Discussion:
Hilarious Dawkins Satire Video
(too old to reply)
b***@juno.com
2007-07-16 00:04:28 UTC
Permalink
For those who don't know, Richard Dawkins is a famous British Atheist
who recently published a book called "The God Delusion."

This video makes fun of Dawkins' arguments against God, by turning the
exact same arguments against the existence of Dawkins himself.


George
2007-08-01 01:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@juno.com
For those who don't know, Richard Dawkins is a famous British Atheist
who recently published a book called "The God Delusion."
This video makes fun of Dawkins' arguments against God, by turning the
exact same arguments against the existence of Dawkins himself.
http://youtu.be/QERyh9YYEis
Lame.

George

----

[Not a very compelling argument. --clh]
Mike
2007-08-07 03:39:27 UTC
Permalink
On 1 Aug, 02:13, George <***@yourservice.com> wrote:
...
Post by b***@juno.com
This video makes fun of Dawkins' arguments against God, by turning the
exact same arguments against the existence of Dawkins himself.
http://youtu.be/QERyh9YYEis
Lame.
Lame response? This video (and some of the books out there refuting
Dawkins) show him up for what he is - a brilliant scientist who ought
to stick to his day job. The only people who aren't going to
appreciate this sort of satire are those who don't like the idea of
Dawkins being shown up for the shallow philosopher he is - primarily
those atheists who share his strident anti-religion stance - or those
who have a sense of humour failure.

I would not mind Dawkins too much if it were not for this idea he has
that bringing a child up within a religious framework constitutes
"child abuse". This is the sort of stuff which ends up with people
having their children taken into care because their parents are
Christian (yes... it has happened...). It's also the sort of attitude
which leads to people trying to remove politicians from office because
they adhere to a particular religion (there was a recent case of an
Italian Catholic being subjected to this).

To quote one Catholic commentator on Dawkin's claims, ""Dawkins is
well known for his vitriolic attacks on faith, and I think faith has
withstood his attacks. He really is going beyond his abilities as a
scientist when he starts to venture into the field of philosophy and
theology. He is the guy with demonstrable problems."

What I wonder is whether Dawkins realises the damage he is doing to
the scientific community. All he is going to do is raise the
temperature of debate between scientists and faith communities, and
end up alienating the very people he is apparently trying to convince
are wrong. It does beg the question as to whether his commentaries on
religion result from professional expedience rather than an actual
intellectual concern. In other words, is he just trying to silence the
main group of people who might object to any or all future genetic
experimentation on ethical grounds?

Mike.
George
2007-08-10 02:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
...
Post by b***@juno.com
This video makes fun of Dawkins' arguments against God, by turning the
exact same arguments against the existence of Dawkins himself.
http://youtu.be/QERyh9YYEis
Lame.
Lame response? This video (and some of the books out there refuting
Dawkins) show him up for what he is - a brilliant scientist who ought
to stick to his day job. The only people who aren't going to
appreciate this sort of satire are those who don't like the idea of
Dawkins being shown up for the shallow philosopher he is - primarily
those atheists who share his strident anti-religion stance - or those
who have a sense of humour failure.
I would not mind Dawkins too much if it were not for this idea he has
that bringing a child up within a religious framework constitutes
"child abuse". This is the sort of stuff which ends up with people
having their children taken into care because their parents are
Christian (yes... it has happened...). It's also the sort of attitude
which leads to people trying to remove politicians from office because
they adhere to a particular religion (there was a recent case of an
Italian Catholic being subjected to this).
Or preventing politicians from running for office because they hold no
religious beliefs (it is far more common than the other way around).
Speaking of child abuse:


Post by Mike
To quote one Catholic commentator on Dawkin's claims, ""Dawkins is
well known for his vitriolic attacks on faith, and I think faith has
withstood his attacks. He really is going beyond his abilities as a
scientist when he starts to venture into the field of philosophy and
theology. He is the guy with demonstrable problems."
What I wonder is whether Dawkins realises the damage he is doing to
the scientific community. All he is going to do is raise the
temperature of debate between scientists and faith communities, and
end up alienating the very people he is apparently trying to convince
are wrong.
As opposed to the Creationist museum, that is an anathema to everything
science stands for? Dawkins certainly didn't start this debate. And he
certainly won't have the last word. Though I dare say he has brought up
many very valid points.
Post by Mike
It does beg the question as to whether his commentaries on
religion result from professional expedience rather than an actual
intellectual concern. In other words, is he just trying to silence the
main group of people who might object to any or all future genetic
experimentation on ethical grounds?
I suspect he is simply telling the truth as he, and many others (myself
included) see it.

George
Mike
2007-08-13 14:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Mike
It's also the sort of attitude
which leads to people trying to remove politicians from office because
they adhere to a particular religion (there was a recent case of an
Italian Catholic being subjected to this).
Or preventing politicians from running for office because they hold no
religious beliefs (it is far more common than the other way around).
Is either attitude OK?

Is that what you're trying to say; that two wrongs make a right?
Post by George
http://youtu.be/tvCUP8mlGgk
That may be "scary" to you. But any sense of indoctrination you have
from this film is no more than the indoctrination of secularism that
goes on in the modern media. Do you know why these people go to these
lengths to teach their children about the faith they believe in?
Because they know that people like Dawkins will confront them and
ridicule them and pick on them when they get older, simply because
they have faith, and the parents believe that if their children are
going to be able to stand up and be counted, then they need to be
grounded in their own beliefs so they can explain them properly.

But no; what we'll try to portray instead is some sort of "plot" to
thwart those poor downtrodden secularists by getting children involved
in... the religion of their parents!

Shock horror! Surely this mustn't be allowed! These people don't
deserve to have children. Much better that we take their children
away, or better still sterilise them so they can't breed. But no; we
can't get away with that (yet), so we'll just lampoon them instead.

Heaven knows how anti-Christian/anti-religion some parts of the media
are.

What business is it of people like Dawkins to question whether I
should be able to teach my children what I believe? I don't interfere
with his family life; why should he attempt to interfere with mine?
Post by George
Post by Mike
To quote one Catholic commentator on Dawkin's claims, ""Dawkins is
well known for his vitriolic attacks on faith, and I think faith has
withstood his attacks. He really is going beyond his abilities as a
scientist when he starts to venture into the field of philosophy and
theology. He is the guy with demonstrable problems."
What I wonder is whether Dawkins realises the damage he is doing to
the scientific community. All he is going to do is raise the
temperature of debate between scientists and faith communities, and
end up alienating the very people he is apparently trying to convince
are wrong.
As opposed to the Creationist museum, that is an anathema to everything
science stands for?
Has it occurred to you what started the "Creationist" movement? It's a
reaction against the secularists who were intent on attacking religion
in the media, public arena, and school systems. These people were
galvanised by people like Dawkins, who has unwittingly made science an
enemy of these people, rather than a tool to allow them to learn and
develop.

