Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[Magic Man]

"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."

I'm honestly trying to figure out what is bigotted about that. Could someone explain it to me? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't see it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Then the XIan belief that atheists wills suffer eternal punishment because of their refusal to accept the saving gace of god is also a bigoted belief? (i.e atheists have an inferior belief system.)

That there are a NUMBER of bigoted Christians in this world is obvious to even the most casual observer. Their bigotry does not excuse it in others.

 

[Apex]

I'm honestly trying to figure out what is bigotted about that. Could someone explain it to me? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't see it.

Would you consider me bigoted if I believed that all leadership positions within the government should be help by LDS because we will do a better job of leading this country simply because of our religion?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm honestly trying to figure out what is bigotted about that. Could someone explain it to me? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't see it.

Wow. It is most amazing that you don't see it, and speaks volumes about your perception of the "Jewish Lobby". Kudos to Jay for this excellent example.

Friends... I have no problems with atheists and I consider many to be friends and comrades. However, Dawkins breeds an intolerance and condescension towards those of faith that is abominable. The sad part is that he attempts to make this intolerance sound reasonable. So reasonable, that when you slapped in the face with an obviously bigoted quote: you don't see the bigotry.

Now, I have no need to be berated into believing that Dawkins is otherwise. If you really WANT to understand what I believe, then by all means read what I say. However, don't be surprised if I take your misrepresentations of me as buffoonery and merely a mean spirited way of debating. I don't appreciate it and have no time for your poisoning the well with your inaccurate statements.

 

[Magic Man]

Would you consider me bigoted if I believed that all leadership positions within the government should be help by LDS because we will do a better job of leading this country simply because of our religion?

Yeah, that might be bigotted, but that's not what he said. He said that it would be good if atheists had a small portion of the influence another group has.

 

[Magic Man]

Wow. It is most amazing that you don't see it, and speaks volumes about your perception of the "Jewish Lobby". Kudos to Jay for this excellent example.

Friends... I have no problems with atheists and I consider many to be friends and comrades. However, Dawkins breeds an intolerance and condescension towards those of faith that is abominable. The sad part is that he attempts to make this intolerance sound reasonable. So reasonable, that when you slapped in the face with an obviously bigoted quote: you don't see the bigotry.

Now, I have no need to be berated into believing that Dawkins is otherwise. If you really WANT to understand what I believe, then by all means read what I say. However, don't be surprised if I take your misrepresentations of me as buffoonery and merely a mean spirited way of debating. I don't appreciate it and have no time for your poisoning the well with your inaccurate statements.

It also speaks volumes that you don't wish to help the discussion. You'd rather just make comments like this than actually explain, as Apex did, the answer to my question. I generally take that as "I don't know why I believe what I do, I just do!".

 

[Scuba Pete]

. I generally take that as

As with most hasty generalizations, you would be generally WRONG.

If you are still CLUELESS as to the bigotry inherent in this statement, sashay on over here: Melanie Phillips’s Diary » The bigotry of the rationalist Perhaps Melanie can help with your general acceptance of Dawkins as being something other than a bigot.

 

[Magic Man]

As with most hasty generalizations, you would be generally WRONG.

I might be wrong in this case, but you had, up until now, given me no reason to suspect that I might be. It was not a hasty generalization. It was based on the many times now that you've avoided answering questions, and just made unfounded accusation.

If you are still CLUELESS as to the bigotry inherent in this statement, sashay on over here: Melanie Phillips’s Diary » The bigotry of the rationalist Perhaps Melanie can help with your general acceptance of Dawkins as being something other than a bigot.

So, is it the "Jews control everything" thing? Is that what the problem is? If that's it, I would agree that it is bigotted. I just didn't get that out of it. Also, this has nothing to do with the thread. Even if you take this that way, and consider him a bigot for it (which I wouldn't totally blame you for), how does that affect the truth or falsity of the OP?

I think it's pretty obvious that Dawkins has something against most religion. I think it's also obvious that he makes a lot of insightful commentary about it, some of which is true and some a little misguided. I don't see how bringing in bigotry towards another topic helps an argument. It would only be useful if you you could show how exactly that bigotry was affecting the conclusion he's presenting in this case.

 

[Apex]

Yeah, that might be bigotted, but that's not what he said. He said that it would be good if atheists had a small portion of the influence another group has.

