Dawkins!

[lilithu]

Lilithu, it utterly disgusts me that you would (1) hurl an insult at me while (2) refusing to back it up with any justification for it whatsoever, and then (3) go offline without offering an apology for your behavior. Your behavior is completely unacceptable.

Are you serious??! :areyoucra I went off-line because I had a meeting to get to, and as it was I was late.

I said what I said because I believe it. And still do. Therefore, an apology would be hypocritical. You can disagree. You can be "utterly disgusted" for all I care. But criticizing me for going offline is a little whacked.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Holy Scnieke!!! I'm glad I didn't start this thread! More acrimony than I thought possible.

[looks around]I see my work here is done. [/looks]

 

[Smoke]

I think there's something mildly amusing about an academic who believes in aliens considering others who believe in god(s) delusional.

Dawkins writes:

This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphatically NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.

Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE."

Source: Lying for Jesus?
​

Dawkins didn't say he believed in aliens; what he said was purposely distorted by lying ID proponents.

 

[Sunstone]

Are you serious??! :areyoucra I went off-line because I had a meeting to get to, and as it was I was late.

I said what I said because I believe it. And still do. Therefore, an apology would be hypocritical. You can disagree. You can be "utterly disgusted" for all I care. But criticizing me for going offline is a little whacked.

You are once again avoiding the essence of the issue, Lilithu, which is that you have been able to give no reasons at all for having tossed an insult at me. You can pretend all you want that the issue is your going offline. You can assert all you want that you believe your insult. But none of that changes the plain fact you have refused to give any rational justification for your insult. You have refused to back it up and I believe that speaks volumes about your true temperament and character.

You have chosen to smear me for no reason you're willing to give. What if I did the same to you? How would you feel then? Do you think your actions are justified? I don't.

 

[lilithu]

You are once again avoiding the essence of the issue, Lilithu, which is that you have been able to give no reasons at all for having tossed an insult at me. You can pretend all you want that the issue is your going offline. You can assert all you want that you believe your insult. But none of that changes the plain fact you have refused to give any rational justification for your insult. You have refused to back it up and I believe that speaks volumes about your true temperament and character.

I am perfectly willing to let others look at your statement to which I was responding and decide for themselves whether or not my characterization was justified. Or, if you truly prefer, I can go digging through your previous posts to find other statements that I find to be passive-aggressive in order to show a pattern. That is a way "justify" the statement. But you are correct that I am not going to waste time arguing with you about this one incidence, because passive-aggressiveness by its very nature is slippery. People are free to draw whatever inferences about my character they will from that. Just as they are free to draw inferences about your character from your pursuit of this.

 

[Sunstone]

Or, if you truly prefer, I can go digging through your previous posts to find other statements that I find to be passive-aggressive in order to show a pattern.

Or, as you put it, "people will be free to draw their own conclusions" about whether or not you are projecting your own character traits onto me -- especially given that it has taken you several slippery hours -- until now -- to make your insult explicit in a straightforward and honest manner.

But you are correct that I am not going to waste time arguing with you about this one incidence, because passive-aggressiveness by its very nature is slippery. People are free to draw whatever inferences about my character they will from that.

The most logical inference to draw is that you cannot reasonably show my statement to be passive-aggressive so you want to cherry pick from the over 20,000 posts I have made on this board to see if you can find any you might construe as passive-aggressive. Way to go, Lilithu. Why don't you just try to show that the statement you objected to was passive-aggressive? Is your reluctance to do so because you cannot? And if that's the case, why the hell did you go off on me because of it?

Just as they are free to draw inferences about your character from your pursuit of this.

That is so cute, Lilithu. First you insult me, then you imply my character is at fault for calling you on it. Blame the victim, dear. The only time you have any need of justice and fair play is when it's to your own advantage. Otherwise anything goes with you, doesn't it.

 

[lilithu]

Why don't you just try to show that the statement you objected to was passive-aggressive? Is your reluctance to do so because you cannot? And if that's the case, why the hell did you go off on me because of it?

Go off on you? lol. One would think you've never been criticized in your life before. It was passive-aggressive - a comment designed to indirectly attack while maintaining plausible deniability. But hey, at least you're directly attacking now. Much healthier.

 

[Sententia]

The God Delusion was a fantastic read. I highly recommend it. If you can catch Dawkins in person giving a lecture at some point I also would recommend going.

He makes many, interersting and compelling points.

 

[Sunstone]

Go off on you? lol. One would think you've never been criticized in your life before.

Oh BS, Lilithu. I've taken more criticism around here than you are admitting. Just because I don't feel like putting up with your crap is no reason for you to imply I'm easily offended.

It was passive-aggressive - a comment designed to indirectly attack while maintaining plausible deniability.

You are merely restating your claim without even attempting to prove it. Again and again you accuse me of something you are unwilling to even attempt to prove. But that's OK isn't it? Because you've cunningly defined my statement as "maintaining plausible deniability" -- so you've given yourself a nice little out. Way to stack the cards, Lilithu. Why don't you just quit playing coy little games and at the very least make an attempt to prove my statement was passive-aggressive. That would be much healthier for you, wouldn't it.

But hey, at least you're directly attacking now. Much healthier.

Near as I can figure, you have projected onto me your own character traits and falsely said of me that I attacked you in a passive-aggressive manner. Then when I show you what an attack from me is really like, you pretend that I've changed my way of doing things. Well, that's bunk, Lilithu. You just keep making one statement after the other you cannot really substantiate, don't you. You seem willing to do and say anything but back up what you said.

