RE: Dawkins. Just because some people will get irrationally upset no matter how politely somebody says that they fervently believe things which are patently untrue, doesn't mean the person who said it wasn't polite or civil enough. Dawkins would get called an asshole, and so would anybody who cited him, no matter how courteous he was. I mean, to an American the man is preternaturally soft-spoken because he's not just American-courteous, he's British-courteous. I don't think there's any tone of criticism of religion that is satisfactorily obsequious.

I mean, if you can find a way to tell a devoutly religious person, "You know. If there weren't so many Christians, we would classify your beliefs as a mental illness. In fact, we already institutionalize people who clearly actually believe what most Christians only say they do," in a way that is so polite and gentle that you are immune to the tone argument while doing so, you are magic and need to be doing all the talking for all the rest of us.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

November 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
121314 15161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 9th, 2025 11:30 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios