Refuting Richard Dawkins In One-Liners - An Occasional Series
Further to my observation of last night that "(s)uch obtuse belief in the rightness of one's own opinions, even in the face of evidence so bountiful you can cite it in one-liners, is one of the hallmarks not of bigotry but incurable oppositionalism", I've decided to have a go at refuting Professor Dawkins as many times as possible but also using as few words as possible. This will be a good intellectual challenge for someone like me, intent as I am on denying the power of the intellect.
OK. Professor Dawkins has said that religion is 'redundant and irrelevant'. Today the BBC reports that,
"A resurgence of risky sexual practice could be behind a failure to curb HIV in gay and bisexual men in England and Wales, researchers suggest.
New infections were static at about 2,300 a year between 2001 and 2010, despite rises in early diagnosis and far more people taking medication."
Could lust, the desire not to love a person but to possess them instead, be a factor in this? Maybe? Perhaps? Still think religion's 'redundant and irrelevant' if by proscribing lust it might help slow the spread of STDs?