Hundreds of Atheists Sign Petition Against Dawkins

I told you that Dawkins views on pedophilia are so repulsive that only diehard Dawkins Fans would dare defend such twisted thinking.  And even there, I have not noticed any New Atheist leader coming to Dawkins defense. Have you? For example, Jerry Coyne has been busy posting, but he has NOT been willing to post one word of support for his friend.  Coyne has apparently abandoned Dawkins. With friends like that……..

Yet it is worse than this.  Atheists everywhere have begun a petition condemning Dawkins while demanding a retraction:

We, the undersigned atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, and other non-believers, hereby condemn Richard Dawkins’ continued comments trivializing what he termed ‘mild’ sexual abuse of children. Dr. Dawkins is seen by many as a representative of the atheist community — but when it comes to his dismissive comments on the incredibly serious topic of sexual abuse, the atheist community emphatically does not stand with him.
[….]
Those who have signed this petition vehemently oppose Dr. Dawkins’ trivialization of sexual abuse victims. As humanists, freethinkers, atheists, and agnostics we wish to voice our opposition to his insulting vitriol. We find these statements derogatory, dismissive and harmful to victims of sexual abuse and view his ideas on this subject abhorrent. As such, we utterly repudiate them.
[….]
To:
Richard Dawkins
Retract your trivializing statements regarding victims of sexual abuse
Sincerely,
[Your name]

Does anyone think Dawkins will retract his 10-year-old argument?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, Richard Dawkins, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Hundreds of Atheists Sign Petition Against Dawkins

  1. TFBW says:

    I don’t expect him to retract it because he doesn’t have to: he just needs to make it a little more brazen. His argument is that teaching children the traditional doctrine of hell is more harmful than the low end of sexual abuse. All he needs to do is ramp up his criticism of both a little, and the problem is solved. He might do that.

    On the other hand, he’s been justifying his tolerance of inappropriate touching using his own peculiar brand of moral relativism, which he has tied somewhat closely to Darwinian thinking. That’s an investment he may be reluctant to abandon. He’s had his consciousness raised by Darwin, you see, and he’s got this whole “morality” thing sorted out thanks to that. Maybe he’ll double down and tell everyone else how unenlightened they are.

  2. Justin says:

    I still chuckle every time I see the word “freethinker”. So hard to tell these days. So, if they were truly “freethinkers”, why are they signing a petition? Shouldn’t they be out there somewhere thinking for themselves? At least the petition stopped short of calling Dawkins “wrong”.

  3. rubbermallet says:

    WE ARE FREETHINKERS EXCEPT FOR THIS TOPIC THIS TOPIC AND THIS TOPIC

  4. The Deuce says:

    Justin:

    “Shouldn’t they be out there somewhere thinking for themselves?”

    Slavery is Freedom, War is Peace, etc….

  5. The Deuce says:

    It’s pretty funny seeing Gnus suddenly pretending the be outraged about Dawkins’ views on this, when they’ve known about it but kept quiet and supported him for years.

    Of course, the reason they’re going after him now isn’t because they’ve suddenly had a “coming to Jesus” (heh) moment regarding “minor pedophilia,” but because he’s had a falling out with the radical feminist Gnus, and they know that normal people have a serious problem with pedophilia and that his defense of it can therefore be used as ammunition against him in the public eye.

    See, the real driving force behind being Gnus, for most of the Gnus, is a desire for unrestricted hedonistic sexual license, without being judged or disadvantaged in any way as a result of their sexual license.

    Condemning Dawkins for this means passing judgement on a type of sexual unrestrainededness, and on Dawkins for his views on it, which is the last thing they want to do under normal circumstances. What they want is to push toward absolute “sexual freedom” to the maximum degree that society will let them get away with.

    And ultimately, the reason he’s had this falling out is that absolute sexual license with no consequences for skanky feminist Gnus conflicts with absolute sexual license with no consequences for horny male Gnus (especially the ones the feminist Gnus don’t find hot, which if you’ve ever seen a picture of a Gnu gathering, well…), and Dawkins has sided with the latter. And so it was inevitable that the whole thing would devolve into (as Robert Stacy McCain put it in that article on Amanda Marcotte) a Hobbesian war of all against all in the atheist movement.

