Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia". However teaching a child faith is evil.

Faith2013

Heard Dawkins trying to defend his comments on abuse on newstalk. while at the same time he said teaching a Child to believe in God was wrong because it meant they were Afraid of Hell.

Lot of reaction on the net as he tries to back track on the comments.

Turtwig

Faith2013 wrote: »

Heard Dawkins trying to defend his comments on abuse on newstalk. while at the same time he said teaching a Child to believe in God was wrong because it meant they were Afraid of Hell.

Lot of reaction on the net as he tries to back track on the comments.

And what is your opinion?

Faith2013

Jernal wrote: »

And what is your opinion?

Abuse is very serious and nobody should make light of it. Just because the one encounter he had did not harm him, it does not mean that others were not harmed by these one off encounters.. A child should never be felt up.. and the impression should never by given that it does not harm the child.

As for his comments on Faith... I'm not surprised.

CiDeRmAn

Hold on now, Mr Dawkins was simply relating a personal experience was he not, rather than commenting on the abuse, or attempted abuse, of a vulnerable child.
Big difference between that and what you are implying, that he was defending "mild" paedophilia.

But then, I would expect any opportunity to demonise the man would be to good to pass up.

Can we expect people on this forum to be as forthright when Christian leaders make weak excuses for actual child abusers?

Galwayguy35

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Can we expect people on this forum to be as forthright when Christian leaders make weak excuses for actual child abusers?

Yes.

Geomy

There's a similar thread over yonder, and you should read the hypocrisy.

CiDeRmAn

Reading the recent comment on this by Dawkins he seems to make it abundantly clear that, in his opinion, there is a spectrum of wrong, this obviously begins at one end with something innocuous and goes all the way to the worst crimes imaginable.
From his perspective he maintains that a teacher fondling him for a number of seconds was shocking and uncomfortable but not, for him, a life altering, damaging crime.
He repeats again that this is his interpretation, a subjective interpretation.
Someone else may well have been affected more, but he and his friends who were subjected to this, and he refers to speaking to these people later in life, identified no ill effects.
Doubtless they would have wished it didn't happen.
But it wasn't, from there perspective, comparable to rape or sustained sexual abuse.
The only issue I really have with this article is that he fails to see that while he and his friends were not terribly affected it may have had a more drastic affect on others, and there is nothing to say that his behaviour did not escalate over time to an even more sustained sexual abuse of minors.
In fact, he goes on to apologise for his ignorance of any unannounced suffering at the hands of the same teacher, had he escalated his behaviour.

One should not read his postings as anything other than the truthful recollections of a man who was once subjected to abuse, and he himself considers it had a limited effect on him.
He does not then consider others to have over-reacted, only that if he had condemned the man at the time he would have felt like he over-reacted.

Perhaps this is more telling of the morals of the age,
that children in the care of adults were expected to take whatever punishment was dealt and get over it.
More interesting again that, despite repeated attempts to portray Dawkins as a hypocrite given his actions against Pope Benedict, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, the school master was, presumably, C of E, if anything at all.

Again, he says it is all taken from his perspective as an adult remembering events that occurred to him as a child, and comparing his feelings to those of his friends who went through the same thing.

I have seen very few groups so prepared to pick holes in the testimony of the abused as much as members of the groups who stand accused of, if not condoning the abuse then at least seeking to appropriate some portion of the blame on over-reacting alleged victims.

Here we see another victim, Richard Dawkins, who once again is amongst the berated, the un-believed, and this is exactly the kind of thing that led to silent generations of victims in the first place.

Faith2013

The problem is that peodophiles try in their own minds to justify their actions, Dawkins could have just detailed the incident without saying it had no long term negatives effects.

Also in later comments he says what happened 60 years ago was from a different Era, fine but he would never say that abuse in Catholic schools was from a different era, or abuse in Protestant schools.

He is very vocal about attacking abuse in Catholic Church, which is perfectly acceptable, it should never have happened or be covered up... But he softens the stance when he talks about his personal experience.

lmaopml

Richard is probably one of the most human of the 'science' celebrities of our times. He is right out there in terms of explaining and teaching, but also in terms of explaining his particular world view and why...I can't help but love him for his frank way. At least he is not beating around the bush but is particularly frank in his assessments, and indeed that combination sells in terms of popular science and personality. It's made to sell.

