"no, I'm actually an athiest"

marco_polo

Is Richard Dawkins really that hard to avoid, are some people limited to Channel 4 as their only tv station and local bookshops that only stock his writings? Unless he is actively calling around to peoples houses trying to deconvert them I fail to see how he is 'ramming it' down anybodys throat.

If he really is the most objectionable face of Atheisim then things cannot be all that bad.

Sam Vimes

My name is URL wrote: »

The other thing that irks me about the more vocal of Atheists is that some appear to almost relish the idea that bad things happen within the church.. as true as that is, pointing it out and pinning it on individual believers is a bit much. Attack the Pope, not the parishioners!

In fairness that happens in all walks of life. when the Richard Dawkins forum was taken down over some argument with the site administrators one of the mods of the christianity forum admitted fighting feelings of schadenfreude about it.

My name is URL wrote: »

I think the unrelenting nature of those on both sides is what annoys me. You say yourself that you can only go so far to try and persuade someone to look at evidence, so why go beyond that point when it's obvious that the people you're trying to persuade have no interest in changing their minds?

Why do I need to respond in any way that suggests that God doesn't exist. I'm an Atheist, I reject the belief that God exists, but have no interest in trying to change the minds of those who want to believe. If people are interested in the evidence which reinforces the reasons why it's unlikely that God exists then I'll link to it and allow them to make up their own minds on how they interpret it.

Or when someone says that the belief in a God gives them strength, others jump on it and call them weak, insecure or simply pathetic. Tearing down someone's way of dealing with life is not an attack on religion.. it's an attack on that person.

I'm only speaking in general terms here, and not trying to suggest that you or anyone else in the thread displayed those things

Tbh that pretty much looks like my second suggestion "Atheists shouldn't say anything at all because people will inevitably get offended". Would you disagree that the only way for an atheist to avoid being branded as arrogant and unbearable by your definition is to never mention atheism or the thought processes that led them to it?

For example, if someone says that belief in god gives them strength, it's logically valid to respond by saying "the fact that something gives you stregth doesn't make it true". Should atheists just shut up because people find their entire viewpoint inherently offensive?

AudreyHepburn

optogirl wrote: »

My point is that you call it your 'faith' yet you think the teachings are wrong. I don't get that and couldn't be a member of a club with rules and teachings I fundamentally disagreed with

I'm not getting involved in this argument again. I did once before and it was nothing but trouble.

What I will say I can't remember the last time I went to a mass where the priest preached any of the things you mentioned. Actually I never have been to such a service.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Should atheists just shut up because people find their entire viewpoint inherently offensive?

Once again a gross misrepresentation of the majority of non-atheist contributors to this thread, and IMO in life in general. I don't know anyone who finds atheism inherently offensive.

Scanlas The 2nd

Bookworm85 wrote: »

@Shenshen,Scanlas The 2nd & thebigbiffo

Okay, maybe aggressive is the wrong word to be using, and I will admit that Dawkins has done more for the atheist community in the last 10 years than anybody else I can think of. But I hate to see this man being 'worshipped' by the atheists all over the world.

Mention the word atheist to anybody, and more than likely the first person that will pop into their minds is Dawkins. The man is everywhere and has turned into something of a media whore. He is quickly being associated with everything atheist, and I don't 'connect' with this man on many levels. The idea that we should aspire to be like him just doesn't sit well with me.

Who's saying you should aspire to be like him?

I don't want to be like him, I just happen to agree with a lot of his beliefs and admire his reasoning.

AudreyHepburn

marco_polo wrote: »

Is Richard Dawkins really that hard to avoid, are some people limited to Channel 4 as their only tv station and local bookshops that only stock his writings? Unless he is actively calling around to peoples houses trying to deconvert them I fail to see how he is 'ramming it' down anybodys throat.

If he really is the most objectionable face of Atheisim then things cannot be all that bad.

A legitimate question although I asked the same question about the Angelus recently and was told I was missing the point completely. So I be careful where and who you ask such questions.

Noreen1

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

So basically if what the Book says doesn't fit the point you're trying to make or what you want it to say, you can just use a bit of poetic licence and reinterpret it as you wish?

:eek: No. It is accepted that during certain periods of time, particular writing styles were dominant. During some of these periods, it was permissable for authors to use "poetic licence" to over-dramatise an accepted fact - such as the period of time it took Moses to lead the people out of Egypt, coupled with an exaggeration of "impassable marsh" to "sea".
A bit like the ballads about Irish heroes, for example.

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Is there an official list somewhere of what parts of the Bible (down to the chapter/verse level) are 'poetic licence' and what is to be taken literally?? I'm genuinely interested.

