Gripes with your own...

robindch

dvpower wrote: »

I have read Dawkins. I have it in front of me.
Chapter 9 is titled 'Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion'. Dawkins doesn't make the direct accusation,

Dawkins wrote:

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicised cases of sexual abuse by catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage of bringing the child up catholic in the first place.

Yes, I agree with you that he doesn't make the direct accusation of psychological (not physiological) damage. If you carry on to read the sentence after the one you've quoted, he goes on to say:

Dawkins wrote:

It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience [...includes the "hell" example from above...] But the example shows that it is at least possible for psychological abuse of children to outclass physical.

Which puts his comments in some kind of context -- basically, that he believes that some religion does constitute "child abuse", otherwise the "hell" story lady wouldn't have said so, and neither would the Dublin audience have applauded his off-the-cuff comment. But by no means does all religion constitute child abuse. And while Dawkins' comment was certainly off the wall, and stupidly so, in suggesting that catholicism in general is tantamount to child abuse, it really should be read only in the light of his subsequent semi-retraction.

FWIW, I would like to see that the subsequent clarification gets as much coverage as the original quote which has attained an unfortunate life of its own on the internet entirely independent of the clarification.

Anyhow, so summarize again. Yes, such comments as printed are as unhelpful as they are stupid, but it's no less unhelpful or stupid to claim that this is what Dawkins actually believes, when it is clearly not what Dawkins believes.

sink

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I guess that is the difference between you and me. I do have a spiritual side.

Buddhists are atheists, atheism is not aspiritualism.

My gripes are with the wider community not just atheists. I have a gripe with the way some people (atheists included) think atheism is a dirty word.

For all those who say "I don't believe in god but I don't consider myself an atheist", tough you are an atheist. Atheism is just a word, it does not mean anything other than and absence of belief in deities. It not a church, a religion or a belief system. It has no leaders, it has no followers, it has no comities, it has no members list. It has no doctrine, no dogma, no sacred texts, no requirements beyond not believing in any type of god. You can be an atheist and be a Buddhist, Spiritualist, Scientologist or any other wacky cult that does not have a god component. Being an atheist is not something you choose like which church you want to be a member of, atheism is the default position (implicit atheism), you can only choose not to be an atheist by believing in the existence of a god.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass, I notice that you have no gripes with the Bible, as such. Just with issues regarding human interpretation of its teachings. Do you really have no problems with the Bibles validity or its authors? No problem with any of the stories contained within, such as the more gruesome/unfair elements?

Rev Hellfire

sink wrote: »

Buddhists are atheists, atheism is not aspiritualism.

Some buddists are athiest, but not exclusively so.
But Buddhism itself has very little to say on the subject. Not to mention the small matter of spirits and other such supernatural agents which you would imagine would be equally rejected by atheists, though I agree by the strict definition of the word the two are not incompatible.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not sure how a book would get an applause

He was talking about a time when he said it in a lecture

dvpower wrote: »

I didn't miss any bit. I read all of the book. I know this because I was there when I read it.

But perhaps you missed my original post, where I complained about the language that Dawkins sometimes uses. In this case, he used this language twice, once at the lecture in Dublin and then again in his book.

When I say you missed it I mean you didn't mention it here. If you're going to give an example of harsh language, pick a different one because he specifically acknowledged that it was overly harsh by saying that it was and spur of the moment comment which should not have been applauded.

I would suggest the time when he called religion a mind virus although he only did that to make a point

Flamed Diving

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Some buddists are athiest, but not exclusively so.
But Buddhism itself has very little to say on the subject. Not to mention the small matter of spirits and other such supernatural agents which you would imagine would be equally rejected by atheists, though I agree by the strict definition of the word the two are not incompatible.

Remember now, atheism is the rejection of the notion of there being a God.

That is all.

It's not an umbrella term for denying the existance of all supernatural beings.

Naz_st

LZ5by5 wrote: »

He also emphasised that he didn't believe in a traditional God. Maybe he does believe in some sort of supernatural or spiritual force, just not any of the Gods outlined by organised religions.