I think he's a really cool scientist when he is doing science, I like his older works pre 9/11. I think also that he debates the man in his head sometimes and not the person. I read his books, the 'older' ones, and I love the person behind the words.

Something changed however, and so did his worldview - I don't like being pigeon holed no more than Richard thinks that coming across a person who abuses innocence didn't effect him.

Of course those who are in places of trust should be protectors of innocence, and not only that they should also practice it. He is quite right on that score.

MrPudding

Faith2013 wrote: »

The problem is that peodophiles try in their own minds to justify their actions, Dawkins could have just detailed the incident without saying it had no long term negatives effects.

Why? Why can he not be truthful about what he felt about what he experienced? My mother has told me about being felt up by the owner of our local school uniform shop. Most girls of her age had similar experiences. Nothing ever happened about it, it was, apparently, something that just happened. Can my mother not tell me that whilst it made her feel uncomfortable it had no long term effects.

Do not confuse someone saying that some mild abuse had no long lasting ill effect on them with that person condoning abuse, mild or otherwise. To amke that jump is going more than a little too far.

Faith2013 wrote: »

Also in later comments he says what happened 60 years ago was from a different Era, fine but he would never say that abuse in Catholic schools was from a different era, or abuse in Protestant schools.

Is this making an assumption? I am not sure what his opinion on the historical clerical abuse is, to be honest, but it may turn out to be broadly similar.

And besides, the thing that most people have the issue with, particularly with respect to the RRC' response to abuse was the covering up. It might be possible to argue that it was a different era and things were different, but the very fact that bishops moved the priests in question around would suggest that they believed something was not quite right.

MrP

smcgiff

...

Benny_Cake

I understand what he was trying to say, but he probably shouldn't have said it. Using "mild" and "paedophilia" in the one sentence is always going to raise alarm and he should be a smart enough guy to know this.

It's rather unfortunate though that people leap when they see such statements, almost as if it serves to justify the dislike they have of such a person. I notice the same when the pope or a religious figure says something unfortunate: people seize on it to confirm whatever bias that they might have against religious people in general. This is really no different. I think that as Christians our first instinct should be to have compassion for someone who is a victim of abuse, rather than attack him for the clumsy way in which he described what happened to him.

MrPudding

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I understand what he was trying to say, but he probably shouldn't have said it. Using "mild" and "paedophilia" in the one sentence is always going to raise alarm and he should be a smart enough guy to know this.

I have an issue with this. What is the problem with recognising that most things, even bad things, have a range of severity? Has no one ever had a mild cold, or a mild touch of the flu? Is it wrong to suggest someone has mild epilepsy or a mild learning disability? Why can one not suggest that having your leg stroked (or whatever happened to him) is not a serious as being kidnapped as a 4 year old, being locked in a cellar and being rape and beaten daily for 14 years? Because it is paedophilia can we not say some forms of it are not as bad as others? Please note, I am not say that some forms of it are not bad, I am saying it is all bad, even the "mildest", but I recognise that some of it is worse.

This isn't complicated stuff, but I think sometime the emotive nature of it prevent rational discussion.

MrP

Morbert

He had some silly phrasing, but I don't see this incident as in any way scandalous.

iDave

Dawkins isn't the god atheism so discrediting him doesn't discredit atheism.



Just for those who hang on to his every word looking for something scandalous to use against atheists.

robp

lmaopml wrote: »

Richard is probably one of the most human of the 'science' celebrities of our times. He is right out there in terms of explaining and teaching, but also in terms of explaining his particular world view and why...I can't help but love him for his frank way. At least he is not beating around the bush but is particularly frank in his assessments, and indeed that combination sells in terms of popular science and personality. It's made to sell.

I think he's a really cool scientist when he is doing science, I like his older works pre 9/11. I think also that he debates the man in his head sometimes and not the person. I read his books, the 'older' ones, and I love the person behind the words.

No doubt he is great in his field even though he probably hasn't stepped in a lab in 25 years.
What gets me is how people like him are carried by their wit, style and ability to explain rather then their actual contribution to the world / science. Dawkins has frequently been voted a top intellectual in Britain, way above noted Nobel Prize winners who have far more tangible contributions.

Cabaal

iDave wrote: »

Dawkins isn't the god atheism so discrediting him doesn't discredit atheism.

Just for those who hang on to his every word looking for something scandalous to use against atheists.

