Richard Dawkins

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I didn't say that every person who is religious has wasted their life, what I said was that someone giving up on their chosen career because of...

I fail to see how the pursuit of happiness is a waste of a life - regardless if that happiness is sought from a lie or collection there of. It's their life to do with what they want.

Aggressively trying to convert someone by disrespecting their personal beliefs is wrong in my eyes - be that attempting to convert someone to a religion, or from a religion.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

I fail to see how the pursuit of happiness is a waste of a life

Why are you assuming the guy is happy?

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

Why are you assuming the guy is happy?

Why do you think?

You'd assume someone would change their chosen career in order to make themselves unhappy?

Eitherways, supposing he's not happy - the salient point stands, but I guess you'd much rather ignore that.

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

I fail to see how the pursuit of happiness is a waste of a life - regardless if that happiness is sought from a lie or collection there of. It's their life to do with what they want.

Ths thing is that in this case it wasn't the pursuit of happiness. He wanted to be a scientist but he was forced to choose between his particular interpretation of the bible and his chosen career. It was a false dilemma that he would not have faced had he even been born in, say, Ireland, where the bible is viewed in a different way so that there is much less conflict with science than where this guy was raised (he was raised in the bible belt of America iirc)

Zulu wrote: »

Aggressively trying to convert someone by disrespecting their personal beliefs is wrong in my eyes - be that attempting to convert someone to a religion, or from a religion.

I like how you threw in the word agressively. What if I didn't do it aggressively, what if I did it through persuasion and reason?


Also, there are an awful lot of people in the world today who honestly believe that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with having sex with children. Would you view it as wrong to attempt to convert them from this personal belief, aggressively or not?

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

Why do you think?

You'd assume someone would change their chosen career in order to make themselves unhappy?

Eitherways, supposing he's not happy - the salient point stands, but I guess you'd much rather ignore that.

No I assume someone would change their chosen career because they believe their religion wants them to and they believe their religion is true

I also believe this could make them quite unhappy. Which is a shame if it turns out their religion is nonsense.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I didn't say that every person who is religious has wasted their life, what I said was that someone giving up on their chosen career because of the particular interpretation of the particular holy book that happens to be the most popular in the place where they were raised is a shameful waste...

Ghandi trained as a lawyer. Mandela trained as a lawyer. They both left their chosen careers in order to do what they believed to be the right thing to do. What a shameful waste.

If a qualified dentist decides he'd rather be a clown in a circus would that be a waste?

Seems to me that the only thing that makes it a waste is a religious aspect. Which to be honest is just intolerant. You don't really care whether this man is happy or not, but you still write him off as having wasted his life.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Ghandi trained as a lawyer. Mandela trained as a lawyer. They both left their chosen careers in order to do what they believed to be the right thing to do. What a shameful waste.

If a qualified dentist decides he'd rather be a clown in a circus would that be a waste?

Seems to me that the only thing that makes it a waste is a religious aspect. Which to be honest is just intolerant. You don't really care whether this man is happy or not, but you still write him off as having wasted his life.

Ghandi did great good for his country, as did Mandela. What they did served a useful purpose regardless of whether their religion is true or not. This guy on the other hand gave up on his career because he thought it was what his religion required him to do. He didn't do it to make himself happy or anyone else, he did it because he thinks it will make god happy. So if it turns out that his parents picked not only the right holy book but the right interpretation of it then I'm sure he'll be delighted that he gave up on his dreams, otherwise probably not

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So if it turns out that his parents picked not only the right holy book but the right interpretation of it then I'm sure he'll be delighted that he gave up on his dreams, otherwise probably not

So this as you yourself put it "brilliant scientist" is now incapable of making up his own mind... now it's his parents fault? I wonder did anyone ask this hazily recollected man if he thought he made the right choice for himself.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ghandi did great good for his country, as did Mandela. What they did served a useful purpose regardless of whether their religion is true or not. This guy on the other hand gave up on his career because he thought it was what his religion required him to do. He didn't do it to make himself happy or anyone else, he did it because he thinks it will make god happy. So if it turns out that his parents picked not only the right holy book but the right interpretation of it then I'm sure he'll be delighted that he gave up on his dreams, otherwise probably not

Why not? If you're right, then when he dies he'll just fade into nothingness. And if he lived his life doing what he felt was right then what harm is there in that?

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

So this as you yourself put it "brilliant scientist" is now incapable of making up his own mind

Well yes, you've touched on one of the problems with some religion there, that is doesn't actually matter what you think, it's in the book, therefore it's right. The problem with the idea of divine revelation.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Why not? If you're right, then when he dies he'll just fade into nothingness. And if he lived his life doing what he felt was right then what harm is there in that?