If I take myself for example, I am agnostic. I don't believe in any traditional Gods. However, I will say that I have no idea about what's waiting for us when we die. This universe is a whole lot bigger than me and at times it inspires awe and wonder. I'm not willing to make a definitive stance and say that I know how this universe works. That's why I'm agnostic.

I would suggest you are an agnostic atheist. Perhaps with a leaning towards "agnostic atheist deist".

Dades wrote: »

Why are you reinterpreting what Myggel said to revive your point.

He/she said: "I don't believe in the traditional or any type of God".

Now, quite simply, that makes Myggel an atheist under any definition of atheism I've ever heard.

Here's the thing. I don't believe in any traditional Gods. I have no idea about what's waiting for us when we die. The universe is bigger than me, too, and I also find it awesome and wondrous. I'm not sure what constitutes a "definitive stance" but I hold the belief that gods (traditional or an entity in any shape that might be called a "god") do not exist. I don't claim to know it - it's just my belief.

What is the difference between you and me?

I would say mainly semantics, or possibly the lack of the leaning mentioned.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm not reinterpreting what he said. To me he didn't elaborate enough in the sense that he may not believe in any traditional or any type of God, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's ruling out a possibility of a "higher power" (I hate that phrase) or some other supernatural force.

What I meant by mentioning how the universe can be awe inspiring is that due to the wonder of it, I can't rule out the possibility of a spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all.

I guess that is the difference between you and me. I do have a spiritual side.

Depending on what you mean by "having a spiritual side", I don't think that this is ruled out at all in atheists. (Buddhists being an obvious example)

Dades wrote: »

You can only be atheist about a god that is given some sort of definition - i.e. one within realistic parameters. We're all agnostic about something undefined that hasn't even been contrived yet.

Of come off it! Seriously!
If someone says: "I don't believe in the traditional or any type of God". they are an atheist.

That statement could be used as a definition!

But I can't rule out the possibility of a spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all!

This is about the 4th thread in the last couple of weeks that has had some form of "Atheism/Agnosticism definition" debate in it. Given the name of the whole forum, is it not possible to sticky some sort of definitions thread that could be referred to in subsequent threads?

I thought robin's definitions in a previous thread on this topic was a good start:

Here's a definition from last year which tries to pin down exactly what the word means in a bit more detail:

1. "Weak specific atheism" in which the holder believes that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist.
2. "Weak non-specific atheism" in which the holder believes that deities of any kind do not exist.
3. "Strong specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist
4. "Strong non-specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that no deities exist at all.

In general, I'd imagine that most atheists here fall into category (1) and a few into (2) and (3) and there's nobody whom I know who falls into (4), though there are plenty of religious people who think that all atheists place themselves in (4).

And Dawkins' scale (below) isn't bad, but doesn't cover deism explicitly.

(from Wikipedia)
Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
Dawkins notes that he would be "surprised to meet many people in category 7." Dawkins calls himself "about a 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

Of come off it! Seriously!
If someone says: "I don't believe in the traditional or any type of God". they are an atheist.

That statement could be used as a definition!

I think it's a case of "It's one thing to say I don't believe in God but an atheist :eek: No way!!"

Rev Hellfire

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Remember now, atheism is the rejection of the notion of there being a God.

That is all.

It's not an umbrella term for denying the existance of all supernatural beings.

Which is why I said "I agree by the strict definition of the word the two are not incompatible.", there was an interesting thread on the subject in the Buddhist forum a while back.

Fanny Cradock

Zamboni wrote: »

What is crap about it?
I was pointing out one of the many potential downsides of that.

There was nothing "potential" about the claim in your post. You stated that these 15,400 people where more likely to catch AIDS because they were Christians. It's pretty brazen to suggest that an increase in levels of HIV/ AIDS infection is directly connected to Christianity and not provide anything to back up your claim.

Let me guess, in your ignorance of the facts, you think that all Christian denominations are against contraception. You also seem to ignore the basic doctrines promoting monogamy and abstinence held by the denominations that do not support the use of condoms. Your castaway remark smacks of nothing more than an ill-conceived side-swipe at something you clearly don't understand very well.

