Dawkins!

[lilithu]

I have never known you to avoid the b-word for long when talking about Dawkins, or to fail to characterize anybody who disagrees with your mudslinging as an "adoring supporter" or something equally patronizing.

I would just love for you to back that latter claim up with evidence. From my perspective the "adoring supporter" comment is purely in reaction to repeated claims that everyone who criticizes Dawkins as irrational, etc.

If your disagreement is with Dawkins is as rational as you say, how about presenting a rational argument about what he actually says for once?

I have no rational argument against his calling religion a virus. There has to be a rational statement in the first place for there to be a rational response.

In the thread where someone posted a quote of his about Christians not knowing much about the bible, I have been arguing the point. Guess you're just not interested in reading those threads.

 

[Smoke]

Guess you're just not interested in reading those threads.

Since you asked, I can't say I found your arguments particularly impressive. Your response to the question of whether Christians are knowledgeable about their own faith and scriptures amounted to little more than criticizing people for daring to suggest that they ought to be knowledge.

 

[Smoke]

I would just love for you to back that latter claim up with evidence.

Oh, come on. You don't really think I'm going to waste my time searching the forums to prove something we both know very well is true, do you? Why? So you can say, "I never said I never said it"? This is not my first time at the rodeo.

From my perspective the "adoring supporter" comment is purely in reaction to repeated claims that everyone who criticizes Dawkins as irrational, etc.

But there are people one this forum who do criticize Dawkins, and yet they don't get called irrational? Why do suppose that is?

 

[Smoke]

Which people think that religious topics are exempt from rational criticism? I see things like the examples you give discussed all the time.

Perhaps I didn't express it very well; it might be better if you just read the book. But surely you've noticed that there are a great many people, some of them on this very forum, who tend to characterize you as a bigot if you dare to criticize religion, and feel that religious ideas should not be subject to the same scrutiny as other ideas.

 

[lilithu]

Oh, come on. You don't really think I'm going to waste my time searching the forums to prove something we both know very well is true, do you? Why? So you can say, "I never said I never said it"? This is not my first time at the rodeo.

So the result is that you get to claim I said whatever you want and if I question it, that just proves I'm a liar. Convenient.

Since you asked, I can't say I found your arguments particularly impressive. Your response to the question of whether Christians are knowledgeable about their own faith and scriptures amounted to little more than criticizing people for daring to suggest that they ought to be knowledge.

Geez louise, if THAT is how you characterize what I wrote, then no wonder that you feel so free to fling insults at me.

Clearly we are at an impasse in that we both think each other too biased to be able to read our posts clearly. After this last post of yours, I certainly don't have any hope of you even attempting to understand what I'm trying to convey, so I'll leave you to your "fun."

 

[lunamoth]

Perhaps I didn't express it very well; it might be better if you just read the book. But surely you've noticed that there are a great many people, some of them on this very forum, who tend to characterize you as a bigot if you dare to criticize religion, and feel that religious ideas should not be subject to the same scrutiny as other ideas.

So Dawkins would agree that religious topics are just as open to discussion and criticism as other topics.

I've noticed that the vast majority of threads on this forum directly criticize religion from inside and out, across the whole spectrum of belief and different flavors of the various religions, in civil tones and modes less polite, and infrequently one person calls another a bigot.

When an attitude is infrequently expressed, or only is expressed under emotionally charged circumstances, we don't characterize that as the normative attitude. People get heated up when discussing politics and names like bigot get thrown around, but we don't then conclude that politics has a special dispensation against rational criticism.

 

[Smoke]

So Dawkins would agree that religious topics are just as open to discussion and criticism as other topics.

I've noticed that the vast majority of threads on this forum directly criticize religion from inside and out, across the whole spectrum of belief and different flavors of the various religions, in civil tones and modes less polite, and infrequently one person calls another a bigot.

When an attitude is infrequently expressed, or only is expressed under emotionally charged circumstances, we don't characterize that as the normative attitude. People get heated up when discussing politics and names like bigot get thrown around, but we don't then conclude that politics has a special dispensation against rational criticism.

But most of the people on this forum seek out the chance to talk about religion with people who hold views other than their own. I can think of several other forums that would exemplify what I'm talking about much better than this one, but I don't suppose it's politic to mention them in that context -- and you probably have some idea about where to find them, anyway.

 

[lunamoth]

But most of the people on this forum seek out the chance to talk about religion with people who hold views other than their own. I can think of several other forums that would exemplify what I'm talking about much better than this one, but I don't suppose it's politic to mention them in that context -- and you probably have some idea about where to find them, anyway.

