At it again

Extremists!

Nelliemoser - if that is your idea of 'militant' - what the hell do you call the people who fly planes into buildings, or behead people?

You'll be calling him 'shrill' or 'strident' next...

I suspect RD has a messiah complex!

Oh! Bugger! 500 yrs ago or how ever many! who cares I just can't count. backwards.

bluebell True but I was imagining him in power. I could have put that more clearly!

That should be Carthusian. They were the extreme ones...

How very , very gross . for him really .

Nô, Bluebell, you can't assume a 21st Century world view can be transposed in time. 600 years ago in 1413, had he been living then, I can see him as a hair shirted Cistercian ruling his monastery with a single minded determination, fulminating against laxity and transgressions from the rule, or, alternatively, like Newton, pursuing his studies into alchemy!

Yes, how crass is that t-shirt message?

Nellie - 600 years ago, HE would have been burnt at the stake for NOT believing

I think he's got problems

I am an atheist and I believe that individuals should be able to express opinions openly. (not though to inflame or incite hatred/violence)

What I find irritating is when high profile provocative soundbites / statements are made out of any proper context just to throw a pebble in a pond..or in this case an already rippling pond! I find it a bit 'celebrity'

A brilliant assessment of that man. Just what he does not seem to understand is that his style of militant atheism is just the sort of doctrinaire and oppressive belief system he rails against when he condemns religion and belittles anyone who does believe.

I could go along with his atheist point of view but his militant extremism frightens me. 600yrs ago he would probably have been burning all religious believers at the stake, or what ever the extermination procedure of the time was. Does anyone want to live in that kind of society?

A good article .

Sorry feetlebaum was careless typing then

feetlebum bags posted that link yesterday.

Hit the nail on the head there, Matthew Norman.

Very funny, Matthew Norman. I enjoyed reading that. It doesn't make what he has to say of any value, other than to reflect that Dawkins did ask for it.

Well done, Matthew Norman!

Matthew Norman comes up with an entertaining take on the Dawky meltdown
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10233530/Come-in-Agent-Dawkins-your-job-is-done.html

Richard Dawkins answers the criticisms:

www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2013/8/9/calm-reflections-after-a-storm-in-a-teacup

I think Dawkins speaks a lot of sense, but unfortunately he seems to spend more time explaining himself lately, in order to unravel the mess his provocative statements have triggered, as the media seize opportunities to distort his words to suit their agenda. I hope he'll he more cautious now he has seen his words used in such inflammatory ways.

Bags - thank you for that article. I have been told that most muslim men do not approve of the way their women are treated, but are afraid to speak out because they fear the extremists. We can only hope that some day they will get the courage to protect their daughters, wives and sisters from this evil doctrine. But how often do those in power over others give up such power voluntarily?

Lilygran your last sentence 'Being respected in your academic discipline doesn't make you an expert in every field of human endeavour' is just so true.

I find Dawkins' religious arguments naïve in the extreme.

Anyway, I think he is motivated by anger/rebellion more than anything else.

Here's a comment on the article form someone who says he is an ex-muslim. He seems to be saying it's Islam that's racist. It is. And it's Islam RD meant as anyone who spent two seconds thinking about his silly tweet would realise.

"I have read your article and I am glad you are taking a coexisting kind of path. I have been a Muslim for more than 20 yrs. I am, now, 25 yo. Now, I am an atheist. The issue is not Moslims. The issue is Islam itself. I have read the Quran. In fact, I have memorized big parts of the Quran. Yes, Islam is a racist religion. Yes, it promotes hatred and conflict. And yes, it seeks domination over the world so that the "word of God" prevails. Far from being a personal faith, Islam is a collectivist ideology that rejects a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Muslims. And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam. In the end the silence of most Muslims gave legitimacy and consent to jihadist , irrelevant as allies in this war. Recovering Muslims call the enemy’s ideology “Islam,” and they dismiss the idea of “Moderate Islam” as they would the idea of “Moderate Evil.” When, based on his actions, Mohammad would be described today as a “Muslim Extremist,” then non-violent Muslims should condemn their prophet and their religion, not those who point it out.The conflict comes when you know are live with good muslims like my mother, for instance. If an individual Muslim is peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice. An average Muslim is morally superior to their own religion. So, Imagine now that there are "moderate" Nazis who are peaceful and call for co-existence yet they believe in the "superior race" idea, would not that make them inconsistent? what if their passive support to the idea encourages other enthusiastic followers to commit horrible crimes, would not that make them partners in the crime? I love my mother, but i know that her silence and negativity is harming me personally. You may not know how harassed atheists are in the middle east."