Dawkins is an albatross around science's neck. It is no wonder that he
comes under fire from some of his fellow scientists. Shame, but he
doesn't seem to realise the harm he's doing. Science for him is an end
in itself. He has lost the plot; what science is actually for.
Post by George
Dawkins certainly didn't start this debate.
Maybe not. But he's certainly not adding anything new to it, and not
improving matters either.
Post by George
And he
certainly won't have the last word. Though I dare say he has brought up
many very valid points.
Maybe, but at the cost of alienating many people who he need not have
done.
Post by George
Post by Mike
It does beg the question as to whether his commentaries on
religion result from professional expedience rather than an actual
intellectual concern. In other words, is he just trying to silence the
main group of people who might object to any or all future genetic
experimentation on ethical grounds?
I suspect he is simply telling the truth as he, and many others (myself
included) see it.
I doubt it. Someone of his intelligence doesn't get involved in stuff
like this - particularly when he's so clearly out of his depth in an
area he really doesn't understand - unless there is some ulterior
motive, or unless there's money to be had.

In this case it looks like it could be both.

I just wish he'd get back to what he does best.

Mike.
George
2007-08-14 02:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
It's also the sort of attitude
which leads to people trying to remove politicians from office because
they adhere to a particular religion (there was a recent case of an
Italian Catholic being subjected to this).
Or preventing politicians from running for office because they hold no
religious beliefs (it is far more common than the other way around).
Is either attitude OK?
Is that what you're trying to say; that two wrongs make a right?
It is a fact that most state's (and all states in the south) require
candidates for political office to profess belief in god. How many states
are you aware of that allow atheists to hold political office? Isn't this
supposed to be a democratic republic founded on separation of church and
state?
Post by Mike
Post by George
http://youtu.be/tvCUP8mlGgk
That may be "scary" to you. But any sense of indoctrination you have
from this film is no more than the indoctrination of secularism that
goes on in the modern media. Do you know why these people go to these
lengths to teach their children about the faith they believe in?
Because they know that people like Dawkins will confront them and
ridicule them and pick on them when they get older, simply because
they have faith, and the parents believe that if their children are
going to be able to stand up and be counted, then they need to be
grounded in their own beliefs so they can explain them properly.
Oh, so they teach their children to be holy warriers for Christ (complete
with rifle training) because Dawkins is the boogeyman out to get them? And
you think they are cute! What drugs are you taking that makes you so
delusional? Did you even watch the video?
Post by Mike
But no; what we'll try to portray instead is some sort of "plot" to
thwart those poor downtrodden secularists by getting children involved
in... the religion of their parents!
No, I actually think they are more akin to the Waco Wackos. You remember
them, don't you?
Post by Mike
Shock horror! Surely this mustn't be allowed! These people don't
deserve to have children. Much better that we take their children
away, or better still sterilise them so they can't breed. But no; we
can't get away with that (yet), so we'll just lampoon them instead.
Wow, such paranoia already. No doubt you sleep with a shotgun beneath your
pillow. How sad for you.
Post by Mike
Heaven knows how anti-Christian/anti-religion some parts of the media
are.
Heaven knows how deluded some religion zealots are. So do I, and a lot of
other people, for that matter.
Post by Mike
What business is it of people like Dawkins to question whether I
should be able to teach my children what I believe? I don't interfere
with his family life; why should he attempt to interfere with mine?
What business is it of yours or anyone else's to teach children to hate
others simply because they don't believe as someone else does? Dawkins is
not interfering with anyone's life. Next you'll be telling me that gays
are out to sodomize your children while you look on, eating pudding.
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
To quote one Catholic commentator on Dawkin's claims, ""Dawkins is
well known for his vitriolic attacks on faith, and I think faith has
withstood his attacks. He really is going beyond his abilities as a
scientist when he starts to venture into the field of philosophy and
theology. He is the guy with demonstrable problems."
What I wonder is whether Dawkins realises the damage he is doing to
the scientific community. All he is going to do is raise the
temperature of debate between scientists and faith communities, and
end up alienating the very people he is apparently trying to convince
are wrong.
As opposed to the Creationist museum, that is an anathema to everything
science stands for?
Has it occurred to you what started the "Creationist" movement? It's a
reaction against the secularists who were intent on attacking religion
in the media, public arena, and school systems. These people were
galvanised by people like Dawkins, who has unwittingly made science an
enemy of these people, rather than a tool to allow them to learn and
develop.
Utter crap. Have you ever heard of the Scopes monkey trial? And even
before that, the calvinist movement was blatently against many aspects of
modern science. What media campaign was attacking religion when the state
of Tennessee banned the teaching of evolution? Dude, you really should see
a shrink before your paranoia gets the best of you.
Post by Mike
Dawkins is an albatross around science's neck.
What would you know of it? Are you a scientist? No? I am. You don't
know what you are talking about.
Post by Mike
It is no wonder that he
comes under fire from some of his fellow scientists.
What fellow scientists? Behe? He's the laughing stock of the scientific
community worldwide.
Post by Mike
Shame, but he
doesn't seem to realise the harm he's doing. Science for him is an end
in itself. He has lost the plot; what science is actually for.
Post by George
Dawkins certainly didn't start this debate.
Maybe not. But he's certainly not adding anything new to it, and not
improving matters either.
Well, if you expect scientists to just keep their mouths shut while
religious zealots attempt to subvert scientific research and science
education, well then, I think you've yet to see the full wrath of the
scientific and the education community, to say nothing of the legal system.
By the way, many religious organizations, while not agreeing with Dawkins
on his stance with regard to religion in general, do, in fact, agree with
him about many other issues he raises. By and large the ones who are in
comoplete disagreement with him are evangelical Christians and many Muslim
organizations. Man, talk about strange bedfellows!
Post by Mike
Post by George
And he
certainly won't have the last word. Though I dare say he has brought up
many very valid points.
Maybe, but at the cost of alienating many people who he need not have
done.
Religious zelaots who attempt to impose dominionism, revisionism,
isolationism, bigotry, and intolerance on society at large alienate
themselves. They don't need any help from Richard Dawkins or anyone else.
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
It does beg the question as to whether his commentaries on
religion result from professional expedience rather than an actual
intellectual concern. In other words, is he just trying to silence the
main group of people who might object to any or all future genetic
experimentation on ethical grounds?
I suspect he is simply telling the truth as he, and many others (myself
included) see it.
I doubt it. Someone of his intelligence doesn't get involved in stuff
like this - particularly when he's so clearly out of his depth in an
area he really doesn't understand - unless there is some ulterior
motive, or unless there's money to be had.
On the contrary, it is quite clear to me that it is you who don't
understand the issues involved. Case in point: Instead of discussing the
issues he raises, you attack the man himself. That is typical of some
religious people who rely on blind faith at the expense of reason and logic
in such matters. Try learning to control your emotions. You're heart will
thank you.
Post by Mike
In this case it looks like it could be both.
I just wish he'd get back to what he does best.
Mike.
Why, so you won't have to think for yourself, and can simply crawl back
into that little faith- hole you crawled out of?

George

----

[Sorry, but Calvin was in favor of the new astronomy. He developed one of
the major exegetical arguments for reconciling science with the Bible:
that the Bible records things as a normal person would see them, e.g.
the Sun rising in the east, not as a scientist would describe it. In
general Calvinism has had no problem with science, though I suppose
there are some Calvinists who are creationists. --clh]
Chris Smith
2007-08-15 02:48:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Mike
Has it occurred to you what started the "Creationist" movement? It's a
reaction against the secularists who were intent on attacking religion
in the media, public arena, and school systems. These people were
galvanised by people like Dawkins, who has unwittingly made science an
enemy of these people, rather than a tool to allow them to learn and
develop.
Utter crap. Have you ever heard of the Scopes monkey trial? And even
before that, the calvinist movement was blatently against many aspects of
modern science. What media campaign was attacking religion when the state
of Tennessee banned the teaching of evolution?
Indeed. There seem to be two ways for religion and science to interact
with each other.

