Religion
Related: About this forumRichard Dawkins wants to lovebomb Iran — with erotica
Last edited Sun Feb 1, 2015, 11:36 AM - Edit history (1)
Due to complaints about the source of this story and the inclusion of criticism of Stephen Fry, I am substituting another article. Unlike Dawkins, I am not bewildered by the response, but I am responsive to it. The link to the original article can be found here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11381529/Richard-Dawkins-wants-to-fight-Islamism-with-erotica.-Celebrity-atheism-has-lost-it.html
Here is the substituted article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/richard-dawkins-wants-to-lovebomb-iran--with-erotica-10015488.html
Controversial scientist and thinker tweeted then deleted an idea to 'beam erotic videos to theocracies'
ZACHARY DAVIES BOREN Saturday 31 January 2015
Richard Dawkins today suggested broadcasting "loving, gentle, woman-respecting erotic videos" in Islamic theocracies as a means of challenging institutionalised religion.
In a tweet he has since deleted, the controversial scientist and outspoken critic of religion asked: "Good idea to beam erotic videos to theocracies?"
He clarified: "NOT violent, woman-hating porn but loving, gentle, woman-respecting eroticism."
The predictable storm on social media drove Dawkins to delete the provocative tweet, though he maintained he was "bewildered by the hostile response".
more at link
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)... the religiously incorrect.
Now THAT'S crazy.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This is just laughably crazy.
okasha
(11,573 posts)who want to pour pig blood on the doorsteps of mosques.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But he did take it down.
Here are a couple of funny responses:
okasha
(11,573 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)well, religion gets all in a big huff....if they can't take it, they should not dish it out, they should not cast upon the waters what they don't want coming back to them in many days.
This is what I don't get. Religion is supposed to be able to insult everyone and everything and expects to get only good reviews from the people they insult. Hypocrisy served straight up.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Individually and legally?
I love your passion yet sometimes it seems to result in simplistic, broad brush assessments.
What's your take on religious or faith based allies? Do we write them off? Or, rather, how do we best collaborate on common goals?
4now
(1,596 posts)Not very surprising.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)4now
(1,596 posts)That is all.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Are you a Dawkins fan? What do you think of his tweet?
4now
(1,596 posts)pay attention.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)comparison!
Hell, if I had to choose between a dead rat and Tim Stanley, there would be no comparison.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)like this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/richard-dawkins-wants-to-lovebomb-iran--with-erotica-10015488.html
Stanley has indeed written the article just to bash atheists. That's why he brought Stephen Fry into it too. He is offended by someone asking Fry a religious question, and Fry giving an atheist answer. He also thinks " the answer to Frys facile question" exists. No-one has come up with a decent answer to the problem of theodicy, in over 2000 years, and Stanley just appears to be embarrassed that he worships a god that is either cruel, uncaring or a logical imposiibility, but Stanley still wastes his time in the worship.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I didn't see anything right wing about this particular piece and I thought the criticism of Fry, who was also outrageous, worth noting.
Feel free to post the other one.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)Dawkins' tweet was silly. Fry's comment was not (even if one disagrees with it). Stanley showed equally strong hostility and dismissiveness toward both.
Stanley is one of the few British commentators who likes Rick Santorum (see my other post); shouldn't this give rise to suspicion of his motives?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I did my research on Stanley before posting this but didn't see any particular political bent within this story at all.
Suspicious of his motives? What might they be politically in terms of this particular story?
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)Right.
He therefore wishes to attack prominent atheists.
Not that he likes the liberal tendencies of much of our established church any better. Santorum wouldn't much like our Archbishop of Canterbury; and neither does Stanley:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100206311/justin-welby-v-david-cameron-the-anglican-church-is-now-the-labour-party-at-prayer/
cbayer
(146,218 posts)seems to support some atheists, just not the celebrity atheists.
At any rate, I appreciate your providing this information and I changed the source of the story.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)and have probably already figured out how to access it.
Also, don't forget a lot of the foreign fighters are westerners so I doubt getting hold of porn is a big deal to them.
(In fact I'm willing to bet that religious people look at porn as much as everyone else).
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Can't even he go off the edge to keep his sanity. My idea before the Iraq debacle was to make a computer image of "God" in the desert and tell these extremists to stop what they are doing.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It might at least scare them to death.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)you could say something in a room to the people you are talking to in a tongue in cheek, wry kinda of way and it could be humorous.
But tweeting it out to everyone, it doesn't come across that way.
People, and Dawkins in this case, sometimes forget that Twitter isn't the intimate intercourse it seems at times.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)so I think he does it on purpose. He likes the outrage because it results in attention, and that is what he thrives on.
He was "bewildered" by the response. Really? I'm not buying it.
okasha
(11,573 posts)that could earn him a nickname as "Dirty Dick."
pinto
(106,886 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)OK, if you're not from the UK you probably don't, and lucky old you not to know! But as I posted a few months ago on a different forum:
He is a right-winger, a sympathetic biographer of Pat Buchanan, a Christian Right type, a sympathizer with RW Tories and now UKIP at home and with Republicans in the USA.
Almost all Torygraph bloggers are vile; he is one of the worst.
Recent Torygraph article titles by him include:
Dr. Who came out - as a pro-life Christian conservative
Why Ukip will win Clacton: Carswell and immigration
If you have to choose between being liberal and being Christian, choose Christian
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, population control and the things we don't admit about abortion
In 2012, he was very anti-Obama and preferred Romney, but clearly would really have liked Santorum:
http://timothystanley.co.uk/1/post/2012/02/why-i-quite-like-rick-santorum-even-if-many-catholics-dont.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100150054/rick-santorum-was-the-most-conservative-authentic-and-resilient-candidate-of-2012/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100144143/rick-santorum-can-beat-barack-obama/
In other words, he represents the small but dangerous British Christian Right, and should NOT be taken as an authority on anything.
As for Dawkins, he is IMO like many celebrity academics, a little too fond of publicity for its own sake; but even his strongest critics could hardly regard him seriously as 'Britain's nuttiest professor'. I've come across SERIOUSLY nutty ones. Ever heard of the Ann Coulter-loving racist misogynist 'evolutionary psychologist' Satoshi Kanazawa of LSE, for example?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and saw that he was a former Labour party advocate who now supported the US republican party. Wiki didn't give much more information.
In light of this, I have changed the story to another source which I hope is more acceptable.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)Because Fry's problem is pretty much the one brought up there, though his conclusion is different.
The problem of the existence of evil and of suffering is one of the key problems in theology, even if not everyone comes to the same conclusion about it; so Stanley's dismissiveness is totally inappropriate, whether you're a Christian or an atheist.
DerekG
(2,935 posts)Does this hack columnist think Dostoevsky and Mark Twain were being "facile" in their respective masterpieces, The Brothers Karamozov and Letters From the Earth?
I lost my faith some time ago after witnessing too much senseless suffering and unmitigated evil. I suppose that makes me a walking cliché as well.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)And despite the media's apparent desire to cast him as the archetypal atheist, he speaks for no one except Dawkins.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)churches, people are leaving the flock to find something that is more reflective of who they are.