Permanently Bewildered05 Dec 2007 01:48 pm
By Nelson
Thanks to Becca for cheering me up with this endearing nincompoopery.
Professor Richard Dawkins, talkes about religion, he misses the point in regards to Religion and feith that makes us understand and know God. If you ask this gentleman if he belives in homosexualism and pedophilism, most likely he will argue in its favor. This will tell us a lot about his dislike about religion and faith
Alberto, Calvillo
Bless.
17 Responses to “Homosexualist”
Isn’t that what’s known as libel?
What about religism? Methinks someone has been watching too much South Park and taking it literally…
Yeah, ask Richard Dawkins about paedophiles or homosexuals and he’ll tell you they both exist. And yet he denies the existence of a magic man in the sky knocking up universes for, I dunno, a laugh.
The bloody hypocite.
Having recently read “The God Delusion” and found it put into clever words what I’d been thinking for a fair while, I can only bang my head against the table at this one. Classic of the “I don’t actually intend on reading what he actually says, I’ll just make it up to suit my own viewpoint” variety.
Didn’t you read the suffix of ‘The God Delusion’? He did say that because the Bible is lies it proves there is nothing wrong with paedophilia, as long as the child is consenting, horny, or drugged/unconscious. Alberto is truly wise.
Why would an atheist be in favour of paedophiles? I thought it was a certain church who was in favour of abusing little boys and keeping schtum about the whole sorry affair.
I’ve not read ‘The God Delusion’ yet. I’m sure I will when I get a gap in my reading schedule. I can say, with drunken confidence, that ‘Breaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon’ by Daniel Dannett is even better. If you’ve not read any Dennett, start with “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” and then meander through the rest of it. Don’t miss “Consciousness Explained” and definitely wander off into Hofstadter too.
Ah. Blog. It’s like a lovely book club where I swear at people.
the god delusion is actually pretty good. i normally find dawkins is a bit of a cock but the book is funny and well written.
i’ve not read daniel dennett so like your good self nelson, my comparitive opinion is essentially worthless.
I know what you mean about Dawkins. I feel a bit like that too. He’s great on paper but not so good on TV/Radio. Though I am starting to wonder whether a lot of that is down to unsympathetic editing by journalists who don’t know their arse from their allele. I’ve seen a couple of interviews where people are desperately trying to get him to say something “controversial” and quoting things out of context at him.
Or, if you want to know about Dawkin’s dislike of religion and faith, you could ask him about his dislike of religion and faith. He’s hardly reticent on the subject.
Agh. Dawkins’. Oops.
Hehehe. YOU HAVE TO WATCH YOUR APOSTROPHES ROUND HERE.
“the god delusion is actually pretty good. i normally find dawkins is a bit of a cock but the book is funny and well written.”
When he’s writing on biology he’s excellent. When he strays onto other things he tends to be a bit of an arrogant cock.
He does get quoted out of context, of course, but mostly by creationists, and they are unable to quote *anyone* in context. This is because they too are cocks.
now, I’m not saying that I believe in God or anything BUT…….. if it was all down to natral slection boxes, then why oh why dont all women look like Jennifer Lopez & all the guys look like, well, er, me ?
Umm… Westie? Probably because not everyone likes Jennifer Lopez, and people generally have different views on beauty. And, Nelson? LOL.
“He does get quoted out of context, of course, but mostly by creationists, and they are unable to quote *anyone* in context. This is because they too are cocks.”
The reason why creationists can’t quote anyone….their eyes were designed by a twat with a long beard, although whether that’s God or Osama Bin Laden is something you would have to ask a creationist.