Richard Dawkins wants government to “protect” children from religion. “Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in,” said the famous atheist. So what about protecting children from parents who are atheists?
View Comments (26)
http://www.political-humor.org/liberals-keep-looking-for-reasons-to-be-offended-and-i-keep-looking-for-ways-to-offend-them-its-a-team-effort.shtml
Interesting sport.
Most religions have a basis in producing civilized people who can live together in relative peace and quiet. With some notable exceptions, they are teaching a code of behaviour that creates order out of chaos. Personally, as I have said before, if all religion is a fairy take, why the hell are atheists so obsessed with ridding the world of faith and religion?
This has always been my question. If G-d does not exist then He is not a threat and if He is not a threat then why are people like Dawkins in a panic AND angry at a Person who does not (in their minds) exist?
I am not angry at Zeus nor am I angry at I don't... whatever god there is out there from some other culture. I am not angry at people that worship these gods. I know they don't exist, they are no threat to me and their people are no threat to me. I am a true atheist when it comes to these gods and I am okay with it. I don't feel the need to belittle these people, nor be a threat to them, nor write books about them nor their gods nor go on a lifetime campaign to tell others that these gods do not exist (proselytize and evangelize which is interesting that certain atheist or anti-theists do this). That is called time wasting and weird.
The only "god" I am angry with and that I perceive as a threat is the muslim god because I do believe it is satan (it exists... for now) and obviously an enemy to me, to my Brothers and Sisters, and of course of G-d but we all know that G-d wins this. The people that worship this "god" are a threat to me, even sadly the children and even sadly the people that claim to be "moderate". I am not an atheist when it comes to Islam but I am an anti-theist and very vocal and I think that my anger is righteous and merited and based on facts not on irrational hatred and misinformation.
I have all the desires to get rid of Islam and its most ardent practitioners in hopes that once it is done and over with the so called moderates will depart from the insanity of the religion. I think that desire is merited and based on facts and not on irrational hatred and misinformation.
If Dawkins were to seriously concentrate on that, I would have no problem with him, but lumping everything together into one soup in my opinion is stupid. He could be a real atheist with the other religions and just live and let live and be an anti-theist and a hater of Islam. That would make the most sense.
If G-d does not exist then He is not a threat and if He is not a threat then why are people like Dawkins in a panic AND angry at a Person who does not (in their minds) exist?
Simple, they are scared of people who believe. They can't control true believers, and their entire existence is based on controlling others.
If they can't control themselves they cannot possibly believe they can control others... but all in all they are insane and that is what liberalism is all about...
You error is in applying logic to someone who wouldn't know it if it was in a lineup with 4 labrador retrievers.
These are people who do not know they can't control themselves.
It's not a matter of can they or how do they control others. It's a given that they must do that. They are hardwired busybodies who no only have to control what you believe, but also what you eat, what you read, what you drive, how much water is going down the toilet every time you flush.
When you are of that high an opinion of yourself, self-doubt is not a luxury you can afford.
#Truth
What fascinates me is that religious people are the ones that control and determine and object and judge and so on and so forth...
People like this guy then seem to say that they are the answer to this problem or issue BY controlling, determining, objecting and judging (and so on and so forth) not just the ones they despise but pretty much everyone else...
I find that intriguing, strange and of course hypocritical.
I am an atheist, but am NOT an ANTI-theist, which is what that drooling f**k-stain Dawkins and his ilk are. I hate being lumped in with those fascist imbeciles and I sincerely hope that Dawkins, and Fry choke to death on their own feces. Bill Nye the nazi fa***t guy too.
"So what about protecting children from parents who are atheists?" Exactly as it is still a philosophy.
As long as the philosophy is not advocating death to everyone else, parents have the right to give the children something to either embrace or refute or refuse once the parents are no longer physically responsible of them.
Isn't wanting government to do everything for you a form of worship?
It is always about the "children" with demotards, how about the government protects us from mentally ill angry assholes like Dawkins? I could give a shit less if he is an atheist or he worships cargo containers and soccer balls. Schools already try to indoctrinate children, lets get rid of that first then we will talk.
Ever since Obutthead became president, it was like a green light came on to let every mentally ill angry demotard try to change every rule we have. Someone needs to deliver a truckload of Thorazine to D.C. and vaccinate politicians...if they are dazed, and walking in a circle, they won't be able to organize and pass anything but gas...
That guy looks like a child molester.
How do we know h e isn't a molester. He certainly has no.love lost on kids.
That photo would make a good target with a ten ring over his face...
"Protect children"?
