Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?
- Thread starter francois
- Start date
Lemme guess, you agree with everything he sez.
You did read the "on the topic" right?
Doesn't matter. The point is that you accused him of spreading disinformation by using disinformation yourself.
I seriously doubt you've read EVERYTHING of Dawkins. Don't exaggerate.
Are those blinkers shielding him from seeing your god? Why not simply demonstrate your god to him? That would end the debate.
Like I said, did you miss" almost everything on the topic"?
And I own all his books except River out of Eden and Blind Watchmaker. And I follow the news, so I would say, I have pretty much read almost everything he has said on that topic.
And I do believe he is overly simplistic in his conclusions, even the wiki page on The God Delusion says "The God Delusion is an anti-theistic book by British ethologist Richard Dawkins, Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University."
Does that sound like the book is an objective analysis?
What about this?
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803
And this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion#Reviews
As David Baltimore in American Scientist suggests, "that Dawkins's "core reason for writing: [is] that 'The status of atheists in America today is on a par with that of homosexuals fifty years ago,' and he wants to help change that status to tolerance, if not acceptance." "
None of that clarifies exactly what the objections to Dawkins's polemics agaisnt theism actually are.
From the negative reviews quoted in SAM's links, they appear to be errors of comprehension, for the most part. They compare bad religious doings with scientific fraud, for example.
My own take is once again aligned with Daniel Dennett's - we regard theism in reality, as practiced, a dangerous absurdity responsible for much evil, but are not at all convinced (as Dawkins is) that people are better off without religion, in consequence. I think there is a good argument to be made for the value of religion, regardlss of the theistic superstructure. But that does not seem to be any part of the critics' objections.
From the negative reviews quoted in SAM's links, they appear to be errors of comprehension, for the most part. They compare bad religious doings with scientific fraud, for example.
My own take is once again aligned with Daniel Dennett's - we regard theism in reality, as practiced, a dangerous absurdity responsible for much evil, but are not at all convinced (as Dawkins is) that people are better off without religion, in consequence. I think there is a good argument to be made for the value of religion, regardlss of the theistic superstructure. But that does not seem to be any part of the critics' objections.
Probably because most of the critics are not theists.
To be anti-theistic means to be in direct opposition to a belief in a deity. Why are you so surprised that Richard Dawkins is anti-theistic? Did you just figure that one out?
"The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to belief in any deity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
That's a review of 'The God Delusion' written by Andrew Brown, who also happens to write for the "Church Times."
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/index.asp?id=42877
Yes, of course, that's obvious. And from that very page, another review:
"The Economist praised the book: "Everyone should read it. Atheists will love Mr Dawkins's incisive logic and rapier wit and theists will find few better tests of the robustness of their faith. Even agnostics, who claim to have no opinion on God, may be persuaded that their position is an untenable waffle." The rest of the review essentially outlines Dawkins's arguments without much commentary of its own, focusing on Dawkins's critiques of the influence of religion upon politics and the use of religion to insulate political positions from criticism. "The problem, as Mr. Dawkins sees it, is that religious moderates make the world safe for fundamentalists, by promoting faith as a virtue and by enforcing an overly pious respect for religion."
Because not all of them have the same "snailness". They're different species. So, within "snailness", there is "Littorianess", for example.
All primates, similarly, have "primateness", but none of them can interbreed at all.
How are they attempts at disinformation?
Hmm so basically you are directly opposed to something you don't think exists.
Very rational.
Exactly. As I remember, there were similar sentiments about the genetically inferior, the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals not so long ago. And everyone shook their heads sagely in a certain part of the world and proceeded to do something about it; in other places, they just made laws for forced sterilisation.
Last edited:
When one religiously presents only one part of a picture, ignoring all scientific evidence to the contrary, it is an attempt at disinformation.
All part of the militancy and evangelism of the new atheist.
See the fundamentalism creeping in yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
There's scientific evidence for God? That's a new one on me. What have you got - a chi-square at unity and unity degrees of freedom or something? General improbability distribution? Theistic Index > 1?
Next we start beating people.
So is preaching by theists fundamentalistic then? Or is this fundamental part of several faiths not really fundamental after all? Optional? Speculative trading in the soul index, is it? Never know which way the market will go, I guess. What's a soul worth these days, anyway?
See, disinformation.
We were talking about Dawkins polemic on religion and violence, remember?
And eliminating undesirables, imprisoning dissenters, executing troublemakers.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
See how pervasive it is? You see nothing unusual in atheistic evangelism.
Topic of today's sermon: The truth is NOT out there.
Why disinformation? Got scientific evidence of God? Why keep all scientific evidence of God to self, if available? Geoff very sure Jerry Falwell very interested, even if Geoff not interested, or not sufficiently cre-dul-ous.
This common road for lots of people, and not just radical athiests.
Before accuse of to-tal-i-tar-i-an intolerance, check ass to see if toilet paper sticking.
See how pervasive it is? You see nothing unusual in atheistic evangelism.
Why problem? God got advocates. No-God got advocates. In law suit, only one side allowed to hire lawyers?
Topic of today's sermon: The truth is NOT out there.
Geoff have same question: why only one side got mon-o-po-ly on truth? One side say "this truth, other side just shut up!"?
Even caveman know, that system failing so-ci-e-tal balance.
Avoidance strategy
Why wait for crap? Rubbish in, rubbish out.
I represent the plaintiff, who does not believe that the defendant exists?
Hmm, thats a new one.