Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[Scuba Pete]

You never did answer my question--are you Jewish?

I believe that my Great Grandmother was Jewish, but I am not certain. We lost her side of the family in concentration camps in Germany. I lost my Grandfather (her son) in a concentration camp in Tientsin. My mother, Grandmother and aunt went through the war in a concentration camp in Peking. I was never told why they were in concentration camps in Germany and I assume it was due to their race. Most ex-Pats were detained by the Japanese in China.

 

[Autodidact]

I believe that my Great Grandmother was Jewish, but I am not certain. We lost her side of the family in concentration camps in Germany. I lost my Grandfather (her son) in a concentration camp in Tientsin. My mother, Grandmother and aunt went through the war in a concentration camp in Peking. I was never told why they were in concentration camps in Germany and I assume it was due to their race. Most ex-Pats were detained by the Japanese in China.

I take that as a "no" then? I see it didn't stop you from telling me how to be Jewish. Stop and think how overbearing, arrogant and just plain racist it is for a gentile to tell a Jew how to be Jewish next time, will you?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I take that as a "no" then? I see it didn't stop you from telling me how to be Jewish. Stop and think how overbearing, arrogant and just plain racist it is for a gentile to tell a Jew how to be Jewish next time, will you?

Yeah... I never told you how to be a Jew. That would be a gross misrepresentation of reality. But then, you're really good at that!

But then, I have to wonder: why are you so preoccupied with my race/nationality? Are you also a Gentile-phobe? How do my origins affect my outlook here? I suspect, you just wanted to bash me as hard as you could and so you played the race card. Sad that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the Guardian article is the best that has been offered thus far..........

well that's pathetic. Hardly surprising though.

What is pathetic (hardly surprising though) is the casual dismissal of prototypical talking points fueling today's anti-semitism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here's how you now it's not bigoted. The point of the statement is that Atheists should emulate Jews in this regard. Hence it could not possibly be negative regarding Jews, since what he is advocating is that atheists be more like them.

And, speaking of pathetic, ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” - Dawkins

 

[Scuba Pete]

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” - Dawkins

C'mon Jay, their minds are made up: don't confuse them with facts. They will contend that "just because" he said it, he really didn't mean it.

 

[crystalonyx]

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” - Dawkins

Certainly true for much of the world's religious population.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Certainly true for much of the world's religious population.

Your contempt "for much of the world's religious population" may say more about you than about religion.

 

[Autodidact]

Yeah... I never told you how to be a Jew. That would be a gross misrepresentation of reality. But then, you're really good at that!

But then, I have to wonder: why are you so preoccupied with my race/nationality? Are you also a Gentile-phobe? How do my origins affect my outlook here? I suspect, you just wanted to bash me as hard as you could and so you played the race card. Sad that.

You don't think a Jew has any valuable perspective on whether something is anti-semitic or not?
You called me an Uncle Tom Jew, thereby obliterating any shred of respect I might have retained for you.

 

[Autodidact]

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” - Dawkins

Exactly, and well put, too.

 

[Autodidact]

C'mon Jay, their minds are made up: don't confuse them with facts. They will contend that "just because" he said it, he really didn't mean it.

I mean it too. Now explain to me as to a small child how this is bigoted. Take note that it is a statement about religion, not about any group of people.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Exactly, and well put, too.

If you had included "Edith" in this statement, I would not have been surprised.

 

[Willamena]

I mean it too. Now explain to me as to a small child how this is bigoted. Take note that it is a statement about religion, not about any group of people.

"...it teaches us..." isn't a statement about a group of people (those who "learned that lesson")?

Religion is the object, "us" is the subject; it is a statement about "us." However much he includes himself in that group, I'm glad to say I don't include myself.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I mean it too. Now explain to me as to a small child how this is bigoted. Take note that it is a statement about religion, not about any group of people.

If you haven't figured it out by now, then I don't think it's possible for you to understand the distinction. Sad that. You seem hell bent on embracing this bias as a positive thing and I can not dissuade you from that.

 

[logician]

Certainly true for much of the world's religious population.

Since the Catholic church has the largest membership of the world's religions, and is more liberal than Islam, and has a history of a stance against embryonic stem cell research, and still does, and since embryonic stem cell research furthers our knowledge of the world, one would have to say that Dawkin's statement is true.

 

[Autodidact]

"...it teaches us..." isn't a statement about a group of people (those who "learned that lesson")?

Religion is the object, "us" is the subject; it is a statement about "us." However much he includes himself in that group, I'm glad to say I don't include myself.

No, the subject of the sentence is "religion." Anyone who "listens" to religion is liable to learn that lesson. Bigotry is a statement that there is a group of people who are different and inferior in some way.

By this standard, religion is beyond criticism, because any negative statement about religion reflects negatively on religious people, and gets called bigotry. That is exactly what Dawkins argues--that religion is and should not be beyond criticism.

 

[Autodidact]

If you haven't figured it out by now, then I don't think it's possible for you to understand the distinction. Sad that. You seem hell bent on embracing this bias as a positive thing and I can not dissuade you from that.

Petese for "you disagree with me." Pete: It's quite possible for someone to disagree with you without failing to understand. Your implication that disagreeing with you is the functional equivalent of failing to understand smacks of arrogance.

So I gather that you cannot convey why you find this statement bigoted then?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” - Dawkins

Exactly, and well put, too.

Sincerity and conscientiousness in themselves are not enough. History has proven that these noble virtues may degenerate into tragic vices. Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Never must [we] tire of reminding men that they have a moral responsibility to be intelligent. The heart can never be totally right if the head is totally wrong. (Martin Luther King - Love In Action).

Sadly, Dawkin's statement, so characteristic of Autodidact, does not even rise to the level of sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity.

 

[Yerda]

Sadly, Dawkin's statement, so characteristic of Autodidact, does not even rise to the level of sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity.

Both of them are anti-Semitic?