I suppose it's that I care about people and I don't like to see them denying themselves things that they really really want to do because a book tells them they shouldn't. I object to it for the same reason I object to Jehovah's witnesses refusing blood transfusions

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I suppose it's that I care about people and I don't like to see them denying themselves things that they really really want to do because a book tells them they shouldn't. I object to it for the same reason I object to Jehovah's witnesses refusing blood transfusions

Is it that you see a decision by the parents that has curtailed this human's potential that is such a tragedy and waste of this man's life?

doctoremma

Soul Winner wrote: »

The Bible does not claim to be a scientific explanation about the universe and the world, it simply gives God the glory for creating it all in the first place and it tells us how he did it, by simply speaking it into existence.

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I like how you threw in the word agressively. What if I didn't do it aggressively, what if I did it through persuasion and reason?

I didn't throw it in there flippantly. I embrace civil conversation & debate. Arrogance & ignorance however, I don't appricate.

Also, there are an awful lot of people in the world today who honestly believe that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with having sex with children. Would you view it as wrong to attempt to convert them from this personal belief, aggressively or not?

Excuse me? Sex with minors is illegal. Put the straw man away please.

Wicknight wrote: »

No I assume someone would change their chosen career because they believe their religion wants them to and they believe their religion is true

We're talking about an adult, right? Someone whos responsible for their own actions? It's their choice to make.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

We're talking about an adult, right? Someone whos responsible for their own actions? It's their choice to make.

Yes, of course.

What does that have to do with whether they are happy or not?

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Is it that you see a decision by the parents that has curtailed this human's potential that is such a tragedy and waste of this man's life?

Now that's a loaded question if ever I heard one. The decision was in all likelihood made many generations ago, the first one of his lineage who became a christian and taught his children that it's the ultimate truth. This guy was taught that a particular interpretation of the christian god existed and he believed it. This meant that he had to choose between his career and his god with all that entails, including the whole eternal paradise thing and probably his community and family too. The question then is: would he have made the same decision if he didn't believe in that particular interpretation of the bible? And as I'm sure you'll agree the answer is almost certainly no. In comparison, Mother Teresa, Ghandi and Nelson Mandela cared deeply for their fellow man and wanted to help their people and I see no reason to think why this feeling would have been lessened had they not believed in a particular interpretation of a particular holy book.

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

I didn't throw it in there flippantly. I embrace civil conversation & debate. Arrogance & ignorance however, I don't appricate.

Right, so you have no problem with me telling somebody that I think their personal belief is flawed in some way as long as I don't do it in an arrogant or ignorant way. Great! Then we have no dispute

Zulu wrote: »

Excuse me? Sex with minors is illegal. Put the straw man away please.

So it's ok to tell someone that their personal belief is wrong if the law makers have decided that they think it's wrong? If I go to a country where christianity is illegal can I then aggressively convert christians without you viewing it as wrong?

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then we have no dispute

Well we do - remember - Dawkins & his arrogance?

So it's ok to tell someone that their personal belief is wrong if the law makers have decided that they think it's wrong?

It's ok to tell someone you think they are wrong regardless of the law.

If I go to a country where christianity is illegal can I then aggressively convert christians without you viewing it as wrong?

Thats not what I said.

What I said was:

Zulu wrote:

Aggressively trying to convert someone by disrespecting their personal beliefs is wrong in my eyes - be that attempting to convert someone to a religion, or from a religion.

Do you find that hard to accept?
Considering the topic being discussed, do you find it hard to understand the intention of the comment?
Why do you wish to bring the straw-man argument of peodiphila into it?
Can you not accept the salient point?

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

Well we do - remember - Dawkins & his arrogance?

I remember a lot of talk about it yeah. As far as I'm concerned people deserve respect but ideas don't and sometimes when faced with a ridiculous the only way to respond to it is to show how ridiculous it is. An example of this is the ever popular "you can't prove god doesn't exist" argument. It's not my fault that this is a stupid argument so when I point out that exactly the same logic can be used to justify belief in a flying spaghetti monster or any number of other ridiculous concepts, it's not my fault if they get angry and brand me as arrogant. If somebody says something stupid it's not arrogant to explain why it's stupid and as far as I'm concerned it's patronising to pretend it's not stupid lest this person throw a tantrum about having the flaws in their arguments pointed out. Having said that, it is becoming apparent that pretending you think someone's arguments have some merit may well be the only way to get them to realise they don't because if you're too honest with them they think you're arrogant and stop listening

Zulu wrote: »

Thats not what I said.

