The all new, totally accepted, bigotry thread - "Blame a Christian"

[warpus]

What is a religion worth unless it is true? Nothing, it would be just another human conceit.

There are thousands of religions around the globe - there is no point in arguing which one is right unless you have some solid evidence.. which none of the religions so far have been able to produce

 

[Ayn Rand]

It's not simply that his conclusions aren't novel, but that they're crude and insubstantial. Plato, Descartes and Nietzsche aren't novel, either, but they're still entirely worthy of consideration. Dawkin's failure is that he has nothing to contribute to our understanding of the human experience, just a barely-coherent string of truisms, over-simplifications and gut prejudices.

Edit: Without trying to shift responsibility for my opinions onto somebody else, I'd recommend this as a pretty cutting critique of Dawkins et al.

Uhm no... the man Dawkins speaks truth. He says what everyone should say, if they weren't too busy appeasing their inner policeman.

 

[Core Imposter]

There are thousands of religions around the globe - there is no point in arguing which one is right unless you have some solid evidence.. which none of the religions so far have been able to produce

Behold trees. Standing upright with arms stretched heavenward in praise and worship to the Almighty. So would we all stand if God revealed Himself directly, as we would have no power to resist Him.

But God grants us free will to choose. To make a choice involves consideration. I pray you will consider God and I trust Him to save you if you do.

Rembering this, that for all things there is a season, and as the winter comes withering the leaves and leaving a tree's limbs as bare ruined choir lofts, so also comes the day when men shall no longer have the hope of eternal joy facing instead the fate of a fallen tree rotting in cold dead isolation.

Or fueling the fires of a reaper's furnace.

 

[Traitorfish]

Uhm no... the man Dawkins speaks truth. He says what everyone should say, if they weren't too busy appeasing their inner policeman.

So you're suggesting that Dawkins is a psychopath, or...?

I don't think he claims to be a 'philosopher of atheism', but simply a communicator, or perhaps popularizer of atheism.

I haven't read any philosophy ever (despite holding a degree in Classics ), so it's possible that God Delusion reads as philosophy to those in the know... but I certainly didn't see it as such.

He certainly doesn't style himself as a philosopher, but what he's engaged in is undeniably philosophy. If he merely limited himself to saying "there is no empirical proof for the existence of a deity or deities", then he would merely be making a scientific observation, but his commentary on God, religion and society goes far beyond that. His atheism is a quite particular atheism, not the simple scientific agnosticism that he likes to claim, but one embedded in a particular metaphysics, epistemology and anthropology; in short, a philosophy.

 

[Ayn Rand]

So you're suggesting that Dawkins is a psychopath, or...?

Uhm.. wut? I talk about what people really want to say, and you somehow jump straight to psychopath?


....interesting

 

[Traitorfish]

Uhm.. wut? I talk about what people really want to say, and you somehow jump straight to psychopath?


....interesting

You said that he lacked an "inner policemen", by which I assumed you meant a superego or equivalent inhibition. Somebody with an underdeveloped or absent superego is a psychopath. Thus, you seemed to be arguing that Richard Dawkins was a very well-mannered psychopath. Understandably, I found this a bit shocking, and was wondering if you would be able to expand upon it.

 

[Ayn Rand]

You said that he lacked an "inner policemen", by which I assumed you meant a superego or equivalent inhibition. Somebody with an underdeveloped or absent superego is a psychopath. Thus, you seemed to be arguing that Richard Dawkins was a very well-mannered psychopath. Understandably, I found this a bit shocking, and was wondering if you would be able to expand upon it.

It's okay... already forgotten. Let's.... never talk about it again.

 

[timtofly]

I honestly can't believe this thread's still going on. It's pathetic.

What is pathetic? The bashing, or the reveling in the bashing?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Nah, God is dead, and we killed him.

You know, I never realized it until now, but in the right context, that quote works as an affirmation of Christianity. At least Catholicism.

 

[_random_]

Only in the past tense.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Only in the past tense.

Well yes. But it still remains one of the central ideas of Christianity. In fact, one little sentence aside, "How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife,-- who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves?" Sounds like the start of a particularly good sermon.

 

[Borachio]

This is all very interesting.

What would a sensible religion look like?

Does anyone really need one?

For something that is irrelevant, you/we all seem to devote an awful lot of attention to.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Behold trees. Standing upright with arms stretched heavenward in praise and worship to the Almighty. So would we all stand if God revealed Himself directly, as we would have no power to resist Him.

You're a sun worshipper. It all makes sense now.

I'm one too by the way. Love the sun.

 

[Ayn Rand]

You're a sun worshipper. It all makes sense now.

I'm one too by the way. Love the sun.

No!! True believers only worship the holy meteorite

Spoiler :

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Good thing to worship as well. Contender for bringing life on earth.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Edit: Without trying to shift responsibility for my opinions onto somebody else, I'd recommend this as a pretty cutting critique of Dawkins et al.