One of them is exemplified by: St. Augustine: "Now, it is a disgraceful
and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably
giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on [science].";
Einstein (about his goals in science): "I want to know God's thoughts;
the rest are details." In other words, science is recognized as a way
to understand the world and how it works. Since the world and its
workings are the work of God, this endeavor can not conflict with
Christianity.

The other way is exemplified by the Scopes trial, by ID, creationism,
etc. It says that Christians ought to be afraid of science, and should
vet its findings and check it against their own notions of the world,
and wage a political battle to suppress it when it disagrees. This
approach is misguided when it merely rejects science; but it's
especially dangerous when it is weakened (as it ultimately must be,
because the pure form is unpalatable to society) into a "replacement"
science -- that's generally neither good science NOR good theology.
Post by George
Post by Mike
Dawkins is an albatross around science's neck.
What would you know of it? Are you a scientist? No? I am. You don't
know what you are talking about.
The conduct of Dawkins is not a question of science. His science may be
impeccable (I haven't reviewed all of it.) Nevertheless, decent people
everywhere can see that he is behaving badly. That's a shame, because
the scientific picture is very clear, and he's on the right side of it.
It's always embarrassing when poorly behaved people are on the right
side of an argument.
--
Chris Smith
Mike
2007-08-15 02:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Mike
Is that what you're trying to say; that two wrongs make a right?
It is a fact that most state's (and all states in the south) require
candidates for political office to profess belief in god. How many states
are you aware of that allow atheists to hold political office? Isn't this
supposed to be a democratic republic founded on separation of church and
state?
No it's not. It's the UK. In fact, it's the entire world. Not just
your precious U.S of A. with its hang-ups about religion and politics.
Not to say naivety. This is soc.religion.christian, not
soc.usa.paranoia.

It may have escaped your notice, but I've not claimed that barring
atheists from office is OK. It isn't. But in the same way barring
people who hold to a religious faith from office is equally wrong. You
seem to want to replace one problem with another.
Post by George
Post by Mike
Post by George
http://youtu.be/tvCUP8mlGgk
That may be "scary" to you. But any sense of indoctrination you have
from this film is no more than the indoctrination of secularism that
goes on in the modern media. Do you know why these people go to these
lengths to teach their children about the faith they believe in?
Because they know that people like Dawkins will confront them and
ridicule them and pick on them when they get older, simply because
they have faith, and the parents believe that if their children are
going to be able to stand up and be counted, then they need to be
grounded in their own beliefs so they can explain them properly.
Oh, so they teach their children to be holy warriers for Christ (complete
with rifle training) because Dawkins is the boogeyman out to get them? And
you think they are cute! What drugs are you taking that makes you so
delusional? Did you even watch the video?
Yes. But I didn't demonise those in the video; I listened to what they
were actually saying, rather than what I hoped they would say so that
I could vilify them.

Have you any idea what being a "holy warrior" for Christ actually
means? It certainly *doesn't* mean taking up arms and threatening
people with violence. Quite the opposite. It means actually doing what
you're supposed to be doing - loving your enemies; looking out for the
oppressed and downtrodden; to be the friend of the friendless. What
did you think Christians get up to?
Post by George
Post by Mike
But no; what we'll try to portray instead is some sort of "plot" to
thwart those poor downtrodden secularists by getting children involved
in... the religion of their parents!
No, I actually think they are more akin to the Waco Wackos. You remember
them, don't you?
I remember them. They were way short of being Christian. You don't
become a Christian by following a madman like David Koresh - you have
to follow Jesus, and what he taught. There is some difference, you
know.
Post by George
Post by Mike
Shock horror! Surely this mustn't be allowed! These people don't
deserve to have children. Much better that we take their children
away, or better still sterilise them so they can't breed. But no; we
can't get away with that (yet), so we'll just lampoon them instead.
Wow, such paranoia already. No doubt you sleep with a shotgun beneath your
pillow. How sad for you.
Fortunately I live in a society which is enlightened enough to ban the
carrying of firearms. I have never so much as touched a firearm, much
less slept with one under by pillow.
Post by George
Post by Mike
Heaven knows how anti-Christian/anti-religion some parts of the media
are.
Heaven knows how deluded some religion zealots are. So do I, and a lot of
other people, for that matter.
Delusion is a matter of perspective. But then, I suspect you're not
likely to understand that.
Post by George
Post by Mike
What business is it of people like Dawkins to question whether I
should be able to teach my children what I believe? I don't interfere
with his family life; why should he attempt to interfere with mine?
What business is it of yours or anyone else's to teach children to hate
others simply because they don't believe as someone else does?
I have not told my children to hate anyone. What makes you think I
have? Is this the sort of lies you spread about Christians? Based on
what?

I teach my (or anyone else's) kids to love God and their fellow men;
rather that they should repay evil with good and to look for the good
things in all people. Why? Because that's the way that my faith leads
me, and it works.
Post by George
Dawkins is
not interfering with anyone's life. Next you'll be telling me that gays
are out to sodomize your children while you look on, eating pudding.
Have you read his latest book? There's a whole chapter which tries to
characterise bringing a child up in a religious framework as child
abuse. If this guy got his way then people like me would be barred
from teaching our children what we believe. That seems pretty
interfering to me.

...
Post by George
Post by Mike
Has it occurred to you what started the "Creationist" movement? It's a
reaction against the secularists who were intent on attacking religion
in the media, public arena, and school systems. These people were
galvanised by people like Dawkins, who has unwittingly made science an
enemy of these people, rather than a tool to allow them to learn and
develop.
Utter crap. Have you ever heard of the Scopes monkey trial?
Yes. But the current "Creationist" revival would not have happened
were it not for the actions of atheists like Dawkins.
Post by George
And even
before that, the calvinist movement was blatently against many aspects of
modern science.
... [ see previous footnote from clh to show your opinion of Calvin is
claptrap ]...
Post by George
What media campaign was attacking religion when the state
of Tennessee banned the teaching of evolution? Dude, you really should see
a shrink before your paranoia gets the best of you.
Has it occurred to you *why* the state of Tennessee did this? If
people like Dawkins had kept their traps shut rather than insulting
people who disgreed with them, then this sort of action would never
have occurred, much less succeeded.
Post by George
Post by Mike
Dawkins is an albatross around science's neck.
What would you know of it? Are you a scientist? No? I am. You don't
know what you are talking about.
Hmm. You claim I'm not a scientist, using what method?

I am not a "professional" scientist, but I use science all the time.
My background is in mathematics and logic. I have studied science to a
fair degree, enough to know what science actually is - and more
importantly what it is not. The problem is that I *do* actually have
an idea of what I'm talking about, but I don't agree with you. This
seems to make you mad.

It seems to me Prof Dawkins suffers from the same malady.

I found this quote out here, which pretty much sums up my concerns
about Dawkins and his effect on science:

"Dawkins and the impractical atheists who would rather insult
religious believers than make common cause with those who support
science (as Michael Ruse suggests) are handing the IDers a gift it
isn't necessary to give them. Dawkins views aren't the issue, his
actions are and his actions are the sign of an immature and a selfish
and foolish man. That is if science is his main value, something for
which I see very little practical evidence. He's a publicity hound."