What I said was:

yes you did say that at some stage but wasn't what I was responding to at the time

Zulu wrote: »

Do you find that hard to accept?
Considering the topic being discussed, do you find it hard to understand the intention of the comment?
Why do you wish to bring the straw-man argument of peodiphila into it?
Can you not accept the salient point?

You said it was wrong to aggressively try to change someone's personal beliefs so I asked if it's wrong to aggressively change the beliefs of a paedophile. The point is that there are cases where it is acceptable and when that is is a matter of opinion

But anyway, the thing here is that I really don't consider Dawkins all that aggressive. The only example I recall from the thread is a reference to "faith heads" which I only recall him mentioning as a particularly ardent subset of believers who he did not expect his book to have any effect on. As far as I'm concerned, in a lot of cases (but possibly not all) he's just approaching these arguments with a directness that we're not used to seeing being applied to religion. As has been said, if he was a politician he'd be lauded for it. Can you give some examples of what you considered aggressive?

Edit: hitchens, now he's aggressive

equivariant

Morbert wrote: »

Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion..

His stuff about philosophical arguments for God's existence: Quite good.
His stuff about Christian beliefs and morality: Not so much.

exactly the opposite of this, imo

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not my fault that...
it's not my fault if they get angry and brand me as arrogant.

Well, you see, it kinda is.
Diplomacy is an art from, and the language we use can be either diplomatic or not. Referring to something as a "brain fail" or "stupid" is going to provoke a negative reaction. You know this, and use it too effect, that effect is however your fault.

Dawkins could choose to make his arguments without provoking this reaction. His points can be perfectly succinct, and clearly obvious to those listening. His starts to loose people like myself once he chooses to intentionally insult those who are too ignorant or too fundamentally challenged to accept his points or those he just hasn't convinced.
The last 10% is always the hardest to get, but choosing to ridicule them just makes him unpalatable to a lot of other people.

Have you ever watched Louis Theroux? There is a fantastic example of how you can prove your point, exceptionally well, without insulting the "opposition". Now I understand I'm comparing an interviewer to a scientist, which isn't an exactly fair, however, the salient point here is in use of diplomacy.

And note: I'm not saying Dawkins (& other scientists) should be bound by diplomacy, however, we are all required to interact socially, and if one wishes to communicate successfully with a broader range, it's necessary.

If somebody says something stupid it's not arrogant to explain why it's stupid

No of course it's not. The arrogance come into it when we look at how one explains it as "stupid", and the deliberate use of the word "stupid". Why not explaine the "short commings" or "flaws" in the point? Unless one is looking to provkoe a reaction or insult.

yes you did say that at some stage but wasn't what I was responding to at the time

I understand that, you were building a straw man.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now that's a loaded question if ever I heard one.

Indeed. Just another little area in which Dawkins is thinking is flawed.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This meant that he had to choose between his career and his god with all that entails, including the whole eternal paradise thing and probably his community and family too. The question then is: would he have made the same decision if he didn't believe in that particular interpretation of the bible?

Almost certainly not. Would Martin Luther King be the man we know of today if he didn't believe in a particular interpretation of the Bible? Would Desmond Tutu? Would Lech Walensa be the man he is if he didn't believe in something? We could play this game all day. People believe in things, what they believe to be true and right informs the decisions they make. For every one brilliant scientist who 'wasted' his opportunity there IMO are probably hundreds more who are seizing it be it in science, music, art, law, education, healthcare etc etc, and they too have beliefs.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And as I'm sure you'll agree the answer is almost certainly no. In comparison, Mother Teresa, Ghandi and Nelson Mandela cared deeply for their fellow man and wanted to help their people and I see no reason to think why this feeling would have been lessened had they not believed in a particular interpretation of a particular holy book.

You have no reason to think it, simply because you don't want to acknowledge it. That's your pre-decided default setting if you will. Me, I don't know, maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Only one of us is using our own beliefs/state of being, to inform us of an unknowable outcome.

prinz

Zulu wrote: »

Have you ever watched Louis Theroux? There is a fantastic example of how you can prove your point, exceptionally well, without insulting the "opposition". Now I understand I'm comparing an interviewer to a scientist, which isn't an exactly fair, however, the salient point here is in use of diplomacy..

+1 on Louis Theroux, I would also add Jon Ronson http://www.amazon.com/Them-Adventures-Extremists-Jon-Ronson/dp/0743227077 as an example of an author who can write about people he sees as odd, extreme, wrong etc, but can still manage to do it by just laying out the facts of each case. Not insults, not derogatory comments, not blanket statements.. he just states the facts and leaves it to the reader to form an opinion.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Not insults, not derogatory comments, not blanket statements.. he just states the facts and leaves it to the reader to form an opinion.