I'm not in anyway interested in getting into this debate. I just felt that your remark warranted a challenge.

dvpower

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, so summarize again. Yes, such comments as printed are as unhelpful as they are stupid, but it's no less unhelpful or stupid to claim that this is what Dawkins actually believes, when it is clearly not what Dawkins believes.

I didn't claim anything about Dawkin's beliefs. I was commenting on his choice of language. I'm in general agreement with Dawkins when he talks about the damage religion can do to children, but if he wants to communicate a difficult subject to a wide audience (a skill he is renowned for), I think using this language is fully counter productive.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you're going to give an example of harsh language, pick a different one because he specifically acknowledged that it was overly harsh by saying that it was and spur of the moment comment which should not have been applauded.

It seems to me a good example of harsh language, since you, me and Dawkins himself all agree it was harsh.

Sam Vimes

dvpower wrote: »

It seems to me a good example of harsh language, since you, me and Dawkins himself all agree it was harsh.

You're still missing the point mate. He emphatically said at the start of the book that he was not setting out to be offensive but that he wasn't going to treat it with kid gloves

If you're going to say he is regularly harsh you should come up with more than one example and one that he doesn't specifically state was overly harsh. Iirc he mentioned the lecture as an example of something that was overly harsh. Find something he doesn't consider harsh but you do

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I absolutely agree, there really no difference between an agnostic and an atheist other than one has a narrow definition of what a god is and the other doesn't. The strength of that definition allows for an absolute statement, in the case of the latter.

Okay so far...

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Again I agree.
But you're making the assumption that your definition of the word is the only possible one which can be applied. The very fact of saying you're an agnostic is an act of sticking your hands up in the air and saying I don't know. Saying you don't know doesn't the statement invalid.

Not sure what you're getting at here. I never defined God - only suggested that the word is meaningless if someone can say absolutely anything can be a god.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Which sounds like an agnostic from here.

I'm agnostic because I can't rule supernatural things out?

How does one go about 'ruling out' invisible, intangible beings anyway?!

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Jakkass, I notice that you have no gripes with the Bible, as such. Just with issues regarding human interpretation of its teachings. Do you really have no problems with the Bibles validity or its authors? No problem with any of the stories contained within, such as the more gruesome/unfair elements?

I don't consider what you consider to be cruel and unfair to in actuality be cruel and unfair.

As for the validity of the Bible, it stands out above many other texts of it's age.

Human interpretation is what skews the true intention of Christianity.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

I'm agnostic because I can't rule supernatural things out?

Only as far as "possibility of a spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all", which is a common attribute defined to a deity, unlike faires at the bottom of the garden. But even then it comes down to strength of your belief. If you can say with conviction there no spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all, then I'd say your a card carrying atheist, but if you're hedging your bets...

But I guess its all semantics, I'm not sure its even important either way.

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Only as far as "possibility of a spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all", which is a common attribute defined to a deity, unlike faires at the bottom of the garden. But even then it comes down to strength of your belief. If you can say with conviction there no spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all, then I'd say your a card carrying atheist, but if you're hedging your bets...

But I guess its all semantics, I'm not sure its even important either way.

The type of atheist you're describing is very rare and is really no better than a theist because he's making a claim that can never be proven.

robindch

dvpower wrote: »

I'm in general agreement with Dawkins when he talks about the damage religion can do to children, but if he wants to communicate a difficult subject to a wide audience (a skill he is renowned for), I think using this language is fully counter productive.

Er, yes. What he said was inaccurate, stupid and unhelpful, but he corrected in print what he said in the heat of the moment. Why concentrate on the original error and ignore the correction?

I'm a bit perplexed!

Rev Hellfire

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The type of atheist you're describing is very rare and is really no better than a theist because he's making a claim that can never be proven.

I agree, and I understand where Dades is coming from. If you say you're an atheist most people assume your stating a disbelief in personal gods as espoused by Christianity, Hinduism, etc.

I just disagree with the idea that agnostics are people that can't make the extra step and say they're atheists when you have atheists saying they believe there are no gods but you know what I can't say for definite Pot met the kettle.

I always liked the stance certain Buddhists have on the matter which was if there are gods, it doesn't really matter since they don't seem to actively participate in any real tangible way, so they may as well not be there.