I actually support the scientific method. Strongly. I would rather
more people engaged in it and used it properly. The problem is that
certain people - militant secular humanists to mention one group, and
the ID crowd as another - are trying to hijack science to suit their
own political and ideological ends. This is not what science is for.

People like Dawkins are just as likely to deter people from trusting
science and scientists as they are to encourage people to ask
questions. THAT is the real travesty of this situation.
Post by George
Post by Mike
It is no wonder that he
comes under fire from some of his fellow scientists.
What fellow scientists? Behe? He's the laughing stock of the scientific
community worldwide.
Try Francis Collins. Or Michael Ruse. Or Robert Winston.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2064899,00.html

You may want to take notice that it isn't just scientists who are
unimpressed with Dawkins:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/06/news/atheist.php

....
Post by George
Post by Mike
Maybe, but at the cost of alienating many people who he need not have
done.
Religious zelaots who attempt to impose dominionism, revisionism,
isolationism, bigotry, and intolerance on society at large alienate
themselves. They don't need any help from Richard Dawkins or anyone else.
Are you claiming that all religious people attempt to impose these
things on other people? Or just a shallow caricature of religious
people? Or perhaps just a small but convenient minority that you can
use to tar the rest of us with as broad a brush as possible?
Post by George
Post by Mike
... Someone of his intelligence doesn't get involved in stuff
like this - particularly when he's so clearly out of his depth in an
area he really doesn't understand - unless there is some ulterior
motive, or unless there's money to be had.
On the contrary, it is quite clear to me that it is you who don't
understand the issues involved. Case in point: Instead of discussing the
issues he raises, you attack the man himself.
Hmm. Do you know what irony is? If so, please re-read your last
paragraph.
Post by George
That is typical of some
religious people who rely on blind faith at the expense of reason and logic
in such matters. Try learning to control your emotions. You're heart will
thank you.
I'm not having any problems with my emotions, thank you. How about
you?
Post by George
Post by Mike
In this case it looks like it could be both.
I just wish he'd get back to what he does best.
Mike.
Why, so you won't have to think for yourself, and can simply crawl back
into that little faith- hole you crawled out of?
It is quite possible that you misunderstand. Prof. Dawkins is a
scientist, not a philosopher or theologian. I'm quite sure there are
plenty of atheists who are capable of putting across the atheist
viewpoint. It just seems a little pointless for someone who
specialises so brilliantly in one field to then waste his time
indulging in a book which even his fellow atheists feel is sub-
standard at best, and which shows up just how little he does
understand that which he has chosen to write about.

Mike.
Post by George
[Sorry, but Calvin was in favor of the new astronomy. He developed one of
that the Bible records things as a normal person would see them, e.g.
the Sun rising in the east, not as a scientist would describe it. In
general Calvinism has had no problem with science, though I suppose
there are some Calvinists who are creationists. --clh]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
George
2007-08-16 01:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
Is that what you're trying to say; that two wrongs make a right?
It is a fact that most state's (and all states in the south) require
candidates for political office to profess belief in god. How many
states
are you aware of that allow atheists to hold political office? Isn't
this
supposed to be a democratic republic founded on separation of church and
state?
No it's not. It's the UK. In fact, it's the entire world. Not just
your precious U.S of A. with its hang-ups about religion and politics.
Not to say naivety. This is soc.religion.christian, not
soc.usa.paranoia.
It may have escaped your notice, but I've not claimed that barring
atheists from office is OK. It isn't. But in the same way barring
people who hold to a religious faith from office is equally wrong. You
seem to want to replace one problem with another.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm

