Richard Dawkins disapproves of "anti-scientific" literature, like "Harry Potter"

[Mole]

If you read the article, he doesn't actually say he disproves of anti-scientific literature. Rather, he is simply wondering how it affects people. They are putting words in his mouth.

The Harry Potter books are works of the imagination for children, they are not posing as scientific works.

 

[Blackmail!]

Not really. If you read the article, he doesn't actually say he disproves of anti-scientific literature. Rather, he is simply wondering how it affects people. They are putting words in his mouth.

Exactly. And I'm wondering why so many people here were tricked so easily.

25 pages of nonsensical hate about something Dawkins never said.

It's fascinating.

 

[/DG/]

Exactly. And I'm wondering why so many people here were tricked so easily.

25 pages of nonsensical hate about something Dawkins never said.

It's fascinating.

Also, people in this forum tend to be quite long-winded. The topic could be about talking fish sticks and you'd probably still be able to get the thread to be this long. Who knows what everyone has been talking about.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Mole]

Payback

Exactly. And I'm wondering why so many people here were tricked so easily.

25 pages of nonsensical hate about something Dawkins never said.

It's fascinating.

Of course its payback.

Richard Dawkins attacks religion and says it's a delusion. This is offensive to those who identify with a religion, and so their first impulse is revenge.

And their desire for revenge is so strong, they become incoherent, they slaver to get at him no matter how, and it shows.