|
Post by turoldus on Mar 13, 2010 13:18:46 GMT
Well, Dawkins went down in my estimation when he commented on a British Airways employee who was prevented from wearing a cross at work he responded that she had 'the stupidest face' he had ever seen. Dawkins once described the British Airways employee dismissed for wearing a gold cross to work as having "the stupidest face". Did he regret saying it? A slightly naughty smile flickers over his face.
"Well ... well ... yes, I do really. Yes. That was an unguarded moment. Although I think I said stupid-looking. Did you see the photograph of her? I think if you look up the story, and they've got the photograph ... " He checks himself, and stops. "But this is unkind."So what? He said it. Good for him to apologize but the very fact he used such words to start with is revealing of his true feelings I think. How about just inflammatory? "Child abuse" is a charged term, with potential legal or judicial implications. Besides, any kind of education is "child abuse" by such standards. Yes, but how you say is just as important as what you say. Dawkins' approach is clearly a confrontational one. He's just getting the reactions he means to elicit. Now I agree that believers should pay less attention to him, but it's not "whining" than objecting to something you find untrue, inflamatory and, yes, offensive.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 13, 2010 21:14:01 GMT
The same way I don't find it offensive when any number of Christian apologists tell me that atheism led to the horrors perpetrated by Stalin. I think they are wrong, but I don't get "offended" by having a monster's crimes pinned on my beliefs. Being linked to terrorists, or Stalin, would be offensive to most people, whether believers or not. You obviously have a thicker skin than usual, but did you ever consider that you might be an exception rather than the rule? Attributing Stalin's crimes directly to his atheism is something so common amongst theistic apologists that it's almost a cliche (they throw Hitler in there as well, which is even more stupid, considering he was a theist). But I have never come across an atheist responding by indignantly declaring they are "offended", dismissing the apologist as merely "rude" and demanding that their position be afforded "respect". Never. So no, it's not that I am the exception. I seem to be the rule. Which means you have to ponder why theists react this way so consistently when the boot is on the other foot. It seems to me to be because of two things (i) religion has been wrapped in the cotton wool of "respect" for so long that it is still instantly outrageous to so much as directly criticise it and attack its central tenets, despite the fact this would be no problem if it were any other type of position (eg a political one) and (ii) the over-defensive believer realises, deep down, that the attacker is putting voice to their own doubts and are reacting with fear.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 13, 2010 21:25:46 GMT
Dawkins once described the British Airways employee dismissed for wearing a gold cross to work as having "the stupidest face". Did he regret saying it? A slightly naughty smile flickers over his face.
"Well ... well ... yes, I do really. Yes. That was an unguarded moment. Although I think I said stupid-looking. Did you see the photograph of her? I think if you look up the story, and they've got the photograph ... " He checks himself, and stops. "But this is unkind." So what? He said it. Good for him to apologize but the very fact he used such words to start with is revealing of his true feelings I think. Perhaps. So? You've never thought something uncharitable about someone you've disagreed with? He's trying to make a rhetorical point. "Inflammatory" is one word. "Deliberately provocative" is another way of looking at it. Of course, if you disagree with the point he's making then it's "inflammatory", but if you - like me - think children should be taught how to think not what to believe then his "deliberately provocative" language is justified. Which gets us back to the fact that you disagree with Dawkins. Fine. But that doesn't make him "rude". To characterise him as "rude" simply because you disagree with him is pretty arrogant. And exactly "how" does he say anything that is "rude" or "offensive"? So far you've managed to dredge up one unkind thing he said that he later said he regretted. The rest of your examples have simply been him saying things that you think are wrong. Again, that doesn't make him "offensive" and to pretend it does is staggeringly arrogant. Yes. And the problem with that would be ... ? Why shouldn't he confront something with which he not only disagrees but which he thinks is dangerous and harmful? Sorry, but this expectation that people who think that way should leave your faith alone or, at most, hedge their criticisms about with hand-wringing, mealy-mouth obsequiousness is simply fatuous nonsense. Your faith does NOT have some special privilege in the rough and tumble of ideas. He can criticise it, he can do that in a confrontational way, doing so is not instantly "rude" for some weird reason and all this whining is just that - whining.
|
|
deef
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 87
|
Post by deef on Mar 13, 2010 22:53:09 GMT
I'm not too easily offended. Calling JHWH the homophobic, racist, anti-feminist bully or whatever is slightly insensitive to say the least, but if that's what he thinks he should by all means say it. It doesn't bother me too much.
