Dawkins on Christian Inconsistency...

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I agree that doing the opposite is just as bad. But my point is, he is doing the same. He is the flipside of the fundamentalist coin.

No, he's the flipside of the liberal religion coin... the stuff that the real fundamentalists call "wishy-washy".

 

[Windwalker]

No, he's the flipside of the liberal religion coin... the stuff that the real fundamentalists call "wishy-washy".

Really? A liberal would call atheism a mental delusion? I'm not sure how you equate him with liberal philosophies. I see him as a "I'm right and you're delusional", kind of guy.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do people realize how often and how strongly they prime themselves to perceive Dawkins and a few others as fundamentalists, facts be darned, out of emotional need alone?

 

[Windwalker]

No emotional need here. I'm just basing this on the observation of the striking similarities between the religious calling those who don't believe as they do as "lost", "deceived by satan", etc, with those who say their views are the real truth "reality", and those who believe otherwise are "delusional', lost, deceived, etc. That isn't the same thing?

I'm struck by those who won't talk about that and try to make it about a matter of emotional motivations for someone to point this out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really? A liberal would call atheism a mental delusion? I'm not sure how you equate him with liberal philosophies. I see him as a "I'm right and you're delusional", kind of guy.

Frankly, that's how a lot of the "it doesn't matter what you have faith in, just as long as you have faith"-type messaging comes across to non-believers... and that liberal religious messaging usually gets delivered with a lot less tact than Dawkins' stuff.

 

[Windwalker]

Frankly, that's how a lot of the "it doesn't matter what you have faith in, just as long as you have faith"-type messaging comes across to non-believers... and that liberal religious messaging usually gets delivered with a lot less tact than Dawkins' stuff.

If they are saying it doesn't matter what faith they have then they wouldn't be criticizing Dawkins' beliefs. He certainly has faith in them. Are you saying these liberals are saying they must be "theistic" beliefs? Could you point me to where this has been said to Dawkins? I'd like to see this actually being said to him to see what I hear reading it.

But let's be clear, Dawkins view on religion are in fact not liberal understandings of it at all. It's the fundamentalist understanding he always picks on. But furthermore and to my actual point, he is saying in effect, "No, I have the truth, and you do not! You are deceived, lost, and deluded, you and your God Delusion." And that, is the same behavior. That is the fundamentalist mind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If they are saying it doesn't matter what faith they have then they wouldn't be criticizing Dawkins' beliefs. He certainly has faith in them. Are you saying these liberals are saying they must be "theistic" beliefs?

A lot of the time, yes.

Could you point me to where this has been said to Dawkins?

What does that have to do with it?

I'd like to see this actually being said to him to see what I hear reading it.

You mean like this?

Just to clarify: I wasn't talking about liberal religious messages that Dawkins gets himself; I was saying that Dawkins is no more severe than what often gets thrown around in liberal religious circles.

But let's be clear, Dawkins view on religion are in fact not liberal understandings of it at all.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying this; I'm saying that Dawkins' attitude toward theism is similar to common attitudes toward atheism in liberal religious circles

It's the fundamentalist understanding he always picks on.

It's mainstream understandings that he responds to. Call them "fundamentalist" if you want, but don't pretend that he's only talking about fringe beliefs.

But furthermore and to my actual point, he is saying in effect, "No, I have the truth, and you do not! You are deceived, lost, and deluded, you and your God Delusion." And that, is the same behavior. That is the fundamentalist mind.

Have you ever actually read anything by Richard Dawkins? You seem very focused on his book title (which may very well have been picked by his publisher). Can you give an actual quote from him that says what you're claiming?

 

[Windwalker]

A lot of the time, yes.

I'd enjoy seeing the references so I can evaluate them myself.

What does that have to do with it?

Because what I know of liberal this doesn't seem to fit. I'd like the chance to evaluate what they actually said which you are saying they are. That's what it has to do with it. Corroboration.

You mean like this?

