You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

Tweets such as the one below I'd find obnoxious and more like the type of comment you'd here from Trump.

He's not exactly wrong though is he?

You also have shorn it of context, where he was accused of being reluctant to criticise Islam (a constant trope of "persecuted" Christians these days)

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Tweets such as the one below I'd find obnoxious and more like the type of comment you'd here from Trump.

Can't say I find anything obnoxious about it. He is talking about Islam, a set of ideas, not Muslims. You can not insult an idea.

Now you might think his conclusion is WRONG which is another conversation. You could evaluate his reasoning and highlight errors in it if you find any.

But someone coming to a conclusion that X is dangerous, or even the most dangerous thing, and therefore saying X is dangerous.... is itself not obnoxious. If you think X is dangerous, you probably should say so.

IF you think something is harmful or dangerous there is nothing wrong with saying so. Just be prepared to entertain discourse and rebuttal once you do, especially if you are wrong.

But being lambasted just for saying it? I am afraid I am not part of that "Offence Generation" just yet myself

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He's not exactly wrong though is he?

I think he is actually. Taking evil as "something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity" you'd expect someone with a background in biology to maybe plump for global warming, pandemics or the like. From a more societal perspective you might consider racism, misogyny or persecution of those poor. While these things happen in many majority Islamic countries they're by no means unique to them. Even if he'd said religious fundamentalism, I'd only half agree with him as the real underlying issue has more to do with systematic abuse of power than religious belief.

While I find the word evil rather loaded and subjective, I do find the use of broadly applied polarising "us and them" style arguments to be pernicious.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But someone coming to a conclusion that X is dangerous, or even the most dangerous thing, and therefore saying X is dangerous.... is itself not obnoxious. If you think X is dangerous, you probably should say so.

Not the same thing though, is it? Sticking a fork in a toaster is dangerous but that doesn't make toasters evil. Allowing organised religions to have excessive power within a society is similarly dangerous, which is the basic premise of secularism but that doesn't make religion evil in and of itself.

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

Calling people stupid because they hold religious beliefs that you do not or that are different to your own beliefs is pretty obnoxious in my opinion. If you accept that not discriminating against others based on their religious beliefs is a basic human right, we certainly shouldn't call people stupid on that basis. Criticising the belief itself is very different to calling someone stupid for holding that belief.

Obnoxious, and even pr1ckish as CramCycle went on to describe him, is one thing, utterly vile is much different and stronger than that. What has he done that is utterly vile?

smacl wrote: »

I disagree. When you refer to a huge group of people as stupid based on their religion, I'd consider it both discriminatory and inaccurate. I know many highly intelligent people who are also religiously inclined. While I'd argue the belief is irrational it doesn't imply the people are stupid. Religious belief doesn't confer stupidity any more than atheism confers intelligence. Many religious beliefs are deeply ingrained at a young age to the extent they become a central part of a persons identity. It is a mistake to call such people stupid.

Is he referring to them as absolutely stupid? Or stupid when it comes to the question of religion?

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Obnoxious, and even pr1ckish as CramCycle went on to describe him, is one thing, utterly vile is much different and stronger than that. What has he done that is utterly vile?


Is he referring to them as absolutely stupid? Or stupid when it comes to the question of religion?

I didn't use the term utterly vile, I said I find the guy obnoxious. If you call a person stupid it is clearly different to calling their ideas or beliefs stupid. It doesn't need any more qualification than that.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Not the same thing though, is it? Sticking a fork in a toaster is dangerous but that doesn't make toasters evil.

It is not the same thing, but I still say the same thing about it, which was my point. If you think something is dangerous, harmful, evil, toxic, damaging, or any other pernicious word you want to use..... there is nothing "obnoxious" about pointing that out. Especially if you think it is the worst example of it's kind.

The distinction I am making is between whether it is right or wrong to SAY such a thing and....

smacl wrote: »

that doesn't make religion evil in and of itself.

.... whether or not such a person is correct in what they say. Here you are arguing that it is not evil. And that's fine. Dawkins is a man of reason. IF you think his evaluation of it is erroneous, he can be reasoned with.

But it is not whether his claim is right or wrong that you called obnoxious. It was his the tweet that you took issue with as obnoxious. And it is THAT which I refer to. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with him having made that claim in that tweet. You might think the claim wrong (and I would not be in much disagreement with you, though I would call it hyperbolic more than wrong) and can explain why, but that does not make the tweet obnoxious or the person who made it any worse a person.

Hitchens and Harris both made similar claims. For example Harris said that we should be confronting bad ideas wherever we find them. In the same breath he then called Islam "The motherload of bad ideas" and Ben Afleck beside him almost had a seizure in his offence. Hitchens also called Islam the most harmful and dangerous religion there is in the world. He gave his reasons for this at the time.

People who objected also fell into two camps. Those that disagreed with them and explained why...... and those that took offence to them even having made the claim at all.