  6. Mr. X says:

    “WE ARE FREETHINKERS EXCEPT FOR THIS TOPIC THIS TOPIC AND THIS TOPIC”

    “You’ve got to work it out for yourselves! You are all individuals!”
    “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
    “I’m not.”
    “Shh!”

  7. Mr. X says:

    “the atheist community emphatically does not stand with him.”

    Wait, I’m confused — I thought that atheism is just a lack of belief, that absolutely nothing follows from it, that atheists don’t have any views in common any more than non-stamp collectors do… so in that case, how can there be an “atheist community”? Or does that lack-of-belief shtick only apply when somebody’s asking them to justify their statements?

  8. The Deuce says:

    Mr. X:

    Or does that lack-of-belief shtick only apply when somebody’s asking them to justify their statements?

    Atheism is logical magic. It implies only what it would be convenient for it to imply at any given moment.

  9. linnetmoss says:

    The notion that Dawkins is trying to excuse pedophiles of any stripe is willfully wrongheaded. Nor is he trying to trivialize pedophilia. He pointed out that he was inappropriately touched once by a pedophile and that it did not ruin his life. In fact, he and the other individuals harmed by this pedophile felt compassion for their abuser. He pointed out that the incidents happened in a time and place where they were condoned by the prevailing culture, and that today we take a very different view of them. I was also a victim of child sexual abuse, rather more severe than what he describes, and I’m surprised by the hysterical response to his remarks (and lest I be accused of sexism for using that word, the hysteria is coming from both males and females). I suppose the moral relativism he employs in his reasoning is distasteful to some people. But the fact is that moral perspectives change over time. We can look back on drunk driving in the 50s (condoned or at least tolerated at the time) and say it was wrong. Of course it was. But should we judge someone who drove drunk back then by the same standards we do now, when society has fully recognized the harm of this behavior? It is a topic for debate and discussion, not impassioned name-calling and condemnation. I don’t like this absolutist, knee-jerk thinking. It is coming from a lot of different quarters, not just “radical feminists.” I happen to be a feminist myself, but I cringe when I see this type of overheated response. BTW, I have a different kind of overheated response to him, which I posted on my blog to celebrate his new book, before I realized that this controversy was going on. Guess I couldn’t have picked a worse time!

  10. Michael says:

    The notion that Dawkins is trying to excuse pedophiles of any stripe is willfully wrongheaded. Nor is he trying to trivialize pedophilia.

    I don’t agree. Why do you think he keeps telling this story again and again and again? Because there is a 10-year socio-political context for this claim. The only reason Dawkins raises this issue is because it plays a key role in his anti-religious crusade, where he wants to make the case that some expressions of pedophilia are not as bad as raising children in religious traditions (he wrong-headedly maintains the latter is child abuse). So he needs to find examples of pedophilia that can effectively be trivialized given that mainstream society does not have a problem with raising children to be religious.

    Not only does Dawkins personally excuse it and treats it as no big deal, he comes out harshly against those who do indeed think it is a big deal, accusing them of being vigilantes with an “adult hang-up.” Did you get that? “Adult hang-up.” Those are his words. Ponder the choice of those words. Would you care to justify the use of those words to explain a parent who is intensely upset that their child had been treated as Dawkins describes? They are just over-reacting because they have “adult hang-ups?”

    He pointed out that he was inappropriately touched once by a pedophile and that it did not ruin his life. In fact, he and the other individuals harmed by this pedophile felt compassion for their abuser.

    That’s what he claims. But the same Dawkins once also wrote, “And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.”” Has Dawkins provided any evidence for his story? Where is it? Given the story plays a crucial role in his socio-political argument, don’t you think he could have just made up the whole thing? Or at the very least, he is misremembering it? Or are we supposed to accept his story on faith?

    He pointed out that the incidents happened in a time and place where they were condoned by the prevailing culture, and that today we take a very different view of them.

    Which is a rather odd view. He is saying that back in the 1950s, society was more accepting of pedophilia? Really??

    But that’s all a distraction. Whatever his rationalization, the fact remains that he is oh so willing to excuse his molester. Perhaps it’s all one big rationalization for refusing to name a man who never truly existed.

