English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I notice this a lot, and most recently I saw it in someone's answer to a queation about Richard Dawkins. The person said Dawkins is "hateful."

How is he hateful? Does he advocate violence? Does he advocate censorship?

No, he doesn't. All he does is present a view that disagrees with yours, and in this action you see "hate." I see the exact opposite. I see a man who is so concerned about all of human existence that he is compelled to talk with us about it.

2007-08-17 03:20:16 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

15 answers

I've been reading Dawkins for about four years now and recently finished The God Delusion. When I read the Moral Animal I made all my friends read it theist and atheist alike. I think he's positing extraordinarily astute observations and theories. I'm agnostic- no argument needed, I don't feel the need to defend. But to me he is actually challenging my position as an Agnostic and I LOVE it! I've not felt this charged to brush up on my own arguments since college philosophy; in a good way. I don't feel threatened. I think he is calling people to a higher level of reasoning and a deeper level of investigation of themselves and, with regard to the scriptures, a much more thorough exegetical analysis of what it is exactly it is that fuels belief or disbelief. His writing is a much needed breath of philosophical fresh air...

2007-08-17 04:42:30 · answer #1 · answered by Davis Wylde 3 · 0 0

Everyone has a right to their views. You can be hateful about the way you present them, but obviously Dawkins is not. People are afraid to hear something that goes against what they believe. I wish people could see that when you come to your own beliefs through searching for them your beliefs will only become stronger. . . .or you may find out that what you believe is crap and I guess that is where the fear comes in.

2007-08-17 03:27:14 · answer #2 · answered by sparkles9 6 · 3 0

I do agree that without the efforts of the McMahon Legacy, professional wrestling does no longer be as time-honored because it relatively is in the present day. From greats like Hulk Hogan and Andre the super to The Rock and Stone chilly, Vince McMahon has made professional wrestling 1000000000 greenback buisness. accomplishing thousands and thousands of television monitors in simple terms approximately on an primary basis and making billions whilst turning basic wrestlers into worldwide phenomenons . without Vince the professional wrestling scene could probable be 80% much less time-honored than it relatively is in the present day. With the approach era or WWF, Vince made professional wrestling between the main enjoyed and in demand varieties of entertainment in the worldwide to this very day. professional wrestling does no longer be the comparable if no longer for the McMahon Legacy.

2016-10-10 10:20:05 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

He's standing up for his belief. A true Xian would appreciate this.

Oh, and Johnny's version of Hurt is wonderful, but I am also a fan of the NIN version. I think it speaks a lot of a progressive rock band to have a song covered by a classic country music singer.

2007-08-17 03:31:11 · answer #4 · answered by Some Lady 6 · 1 0

I am not personally familiar with what Dawkins has written so I cannot say if HOW he presents his views is 'hateful' or not.

All I can say to this is that if we religious folks don't think it is hateful to say "This is the TRUTH!!!" then we ought not to see that same sort of statement as being hateful when it comes from others.

I also have to say that I do experience "You're just delusional" as being...shall we say, less than polite?



But what I have to learn from that is to not do that, myself, to others. To not mock others for believing differently from me. To state what I believe quietly and calmly and by saying "This is what I believe".

Because other peoples politeness or lack of politeness is really not my concern. MY politeness is.

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


Jesus didn't say "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you ONLY if they treat you that way, too."

2007-08-17 04:18:23 · answer #5 · answered by Praise Singer 6 · 0 1

I don't know Dawkins, so......

It is not hateful to disagree with anyone, however on here (on both sides of the issues) there are plenty of people who disagree in hateful ways.

2007-08-17 03:28:21 · answer #6 · answered by osborne_pkg 5 · 2 0

Of course it's not hateful merely to promote your own ideas, even if they conflict with well entrenched beliefs. Hateful acts are those that are made with intent to harm. Dawkins is trying to help.

2007-08-17 03:26:45 · answer #7 · answered by wondermus 5 · 1 0

I'm not sure of what Q&A you are referring to, but let's explore your analogy here. You see a man who is concerned about all of human existence that he is compelled to talk with us about it.


That is a good reason to respect the person. But I have this guess that the reason the person was called hateful is not because of what he was trying to say, but how he said it.

2007-08-17 03:25:51 · answer #8 · answered by Searcher 7 · 1 2

Visit the LGBT section for many hateful Christian examples.

2007-08-17 03:29:59 · answer #9 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 3 0

I am right and everybody else who doesn't agree with me is wrong, and I don't care what scientific data shows. Math is a devil's tool...

2007-08-17 03:33:41 · answer #10 · answered by Ultrastooge™ 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers