Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[idav]

I think this is a valid point... unfortunately it makes him seem rather limited in understanding when dealing with non-Judeo-Christian faiths.

wa;do

Even in the popular book "The God Delusion" there was no real argument against the Spinoza type God. The book targeted the monotheistic type god. I don't think that means he lacks understanding of other types of gods and his other quotes do indicate he has an appreciation for that type of thinking.

 

[painted wolf]

Even in the popular book "The God Delusion" there was no real argument against the Spinoza type God. The book targeted the monotheistic type god. I don't think that means he lacks understanding of other types of gods and his other quotes do indicate he has an appreciation for that type of thinking.

perhaps it's an issue of the types of quotes being used here (and generally circulated) then.

wa:do

 

[Storm]

The statement is taking into account different concepts of gods not just God in a general sense. An atheist believes in one less god than a monotheist. A monotheist believes in only one god not all the gods described throughout history. To say that every god encompasses your god is a discredit to other theists who believe in their god in a certain way.

Where did I say such a thing?

 

[Riverwolf]

I missed your earlier mention.

Who is an expert on religion?

Scholars, historians, professors, etc. To say nothing of the actual teachers of various religions.

 

[Riverwolf]

Regardless of how he is using the term atheist, the theism of who he is talking about is assumed. Perhaps it would have read better if he said "All of us are all like atheists about most of the gods" but that is a bit nit picky for my tastes. We got the gist of what he is saying.

WE did, but that doesn't mean others will.

 

[Riverwolf]

Even in the popular book "The God Delusion" there was no real argument against the Spinoza type God. The book targeted the monotheistic type god. I don't think that means he lacks understanding of other types of gods and his other quotes do indicate he has an appreciation for that type of thinking.

But because he uses the Judeo-Christian type of religion and God in a blanket manner, it makes it look like he thinks all religions are like that. If he really doesn't, he needs to make that abundantly clear.

 

[idav]

But because he uses the Judeo-Christian type of religion and God in a blanket manner, it makes it look like he thinks all religions are like that. If he really doesn't, he needs to make that abundantly clear.

I have to elaborate a bit more. That was where he used the term "sexed up atheism" for pantheism and he does seem to have a grasp about it but I don't think I've heard any arguments for it from him.

Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. - Dawkins

 

[Riverwolf]

I have to elaborate a bit more. That was where he used the term "sexed up atheism" for pantheism and he does seem to have a grasp about it but I don't think I've heard any arguments for it from him.

...wait, what? What does pantheism have to do with anything?

 

[idav]

Where did I say such a thing?

It is about something I was trying to say. I'm just saying that the perspective of the theist is important and may not agree to include an all encompassing version of God like you or I may feel. Just like those who think Allah and Yahweh are different entities.

 

[idav]

...wait, what? What does pantheism have to do with anything?

I don't know what to say about the blanket statements. I noticed one earlier in the thread with generalizing religion. God delusion should encompass all gods if he is going to title a book like that. He should have arguments for alternate theistic viewpoints.

 

[Skeptisch]

I thought he was saying that my religion discourages me from learning about nature... Which is about as opposite of reality as you can get.wa:do

I know very little about native spirituality and my beef is with the Abrahamic varieties. Dawkins too seems to focus mostly on those:

“To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.”
-- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)

I still try to help out in the third world especially Guatemala and Honduras and lately Cuba.

[youtube]T4Wonbqh6Tw[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4Wonbqh6Tw

 

[Storm]

It is about something I was trying to say. I'm just saying that the perspective of the theist is important and may not agree to include an all encompassing version of God like you or I may feel. Just like those who think Allah and Yahweh are different entities.

OK, I thought you were attributing that statement to me.

While I do not believe in such beings as their followers do, it is still not correct to describe me as atheistic toward them.

 

[painted wolf]

I know very little about native spirituality and my beef is with the Abrahamic varieties. Dawkins too seems to focus mostly on those:

“To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.”
-- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)

I still try to help out in the third world especially Guatemala and Honduras and lately Cuba.
[youtube]T4Wonbqh6Tw[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4Wonbqh6Tw

Generally indigenous faiths value and encourage close observation of the world around you and of the self. Knowledge more often than not is a virtue.

wa:do

 

[cablescavenger]

Kind of, but not exactly. Therefore, it's not accurate to say I'm an atheist to those Gods.

As my old Band teacher used to say, "close means wrong."

lol, I can live with that.
I like the way your old band teacher thinks.

 

[cablescavenger]

Kind of, but not exactly. Therefore, it's not accurate to say I'm an atheist to those Gods.

As my old Band teacher used to say, "close means wrong."

Do you then consider cattle, cats, lambs, dung beetles, Hippo's, Lions, Tigers, crocodiles, elephants and turtles to be Gods too?

 

[Sunstone]

Dawkin's great sin is not that he's occasionally wrong but that he's so often much closer to being right than he is to being wrong. Many theists can forgive an atheist anything except his or her being right.

 

[Skeptisch]

Knowledge more often than not is a virtue.

wa:do :hug:

 

[Riverwolf]

Do you then consider cattle, cats, lambs, dung beetles, Hippo's, Lions, Tigers, crocodiles, elephants and turtles to be Gods too?

In their own way. Bear-cults are still practiced by Hokkaido natives, I believe.

I was born at the tail-end of the 80s, so dolphins and whales are somewhat sacred animals for me. Most Hindus consider cows to be divine to various degrees, being an embodiment of Mother Earth. Many Westerners seem to almost deify pet-animals like dogs.

And, of course, Sobek the Egyptian God has a crocodile head, and Lord Ganesha of Hinduism has an elephant's head. Turtles are one of the Four Heavenly Creatures of Chinese mythology.

But be all these as they may, none of it matters since all those animals exist. It doesn't matter if they're gods or not; to deny their existence would be folly.

 

[painted wolf]

Dawkin's great sin is not that he's occasionally wrong but that he's so often much closer to being right than he is to being wrong. Many theists can forgive an atheist anything except his or her being right.

I think it's uncomfortable for many people to consider you may be wrong ... especially when it's about something you devote so much time and effort into. Not to mention hopes for an afterlife (death is scary).

wa:do

 

[idav]

I think it's uncomfortable for many people to consider you may be wrong ... especially when it's about something you devote so much time and effort into. Not to mention hopes for an afterlife (death is scary).

wa:do

Yeah thats why a Christian deconversion takes like 10 years +.