  11. linnetmoss says:

    Thank you for your response, Michael. I take your point that Dawkins has put himself in a problematic position by comparing religious indoctrination to pedophilia and suggesting that as a societal problem, the former is more harmful than the latter. This is certainly not a popular position and most people would disagree, but that is not proof that he is wrong. If a person agrees that fundamentalist religious indoctrination (of any sect or religion) is harmful, as I do, then the question becomes “which is more harmful?” I think Dawkins is running into trouble here. The problem with his argument is that the relative harm cannot be easily measured, and there is no way to gather evidence either for or against it. The only argument he’s got is that indoctrination is far more prevalent and affects greater numbers of people, but indoctrination can also be mild, as can its negative effects.
    Dawkins also has made the very unpopular suggestion that SOME cases of inappropriate touching do not leave lasting trauma or pain on the victim and thus may be less harmful than SOME cases of indoctrination. The first part of his claim happens to be true (I know people who have stated this to be the case for them), but Dawkins went wrong by leaving the impression that his own experience is probably similar to that of others who were touched only once. He has no way of judging that and was wrong to suggest it (a fact that he acknowledged in his later clarification). I think he is correct to say that some acts of pedophilia are more heinous than others; that a person who touches one person one time is less heinous than one who touches repeatedly, rapes, has multiple victims, etc. His mistake is in thinking that the effect on the victims can be similarly gauged.
    Yes, Dawkins was saying that in the 1950s, society was more tolerant of pedophilia in the sense that it was regularly permitted to go on without intervention. This is factually accurate because most people back then, even when faced with direct evidence that it was happening, failed to take any action, or chose to believe the pedophile, or indeed excused the incidents “because the child was not really hurt,” as happened in the Catholic Church up until recently. So yes, society did tolerate pedophilia in a way that it does not tolerate it now. Only today has the true harm caused by it been acknowledged by society in general. Sunlight is the best antiseptic. As I pointed out, standards do change over time. Just look at the way the legal and social systems have changed in their views of rape, and especially marital rape.
    I am troubled by your repeated suggestion that Dawkins may be lying about his own experience. That suggests that you are less interested in the merits or faults of his argument than in painting him as a horrible person lacking in integrity. This kind of ad hominem attack has no place in a reasoned debate. Are you also going to demand that every other victim “prove” the molestation occurred, with evidence? Very few victims could do that, because normally there are no witnesses. Or does your refusal to believe Dawkins come from the idea that anyone who was touched that way ought to be incapable of forgiving their molester or feeling pity for him/her? That is a wrong assumption. Many, including me, have shared Dawkins’ feelings about their molesters. Your intolerance of those who choose to do so puzzles me. So now we are going to demonize not only pedophiles, but victims who forgive or pity their abusers?

  12. Justin says:

    It’s not ad hominem if there are actually varying versions of Dawkins’ account. Simple logic tells you that one or the other may be true, or neither may be true, but both cannot be true.

    Dawkins’ experience may in fact be part of the reason he is overtly anti-religion.

  13. TFBW says:

    I take your point that Dawkins has put himself in a problematic position by comparing religious indoctrination to pedophilia and suggesting that as a societal problem, the former is more harmful than the latter. This is certainly not a popular position and most people would disagree, but that is not proof that he is wrong.

    Shouldn’t we hold Dawkins to his own proclaimed and published standards of good and bad reasons to believe things? By those standards, we do not need to prove that he is wrong in order to doubt him. On the contrary, we should doubt him unless he can provide appropriate evidence to support his claims. His mere testimony of his feelings on the matter are no basis for belief at all. It’s conceivable (given sufficient imagination) that he could even be right — witness your ability to speculate how it might be so — but there’s no evidence that being taught the doctrine of hell as a child is harmful (this is Dawkins’ specific claim), even relative to the “mild” sexual abuse Dawkins experienced. By his own standards, then, we should reject his assertion — and, frankly, we should consider him a hypocrite, because he clearly expects us to believe it anyhow. He has one standard for when he tells us something, and another standard for when a theist speaks, I warrant.

  14. linnetmoss says:

    TFBW, there’s nothing wrong with doubting Dawkins’ claims. But there is something wrong with trying to shout him down or vilify him (as some have done) because one finds his claims distasteful or offensive. The proper response is to question his claims using reasoned arguments, as you have done. Actually, there IS evidence that being taught the doctrine of hell is harmful, but the evidence is anecdotal. I often read articles by people who have left this or that church because of the damage they felt it caused them, beginning in childhood. Perhaps what you mean is that there is no scientific evidence. I think it would be a good subject for study.