But I guess we're totally derailing this thread, so I'll leave it there most people know where I stand

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

Er, yes. What he said was inaccurate, stupid and unhelpful, but he corrected in print what he said in the heat of the moment. Why concentrate on the original error and ignore the correction?

I'm a bit perplexed!

Exactly! He printed it specifically to correct himself and dvpower is using it as an example of harshness. If anything it's an example of apologising for previous harshness

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I just disagree with the idea that agnostics are people that can't make the extra step and say they're atheists when you have atheists saying they believe there are no gods but you know what I can't say for definite Pot met the kettle.

I'd say an atheist is someone who can say "with adequate certainty" that there are no gods. Look at science where we have the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the theory of electro magnetism etc. No matter how sure they are these theories never get upgraded to fact. Until something is 100% proven or disproven it is only prudent to leave some shred of a possibility that you might be wrong, however small

I'd say agnostics in a lot of cases are people who want to believe because the whole heaven thing is a nice idea or because of social pressures etc but can't reconcile it with their logical minds. They will often seek out reasons, however flimsy, to try to convince themselves.

Basically I'd see agnostics as atheists who wish they weren't

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I just disagree with the idea that agnostics are people that can't make the extra step and say they're atheists when you have atheists saying they believe there are no gods but you know what I can't say for definite Pot met the kettle.

I never meant to suggest all agnostics are like that - my gripe is with people who are atheists but prefer to use the fluffy, less offensive term agnostic.

Anyway. Ahem. Back on topic... me.

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

Anyway. Ahem. Back on topic... me.

Ok, let's get this back on track.

It was a balmy midsummers evening when I first met Dades. As the sun set, casting a golden hue across the azure sky, his muscular frame was silhouetted against the pastoral canvas...

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Look at science where we have the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the theory of electro magnetism etc. No matter how sure they are these theories never get upgraded to fact. Until something is 100% proven or disproven it is only prudent to leave some shred of a possibility that you might be wrong, however small

Theories don't get upgraded to fact because of some sort of small, inherent doubt about their veracity; they don't get upgraded to "facts" because they are two different concepts:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

So a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon based on the known facts.

E.g. The "law" of gravity is a scientific "fact" that bodies of mass attract each other, but there are different theories of gravity that attempt to explain how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. In this way, gravity is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. (same for Evolution also)

CerebralCortex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ok, let's get this back on track.

It was a balmy midsummers evening when I first met Dades. As the sun set, casting a golden hue across the azure sky, his muscular frame was silhouetted against the pastoral canvas...

If there was a "raised eyebrow" smiley I'd use it.

Dades

CerebralCortex wrote: »

If there was a "raised eyebrow" smiley I'd use it.

This one works for me.

:eek:

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

This one works for me.

:eek:

Fanny Cradock

I'm guessing it's all down to the Christian/ atheist humour divide.

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

Theories don't get upgraded to fact because of some sort of small, inherent doubt about their veracity; they don't get upgraded to "facts" because they are two different concepts:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

So a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon based on the known facts.

E.g. The "law" of gravity is a scientific "fact" that bodies of mass attract each other, but there are different theories of gravity that attempt to explain how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. In this way, gravity is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. (same for Evolution also)

This is true but it doesn't really change the point I was making. It was just an example. Although I think that to say evolution is both a theory and a fact might be slightly misleading. Animals have been observed to gradually change over time, that is a fact but it is not necessarily by the process which we call evolution. The theory might be completely wrong which would require us to come up with a new theory to explain the fact and so the process of gradually changing would on longer be called evolution.

But for brevities sake it's just as good to say it's both a theory and a fact

sink

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm guessing it's all down to the Christian/ atheist humour divide.

I don't know I got some lolz out of it.

Fanny Cradock

sink wrote: »

I don't know I got some lolz out of it.

Thanks. I'll be here all week.

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Although I think that to say evolution is both a theory and a fact might be slightly misleading. Animals have been observed to gradually change over time, that is a fact but it is not necessarily by the process which we call evolution. The theory might be completely wrong which would require us to come up with a new theory to explain the fact and so the process of gradually changing would on longer be called evolution.