No, not like that. I'm asking for things that Liberal says to him, not him laughing at the low-hanging fruit of fundamentalist nut-jobs, which this video only confirms that very point I've been making all along. Thanks for supporting my argument with this video. This sounds quite juvenile, actually with its mocking, etc. "Tee-hee-hee, tee-hee-hee, listen to these idots, hahaha". Yeah, okay.

Just to clarify: I wasn't talking about liberal religious messages that Dawkins gets himself; I was saying that Dawkins is no more severe than what often gets thrown around in liberal religious circles.

Again, I'd like to see what you're referring to, which is not in that video of hate mail from those who are themselves fundis. And Dawkins responses are in fact juvenile. He is playing the same game as them. He's not taking any higher road at all. Do you think this is an example of the higher road?

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying this; I'm saying that Dawkins' attitude toward theism is similar to common attitudes toward atheism in liberal religious circles

It is actually no better than the attitudes and views of fundamentalists. From the liberals I've known speak of him, never once, not once did it have to do with the fact he rejects belief in God. It has everything to do with his being so vocal from a position of ignorance about something out of his depth. That is a very different, and completely legitimate criticism of it. Are you trying to say they dislike him because he's an atheist???

It's mainstream understandings that he responds to. Call them "fundamentalist" if you want, but don't pretend that he's only talking about fringe beliefs.

The mainstream believes Noah's Ark is real? That the earth is 6000 years old? I've heard his attacks on religion, at it's very narrow. It's the low-hanging god of fundamentalism he goes after as if that defined all religion. Here's a great article that shows the difference: Atheists: The Origin of the Species by Nick Spencer, reviewed.

Have you ever actually read anything by Richard Dawkins?

Have you read anything I've posted in this thread where I cited what I have?

You seem very focused on his book title (which may very well have been picked by his publisher). Can you give an actual quote from him that says what you're claiming?

The entire book The God Delusion, which I said earlier I have read from cover to cover, and listen to him and his wife read with sarcastic tones into their audio recording of the book. Have you read it?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think blanket statements that belief in God is a form of delusion, is one pretty blaring one right there. It's the title of one of his anti-religion books. I've read that book, and listened to it on audio book as well, and it was seriously like listing to a college freshman blathering on and on as an authority about stuff he simply had an uninformed opinion about. No one of any credentials really takes him seriously as an authority on the subject of religion. He's kind of like Rush Limbaugh in that way.

It is more or less the belief of everyone who is an atheist. We simply don't say it usually. I don't think of myself as higher than anyone else because of my lack of belief but I feel that people who are religious are suffering from delusions. I am trying to find the quote but my computer isn't letting me have to many tabs open at once but it was something like
"We all live in our own delusions. Otherwise we would go crazy". Its not that exactly but if you know who said it and can find it that would be great.

But if we are candid if you are an atheist it means that people who are religious and fully believe that they have had religious experiences are deluded by those experiences.

Yes, well when you say everyone who believes in God is delusional, I think it's pretty hard to say "but he's such a polite man". Religion is a whole lot more than just an idea. It is tied to ones very self-identity, cultural values, beliefs and ideals, and so forth. "Don't take it personal when I say your religion is no different than believing 'in fairies in the garden'". The only thing he does is betray his own ignorance on the subject. I love what Elaine Pagels said of him. "He's not speaking of any God I believe in", and she also quite eloquently referred to him as "The Village Atheist". I thought that was priceless.

You can be brutally honest and polite at the same time. Just because what he says is offensive doesn't mean that it isn't polite. What he says has legitimate substance but people who are offended by it will go to lengths to discredit the man for it.

What really is the difference between believing in god and believing in fairies? I know many pagans who do believe in fairies and would find it offensive that someone would be offended about calling them equal. Though one thing I would like to bring up is the Santa Claus reference. I think we all know why Santa Claus is not a good thing to equate to god. It is a well known fact that he doesn't exist and it was only ever meant to be a neat little story for children. God, at least to my knowledge, has never been intended to be simply a neat little story that isn't taken seriously. So the intent of seriousness is as different as night and day. However, as an atheist, I cannot believe in god any more than Santa Claus so in that way it is a useful tool in describing my position. But if an atheist tell's you that they are equal then they are full of it.