Spot on,
Its silly really,

Some people seem to get a thrill out of attacking Dawkins, its almost like they view atheism as a religion and he is the leader/god.
:rolleyes:

Problem is, thinking atheism is a religion is as stupid as thinking that not watching football is a sport.

Geomy

Cabaal wrote: »

Spot on,
Its silly really,

Some people seem to get a thrill out of attacking Dawkins, its almost like they view atheism as a religion and he is the leader/god.
:rolleyes:

Problem is, thinking atheism is a religion is as stupid as thinking that not watching football is a sport.

Maybe when someone isn't watching football they're watching cricket....

Geomy

Cabaal wrote: »

Spot on,
Its silly really,

Some people seem to get a thrill out of attacking Dawkins, its almost like they view atheism as a religion and he is the leader/god.
:rolleyes:

Problem is, thinking atheism is a religion is as stupid as thinking that not watching football is a sport.

Maybe when someone isn't watching football they're watching cricket....

Cabaal

Geomy wrote: »

Maybe when someone isn't watching football they're watching cricket....

Maybe and in which case they are still into a sport,

But if they don't watch/follow any sport would you still say the person is into sport?

I know I wouldn't, cause that would just be idiotic.

robp

Cabaal wrote: »

Spot on,
Its silly really,

Some people seem to get a thrill out of attacking Dawkins, its almost like they view atheism as a religion and he is the leader/god.
:rolleyes:

Problem is, thinking atheism is a religion is as stupid as thinking that not watching football is a sport.

I think your incorrect. the fact is Dawkins has a very acerbic / caustic style. That manner is going to boomerang on anyone regardless of who your critics are.

doctoremma

robp wrote: »

Dawkins has frequently been voted a top intellectual in Britain, way above noted Nobel Prize winners who have far more tangible contributions.

It's been a while (and am happy to be corrected) since Dawkins was lauded for his lab-based contributions to science. His field of excellence is in theory and communication, something he rightly gets praise for. The label of intellectual is appropriate to Dawkins, and I doubt he will ever win a Nobel Prize. Conversely, the actual science of a Nobel prize winner - the discovery of new forms of carbon, of significant disease processes, of important biological pathways - will not, in itself, see the recipient labelled as an intellectual.

Two different things.

Peregrinus

doctoremma wrote: »

It's been a while (and am happy to be corrected) since Dawkins was lauded for his lab-based contributions to science. His field of excellence is in theory and communication, something he rightly gets praise for. The label of intellectual is appropriate to Dawkins, and I doubt he w . . .

I don't want to downplay Dawkins's acheivements, which are considerable, but I don't know that he was ever recognised as an outstanding researcher, experimenter or theoretician. His outstanding acheivement is as a popular communicator of science; I don't know that he was ever lauded for anything done in the lab in the way that he has been for his communication work.

It may be that his scientific work is highly regarded within the academy and I just haven't heard about it; that's entirely possible. But in terms of the wider public recognition he has earned, I don't think it's significant at all.

Geomy

Cabaal wrote: »

Maybe and in which case they are still into a sport,

But if they don't watch/follow any sport would you still say the person is into sport?

I know I wouldn't, cause that would just be idiotic.

What's the point in discusing something you don't even believe in then ?

Are you interested in religion ?

robp

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't want to downplay Dawkins's acheivements, which are considerable, but I don't know that he was ever recognised as an outstanding researcher, experimenter or theoretician. His outstanding acheivement is as a popular communicator of science; I don't know that he was ever lauded for anything done in the lab in the way that he has been for his communication work.

It may be that his scientific work is highly regarded within the academy and I just haven't heard about it; that's entirely possible. But in terms of the wider public recognition he has earned, I don't think it's significant at all.

Perhaps your right, his work as a theoretician perhaps is his most important work in the academy but it would be nice if that was the foremost association with his name.

Geomy

Dicky at his best. ...


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4uCcDhsWSP8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D4uCcDhsWSP8

Peregrinus

robp wrote: »

Perhaps your right, his work as a theoretician perhaps is perhaps his most important work in the academy but it would be nice if that was the foremost association with his name.

I fear the foremost association with his name is going to be campaigning on matters of religion, which in terms of public notice has long since eclipsed his work as a communicator of science. His primary scientific work comes a very distant third.

smacl

Geomy wrote: »

What's the point in discussing something you don't even believe in then ?