There's a whole article on it in Wikipedia:
"First, the "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experimentations. Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur. Misuse and misunderstanding of how these terms are applied to evolution have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of evolution."

Unfortunately, the different connotations to the word "theory" between the everyday and the scientific causes a lot of confusion.

Anyway, we're so far off topic now. I think. Wait, what's the topic again?

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Thanks. I'll be here all week.

We know

Flamed Diving

Any religious folk here who have gripes with their holy book?

Fanny Cradock

Not so much with the bible, but more with how people choose to interpret it. While I think that an honest investigation into certain disputed passages can lead to a unified understanding (more or less) this sadly isn't always the case.

Flamed Diving

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not so much with the bible, but more with how people choose to interpret it. While I think that an honest investigation into certain disputed passages can lead to a unified understanding (more or less) this sadly isn't always the case.

There has to be something, though. It's a lengthy book, of disputed origin and accuracy. In addition, you have to question the moral consistency, in parts.

Surely you have some issue with it's contents? Even a passage?

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

There's a whole article on it in Wikipedia:

I know about the wiki article, I've read it. I still think that technically saying evolution is a fact is wrong because evolution is the name of the theory which does not necessarily fit the facts

Now what was the point again :P

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass the problem with this thread is that you have outlined mainly ideological differences in Christianity that you disagree with. For an Atheist to do likewise we would first need an ideology to form opinions on, which we don't.

For me to even attempt to reply would mean I'd have to start looking at individual traits of Atheists I've met or know that I disagree with or dislike. Chances are the traits that I would not like would span outside of Atheists and across all kinds of people.

Joe Atheist may like to get up on his soapbox in the town square, bend over and proceed to talk out of his ass, a la Ace Ventura, about how religion is all a delusion. I may not agree with his method but it does not impact on me in the slightest, I see myself Atheist like I also see myself Irish.

This being said, the only gripe I have with Atheists, and it's one I have with nationalists also is those that think we have some ideology to live by. Those who think we should be converting theists by biting our tongue or watching how we might be perceived as arrogant or pompous so as not to scare off a ripe convert. Those who think it is our duty to show ourselves as equally or more so moral than theists.

I don't care if the Irish language dies out and I don't care if Theists won't give up the goat because they listened to Hitchens and found him arrogant. Nothing gets under my skin more than when I read something like "You're Irish/Atheist and you should be..."

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know about the wiki article, I've read it. I still think that technically saying evolution is a fact is wrong because evolution is the name of the theory which does not necessarily fit the facts

Are you secretly a creationist?!

What you're saying is that you don't like the generally accepted scientific nomenclature? Because the article is pretty transparent...

1) Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change.
2) Organisms changing generation to generation is called "evolution".
3) Evolution is a fact.

"The explanation of the fact of evolution provided by the modern evolutionary synthesis is the latest and most widely accepted Theory of Evolution."

in exactly the same way that:

"Einstein's explanation of the fact of gravity is called The General theory of relativity."

dvpower

@robindch, @Sam Vimes
Sorry to harp on about this but are you sure you're reading the same edition of The God Delusion as me?

Dawkins says:

The God Delusion wrote:

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicised cases of sexual abuse by catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage of bringing the child up catholic in the first place.

He continues:

The God Delusion wrote:

It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience.

I don't consider this sentence or anything he says later as a retraction of his claim of his statement that "the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage of bringing the child up catholic in the first place". He does add this a few pages later:

The God Delusion wrote:

I am persuaded that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven sins in an eternal hell

In an article in the Dubliner magazine, (and I hope this is misreporting), he is reported as saying:

Dubliner Magazine wrote:

I can't speak about the really grave sexual abuse that obviously happens sometimes, which actually causes violent physical pain to the altar boy or whoever it is, but I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild - a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage. Being taught about hell – being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that – is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse.

I consider all of this language objectionable. Others may take a different view.

I was very surprised to read this:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You missed the bit where he said it was a flippant comment that he hadn't thought through and he was very surprised that it got an applause

I did miss the bit where it said it was a flippant comment. I'm still missing it. He did say it was off-the-cuff and heat of the moment. If he didn't mean what he said, he could have taken the opportunity to make this crystal clear.

