interpreting Dawkins

[McBell]

The intent of the question is wheter you feel it goes to people or not. I wouldn´t really argue here the "which kind"s of religious people we are refering to.

I would classify that if you understand it as people, then you go with option 1, but if you don´t wish to vote so, oh well

Yes, it does say to mock people.

Though I wonder why you are so adamant on winning such a shallow "victory"...

 

[McBell]

I don't care if Dawkins loves all religious people or hates them all or is indifferent- I can only listen to his words: "Mock them! Ridicule them!" as he says them. Even if his words are taken out of context, or especially, there are some people who would do just what he says, no matter what he really meant- and mock religious people in public. That, to me, would be pretty darn rude- especially if the religious person isn't proselytizing or getting into the other person's face.

I don't have to worry about anyone doing this to me, since I don't talk to strangers- I am shy, and I don't believe in discussing religion or politics in public with strangers. But I wear a cross and a fish (it was my late brother's fish) and it would be pretty easy to tell I am a Christian. If someone got in my face, I don't think that would be right. I am NOT saying that Mr. Dawkins encourages that, but people are sheep and some of the people listening to his words could (although unlikely) to do just that. But then I could be just borrowing trouble.

Ah.
Like the people who "justify" their homophobia with the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

 

[Me Myself]

Yes, it does say to mock people.

Though I wonder why you are so adamant on winning such a shallow "victory"...

Cause I was very surprised to see inteligent reasonable people here pretend it doesn´t say so simply because they like Dawkins.

 

[gnomon]

So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is: “I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you until you tell me do you really believe — for example, if they say they are Catholic — do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?” Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!

What is your first impression of the meaning of the bolded part?

The word mock is in his speech. Ignoring the preceding two paragraphs that directly led up to his point, specifically in regards to the number of people who claim a religious title but either do not actually believe the religious claims associated with it or don't live up to it, ignores what he was talking about.

 

[fantome profane]

At some point it might be interesting to start discussing ideas, and stop discussing this one person.

It really doesn't matter what Dawkins said or what he meant. It is wrong to mock people. Mocking ideas however is allowed.

I know I am off topic here, and I just don't care. This topic is getting really stupid.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Meh... Dawkins is too focused on religion himself when he's supposed to be a scientist... Maybe we should start calling him religious.

 

[nnmartin]

Ah, so you agree with the idea that it is perfectly fine to not only mock someone for their beliefs, but also to call them names?

Of course, your above quoted post shows that the answer is "yes"...

Dawkins doesn't have any beliefs so what are you on about?

He is a self-confessed atheist , that means he believes in nothing.

and as for mocking, most of his books are doing this in a fairly subtle , but permanent manner.

 

[gnomon]

Dawkins doesn't have any beliefs so what are you on about?

He is a self-confessed atheist , that means he believes in nothing.

and as for mocking, most of his books are doing this in a fairly subtle , but permanent manner.

Most of his books are not about religion. And being an atheist doesn't mean you believe in nothing.

I'm an atheist. I believe Shia Lebeouf will never be a good actor.

See.

 

[nnmartin]

Dawkins has just got too big for his boots.

He probably is starting to develop a God complex himself

All hail to Dawkins!

 

[nnmartin]

Most of his books are not about religion. And being an atheist doesn't mean you believe in nothing.

I'm an atheist. I believe Shia Lebeouf will never be a good actor.

See.

they are not about religion, but his famous one on evolution (The greatest show on Earth) is nothing other than an attack on spiritual, religious belief.

other books of his are also in a similar vein, ie: the God delusion, Chasing the rainbow(?) - all plod along in similar fashion.

 

[nnmartin]

Yes, it does say to mock people.

Though I wonder why you are so adamant on winning such a shallow "victory"...

looks like Mestemia is taking offence at his God Dawkins being admonished

 

[McBell]

Dawkins doesn't have any beliefs so what are you on about?

He is a self-confessed atheist , that means he believes in nothing.

and as for mocking, most of his books are doing this in a fairly subtle , but permanent manner.

Interesting how you did not address the point of my post...

 

[McBell]

looks like Mestemia is taking offence at his God Dawkins being admonished

:biglaugh:
Can always count on you to post comments based on assumptions that make you look like an ***.

 

[McBell]

Dawkins has just got too big for his boots.

He probably is starting to develop a God complex himself

All hail to Dawkins!

More mocking and ridicule from you.

Now we know that you think it just fine.

 

[McBell]

they are not about religion, but his famous one on evolution (The greatest show on Earth) is nothing other than an attack on spiritual, religious belief.

other books of his are also in a similar vein, ie: the God delusion, Chasing the rainbow(?) - all plod along in similar fashion.

:biglaugh:
Ah, you must be reading the self appointed martyr cliff notes versions of Dawkin's books.

 

[waitasec]

I don't care if Dawkins loves all religious people or hates them all or is indifferent- I can only listen to his words: "Mock them! Ridicule them!" as he says them. Even if his words are taken out of context, or especially, there are some people who would do just what he says, no matter what he really meant- and mock religious people in public. That, to me, would be pretty darn rude- especially if the religious person isn't proselytizing or getting into the other person's face.

I don't have to worry about anyone doing this to me, since I don't talk to strangers- I am shy, and I don't believe in discussing religion or politics in public with strangers. But I wear a cross and a fish (it was my late brother's fish) and it would be pretty easy to tell I am a Christian. If someone got in my face, I don't think that would be right. I am NOT saying that Mr. Dawkins encourages that, but people are sheep and some of the people listening to his words could (although unlikely) to do just that. But then I could be just borrowing trouble.

oh brother...
creating ones own context sure is convenient...aint it?

 

[Me Myself]

oh brother...
creating ones own context sure is convenient...aint it?

You just did actually. You made now comment on what she actually meant, and by highliting one part you whited off all the meaning she put in.

Why did she said that the context in this case is not important? I´d like to actually see if you understood what she told you, if the sincere stuff would be saying that you are reading it for the first time though, I don´t blame you.

...much

 

[Nobody]

I have only just got around to watching the Dawkins speech, I have no objections to what he said.

It seems relevant to point out that Dawkins is English, and religion in general is seen over here as while a bit odd, it has some good morals to it (not my view, but whatever). I hardly know any Christians that do not consider doctrines like the virgin birth, transubstantiation and the like as clearly absurd, and if someone insisted these things were true they would lose all credibility. Most people wouldn't mock them though, but IMO we are have been far too polite.
According to a recent poll about half don't even believe that Jesus "was a real person who died and came back to life, and was the son of God". (Not enough posts to link the YouGov poll, it's easy enough to find with google though.)

I think he just makes it clear that the patience we have shown to the unwarranted respect that faith has always taken for granted has finally run out. People can believe what they like, but no belief, or the people that hold them are exempt from criticism anymore.

Dawkins doesn't have any beliefs so what are you on about?

He is a self-confessed atheist , that means he believes in nothing.

People still try this tired old line?

Atheist:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
[1913 Webster]

 

[waitasec]

You just did actually. You made now comment on what she actually meant, and by highliting one part you whited off all the meaning she put in.

Why did she said that the context in this case is not important? I´d like to actually see if you understood what she told you, if the sincere stuff would be saying that you are reading it for the first time though, I don´t blame you.

...much

see how that works...?

 

[ChristineES]

Once again, someone defending this behavior. Or at least being apologetic about it, because, that's really what you're doing.

Quite frankly, I don't know what you're talking about.