Kudos to him for being polite. Now if he could add informed to that, he'd amount to something respectable.

I find he is rather informed. I have not read all of his works but both of his major books on Atheism I have read. Nowhere in either of his books or blogs or other outlets have I found him to be misinformed or even underinformed on religion. The sweeping statements he has said about religion isn't based in his ignorance of religion but rather his conclusion that it is all a bunch of bunk. If you know of a specific case where he has been totally misinformed or ignorant of a religion that he has commented on I would like to know.

Though I wouldn't, as an atheist, look to him as some sort of rallying force or leader. There are better atheists philosophically but if you want to look into arguments for the evolution vs creationist thread he is a good source as he is a very well established scientist of evolutionary biology.

Good Lord, no! As a mythic-literal debunker going after what is not much more than Picture Book Bible versions of religion used in preschooler Bible studies, he does a great job showing that's not real. Whoopie! That's not hard to do. Like I like to say, it's like a Jr. Highschooler raiding the 1st Grader's playground, kicking sand in their faces and throwing their toy trucks in the bushes. Big accomplishment. When it comes to a discussion beyond preschooler ideas, he appears the fool.

Such as what? I don't doubt he has made a fool of himself on a number of occasions but I'm drawing blank on anything that you're referencing. A good example of him being made a fool is his lack of debating skills. He can speak well but not debate well.

Agreed. Many of my friends say he says what he does because his publishers what him to make money for them. "Go tell people how stupid they are to believe in God. Say things to offend them.", like Limbaugh's handlers. Now I take that as rather

cynical (though it probably does have some truth in there). But I do believe he is just legitimately fed up with fundamentalism trying to compete as science when it's not. I congratulate him on that. Beyond that, he's just a mouthpiece for the neo-atheist movement, which is something beyond traditional atheism, a champion of the faith, so to speak.

I personally identify much more with Jean Paul Sartre and Albert Camus in regards to atheist thought, than the likes of Harris, Dawkins, and company. They are a whole new breed, and it has it's role in the whole to be sure, but it's to iconoclastic for my tastes.

Harris is a rather brilliant man. I haven't found much fault in him. Dawkins is solid but he isn't a good debater and he is hated in the non-atheist community. And there are any number of people that could be thought of as "the company".

But lets not forget that many of these people are writing books for money. It does them good to be sensational.

 

[fiat lux]

Have you ever actually read anything by Richard Dawkins? You seem very focused on his book title (which may very well have been picked by his publisher). Can you give an actual quote from him that says what you're claiming?

I have, and his grasp of theology is woefully lacking, for example he seems to believe that Paul was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, and that by saying Jesus was the son of God means to believe that he was necessarily omniscient.

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

If they are saying it doesn't matter what faith they have then they wouldn't be criticizing Dawkins' beliefs. He certainly has faith in them. Are you saying these liberals are saying they must be "theistic" beliefs? Could you point me to where this has been said to Dawkins? I'd like to see this actually being said to him to see what I hear reading it.

But let's be clear, Dawkins view on religion are in fact not liberal understandings of it at all. It's the fundamentalist understanding he always picks on. But furthermore and to my actual point, he is saying in effect, "No, I have the truth, and you do not! You are deceived, lost, and deluded, you and your God Delusion." And that, is the same behavior. That is the fundamentalist mind.

LOL. Say, did you hear about the "bride" of Jesus?

But this is nothing more than a work of fiction.

Apparently, Jesus was "betrothed" to a Hindu woman in the Kashmir in the 1st century AD. But how convenient for his "betrothed" to die before such a union could take place?