It becomes a topic of discussion once it is forced upon you and your loved ones against your will, as per the many ongoing discussions relating to finding a decent educate together school, whether or not as an atheist to have your child baptized just to get into your local school etc...

You can also reasonably take an interest in religion and mythology without believing in a God, as shown in some of the excellent discussion in the historicity of Jesus thread over on A&A.

doctoremma

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't want to downplay Dawkins's acheivements, which are considerable, but I don't know that he was ever recognised as an outstanding researcher, experimenter or theoretician

Somewhat agree, was being polite

robp

smacl wrote: »

It becomes a topic of discussion once it is forced upon you and your loved ones against your will, as per the many ongoing discussions relating to finding a decent educate together school, whether or not as an atheist to have your child baptized just to get into your local school etc...

There are only anecdotal reports about this. For all we know the numbers involved could be extremely low. This whole argument is moot as if there is a shortage of school places some parent are inevitably going to get screwed over regardless of school policy.

smacl

robp wrote: »

There are only anecdotal reports about this. For all we know the numbers involved could be extremely low. This whole argument is moot as if there is a shortage of school places some parent are inevitably going to get screwed over regardless of school policy.

Seems to be a pretty active topic of debate here, where those getting screwed over as you say feel they are being victimised because they haven't had their children baptized. This in turn is considered to be a form of blackmail and / or religious persecution. You're right in saying we don't know the exact numbers, and that threads like the one I linked are anecdotal, but the increasing number of people choosing educate together schools suggests the numbers involved are both significant and growing steadily, and the argument is far from moot.

robp

smacl wrote: »

Seems to be a pretty active topic of debate here, where those getting screwed over as you say feel they are being victimised because they haven't had their children baptized. This in turn is considered to be a form of blackmail and / or religious persecution. You're right in saying we don't know the exact numbers, and that threads like the one I linked are anecdotal, but the increasing number of people choosing educate together schools suggests the numbers involved are both significant and growing steadily, and the argument is far from moot.

They need not feel victimised as if the teachers knew that this kind of baptism of convenient was going on they world refuse entry in preference to sincere Catholics. The increasing number choosing educate together only reflects the increasing demand for the ET model and Ireland's more diverse population. If I was a parent I would be concerned with the real problem ; the shortage of places.

smacl

robp wrote: »

They need not feel victimised as if the teachers knew that this kind of baptism of convenient was going on they world refuse entry in preference to sincere Catholics.

If you read what your saying there, you're suggesting that if the teachers detected that their ploy to victimise a non-Christian minority through unfair entry policy was not working, they'd continue to victimise them anyway. This shouldn't even be happening in the first instance, the policy of many publicly funded catholic national schools to give priority to give first preference to catholics is entirely unconstitutional.

The increasing number choosing educate together only reflects the increasing demand for the ET model and Ireland's more diverse population. If I was a parent I would be concerned with the real problem ; the shortage of places.

You'd be more concerned still if the shortage of places was compounded by discrimination against your child based on their beliefs or lack thereof. This happens and is well documented. There are plenty of specific examples in the threads linked in my previous post.

robp

smacl wrote: »

If you read what your saying there, you're suggesting that if the teachers detected that their ploy to victimise a non-Christian minority through unfair entry policy was not working, they'd continue to victimise them anyway. This shouldn't even be happening in the first instance, the policy of many publicly funded catholic national schools to give priority to give first preference to catholics is entirely unconstitutional.

That is victim playing. Is it right that a school discriminates on academic criteria? Is it right that they discriminate on language? A gael scoil might give preference to Irish speaking parents. Why is that fairer? planning permission is routinely denied to non Irish speaking people in Gaeltachtaí. Same difference. This kind of fuzzy thinking has created the current situation where a lottery system is been introduced. Denying a place to parents even if they already have children in the school and have been waiting for years for place.

By the way it is entirely constitutional. Go test it in the courts if you don't trust me. Everyone has a right to a education but not in any given school.

smacl wrote: »

You'd be more concerned still if the shortage of places was compounded by discrimination against your child based on their beliefs or lack thereof. This happens and is well documented. There are plenty of specific examples in the threads linked in my previous post.

More deflection. On principle I wouldn't dream of a baptism of convenience. That is a terrible solution and creates so many problems down the road.