Again I think it an important distinction. The former can be reasoned with. The latter I would do nothing but tell to jog on and come back when they have a point to make.

smacl wrote: »

I didn't use the term utterly vile, I said I find the guy obnoxious. If you call a person stupid it is clearly different to calling their ideas or beliefs stupid. It doesn't need any more qualification than that.

Agreed. MY motto has long been "Insults demean only the insulter, never the target". If Dawkins called people stupid.... and I am not sure to which quote we are referring here as I missed the citation if someone made it......... then he demeans only himself in doing so.

Further he would clearly also be wrong. Some of the most intelligent people our species has ever produced.... including perhaps THE single most intelligent person our species has ever produced (Newton).... subscribed to a belief in god. Stupid they were not. Deluded maybe. Stupid no.

I like to think of it like the common cold and other viruses. Being at the pinnacle of fitness and health does not prevent you from catching the cold or viruses. Hell it might even make you MORE prone to them as you are nice ripe target.

Similarly being highly intelligent does not inoculate you against infection by memetic viruses. It may even make you more prone to it for all I know.

So no I do not think whatsoever that being religious means you are stupid.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hitchens and Harris both made similar claims. For example Harris said that we should be confronting bad ideas wherever we find them. In the same breath he then called Islam "The motherload of bad ideas" and Ben Afleck beside him almost had a seizure in his offence. Hitchens also called Islam the most harmful and dangerous religion there is in the world. He gave his reasons for this at the time.

People who objected also fell into two camps. Those that disagreed with them and explained why...... and those that took offence to them even having made the claim at all.

Again, there is a significant difference between "the most harmful and dangerous religion there is in the world" and "greatest force for evil in the world today". I'd broadly agree with the former and object strongly to the latter. The rationale here is that while I have no time for religion myself, once we restrict its undue influence in society, it isn't substantially dangerous to wider society. Thus the most dangerous religion in the world might not pose any actual danger to a robust secular society at all. Now compare that to Dawkins' statement which has no such bounds, "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today". This is divisive in the extreme. Using a word like evil as opposed to a word like dangerous creates the dichotomy of good and evil and places the Islamic world on one side of it. This plays directly into the hands of hard right racists such as Tommy Robinson, so while Islam isn't a race Islamophobia is a tool used to further a racist agenda. As I said in a previous post, I take real issue with a statement that tries to divide people into "us and them" groupings where we're clearly the good guys and they're the enemy. I'd suggest that this tactic, which is a strong favourite of the hard right, is very dangerous to our society and is clearly being employed by Richard Dawkins in this instance. On this basis I find what he is saying to be deeply objectionable.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Again, there is a significant difference between "the most harmful and dangerous religion there is in the world" and "greatest force for evil in the world today".

Again, I recognise that difference but it is not a difference that changes the point I am making. Not seeing a difference, and not seeing a difference as contextually relevant are not the same thing.

In both cases you can think the person right or wrong in their claim. But in both cases there is nothing wrong with them MAKING the claim. And that is all my point is. So when you say....

smacl wrote: »

I'd broadly agree with the former and object strongly to the latter.

.... then that is great! Object to it, and explain why you think the claim is a poor one. I agree with nearly everything you said in rebuttal of the claim in fact. But that is NOT the same as claiming MAKING the claim was "obnoxious".

Taking issue with a claim and taking issue with someone making a claim are two different things. And it is the latter I would have a problem with, not the former. There was nothing "obnoxious" about the tweet. Erroneous maybe. Not obnoxious.

smacl wrote: »

I take real issue with a statement that tries to divide people into "us and them" groupings where we're clearly the good guys and they're the enemy. I'd suggest that this tactic, which is a strong favourite of the hard right, is very dangerous to our society and is clearly being employed by Richard Dawkins in this instance.

The tweet did not do that either. At all. The tweet was against Islam, not Muslims. Too many people conflate the two. Often wilfully. Attacking a set of ideas as wrong, dangerous or evil is NOT REMOTELY the same as attacking the people who hold to those ideas. If I were to say I find the set of ideas "Evolutionary Psychology" to be the most ill informed and stupid set of ideas in all of Evolution Science I would not be creating an "us against them" between evolutionary psychologogists and other evolutionary scientists either. Quite the opposite actually, it would be me inviting them into a pan-societal discourse on the issue. Just like I Think the dangers of Islam would be best addressed by discourse between all people as a whole, without division.

That is what I meant when I tongue in cheek said I am not part of the offence generation. I do not hold to this notion of conflating people and the ideas people subscribe to. I see Idea-Space as a playground/arena distinct from any person or people. And attacking ideas in that space should not be treated as any kind of attack on, or segregation of, the people who hold to those ideas. No more than attacking a virus should be seen as an attack on the people infected with it.