Yeah but that only works because he picks the most crazy people to interview.

They hang themselves so to speak, he doesn't have to say a word. It wouldn't work so well if what they were saying to Theroux came across on initial inspection to be perfectly reasonable by standards of mainstream society. You don't see Theroux interviewing David Cameron, it would just end up being a PR coup.

And this then allows a religious people like yourself think "Oh what crazy people. Obviously I'm nothing like them" I very much doubt anyone has changed to atheism because of Theroux

The goals are completely different, so why compare the too?

In fact you would wonder what the point of Theroux's documentaries apart from having a sneaky, some what intellectual, laugh at the expense of crazy people. There is nothing really beyond that. Its just a modern day version of a freak show.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

In fact you would wonder what the point of Theroux's Dawkins documentaries apart from having a sneaky, some what intellectual, laugh at the expense of crazy religious people. There is nothing really beyond that. Its just a modern day version of a freak show.

There is really not that much different in a lot of what Dawkins comes out with at all.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but that only works because he picks the most crazy people to interview..

..and what you like to take examples of mainstream Christians to make your points? Nope, you excel in taking the fringes and using that to construct a blanket argument against all of Christianity.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

There is really not that much different in a lot of what Dawkins comes out with at all.

What, you think Theroux is trying to rid the world of UFO speaking ministers? :pac:

Dawkins has already given his point.

What ever you think about Dawkins methods he has a goal, a reason for doing it, that is a bit more than laughing at people.

That seems to be the only purpose of Theroux's documentaries, which is why he goes out of his way to find the most bat poop crazy people to interview, because no one feel gulity or smug at laughing at them, and no one feels these crazy people's views are in anyway representative of their views.

It is much harder to tackle an entrenched mainstream belief, and you are going to piss off an awful lot more people doing so.

People like Theroux's documentaries because they are non-treating to their beliefs because they aren't the people he goes after. Theroux is not talk about people like them (or you), he is not pointing out the ridiculousness of their position.

I'm sure the Fred Phelps family found his documentary insulting but no one cares because they are crazy wackos. I guarantee that if Theroux was interview a Christian minister who was explaining the resurrection and he did his looking at the camera to signify he thinks this is nuts without saying so, mainstream Christians would be up in arms. It only works because it is not you

If Dawkins did that of course everyone would be up in arms claiming he is misrepresenting by only picking the extreme side. Go figure :pac:

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

..and what you like to take examples of mainstream Christians to make your points? Nope, you excel in taking the fringes and using that to construct a blanket argument against all of Christianity.

Er, me or Dawkins?

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but that only works because he picks the most crazy people to interview.

Well thats not true. While he does interview the extremists, he also interviews moderate people.

The goals are completely different, so why compare the too?

To prove a point about diplomacy:

Zulu wrote:

Have you ever watched Louis Theroux? There is a fantastic example of how you can prove your point, exceptionally well, without insulting the "opposition". Now I understand I'm comparing an interviewer to a scientist, which isn't an exactly fair, however, the salient point here is in use of diplomacy.

Why do you choose to ignore the salient points?

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

That seems to be the only purpose of Theroux's documentaries, which is why he goes out of his way to find the most bat poop crazy people to interview, because no one feel gulity or smug at laughing at them, and no one feels these crazy people's views are in anyway representative of their views.

Really it would almost remind me of Dawkins intentionally seeking out sections of the Bible which he can take in isolation and ridicule.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure the Fred Phelps family found his documentary insulting but no one cares because they are crazy wackos. I guarantee that if Theroux was interview a Christian minister who was explaining the resurrection and he did his looking at the camera to signify he thinks this is nuts without saying so, mainstream Christians would be up in arms. It only works because it is not you.

Quite the opposite. I would say Theroux was giving the minister his chance to explain his position. If he thinks it's bonkers so be it. He is not putting words into the minister's mouth, or prefacing all comments with this guy is a deluded faith-head, his word isn't worth anything. Check out Jon Ronson's section on the Rev Ian Paisley for a perfect example of how just letting people have their say is enough and can let the reader/viewer make up their own mind. Dawkins is unable to follow this example.

Wicknight wrote: »

If Dawkins did that of course everyone would be up in arms claiming he is misrepresenting by only picking the extreme side. Go figure :pac:

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, me or Dawkins?

Both. Dakwins took 9/11 as a reason to start his quest to kill religion, you take examples of the extremes too as an argument against the vast majority of Christians. Sam had to go to the Bible belt of America to get an example of an unnamed scientist..