That certainly doesn't seem very erudite at all, especially coming from a supposed secular humanist who holds various theological degrees. Someone who chaired a committee called the "Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion", as though such a thing is possible at all.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/11/joseph-hoffmann-responds.html

Joseph Hoffmann thinks he knows a lot about modern atheism so he wrote an insulting and rather stupid attack: Atheism’s Little Idea. A lot of atheists were offended and took the time to try and educate Hoffmann. My own contribution was: On Being a Sophisticated Atheist.

Hoffmann noticed that there was less than unanimous agreement with his position so he replied on his blog The New Oxonian: The Sure-Fire Atheist Rapid Response Manual.

You really have to read it to see just what a sophisticated response from a Harvard/Oxford intellectual looks like. I think he's a bit annoyed at all the attention he's getting.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/11/on-being-sophisticated-atheist.html

It seems that everything I write these days is anti-atheist. And who can blame my unbelieving brethren for assuming I am fighting for the other side. Perhaps I should be, since modern atheism is hardly worth defending.

To be brutal, I cannot imagine a time in the history of unbelief when atheism has appeared more hamfisted, puling, ignorant or unappealing.

Hang on to your hats. This is going to be very much like the attack of the "sophisticated" theists only this time it's about "sophisticated" atheism!

Atheism has become a very little idea because it is now promoted by little people with a small focus. These people tend to think that there are two kinds of questions: the questions we have already answered and the questions we will answer tomorrow. When they were even smaller than they are now, their father asked them every six weeks, “Whadja get in math and science?” When they had children of their own, they asked them, “Whadja get in science and math?” Which goes to show, people can change.

This is an example of sophisticated argument? It seems a bit hypocritical coming from a man whose entire focus seems to have been on religion. What does he know about science?

Let's ignore the fact that Hoffman is equating atheism with some imaginary version of science and see where he's going with this. Keep in mind that to Hoffman atheism isn't just the absence of belief in gods. It's supposed to be a philosophy and a recipe for living.

I don't think I can deal with such a rambling pack of lies and distortions. But, just for the record, I am an atheist and I never tried to make God a little idea. Gods don't exist. They are no idea at all.

Now I get it. Joseph Hoffman's real angst is that he invested a large part of his life in religion and now he regrets it. He wishes that all new atheists would suffer, just he had to, by reading all those boring books. He's really pissed that some of us have avoided all the suffering by never falling for gods in the first place.

Now he wants to replace religion with some other "big idea" that's related to humanism, or perhaps some sophisticated atheist philosophy. No thanks. I've managed to avoid being bamboozled by the "big ideas" of religion and I'm not going to fall for some pseudoreligion in its place.

The self-styled highly qualified philosopher / ex-believer responds to his critics, in part:

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/the-sure-fire-atheist-rapid-response-manual/

But it was then I learned their strange language and breeding habits: Like all small things, their safety is in numbers. One atheist alone is hardly a match for his (or her) natural enemies, the Christian Nation, the low-wattage Dims and flabby franks like me who send mixed signals about what they really believe. But one thousand atheists on a single mission can take down a faitheist, an accommodationist and a Associate Reformed Presbyterian pre-Millennialist going through a divorce in about a minute. I’ll tell you this: if Osama bin Laden had ranted about atheists and not “the West” (where is that exactly?) he would have been cheese crumbs in October 2001.

If this is an example of a philosopher who is championing his supposed lack of faith in any sort of a god, he certainly has a habit of sounding far more like Bill O'Reilly than he does Richard Dawkins.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Dawkins is just a very smart guy who likes to vent his opinion. Power to him. Don't like what he says, or disagree? Power to you.

But lets not be vague. Lets get some Dawkins quote that really gets the offensive juices flowing. This is the Blame the Christians thread after all. Show me.

 

[Borachio]

i'm confused now. What do you want a Dawkins quote dis-ing the Christians?
In which case, I remember him going on about Christians and their invisible friend. I have one of his books here but I can't find it in all the pile of other stuff.
Getting his stuff directly off the web isn't all that easy. I think he'd rather you buy his books. Or go to one of his shows.

 

[Traitorfish]

You know, I never realized it until now, but in the right context, that quote works as an affirmation of Christianity. At least Catholicism.

Have you encountered Thomas Altizer, at all? He's a Christian theologian who's done a lot of work with the concept of the "death of God". I don't know much about the details - only encountered him in passing- but if you're interested in following up that line of thought, he might be a place to start.

blah

Do you have any comments on the article itself, rather than jabs at the author? I'm not a partisan, I just think he has some interesting things to say.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

What is pathetic? The bashing, or the reveling in the bashing?

Both. All of it. This entire thread and everyone in it.