No, he said the world would be a better place if athiests had more influence. I can only see that statement as bigoted no matter if you replace "athiests" with "Christian", "Muslim", "Buddhist", whatever. If he thought athiests need more influence he could have simply stated so. Instead he said "the world would be a better place". Religion should have no bearing on a group having influence to make the world a better place. I am sorry, but I also believe that Dawkins has written his arguments so they are slight enough to insult theists yet give non-theists excuses to say they are not meant to be offensive. They guy knows how to write a book and be as controversial as possible to sell as many books as possible.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm honestly trying to figure out what is bigotted about that. Could someone explain it to me? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't see it.

I don't see how that makes Dawkins bigoted, either.

 

[Magic Man]

No, he said the world would be a better place if athiests had more influence. I can only see that statement as bigoted no matter if you replace "athiests" with "Christian", "Muslim", "Buddhist", whatever. If he thought athiests need more influence he could have simply stated so. Instead he said "the world would be a better place". Religion should have no bearing on a group having influence to make the world a better place. I am sorry, but I also believe that Dawkins has written his arguments so they are slight enough to insult theists yet give non-theists excuses to say they are not meant to be offensive. They guy knows how to write a book and be as controversial as possible to sell as many books as possible.

As I've said, it's obvious that he has something against most organized religion, and that comes through in his writing. I don't think he's as controversial as people think. As has been brought up by others here, there are other current atheist writers who are even more controversial than Dawkins is, but none as well-known or popular. I don't think it's just being controversial. I think it's making good points while being controversial, and I think the fact that they're are many times good points makes theists see them as controversial.

 

[Sunstone]

No, he said the world would be a better place if athiests had more influence. I can only see that statement as bigoted no matter if you replace "athiests" with "Christian", "Muslim", "Buddhist", whatever.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, Apex. If someone said they thought the world would be a better place if, say, Buddhists had more influence, I would think of them as a advocate for Buddhists, but not necessarily as bigoted against other groups.

 

[gnomon]

What conclusions can be drawn from such a woeful lack of knowledge about people's own religion?

Good question.

Even religious leaders and writers ask this very same question. It's just too bad you prefaced your question from....the supreme evil:run:....rather than someone else.

Now we have a thread giving us a classic example of a logical fallacy.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think it's just being controversial. I think it's making good points while being controversial....

I get that impression, too. Also that a lot of the animosity towards Dawkins is provoked by his use of the word "delusion". And, last, he's broken the taboo against criticizing religion.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't see how that makes Dawkins bigoted, either.

Let's hone in on ONE remark in that statement:

[yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy

Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God's truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity.

Interesting that both Dawkins and Hitler lay the blame on Jews. It's just a small step from saying that the Jews monopolize our foreign policy to blaming them for all of the problems we are experiencing.

 

[Sunstone]

It's just a small step from saying that the Jews monopolize our foreign policy to blaming them for all of the problems we are experiencing.

I still don't see it, Pete. Are you suggesting that Dawkins must necessarily take that "small step"? If so, why?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I still don't see it, Pete. Are you suggesting that Dawkins must necessarily take that "small step"? If so, why?

No, I am suggesting that he is ALREADY bigoted. It's merely a small step to incite genocide, and I pray that he doesn't go that route. In fact, I pray that NO ONE who feels that way about the Jews ever takes the next step and acts on their bigotry.

Bigotry is insidious and even more so when it is made to sound to be reasonable. Again, I have NO PROBLEMS with atheism, and am confident that Dawkins does not represent the vast majority of atheists. That Jay (an atheist) ALSO sees him in the same light should bear some witness that I am not the only one who sees this.

 

[Sunstone]

No, I am suggesting that he is ALREADY bigoted. It's merely a small step to incite genocide, and I pray that he doesn't go that route. In fact, I pray that NO ONE who feels that way about the Jews ever takes the next step and acts on their bigotry.

I find it laughable you believe Dawkins to be prejudiced against Jews. But that's just me. You and I obviously interpret his words differently.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I find it laughable you believe Dawkins to be prejudiced against Jews.

I find it terribly tragic that you don't. We should probably leave it at that.

 

[Autodidact]

"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."

Well, as a Jew and an atheist I can't see anything the least bit bigoted in this statement. It is a simple statement of fact that there is a powerful Jewish lobby in America. Are you not familiar with The American Jewish Committee or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee? We Jews have worked very hard for decades to establish political influence greater than our demographic numbers, and I don't appreciate you acting as if acknowledging that fact were somehow anit-Semitic. And why on earth should atheists not organize to exert comparable influence? There are many more atheists than Jews in America, we're just not well-organized. From an atheist point of view, I think the world would be a much better place if we were.