Love to the Dawkins

[Sarkus]

Only if you demonise them for it. After all, would you like to be demonised because your beliefs are the minority?

What you mean is "0nly if you demonise believers in Leprechauns for it" (not all Irish believe in Leprechauns). But believers in Leprechauns also don't have a history of trying to force their belief down your throat to the extent that it is pervasive in our culture and encouraging uncritical and irrational thinking.

Presenting only a portion of work so that it conforms to your bias while ignoring the context [ie like your quoting parts of a sentence from the Quran] would be unethical by my definition. I understand atheists follow a different dictionary. Hence Dawkins omission of those portions of Einsteins opinions which contradicted his personal bias, while calling other people deluded. As a man inifinitely guided by empiricism, he probably decided he should decide what other people should see

You do realise that derailing the discussion to matters of what Einstein thought, is an Appeal to Authority - and a classical logical fallacy?
It matters not one iota what Einstein thought regarding divinity or intelligent design - as he could not substantiate one jot of it - and nor can anyone else.

Further, for someone who was so entwined in mathematics, and the beauty of that subject, it is hardly surprising that he imagined behind the patterns, the simplicity and the beauty of it, a designing hand. But you must also remember that he was but human, and prone to the same lapse of reason in matters beyond our ken as others.

 

[spidergoat]

Only if you demonise them for it. After all, would you like to be demonised because your beliefs are the minority?

No one is being demonized. Dawkins in particular points that out, it is the ideas which he objects to. Of course, you have made the ideas into your whole identity, but that's your problem.

 

[Myles]

Only if you demonise them for it. After all, would you like to be demonised because your beliefs are the minority?



Does it? You have personally studied it? Can you show me where I have listed scholars for the Quran?

I did not say you listed scholars. I said you quoted some. You quoted one in response to a post of mine but I'm damned if I'm going hunting for it. I have also seen at least two similar quotations. You can take my word for it.

Are you suggesting that there is universal agreement as to the meaning of the Koran ? I know there is not. I have seen two documentaries on TV in which Muslim scholars took part and there was disagreement between them over the precise meaning of certain passages.

So why do you think you are better informed ?

 

[S.A.M.]

Only if you demonise them for it. After all, would you like to be demonised because your beliefs are the minority?



Does it? You have personally studied it? Can you show me where I have listed scholars for the Quran?

I did not say you listed scholars. I said you quoted some. You quoted one in response to a post of mine but I'm damned if I'm going hunting for it. I have also seen at least two similar quotations. You can take my word for it.

Are you suggesting that there is universal agreement as to the meaning of the Koran ? I know there is not. I have seen two documentaries on TV in which Muslim scholars took part and there was disagreement between them over the precise meaning of certain passages.

So why do you think you are better informed ?

Why would there have to be any universal agreement? We're individuals. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion.

 

[iceaura]

I think almost anyone would know more about theology than Dawkins. He keeps confusing rational thinking (aka reason) with empiricism

That is your confusion about Dawkins. And it's not theology.

What do you think of this:

“
"The fault of Dawkins as an academic was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form. Thus we find in his index five references to Einstein. They are to the mask of Einstein; Einstein on morality; on a personal God; on the purpose of life, and finally on Einstein's religious views. But he makes no mention of Einstein's most relevant report: namely, that the integrated complexity of the world of physics has led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it.

"An academic attacking some ideological position which s/he believes to be mistaken must of course attack that position in its strongest form. This Dawkins does not do in the case of Einstein and his failure is the crucial index of his insincerity of academic purpose and therefore warrants me in charging him with having become, what he has probably believed to be an impossibility, a secularist bigot."

I think it's a lie about Einstein, and a flagrantly mistaken (at best) take on Dawkins' argument: Dawkins is not attacking Einstein's doctrine, and to present him as if he were is badly misleading.

He is also misrepresenting Dawkins' arguments against theism as part of his academic work, and Dawkins polemic as an academic attack on an ideological position, both of which he supplies himself. That is I think dishonest - deliberately.

Yet you take the nasty little liar at his word -

Hence Dawkins omission of those portions of Einsteins opinions which contradicted his personal bias, while calling other people deluded.

You will have trouble finding those "portions of Einstein's opinion" in Einstein's own writings, so that they are more important to Dawkins' argument than the more relevant quotes he uses. Quite a bit of "interpretation" is involved in Flew's readings. Meanwhile, Dawkins was not making Einstein's arguments, but making his own arguments using various sources. The entire purpose of quoting the man is being overlooked by you and the sulphurous Flew.

You mean I have no idea what he is writing about. But I can tell what he is talking about, I've listened to his BS.

Your versions of what you claim to have heard do not closely resemble his writings. And you fly off the handle in quite silly directions on this subject - even with text in front of you, let alone recalling speeches.

I believe it is atheists who are most disconnected from community, family and society.

Probably true, especially of the societies you find familiar and understand. It's like not believing in football at a Texan high school. But you nevertheless blame them for many evils of those societies.

After all, would you like to be demonised because your beliefs are the minority?

A hint of a window for empathy ? Nah - - -

 

[Huwy]

I think there are as many atheists in the world as there ever were. Its just that the internet has allowed them to form a cult. Hence, now you can see many manifestations of group behaviour where before there were few.

Yeah the internet, and damned education! Which has taught the kuffar about the world being round and orbiting the sun, and about evolution!

What cult would this be?

Apparently its pretty bad, after disagreeing with theists on the internet this "atheist cult" builds explosives to go out and use on their enemies. Oh wait...

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Not suprised to see a Dawkins love thread in the religion forum, I worship the man as well, here's my contribution-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe5B8W8ZyR4

 

[Myles]

Why would there have to be any universal agreement? We're individuals. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion.