I would think that since people here seek discussion and debate with people of differing views, the chances for conflict over religion would be much higher than in the average population.

There are 61,321 threads last time I looked about five minutes ago. Let's say half of those are non-debate threads, so about 30,660 threads might have at least one post that is critical of religion.

There were 346 hits for a search on "Dawkins" and 493 hits for a search "Dawkins" and "bigot." That means that 147 threads have posts that use the word bigot in a manner unlikely to be related to Dawkins.

147/30,660 = .004795, or less than 0.5% of all potential 'debate' threads here have a post with the word bigot used. That leaves 99.5% of these threads not using the word bigot, in spite of what I've seen as pretty intense criticism.

There are 323 threads where bigot is used, perhaps half the time in reference to Dawkins. But if we use that as the total occurance of this word, we still get 99% bigot-free threads.

 

[Smoke]

I would think that since people here seek discussion and debate with people of differing views, the chances for conflict over religion would be much higher than in the average population.

For sure. But most people are far less likely to react emotionally to disagreement, or even what they perceive disrespect. I was active on another forum before I came here, and their reaction to having any aspect of their beliefs challenged was far stronger than just, "That's not allowed here."

Even when people agree to disagree about religion, there has been until very recently a tacit agreement that nice people don't criticize religion as such. For instance, I grew up hearing "It doesn't matter where you go to church, as long as you go." People could accept differences among Christians (to a point), but it was understood that you certainly ought to be going to church somewhere. Sentiments like "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you're sincere" are still very common, and we still hear quite often that we ought to respect everybody's religious beliefs, although nobody seems to be able to explain why. Nobody thinks that we ought to respect everybody's political beliefs, or everybody's beliefs about race, or everybody's opinion about the infield fly rule, but somehow their religious beliefs, no matter how unlikely they are to be true or how much harm they seem to cause, are beliefs we "ought to" respect.

 

[lunamoth]

For sure. But most people are far less likely to react emotionally to disagreement, or even what they perceive disrespect. I was active on another forum before I came here, and their reaction to having any aspect of their beliefs challenged was far stronger than just, "That's not allowed here."

And those other forums are self-selecting for people who would be more sensitive to criticisms of their religion, especially when they've set up a space for the promotion of their religion, fellowshipping, etc. I don't think you want to walk into the local rifle club to promote your views on gun control, unless you are looking for a fight.

Even when people agree to disagree about religion, there has been until very recently a tacit agreement that nice people don't criticize religion as such. For instance, I grew up hearing "It doesn't matter where you go to church, as long as you go." People could accept differences among Christians (to a point), but it was understood that you certainly ought to be going to church somewhere. Sentiments like "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you're sincere" are still very common, and we still hear quite often that we ought to respect everybody's religious beliefs, although nobody seems to be able to explain why. Nobody thinks that we ought to respect everybody's political beliefs, or everybody's beliefs about race, or everybody's opinion about the infield fly rule, but somehow their religious beliefs, no matter how unlikely they are to be true or how much harm they seem to cause, are beliefs we "ought to" respect.

That's a lot of 'nobodies' and 'everybodies,' and yet we still have not identified that group of people today who are preventing the free criticism of religion and rational challenge of religious ideas in the public forum.

Sex, politics and religion all used to not be discussed in polite company, and I'm sure there are still circles where this still holds true. But none of these is considered to have a special dispensation against rational criticism in the public forum.

 

[Smoke]

I don't think you want to walk into the local rifle club to promote your views on gun control, unless you are looking for a fight.

At the time I joined I was able to sincerely affirm their official position, but not to toe the party line to the extent they would have preferred.

That's a lot of 'nobodies' and 'everybodies,' and yet we still have not identified that group of people today who are preventing the free criticism of religion and rational challenge of religious ideas in the public forum.

Sex, politics and religion all used to not be discussed in polite company, and I'm sure there are still circles where this still holds true. But none of these is considered to have a special dispensation against rational criticism in the public forum.

It's true that things have begun to change for the better.

 

[fantome profane]

And those other forums are self-selecting for people who would be more sensitive to criticisms of their religion, especially when they've set up a space for the promotion of their religion, fellowshipping, etc. I don't think you want to walk into the local rifle club to promote your views on gun control, unless you are looking for a fight.

But isn’t this forum also self selecting for individuals that are open to criticism? It has been my experience that generally people are not as open to criticism as this forum would indicate.

 

[lunamoth]

But isn’t this forum also self selecting for individuals that are open to criticism? It has been my experience that generally people are not as open to criticism as this forum would indicate.