So no I do not find the tweet obnoxious or divisive. I find it hyperbolic, not entirely accurate, and easy to rebut on many levels. But I see nothing wrong with the claim having been made and put out there for discussion.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So no I do not find the tweet obnoxious or divisive. I find it hyperbolic, not entirely accurate, and easy to rebut on many levels. But I see nothing wrong with the claim having been made and put out there for discussion.

I disagree entirely for the reasons already pointed out. The word 'evil' used as a noun is a heavily loaded term with strong religious and emotive overtones. I suspect Dawkins chose that word very purposefully in this context, which in my opinion is both divisive and obnoxious. I am certainly not alone in that opinion, nor is that tweet alone in those that have drawn criticism on Dawkins.

nozzferrahhtoo

It comes down to that old saying of "I disagree strongly with what you are saying, but I defend to the death your right to say it". Again you are disagreeing above with what he said. That is fine. I do too for much of the same reasons you have given. But merely being wrong does not make him wrong for saying what he thinks.

As for how much thought he put into it? I guess only he knows that. Neither of us do. So neither or us should pretend to. Given what I have heard about his general twitter output though, I find myself unconvinced he puts much thought into it at all. A critique I would level against twitter in general and is the reason I do not use it at all and secretly dream of the day it's owners wake up and decide to turn it off for the good of humanity.

I think he should stick to books. He is good at books.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As for how much thought he put into it? I guess only he knows that. Neither of us do. So neither or us should pretend to.

I'm not pretending anything, I'm merely airing my suspicions that what he writes is purposeful rather than thoughtless. This seems reasonable of a man many would consider a deep thinker.

Given what I have heard about his general twitter output though, I find myself unconvinced he puts much thought into it at all.

You also appear to be airing your own unfounded suspicions there. How exactly are mine a pretense and yours not?

Bannasidhe

The next time someone cites Dawkins as some sort of spokesperson for Atheism we can direct them to this thread.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The next time someone cites Dawkins as some sort of spokesperson for Atheism we can direct them to this thread.

Schism!! :pac:

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Schism!! :pac:

This could be bigger than the Pineapple on Pizza schism.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

I'm not pretending anything, I'm merely airing my suspicions that what he writes is purposeful rather than thoughtless. This seems reasonable of a man many would consider a deep thinker. You also appear to be airing your own unfounded suspicions there. How exactly are mine a pretense and yours not?

I am not saying either of us are doing so, I am just saying we should never pretend to. I could have phrased that better granted.

I think he can be a deep thinker too when he writes books. But on stage and on twitter my suspicions err more towards him just being reactionary and saying the first thing that comes into his head. Which is fine I suppose, it is what people on twitter seem to do. Which is why I avoid it entirely.

Another poster said it well earlier in the thread though. Context is important. This was not a tweet he seems to have put thought into, rather he was just reacting to someone who played that old "Oh you'd attack Christianity but ya wouldn't say anything to da muslims would ya?" fatwa envy canard. And he just threw this tweet out as a reaction to that.

As I say though, while I might not agree with his conclusions on the matter, I see nothing wrong with his having presented his conclusions/opinions on the matter. The former I can reason with him on, the latter would be my problem not his.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The next time someone cites Dawkins as some sort of spokesperson for Atheism we can direct them to this thread.

Agreed. I do not see him as a spokesperson FOR atheism. Just a popular speaker WITHIN atheism. And he has been quite useful in his own to the entire discourse as a whole.

Hotblack Desiato

For those looking for nuance, subtlety, depth, in relation to pretty much anything - Twitter really isn't the place. No surprises there.

"Fatwa envy canard" though.

nozzferrahhtoo

I'd genuinely love to be able to run a counter history routine and see what our world would be like if Twitter never existed, but everything else remained exactly as is now.

CramCycle

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Obnoxious, and even pr1ckish as CramCycle went on to describe him, is one thing,

Just to be clear I myself am obnoxious and pr1ckish in real life. They are not great features and I do try not to allow them to be defining ones but I am what I am. I am probably nicer on boards than I am in the real world by some margin.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I'd genuinely love to be able to run a counter history routine and see what our world would be like if Twitter never existed, but everything else remained exactly as is now.

I imagine someone would have invented it :pac:
Twitter has positives and negatives, the positives are the limit on words means you can't ramble on like they do in politics to run down the clock and those who you are talking to get bored or simply leave in desperation. The negatives are that nuanced points are lost and views become quite polarised. People who don't necessarily agree with each other state they are on the same side of the discussion even though in reality, many of them are not. The expectation of quick responses means that BS gets through quicker, spreads quicker and has more of an effect than the truth.

Take Trumps twitter of racist kid thing. I had seen that video years ago under the title of cute kids hug or something similar. A quick edit and the gullibility of so many in a desperation to react meant a really nice thing looked awful. Reminds me of that picture of a Garda kicking someone in the head years ago, front page news but it took a day or two and then someone released a video showing the Garda legging it over to kneel and administer first aid. Nowadays, the Garda would be lynched before the person who made the video had even heard about it.

nozzferrahhtoo

CramCycle wrote: »

People who don't necessarily agree with each other state they are on the same side of the discussion even though in reality, many of them are not.