So you don't need the prophet ? Why not call yourselves " Children of the Desert" ? Join us and believe what you want !

I wonder how many million man-hours have been wasted reading the Koran.

 

[spidergoat]

Not suprised to see a Dawkins love thread in the religion forum, I worship the man as well, here's my contribution-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe5B8W8ZyR4

You so craazy.

 

[S.A.M.]

So you don't need the prophet ? Why not call yourselves " Children of the Desert" ? Join us and believe what you want !

I wonder how many million man-hours have been wasted reading the Koran.

As opposed to the wonderful contributions of atheists? I would rather they read a book than design nuclear bombs or build their "perfect" societies of monochromatic non-individuals, many of which inevitably end up killing a lot of people before the atheists realise that hey, people are not happy with this and circle back to religion.

That is your confusion about Dawkins. And it's not theology.

I think it's a lie about Einstein, and a flagrantly mistaken (at best) take on Dawkins' argument: Dawkins is not attacking Einstein's doctrine, and to present him as if he were is badly misleading.

Dawkins began his God illusion with a reference to the God of the physicists. His entire aim is to convert those who believe in God and he has used Einstein as an example for scientists once too often. I really don't care for anyone who misuses his position in science to further his religious ideologies, even if he is an atheist; as some one who comes from a more diverse religious society I can see his bullshit about Einstein for what it is. I'm not surprised that you stand up for him, I have seen similar reactions when I discuss Islam with Muslims who follow particular scholars, they tend to confuse the man with the ideology. Most Dawkins fans behave like proteges, following his lead unthinkingly.

 

[(Q)]

Presenting only a portion of work so that it conforms to your bias while ignoring the context [ie like your quoting parts of a sentence from the Quran] would be unethical by my definition.

Then, by your own logic, YOU are unethical. That is exactly what you're doing here. Congratulations! :bravo:

I understand atheists follow a different dictionary. Hence Dawkins omission of those portions of Einsteins opinions which contradicted his personal bias, while calling other people deluded. As a man inifinitely guided by empiricism, he probably decided he should decide what other people should see

Einstein was very clear of his atheism.

 

[S.A.M.]

Then, by your own logic, YOU are unethical. That is exactly what you're doing here. Congratulations! :bravo:

Can you show me where I have quoted the Quran out of context so as to alter its meaning from the original context?

Einstein was very clear of his atheism.

Like Norsefire.

However, in 1929 - during a rare interview with a journalist - Einstein was directly asked if he believed in the God of Spinoza. "I can't answer with a simple yes or no," he replied. "I am not an atheist [and] I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/23008

 

[kenworth]

As opposed to the wonderful contributions of atheists? I would rather they read a book than design nuclear bombs or build their "perfect" societies of monochromatic non-individuals, many of which inevitably end up killing a lot of people before the atheists realise that hey, people are not happy with this and circle back to religion.

many of the people who designed the bomb (and then vehemently opposed its use in japan) were atheists but the people who actually decided to drop it were.........................*dingdingding* thats right,theists.

 

[Myles]

As opposed to the wonderful contributions of atheists? I would rather they read a book than design nuclear bombs or build their "perfect" societies of monochromatic non-individuals, many of which inevitably end up killing a lot of people before the atheists realise that hey, people are not happy with this and circle back to religion.

I take it your description of people refers to the brainwased sheep who cannot think for themselves and so remain steadfastly religious.
So all atheists make nuclear bombs and atheists ,like Bertrand Russel, who are against such devices are really closet Christians. Get real !

What a lopsided view of the world you have ! I'll take a few copies of the Bible and the Koran around the cancer ward of my local hospital. If only those sufferers knew the contribution atheists have nade to medicine, they would refuse treatment and rely on prayer. Mary Baker Eddy will tell them they are not ill in the first place.

Back to religion ? Let's have some witch burning, beheadings and stonings. In one breath you tell us that people are entitled to their personal opinions, in another you agree that beheading in front of one's children is the prescribed punishment for apostacy.

You'll say anything to defend the indefensible.

 

[S.A.M.]

many of the people who designed the bomb (and then vehemently opposed its use in japan) were atheists but the people who actually decided to drop it were.........................*dingdingding* thats right,theists.

Or so you say. They were probably atheists. If they can design them, they surely want to test them.

 

[kenworth]

Or so you say. They were probably atheists. If they can design them, they surely want to test them.

the part in green- that is just your prejudice against atheists shining through.




no,they are documented as petitioning for the bomb not to be used.

the part in red is just what you'd want as you are a bloodthirsty egotist.

 

[S.A.M.]

the part in green- that is just your prejudice against atheists shining through.




no,they are documented as petitioning for the bomb not to be used.

the part in red is just what you'd want as you are a bloodthirsty egotist.

You know any atheist scientist who designs something just for its artistic value? There were Nobel prizewinners among the Nazis and there are scientists who note down the effects of gassing Christians in North Korea. Those guys who designed the atom bomb? They designed more than one type and went on to design more. So don't give me any crap about how they covered their asses.

 

[kenworth]

You know any atheist scientist who designs something just for its artistic value? There were Nobel prizewinners among the Nazis and there are scientists who note down the effects of gassing Christians in North Korea. Those guys who designed the atom bomb? They designed more than one type and went on to design more. So don't give me any crap about how they covered their asses.

you are so full of shit you will probably burst one day.

 

[S.A.M.]

Like the victims of the atom bomb?

 

[kenworth]

Like the victims of the atom bomb?

they werent full of shit and they didnt burst.
you are disgusting.