Our country was founded on secular principles, including separation of
Church and state. Such principles do, in fact, protect the religious
faiths of all its citizens. That doesn't give religious clergy license to
practice their beliefs in the public, secular arena of government office.
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
Post by George
http://youtu.be/tvCUP8mlGgk
That may be "scary" to you. But any sense of indoctrination you have
from this film is no more than the indoctrination of secularism that
goes on in the modern media. Do you know why these people go to these
lengths to teach their children about the faith they believe in?
Because they know that people like Dawkins will confront them and
ridicule them and pick on them when they get older, simply because
they have faith, and the parents believe that if their children are
going to be able to stand up and be counted, then they need to be
grounded in their own beliefs so they can explain them properly.
Oh, so they teach their children to be holy warriers for Christ
(complete
with rifle training) because Dawkins is the boogeyman out to get them?
And
you think they are cute! What drugs are you taking that makes you so
delusional? Did you even watch the video?
Yes. But I didn't demonise those in the video; I listened to what they
were actually saying, rather than what I hoped they would say so that
I could vilify them.
Have you any idea what being a "holy warrior" for Christ actually
means? It certainly *doesn't* mean taking up arms and threatening
people with violence. Quite the opposite. It means actually doing what
you're supposed to be doing - loving your enemies; looking out for the
oppressed and downtrodden; to be the friend of the friendless. What
did you think Christians get up to?
It is clear that these children are being brainwashed into believing that
it is ok to use violence to get their religious beliefs across to others.
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
But no; what we'll try to portray instead is some sort of "plot" to
thwart those poor downtrodden secularists by getting children involved
in... the religion of their parents!
No, I actually think they are more akin to the Waco Wackos. You
remember
them, don't you?
I remember them. They were way short of being Christian. You don't
become a Christian by following a madman like David Koresh - you have
to follow Jesus, and what he taught. There is some difference, you
know.
But then, since there are hundreds of "Jesus" sects, few of which even come
close to agreeing on what his message was, I think your suggestion that
they were "way short of being Christian" is a strawman argument. Certainly
the grand inquisitors of the middle ages thought they were pious Christians
doing God's work. And certainly The Wako Wackos also believed they were
doing God's work.
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
Shock horror! Surely this mustn't be allowed! These people don't
deserve to have children. Much better that we take their children
away, or better still sterilise them so they can't breed. But no; we
can't get away with that (yet), so we'll just lampoon them instead.
Wow, such paranoia already. No doubt you sleep with a shotgun beneath
your
pillow. How sad for you.
Fortunately I live in a society which is enlightened enough to ban the
carrying of firearms. I have never so much as touched a firearm, much
less slept with one under by pillow.
That's good to know.
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
Heaven knows how anti-Christian/anti-religion some parts of the media
are.
Heaven knows how deluded some religion zealots are. So do I, and a lot
of
other people, for that matter.
Delusion is a matter of perspective. But then, I suspect you're not
likely to understand that.
Try me.
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
What business is it of people like Dawkins to question whether I
should be able to teach my children what I believe? I don't interfere
with his family life; why should he attempt to interfere with mine?
What business is it of yours or anyone else's to teach children to hate
others simply because they don't believe as someone else does?
I have not told my children to hate anyone. What makes you think I
have? Is this the sort of lies you spread about Christians? Based on
what?
You don't know much about Christianity in America, do you?
Post by Mike
I teach my (or anyone else's) kids to love God and their fellow men;
rather that they should repay evil with good and to look for the good
things in all people. Why? Because that's the way that my faith leads
me, and it works.
Post by George
Dawkins is
not interfering with anyone's life. Next you'll be telling me that gays
are out to sodomize your children while you look on, eating pudding.
Have you read his latest book? There's a whole chapter which tries to
characterise bringing a child up in a religious framework as child
abuse. If this guy got his way then people like me would be barred
from teaching our children what we believe. That seems pretty
interfering to me.
Many religious frameworks should be considered child abuse.
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
Has it occurred to you what started the "Creationist" movement? It's a
reaction against the secularists who were intent on attacking religion
in the media, public arena, and school systems. These people were
galvanised by people like Dawkins, who has unwittingly made science an
enemy of these people, rather than a tool to allow them to learn and
develop.
Utter crap. Have you ever heard of the Scopes monkey trial?
Yes. But the current "Creationist" revival would not have happened
were it not for the actions of atheists like Dawkins.
Nonsense. Look at the dates of Dawkins' books, and then look at the
history of Cretionism in the U.S. The Cretionist movement has been around
in the States since the Scopes trial, and has been VERY big since the
1980s, before Dawkins said anything about it. Blaming Dawkins for the
actions of Behe, Hovind, Ham, and many others is absurd.
Post by Mike
Post by George
And even
before that, the calvinist movement was blatently against many aspects
of
modern science.
... [ see previous footnote from clh to show your opinion of Calvin is
claptrap ]...
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ChRecon.html
Post by Mike
Post by George
What media campaign was attacking religion when the state
of Tennessee banned the teaching of evolution? Dude, you really should
see
a shrink before your paranoia gets the best of you.
Has it occurred to you *why* the state of Tennessee did this? If
people like Dawkins had kept their traps shut rather than insulting
people who disgreed with them, then this sort of action would never
have occurred, much less succeeded.
Translation: Freedom of speech only applies to religious people who think
the same way you do. No others need apply. Sorry, that is blatantly
illegal in the U.S. I can't speak for the silliness that goes on in the
U.K.
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
Dawkins is an albatross around science's neck.
What would you know of it? Are you a scientist? No? I am. You don't
know what you are talking about.
Hmm. You claim I'm not a scientist, using what method?
I asked you a question. Try re-reading it.
Post by Mike
I am not a "professional" scientist, but I use science all the time.
My background is in mathematics and logic. I have studied science to a
fair degree, enough to know what science actually is - and more
importantly what it is not. The problem is that I *do* actually have
an idea of what I'm talking about, but I don't agree with you. This
seems to make you mad.
It seems to me Prof Dawkins suffers from the same malady.
Translation: Demonize that which you don't understand. One of the basic
tenents of fundamentalism. Congratulations.
Post by Mike
I found this quote out here, which pretty much sums up my concerns
"Dawkins and the impractical atheists who would rather insult
religious believers than make common cause with those who support
science (as Michael Ruse suggests) are handing the IDers a gift it
isn't necessary to give them. Dawkins views aren't the issue, his
actions are and his actions are the sign of an immature and a selfish
and foolish man. That is if science is his main value, something for
which I see very little practical evidence. He's a publicity hound."
Citation, please. Who decides which atheists are impractical, and which
aren't? And what is an impractical atheist, anyway? Is that in the Oxford
dictionary?
Post by Mike
I actually support the scientific method. Strongly. I would rather
more people engaged in it and used it properly. The problem is that
certain people - militant secular humanists to mention one group, and
the ID crowd as another - are trying to hijack science to suit their
own political and ideological ends. This is not what science is for.
Ok, using the scientific method, demonstrate the existence of God
(recalling that that method requires falsification through repeatability,
and testability).
Post by Mike
People like Dawkins are just as likely to deter people from trusting
science and scientists as they are to encourage people to ask
questions. THAT is the real travesty of this situation.
No, I think the real travesty of the current situation is that most people
are so poorly educated in science that they dole out $22 per head to visit
a religious Museum in Northern Kentucky dedicated to promoting lies,
misrepresentations, and delusions about science. I think the real travesty
of the current situation is that fundamentalists worldwide brainwash their
followers into believing that they are warriers for God, and that martyrdom
means murdering innocent people to perpetuate their own psychotic delusions
in a suicide bombing frenzy. How many "militant" atheists are you aware of
who promote such extremism?
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
It is no wonder that he
comes under fire from some of his fellow scientists.
What fellow scientists? Behe? He's the laughing stock of the
scientific
community worldwide.
Try Francis Collins. Or Michael Ruse. Or Robert Winston.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2064899,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by
graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with
dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated
various faiths. He became a believer after observing the faith of his
critically ill patients and reading Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis [1].

In Collins' book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for
Belief (published in July 2006), he considers scientific discoveries an
"opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently
rejects creationism and Intelligent Design. His own belief system is
Theistic Evolution (TE) which he prefers to term BioLogos. BioLogos rests
on the following premises: (1) The universe came into being out of
nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago, (2) Despite massive
improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been
precisely tuned for life, (3) While the precise mechanism of the origin of
life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution
and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and
complexity over very long periods of time, (4) Once evolution got under way
no special supernatural intervention was required, (5) Humans are part of
this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes, (6) But humans
are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our
spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the
knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all
human cultures throughout history.

A documentary titled "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" by the Coral Ridge Ministries
released in August 2006 originally advertised that it featured Collins and
claims to "show why evolution is a bad idea that should be discarded into
the dustbin of history." However, in email exchanged with science blogger
PZ Myers, Collins was "unambiguous in stating that he was interviewed about
his book, and that was then inserted into the video without his
knowledge."[2] When asked by the Anti-Defamation League why he agreed to
appear in such a production, Collins stated that he was "absolutely
appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that
Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and
I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy's program utterly misguided and
inflammatory. [3]" Collins' name has since been removed from the Coral
Ridge Ministries' promotional site [4]; however, the interview segment was
left in place with Collins saying that "Man is a special creature. We are
not just part of some random evolutionary process with no purpose." He also
commented on the large amount of data in the genetic code of humans and on
the percentage of scientists who believe in God.

In an interview with National Geographic published in February 2007,
interviewer John Horgan, a scientist and agnostic, criticized Collins'
description of agnosticism as "a cop-out". In response, Collins clarified
his position on agnosticism so as not to include "earnest agnostics who
have considered the evidence and still don't find an answer. I was reacting
to the agnosticism I see in the scientific community, which has not been
arrived at by a careful examination of the evidence. I went through a phase
when I was a casual agnostic, and I am perhaps too quick to assume that
others have no more depth than I did."[5] During a debate with Richard
Dawkins, Collins stated that God is the object of the unanswered questions
about the universe that science does not ask, and that God himself does not
need an explanation since he is beyond the universe. Dawkins accused this
as "the mother and father of all cop-outs" and "an incredible evasion of
the responsibility to explain." [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ruse

Ruse was a witness for the plaintiff in the 1981 test case (McLean v.
Arkansas) of the state law permitting the teaching of "creation science" in
the Arkansas school system (signed by governor Frank White). The federal
judge ruled that the state law was unconstitutional. Ruse takes the
position that it is possible to reconcile the Christian religion with
Evolutionary Theory, unlike, for example, Richard Dawkins, Phillip E.
Johnson or Edward O. Wilson. He now debates regularly with William A.
Dembski, a known proponent of intelligent design.