Not that I know of. There are a lot of sources within Catholic (and, almost undoubtedly, Protestant) literature, that refer to individual events/periods of time, but, to my knowledge, they haven't been combined into an individual list.
I'd have to do about a years worth of reading (if not more) to even come up with a list of the references I've found during my lifetime - and I genuinely don't have that amount of time available. I suspect it might take two or three lifetimes to combine a comprehensive list, though the reference material will definitely be available in the Vatican archives.

Just to add to the complexity, some of the Bible is regarded as a History of the Jewish people, rather than definitive teaching........ Other parts are "laws" adhered to by a people during a given period in time.
So, though people X may have slaughtered people Y - it doesn't follow that God told them to do it............ and Christians are expressly prohibited from doing any such thing.

Then there's the "teaching" part. That's the part that pretty much all Christians are meant to try to adhere to.

Complicated, isn't it?

Noreen

AudreyHepburn

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Should atheists just shut up because people find their entire viewpoint inherently offensive?

That's not what we're saying at all, and you know it.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

It's like this, let's say there are two boxes on a table, one blue one red one of which you could choose. It would admirable enough for someone to come along and tell people to think for themselves, not to be influenced etc. That's fine. If Dawkins did that I would have no issue with the man.

What's disingenuous is to claim that that is what Dawkins does, when concurrently with telling people not to be swayed to either red and blue, he informs you that people who choose red are deluded, misguided, blinkered fools. It is just as much a case of influencing the choice.

Perfectly fine from Dawkins: Believe in god(s) etc or don't. Personally I don't. The choice is there.

Rubbish from Dawkins: Believe in god(s) etc or don't. Personally I don't, because people who do are x, y and z.

Yes, if all Dawkins did was insult people then you would have a point but when Dawkins uses the word "deluded" and then spends an entire book defending his use of the term through argumentation that's not really the same thing. Dawkins' does not have a problem with the principle of influencing decisions, that's the whole point of debate, it's with arguments from authority where someone is told what to believe and not told why they should believe it. saying something like "X argument is flawed because Y and Z" is fine but saying "X is true and if you don't believe it you will go to hell" isn't

Shenshen

Bookworm85 wrote: »

@Shenshen,Scanlas The 2nd & thebigbiffo

Okay, maybe aggressive is the wrong word to be using, and I will admit that Dawkins has done more for the atheist community in the last 10 years than anybody else I can think of. But I hate to see this man being 'worshipped' by the atheists all over the world.

Mention the word atheist to anybody, and more than likely the first person that will pop into their minds is Dawkins. The man is everywhere and has turned into something of a media whore. He is quickly being associated with everything atheist, and I don't 'connect' with this man on many levels. The idea that we should aspire to be like him just doesn't sit well with me.

To be honest, it would appear to me more a case of the religious community identifying all atheists with him, not so much all atheists hanging on his lips for his wisdom.
I agree with a lot he says, and I disagree with a lot as well. I have a lot of respect for him exactly for NOT being arrogant and obnoxious, but for keeping his calm more than I would be able to and to keep asking and arguing.

That said, I simply loath the attitude some religious people take towards him, with an eye on insulting the "atheists community" (as if there ever could be such a thing to begin with!!!) and to project his views onto all atheists.
It not only shows a sad lack of understanding of what atheism is, but also a rather annoying childishness in the continual wish to insult without bothering to inform oneself first.

Sam Vimes

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That's not what we're saying at all, and you know it.

That appears to be what My Name is URL is saying: "Why do I need to respond in any way that suggests that God doesn't exist. I'm an Atheist, I reject the belief that God exists, but have no interest in trying to change the minds of those who want to believe". What is that if not "shut up because no one wants to hear that their beliefs might be wrong, even if they are"?

AudreyHepburn

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That appears to be what My Name is URL is saying: "Why do I need to respond in any way that suggests that God doesn't exist. I'm an Atheist, I reject the belief that God exists, but have no interest in trying to change the minds of those who want to believe". What is that if not "shut up because no one wants to hear that their beliefs might be wrong, even if they are"?

Actually what it says to me is each to their own, and URL has no interest in telling anyone they are wrong or changing their minds.

Sam Vimes

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A legitimate question although I asked the same question about the Angelus recently and was told I was missing the point completely. So I be careful where and who you ask such questions.

I don't have a problem with the angelus personally but in fairness the opinions of one man are not the same as endorsement of a particular religious view by a supposedly secular state

Shenshen

prinz wrote: »

Perfectly fine from Dawkins: Believe in god(s) etc or don't. Personally I don't. The choice is there.

Rubbish from Dawkins: Believe in god(s) etc or don't. Personally I don't, because people who do are x, y and z.

You know, all I ever read by him so far is pretty much what you've got in line 1 there.
Can you please tell me where he wrote anything like what you summarised in line 2?

Scanlas The 2nd

prinz wrote: »

It's like this, let's say there are two boxes on a table, one blue one red one of which you could choose. It would admirable enough for someone to come along and tell people to think for themselves, not to be influenced etc. That's fine. If Dawkins did that I would have no issue with the man.