  15. TFBW says:

    The point is that Dawkins, the scientist who says that it is only reasonable to believe things if there is scientific evidence for them (and on which grounds he stridently denounces all religion), believes that teaching the doctrine of hell to children is more harmful than “mild” sexual abuse of the same, on nothing more than a flimsy anecdote or two (and a strong desire for it to be true). There is no evidence that he’s interested in a reasoned argument about the subject, or indeed that he’s actually interested in the evidence. After all, the evidence might refute him. Is it not fair to point out the vastness of his hypocrisy in this regard? Is this not the most glaring, elephantine double-standard?

  16. linnetmoss says:

    TFBW, I don’t agree because as I understand his argument, it applies not merely to the doctrine of Hell but to the broader effects of religious fundamentalist indoctrination. By narrowing it down strictly to the Hell belief, you misrepresent his position. He argued in ‘The God Delusion’ that fundamentalist indoctrination denies children a proper education by devaluing science in favor of unsupported truth claims about the history of the earth and by stunting their intellectual growth. Other forms of damage include the infliction of guilt about normal sexual feelings. In the Wiki article on criticism of religion, a study is cited that found over a hundred cases of child fatalities caused by parents who denied their children medical care in favor of faith healing. So it’s not as though reasoned arguments are utterly lacking (and it’s not as though Dawkins has neglected reasoned argument, as you claim). There are also studies concluding that religion confers benefits, though I’m not aware of any that pertain to children specifically. It would be interesting to know whether he has responded to those.

  17. Justin says:

    Lets not forget the criteria for examining historical events…
    Dawkins’ account really has no first hand eye witnesses.
    The events were recorded late (perhaps 50 years) after the fact.
    It’s debatable as to whether there was some early form of “Q” document that existed containing the core narrative of Dawkins’ claim.
    The various accounts we now have cannot be satisfactorily harmonized.
    Not to mention the event bears an uncanny resemblance to the mythological relationship between Poseiden and Pelops.

    Clearly Dawkins’ account is mythological.

  18. Michael says:

    Linnetmoss,

    Little time, so I’ll try for a longer response this weekend.

    You wrote:

    Yes, Dawkins was saying that in the 1950s, society was more tolerant of pedophilia in the sense that it was regularly permitted to go on without intervention. This is factually accurate because most people back then, even when faced with direct evidence that it was happening, failed to take any action, or chose to believe the pedophile, or indeed excused the incidents “because the child was not really hurt,” as happened in the Catholic Church up until recently. So yes, society did tolerate pedophilia in a way that it does not tolerate it now.

    It’s not just the 1950s. Dawkins himself excused the incidents “because the child was not really hurt” in 2013. So yes, Dawkins does tolerate pedophilia in a way that the rest of society does not tolerate it now.

    I am troubled by your repeated suggestion that Dawkins may be lying about his own experience. That suggests that you are less interested in the merits or faults of his argument than in painting him as a horrible person lacking in integrity. This kind of ad hominem attack has no place in a reasoned debate.

    There is no ad hominem attack. I’m simply consciousness-raising with a few questions:

    Has Dawkins provided any evidence for his story?
    Given the story plays a crucial role in his socio-political argument, don’t you think he could have just made up the whole thing?
    Or at the very least, he is misremembering it?
    Or are we supposed to accept his story on faith?

  19. TFBW says:

    By narrowing it down strictly to the Hell belief, you misrepresent his position.

    There is something in what you say. Given Dawkins’ very frequent and broad smears against (theistic) religion in general, it can be difficult to interpret him as making any specific or precise claim. Even so, he does make the specific, precise claim that belief in hell is more traumatic than the sort of mild feeling-up that he suffered as a child. He makes other claims as well, but this one of the more precise and scientifically testable claims in his repertoire, as well as being one of the better documented ones, and it is that specific claim which I am targeting here.

    I think you’ll find the source to which I’ve linked to be quite clear and authoritative on the matter. In it, he says, “I would be interested to hear from psychologists whether there is real evidence bearing on the question.” If we date his original claim to The God Delusion in 2006 (ignoring the earlier work, “Religion’s Real Child Abuse”, published in Free Inquiry, Fall 2002), it means he’s promoted this idea in print for over six years without even knowing (or caring, apparently) whether there is any evidence to back it up. Only as of 2013 has he expressed an interest in hearing from relevant experts as to whether such evidence even exists.