But statements like "an atheist would never bulldoze the Notre Dame, Mecca, Chartres" (somewhere in TGD) are so ignorant it's actually offensive. It's such a huge slap in the face for christians living/lived under USSR, Mao's China and North-Korean rule. It's like saying a christian will never persecute a unbeliever. Imagine a christian apologist saying that, I couldn't. Dawkins says idiotic stuff like that and gets away with it, it seems.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 13, 2010 23:42:40 GMT
I'm not too easily offended. Calling JHWH the homophobic, racist, anti-feminist bully or whatever is slightly insensitive to say the least, but if that's what he thinks he should by all means say it. It doesn't bother me too much. And why should we be "sensitive" to beliefs that we consider wrong? Why does religion, in particular, need this special bubble of "sensitivity" to protect it? And, however you cut it, take away the (rather strange) idea that anything Yahweh does is automatically right because he's God and the being described in the OT IS an abhorrent monster. If a Christian said the equivalent thing I would think he was wrong. I might also think he was "idiotic". But I would NOT consider it a "huge slap in the face" at all. I would simply disagree with it. Again, why are you guys so bizarrely over-sensitive?
|
|
deef
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 87
|
Post by deef on Mar 14, 2010 8:00:14 GMT
I'm not too easily offended. Calling JHWH the homophobic, racist, anti-feminist bully or whatever is slightly insensitive to say the least, but if that's what he thinks he should by all means say it. It doesn't bother me too much. And why should we be "sensitive" to beliefs that we consider wrong? Why does religion, in particular, need this special bubble of "sensitivity" to protect it? I'm not at all arguing for the special bubble. The point of what I was saying is that by all means Dawkins should express it the way the feels. Although I think it might help your (or Dawkins rather) case if it's brought it in a more nuanced manner, but that's just my opinion. And, however you cut it, take away the (rather strange) idea that anything Yahweh does is automatically right because he's God and the being described in the OT IS an abhorrent monster. You know what, I can understand those sentiments. I think a lot of the violent acts are only a bit (although certainly not completely) understandable in light of the the New Testament and Christs redeeming work. If you don't believe in Christs sacrifice, which you and Dawkins as atheists obviously don't, those acts become even harder to explain. But statements like "an atheist would never bulldoze the Notre Dame, Mecca, Chartres" (somewhere in TGD) are so ignorant it's actually offensive. It's such a huge slap in the face for christians living/lived under USSR, Mao's China and North-Korean rule. It's like saying a christian will never persecute a unbeliever. Imagine a christian apologist saying that, I couldn't. Dawkins says idiotic stuff like that and gets away with it, it seems. If a Christian said the equivalent thing I would think he was wrong. I might also think he was "idiotic". But I would NOT consider it a "huge slap in the face" at all. I would simply disagree with it. Again, why are you guys so bizarrely over-sensitive? Wait a minute... I said it's a huge slap in the face for any christian living or lived under USSR, Mao China, present North-Korean rule. I think it's completely understandable if those christians would find Dawkins remarks a 'huge slap in the face', having experienced those specific acts and maybe more commited by atheists. You calling these people 'bizarelly over-sensitive' is, I would say, 'bizarelly apathetic'. It would be quite the same if I would say "no christian would ever persecute a muslim" to a Nigerian muslim who's family has been slaughtered by christian "Army's of the Lord". Ofcourse that's offensive and ofcourse it's a 'huge slap in the face'. I find Dawkins remark to be no less. P.S. Tim, please check your pm's.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 14, 2010 9:34:18 GMT
religion has been wrapped in the cotton wool of "respect" for so long that it is still instantly outrageous to so much as directly criticise it and attack its central tenets This is often said by atheists, Tim, but I presume you wouldn't repeat it unless you had evidence. What evidence is there that this occurs today? I would have thought, based on impression only (and open to correction), that the opposite is the case. Sure, in some parts of the US, christianity (or what passes for it - it often doesn't seem to have much to do with Jesus) still gets favoured status, but not in other parts of the US, nor in western Europe, nor in Australia. Some examples .... - These days it seems that most minorities are protected by "political correctness", and in Australia at least it would be much easier to insult christians than to insult gays, women, aboriginals, the disabled and non-Anglo Australians.
- It was quite possible to make and show a film like "The Last Temptation of Christ" or make and show an "art" work like "Piss Christ", but if you put Mohammed, Buddha or one of the above minorities in there you would likely not get away with it.
- There are race hate and gay hate laws, and if you criticise minority religions in Australia you may get taken to court like two pastors did in Victoria a few years ago (my recollection is they lost the initial case but won on appeal), but there doesn't seem to be any such protection against christianity (not that I wish there to be). There have been similar cases in England.
