Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(2,262 posts)
134. Isn't that a prejudiced example?
Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:01 PM
Sep 2013

First that is a hypothetical. Furthermore, not too likely. In Logic you are creating and beating a "straw man."

At least Dawkins does not attempt to disenfranchise, kill, or imprison those who do not agree panzerfaust Aug 2013 #1
From the article: rug Aug 2013 #2
That quote does show she's an idiot muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #5
She can fuck off? Wow, touch a nerve there? cbayer Aug 2013 #8
No, saying 'fuck her' is not violent; her saying others are not *yet* violent muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #9
I'm afraid she is speaking for many, Muriel, and they are getting louder. cbayer Aug 2013 #11
The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks he's right, and that you need to join his team muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #13
That's exactly the point. Dawkins is behaving like an evangelical religious leader. cbayer Aug 2013 #14
I'd love to see you make a proof that that statement equals idiocy. rug Aug 2013 #15
You got to the "Burn the heretic" okasha Aug 2013 #37
Your worldview is so limited, you think any disagreement means someone muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #51
I was referring to the penchant okasha Aug 2013 #54
I think that's too broad. There are atheists on the site that have also raised cbayer Aug 2013 #60
I didn't mean to imply that all DU atheists okasha Aug 2013 #63
Thanks for clarifying. cbayer Aug 2013 #65
Isn't that a prejudiced example? Brettongarcia Sep 2013 #134
This proves my point - you think that because the writer is an atheist, I shuold hold back muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #72
No, what I think is that Dawkins' fans okasha Aug 2013 #105
And you haven't been following the thread muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #106
What I characterized as your "burn the heretic" post okasha Aug 2013 #108
Torcaso. okasha Aug 2013 #35
Touche. rug Aug 2013 #43
"... atheist militants are not much of an advertisement for a world ... meant to be more tolerant... Jim__ Aug 2013 #3
So she's a follower of Dawkins on Twitter, but she objects when he tweets? muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #4
Oh, you know she objects to what he tweets, not when he tweets. rug Aug 2013 #16
cbayer wants him to shut up muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #19
You can take that up with her. rug Aug 2013 #20
Evidence of fact? I thought you were joking muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #22
I have no problem confusing fact from opinion. rug Aug 2013 #24
So do some atheist bloggers - quite a few actually. cbayer Aug 2013 #21
No, he's not right wing, and that's another smear muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #23
Where did I say he was right wing? cbayer Aug 2013 #26
He made his reputation off his science muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #28
I had never heard of him until he went anti-theist. cbayer Aug 2013 #29
He was famous in the worldwide scientific community muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #30
Well, as I have said, I think he provided a service in kicking cbayer Aug 2013 #31
*You* had never heard of him... pokerfan Aug 2013 #33
I didn't say no one had ever heard of him. cbayer Aug 2013 #36
It was an international best-seller pokerfan Aug 2013 #39
Probably not in the Christian bookstores, that's for sure. cbayer Aug 2013 #44
I still have an early edition pokerfan Aug 2013 #61
I was overwhelmingly preoccupied with my studies at that time and that may cbayer Aug 2013 #62
In Time's All-Time Top 100 Nonfiction Books muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #48
Well, that's something. cbayer Aug 2013 #55
Somehow I don't think okasha Aug 2013 #40
Where's that pic okasha Aug 2013 #38
This one? rug Aug 2013 #45
Thanks! okasha Aug 2013 #46
This one? pokerfan Aug 2013 #69
Do I even need to point out what is wrong with this quote edhopper Aug 2013 #6
Surely you realize Lowenstein was not referring to atheists who find hope in religion. rug Aug 2013 #17
I mean to an atheist edhopper Aug 2013 #27
I don't think she's asking atheists to accept religious beliefs. rug Aug 2013 #42
I understand what she is saying, and I know she is not saying that. edhopper Aug 2013 #47
To be precise, she is saying that many believers receive benefit from their beliefs. rug Aug 2013 #50
No she is not saying that edhopper Aug 2013 #53
Where did she say that? Are you making things up? rug Aug 2013 #59
I refer to thiis edhopper Aug 2013 #64
Well, we must disagree. rug Aug 2013 #67
Guess we just have different edhopper Aug 2013 #71
Enduring a life of misery LTX Aug 2013 #18
So they cling to a falsehood? edhopper Aug 2013 #25
You speak from a position of western privilege. LTX Aug 2013 #32
No edhopper Aug 2013 #34
Of course not. LTX Aug 2013 #41
