Hell Houses and Other Faith Through Fear Tactics

[The Chairman]

i don't think that comparison is apt. Dawkins is a highly intelligent scientist who is clearly upset that science can be belittled so easily without a shred of evidence, when faith texts are accepted blindly and yet both are deemed by society as "equally valid". Whereas, Pat Robertson tried to cure AIDS by talking to his imaginary friend, and even told some people that they had been cured of it... (which of course they hadn't, and went on to infect more people)

furthermore, i don't think Dawkins has every declared anything as absurd as claiming that feminist rights for women led to practicing witchcraft.

Dawkins is just as confident and arrogant in his beliefs as Pat Robertson. Both have made their livings out of belittling other people and their beliefs, Dawkins just doesn't get as much press because he's a scientist, even though most people who've heard of him agree that he's an extremist in the sense Robertson is, just thought his actions hold more "tact." Most people don't buy into either one's bull**** outside of extremists.

Him and Robertson are different types of *******s, but they're *******s nonetheless. And what Dawkins said is just as stupid as what Robertson said, just on different levels.

 

[Tally Man]

Dawkins is just as confident and arrogant in his beliefs as Pat Robertson. Both have made their livings out of belittling other people and their beliefs, Dawkins just doesn't get as much press because he's a scientist, even though most people who've heard of him agree that he's an extremist in the sense Robertson is, just thought his actions hold more "tact." Most people don't buy into either one's bull**** outside of extremists.

Him and Robertson are different types of *******s, but they're *******s nonetheless. And what Dawkins said is just as stupid as what Robertson said, just on different levels.

I don't think I'd put Dawkins on the same level as Robertson either. I mean Dawkins is trying to question a viewpoint while Robertson is calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. I would definately say that what Dawkins says is not as stupid as Robertson. At least Dawkins uses logical arguments which can be debated on.

Frankly in the end I'll take an extremest like Dawkins who's biggest flaws are his tone in books and on tv shows to other extremists who decide that blowing people up is a good way to win an arguement.

 

[The Chairman]

I don't think I'd put Dawkins on the same level as Robertson either. I mean Dawkins is trying to question a viewpoint while Robertson is calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. I would definately say that what Dawkins says is not as stupid as Robertson. At least Dawkins uses logical arguments which can be debated on.

Frankly in the end I'll take an extremest like Dawkins who's biggest flaws are his tone in books and on tv shows to other extremists who decide that blowing people up is a good way to win an arguement.

I think all forms of extremism are incredibly wrong. To choose over the other doesn't make much difference. Dawkins may not advocate killing, but he isn't exactly the polar opposite of Robertson in terms of expression of his beliefs. Of course, in terms of the beliefs themselves, they could not be more different.

That being said, neither one of them are exactly well liked or have much of a following, and are both are essentially all talk.

 

[Superman4ever]

Oh, man this crap is leaving me speechless. I'm watching [monotone voice] THE LETTER FROM HELL! [/monotone voice]

 

[Tally Man]

I think all forms of extremism are incredibly wrong. To choose over the other doesn't make much difference. Dawkins may not advocate killing, but he isn't exactly the polar opposite of Robertson in terms of expression of his beliefs. Of course, in terms of the beliefs themselves, their could not be more different.

Dawkin's views may be far from what many would call conventional but I definitely think he's in a far different ball park then someone like Pat Robertson. He calls a viewpoint irrational and tries to warn people about the perceived danger he feels comes from such a view point. Many of us may not agree with his viewpoint but what is so extreme about it? All he's doing is writing books and doing tv appearances. But we have Pat Robertson on the other hand calling for assassinations and etc. Once again I'll take the "extremism" of Dawkins any day to religious extremists who are labeled such because of suicide bombings, abortion clinic bombings, adherence to laws which require execution for blasphemy, etc.

 

[Jerry!]

How is Dawkins all talk when he has evidence to back up his, and pretty much all scientist's claims about evolution, while people like Robertson basically ask you to take them at their word? I don't see how Dawkins can be labeled an extremist in the sense of someone like Robertson when he is only writing and talking about scientific proven fact.

 

[Addendum]

This one was a well done vid

[YT]lDXCYMXKjS0[/YT]

 

[Themanofbat]

I worked a show once at a theatre I ran the lights for, and it was some religious mumbo jumbo (part of the "Day of Miracles", which was a multi-religious conference thing where the christians met the buddists met the jewish met the mormons, etc.) and this was a play where the rapture came and the false prophets, the fornicators and the homosexuals all went to hell.

I always thought it was amusing that in the play someone MURDERED a gay guy and only the gay went to hell, which was a red lit area of the orchestra pit with cardboard cutouts of flames and small children wearing demon masks bouncing on trampolines.

You go to the funnest things...

 

[Carcharodon]

This one was a well done vid

[YT]lDXCYMXKjS0[/YT]

Jesus Camp was really, really hard for me to watch.

 

[Bubonic]

I think Dawkins number one problem is that he can be incredibly arrogant, condescending and unapologetic.
People who have strongly believed in something their whole life don't appreciate being berated for it, and whereas they might give his ideas a chance if he were more polite, they completely close themselves off because of his approach.

But regardless of how much he may piss you off, he's nowhere near as demoniacal as Robertson. Even though he wishes that people would pull away from their belief systems and embrace reason instead, he has never advocated violence towards the religious. Never. He is actually quite sickened by the violence created by religion.

He isn't an extremist, he is just adamant about spreading reason, and he has a lot to go on, whereas his opposition really have nothing most of the time.

He likes to point out the flagrant irrationalities of religion, stuff like this being a good example. The gentle Christians probably don't bother him as much as they have a live and let live attitude. But these extremist groups have a way of gaining influences quickly with such tactics, and illicit childhood indoctrination.