    Would you concede that I have just cause to accuse him of staggering hypocrisy — the application of a glaring double-standard?

  20. Michael says:

    I am troubled by your repeated suggestion that Dawkins may be lying about his own experience. That suggests that you are less interested in the merits or faults of his argument than in painting him as a horrible person lacking in integrity. This kind of ad hominem attack has no place in a reasoned debate.

    As I mentioned above, asking a few questions is not an ad hominem. I asked, “Has Dawkins provided any evidence for his story?” Well, has he? Dawkins has told us again and again and again that we must have evidence to support our beliefs. I’m merely expecting Dawkins to practice what he preaches. Or is he so special that he is exempt from the standards that he imposes on others?

    As for the other questions, “Given the story plays a crucial role in his socio-political argument, don’t you think he could have just made up the whole thing? Or at the very least, he is misremembering it? Or are we supposed to accept his story on faith?”

    Rather than evade the questions with accusations of ad hominems, why not try to answer the questions? Look, when it comes to this issue, Dawkins does not come to us as an expert, scholar, or scientist. He comes as an activist with an agenda. And as I explained, his story fits into his activist agenda. So why would I automatically believe an activist’s story when a) there is no evidence the story is true and b) the story plays an important role in the activist’s agenda?

    What’s more, as an activist and an atheist, Dawkins probably holds to the notion that the end justifies the means. In his mind, would it be all that wrong to tell a little, tiny lie if that lie can help destroy the great evil known as religion?

    Are you also going to demand that every other victim “prove” the molestation occurred, with evidence?

    No. Only if the victim has spent his/her life demanding evidence from others and calling them faithheads for not supplying it to his/her satisfaction.

    Very few victims could do that, because normally there are no witnesses.

    Well, well, well. Hold that thought. Could it be that we live in a reality where Truth does not always come with Evidence?

    Or does your refusal to believe Dawkins come from the idea that anyone who was touched that way ought to be incapable of forgiving their molester or feeling pity for him/her? That is a wrong assumption.

    By itself, no. But as part of the entire context of Dawkins’ claims (his activism, his vindictive personality, his willing to make claims not supported by evidence), the unusual nature of this “forgiveness” raises a red flag.

    Many, including me, have shared Dawkins’ feelings about their molesters. Your intolerance of those who choose to do so puzzles me. So now we are going to demonize not only pedophiles, but victims who forgive or pity their abusers?

    If a victim wants to forgive and pity their abuser, that is great, as it is part of the healing process. But it should be done at the personal level. Dawkins uses his forgiveness as part of his activist agenda whose objective is to demonize religious people. You are mistaken in confusing the fact that I value critical thinking with “intolerance.” I’m puzzled by your willingness to reject critical thinking while embracing a political argument that has no evidence.

    Finally, you write: “I think he is correct to say that some acts of pedophilia are more heinous than others; that a person who touches one person one time is less heinous than one who touches repeatedly, rapes, has multiple victims, etc.”

    Yeah, but what is the point of this point? Wouldn’t the same logic tell us that a pedophile who kidnaps and rapes one child has done a less heinous thing than a pedophile who kidnaps, rapes, and kills 100 children? Why make that argument?

    It seems to me that Dawkins argument is aimed at the outraged parents who have children who have been “touched” by strangers – he wants to characterize these parents (and society) as “vigilantes” with “adult hang-ups” because dammit, at least their kids were not raped.

  21. linnetmoss says:

    Thanks for your thoughts, Michael. We seem to be talking past each other at this point without much effect. I still think Dawkins has an argument, even if an unpopular one, that SOME acts of sexual abuse are less harmful than SOME acts of indoctrination, which is why he maintains that one act of touching is less heinous than many. To his critics, this is “trivializing” pedophilia, but I disagree. And I still think it is an ad hominem argument to keep suggesting that he’s a liar. Even if he did fabricate the story, it would do nothing to disprove his argument, since it does not depend on his personal experience. To make his point, he only needs one case where someone felt that their sexual abuse did not cause lasting harm. It doesn’t have to be him. But I don’t think he made up the story. That kind of behavior was all too common in English boys’ schools at the time. And yes, it was often condoned, as were various other forms of sexual and physical abuse.
    In thinking about these questions, I wondered why he decided to make the analogy between pedophile abuse and religious indoctrination in the first place (given that it was so likely to offend–not a good choice, rhetorically speaking). But I actually do see a close point of correspondence. Victims of pedophilia suffer most acutely from confusion and shame about their sexual desires as well as damaged self-esteem and sexual function. One hears similar complaints about the effects of religious indoctrination, especially from Catholics who grew up before Vatican II. These people were told that their sexual urges were dirty and sinful, and that they would go to hell if they masturbated or felt desire for a person of the same sex or had premarital sex. People have committed suicide because of these teachings. So yes, I do think I see a kinship between the two kinds of abuse. As to which is worse, I really couldn’t say. But obviously it would depend on the severity of the damage done in each case.