Given that Rome was the dominant regional power in the 1st century, it's extremely unlikely God would want Jesus to have such a union. For indeed, the Atonement of Christ means I can now evince that God would not wish for His Son to have such a union over the most dominant race, culture and civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean -- which would've been the Romans.

So what heresy do you call this?

How can there be any worse insult to the Christian faith?

 

[LuisDantas]

Dawkins may well be lacking in his understanding of religions.

But really, is that at all noteworthy? Who isn't?

 

[McBell]

In my experience, if you take what Richard Dawkins says about faith and flipped to be about lack of faith, you'd get something that would not be out of place coming from a liberal Anglican/Episcopalian minister whose biggest fault in most people's eyes was that he was rather boring.

I think there's a huge double standard in how people judge atheists versus theists.

Seems to me that theists have set the bar and are now upset that an atheist dares use their bar against them.

 

[McBell]

Dawkins may well be lacking in his understanding of religions.

But really, is that at all noteworthy? Who isn't?

I find it interesting how so many people whine and cry about Dawkins alleged lack of knowledge on religions as though he has to know what each and every person believes in order to have an opinion on the subject.

 

[Windwalker]

Dawkins may well be lacking in his understanding of religions.

But really, is that at all noteworthy? Who isn't?

Those who aren't. You certainly do have those are quite knowledgeable and educated in religious studies areas, studying comparative religions, areas of religion is society and culture, anthropology, ethnology, and so on and so forth. Dawkins isn't qualified in any of these. He just opines as an armchair philosopher having fun poking holes at the lowest common denominator understanding of religion. Not that he's not allowed to do that of course, but it really carries no more weight as an expert on religion than Ken Ham does as an expert on evolution. There are experts in those areas. Again, poking fun at literal interpretations of Biblical myths is not really interesting beyond dismissing fundamentalism. Religions themselves do these without needing Dawkins astute observations.

 

[Windwalker]

LOL. Say, did you hear about the "bride" of Jesus?

But this is nothing more than a work of fiction.

Apparently, Jesus was "betrothed" to a Hindu woman in the Kashmir in the 1st century AD. But how convenient for his "betrothed" to die before such a union could take place?

Given that Rome was the dominant regional power in the 1st century, it's extremely unlikely God would want Jesus to have such a union. For indeed, the Atonement of Christ means I can now evince that God would not wish for His Son to have such a union over the most dominant race, culture and civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean -- which would've been the Romans.

So what heresy do you call this?

How can there be any worse insult to the Christian faith?

Not sure what you're getting at here.

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

Not sure what you're getting at here.

Oh, don't tell me you know nothing of the Inner Secrets of Reality.

I take it you are the author of this book?

I simply disagreed with what you said about Jesus.

 

[fiat lux]

What are "the inner secrets of reality", please enlighten us.

 

[Windwalker]

It is more or less the belief of everyone who is an atheist.

It wasn't mine when I self-identified as an atheist, nor is it that of those I know who are atheists today. It appears to me to be the point of view of those who are ignorant of the roles and functions religion plays in people's lives on a symbolic level. I do wish to point out, this "delusion" is leveled specifically at a God belief, not just our general delusion all humans live under, which I'll go into more in a minute. I understood religion a little better than then even back then.

We simply don't say it usually. I don't think of myself as higher than anyone else because of my lack of belief but I feel that people who are religious are suffering from delusions.

The same criteria to say people who are religious are suffering from delusions can easily be applied to atheism too. I think someone wrote a book called the Dawkins Delusion, or the Atheist Delusion. I think sauce for the goose is the same sauce for the gander.

I am trying to find the quote but my computer isn't letting me have to many tabs open at once but it was something like

"We all live in our own delusions. Otherwise we would go crazy". Its not that exactly but if you know who said it and can find it that would be great.

