrote in message
news:1163896014.081932.171750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

I was given a copy of Dawkin's "Root of all Evil?" this weekend. Me and
my girlfriend gathered some munchies, popped in the DVD, and sat back
for what we hoped was a provocative, enlightening documentary. Instead,
what we got was 2 hours worth of watching a famous professor,
supposedly renowned for his ideas, acting like a complete bigot.

Marching around from place to place with his nose in the air, wreaking
with scorn and arrogance, he proceeded to "engage people in dialogue"
by asking a few general questions, and then straightaway attacking
everything stood for. He travelled to some of the holiest places in the
world, only to stand around looking like someone had shoved a
broomstick up his *****,

Hmmm. I find that a rather strange image to come to the mind of an
'atheist'. Really? 'A broomstick up his *****'? That image certainly didn't
come to *mine*.

clearly disgusted with everything he saw, but

all the while insisting that he had "come to learn a thing or two"
about why people acted the way they did.

Well you've got to admit that people who believe that a guy who is said to
have walked on water, raised people from the dead, and in another 'guise',
created the universe -- and revolve their whole lives around this dead
guy -- all the while attacking 'Science' -- is rather peculiar and worthy of
a 'look-see' into.

Being an ardent athiest myself, I was completely embarassed by this
behaviour from a member of "my flock"

A *what*!! You did say you you're an 'ardent atheist', didn't you?

. But I stubbornly watched the

entire thing, peering through half-closed fingers.

Now you *know* you're spinning a 'yarn' here, don't you?

Why was I so appalled by Dawkins? After all, I agree with his main
tenets: yes, I think religion can be a dangerous phenomenon;

What in the world ever made you think *that*?

yes, I

think that science is the best way to uncover truth; and yes, the idea
of an all-knowing creator is something I reject.

Good for you!!

However, knowing this

for yourself is one thing. Trying to convince other people of it is an
entirely separate issue.

Hey, a Jesus junkie comes up to you and says that the existence of an
'all-knowing creator' is a scientific 'fact' and tells you that the local
school-board is going to have this 'fact' taught in the science class from
here on in. You, I suppose, just walk away thinking: Well he has every right
to hold on to his belief. Who am *I* to confront him about so trivial a
matter -- as *well* as a matter of so 'personal' a belief. Right?

In this, Dawkins fails miserably. He may know much about science, but
he knows nothing about people. If Dawkins truly wants to change
people's minds, he has to first respect them.

Would you not agree that people, in general, show deference to Christians
and utter scorn, disdain, and 'disrespect' to atheists? And why should one
respect someone who's kookier than a box of Cuckoo-Puffs and considers you
evil incarnate?

People react to

disrespect by shutting off, by ignoring what you say, and any attempt
at rational dialogue is futile, no matter how well thought out your
arguments are.

Okay. A 'classroom' here in my home town: A 30-minute pre-video 'prayer'
session is held without the slightest bit of animosity being displayed. Not
a 'trace' of disrespect to be found. The video, which details the
'scientific mistakes' found in the bible in enlightening detail is run. One
by one the 'God believers' leave the classroom with 'disgust' written all
over their faces -- until there isn't a single one of them left in the room.
What went 'wrong'?

We see it in the film in interview after interview.

People sense his arrogance, his dismissal of their values, and reject
whatever he says out of hand. Because of this basic fact of human
behaviour, someone like Dawkins will never affect change. The best he
can do is bolster his own people, the ones who already agree with him.
He is preaching to the converted, to use a tired phrase.

If there is a new "athiest movement", as the media claims, Dawkins is
certainly not fit to lead it.

My 2 cents.

Gabe
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Okay. Wave your magic wand. You are now clothed in the body of Richard
Dawkins. What do *you* do differently?

Greywolf

<google@hover.ca> wrote in message
news:1163896014.081932.171750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

I was given a copy of Dawkin's "Root of all Evil?" this weekend. Me and
my girlfriend gathered some munchies, popped in the DVD, and sat back
for what we hoped was a provocative, enlightening documentary. Instead,
what we got was 2 hours worth of watching a famous professor,
supposedly renowned for his ideas, acting like a complete bigot.

Marching around from place to place with his nose in the air, wreaking
with scorn and arrogance, he proceeded to "engage people in dialogue"
by asking a few general questions, and then straightaway attacking
everything stood for. He travelled to some of the holiest places in the
world, only to stand around looking like someone had shoved a
broomstick up his *****,

Hmmm. I find that a rather strange image to come to the mind of an
'atheist'. Really? 'A broomstick up his *****'? That image certainly didn't
come to *mine*.

clearly disgusted with everything he saw, but

all the while insisting that he had "come to learn a thing or two"
about why people acted the way they did.

Well you've got to admit that people who believe that a guy who is said to
have walked on water, raised people from the dead, and in another 'guise',
created the universe -- and revolve their whole lives around this dead
guy -- all the while attacking 'Science' -- is rather peculiar and worthy of
a 'look-see' into.