  22. Michael says:

    I still think Dawkins has an argument, even if an unpopular one, that SOME acts of sexual abuse are less harmful than SOME acts of indoctrination, which is why he maintains that one act of touching is less heinous than many.

    Everyone has an argument, linnetmoss. Just as everyone has an opinion. So he gets no points for having “an argument.” What matters is that his argument is not supported by any evidence. Thus, his argument is vacuous. The argument actually tells us more about Dawkins than it does the world.

    To his critics, this is “trivializing” pedophilia, but I disagree.

    So you agree that if parents get upset because their child has been touched by a teacher, those parents have an “adult hang-up?”

    And I still think it is an ad hominem argument to keep suggesting that he’s a liar.

    I did not suggest he was a liar. I brought up the possibility that he would make this up and why he would do so. I’m I supposed to sweep those concerns under the rug and embrace his story on faith?

    Even if he did fabricate the story, it would do nothing to disprove his argument, since it does not depend on his personal experience.

    Vacuous arguments do not need to be disproved.

    But see? It would not matter if he lied, right? This raises the possibility that he lied in the hope of encouraging someone else to come forward. But 10 years later, his argument still rests on his personal story.

    To make his point, he only needs one case where someone felt that their sexual abuse did not cause lasting harm.

    Really? If he had only one case, it would suggest that one case was an aberration and the case subject him/herself would be the interesting study.

    Sorry, you don’t get to make sweeping generalizations on the basis of one case (or even a small handful of cases).

  23. TFBW says:

    linnetmoss said:

    … given that it was so likely to offend–not a good choice, rhetorically speaking …

    Whether or not it was a good choice depends on whether it was his intention to be offensive. Given that a good half of The God Delusion consisted of sheer, vitriolic invective against theistic religion, why on earth would you get the impression that his rhetoric was not calculated to be offensive? Dawkins has had a standing policy of disrespect and impoliteness (putting it mildly) towards theistic religion for over ten years, and he’s been actively encouraging others to adopt a similar disposition. Last year’s “Reason Rally” appearance was the most conspicuous recent example, where he exhorted the faithless to publicly and contemptuously mock and ridicule Catholics who subscribed to the doctrine of transubstantiation. Ten years prior, he concluded a TED talk with the following remarks.

    Many of you probably subscribe to our polite cultural belief that we should respect religion, but I also suspect that a fair number of those secretly despise religion as much as I do. If you’re one of them, and of course many of you may not be, but if you are one of them, I’m asking you to stop being polite, come out and say so … Let’s all stop being so damned respectful.

    In terms of his actual behaviour in this century so far, Dawkins is, fairly straightforwardly, a hate-monger. He despises theistic religion and wants others to despise it as much as he does. He doesn’t promote physical violence, but he does actively encourage smug, bloody-minded antagonism (dressed up as intellectual superiority) as a means to a socio-political end at the expense of any meaningful intellectual engagement. Despite this quite obvious state of affairs, many people — linnetmoss among them apparently — still look at Dawkins and see a professor in a lab coat, who must therefore be speaking rationally and on the basis of evidence. Steve Jobs’ infamous “reality distortion field” had nothing on this.

  24. Crude says:

    He doesn’t promote physical violence,

    Who does? I ask this sincerely. Did the atheists of a century go formally ‘promote physical violence’ – until they had the power and the numbers to do so?

  25. Michael says:

    Oh, well. It looks like linnetmoss threw in the towel.

  26. Rock Stone says:

    Maybe all we need to do is provide one person for whom religious indoctrination has not had quite the negative impact Dawkins thinks it must necessarily have to disprove his argument. After all, some religious indoctrination is worse than others.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s