Well, that's a different argument, of course. I fully believe what people claim is knowing "reality", even with their sciences and well-reasoned logic arguments is an illusion. I could go in depth as to why, but the point is, that was not and is not the intent or anything at that level of insight that Dawkins was going on about in his book singling out God belief as a delusion. Did he say in there, "And so is the world as I understand it in my mind, so with the same criticism I level at them it too can be leveled at me"? I don't think he did. If he did, then I will gladly go a revisit his thoughts on the matter as that shows some actual depth!

But if we are candid if you are an atheist it means that people who are religious and fully believe that they have had religious experiences are deluded by those experiences.

Why? People have all manner of experiences all the time, and they inform them about themselves and the world. Interpretations into these types of experiences will of course vary, from magical to mythical, to rational, to transrational, and so forth. But the experiences are not a delusion. They are actual experiences. Religious experiences are entirely valid experiences, and they have remarkable, and more often than not, incredibly powerful and positive effects on the person's life. Do you have any knowledge in this area? Any personal experiences? I have and do, and I'd enjoy hearing how I am qualify as delusional from a rationalist point of view. Don't forget, I am rational and self-identified as atheist for many years.

You can be brutally honest and polite at the same time. Just because what he says is offensive doesn't mean that it isn't polite. What he says has legitimate substance but people who are offended by it will go to lengths to discredit the man for it.

I understand that. But Dawkins isn't polite about it. He's juvenile, arrogant and belittling, betraying his position of ignorance. Just watch that video that was shared early in how he and his friends are snickering and mocking the foolish things his detractors were emailing him. It's juvenile. That is not the criticism of a reasoned mind. It's childish and arrogant.

What really is the difference between believing in god and believing in fairies? I know many pagans who do believe in fairies and would find it offensive that someone would be offended about calling them equal. Though one thing I would like to bring up is the Santa Claus reference. I think we all know why Santa Claus is not a good thing to equate to god. It is a well known fact that he doesn't exist and it was only ever meant to be a neat little story for children.

Actually no, for many people God is Santa Clause, and the role and function Santa plays in a child's magical world is doing the same thing for adults with God, in similiar ways. It's they own level of relating to the Absolute with a face that they need to relate to on that level. God is seen as this externalized, "up there" giver of good things. And that is valid symbolically for them, but not as an absolute interpretation and understanding the nature of what the Infinite can and will represent for them in their growing experience.

You see, this is where you and I can launch off into great depth if you're so interested. I see atheism as really that intermideary step between casting off the adult version of the Santa myth in understanding God, to a more adult understanding. But it's not really mature, yet. It's still in the "Santa Clause is stupid!" phase. It hasn't seen the underlying truths that myths like Santa speak in human experience. It's stuck in differentiation. Dawkins is like the 'smarter' 6 year old telling their 4 year old sibling, "Santa is a lie!", feeling powerful for being so smart.

I find he is rather informed. I have not read all of his works but both of his major books on Atheism I have read. Nowhere in either of his books or blogs or other outlets have I found him to be misinformed or even underinformed on religion.

He is uninformed when you move beyond picking on the easy targets such as a 6000 year old earth as literal historic fact. He is good, as you say at debunking that mindset. But his limitation is that he thinks that mindset is all that religion is, and that's where he falls flat on his face as he continues to stand proudly on his accomplishment in ripping up the Sunday School picture book images of God. As I quoted a Christian Scholar, Elaine Pagels before, "He's not speaking of any God I believe in". That's a problem, don't you think?

The sweeping statements he has said about religion isn't based in his ignorance of religion but rather his conclusion that it is all a bunch of bunk. If you know of a specific case where he has been totally misinformed or ignorant of a religion that he has commented on I would like to know.

God, where would I begin. Maybe you could offer some of his comments you think are valid and let's see how I would respond to it? Sound okay?

I have more I can add but I'm out of time.

 

[Windwalker]

Oh, don't tell me you know nothing of the Inner Secrets of Reality.

I take it you are the author of this book?

I simply disagreed with what you said about Jesus.

Again, what are you going on about? I'm not the author of whatever this book is you're referring to.