More Evidence of Richard Dawkins’ Closed Mind

Notice ALL religious beliefs are stupid.  Critical thinking tells me that when you have reached that conclusion, you have closed your mind.  Closed, locked, nailed shut.  If you think a belief is stupid, it signals you are no longer interested in considering it possible to be true.  You have dismissed it. Why would anyone be open to stupidity?

To see what I mean, run this test on yourself.  Consider a belief you personally beleive to be stupid.  For example, I think the whole conspiracy theory about aliens building the pyramids is stupid.  I can thus admit I am closed-minded about alien-built pyramids.  I have no interest in hearing the arguments that prop up the conspiracy theory.  Why would I be open to such stupidity?  Time is limited and there are too many non-stupid things to consider.

Of course, I do not think atheism is stupid.  Nor do I think all atheist beliefs are stupid.  Unlike Dawkins and his followers, I am open-minded and don’t claim to have these Big Metaphysical Issues all worked out.  And this enables me to be more objective than the New Atheist.

Anyway, the question to ask is why Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists won’t be honest and just admit they are closed-minded about God?  Why do they try to deceive others by pretending their are open-minded and willing to consider “evidence?”

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in closed-mindedness, New Atheism, Richard Dawkins, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to More Evidence of Richard Dawkins’ Closed Mind

  1. Doug Evans says:

    Doesn’t Mr Dawkins realize that Atheism in itself is a religious belief? Does he have a clue what he just said about himself?

  2. Larry Olson says:

    Closed Mind? Definitely…

    Matthew 7:1-29

    “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. ..”

    Just remember to have at least one mirror in your home..Look into it every so often.

  3. Kevin says:

    Larry, are you advocating that Christians do nothing to counter bigoted anti-Christian propaganda from Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and company?

  4. Michael says:

    Closed Mind? Definitely…

    Indeed. Compare and contrast.

    Dawkins: All religious beliefs are stupid. But mostly harmless unless their followers take those beliefs seriously.

    Me: I do not think atheism is stupid. Nor do I think all atheist beliefs are stupid.

    With the measure you use it will be measured to you. Now, if I had argued that all atheist beliefs are stupid, you would have a point. But I don’t and thus you don’t.

  5. TFBW says:

    When someone flings around accusations of hypocrisy, it lends weight to the idea that they have no rational counter-argument to offer.

    On a related note, Larry sure has been flinging around some accusations of hypocrisy.

  6. Dhay says:

    > All religious beliefs are stupid. But mostly harmless unless their followers take those beliefs seriously. Or, worse, act on them. — Richard Dawkins

    There goes the Golden Rule, then, which in its several variant but very similar forms is a fundamental, indeed core religious belief in the principal religions. According to Dawkins, it is one of the “all religious beliefs” which “are stupid. But mostly harmless unless their followers take those beliefs seriously. Or, worse, act on them.”

    I envisage the headlines (should anyone in the media take him seriously): “Richard Dawkins declares we should not act on the Golden Rule.”

  7. TFBW says:

    Nah, he’d just claim that it’s a secular idea, and that you don’t have to be religious to be nice to people. The classifications “religious” and “secular” are wonderfully versatile like that: you can apply them at will to moral concepts without much justification. That renders the whole argument more or less meaningless, of course, but it still makes for good propaganda.

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