In this article, Robert Winston

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1590776,00.html

appears to be promoting snake handling in religious services, a practice
that has long been banned in Appalachia, but is still practiced in some
small communities.
Post by Mike
You may want to take notice that it isn't just scientists who are
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/06/news/atheist.php
Let's see what Orr has to say about ID, shall we?

http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html

Seems he doesn't actually disagree much with Dawkins. If anything, his
only criticism appears to be that Dawkins is a bit too blunt and
straightforward in confronting these "liars for Jesus".
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
Maybe, but at the cost of alienating many people who he need not have
done.
Religious zelaots who attempt to impose dominionism, revisionism,
isolationism, bigotry, and intolerance on society at large alienate
themselves. They don't need any help from Richard Dawkins or anyone
else.
Are you claiming that all religious people attempt to impose these
things on other people? Or just a shallow caricature of religious
people? Or perhaps just a small but convenient minority that you can
use to tar the rest of us with as broad a brush as possible?
Did I say that the above applies to all religious people? Try re-reading
what I said.
Post by Mike
Post by George
... Someone of his intelligence doesn't get involved in stuff
Post by Mike
like this - particularly when he's so clearly out of his depth in an
area he really doesn't understand - unless there is some ulterior
motive, or unless there's money to be had.
On the contrary, it is quite clear to me that it is you who don't
understand the issues involved. Case in point: Instead of discussing
the
issues he raises, you attack the man himself.
Hmm. Do you know what irony is? If so, please re-read your last
paragraph.
Point out the issues that you believe I do not understand.
Post by Mike
Post by George
That is typical of some
religious people who rely on blind faith at the expense of reason and
logic
in such matters. Try learning to control your emotions. You're heart
will
thank you.
I'm not having any problems with my emotions, thank you. How about
you?
I'm fine, but thanks for your alleged concern.
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
In this case it looks like it could be both.
I just wish he'd get back to what he does best.
Mike.
Why, so you won't have to think for yourself, and can simply crawl back
into that little faith- hole you crawled out of?
It is quite possible that you misunderstand. Prof. Dawkins is a
scientist, not a philosopher or theologian.
Are you suggesting that knowledge of philosophy and/or religion is the sole
domain of philosophers and theologians? If so, why do so many people
philosophized or otherwise discuss religious matters?
Post by Mike
I'm quite sure there are
plenty of atheists who are capable of putting across the atheist
viewpoint. It just seems a little pointless for someone who
specialises so brilliantly in one field to then waste his time
indulging in a book which even his fellow atheists feel is sub-
standard at best, and which shows up just how little he does
understand that which he has chosen to write about.
Mike.
I think you might be surprised at how many atheists actually agree with
Dawkins. You might even be surprised to find that Carl Sagan, for
instance, though he wasn't as publicly forceful in his views, held many of
the same opinions about religion that Dawkins espouses.

Watch this little video by Sagan:



George
George
2007-08-16 01:15:22 UTC
Permalink
"Chris Smith" <***@twu.net> wrote in message news:SPtwi.7106$***@trnddc06...
...
Post by Chris Smith
The conduct of Dawkins is not a question of science. His science may be
impeccable (I haven't reviewed all of it.) Nevertheless, decent people
everywhere can see that he is behaving badly. That's a shame, because
the scientific picture is very clear, and he's on the right side of it.
It's always embarrassing when poorly behaved people are on the right
side of an argument.
--
Chris Smith
Decent people everywhere? Are you suggesting that people who happen to
agree with him are not decent people?

George
Chris Smith
2007-08-17 01:39:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Chris Smith
The conduct of Dawkins is not a question of science. His science may be
impeccable (I haven't reviewed all of it.) Nevertheless, decent people
everywhere can see that he is behaving badly.
Decent people everywhere? Are you suggesting that people who happen to
agree with him are not decent people?
Huh? That really came out of nowhere, didn't it?

What I am suggesting is that if a person makes excuses for Dawkins'
behavior (note: different from agreeing with him), it reflects poorly on
that person.
--
Chris Smith
George
2007-08-21 02:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Smith
Post by George
Post by Chris Smith
The conduct of Dawkins is not a question of science. His science may
be
impeccable (I haven't reviewed all of it.) Nevertheless, decent
people
everywhere can see that he is behaving badly.
Decent people everywhere? Are you suggesting that people who happen to
agree with him are not decent people?
Huh? That really came out of nowhere, didn't it?
What I am suggesting is that if a person makes excuses for Dawkins'
behavior (note: different from agreeing with him), it reflects poorly on
that person.
--
Chris Smith
So, you are saying that if Dawkins tells the truth, and people point out
that he is telling the truth, that doing so reflects badly on them? Is it
"bad behavior" for one to point out the "bad behavior of others? If so,
when did that happen? How about creationists who "lie for Jesus"? Do
their lies reflect badly on them? What about their brainwashed supporters,
or the scientifically illiterate?

George
Mike
2007-08-21 02:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Our country was founded on secular principles, including separation of
Church and state. Such principles do, in fact, protect the religious
faiths of all its citizens. That doesn't give religious clergy license to
practice their beliefs in the public, secular arena of government office.
That's fine for the jolly USA. But do your concerns justify barring
religious people from office? What do you do about countries where
religion is writ large in the constitution. What do you do then? Would
you impose secular government on them as well? What if they don't want
your secular ideals, and find that their system of government works
fine for them?
...
Post by George
Post by Mike
Have you any idea what being a "holy warrior" for Christ actually
means? It certainly *doesn't* mean taking up arms and threatening
people with violence. Quite the opposite. It means actually doing what
you're supposed to be doing - loving your enemies; looking out for the
oppressed and downtrodden; to be the friend of the friendless. What
did you think Christians get up to?
It is clear that these children are being brainwashed into believing that
it is ok to use violence to get their religious beliefs across to others.
Are you serious?

If so, you really are deluded.

Either that, or you actually know I'm right when I say that Christians
(and yes, I include those in that video) don't teach their children to
use violence to gain converts, but it would be inconvenient to admit
that so you feign ignorance in an attempt to vilify Christians. The
fact is that you are picking up on language used by these people and
interpreting it out of context; if there are Christians out there
teaching *anyone* to use violence in some sort of mad idea that they
will help further the Christian cause then they haven't got the
message either. When St. Paul talked about "putting on the armour of
God", he wasn't talking about a flak jacket to go with his uzi.
Post by George
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
But no; what we'll try to portray instead is some sort of "plot" to
thwart those poor downtrodden secularists by getting children involved
in... the religion of their parents!
No, I actually think they are more akin to the Waco Wackos. You
remember
them, don't you?
I remember them. They were way short of being Christian. You don't
become a Christian by following a madman like David Koresh - you have
to follow Jesus, and what he taught. There is some difference, you
know.
But then, since there are hundreds of "Jesus" sects, few of which even come
close to agreeing on what his message was, I think your suggestion that
they were "way short of being Christian" is a strawman argument.
Hmm. You accuse me of using a strawman argument by using a strawman
argument...

Not all those who claim to be Christian *are* Christian, and not all
Christians always behave in a manner befitting the title. Your
strawman argument is that you pick one marginal group of extremists
and then claim that this group somehow represents all Christians.
Sorry, but the Waco branch Davidians are by no measure representative
of the evangelical Christians portrayed in that video.
Post by George
Certainly
the grand inquisitors of the middle ages thought they were pious Christians
doing God's work. And certainly The Wako Wackos also believed they were
doing God's work.
But were they doing what Jesus taught them to do? Loving their
enemies; doing good to those who mistreated them; being a source for
good?

It didn't seem like it to me.

