Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Clinton Huxley]

I can't help it if his use of English is entirely correct nor that that fact upsets you.

I am not the slightest bit interested in Dawkins's linguistic competence. You said his use of English was correct in talking about science and islam. You clearly agree with what he said, hence your reason for affirming its correctness in that context. Your position is becoming as two-faced as Dawkins. I suppose this is not surprising.

Yep, the Koran is inconsistent with science. As is the Bible and every other pre-scientific text.

[Exi5tentialist]

You have to read the thread instead of just posting, sweetie.

I have read the bloody thread, sweetie.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You have to read the thread instead of just posting, sweetie.

I have read the bloody thread, sweetie.

Then you can answer your own question, Chuckles.

[Exi5tentialist]

I can't help it if his use of English is entirely correct nor that that fact upsets you.

I am not the slightest bit interested in Dawkins's linguistic competence. You said his use of English was correct in talking about science and islam. You clearly agree with what he said, hence your reason for affirming its correctness in that context. Your position is becoming as two-faced as Dawkins. I suppose this is not surprising.

Yep, the Koran is inconsistent with science. As is the Bible and every other pre-scientific text.

Who's on a hobby-horse now, Clinton Huxley? We were discussing Dawkins's use of a word that could easily be interpreted as racist and dehumanising. And you revert to the same old new atheist hobby horses? Way off-topic.

[amused]

It's just utterly deplorable. These are now British children who are having their minds stuffed with alien rubbish.

That does sound like he means that having British children indoctrinated with Muslim fundamentalism is teaching them a foreign and therefore alien set of beliefs. So he's being a bit provincial, so what? He's also on record saying that he thinks that any religious indoctrination of children is child abuse. So this is tame by comparison.

[Exi5tentialist]

Then you can answer your own question, Chuckles.

Oh, get lost.

[Jason]

I can't help it if his use of English is entirely correct nor that that fact upsets you.

I am not the slightest bit interested in Dawkins's linguistic competence. You said his use of English was correct in talking about science and islam. You clearly agree with what he said, hence your reason for affirming its correctness in that context. Your position is becoming as two-faced as Dawkins. I suppose this is not surprising.

Yep, the Koran is inconsistent with science. As is the Bible and every other pre-scientific text.

Silly ol' Democritus dreamed up a proto-atomic theory of matter long before science. *shrug*

What date, exactly, do you put on the beginning of the practice of the nebulous thing we now call 'science'?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Then you can answer your own question, Chuckles.

Oh, get lost.

You can't deal with the fact you simply went down a dead end, can you?

[Jason]

Then you can answer your own question, Chuckles.

Oh, get lost.

You can't deal with the fact you simply went down a dead end, can you?

'Zilla you realize that you constantly assert your position is correct - that position being that the other person is incorrect - right?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Then you can answer your own question, Chuckles.

Oh, get lost.

You can't deal with the fact you simply went down a dead end, can you?

'Zilla you realize that you constantly assert your position is correct - that position being that the other person is incorrect - right?

I posit that he's wrong. What's the problem with that? He is.

[Atheist-Lite]

Dawkins knows his language, knows the context. If he's chosen to go for a attack 'from the right' it is because it is his intention. Why he should do this....whether it be wise...history will judge?

[Jason]

Dawkins knows his language? He's had to make many retractions in his public career as an 'atheist'.

Hardly foundational for his supposed erudite infallibility.

[colubridae]

that's how the brownshirts got such a foothold

Godwin's Law! So predictable!

Of course it’s predictable.

The way that islam exploits and the way the Nazis exploited is virtually identical.

Intimidate with violence in order to suppress the critics.

In fact failing to highlight the consistent similarities in the way Islam’s followers behave like nazis, would be like excluding jesus from a discussion about Christianity. You could do it, but it would be nonsense.

A large percentage of Muslims know their religion is vile, but are terrified of speaking against it.
A large percentage of Nazis knew their ideology was vile, but were terrified of speaking against it.

Etc. etc. etc.


Intimidate to suppress is what your posts are all about.

[JimC]

I suspect DAwkins has an even older dictionary than me.

Actually I suspect it's the OED on an iPhone, so there's no excuse really, is there?

Ah, well, there's a lot of supposition in this thread.

There is some supposition on both sides, I wouldn't say "a lot."

My suppositions are reasonable and based on evidence of Dawkins's previous behaviour as a confirmed islamophobic bigot. Others are based on blind faith in the man, and denying the evidence of his right-wing agenda.

I think it is going too far to say he has a "right-wing agenda".
However, I think he chose the word with some care, and was deliberately skating on the edge of appealing to anti-immigrant sentiment, while still being able to claim he simply meant "alien to rationality and enlightenment values"

That is a major problem with opposing the parts of islam that need opposing, and criticising fundamentalist muslims. It immediately puts you in jeopardy of being linked to a bunch of racists, who deep down would feel the same about Sikhs or Hindus. But that should not mean that you bow to political correctness, and roll over for anything the poor oppressed muslims want. Deep down, what they want is a complete antithesis of a society fit for atheists of any political stripe...

[Exi5tentialist]

However, I think he chose the word with some care, and was deliberately skating on the edge of appealing to anti-immigrant sentiment, while still being able to claim he simply meant "alien to rationality and enlightenment values"

That is a major problem with opposing the parts of islam that need opposing, and criticising fundamentalist muslims. It immediately puts you in jeopardy of being linked to a bunch of racists

Come on, it's what you call "deliberately skating on the edge of appealing to anti-immigrant sentiment" that puts you in jeopardy of being linked to a bunch of racists, not "opposing and criticising fundamentalist muslims".