So I wonder on what you base your view? (Lest you misunderstand, I'm not suggesting I want any more "protection" than that afforded by common law and libel law, just questioning your statement.) BTW, on the matter of the Q&A show, I found out today my son (in his 30s) watched the show and agreed the apparent christians were feeble and should never have agreed to go on there. My son is also a christian, but he said he found Dawkins polite and he agreed with him on more than half of what he said. Dunno what that proves, but I thought it supported what you said. Best wishes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2010 15:25:45 GMT
BTW, on the matter of the Q&A show, I found out today my son (in his 30s) watched the show and agreed the apparent christians were feeble and should never have agreed to go on there. My son is also a christian, but he said he found Dawkins polite and he agreed with him on more than half of what he said. Dunno what that proves, but I thought it supported what you said. I have not watched the show, but, going by Tim's and your description, it is transparent how that intellectual impostor and demagogue does his act. He goes among the average Christian, who, given today's Church failure to provide intellectual grounding for someone's faith (a dire happening I know from personal experience), has no way of retort to rhetoric or verbal charlatanism, or picks up a clueless clergy member, who is schooled primarily for internal religious matters and not public defense of one's religious system. That same pseudointellectual repeatedly avoids a confrontation and debate with an eminent christian apologist and philosopher of religion, William Lane Craig, who possess more than enough knowledge and debating skills to crush an agitator like Dawkins. Such evasive behavior tells plenty of Dawkins's true intellectual weight and relevance in the public religious discourse.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 14, 2010 16:45:54 GMT
That same pseudointellectual repeatedly avoids a confrontation and debate with an eminent christian apologist and philosopher of religion, William Lane Craig, who possess more than enough knowledge and debating skills to crush an agitator like Dawkins. Such evasive behavior tells plenty of Dawkins's true intellectual weight and relevance in the public religious discourse. Ouch. But it appears true. With great competence Craig would kill Dawkins' strawman of the kindergarden versions of Aquinas' Five Ways as he presents them in The God Delusion, and he would completely and utterly destroy Dawkins on cosmology. And of course, he would be immensely superior in all things Christianity. Alas, when it comes to evolution vs. Intelligent Design, Craig is on the wrong side of the fence (he's pro ID), which is a substantial weakness. What's up with all those apologists on that issue?
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 14, 2010 19:11:00 GMT
Oh yes, and Craig also tries to sell the asinine argument that atheism necessarily leads to nihilism *), an argument that Tim effectively destroyed (and I supported him) in a discussion at Bede's journal, and which I can also see to be untrue with my atheist friend whom I met again yesterday.
*) Yes, Bertrand Russell implied that, but Russsell was wrong on several fronts. Atheism has outgrown Russell, and apologists should learn to keep up with that fact.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Mar 14, 2010 19:56:11 GMT
Good old Richard has been busy in Melbourne: saint creation is "pure Monty Python," the Pope is a nazi and Senator Steve Fielding is as "stupid as an earthworm." I am however grateful, that at least he pushed Lara Bingle ( a local model of no particular accomplishment but inexplicable celebrity) off the front page. Strangely, I'd think I'd quite miss him if he decided to retire. He's like Lord Voldemort or the Witch in the Narnia Chronicles: you boo when he's on stage but he makes the show! www.smh.com.au/national/dawkins-derides-sainthood-as-pythonesque-20100314-q676.html
|
|
deef
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 87
|
Post by deef on Mar 14, 2010 20:31:33 GMT
Speaking of arrogance... Dawkins remarks of Craig were indeed quite arrogant.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 15, 2010 2:50:41 GMT
Alas, when it comes to evolution vs. Intelligent Design, Craig is on the wrong side of the fence (he's pro ID), which is a substantial weakness. What's up with all those apologists on that issue? I have wondered that too. I note that when Craig argues for the resurrection, he argues from the basis that the NT is sound historically, as secular historians generally have concluded. When opponents (I think I have seen a couple try it) try to pin him down on whether he believes the Bible is inerrant, he dodges the question and says it's not relevant to his argument, which only assumes historicity. I have been left wondering whether Craig really believes the Bible is inerrant, or is unwilling to divulge any scepticism he might have about that because his constituency may not buy it. I don't think I could do that, and I don't like to infer that he might, but it is a question. If that is the case, then perhaps he could be the same here. ID may well be the predominant christian view in the US right now, and it is much more intellectually credible than YEC (in my view, and in its best forms), so he may feel he should represent that view publicly. But like you, I'd like to see him come down on a more defensible position on both issues. All that of course is on the assumption that I have concluded correctly on these complex issues myself!
|
|
|
Post by acornuser on Mar 15, 2010 3:28:25 GMT
Oh yes, and Craig also tries to sell the asinine argument that atheism necessarily leads to nihilism *), an argument that Tim effectively destroyed (and I supported him) in a discussion at Bede's journal, and which I can also see to be untrue with my atheist friend whom I met again yesterday. *) Yes, Bertrand Russell implied that, but Russsell was wrong on several fronts. Atheism has outgrown Russell, and apologists should learn to keep up with that fact. Hi Almoritz, could you point me towards that discussion? I have to admit that I rather like Dawkins. At first, I found his arguments really unsettling and felt a bit antagonistic. Now that I am more comfortable with his claims, I can at least admire his candor. I watched Expelled with friends, and I thought Dawkins came off by far and away the best of the atheists they interviewed. I try to balance the "child abuse" thing with the fact that parts of the Christian message can be pretty offensive too (depending on the culture you are in, the incarnation, judgement, salvation, belief in God at all could all be viewed as offensive).
|
|
|
Post by acornuser on Mar 15, 2010 5:48:55 GMT
|
|