Serious PPR cartoons/images

Post Reply New Topic

Just to be clear, no one accused of witchcraft was ever "burned at the stake" in the USA, and those that were executed in the New World met their deaths under the auspices of the English government, usually by hanging.

 Link to Source 

 

 

 

"Other countries are available".

300 years on, will thousands of women burned as witches finally get justice?

LOL wut?

Dawkins is either wrong to criticize a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic racist, an infanticidal, genocidal, phillicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully - or the biblical record of that same god is fictitious.

And if the biblical record is fictitious it doesn't really matter what anyone says about it, does it.

^ I think the message from the meme is that Richard Dawkins isn't a kind of live and let live guy, he seems to have done a 180 with religion and proceeds as a militant atheist who doesn't tolerate the 'stupidity' of organized religion, and in particular, Christianity.

From what I have seen of him, he seems rather obnoxious/pompous and unapologetically so.

I'm not sure why you'd assume he's a live-and-let-live guy, he's a guy who's dedicated his life to fighting against a source of great harm within society.

Generally speaking, taking a stand against things that cause great harm requires being firm, not just hoping the evil will stop out of the goodness of it's heart and that everyone can sing kumbayah as soon as that happens.

You're being a Chamberlain and he's more of a Churchill.

With the live and let live comment I was hinting at the irony of a man who seems to sneer at the bible and its different descriptions of God and his tendencies, and in particular God and some of his more 'authoritative' feats and yet he seems to have the tendencies of the perceived God that he diminishes with his words.

For example, Dawkins himself seems to be bloody thirsty - he seeks to spill the metaphorical blood of the religious. He is vindictive in that he cannot simply tolerate the bible, he has to have his revenge with his book 'The God Delusion' and his general ramblings that amount to "religion is bad, mmkay?" He seems to like to bully Christians (I have seen him debate a normie Christian before and he went about badgering some poor soul who wasn't his intellectual equal and came off as a bit of a tyrant, from what I saw)?

His ego is pretty huge, and he possibly has delusions of grandeur with how he carries himself, which might qualify him as megalomaniacal?

He seems a bit of a hypocrite.

I doubt that he is a Churchill of any sort. He seems like he is a snot-nosed intellectual who wants to make some money out of his atheist and anti-theist messages.

I think it's fair to recognize he's got more than a bit of the debate bro persona within him, and there's undeniably some toxic traits within that general personality type.

That said, until he's spilled some literal blood it's hard to make a case that he's a hypocrite for calling out YHWH's literal blood-thirstiness. What you describe as 'metaphorical blood spilling' is little more than complaining that he's effective at making his case. If he was arguing for a position you agreed with you'd love having him as an ally.

As for tolerance, you seem as intolerant of his arguments as you accuse him of being towards pro-religious arguments. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite too, or is it different because he's a more effective debater who's been able to get a larger platform?

In order to write his book it's clear that he had to read the bible many times over. Have you ever bothered to read his book in any depth? Can you actually refute any of the major points it makes, or is your criticism essentially just that he's a big meany for being critical of something many people value?

The God Delusion is on my 'to read' list. I like to hear all sides of any debate.

You are not wrong in implying that I should read this.

I think it's fair to call out the sorts of traits that are common among debate bros, they seem common whether one agrees or disagrees with any particular debate bro and Dawkins is definitely among the archetypal debate bros.

Sadly that includes myself, so my criticisms of debate bros should be recognized as criticisms from within rather than just the pot calling out the kettle.