I realise this is off topic but it has to be said as non Catholics are simply not been routinely persecuted.

smacl

robp wrote: »

That is victim playing. Is it right that a school discriminates on academic criteria? Is it right that they discriminate on language? A gael scoil might give preference to Irish speaking parents.

True, and I can't say I'm in favour of that either. But then two wrongs do not make a right.

On principle I wouldn't dream of a baptism of convenience. That is a terrible solution and creates so many problems down the road.

Quite so, and nor would I, but the case is that many people have to do so in order to get their child into the local state funded school. Again, previously linked threads include many such examples.

I realise this is off topic but it has to be said as non Catholics are simply not been routinely persecuted.

If that is the case, how would you describe the policy of giving a place in a state funded school to a Catholic child in preference to a non-Catholic child? Would you consider discrimination on the grounds of religion which leads to hardship in one group over another a form of persecution?

I think the lottery system is riddled with problems, not least that it doesn't solve the above, though that probably deserves a thread of its own. Some discussion over on A&A here.

Never liked Dawkins, a man of conflict.

Though what he's doing being discussed here is beyond me.

Edit: Originally wrote "Hawkins" by mistake :S Only one I know is Jim from Treasure Island!!!

Doh!

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

Never liked Hawkins, a man of conflict.

Though what he's doing being discussed here is beyond me.

Quite like Hawkins. Dawkins I can take or leave.

lmaopml

Hawkins is a real human being, I love his terrible wrestling and equally terrible surety and lack of it - reminds me of Jacob 'wrestling' with God. (True story ) So many gifts, such lovely eyes, so sad too..I'm quite sure that he is a firm favorite of all. A truly beautiful mind.

As for Richard, I think he is a celebrity, he caused divisions, and lived his public life in a heroic and 'opposed to' way, and encourages this too among those who love his philosophy. I don't have much time for that, but I do think he is a clever guy, genuine Oxford material. Just another guy with something to say along the way.

Geomy

lmaopml wrote: »

Hawkins is a real human being, I love his terrible wrestling and equally terrible surety and lack of it - reminds me of Jacob 'wrestling' with God. (True story ) So many gifts, such lovely eyes, so sad too..I'm quite sure that he is a firm favorite of all. A truly beautiful mind.

As for Richard, I think he is a celebrity, he caused divisions, and lived his public life in a heroic and 'opposed to' way, and encourages this too among those who love his philosophy. I don't have much time for that, but I do think he is a clever guy, genuine Oxford material. Just another guy with something to say along the way.

Dawkins knows nothing about philosophy, he admitted that in one of his debates.

lmaopml

Geomy wrote: »

Dawkins knows nothing about philosophy, he admitted that in one of his debates.

A person can know nothing about 'philosophy' in the sense of understanding another or being a student of it, in fact everybody will develop a philosophy of life and not even consider that there is such a thing as the 'philosophy' they are a part of, that they buy into - but still have one.

Richard has a 'philosophy' that is quite apparent. I'm not drawn to it - I am drawn to Hawkins as a human being - I'm drawn to Hawkins, not to emulate him, but to see him and how very lovely he is, I like him - I'm not looking to follow him, but I do very much like him. I think he very human - that's what I like.

smacl

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm drawn to Hawkins, not to emulate him, but to see him and how very lovely he is, I like him - I'm not looking to follow him, but I do very much like him. I think he very human - that's what I like.

Who exactly are you referring to here? I'm guessing Stephen Hawking, unless you're on about David Hawkins (or Screamin' Jay for that matter).

As for having a personal philosophy without being a student of philosophy, I agree entirely, and this is something that we develop and change over time. I like and use a lot of the ideas in Taoism, and similarly contextualism, but I wouldn't consider myself a Taoist or a contextualist. I think one of the reasons that organised religion has so many followers is it gives people an off the shelf philosophy as part of the package.

Geomy

The only problem with some religion's is, they give people a moral slide rule that's almost impossible to live by.

MrPudding

Geomy wrote: »

The only problem with some religion's is, they give people a moral slide rule that's almost impossible to live by.

I doubt there is a religion where that is the only problem.

MrP

Geomy

MrPudding wrote: »

I doubt there is a religion where that is the only problem.