I can no longer respect you as a person, and so I am going to end my participation in this farce you began. I've had my say, and what I said stands as is. You will no longer get the time of day from me.

 

[kai]

you guys need to calm down , your both so intelligent i cant even work out who insulted who, it goes right over my head , i must get insulted all the time and dont even know it. ( which must mean i am not insulted at all)

 

[Sunstone]

you guys need to calm down , your both so intelligent i cant even work out who insulted who, it goes right over my head , i must get insulted all the time and dont even know it. ( which must mean i am not insulted at all)

I've put her on ignore. That ends it as far as I'm concerned.

 

[kai]

I've put her on ignore. That ends it as far as I'm concerned.

Oh come on ! you guys are some of the most intelligent, speakers and thinkers i have ever come across and "you put her on ignore"

come on shake hands and anyway if you put her on ignore you cant fall out on other threads. wheres the fun in that.

 

[lilithu]

you guys need to calm down ,

I am calm, kai. I'm not backing down, but neither am I escalating.

i must get insulted all the time and dont even know it. ( which must mean i am not insulted at all)

Ha! either that your skin isn't quite so thin.

 

[kai]

ah! so we have an irresistable force forced with an imovable object? very interesting !

(Note to others please do not shout Dawkins again)

 

[Smoke]

(Note to others please do not shout Dawkins again)

Daaaaaawwwwww - kiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnssssss.

 

[lilithu]

You can be offended if you want, just don't call Dawkins bigoted for making it. It's not bigotry.

Fine, you don't consider making a blanket statement that theists are delusional to be bigoted.

What about all theists are stupid?

"My suggestion is that you won't find any intelligent person who feels the need for the supernatural."

What about religion is inherently violent?

"To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used."

What about religion is a disease?

"Happily, viruses don't win every time. Many children emerge unscathed from the worst that nuns and mullahs can throw at them."

 

[Smoke]

What about all theists are stupid?

"My suggestion is that you won't find any intelligent person who feels the need for the supernatural."

More fully:

I've met plenty of people who call themselves religious, but when you actually probe, when you ask them in detail what they believe, it turns out to be this very same awe and wonder that Wilson and Einstein talked about. If they're genuinely intelligent, it does not involve the supernatural. Unless they were brought up that way — but you were careful to say people who were not brought up religious.

My suggestion is that you won't find any intelligent person who feels the need for the supernatural. What you will find is the need for a sense of transcendent wonder, which I share as well.
​

What about religion is inherently violent?

"To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used."

Not just religion, but a specific kind of religion, which is in fact notable for violence. There are countless examples, of which here are a few:

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***. (1Samuel 15.2-3)

* * *

O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed;
happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
(Psalm 137.8-9)

* * *

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Qur'an, al-Tawbah 9.5)

* * *

For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it. "All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! (Pope Urban II, 1095)

* * *

Fly then to arms; let a holy rage animate you in the fight, and let the Christian world resound with these words of the prophet, “Cursed be he who does not stain his sword with blood!” (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, 1145)

* * *

Therefore, whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man. Just as one must slay a mad dog, so, if you do not fight the rebels, they will fight you, and the whole country with you. ... And should the peasants prevail (which God forbid!), -- for all things are possible to God, and we know not but that he is preparing for the judgment day, which cannot be far distant, and may purpose to destroy, by means of the devil, all order and authority and throw the world into wild chaos, -- yet surely they who are found, sword in hand, shall perish in the wreck with clear consciences, leaving to the devil the kingdom of this world and receiving instead the eternal kingdom. (Martin Luther, 1525)

* * *

"They all died by a righteous sentence." (Cotton Mather, 1692, on the Salem "witches")

* * *

Christians should remember that the just-war doctrine is not grounded in revenge, punishment, or even justice. Thomas Aquinas discussed it in Summa Theologica—not in the section on justice but in the section on charity (that is, the love of God). As Christian scholar Darrell Cole writes, "The Christian who fails to use force to aid his neighbor when prudence dictates that force is the best way to render that aid is an uncharitable Christian. Hence Christians who willingly and knowingly refuse to engage in a just war … fail to show love towards their neighbor as well as towards God." Out of love of neighbor, then, Christians can and should support a preemptive strike, if ordered by the appropriate magistrate to prevent an imminent attack. (Charles Colson, writing in Christianity Today, 2002)
​

What about religion is a disease?

"Happily, viruses don't win every time. Many children emerge unscathed from the worst that nuns and mullahs can throw at them."

Actually, the comparison being made was to computer viruses, and while it was undoubtedly a negative comment, I imagine most people feel justified in making negative comments about ideas with which they disagree. Certainly there is no shortage of people to make negative comments about Dawkins' ideas.

 

[crystalonyx]

"Again, I get that he is rude and deliberately inflammatory but he doesn't seem any worse than every single Christian who believes the world would be a better place if everyone were Christian which is the vast, vast majority of them"

Actually, Dawkins just wants other belief systems to have at least an "equal" footing with Christianity, or any localized religion in some country that gets special treatment. It's no secret that Christian beliefs are coddled in the U.S.(or England for Dawkins), while other beliefs, and particularly atheism are given the cold shoulder. Given the great harm Christianity has done over the last 2k years, it's time we move out of our barbaric past, and have true freedom of religion.

 

[Storm]

I'll repeat the question:

Can we at least agree that calling people delusional is counter-productive to civil discussion?

 

[crystalonyx]

There's a difference between calling "people" delusional, and a belief system "delusional".