You just put me in the mind of something that happened in the real world to me a couple of times.

Some people I was talking to had been going to mass together for many years. Same time, same place, sitting together on the same bench, the works.

SO they assumed since they were all catholic they agreed with each other on everything. Until one day they got talking to me and I was asking them a few questions about their faith and its tenets.

Turns out they held differing beliefs on quite a lot. It actually got heated and there was almost falling outs over it in fact. In retrospect, especially as their friendship did survive it, it was really amusing. They were so unified under a simplistic banner they never thought to actually talk to each other about any of it.

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You just put me in the mind of something that happened in the real world to me a couple of times.

Some people I was talking to had been going to mass together for many years. Same time, same place, sitting together on the same bench, the works.

SO they assumed since they were all catholic they agreed with each other on everything. Until one day they got talking to me and I was asking them a few questions about their faith and its tenets.

Turns out they held differing beliefs on quite a lot. It actually got heated and there was almost falling outs over it in fact. In retrospect, especially as their friendship did survive it, it was really amusing. They were so unified under a simplistic banner they never thought to actually talk to each other about any of it.

Many decades ago I had a conversation with my devout (but socially very very liberal) went to Mass everyday grandmother about her actual beliefs. Turns out based on what she believed she was a Lutheran.
When I told her this she paused knitting, peered over her glasses at me, and said 'sure didn't my Father convert to the CoI in protest so I didn't lick it off a rock' and resumed her knitting.

I hadn't the heart to tell her that technically CoI is Calvinist not Lutheran.

nozzferrahhtoo

I didn't lick it off a rock That is up there with "You are not as green as you are cabbage looking" in the list of phrases I just do not quite get

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

I didn't use the term utterly vile, I said I find the guy obnoxious. If you call a person stupid it is clearly different to calling their ideas or beliefs stupid. It doesn't need any more qualification than that.

CramCycle did use that term, that's who I originally questioned.

Mark Hamill

CramCycle wrote: »

Just to be clear I myself am obnoxious and pr1ckish in real life. They are not great features and I do try not to allow them to be defining ones but I am what I am. I am probably nicer on boards than I am in the real world by some margin.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any observations of Dawkins at all. I've never read his books, I'm not on twitter and have only ever seen one interview of him. He could be the pr1ckiest of pr1cks and I wouldn't know any different. I just wanted to know what he said or did that is utterly vile.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

But he's a pretty shyte theolgian, sociologist, psychologist and philosopher.

I'd beg to differ - he might not be the most stylish of writers, but he's good enough to be able to ask questions which the religious have not answered - choosing instead to do as you've done here - and just ignored him instead.

antiskeptic wrote: »

He should stick to that which he knows something about.

He has stuck to, uh, that which he knows about - he's reasonable well-informed about religions and has wisely followed your advice and chosen to write about it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The God Delusion makes for is near infantile level reading.

Have you read it? Could you quote a few sentences which you believe are particularly infantile?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

I'd beg to differ - he might not be the most stylish of writers, but he's good enough to be able to ask questions which the religious have not answered - choosing instead to do as you've done here - and just ignored him instead.He has stuck to, uh, that which he knows about - he's reasonable well-informed about religions and has wisely followed your advice and chosen to write about it.Have you read it? Could you quote a few sentences which you believe are particularly infantile?

We do bi-annual clear outs in my gaf. It doubtlessly went to the charity shop long since. I've absolutely no issue with a good argument - heck, a good argument set's you thinking about how to circumvent it. But The God Delusion was just a bumper version of the weakest tropes you see knocking around in the A&A forum. I managed to haul my way half way through it before giving up.

You'd put together far better yourself by way of substance.

Barely perhaps, but definitely.

One of his weak points was his taking on the fact that there isn't a uni-view amongst Christianity. He'd pop at Creationism. Fire away in my book - I agree with him. Or take a pop at right wing Evangelicals in the US who'd bring back public stoning. Fire away in my book - I agree with him. He takes what he supposes is Christianity (and whose take on Christianity is right) and flogs it to death like the best of straw men.

Is his take on Christianity right? He supposes so. Is the fact that Christianity isn't easily nail downable so as to succeed in a headshot a problem for Christianity? It is for anyone taking a pot shot. But I don't suppose so.

CramCycle

Mark Hamill wrote: »

CramCycle did use that term, that's who I originally questioned.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any observations of Dawkins at all. I've never read his books, I'm not on twitter and have only ever seen one interview of him. He could be the pr1ckiest of pr1cks and I wouldn't know any different. I just wanted to know what he said or did that is utterly vile.

