Richard Dawkins reads hate mail.

[MoreCoffee]

I will not give the youtube url for the video clip with Richard Dawkins reading his hate mail. But I do have to say I have rarely laughed as much. The mail is full of expletives, hate expressions, yet Richard reads it with such evident glee and with such a charming accent that it is hard not to laugh.

Apologies to the tender hearted who may find the clip offensive. I advise not seeking it out and watching it unless expletives do not offend you very much.

 

[Rens]

I've seen it. It was terrible. Not a good testimony the hateful mails he got. Lol I had never heard of him and then I sent him a friendly email with something like I respect your opinions. Ehm oops didn't know that he said so much hateful stuff about God. Oh well.

 

[MarkFL]

I've seen it. It was terrible. Not a good testimony the hateful mails he got. Lol I had never heard of him and then I sent him a friendly email with something like I respect your opinions. Ehm oops didn't know that he said so much hateful stuff about God. Oh well.

Can you give an example of something said by Prof. Dawkins that you consider to be hateful?

I've always found him to be unabashed about his beliefs, but not hateful.

 

[Rens]

Can you give an example of something said by Prof. Dawkins that you consider to be hateful?

I've always found him to be unabashed about his beliefs, but not hateful.

Lol I got the impression he isn't very fond of God and the Bible. Don't know exactly what he says, too lazy to listen, but one Dutch ex christian was very fond of him. Went go a freethinker forum once to evangelize. LOL bad idea. I had a bunch of angry ex christians jumping on my neck. God was evil therefore He didn't exist and the devil was a nice guy. They had the same ideas as Dawkins. I tried to prove to them that if God existed He could only be good, but oh well they gave me the troll of the year award, hahaha, still proud of it and it was funny, they came with all those Old Testament texts that He killed everyone and the flood and Adam and Eve. I did so much effort to prove wrong what they said lol and then one guy said: how you explain it all, you turn the wolf of redcappy (dont know if that's a Dutch fairy tale, he ate redcappy and her grandma) into a welldoer. That was funny.
But that oneguy who wrote books like Dawkins and pulled people from their faith, he stayed friendly and was amazed that I was the first christian there ( every week someone else tried to convert them) who stayed nice and friendly. Lol those other ones got mad at them and called them names. Hmm great testimony not.

 

[MarkFL]

Lol I got the impression he isn't very fond of God and the Bible.

I would say what he's not fond of is the influence religion (not just Christianity) has historically had. I'm not as militant as he is about some things, but he does make some good points. Religion has also had some positive influences, no one who is honest and knowledgeable can say it hasn't, and Dr. Dawkins would be the first to agree that there have been positive influences. I would say his issue, as well as my own, is when religion is allowed undue influence in areas in which it doesn't belong, particularly in science education. For example, in the U.S., most areas have laws on the books which force science teachers to present creationism as science. Creationism may very well be correct, but it's not science, and therefore doesn't belong in the science classroom. It makes no predictions that can be tested, nor does it have any explanatory power.

Don't know exactly what he says, too lazy to listen...

Well, then can you really say he speaks hatefully? I'm not trying to be combative, but simply to argue that before saying someone speaks with hate, we should actually take the time to listen to what they've said.

I am well aware, as an atheist myself, that my views, by their very nature, are seen by some as hateful, destructive, unpatriotic, demonic, etc. However, by being a part of this community, I have learned that far fewer Christians (and I would suspect members of other religions as well) feel this way than I thought before being active here. I am happy to stand corrected on that point.

God was evil therefore He didn't exist and the devil was a nice guy. They had the same ideas as Dawkins.

Dawkins doesn't believe the devil exists. He may believe that some of the things written in the Bible regarding God can be seen as malevolent, but I don't think he would say God is evil...for the simple reason that he doesn't accept the claim about the existence of anything supernatural.

I tried to prove to them that if God existed He could only be good, but oh well they gave me the troll of the year award, hahaha, still proud of it and it was funny, they came with all those Old Testament texts that He killed everyone and the flood and Adam and Eve. I did so much effort to prove wrong what they said lol and then one guy said: how you explain it all, you turn the wolf of redcappy (dont know if that's a Dutch fairy tale, he ate redcappy and her grandma) into a welldoer. That was funny.
But that oneguy who wrote books like Dawkins and pulled people from their faith, he stayed friendly and was amazed that I was the first christian there ( every week someone else tried to convert them) who stayed nice and friendly. Lol those other ones got mad at them and called them names. Hmm great testimony not.

Yes, you're going to run into serious issues if you try to "prove" anything to those whose atheism is driven by skepticism without verifiable facts, and sadly many won't speak nicely or refrain from ridicule. A while back I went looking for an atheist site on which to participate, but I couldn't find a good site that wasn't populated with smart-mouthed folks just looking to rip into theists. That's not something I wish to be a part of. Perhaps I would have once out of ignorance, but having been shown tolerance and even respect here, I see how unproductive is is to be any other way. No productive/meaningful discussion can arise without both sides being respectful, and actually listening to the other side.