Being an ardent athiest myself, I was completely embarassed by this
behaviour from a member of "my flock"

A *what*!! You did say you you're an 'ardent atheist', didn't you?

. But I stubbornly watched the

entire thing, peering through half-closed fingers.

Now you *know* you're spinning a 'yarn' here, don't you?

Why was I so appalled by Dawkins? After all, I agree with his main
tenets: yes, I think religion can be a dangerous phenomenon;

What in the world ever made you think *that*?

yes, I

think that science is the best way to uncover truth; and yes, the idea
of an all-knowing creator is something I reject.

Good for you!!

However, knowing this

for yourself is one thing. Trying to convince other people of it is an
entirely separate issue.

Hey, a Jesus junkie comes up to you and says that the existence of an
'all-knowing creator' is a scientific 'fact' and tells you that the local
school-board is going to have this 'fact' taught in the science class from
here on in. You, I suppose, just walk away thinking: Well he has every right
to hold on to his belief. Who am *I* to confront him about so trivial a
matter -- as *well* as a matter of so 'personal' a belief. Right?

In this, Dawkins fails miserably. He may know much about science, but
he knows nothing about people. If Dawkins truly wants to change
people's minds, he has to first respect them.

Would you not agree that people, in general, show deference to Christians
and utter scorn, disdain, and 'disrespect' to atheists? And why should one
respect someone who's kookier than a box of Cuckoo-Puffs and considers you
evil incarnate?

People react to

disrespect by shutting off, by ignoring what you say, and any attempt
at rational dialogue is futile, no matter how well thought out your
arguments are.

Okay. A 'classroom' here in my home town: A 30-minute pre-video 'prayer'
session is held without the slightest bit of animosity being displayed. Not
a 'trace' of disrespect to be found. The video, which details the
'scientific mistakes' found in the bible in enlightening detail is run. One
by one the 'God believers' leave the classroom with 'disgust' written all
over their faces -- until there isn't a single one of them left in the room.
What went 'wrong'?

We see it in the film in interview after interview.

People sense his arrogance, his dismissal of their values, and reject
whatever he says out of hand. Because of this basic fact of human
behaviour, someone like Dawkins will never affect change. The best he
can do is bolster his own people, the ones who already agree with him.
He is preaching to the converted, to use a tired phrase.

If there is a new "athiest movement", as the media claims, Dawkins is
certainly not fit to lead it.

My 2 cents.

Gabe
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Okay. Wave your magic wand. You are now clothed in the body of Richard
Dawkins. What do *you* do differently?

Greywolf

Are you even familiar with Dawkins?

In article <1163896014.081932.171750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
google@hover.ca says...

Being an ardent athiest myself

Oops, your little lie was exposed, wasn't it. You can't be that ardent
an atheist when you can't even spell it. Of course your ludicrous
caricature of dawkins already tipped your hand. Dawkins wasn't arrogant
or rude. It was only people like Meth Head Ted Faggard who accused him
of that.

I was completely embarassed by this
behaviour from a member of "my flock".

Yeah, whatever you say. Look, nobody is perfect. Of course, I would do
things different than Dawkins. Everyone's a critic and we all think that
we could do things better than the next guy. Factor that in before you
make a fool of yourself next time.

But I stubbornly watched the
entire thing, peering through half-closed fingers.

Okay, well in that case, you're likely a moron, since (1) you've
essentially admitted that you've never heard of Richard Dawkins, despite
being an "ardent athiest" and (2) you're under the impression that your
visceral reaction from ignorance is something with which others must
universally agree.

Why was I so appalled by Dawkins?

Because you're a moron is the most likely explanation.

After all, I agree with his main
tenets:

Sure you do, except for the fact that you don't appear to don't know jack
or spit about Dawkins or his writings.

yes, I think religion can be a dangerous phenomenon;

Jolly good for you.

yes, I
think that science is the best way to uncover truth; and yes, the idea
of an all-knowing creator is something I reject. However, knowing this
for yourself is one thing. Trying to convince other people of it is an
entirely separate issue.

Ah yes, so you now fancy yourself the world's great expert on the one
true way to convince people of something. Hint: there is no magic
formula. Consider for an instant that someone other than you might have
studied the phenomena. The "killing them with kindness" or Dale Carnegie
approach has been done to death and it doesn't work with brainwashed
religionists. Besides, you assume that you know Dawkins' full motivation
for making the documentary. Perhaps it was more a call to arms directed
toward fellow atheists than merely a futile attempt to sway the
extremists.

In this, Dawkins fails miserably. He may know much about science, but
he knows nothing about people.

That's a throw-away criticism. Dawkins shows a number of religionists
for the smarmy bigots that they are, from Haggard to that piece of *****
Muslim jackass who announces from the outset that he "hates atheists".
What kind of ***** affirmations and "respect" should Dawkins pay to a
fucking moron like that?

If Dawkins truly wants to change
people's minds, he has to first respect them.

Again with your magic formula. Respect is not the only way to persuade
people, nor is it guaranteed to work. Furthermore, it is impossible to
respect the opinio