I have seen his twitter account over the years and interviews on TV. just found his disdain(and patronising attitude) for anything that didn't agree with him gauling. I had, up until I seen these things been in general agreement with him on most things. Like I said, if we met each other in a pub, we would probably get on like a house on fire but I feel, and maybe i am wrong, that as a scientist, his views on people who don't follow his views and his comments towards them to be unprofessional and unpleasant. Sort of the opposite to most internet cowards who would not repeat their speech in real life, I just found it hard to tolerate him.
Sort of like that randomer you are having a few pints with, getting on great with and then you both stop at a chipper and they start talking to someone else about something else and you realise, actually, just because we agree on somethings, we clearly have very different views on others. Which is fine, except, in this case, its a big enough issue that I don't feel comfy being associated with them anymore.
Maybe I am misremembering his words but I remember at the time thinking his intention in what he said was clear even his words were skirting the right side of the law. It wasn't much different than religious hate speakers who know how to skirt the line.

Zubeneschamali

It is true that Dawkins mainly argues with rather simple minded versions of Christianity, but he explains why.

Nobody really cares about the sort of liberal Christianity in which it doesn't matter whether God even exists, the sort that inspires no particular action by its believers.

It is the simple minded versions which ban science textbooks, hate on gays, and generally inspire the actions of which Dawkins disapproves.

robindch

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is true that Dawkins mainly argues with rather simple minded versions of Christianity, but he explains why.

I don't recall this - what's his explanation?

Not that I disagree arguing with simple-minded versions of christianity, since that's what the majority of people who self-describe as christian appear to believe.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Could you quote a few sentences which you believe are particularly infantile?

antiskeptic wrote: »

One of his weak points was his taking on the fact that there isn't a uni-view amongst Christianity. [...] He takes what he supposes is Christianity (and whose take on Christianity is right) and flogs it to death like the best of straw men.

I'm not sure I follow you. So far as I'm aware, most or all christians believe that they're believing the right version of christianity while seemingly unaware or unconcerned that their neighbors are just as sure that they're right, while believing something different. Is it really a "weak point" to say that christians can't agree amongst themselves about what's true? Or is it just a point you don't want to address?

The fact that almost no two christians believe exactly the same thing would suggest that there's some fairly basic problems with what christians are supposed to believe, let alone the allegedly infinite wisdom of a transcental deity who's presiding over the whole mess.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

I don't recall this - what's his explanation?

His position is basically that people who are not simple-minded fundamentalists are not real Christians. It's a "no true Scotsman" stance.

robindch wrote: »

Not that I disagree arguing with simple-minded versions of christianity, since that's what the majority of people who self-describe as christian appear to believe.

It really isn't.

(And I note that this is a reversal of the usual position on this Board, which is that the majority of people who self-describe as Christian don't hold Christian beliefs and therefore shouldn't self-describe as Christians. Exhibit A: numerous threads about the Census.)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

(And I note that this is a reversal of the usual position on this Board, which is that the majority of people who self-describe as Christian don't hold Christian beliefs and therefore shouldn't self-describe as Christians. Exhibit A: numerous threads about the Census.)

Funnily enough you get the exact same argument from the more conservative types on the Christianity forum, giving various reasons why people who consider themselves to be Christian aren't in fact Christian. Personally I take the view that if someone professes have a given religion, that's good enough for me.

CramCycle

Peregrinus wrote: »

His position is basically that people who are not simple-minded fundamentalists are not real Christians. It's a "no true Scotsman" stance.


It really isn't.

(And I note that this is a reversal of the usual position on this Board, which is that the majority of people who self-describe as Christian don't hold Christian beliefs and therefore shouldn't self-describe as Christians. Exhibit A: numerous threads about the Census.)

smacl wrote: »

Funnily enough you get the exact same argument from the more conservative types on the Christianity forum, giving various reasons why people who consider themselves to be Christian aren't in fact Christian. Personally I take the view that if someone professes have a given religion, that's good enough for me.

I think you are mixing up Catholic and Christian in this discussion. Alot of Irish people describe themselves as Catholic or Roman Catholic but they are not. They are in fact Christian (alot aren't even that but lets not get into the nitty gritty). It's like a Venn Diagram, all Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are Catholic.

smacl

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is true that Dawkins mainly argues with rather simple minded versions of Christianity, but he explains why.

Nobody really cares about the sort of liberal Christianity in which it doesn't matter whether God even exists, the sort that inspires no particular action by its believers.

It is the simple minded versions which ban science textbooks, hate on gays, and generally inspire the actions of which Dawkins disapproves.

