-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dr. Richard Dawkins vs. Evangelical Pastor Ted Haggard
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
David J
Member
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
This is funny.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
This is a brief, classic video of Dawkins discussing religion and science with Pastor Haggard. The smug, condescending attitude of the pastor is enough to make me laugh every time I see the video. Watching this video is a bit like watching a parent (Dawkins) trying to reason with and discipline their spoiled, hyperactive four year old child (Haggard) who is having a temper tantrum. Enjoy.
Irony of Haggard whining that Dawkins has "intellectual arrogance"... when Haggard has the bloated ego to believe he has been personally selected to be Speaker For God... by god himself.
Wow.
Hubris is (was) strong with that one.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Well. If even a fool gets it? A Wise Man shouts "there is no proof of god" from rooftops.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Are YOU a member? Because I've only read your stuff on this thread... and... well...
... no thanks.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
I did tread the link provided. Haggard confessed to being gay and/or bi. All the sexual partners Haggard confessed to or was discovered were adults of the legal age of consent. None were prepubescent. hell, none were even below the legal age of consent. None were below the age of 20. That does not qualify as pedophilia. So please show me that Ted Haggard confessed or was discovered engaging in sexual acts with prepubescent children. If you can't do that, then your use of the word "pedophile" in describing Haggard is a wrongful accusation.
sooda
Veteran Member
Defend him if you like.
Other allegations[edit]
On January 23, 2009, less than one week before The Trials of Ted Haggard was released on HBO, officials from Haggard's former church announced that a young male church member had come forward in 2006 and that there was an "overwhelming pool of evidence [of an] inappropriate, consensual sexual relationship [that] went on for a long period of time [with Haggard]... it wasn't a one-time act." Haggard's successor, Brady Boyd, said the church reached a six-figure settlement with the man, who was in his early 20s at the time.[29] According to the man, the contact was "not consensual".[29] Later reports indicated that the relationship did not involve physical contact, but that on one occasion Haggard masturbated in front of the young man.[30] The man, Grant Haas, added that New Life Church paid him $179,000 for counseling and college tuition.[31]
Haggard openly admitted to an inappropriate relationship with Haas on CNN and in other media; when asked if he had had additional gay relationships that have been unreported, Haggard did not provide a direct answer.[3
I'm afraid your wrong about a lot of things -- beginning with your assertion that you know anything about atheism. Your own words assert that you do not.
And may I point out, your assertion that Satan is "the original atheist" is not only wrong, it's absurd given your own religion. It is impossible to not believe in something that you've set yourself up as the enemy of. And that's what your religion proposes -- that Satan not only believes in God, but is busy trying to thwart Him at every turn.
… and the blatant display of his own arrogance - but of course that is never seen by him. I wonder what he sees in the mirror?
?
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
… and the blatant display of his own arrogance - but of course that is never seen by him. I wonder what he sees in the mirror?
I think that depends on how many of the lies he tells, he actually believes.
Is not that true of most people? There are the little lies we tell about ourselves, that sometimes we begin to believe-- even if faced with a mirror-image that should be contradictory.
In truth, it took me a bit to parse out what you wrote, to see which of these two you were talking about, as Dawkins often comes across as arrogant too. Which is why I'm not that big a fan-- he speaks well, and in biology, he's clearly an expert (that being his area of study).
But he often speaks on subjects not biology, and in those areas? His opinion should carry no more weight than the next person.
But poor Haggard-- I think he's a victim of the culture he found himself in. I have no doubt that he was full of self-loathing, due to the very ugly anti-gay culture of Evangelic "Christianity"-- a culture I truly expect Jesus, were he here today, would have sharply condemned as anything but loving.
Both are trashThis is a brief, classic video of Dawkins discussing religion and science with Pastor Haggard. The smug, condescending attitude of the pastor is enough to make me laugh every time I see the video. Watching this video is a bit like watching a parent (Dawkins) trying to reason with and discipline their spoiled, hyperactive four year old child (Haggard) who is having a temper tantrum. Enjoy.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Is this you naming "Satan" as an atheist? That's definitely what it reads like. It seems you are saying that "you know atheism better than any atheist, even Satan.", which, to my mind means you seem to believe that Satan is an atheist. And if that is where your mind is at, then you have completely destroyed your credibility with the above statement - because it means YOU HAVE NO IDEA what atheism even means.