...
Post by George
Post by Mike
Fortunately I live in a society which is enlightened enough to ban the
carrying of firearms. I have never so much as touched a firearm, much
less slept with one under by pillow.
That's good to know.
The right to bear arms makes about as much sense as the right to arm
bears.
Post by George
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
Heaven knows how anti-Christian/anti-religion some parts of the media
are.
Heaven knows how deluded some religion zealots are. So do I, and a lot
of
other people, for that matter.
Delusion is a matter of perspective. But then, I suspect you're not
likely to understand that.
Try me.
Please understand this is an illustration, and does not necessarily
Post by George
From your POV I am deluded in my belief in God. Your view is
predicated on there being no God, and that any experience I have of
Him must be a delusion. From my POV you are deluded in discounting the
existence of God a priori since (IMHO) your reasons for discounting
this possibility are flawed.

Is this a fair assessment?
Post by George
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
What business is it of people like Dawkins to question whether I
should be able to teach my children what I believe? I don't interfere
with his family life; why should he attempt to interfere with mine?
What business is it of yours or anyone else's to teach children to hate
others simply because they don't believe as someone else does?
I have not told my children to hate anyone. What makes you think I
have? Is this the sort of lies you spread about Christians? Based on
what?
You don't know much about Christianity in America, do you?
I know a fair amount about Christianity wherever, since I've studied
Church history and practice for quite a few years now. America does
have its own problems, but I don't buy your assessment of Christianity
in America, much less anywhere else.
Post by George
Post by Mike
I teach my (or anyone else's) kids to love God and their fellow men;
rather that they should repay evil with good and to look for the good
things in all people. Why? Because that's the way that my faith leads
me, and it works.
... and this is the point.
Post by George
Post by Mike
Post by George
Dawkins is
not interfering with anyone's life. Next you'll be telling me that gays
are out to sodomize your children while you look on, eating pudding.
Have you read his latest book? There's a whole chapter which tries to
characterise bringing a child up in a religious framework as child
abuse. If this guy got his way then people like me would be barred
from teaching our children what we believe. That seems pretty
interfering to me.
Many religious frameworks should be considered child abuse.
Why shouldn't humanist frameworks also be considered child abuse as
well then?
...
Post by George
Post by Mike
Post by George
And even
before that, the calvinist movement was blatently against many aspects
of
modern science.
... [ see previous footnote from clh to show your opinion of Calvin is
claptrap ]...
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ChRecon.html
Irrelevant! What has this to do with Calvin? This group dates from
1973. That's rather later than the reformation. Anyone can hang on the
coattails of someone like Calvin and then come up with a range of
ideas.
Post by George
Post by Mike
Post by George
What media campaign was attacking religion when the state
of Tennessee banned the teaching of evolution? Dude, you really should
see
a shrink before your paranoia gets the best of you.
Has it occurred to you *why* the state of Tennessee did this? If
people like Dawkins had kept their traps shut rather than insulting
people who disgreed with them, then this sort of action would never
have occurred, much less succeeded.
Translation: Freedom of speech only applies to religious people who think
the same way you do. No others need apply. Sorry, that is blatantly
illegal in the U.S. I can't speak for the silliness that goes on in the
U.K.
It's not a question of free speech. It's a question of expedience and
wisdom. Rather than rallying people around science, people like
Dawkins make enemies and alienate people. He is perfectly at liberty
to say what he says; I just don't believe he is helping the cause of
science when he vilifies whole sections of society. The main people he
will please are the ardent atheists and humanists. The rest of us are
more likely to turn our backs on him rather than listen to a single
word he has to say.
Post by George
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
Dawkins is an albatross around science's neck.
What would you know of it? Are you a scientist? No? I am. You don't
know what you are talking about.
Hmm. You claim I'm not a scientist, using what method?
I asked you a question. Try re-reading it.
No you didn't; let's see what you actually wrote. You claim to be a
scientist, which I don't doubt. But you presume that I am not, and
that by implication I don't know what I'm talking about.

Are you aware of just how pompous you sound?

You had my reply...
Post by George
Post by Mike
I am not a "professional" scientist, but I use science all the time.
My background is in mathematics and logic. I have studied science to a
fair degree, enough to know what science actually is - and more
importantly what it is not. The problem is that I *do* actually have
an idea of what I'm talking about, but I don't agree with you. This
seems to make you mad.
It seems to me Prof Dawkins suffers from the same malady.
Translation: Demonize that which you don't understand. One of the basic
tenents of fundamentalism. Congratulations.
Who have I demonized? Certainly not you, and certainly not Prof
Dawkins. I'm simply commenting on the fact that he seems to have a
problem with people who are educated actually disagreeing with his
viewpoint on religion. But IMHO that is his problem, and not mine.

If anyone is demonizing anyone, it's you demonizing me and other
Christians.

...
Post by George
Post by Mike
"Dawkins and the impractical atheists who would rather insult
religious believers than make common cause with those who support
science (as Michael Ruse suggests) are handing the IDers a gift it
isn't necessary to give them. Dawkins views aren't the issue, his
actions are and his actions are the sign of an immature and a selfish
and foolish man. That is if science is his main value, something for
which I see very little practical evidence. He's a publicity hound."
Citation, please.
http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/08/10/australian-asks-why-dont-atheists-get-elected-in-america/
Post by George
Who decides which atheists are impractical, and which
aren't? And what is an impractical atheist, anyway? Is that in the Oxford
dictionary?
There are ways of going about things. What the poster is trying to say
is that he thinks that the approach used by Prof. Dawkins and other
outspoken atheists is actually harming their argument, in that people
realise they are being rude and so disengage from any valid points
they want to make. In that way, Dawkins' approach is impractical - it
is not achieving what he seems to want it to in practice.
Post by George
Post by Mike
I actually support the scientific method. Strongly. I would rather
more people engaged in it and used it properly. The problem is that
certain people - militant secular humanists to mention one group, and
the ID crowd as another - are trying to hijack science to suit their
own political and ideological ends. This is not what science is for.
Ok, using the scientific method, demonstrate the existence of God
(recalling that that method requires falsification through repeatability,
and testability).
I became a Christian because I prayed and found it worked. Not just
one prayer, but a whole string of them over a period of two years. I
am still a Christian based on the continuance of this. This is not, of
course, truly scientific in the sense you are asking for, but am I
then to deny what has been my experience of a spiritual life based on
a complete lack of evidence to the contrary? There was a considerable
reluctance on my part to admit that I had to choose to get off the
fence. But choose I did.

Are you willing to, using the scientific method, demonstrate the non-
existence of God (recalling that that method requires falsification
through repeatability, and testability). No. Of course not. For one
thing, I know you can't. And nor can I.
Post by George
Post by Mike
People like Dawkins are just as likely to deter people from trusting
science and scientists as they are to encourage people to ask
questions. THAT is the real travesty of this situation.
No, I think the real travesty of the current situation is that most people
are so poorly educated in science that they dole out $22 per head to visit
a religious Museum in Northern Kentucky dedicated to promoting lies,
misrepresentations, and delusions about science.
You may have a point there. It's not somewhere I would visit except
out of curiosity. But neither you nor Prof Dawkins are going to manage
to change the situation by insulting and behaving rudely towards these
very people. They will only stop up their ears and trample you
underfoot.
Post by George
I think the real travesty
of the current situation is that fundamentalists worldwide brainwash their
followers into believing that they are warriers for God, and that martyrdom
means murdering innocent people to perpetuate their own psychotic delusions
in a suicide bombing frenzy.
You're talking about a tiny minority of people who do this, and
primarily only from one religion (Islam). Even then the vast majority
of muslims (along with the rest of us) are horrified that people do
this. Yet you seem willing to blame the whole lot of us. Do you think
that is a reasonable response?
Post by George
How many "militant" atheists are you aware of
who promote such extremism?
Personally or in history?