If that's the case, I'd consider Dawkins to be straw-manning as he's attacking Christianity on the basis of the actions of a small subset of Christianity. If you take this country for example, or even Europe in general, the number of Christians who would seek to ban science textbooks and/or hate on gays is a very small minority. Quoting chapter and verse from the bible doesn't really help here either as most Christians don't live their lives in accordance with the bible. Until such time as you can empirically quantify a set of beliefs and behaviours common to all Christians any statements about Christianity are little more than speculation. If you look at attitudes toward homosexuality in Christian majority countries, the majority are accepting of it, even the yanks.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

If that's the case, I'd consider Dawkins to be straw-manning as he's attacking Christianity on the basis of the actions of a small subset of Christianity. If you take this country for example, or even Europe in general, the number of Christians who would seek to ban science textbooks and/or hate on gays is a very small minority. Quoting chapter and verse from the bible doesn't really help here either as most Christians don't live their lives in accordance with the bible. Until such time as you can empirically quantify a set of beliefs and behaviours common to all Christians any statements about Christianity are little more than speculation. If you look at attitudes toward homosexuality in Christian majority countries, the majority are accepting of it, even the yanks.

This. It seems to me that Dawkins generalises his criticism of simplistic literalist fundamentalist Christianity into an attack on theism in general because he regardes SLFC as normative for religion in general. But his position on this isn't - ahem - an evidence-based position.

smacl

CramCycle wrote: »

I think you are mixing up Catholic and Christian in this discussion. Alot of Irish people describe themselves as Catholic or Roman Catholic but they are not. They are in fact Christian (alot aren't even that but lets not get into the nitty gritty). It's like a Venn Diagram, all Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are Catholic.

Depends who's definition you go by. If Joe down the road says he's a Catholic and his local PP says, "yep Joe's a Catholic, baptised him myself", I'd question whether it is for me, you or anyone else to state otherwise. Now Joe might not be a good Catholic, but that's another matter.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Depends who's definition you go by. If Joe down the road says he's a Catholic and his local PP says, "yep Joe's a Catholic, baptised him myself", I'd question whether it is for me, you or anyone else to state otherwise. Now Joe might not be a good Catholic, but that's another matter.

Also this. Religions are voluntary communities, meaning they get to define themselves. If Joe says that Joe's a Catholic and Catholics say that Joe's a Catholic, then anyone else saying that Joe's not a Catholic is just honking folornly into the void.

nozzferrahhtoo

Dawkins is no hero for me beyond critique or requiring defending. As said before it was almost a "For Dummies" book for the complete lay man so it strikes me as odd to expect all that much from it in the first place.

But it does strike me as interesting that the people MOST critical about the book on this thread.... are the ones who are also admitting to either not really remembering anything that was in it or did not even bother to read more than half of it.

I guess everyone is different but if I do not read a book, remember it, or even read it or reach the end of it, I tend not to critique it out loud or complain about it. Because I know I would not really know what I am talking about and I would be entirely unable to cite ANYTHING to back up my points.

In fact I think moaning about a text I either do not remember, or did not even bother to read, would be infantile and lacking in substance. Which would make it especially rich if the very critique I was making of the text was that IT was infantile and lacking in substance

I have met many atheists who moan about the Bible yet have never read it. Granted most Christians I have met have not bothered to read it either, begging the question about how seriously they actually take it themselves. But I have equal disdain for the atheists moaning about the Bible if they have not bothered to read it themselves. I have read it multiple times. More than a couple of versions too. So on the rare occasions I mention something problematic about it, I at least know what I am at. But I would always defer to people who have studied it closely like OldrnWisr for example.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Depends who's definition you go by. If Joe down the road says he's a Catholic and his local PP says, "yep Joe's a Catholic, baptised him myself", I'd question whether it is for me, you or anyone else to state otherwise. Now Joe might not be a good Catholic, but that's another matter.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Also this. Religions are voluntary communities, meaning they get to define themselves. If Joe says that Joe's a Catholic and Catholics say that Joe's a Catholic, then anyone else saying that Joe's not a Catholic is just honking folornly into the void.

Sure, when some surveys even show that people who identify as "Catholic" do not actually believe in a virgin birth, a reincarnation, or in some cases do not even believe in a god..... which I once upon a time would have thought was the lowest bar you would have to cross to qualify..... then I think it is outside my paygrade and wheelhouse to even attempt to define what the word means or who qualifies for it.

So rather than worry about who is a catholic or not, I tend to ignore the labels people self identify with entirely.... and try to get to the meat and bones of what they as an individual actually believe. If someone answers something I ask with "Well I am a catholic" I will simply say "Thats great" and ask the question again.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Dawkins is no hero for me beyond critique or requiring defending. As said before it was almost a "For Dummies" book for the complete lay man so it strikes me as odd to expect all that much from it in the first place.

But it does strike me as interesting that the people MOST critical about the book on this thread.... are the ones who are also admitting to either not really remembering anything that was in it or did not even bother to read more than half of it.

I guess everyone is different but if I do not read a book, remember it, or even read it or reach the end of it, I tend not to critique it out loud or complain about it. Because I know I would not really know what I am talking about and I would be entirely unable to cite ANYTHING to back up my points.

