Dawkins on Christian Inconsistency...

[Rick O'Shez]

Religions themselves do these without needing Dawkins astute observations.

The religious homophobia we see on this forum and elsewhere undermines the idea that religions are able or willing to self-moderate their own fundamentalists. Not to mention the violence carried out by Islamic fundamentalists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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


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.

I was thinking mainly of personal interactions I've had with theists, but here's an example from the media:

Oprah Tells An Atheist She Believes In God. The Atheist Responds Like A Christian. Or Any Human.

Oprah, who could hardly be called a fundamentalist, is more negative toward atheists than Dawkins is toward theists. Is this reflected in Oprah's reputation? Outside of atheist circles, no.

No, not like that. I'm asking for things that Liberal says to him, not 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.

Maybe you should write him with your thoughts so that he can respond to heckling that's more to your liking.

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?

Simply reading the hate mail he gets? I see no problem with this at all.

It is actually no better than the attitudes and views of fundamentalists.

Treating profanity and threats with less than full respect is just as bad as the profanity and threats themselves? You really believe this?

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???

I don't know your friends or the content of any private conversations they might have had with Richard Dawkins.

I have had some issues with what he's said from time to time myself.

I do think that a lot of the negative reaction he gets is due to the fact that he's challenging the status quo, and that people generally don't bat an eye when worse criticism is put forward against atheists.

The mainstream believes Noah's Ark is real? That the earth is 6000 years old?

Let me put it this way:

- in the 2012 presidential election, about 66 million people voted for Obama.
- Pew Forum's 2013 poll on beliefs about evolution and creationism found that 33% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve and "have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." 33% of the current US population is about 104 million.

I'd say that a view held by almost twice as many people as voted for the current president counts as "mainstream", at least for the US.

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.

Dawkins has written at length about "moderate" religion.

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

I have, but the fact that all of your objections seemed to deal only with the book's title make me wonder how much you actually know about the content of the writing you're criticizing.

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?

I haven't read it cover to cover, but I've read parts of it.

...but since you've read the whole thing and claim to know the book in detail, I'm sure you can give a more specific objection.

Just to clarify: I'm looking for an actual quote. One that has the same message you say Dawkins is giving.

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

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

LOL

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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,

As do many Christians. That's how the book is identified in the KJV/AV Bible that Dawkins likely learned in school.

and that by saying Jesus was the son of God means to believe that he was necessarily omniscient.

He actually said this? Can you provide a quote?

 

[fiat lux]

Dawkins may well be lacking in his understanding of religions.
But really, is that at all noteworthy?

Well.... yes! What would you say if someone said to you, "I believe all opera is rubbish and all opera-lovers must be deluded morons, - I have never been to one, and of course, never would".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well.... yes! What would you say if someone said to you, "I believe all opera is rubbish and all opera-lovers must be deluded morons, - I have never been to one, and of course, never would".

That's not a good analogy for the situation here. Dawkins has attended plenty of "operas"; your criticism against him would be analogous to saying that if he doesn't know which notes make up the countertenor range, then he isn't informed enough to call opera elitist.

Edit: "he thinks that the countertenor and mezzosoprano ranges are 'virtually the same', but in reality they only MOSTLY overlap! They're different by a couple of notes! The fact that he overlooks this nuance means we can ignore his criticisms."

 

[Windwalker]

LOL

Shhh... don't tell anyone. I wrote the Bible. I also wrote the U.S. Constitution, as well as War and Peace. It'll be our secret. Okay?

 

[fiat lux]

@9-10ths ; Quote, Edward Feser A reader asks for my response to this passage from Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion:

Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent. (pp. 77-78)
We have here a standard New Atheist rhetorical trick: Take a simplistic objection to theism that has been raised and answered many times and present it to the unwary non-expert reader as if it were a devastating refutation that no one has ever been able to rebut.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@9-10ths ; Quote, Edward Feser A reader asks for my response to this passage from Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion:

Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent. (pp. 77-78)
We have here a standard New Atheist rhetorical trick: Take a simplistic objection to theism that has been raised and answered many times and present it to the unwary non-expert reader as if it were a devastating refutation that no one has ever been able to rebut.

