Dawkins and his life

Dawkins is a zealot, just like you.
And you, each, vigorously oppose each others' religions.
Nothing admirable about either of you.
Ps - Love thy neighbour, Remember...?

I don't oppose him. Sorry to shipwreck you on the shoals of calm rationality. I do hate his remarks on the naturalness of rape, I have a daughter. No need to pretend that you are a big fan of the Commandments. Your other posts are on here too

Your op suggests otherwise (clearly) to anyone lacking a timber in their eyes.

And the 'love thy neighbour' was for you, not I.
practice what you preach, sir.

You lost me. All that 'rape is natural' talk from Dawkins doesn't get a peep from you. My opinion, but it is your hypocrisy that is most disturbing.

uesday, November 1, 2011
Richard Dawkins says that rape is morally arbitrary

The transcript:

Justin Brierley: When you make a value judgement don't you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it's good. And you don't have any way to stand on that statement.

Richard Dawkins: My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.

Justin Brierley: So therefore it's just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, it doesn't in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

Justin Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.

No - Your perspective is your own.

And wishing death on me is your anger and disillusionment exacting itself upon you.
Nor am I a person who cares how others perceive me - So your 'oh, everyone loathes you, horrible Mark' supposition is quite silly.
Nevertheless - Unto others - I state, quite clearly, you sir, require monitoring and should never be allowed into the public arena, unsupervised.

You are the first person, I have ever met online, I view as 'dangerous' to the general public.
Goodbye.

To his credit, Dawkins admitted in this youtube vid he "can't be sure" there's no God..
https://youtu.be/dfk7tW429E4

I think he is admirable.
I don't know much about his personal life but his first wife still uses the surname Dawkins and his last wife & he were divorced amicably. So no criticism there - and no hypocrisy.
He talks intelligently and is an excellent educator.
He pointed out the problems endemic in many faith schools and illustrates the indoctrination that goes on.
He is a man of great integrity and his arguments are very consistent and supported by evidence and reason, not dogma, superstition or religious "teaching". Obviously, he has done nothing illegal or immoral, unlike so many people, whether religious or not.
His comments on rape weren't enlightening, as far as I can see, but he was merely saying that, as with any violent crime, some are "worse" than others. That is consistent with the 'punishment fit the crime' principle. (That is not necessarily the right principle, but that's another topic).
He is polite, reasonable and generally has good relationships with those with whom he debates.
So, criticism of his "comments on rape" is overblown as he is strongly against all rape and probably understands the various motivations for that behavior better than most.
Divorce isn't a failure so much as how his relationships happen to have ended. Everyone who marries believes they will stay together, but life doesn't always go as planned. Divorce is sometimes the best solution.

There is no such thing as an atheist who tries to blame a God. All a supposed atheist can do is hope that there isn't a God...forget the probability nonsense. All a theist can do is hope that there is. This is what Dawkins meant to say....but couldn't bring himself to say it.

You can't blame a God that doesn't exist so if you are going to justify that you don't believe in a God because he is an evil tyrant then you first have to acknowledge that he might exist. If he exists then what does your opinion matter. Now if he does exist then there is the possibility that the devil exists as well who would believe that a God exists and so forget that a belief in that God is enough for any individual to get right with that God. One is no better off than stubbornly saying that he doesn't exist.

There are rules that need to be adhered to hence why morality exists. These rules originated from somewhere. If it comes down to black and white the question is ….is this God if he exists going to entertain anyone entering his presence if they have broken just one of the rules ? That rule breaking would need to be dealt with if this God is just and had something to do with making the rules in the first place.

Yes, they originated from practical experience. People observed the consequences of particular behaviors and codified a sense of "dos and don'ts". There's no reason to posit a supernatural origin for something this basic.

If rape is wrong... Then why is rape allowed in the Bible?

You might be right in your assumptions/ guesses however you may also be wrong...why?...simply because you can’t prove that they are right or wrong.You have to accept that this is just how it is.There is no point in deceiving yourself....be honest with yourself.

Can you advise where it is mentioned in the bible.

No I don't. Because I've seen no evidence from personal experience, philosophical deduction, or natural history that supernatural origins are anything more than relics of human's earliest attempts to make sense of the world.

Well if that is your stance then you will need to provide proof to definitely confirm 100% that your assumptions/guesses are correct.As no definitive proof will be given either way then why waste your time...Look elsewhere for answers.

I don't need answers to questions I haven't asked.

There are two different circumstances where rape is allowed in the Bible.

The first is in Deuteronomy 22. If a woman in the community (i.e. under the law) is raped, the rapist has to marry her. She doesn't have any choice in the matter. Also see Exodus 21.

In Numbers 31, if woman captured in war is a virgin... you are allowed to have to have sex with her. There is a similar passage in Deuteronomy 21... you can have sex with prisoners of war.

I agree.

Said the pot to the kettle.

Well there is still the opportunity to ask the question....even if one either doesn’t want to or doesn’t care.If one doesn’t ask the question then why be surprised when one doesn’t get an answer from an experiential point of view.Don’t leave your reasonings to come up with an answer as they will always provide a nihilistic viewpoint/output and conclude that there is no such thing as morality...when clearly there is.If morality exists then rules definitely exist as well.I am glad that rules exist because if they don’t then we are definitely only just biological reasoning machines.