In fact I think moaning about a text I either do not remember, or did not even bother to read, would be infantile and lacking in substance. Which would make it especially rich if the very critique I was making of the text was that IT was infantile and lacking in substance

Not sure who or what you're referring to there. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific and quote actual posts to support and better define your point above rather than taking a general side swipe. My take on Dawkins comes from what I've read and seen in the media which wouldn't really tempt be to buy and read his books.

El_Duderino 09

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Agreed. I do not see him as a spokesperson FOR atheism. Just a popular speaker WITHIN atheism. And he has been quite useful in his own to the entire discourse as a whole.

Yeah absolutely. He's been very important to atheism. He might have been at the very forefront for a while, particularly around the time of the God Delusion and his time might have passed.

In the God Delusion he talks about how even a cherished theory in science should be discarded once a theory with greater explanatory power comes along. And it's a it like tha with Dawkins himself. He was really right about some things, but that doesn't mean he's, in any way, right about other things.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Not sure who or what you're referring to there. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific and quote actual posts to support and better define your point above rather than taking a general side swipe.

I was not referring to anyone specifically in any explicit sense, I just feel that the people critiquing him in the most strident terms, are the ones who are also saying they either did not read the whole book or do not remember anything said all that clearly.

Do not get me wrong, the book is far from perfect and it can be critiqued in many ways. I have done so myself in the past. But at least I read the damn thing and remembered it's contents when I critiqued it. I would be less likely to critique it NOW as my memory is not as good, and I would insist on re-reading it before I did so.

If I am expected to name names then sure, Cramcycle would be an example. Rather than say his arguments were poor or ill informed or in bad faith, he was described as "utterly vile". When asked to cite anything "utterly vile" the response was vague, contained no citations, and suggested that he was not sure at all he was remembering the words clearly anyway.

Or we have Antiskeptic saying the book was infantile and lacking in substance, only to not only not be able to cite anything from it that was so.... but then admitted to not really having read the book at all anyway. Rendering his OWN position the one that was actually infantile and lacking in substance really.

Maybe I have unrealistic standards that I hold MYSELF to. But I just feel if I was going to critique some text, let alone in stronger terms, I would insist on having read and remember the text first and be able to cite bits of it to back up my critique if and when asked about it. The mileage of others varies I guess.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sure, when some surveys even show that people who identify as "Catholic" do not actually believe in a virgin birth, a reincarnation, or in some cases do not even believe in a god..... which I once upon a time would have thought was the lowest bar you would have to cross to qualify..... then I think it is outside my paygrade and wheelhouse to even attempt to define what the word means or who qualifies for it.

So rather than worry about who is a catholic or not, I tend to ignore the labels people self identify with entirely.... and try to get to the meat and bones of what they as an individual actually believe. If someone answers something I ask with "Well I am a catholic" I will simply say "Thats great" and ask the question again.

Personally I don't pay much attention to other peoples beliefs until such time as they try to foist them on me. My concerns would more be about how people behave and how organised religion seeks to influence our society.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Personally I don't pay much attention to other peoples beliefs until such time as they try to foist them on me. My concerns would more be about how people behave and how organised religion seeks to influence our society.

Agreed. That is how I am too for the most part. Outside of activism and the like I do not actually go looking for religious conversations in real life (cept on boards, but that is what it is !for! I guess). But I still end up in them at times. You can not go to a lot of pubs, parties, and get togethers without the subject eventually coming up a bit

Even then I am entirely silent in such conversations until someone directly talks to me. I would normally sit back and just listen. As soon as I am drawn in though, and invited to do so, I get as vocal as I would be here on boards

Cram said he is obnoxious and pr1ckish offline and nicer online. I think I am the other way around I am very quiet and laconic off line, and a bit strident online. Until such time as I am asked to open up, then it levels out

CramCycle

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But it does strike me as interesting that the people MOST critical about the book on this thread.... are the ones who are also admitting to either not really remembering anything that was in it or did not even bother to read more than half of it.

Just to be clear I am not complaining about the book, I just don't like the man. Although in the same note, I have heard many people compliment the book and then talk about it and you realise that they haven't read it because what they are on about is not in the book at all but what they attribute to Dawkins and they seem to presume everything he talks about is in the book. His book is quite basic but overall, from memory, nothing I would disagree with in the round. Its not as controversial as people make it out to be and many of the people who would speak ill of Dawkins based solely on the book end up making silly points that are easily laughed off as incredulous. It was fine, a coffee table or toilet read. nothing too high brow and fairly reasonable regardless of your views on the world and gods (or lack there of).

I have met many atheists who moan about the Bible yet have never read it. Granted most Christians I have met have not bothered to read it either, begging the question about how seriously they actually take it themselves. But I have equal disdain for the atheists moaning about the Bible if they have not bothered to read it themselves. I have read it multiple times. More than a couple of versions too. So on the rare occasions I mention something problematic about it, I at least know what I am at. But I would always defer to people who have studied it closely like OldrnWisr for example.