MrP

Come to think of it you're right Mr P

lmaopml

smacl wrote: »

Who exactly are you referring to here? I'm guessing Stephen Hawking, unless you're on about David Hawkins (or Screamin' Jay for that matter).

Yep, sorry spelling error..I mean Hawking.

As for having a personal philosophy without being a student of philosophy, I agree entirely, and this is something that we develop and change over time. I like and use a lot of the ideas in Taoism, and similarly contextualism, but I wouldn't consider myself a Taoist or a contextualist. I think one of the reasons that organised religion has so many followers is it gives people an off the shelf philosophy as part of the package.

Sure, I think some people may do that and never really shift - others will examine and search and try to have a faith that seeks understanding. Personally I would be a Christian because I follow Christ, I believe him.

Steamed Hams

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I understand what he was trying to say, but he probably shouldn't have said it. Using "mild" and "paedophilia" in the one sentence is always going to raise alarm and he should be a smart enough guy to know this.

It's rather unfortunate though that people leap when they see such statements, almost as if it serves to justify the dislike they have of such a person. I notice the same when the pope or a religious figure says something unfortunate: people seize on it to confirm whatever bias that they might have against religious people in general. This is really no different. I think that as Christians our first instinct should be to have compassion for someone who is a victim of abuse, rather than attack him for the clumsy way in which he described what happened to him.

What's wrong with putting the adjective mild in front if the noun paedophilia?

Some instances of paedophilia are more severe than others, therefore there is mild paedophilia. That doesn't mean paedophilia isn't a serious crime.

lmaopml

Is there such a thing as 'mild' peadophilia?

I guess right or wrong I always linked peadophilia as a condition that is linked in terms of the damage it causes others, with whether there was opportunity to commit it or not - whether the circumstances catered for that kind of manipulation etc. as opposed to a mild or strong form. I would have thought there was just mild or strong circumstances ( Richard found himself in possibly less damaged circumstances for the act to have caused him severe psychological problems, and thus moved on.......but was the Peadophile a 'mild' one? Or just the circumstances didn't suit? Hmmm, I dunno


To me anyway, I think he could have chosen a better way to say what he was trying to say. Then again......people are talking about his book now, so if I were cynical about him ( which I could be ) it could have been a well chosen word to get people talking about Richard and his opinion.......again. Not to mention his book - twenty quid is it?

Benny_Cake

Steamed Hams wrote: »

What's wrong with putting the adjective mild in front if the noun paedophilia?

Some instances of paedophilia are more severe than others, therefore there is mild paedophilia. That doesn't mean paedophilia isn't a serious crime.

Like lmaopml, I would consider paedophilia to be the condition, rather than the act. So "mild abuse" would be a more accurate term. I wouldn't use it myself, it might sound callous to someone who was a victim of abuse, and it strikes me that what is mild for one person is serious for another.

Dawkins was describing what happened to him. I get what he was saying, but he could have chosen his words better. Not a hanging offence and I'm sure I've said worse myself. I'm surprised that it's still a topic of discussion, actually.

MrPudding

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Like lmaopml, I would consider paedophilia to be the condition, rather than the act. So "mild abuse" would be a more accurate term. I wouldn't use it myself, it might sound callous to someone who was a victim of abuse, and it strikes me that what is mild for one person is serious for another.

Dawkins was describing what happened to him. I get what he was saying, but he could have chosen his words better. Not a hanging offence and I'm sure I've said worse myself. I'm surprised that it's still a topic of discussion, actually.

Equally, describing it (mild abuse) simply as abuse might sound callous to someone that had suffered horrific abuse.

I am with Steamed Hams on this, as I said on the thread in the other forum, as bad and abhorant as paeodphilia or abuse is, it is not so bad that the normal rules of grammar don't apply. I think it is perfectly reasonable to a person to desscribe his experience as mild. That does not mean is isn't bad, just an observation that there are varying degrees of severity.

MrP

smacl

lmaopml wrote: »

I were cynical about him ( which I could be ) it could have been a well chosen word to get people talking about Richard and his opinion.......again. Not to mention his book - twenty quid is it?

I share your cynicism, and will wait until the book has a nice garish 2 for €10 sticker on the front of it, that it doubtless will in some future sale, before considering it.

JohnMc1

Cabaal wrote: »

Problem is, thinking atheism is a religion is as stupid as thinking that not watching football is a sport.

You might want to re-think that with Atheist Churches popping up now.