This I thought was disproportionate:

robindch wrote: »

Yes, such comments as printed are as unhelpful as they are stupid, but it's no less unhelpful or stupid to claim that this is what Dawkins actually believes, when it is clearly not what Dawkins believes.

This I just didn't get:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you're going to give an example of harsh language, pick a different one because he specifically acknowledged that it was overly harsh by saying that it was and spur of the moment comment which should not have been applauded.

Maybe I'm reading an old edition of the book. In my edition Dawkins does not say the comment should not have been applauded. Indeed, he tempers his surprise at the applause by saying the audience were 'composed, admittedly, of Dublin intellectuals and presumably not representative of the country at large'.

And then this:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He printed it specifically to correct himself and dvpower is using it as an example of harshness. If anything it's an example of apologising for previous harshness

@Sam. How on earth do you discern this? For an atheist, your supernatural powers are strong.

Sam Vimes

I was paraphrasing him, I know he didn't use the exact word flippant. Flippant and off the cuff have pretty much the same meaning in this context
. I see it as acknowledging that the remark was overly harsh but you can believe whatever you want

I see nothing harsh in the dubliner article and in fact I agree with him. Telling a child that their friends whose parents don't believe in the same imaginary friend as the childs own parents are going to burn for all eternity is what I find objectionable

I suppose you think it's objectionable because you think hell is real. Do you think you'd be as supportive of telling children about it and having them believe you if you thought it was all a fairy tale?

dvpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I see nothing harsh in the dubliner article and in fact I agree with him.

So, being fondled by a priest is lower down on the scale of child abuse than being indoctrinated with (a fire and brimstone) hell? If that's what you think, then I guess its a subjective thing.

The vast majority of the people in Ireland, certainly ouside the younger generation, were indoctrinated with the fire and brimstone hell. I have to wonder how many would consider this as child abuse at all? How many would swap this experience for 'a little bit of fondling'?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Telling a child that their friends whose parents don't believe in the same imaginary friend as the childs own parents are going to burn for all eternity is what I find objectionable

I couldn't agree more.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I suppose you think it's objectionable because you think hell is real. Do you think you'd be as supportive of telling children about it and having them believe you if you thought it was all a fairy tale?

I don't think hell is real. I do think hell is all a fairy tale.
I both object to indoctinating children with the idea of a fire and brimstone hell and I object to the language used comparing this indoctrination with child abuse because I think it is gratuitous.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

There has to be something, though. It's a lengthy book, of disputed origin and accuracy. In addition, you have to question the moral consistency, in parts.

There is actually quite a large uniformity between the Old Testament and the New Testament and where passages have been fulfilled Jesus makes it clear.

For example:
In Matthew 6 when Jesus refers to not praying with many words, he is infact repeating previous Jewish thinking on the subject as discussed by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 5:2.

There are numerous other examples of this. Paul reiterates a lot of teaching from the Torah and from Proverbs.

Most attacks on the Bible don't actually involve much consideration on the part of the one attacking it.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Surely you have some issue with it's contents? Even a passage?

I don't think so no if one seeks to understand it correctly instead of distorting it to say something other than what it says.

Flamed Diving

I won't get drawn into how subjective interpretation is, no matter what you are judging. I just find it interesting that not one of you can think of a single criticism of that book.

Not one.

Dave!

I think it's more the case that you'll distort the bad parts to comply with your own morality through whatever Sophistry and self-deception is necessary

Some chap in Bill Maher's doc Religulous says "what the Bible MEANT to say..."

Kind of relevant

Sam Vimes

dvpower wrote: »

So, being fondled by a priest is lower down on the scale of child abuse than being indoctrinated with (a fire and brimstone) hell? If that's what you think, then I guess its a subjective thing.

They're both pretty bad things. Perhaps he was using hyperbole to make a point, no?

As you've read the book I'm sure you'll remember his example of the girl who actually said that she was far more affected by the thought of her protestant friend who had died burning in hell than by the fondling she received? And how Dawkins was subject to a bit of fondling himself?

dvpower wrote: »

The vast majority of the people in Ireland, certainly ouside the younger generation, were indoctrinated with the fire and brimstone hell. I have to wonder how many would consider this as child abuse at all? How many would swap this experience for 'a little bit of fondling'?