What's disingenuous is to claim that that is what Dawkins does, when concurrently with telling people not to be swayed to either red and blue, he informs you that people who choose red are deluded, misguided, blinkered fools. It is just as much a case of influencing the choice.

Perfectly fine from Dawkins: Believe in god(s) etc or don't. Personally I don't. The choice is there.

Rubbish from Dawkins: Believe in god(s) etc or don't. Personally I don't, because people who do are x, y and z.

He says people are deluded for believing in God and has been pretty thorough why he believes that. He's not a hateful man. I doubt he'd have any problem being friends with theists and get a long fine even though both would think the other is deluded. I think the problem here is people are very sensitive to being told they are wrong or deluded about something. I'm best of friends with people who I think are deluded about God and they think I'm deluded. It's not a big deal.

optogirl

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A legitimate question although I asked the same question about the Angelus recently and was told I was missing the point completely. So I be careful where and who you ask such questions.

Dawkins doesn't speak for a minute before the main evening news every day!

Sam Vimes

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Actually what it says to me is each to their own, and URL has no interest in telling anyone they are wrong or changing their minds.

Right, so how is that different to saying that atheists should keep their opinions to themselves? He's not saying that we can speak as long as we're polite, his point amounts to saying that there is no way an atheist can express an opinion about atheism without offending

marco_polo

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A legitimate question although I asked the same question about the Angelus recently and was told I was missing the point completely. So I be careful where and who you ask such questions.

If Channel 4 was a state broadcaster and I was forced to pay a 'tax' to subsidise it financially then you may have the bones of a decent analogy there.

But lets not go down that road on this thread,

AudreyHepburn

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the angelus personally but in fairness the opinions of one man are not the same as endorsement of a particular religious view by a supposedly secular state

I disagree but that wasn't my point.

My point was merely that if athiests find it so hard to ignore 60 seconds of tv why should it be seen as any easier for believers to ignore a Dawkins program.

Or conversely if Dawkins can have entire programes about how deluded religion is why can't believers have 60 seconds a day to reflect?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That appears to be what My Name is URL is saying: "Why do I need to respond in any way that suggests that God doesn't exist. I'm an Atheist, I reject the belief that God exists, but have no interest in trying to change the minds of those who want to believe". What is that if not "shut up because no one wants to hear that their beliefs might be wrong, even if they are"?

I don't think that's what My Name is URL is saying at all.

AudreyHepburn

optogirl wrote: »

Dawkins doesn't speak for a minute before the main evening news every day!

No he gets hour long programs to speak.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I disagree but that wasn't my point.

My point was merely that if athiests find it so hard to ignore 60 seconds of tv why should it be seen as any easier for believers to ignore a Dawkins program.

Or conversely if Dawkins can have entire programes about how deluded religion is why can't believers have 60 seconds a day to reflect?

Believers have entire programs on Channel4 as well, see their recent documentary series about the 10 commandements.

AudreyHepburn

marco_polo wrote: »

If Channel 4 was a state broadcaster and I was forced to pay a 'tax' to subsidise it financially then you may have the bones of a decent analogy there.

But lets not go down that road on this thread,

Sorry Marco, I wasn't trying to start an arguement or anything!:)

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No he gets hour long programs to speak.

So do religious people. Your point?

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

I don't think that's what My Name is URL is saying at all.

My name is URL wrote: »

Why do I need to respond in any way that suggests that God doesn't exist. I'm an Atheist, I reject the belief that God exists, but have no interest in trying to change the minds of those who want to believe.

The act of trying to change someone's mind is what he has a problem with. Not with how the opinion is expressed but with the mere act of expressing the opinion.

Unless of course he's just saying that his personal preference is that he has no interest in it and he is not suggesting that there is anything wrong with it or that others shouldn't do it?

prinz

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's not a big deal.

Call me deluded if you want, water off a duck's.... accuse me of child abuse if I include future kids in my religious beliefs is not. Insult my intelligence is not.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

So do religious people. Your point?

Lets not go down this road again. This isn't what this thread is for as Marco said.

optogirl

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No he gets hour long programs to speak.

Why shouldn't he?! Your analogy really doesn't stand up - you cannot compare the Angelus to an informative documentary or any program for that matter.

If the bible is to be believed Jesus spend half his life pontificating and telling others what to believe.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The act of trying to change someone's mind is what he has a problem with. Not with how the opinion is expressed but with the mere act of expressing the opinion.

Appears to me that he has no interest in doing it, and doesn't paticularly understand the driving force behind some people who seem to have an interest in doing little else.

optogirl

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The act of trying to change someone's mind is what he has a problem with. Not with how the opinion is expressed but with the mere act of expressing the opinion.

isn't that what Jesus supposedly spent his life doing?