Neither forum is a good representation of the general population. For somewhat different reasons, I think we would see a greater amount of religious conflict in both fourms than we would see in a cross-section of all people. The forums would tend to attract those with 'extreme' views.

 

[kai]

i posted this in another thread but i think its good to go here too.



myself and my peers left school at 16 went to work in a factory,Construction or joined the Army,
i don't know how or why, and i cant really remember being told it was, but all of us believed the bible to be a true history ,

My family and friends all look at me if i am crazy if i state otherwise, and they take it literally too, and i must admit i never really knew what an allegory was till i came on here and then i had to look it up ,

I asked my best mate if he knew what an allegory was and he said it "was like hay fever". but ask him to name some kings of Israel and he can, Solomon ,David etc and the Israelites were slaves that built the pyramids all history.

i think people like Dawkins are trying to get to grips with this kind of thing, and believe me my family and friends are kind of typical.
__________________

 

[Autodidact]

Because his tone and reputation are relevant considerations for his arguments. He is talking about what is and is not acceptable when it comes to criticising religion and many of us find the way he has conducted himself, unacceptable. Therefore, it is important to establish why this is in order to rebut his arguments.

Besides, I don't think you are giving fair consideration to the human mind here. We cannot help but respond more negatively to those things which we find distasteful. We cannot analyse things rationally when they are not only probing at things we find precious but in a very rough way. Why have you ever raised your voice or shouted at anyone ever? Why did you ever do any irrational thing? Why didn't you completely disengage your emotions and treat each and every situation like a Vulcan?

If we want these arguments to be considered, they need to be stated so that they are non-offensive. Of course there is the very real worry that this cannot be done because criticising theism is inherently offensive. But the only way that can be challenged is to state them as non-offensively as possible so that the double standard, if it does exist, is revealed clearly.

I think Dawkins thinks the opposite strategy is more productive or at least sells more books. And indeed his ideas are now widely discussed.

It occurs to me that Sam Harris, on whom I have a big crush, says more outrageous things than Dawkins, but isn't reviled as much. Don't know why.

Is it possible to do so for atheism? Or will you get offended if I explain to you that atheism is false and bad for society? That is, after all, a very real possibility.

Not at all. I would disagree vociferously, but I wouldn't be offended. That's what RF is for.

 

[Autodidact]

I have no rational argument against his calling religion a virus. There has to be a rational statement in the first place for there to be a rational response.

It's a metaphor, and a very useful one. Not just religion, but atheism as well. Thinking of these ideas as analogous to viruses can help in understanding them.

In the thread where someone posted a quote of his about Christians not knowing much about the bible, I have been arguing the point. Guess you're just not interested in reading those threads.

I think we've seen in that thread that it's true, and Christians explained why that might be--that Christianity is a revealed religion resting on faith, not knowledge of "factoids."

 

[sandie]

Why are you all so frightened of Dawkins views?

Is it that he has hit the truth and the truth is hurting ?

Most of his lectures make more if not even common sense against the fairy stories written in the bible and preached by the heads of the religions who wear their wizards clothes and stand in buildings they call houses of God.

There has not been and still is not one shred of evidence that GOD exists at all.

No one has returned from the supposed afterlife and GOD has not appeared anywhere to prove the point ever.

If religion is so good get every church,synagogue,mosque etc to open its doors to the starving homeless of the world. Not Just at christmas and stop running organised religion eg the catholic faith as a money making and corrupt profit making organisations.

Stop wars and violence in their names and request today that the Pope tear down the gold off the basillicas in Rome and hand the money to feed the starving muillions.

Its all nonesense and time for another way.

How any free thinking person can buy this nonesense of religion I am at a loss to understand.

A full abolition of religion will save the world not the other way round.

Hypocrites one and all.

HUMANISM FOREVER

 

[sandandfoam]

Its all nonesense and time for another way.

How any free thinking person can buy this nonesense of religion I am at a loss to understand.[/quote]

That's fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion

A full abolition of religion will save the world not the other way round.

Hypocrites one and all.

HUMANISM FOREVER

But I cannot agree that imposition of any phiolosophy is a good idea

 

[Storm]

Why are you all so frightened of Dawkins views?

Nobody's "frightened." Some people are offended by his characterizations. Pay attention.

Is it that he has hit the truth and the truth is hurting ?

Uh, no. I've yet to hear him make a single decent argument. Feel free to present one.

 

[Autodidact]

Have to agree with Stephen. Religion: wrong. Right to practice religion: right.