Be aware that the humanist delusion of "religion is the cause of all
wars" will not wash with me. I am fully aware of the negative impact
of humanism on global politics.

If you really want an answer, I will give you three names: Mau, Pol
Pot, Stalin. I'd add Hitler as well, but his problem was racial
nationalism rather than humanist excess. These people did not just
promote "such extremism"; they commanded it. Secular humanism killed
more people than all religious wars in history combined several times
over. The suffering inflicted on dissident minorities in this regimes
vastly outstripped even the worse excesses of the Spanish Inquisition,
once again several times over.

And your point is?

People get nasty. It's just the way it is. Blaming religion or
humanism is just an excuse.
Post by George
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
It is no wonder that he
comes under fire from some of his fellow scientists.
What fellow scientists?
< list provided >
Post by George
Post by Mike
Try Francis Collins. Or Michael Ruse. Or Robert Winston.
< snip rather pointless list of details about the above >
Post by George
Post by Mike
You may want to take notice that it isn't just scientists who are
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/06/news/atheist.php
Let's see what Orr has to say about ID, shall we?
http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html
Seems he doesn't actually disagree much with Dawkins. If anything, his
only criticism appears to be that Dawkins is a bit too blunt and
straightforward in confronting these "liars for Jesus".
Why the name-calling? I've seen Dawkins do the same. It only makes you
look puerile.
Post by George
Post by Mike
Post by George
Post by Mike
Maybe, but at the cost of alienating many people who he need not have
done.
Religious zelaots who attempt to impose dominionism, revisionism,
isolationism, bigotry, and intolerance on society at large alienate
themselves. They don't need any help from Richard Dawkins or anyone
else.
Are you claiming that all religious people attempt to impose these
things on other people? Or just a shallow caricature of religious
people? Or perhaps just a small but convenient minority that you can
use to tar the rest of us with as broad a brush as possible?
Did I say that the above applies to all religious people? Try re-reading
what I said.
So what is your beef about then? You have no beef about alienating the
"religious zealots". But why insult the rest of us as well?
Post by George
Post by Mike
Post by George
... Someone of his intelligence doesn't get involved in stuff
Post by Mike
like this - particularly when he's so clearly out of his depth in an
area he really doesn't understand - unless there is some ulterior
motive, or unless there's money to be had.
On the contrary, it is quite clear to me that it is you who don't
understand the issues involved. Case in point: Instead of discussing
the issues he raises, you attack the man himself.
Hmm. Do you know what irony is? If so, please re-read your last
paragraph.
Point out the issues that you believe I do not understand.
You posted:
"Why, so you won't have to think for yourself, and can simply crawl
back into that little faith- hole you crawled out of?"

Instead of discussing the issues I raised, you attacked me instead.

c.f. irony. I.e: "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence
of events and the normal or expected result " - namely that you would
not indulge in ad hominems after accusing me of that very thing.

I put the above aberration down to an oversight rather than hypocrisy.
Hence irony.
...
Post by George
Are you suggesting that knowledge of philosophy and/or religion is the sole
domain of philosophers and theologians? If so, why do so many people
philosophized or otherwise discuss religious matters?
Discussion is fine. But as in any field if you are going to make a
major contribution to a debate then it is better if you are properly
versed in the issues at hand. Prof. Dawkins has attempted to make a
major contribution. Unfortunately it's now being shot down in flames
by philosopher and theologian alike as it is only recycling old (and
refuted) arguments. Hence the spoof of Dawkins in the original post
which prompted your sense of humour failure.
Post by George
Post by Mike
I'm quite sure there are
plenty of atheists who are capable of putting across the atheist
viewpoint. It just seems a little pointless for someone who
specialises so brilliantly in one field to then waste his time
indulging in a book which even his fellow atheists feel is sub-
standard at best, and which shows up just how little he does
understand that which he has chosen to write about.
Mike.
I think you might be surprised at how many atheists actually agree with
Dawkins.
And you may be surprised at how many Christians actually agree with
the Pope.

Have fun,

Mike.
Chris Smith
2007-08-22 02:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
So, you are saying that if Dawkins tells the truth, and people point out
that he is telling the truth, that doing so reflects badly on them?
No, but I'm about to give up. Apparently you are willing to excuse any
kind of behavior simply because you agree with the person behaving that
way. Unfortunately, you're not alone; and that's a big part of the
reason things are as bad as they are. It's why the vice president of
the United States thought it was okay to yell "F*** You" at a senator on
the floor of the Senate, and only half the U.S. saw a problem. When
things are that far advanced, perhaps the battle is already lost.
Post by George
Is it "bad behavior" for one to point out the "bad behavior of others?
I don't think so.
Post by George
How about creationists who "lie for Jesus"? Do their lies reflect badly
on them?
Yes, of course; and on honest days, I hope they realize they aren't
doing anything for Jesus, but rather reinforcing their own psychological
needs.
Post by George
What about their brainwashed supporters,
or the scientifically illiterate?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Clearly someone who is merely
wrong is not behaving badly for being wrong. What's your point?
--
Chris Smith
b***@juno.com
2007-08-28 01:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Our country was founded on secular principles, including separation of
Church and state. Such principles do, in fact, protect the religious
faiths of all its citizens. That doesn't give religious clergy license to
practice their beliefs in the public, secular arena of government office.
Translation: freedom of speech does not apply to religious people in
political office.

Nor can they vote their conscience.
Post by George
Translation: Freedom of speech only applies to religious people who think
the same way you do. No others need apply. Sorry, that is blatantly
illegal in the U.S. I can't speak for the silliness that goes on in the
U.K.
Hypocrite.

For you, only secular politicians are allowed to vote their
conscience?

Or is it that only secular politicians have the right to freedom of
speech?

Better consider your hypocritical answer very carefully.
George
2007-08-29 04:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@juno.com
Post by George
Our country was founded on secular principles, including separation of
Church and state. Such principles do, in fact, protect the religious
faiths of all its citizens. That doesn't give religious clergy license
to
practice their beliefs in the public, secular arena of government
office.
Translation: freedom of speech does not apply to religious people in
political office.
Actual translation: The Constitution doesn't allow one to use public
office nor public funds to establish a religion.
Post by b***@juno.com
Nor can they vote their conscience.
Do point out where anyone in this country is being prevented from voting
their conscience?
Post by b***@juno.com
Post by George
Translation: Freedom of speech only applies to religious people who
think
the same way you do. No others need apply. Sorry, that is blatantly
illegal in the U.S. I can't speak for the silliness that goes on in the
U.K.
Hypocrite.
For you, only secular politicians are allowed to vote their
conscience?
Umm, doesn't your religion frown on lying? Yes? So why are you lying
about what I am saying here. Do point out anywhere on this newsgroup where
I made the statement or even insinuated that only secular politicians are
allowed to vote their conscience?

George

Loading...