I am trying to imagine what reaction I would get here if I wrote about “the evil presence of Richard Dawkins (or other atheist preacher) lingering” among his followers, of whom there are certainly not 2.2 billion.

Dear George,

You would probably find many to support you if you referred to Richard Dawkins as evil. However, I think Paul's attitude toward sexuality which presumably arose from his own internal conflicts has caused great suffering. Dawkins has caused human suffering by attacking beliefs that some hold dear. In my opinion those beliefs have also caused suffering. It is painful for people to have cherished beliefs challenged. However, Paul's attitude toward sexuality and sin has caused great suffering among those humans who have taken his words seriously. In my opinion it is of much greater scale than the suffering caused by Dawkins. We cannot be sure of the exact causes of Hypatia's death outside of it being the result of actions of a Christian mob. Paul objected to women being teachers, and Hypatia was a noted teacher, astronomer and mathematician. Hypatia's death and the death of others were consistent with the teachings of Paul. Perhaps there are no completely evil human beings, and there was a spark of goodness even in Paul. However, his attitude toward sexuality and his intolerance which was a consistent feature in his entire life makes him an inspiration for evil as far as I am concerned.

I think I can help you out here, George.

<<I am trying to imagine what reaction I would get here if I wrote about “the evil presence of Richard Dawkins (or other atheist preacher) lingering” among his followers, of whom there are certainly not 2.2 billion.>>

It would probably be pointed out to you that Dawkins has done nothing evil in his fight against irrationality and nor has anything that he’s done resulted in, or influenced, evil deeds from others.

It would probably also be pointed out to you that the term “preacher” has religious connotations and is, therefore, an emotive term to use in this context since atheism has no preachers as such (one of its many virtues). It may also be pointed out to you, here, that the insertion of the word “preacher” could be interpreted as an attempt to erroneously equate atheism with religion and drag it down to the same dogmatic level. It would also be appropriate to remind you, at this point, that Dawkins (or any other well-known atheist) is not an authority.

Finally, it may also be pointed out to you that the fact that Dawkins doesn’t have 2.2 billion followers like Christianity does is both fallacious and irrelevant. It’s fallacious because it invokes the Argumentum ad populum fallacy, and irrelevant because Dawkins doesn’t want followers (certainly not in the religious sense). Even if Dawkins did want followers, though, one could also note that the fact that Christianity has been around for about 1500 years longer than Dawkins gives it an unfair advantage.

aj/slips..<<..It would probably be pointed out to you..>>

in words..not proof

ie by re-proof..<<that Dawkins has done nothing evil>>

ever..from a babe pooping his diapers..smearing his mud on the wall/eaten his greens since day on
this most perfect og humanity.yes we can take your unbiased unabashed words..aj

comeon/son..you dont know
he may cheat in his taxes..or lead kids away from god
no evil in your eyes..is hardly proof/thus reproof..[prooF Goes poof]

<<..in his fight against irrationality>>

to your way of thinking
he is saying seductive things you like
so you think he is 'special'..a messanger?//yep..a prophet..[yep
if IT SMELLS LIKE A DUCK/TALKD LIKE A DUCK..FULL OF HALF THUNK OUT ATHEOLOISPHY..OPINIONATUS..[LIKE YOURS]

<<..and nor has anything...that he’s done
resulted in,..or influenced,..evil deeds from others.>>

LETS TALK AGAIN[IN 2000 YEARS]
HE HAS ONLY JUST PLANTED HIS SEEDS
WAIT TILL THEY BUILD HIS FIRST MUSEUM/mulisu.church..holy pilgrimage place..WAIT TILL HIS SEED FRUITS..EH?

2000 YEARS FROM NOW
WHAT WILL YOU THEN SAY?

<<>.It would probably*..>>[LOL]>>..also be pointed out to you that the term “preacher” has religious connotations>>

..Preach
said to give encouragement...to a person dropping mad knowledge.
ex..Well pimpin ken say
'dont down it, crown it'.

Don magic juan 'PREACH'

<<..and is, therefore, an emotive term to use in this context since atheism has no preachers as such (one of its many virtues).>>

LOL SAYS THE AGNOSTIC PROTO-PREACHER
PEACHING TO THE QUIRE..?

OUG,

Your ability to derive meanings from what others say, and even what they do not say, purely to suit yourself, knows no bounds. You are incapable of reading (or choose not to read) anything that anyone says within the context that was intended and so you take a purely literal interpretation of what others say, and add your own context to it, to come up with some of the most irrelevant and bizarre responses. Here’s an example:

<<so you think [Dawkins] is 'special'..a messanger?//yep..a prophet..[yep>>

No, I said nothing like that. Furthermore, by splitting up the sentence of mine that you were responding to into three parts, all context was lost. George was simply wondering what others might say if he were to make a certain claim about Dawkins. Whether or not Dawkins has cheated on his taxes (in his fight against irrationality (a qualifier lost in your chopping up of what I had said)) is of little relevance since he has not done so as far as we can know. Nor has he committed any deeds that a rational and secular society would deem ‘evil’. Even if he had, it would be nothing compared to the hundreds of years of bigotry inspired by Paul and the careless words of a supposed son of a god, who should have known better given his omnipotence.

Oh sure, we can guess what might be 2000 years from now, but Dawkins is not an authority and nor does he project himself as being anything of the sort.

This is why I ignore most of your replies, because they don’t counter anything I’ve said and my points continue to stand regardless. But thank you for coming to the defence of anyone I respond to. It adds a nice touch to what I say.

aj/quote..<<..Oh sure, we can guess what might be 2000 years from now, but Dawkins is not an authority and nor does he project himself as being anything of the sort.>>

YEP I RECALL A YOUNG VIRGIN..sweet innocent/unmarried
gave birth to a carpenter/a lowly wood worker..who tried to teach people/they could know god

but many got it wrong/yet many more got it right
regardless in time..it was black as night/then along came a guy/who had studied the stars..began talking oF HOW LIFE Happen by chance

little did this humble star watcher now/greater than Darwin.the seeds he did sow..it was he that dispelled the virginse cursw

yes thats him/dear..right there.. dic dorking who removed the curse.of godly creation/oh dear what could be worse

bravo the dik of the night light
who revealed all delusion..of what was wrong now made right
[oh no the atheists have infiltrated my guids..god is dead run and hide.

dorkins was right..this i admit
now i wasnt listening to him

so..can you please list..all
that he actually did?
HE MADE THE light..[right?]
dik doorky HE MADE LIVE..ALL LIFE?
HE CAME OUT HARD AGAINST ABUSE TROUBLE AND STRIFE?
HE SAyS LOVE EVERYONE..LIKE A BROTHER..WHO IS THIS DIK DORKINS..?

OH WHY BOTHER?