Alcohol and drugs are also a way people cope edhopper Aug 2013 #49
You do realize that not everyone okasha Aug 2013 #52
Of course not. It's called an analogy edhopper Aug 2013 #56
The problem is that it's not a particularly apt analogy. okasha Aug 2013 #57
Fair criticism edhopper Aug 2013 #66
The point is that in most cases okasha Aug 2013 #68
Depends on how deep edhopper Aug 2013 #70
I find this kind off hand dismissal of religious beliefs frustrating. LTX Aug 2013 #73
Yes, it was a flip answer edhopper Aug 2013 #74
I agree -- to an extent. LTX Aug 2013 #75
But that is more of the edhopper Aug 2013 #77
With that clarification, I think we are on the same page. n/t LTX Aug 2013 #80
You are aware that the basis for all religion is not based in reality? cbayer Aug 2013 #79
I think that may be a bit unfair. LTX Aug 2013 #83
Then the member should clarify and not make statements which can so cbayer Aug 2013 #84
I am not and never said edhopper Aug 2013 #85
You again make the definitive statement "things that are not there". cbayer Aug 2013 #88
As far as all facts in evidence edhopper Aug 2013 #91
So you take the position that if there is not facts in evidence that cbayer Aug 2013 #93
Reiread the part edhopper Aug 2013 #95
It is not the de facto position of most atheists that believers are wrong, btw. cbayer Aug 2013 #97
You seem to be wrong about that too. edhopper Aug 2013 #102
So you were talking about the SS Defacto? cbayer Aug 2013 #103
I am completely in the wrong here edhopper Aug 2013 #107
I've done the same thing and on more than one occasion. cbayer Aug 2013 #109
I don't see a problem edhopper Aug 2013 #110
I don't have a position on the veracity of beliefs or non beliefs. cbayer Aug 2013 #111
Well that is your position edhopper Aug 2013 #112
I've never found a good word to describe where I am (at this time). cbayer Aug 2013 #113
You thinking about higher evolved species sounds like edhopper Aug 2013 #114
But that doesn't answer the question about whether something higher evolved might cbayer Aug 2013 #115
You could call them gods edhopper Aug 2013 #116
And when alcohol or drugs become a problem for an individual, there cbayer Aug 2013 #58
So a moderate amount edhopper Aug 2013 #78
I don't know what kinds of drugs you may or may not tried, but they don't cbayer Aug 2013 #81
Well, this divide could get deeper or Dawkins could step aside (as cbayer Aug 2013 #7
'Step aside'? Aside from what? muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #10
Shutting up would be a good place to start, particularly when it comes to twitter. cbayer Aug 2013 #12
Oh my! edhopper Aug 2013 #86
I didn't say he had to and he is certainly not going to because I said so. cbayer Aug 2013 #87
Considering edhopper Aug 2013 #89
I have said many times that he deserves much credit for cbayer Aug 2013 #90
What specific "outrageous" position edhopper Aug 2013 #92
This will be circular and not productive, but I will give you my primary objections. cbayer Aug 2013 #94
Yes edhopper Aug 2013 #96
Wow. Where did you get that? cbayer Aug 2013 #98
I will put it to a vote. edhopper Aug 2013 #99
You will put what to a vote, lol? cbayer Aug 2013 #100
See my new thread. edhopper Aug 2013 #101
Yes that will be some rational, scientifically based data fully grounded in reason. cbayer Aug 2013 #104
You're an anti-theist yourself skepticscott Sep 2013 #124
Ugh, leave me alone. cbayer Sep 2013 #126
Already addressed, and you know it skepticscott Sep 2013 #135
Use your Ignore feature, thats what its for. cleanhippie Sep 2013 #139
I would ask you to reconsider whether all those merit shutting up. eomer Aug 2013 #118
Whether they merit shutting up or not doesn't really seem to be the issue. cbayer Aug 2013 #119
I want everyone to shut up from promoting sexism. I want no one to shut up on the two I listed. eomer Aug 2013 #120
A discussion such as you propose would be interesting, but can cbayer Aug 2013 #121
We agree on the important parts. eomer Aug 2013 #122
Big congratulations on you first sermon! cbayer Aug 2013 #123
Dawkins does not have a "bully pulpit" edhopper Sep 2013 #125
Your definition is too narrow. Of course he has a bully pulpit. cbayer Sep 2013 #127
I won't get into a round and round edhopper Sep 2013 #128
Well, let's use different words then. cbayer Sep 2013 #129
Yes edhopper Sep 2013 #130
And he will continue to say whatever he wants to... cbayer Sep 2013 #131
That's why he edhopper Sep 2013 #132
He hasn't written a book in 7 years and SRO is always defined by venue. cbayer Sep 2013 #133
I hope it's not edhopper Sep 2013 #136
Why are you using falsehoods about Dawkins skepticscott Sep 2013 #138
You, for one skepticscott Sep 2013 #137
richard dawkins foundation criticizes the vatican based on a satire news site.... madrchsod Aug 2013 #76
One of our esteemed members also fell for this and posted it here. cbayer Aug 2013 #82
Lol! Not all evidence is indeed evidence. rug Aug 2013 #117
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Doubting Dawkinses anothe...»Reply #134