I read it many years ago, there are parts that were tough going (listing of sons of sons of sons), there are parts that are funny, there are parts that are dark and there are a few surprising guest spots. I don't think Id ever read it again and I'll be damned if I could recall half of it, forgot most of it before I finished. The way it is written and subdivided I found particularly a slog. I don't moan about the bible because it was written before my time, the same way i don't moan about some of Christopher Tolkiens work. It is interesting but not in way that would make me want to read it ever again.

nozzferrahhtoo

CramCycle wrote: »

Just to be clear I am not complaining about the book, I just don't like the man. Although in the same note, I have heard many people compliment the book and then talk about it and you realise that they haven't read it because what they are on about is not in the book at all but what they attribute to Dawkins and they seem to presume everything he talks about is in the book.

Yea Agreed. I think this is a problem in so many areas. I remember the issues that came up on social media when Sam Harris entertained a conversation on his podcast with Charles Murray.

I read so much criticism about that online since then, and most of it was about things that never actually happened, or were said, in the podcast in question! Rather they were all things that were said in a misleading article ABOUT the podcast that was published on.... oh I forget now.... VOX I think. I can find out if needs be.

But it was absolutely clear that there was a direct proportionality in play. The more strident someone was AGAINST the contents of the podcast, the more likely it was to turn out the speaker never actually listened to any of it.

So I guess I hold myself to a higher standard. I will not critique something someone said or wrote unless I A) read/heard the thing in question directly myself and it was recent enough that I remember it and, when called out on it, can actually cite what I mean in defense of my position.

And due to that higher standard I can not help but find my respect for someone suffer a little if, when they are confronted in that way, say something like "Well I cant remember what he said but I seem to remember thinking at the time...." or "Well you know, I barely read half of it actually".

I try not to hold other people to the standards I hold for myself. But sometimes I fail.

CramCycle wrote: »

I read it many years ago, there are parts that were tough going (listing of sons of sons of sons)

Ah yes the family trees. I have been told that the only book harder than the bible to follow that stuff in, is Game Of Thrones.

I found it helped a lot to read the Bible in some of the more traditional versions. Like KJ version. Then to read the most recent translations/reinterpretations of it that are done in more recent vernacular. And then go back AGAIN and read the "originals".

There are people on boards who have done this in other languages so I defer to them usually. I have only done this in English and a TINY bit in German. Certainly not any other language, let alone relatively dead languages

But I find the same with Shakespeare. I used to love to read shakespeare. Then go read people who had translated it into "modern speak". And then go back and re-read the originals.

Mark Hamill

CramCycle wrote: »

I have seen his twitter account over the years and interviews on TV. just found his disdain(and patronising attitude) for anything that didn't agree with him gauling. I had, up until I seen these things been in general agreement with him on most things. Like I said, if we met each other in a pub, we would probably get on like a house on fire but I feel, and maybe i am wrong, that as a scientist, his views on people who don't follow his views and his comments towards them to be unprofessional and unpleasant. Sort of the opposite to most internet cowards who would not repeat their speech in real life, I just found it hard to tolerate him.
Sort of like that randomer you are having a few pints with, getting on great with and then you both stop at a chipper and they start talking to someone else about something else and you realise, actually, just because we agree on somethings, we clearly have very different views on others. Which is fine, except, in this case, its a big enough issue that I don't feel comfy being associated with them anymore.
Maybe I am misremembering his words but I remember at the time thinking his intention in what he said was clear even his words were skirting the right side of the law. It wasn't much different than religious hate speakers who know how to skirt the line.

What intention are you talking about? I'm still not really getting an idea of what he has said or done that is utterly vile?

nozzferrahhtoo

I take his claims to his own intentions on face value and take his word for it. He calls his intentions "Consciousness Raising" but this is just a fancy term for wanting A) More people to be talking about atheism and more people who are atheists to be open about that fact.

I reckon he has been moderately to well successful at both of those aims. If he has any other "intentions" I can not say I am aware of what they might be. Or what anyone claiming they are there are basing it on.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I take his claims to his own intentions on face value and take his word for it. He calls his intentions "Consciousness Raising" but this is just a fancy term for wanting A) More people to be talking about atheism and more people who are atheists to be open about that fact.

I reckon he has been moderately to well successful at both of those aims. If he has any other "intentions" I can not say I am aware of what they might be. Or what anyone claiming they are there are basing it on.

The downside here is that it has many people, notably theists, to incorrectly conflate atheism with Dawkins' ruminations on the subject. I for one don't find this to be a helpful association.

nozzferrahhtoo

Indeed. It is one of the reasons I do not use the term "atheist" to describe myself. When you use a label to define yourself, any label, you are likely to have some people associate the positions of the most famous examples of that label with you.

But the term "atheist" in some ways defines you by something you are NOT rather than something you ARE. So I find the wiggle room people have to assign positions to you that you do not actually hold is much more flexible for that reason.

I never really care if people call me an atheist. But it is rare you will find me calling myself one.