|
Post by eckadimmock on Mar 4, 2010 1:04:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Mar 4, 2010 1:35:54 GMT
Temper, temper! Sounds like someone needs to pull the stick out of his bum.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Mar 4, 2010 4:31:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 4, 2010 7:01:32 GMT
I suppose someone has to do it - bring two current threads into juxtaposition. Here's my interesting comparison ..... In the above SMH reference, there is the quote: "Richard Dawkins .."I'm buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite."And on the Atheist Equivalent of Jack Chick thread, the atheist under discussion defends his action of placing sexually explicit anti-religious material in an airport prayer room, arguing: "he was just practising his own religion of "reason and rationality" in the hope of converting people to atheism. ...... He admitted being strongly anti-religious, but said people’s faith would have to be "very weak" for them to be offended."I'm sorry about the sexual language, which I find distasteful, but it would be interesting to ask Messrs Taylor and Dawkins to debate the proposition: Being offensive is a justifiable tactic in making a point.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Mar 4, 2010 8:30:44 GMT
Unklee, it's an interesting point, but the two aren't exactly comparable. First, Dawkins is a public figure, and has sought that position. He has made his fortune rubbishing other people's beliefs. He is fair game for satire in the same way as politicians or celebrities are. The people who go to the airport prayer room are members of the public, who (as far as we know) have done nothing to earn abuse (although, that said, I'm not sure the bloke responsible should be charged if all he did was leave pictures and didn't vandalize anything).
Secondly, there's the issue of where he it was done. The airport is council (government? private?) property, so any advertising is controlled by the relevant authority.
A better parallel to the airport case is the couple who were hauled to court for insulting a Muslim woman's beliefs by calling Mohammed a "warlord". mind you, they got off.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 10, 2010 19:30:19 GMT
Don't you mean "Dawkins realises he's made a mistake, humbly admits his error, apologises and makes amends"? Or does that not fit with this bizarre obsession with characterising everything the man says and does in the most hostile and petty manner possible? I realise that many people still believe that religion needs to be wrapped in the special protective cotton wool of "respect" and so should be kept safe from overt criticism (though I have no idea why they think so), but this obsession with making Dawkins into a slavering bogeyman because he doesn't take this curiously defensive idea seriously borders on the absurd. And it's also not very Christian. Some of those doing the petty sneering at Dawkins need to blow the dust off their Bibles and read Luke 6:27-36 methinks.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 10, 2010 20:44:41 GMT
Don't you mean "Dawkins realises he's made a mistake, humbly admits his error, apologises and makes amends"? I agree, that's how I read it too. I was actually quite surprised at his noble apology, hats off to the man. On the other hand, some basic hostility is understandable, given the scorn of 'irrationality', 'terrorist enablement' , 'child abuse' etc. that Dawkins has heaped on even moderate religion. And the length to which some defenders of Dawkins go to justify everything that the man says is, to say the least, curious.
|
|
deef
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 87
|
Post by deef on Mar 11, 2010 0:00:36 GMT
Or does that not fit with this bizarre obsession with characterising everything the man says and does in the most hostile and petty manner possible? I don't think that obsession is all that bizarre, it's a rather natural counter-reaction towards Dawkins bizarre obsession with charaterising everything religion does in the most hostile and petty manner possible. Although I agree it's not very 'christian' or christlike since I think we're called to not stoop to that level.
|
|
|
Post by eastshore4 on Mar 11, 2010 1:19:02 GMT
Hi Tim, I recently got around to reading some of your articles regarding the whole Hypatia ordeal, it's some good stuff!
Apparently I need to read the New Zealand version of The God Delusion. Here in the US, and I'd imagine the UK as well, Dawkins is hardly some poor soul who is scorned because he doesn't “go with the flow” of religion as in the picture you often paint of him. Rather he's a crotchety old man who prattles on at length about religion being a form of child abuse, and declaring that belief is a virus of the mind(a virus that mysteriously affects all beliefs except for the belief that there is no God). I wish it was as simple as a man who doesn't take religion seriously.
I can agree with you that finding fault for an apology is nit-picky, but nit-pickery is just what it is... it's not reactive, and I'd think it's more of an offensive manuever than a “curiously defensive” one since there really wasn't anything that provoked it, except maybe a prior distaste for the man's attitude toward certain people's beliefs. I can perhaps see that having a laugh at the man's expense isn't completely Christian(of course I'd think the Bible is more concerned with straying the flock from hateful attitudes instead of humorous ones), but I'm at least sympathetic to the burden of restraint required by Christians when confronted by someone who is arguing that Christians need to be more respectful AND treated with less respect in the very same post.
Anways that's all I really had to say, just wanted to throw in my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 11, 2010 4:47:42 GMT
And it's also not very Christian. Some of those doing the petty sneering at Dawkins need to blow the dust off their Bibles and read Luke 6:27-36 methinks. Yes, I'm a little with you on this Tim. I visit a number of internet forums and I find the sneering, scorn and anger on both sides rather off-putting - I doubt any would behave like that in real life. But you are correct, we christians are supposed to value love above all else, even truth - so that truth is supposed to be spoken in love, even to supposed enemies. In fact, I should not see even a critic such as Dawkins as an enemy at all, but (from my point of view) a fellow human being who has unfortunately not yet seen the truth. Having said that, I don't think Humphrey was being "hostile and petty" in his comment, but rather humorous and offhand - I'm sure you read his blog and therefore know what I mean!
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Mar 11, 2010 7:16:05 GMT
Hi Tim Don't you mean "Dawkins realises he's made a mistake, humbly admits his error, apologises and makes amends"? Something like that. Or does that not fit with this bizarre obsession with characterising everything the man says and does in the most hostile and petty manner possible? I think elsewhere I have called him a world class communicator and an amazing writer. I also own every single one of his books. I think that entitles me to have a dig once in a while; especially when the man himself is somewhat abrasive. I realise that many people still believe that religion needs to be wrapped in the special protective cotton wool of "respect" and so should be kept safe from overt criticism (though I have no idea why they think so). Me neither; and neither should atheism; otherwise we end up with entrenched positions and a very sterile debate. it's also not very Christian. Some of those doing the petty sneering at Dawkins need to blow the dust off their Bibles and read Luke 6:27-36 methinks. O.K, I guess if we really want to be biblical, I can still call him is a 'snake' and his acolytes a 'brood of vipers!' (Matt 23:33); 'for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness' (Matt 23:27).
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Mar 11, 2010 9:10:20 GMT
And Lo!, 'first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye' (Matt 7.5) for Tim of Neill did call Charles Freeman a 'dinosaur' (Arm Mag 17:10:09) and Richard Carrier a 'little twerp' who 'looks like Artie Ziff' (RD Forum), which he does.
|
|
deef
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 87
|
Post by deef on Mar 11, 2010 11:37:57 GMT
LOL, I must say that Artie Ziff comparison is absolutely spot on.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 12, 2010 0:40:17 GMT
And Lo!, 'first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye' (Matt 7.5) for Tim of Neill did call Charles Freeman a 'dinosaur' (Arm Mag 17:10:09) and Richard Carrier a 'little twerp' who 'looks like Artie Ziff' (RD Forum), which he does. Er, but I'm not a Christian. So how does Luke 6:27-36 apply to me? Hell, I bill myself on my blog as a self-declared and unabashed "arrogant atheist bastard", so it's not like I'm betraying any espoused values by getting the kicking boots into Freeman and Artie Ziff Nerd Boy.
|
|
|
Post by eastshore4 on Mar 12, 2010 4:50:17 GMT
That's true. Perhaps then you would appreciate a more secular adage: "don't s--- where you eat".
|
|