By the very definition of "Satan", the story of his beginning, etc. he would very much have to believe in God. He may deny God's authority, sure, but he believes in God. If Satan exists, and doesn't believe in God with the firsthand experience he supposedly has with God, then Satan is delusional, irrational and confused.
Atheism literally means that one does not believe in God. So... do you understand how Satan cannot be an atheist?
My guess is that you would call the above couple of paragraphs "bullying," wouldn't you? I bet you would. Those first paragraphs of mine above are me trying desperately to make you see what a fool you are being, and how incomprehensible you are making yourself out to be. You are destroying your own reputation on these forums, going down in a ball of fire that YOU lit yourself. In essence, the above set of paragraphs is me trying to save you from yourself. It may not feel like it, because you are stubborn, and it is hard to admit when you display leaping and bounding ignorance like you have displayed, but believe me... you need to be told you are wrong, and that you are not thinking clearly, and you need to try and step out of that if you ever want anyone to take you seriously. As it stands, I cannot take you seriously, at all. Most anything you say after having read the whole "I know atheism better" bit from you I will likely not put much, if any, stock in. I won't care what you write, for you have proven yourself untrustworthy and intellectually bankrupt. I'm not saying this to hurt you, but to make you realize the truth of how you come across with stuff like this. Either fix this crap up or you will probably ALWAYS feel bullied in life, because no one in their right mind is going to be able to agree with you.
Last edited:
I think that depends on how many of the lies he tells, he actually believes.
Is not that true of most people? There are the little lies we tell about ourselves, that sometimes we begin to believe-- even if faced with a mirror-image that should be contradictory.
In truth, it took me a bit to parse out what you wrote, to see which of these two you were talking about, as Dawkins often comes across as arrogant too. Which is why I'm not that big a fan-- he speaks well, and in biology, he's clearly an expert (that being his area of study).
But he often speaks on subjects not biology, and in those areas? His opinion should carry no more weight than the next person.
But poor Haggard-- I think he's a victim of the culture he found himself in. I have no doubt that he was full of self-loathing, due to the very ugly anti-gay culture of Evangelic "Christianity"-- a culture I truly expect Jesus, were he here today, would have sharply condemned as anything but loving.
I have nothing against Dawkins in general. He is entitled to express himself as much as anyone else concerning any religious beliefs, and having read a few of his books (including The God Delusion), to me he doesn't come across as particularly arrogant. I just went off the body language more than anything in this video but I don't know much about Haggard I will admit. Mostly I am in agreement with Dawkins and the others Four (three now) Horsemen, although not on everything.
So religion has destroyed your ability to understand parody? That's a shame, really.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
I couldn't finish The God Delusion. It was boring to me. The Blind Watchmaker is an excellent read though.
Me too.
It was like listening to myself talk.
I could understand that it was exciting to people new to a religion free world view. But it wasn't interesting to me.
Tom
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Yes. I read that. "Inappropriate" is a very vague term. Even the atheist would agree that engaging in a secretive sexual affair with a younger parishioner of your church is "inappropriate". "Several years" does not stipulate how long. Three? Five? There is no statement to when the relationship began. I am certain that if the young man was below the age of consent when the affair began, and if there was an "overwhelming pool of evidence"; and that it went public; than Haggard would have faced charges. So it seems to me that the young man was no younger than 16 when the affair began, which is within the sexual age of consent in many states. Even if it began when he was 13, it still wouldn't qualify as pedophilia as the boy would have been pubescent.
Was the behavior inappropriate? Definitely.
Was the behavior immoral? Yes.
Was this behavior predatory? Most likely.
Was the behavior illegal? Maybe.
Was the behavior pedophiliac? No.
So unless you have evidence that Haggard has engaged in sexual interaction with children before the onset of puberty, then your constant regurgitation of labeling him a "pedophile" is a lie because you have no evidence that he is.