That depends on how many actually believed it and were affected by it, only to realise later that it was not real. Someone who always believes it will never consider it child abuse, they will see it as saving their soul. I'm sure you'll find an awful lot of people who were raised in households were such fear was used as a means of control who now resent their parents. People who never had it forced down their throats and never really believed it will of course not see it as abuse.

Sam Vimes

Dave! wrote: »

Some chap in Bill Maher's doc Religulous says "what the Bible MEANT to say..."

Kind of relevant

That's one of the things I find most annoying. Anything that fits with society's current sense of morality is to be taken literally but anything that doesn't fit with our morality but fit in perfectly back then like the guy who sent his daughter out to be raped in lieu of an angel because of his objection to sodomy has a long winded explanation of how it's symbolic or a metaphor or some other BS.

Or if you find a problem in a passage, another passage is quoted that contradicts the first one, as if the fact that it contradicts each other all over the place is a good thing

philologos

I'd argue that many of the morals we seem to hold are incredibly unpopular in society in reality. However popularity isn't what comes first for me.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue that many of the morals we seem to hold are incredibly unpopular in society in reality. However popularity isn't what comes first for me.

Many of them are indeed unpopular in certain sections of society but your group believe them nonetheless. They are very popular among the people whose opinions you respect and with the people who taught you your moral code.

Society isn't one large hive mind with one unanimous opinion, there are pockets that all have different opinions. The one thing that can be said of all of these opinions is that they are not solely based on the bible. They are in all cases independent of the bible, otherwise you would not see anything wrong with sending your daughter out to be raped

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Many of them are indeed unpopular in certain sections of society but your group believe them nonetheless. They are very popular among the people whose opinions you respect and with the people who taught you your moral code.

I've explained this before. Much of what I learned was through personal reading of the Bible. I didn't have much knowledge at all until I did this.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Society isn't one large hive mind with one unanimous opinion, there are pockets that all have different opinions. The one thing that can be said of all of these opinions is that they are not solely based on the bible. They are in all cases independent of the bible, otherwise you would not see anything wrong with sending your daughter out to be raped

I'm quite aware of this. How are they in all cases independent of the Bible when I have done actions in the past that I now currently do not do because of my beliefs? I agree with you in that we have a sense of right and wrong without Christianity or the Bible, I do not agree that my morals would be the same without the Bible or Christianity though.

As for that incident of sending out the daughter to be raped, there is no consent from God, or no support from God indicated in the text. Interesting your leave out that. The Bible teaches us about the sins of others (e.g King David and adultery, Lot and incest etc) so as to discourage us from doing them.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained this before. Much of what I learned was through personal reading of the Bible. I didn't have much knowledge at all until I did this.

I'm quite aware of this. How are they in all cases independent of the Bible when I have done actions in the past that I now currently do not do because of my beliefs? I agree with you in that we have a sense of right and wrong without Christianity or the Bible, I do not agree that my morals would be the same without the Bible or Christianity though.

Here I would bring in the phrase "Good people will tend to do good things and bad people will tend to do bad things but in order for good people to do bad things, you need religion".

I never said that your morals would be the same without the bible, I'm sure they wouldn't be. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong that is defined by their peers and to a large extent by genetics. You have overridden your natural sense of morality because of what it says in the bible but even you would not follow everything the bible says to the letter because you still have this natural sense which is independent of the bible.

I'm basically making the point that morality does not come from the bible, it comes from your peers, which may or may not have been partially influenced by the bible

Jakkass wrote: »

As for that incident of sending out the daughter to be raped, there is no consent from God, or no support from God indicated in the text. Interesting your leave out that. The Bible teaches us about the sins of others (e.g King David and adultery, Lot and incest etc) so as to discourage us from doing them.

I didn't see an active condemnation of the act either and there were angels there who didn't do much to stop it iirc. Was the point of this story not to show the evils of Sodomy and that it was better to allow your daughter to be raped than allow it to happen?