"were you standing on a milk crate when you made that post?"
lisking.....please.....is that the best come back you have??
I went to some lengths to demonstrate why I think Dawkins is an archetype of the very thing he professes to despise. He thinks he is fighting religion.....but this is not about religion, it is about how humans behave when they become attached to an ideology....the ideology may or may not be religious. The point is Dawkins created around himself the same set of character types and the same stage props as that which he is raging against.....only with a slightly altered script.
In the case of Dawkins we have the metaphor of the high priest or guru or charismatic preacher (take your pick) played by Dawkins himself. We have the rabid following who believe every word he speaks without question. We have the dogma of atheism that is held most sacred and no one within the clan dare speak one word against it, and we have the "outsiders" who must not only be treated with suspicion but must be beaten down into submission and must either convert or be destroyed.....and by Dawkins own admission the only difference between them and those who believe in something outside of themselves is that the Dawkins tribe believe in one less God. Tell me now how that is different to any spiritual guru who has ever tried to dominate the minds of the masses with religion.
My whole point is not about who is right and who is wrong but rather it is about the fact that this is a very ugly aspect of the lower human nature. Dawkins is a hypocrite. He is the textbook case of the Jungian shadow.....
.....so please don't just try to discredit me personally with the subtext in your milk crate analogy but rather show me where I am wrong in my analysis. I'm all ears. I am happy to hear your counter arguments.