It may have been answered, but AFAIK never validly.

Edit: also, it's rather misleading to present a remark that Dawkins made in passing as some sort of thunderous conclusion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I would be more interested in seeing theists respond to Dawkins critique, instead of just attacking the man.

 

[LuisDantas]

The religious homophobia we see on this forum and elsewhere undermines the idea that religions are able or willing to self-moderate their own fundamentalists. Not to mention the violence carried out by Islamic fundamentalists.

This is so, so very true. Unfortunately.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well.... yes! What would you say if someone said to you, "I believe all opera is rubbish and all opera-lovers must be deluded morons, - I have never been to one, and of course, never would".

I would tell "so what". That I don't say that to Dawkins shows that there is something to his claims.

 

[Orbit]

That is certainly true. And more than a bit silly.




It is not accidental, you are just primed to blow it out into weird meanings for no clear reason. I can't be bothered to care about that, sorry.

I think what Windwalker is referring to, is that as atheists we know full well that there is more to atheism than the dictionary definition of lack of belief in gods. There is an entire set of ideologies that go with atheism, including philosophical materialism and the subsequent denigration of "woo", skepticism as an orienting perspective, and sometimes, as with Dawkins, anti-theism.

As an atheist, I definitely had a path through atheism, learning these attitudes and orientations towards the world. At the end of my atheist path I found the lack of spirituality in my life unacceptable. In that sense, I most definitely did have an atheist "path".

 

[LuisDantas]

I think what Windwalker is referring to, is that as atheists we know full well that there is more to atheism than the dictionary definition of lack of belief in gods.

To the extent that there is, it is by no attribute of atheism proper. It is just because we have to deal with a society that so often assumes theism of some kind.

There is an entire set of ideologies that go with atheism, including philosophical materialism and the subsequent denigration of "woo", skepticism as an orienting perspective, and sometimes, as with Dawkins, anti-theism.

Depends on what you mean by "go with", I suppose. There is a correlation in the statistic sense, certainly.

However, Windwalker was mistaking himself there, as he made a point of emphasizing. He made atheism look like some sort of ideology with a goal, when it is anything but.

As an atheist, I definitely had a path through atheism, learning these attitudes and orientations towards the world. At the end of my atheist path I found the lack of spirituality in my life unacceptable. In that sense, I most definitely did have an atheist "path".

Not in the sense WW wants to see it, I figure.

 

[Orbit]

However, Windwalker was mistaking himself there, as he made a point of emphasizing. He made atheism look like some sort of ideology with a goal, when it is anything but.

.

I think I've demonstrated that there IS a coherent set of ideologies that accompany atheism, but you are choosing to ignore it

 

[LuisDantas]

I think I've demonstrated that there IS a coherent set of ideologies that accompany atheism, but you are choosing to ignore it

No, you have given an case example. Extrapolating from it is something else entirely. Atheism does not imply even skepticism.

 

[Orbit]

No, you have given an case example. Extrapolating from it is something else entirely. Atheism does not imply even skepticism.

Since this is a thread on Dawkins, how about you tell me that materialism, skepticism, and anti-theism are NOT part of his books, which are widely accepted as a standard of atheism?

 

[LuisDantas]

Since this is a thread on Dawkins, how about you tell me that materialism, skepticism, and anti-theism are NOT part of his books, which are widely accepted as a standard of atheism?

Why would say such a misleading thing? I don't even know whether Dawkins is a materialist, and I have no business with that claim that he is a "widely accepted" reference.

 

[Orbit]

Why would say such a misleading thing? I don't even know whether Dawkins is a materialist, and I have no business with that claim that he is a "widely accepted" reference.

Then why are you refuting what I said? How can you claim to know anything about what atheism is or isn't without having this knowledge? Answer: you can't.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then why are you refuting what I said? How can you claim to know anything about what atheism is or isn't without having this knowledge? Answer: you can't.

Being an atheist is plenty credential enough, of course. Whoever taught you about atheism seems to have lied.