 

[Rens]

I saw the video again. Oh my it's horrible, but I agree it's funny.

 

[tango]

Can you give an example of something said by Prof. Dawkins that you consider to be hateful?

I've always found him to be unabashed about his beliefs, but not hateful.

I found the arguments he presented in "The God Delusion" to be lame, he clearly has issues with the Christian church but I'd describe his arguments are more vitriolic than outright hateful. Much of his reasoning appears to mock Christians for implying a positive correlation when it isn't proven only to then conclude that the correlation is negative with a comparable lack of evidence. Essentially his arguments appeared to run along the lines of "the silly Christians say X is true, but we know they can't be trusted, therefore X is false". Logically "Christians say X is true" paired with "they can't be trusted" can only conclude "we cannot confirm whether X is true". It's not entirely unlike the old adventure games of years gone by where you'd encounter characters who told the truth or lied with varying probabilities. If you conclude that somebody always lies then if they say something exists then you can be sure it doesn't (or they would have told the truth). But to say someone can't be trusted doesn't mean they always lie (i.e. a high negative correlation between their words and the truth), it merely means there is a low to zero correlation between their words and the truth.

Dawkins also makes arguments along the lines of "look at the horrendous things done to children by priests, they are men of God, therefore God must be evil". He appears to overlook the possibility that the person presented as the man of God only sought the role as a means to get close to vulnerable children and the fancy robes don't make them any more Godly. Using his reasoning I could claim to be a Dawkinist, go out executing clergymen at random, and then demonstrate how the combination of claims and actions proved that Dawkins was evil.

 

[Stravinsk]

I will not give the youtube url for the video clip with Richard Dawkins reading his hate mail. But I do have to say I have rarely laughed as much. The mail is full of expletives, hate expressions, yet Richard reads it with such evident glee and with such a charming accent that it is hard not to laugh.

Apologies to the tender hearted who may find the clip offensive. I advise not seeking it out and watching it unless expletives do not offend you very much.

I am not offended by expletives nor think being so indicates some level of tender heart or technical moral purity. Therefore, and out of curiosity, I watched a video of Dawkins responding as you have described, to his hate mail.

While it was mildly amusing at parts - what always strikes me about the hate from self-identifying Christians is that - insofar as it is condemnation or judgement - it basically invalidates them as Christians - at least at those points when those sentiments are being conveyed - expletives or no.

To clarify what is meant by the above - it is my belief that any statement made by any human being which is a proclamation of damnation or eternal judgement of one person by another person (and not a particular sin of that person - but the person as a whole)

- Is ursurping the role of the only true Judge and Decider of souls.

Therefore - any person who proclaims another is (in any sense) "going to hell" or "going to burn" etc - is - at the point of utterance - assuming the role of the Judge and Prosecutor - and is acting wholly in contradiction to the teaching of Messiah.

I myself am guilty of the very thing described. It doesn't change my opinion of it though. No one acting within the directions of Yeshua can make these judgements (again, about people's eternal destiny, not some of their actions) - because doing so invalidates them as Christians at the very moment they make this kind of total or final judgement or condemnation of another from an eternal perspective.

 

[Rens]

I am not offended by expletives nor think being so indicates some level of tender heart or technical moral purity. Therefore, and out of curiosity, I watched a video of Dawkins responding as you have described, to his hate mail.

While it was mildly amusing at parts - what always strikes me about the hate from self-identifying Christians is that - insofar as it is condemnation or judgement - it basically invalidates them as Christians - at least at those points when those sentiments are being conveyed - expletives or no.

To clarify what is meant by the above - it is my belief that any statement made by any human being which is a proclamation of damnation or eternal judgement of one person by another person (and not a particular sin of that person - but the person as a whole)

- Is ursurping the role of the only true Judge and Decider of souls.

Therefore - any person who proclaims another is (in any sense) "going to hell" or "going to burn" etc - is - at the point of utterance - assuming the role of the Judge and Prosecutor - and is acting wholly in contradiction to the teaching of Messiah.

I myself am guilty of the very thing described. It doesn't change my opinion of it though. No one acting within the directions of Yeshua can make these judgements (again, about people's eternal destiny, not some of their actions) - because doing so invalidates them as Christians at the very moment they make this kind of total or final judgement or condemnation of another from an eternal perspective.

First one said you're gonna burn in hell and then very friendly but you can convert. I wonder if they even have brains. Can't really blame him for making fun of it.
My Name is mocked under the gentiles because of you. Isaiah something, my Dunglish translation.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

"What's that? Is it a southern expression?"

 

[MoreCoffee]

"What's that? Is it a southern expression?"

It was amusing quite vulgar yet amusing. And it was not Richard Dawkins being vulgar it was the professing christians who undertook to "correct" him.