Says Dawkins: the guy who thinks it should be OK for parents to kill their two-year-olds if they are deemed insufficiently Richard-Dawkins-like enough?
Yeah. Kill children, that's OK. Teach them about David & Goliath? NO!!!
What an ass.
LOL, this is what i call evangelical atheism, and the lefturds HATE THAT!!
Therefore, please use this description liberally around leftards/greenturds/libnuts, etc.
Yes, I've used that term too. But it implies evangelizing, "spreading the word". In the case of most gov't people, it's more like they take it as a given, that what they believe, their FAITH, is the absolute truth. Therefore, they simply proceed to enact laws on that basis. So to me, an evangelical atheist is one who proselytizes, while a fundamentalist atheist just is that. Just my way of looking at it.
And yes, I do occasionally use it on the lefties. Always starts a harrumphing fit. I'll often ask them "okay, so no one can prove there is a God, but can you prove there isn't?" followed by "okay, but you believe there isn't one. You take it on faith, right?" That's usually followed by a series of disjointed fragments of phrases, something about science, logic (as if they have any idea what that is), and/or research.
But truth be told, most people who identify themselves as atheists are neither evangelical, fundamentalist, objectivist, nor scientific. They are actually "insultists". And insulting others is really their sacrament.
Mr. Dawkins -
when you say religion, are you including the official state religion of the US - Fundamentalist Atheism? Oh, you don't think that's religion?
Well, let's take a look at some of the things you people believe that have absolutely no basis in science or in anything remotely resembling fact (in other words, things we're supposed to accept on ... dare I say it ... FAITH?):
That forcibly extracting money from people to give to other people who for varying reasons are not producing anything of value helps the receivers of said monies.
That human activities have such an effect on the environment that we need to give up some or most of what we've created to make life more livable to "save" the planet from ourselves.
That granting advantages with the force of law behind them will help people whose ancestors were disadvantaged, but who are disadvantaged today due to life choices they made.
That the teaching theory-du-jour, along with all the old theories, are worthy of the forcible expropriation of peoples' money because they improve education.
That making guns harder to obtain by enacting laws mandating the barriers will have any effect on criminals obtaining guns.
That freedom of speech does not include the speech of people you disagree with, yet you still maintain that freedom of speech exists (and that somehow, not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater explains your position)
That something can be economically feasible because someone in government or academia really really feeeeeels it should be (green energy, affirmative action, recycling)
That crime and other anti-social behavior is caused by economic conditions.
How about that religion? I'm pretty much an atheist. Can I have some protection from THAT religion? I would actually place that #1 on the list. Because honestly, in day-to-day life, I'm not seeing a whole lot of threat from Christians. I know I'm TOLD that there are all these Christians who are running around "shoving their morality down our throats". But I must be a real statistical outlier, because I have yet to meet any of them.
I'm an atheist, and I don't believe even one of those tenets.
agree with you on all points... and i used to be agnostic and for a short period of time, under the influence of the neo-counter-culture, even an atheist... and yet, whenever i was approached by someone who wanted to see me born-again, i either went along since they were friends and got it over with, while remaining friends (which is key) or, if they were bullying about it, basically walked away saying "no thanks."
my head is still attached, or so it seems on good days... LOL.
When I went through my agnostic period, I was a self-employed accountant with a couple employees. This office supply salesman would stop once a month and he was a born again pentecostal way-out-there fundamentalist. We would have the most delightful discussions. Or debates, whatever you want to call them. My two employees would often jump in, one of them an ardent Catholic, the other an atheist. Talk about having every view represented. Sometimes it was heated, sometimes people would be laughing. I looked forward to his monthly visits. In the end, he and half his church went to prison because they were all refusing to file income tax returns -- that's how far out there they were. They had a church with no pastor. They would all assemble on Sunday morning at ten o'clock and pray, and every Sunday the Holy Ghost would eventually move one person to walk to the pulpit and be the pastor for the day. Oh my God I enjoyed lampooning him for that.
Sigh. I'd like to write him and tell him I came back to the church, but I don't know what prison they sent him to.
Yes, protect children from indoctrination by their parents. Indoctrination is the purview of the government, and the government hates the competition.
Besides, all children should be taught by such brilliant minds as Dawkins and Melissa Harris-Perry.
HA! Melitha Hawwith Pewwy is too stupid to count to 20 without being barefoot. She has to be barefoot AND topless to count to 22.
Q. What do you call Melitha Hawwith Pewwy with 1 brain cell?
A. Gifted
Q. What do you call Melitha Hawwith Pewwy with 2 brain cells?
A. Pregnant
*pwegnant.
Don't forget such upstanding citizens as Bill Ayers.