Richard Dawkins

Soul Winner

A Primal Nut wrote: »

It is empirically measurable as false as there is plenty of evidence that the idea of a theistic god can't exist, mainly that it breaks every law of physics/chemistry/biology known to man.

We know from science itself that the laws of physics were not eternal in the past, i.e. they didn't always exist. So how can their present state of existence, which science itself predicts will not be eternal in the future either, preclude the existence of an Eternal God? Even if this supposed Eternal God doesn't actually exist, it's surely not due to the laws of physics or any other law in our temporal universe. Does that logic flow for you?

Ickle Magoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not sure about this. Certainly people better than I have accused him of having faulty/ selective logic.

Certain enthusiastic christians accuse dawkins of having a faulty/selective logic? Well, who'd have thunk it.

Alas, it seems Mr Eagleton has his own critics...

"Is it that hard to explain what Eagleton's up to? The prolificness, the self-plagiarism, the snappy, highly consumable prose and, of course, the sales figures: Eagleton wishes for capitalism's demise, but as long as it's here, he plans to do as well as he can out of it. Someone who owns three homes shouldn't be preaching self-sacrifice, and someone whose careerism at Oxbridge was legendary shouldn't be telling interviewers of his longstanding regret at having turned down a job at the Open University."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040216/deresiewicz

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not sure about this. Certainly people better than I have accused him of having faulty/ selective logic.

It is just the usual God is not something we use science for stuff again.

People seem to misunderstand Dawkins in this regard.

It is not that Dawkins is ignorant of Christian claims that God is not an issue for science. It is that Dawkins (correctly in my opinion) rejects that claim as evasive nonsense. Christians can claim all they like that God is not an issue for science but claim they still know he is there. That doesn't mean anything. Simply the defining away the issue, as if that some how makes it go way, is what Dawkins is complaining about.

Astrology claim the same thing, that when ever you test astrology you don't find anything, not because there is nothing there but because the universe doesn't want astrology to be something we test. That doesn't mean anything either.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

I'm finding this thread really interesting as an example of how the more fundamentalist atheists behave as a religion, and "The God Delusion" seems to be winning the race to become their inerrant text.

Really ? I think you'd probably consider me a 'fundamentalist atheist', how have I shown you this example ?

Instead of just admitting that Dickie got it wrong, we are seeing reinterpretations of the holy text that are strongly reminiscient of the 'apologetics' videos that spotty Christian teenagers put up on Youtube where they mangle sound exegesis and hermeneutics in order to explain away a difficulty in the Bible.

What did he get wrong ? Maybe I missed the point.

As an aside I wouldn't agree with a lot of Dawkins/Hitchens opinions.

So, any reference to the believers' brains misfunctioning is actually "a humorous way of saying someone has made a mistake".

As in the X side Y side of the brain test ? How so ?

Now, we are told that a blanket statement that "religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world" doesn't actually mean that at all. What it really means is that in at least one area (such as the way of salvation, or the existence of God, or whether a miracle occurred) some religions teach people that one explanation is more truthful than others.

PDN how was the Universe created/started ? How was life created/started ?

Most Christians I've had discussions with here would put a "God done it" for both answers. They don't know how "God done it' (except JC etc) but they know god was responsible for it.

Dawkins said "religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world". That doesn't mean religion succeeds now does it ?

Take our little friend in the creationism thread as an example of the extreme. He isn't interested in learning how the universe started/life started/different species came about because he already knows from the Bible. He's not interested in learning.

Or do you think Dawkins meant all religious people suddenly stop 'thinking' about 'everything' ?

How would you interpret the following ?
"I teach students how to drive carefully" -> Does that mean all students I teach drive carefully ?

I would have thought it would have been easier to simply say, "OK, Dawkins made a bit of a boo-boo there!" - but I've got to give his disciples ten out of ten for effort.

I think I'm beginning to get the hang of debating with you.

Please tell us how he made a boo-boo ? We promise we won't get all defensive and start crying if you insult our glorious great leader.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I'm finding this thread really interesting as an example of how the more fundamentalist atheists behave as a religion, and "The God Delusion" seems to be winning the race to become their inerrant text.

Instead of just admitting that Dickie got it wrong, we are seeing reinterpretations of the holy text that are strongly reminiscient of the 'apologetics' videos that spotty Christian teenagers put up on Youtube where they mangle sound exegesis and hermeneutics in order to explain away a difficulty in the Bible.

So, any reference to the believers' brains misfunctioning is actually "a humorous way of saying someone has made a mistake".

Now, we are told that a blanket statement that "religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world" doesn't actually mean that at all. What it really means is that in at least one area (such as the way of salvation, or the existence of God, or whether a miracle occurred) some religions teach people that one explanation is more truthful than others.

I would have thought it would have been easier to simply say, "OK, Dawkins made a bit of a boo-boo there!" - but I've got to give his disciples ten out of ten for effort.

Why do you bother going to discussion boards when you simply invent the other sides argument for them? Wouldn't it be easier simply to watch TV with some coco?

Would you like me to list the things Dawkins got wrong, in the God Delusion or other works? I'm happy to do that?

After that you can list the things the Bible got wrong

And then we can compare each other's "inerrant text" I wonder what the outcome will be ...

:rolleyes:

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

As an aside I wouldn't agree with a lot of Dawkins/Hitchens opinions.

ssshhh monosharp, you are ruining the attempt to make us out as if we believe in the infallibility of Dawkins and his inerrant text, because apparently, that is really bad and something only a crazy fundamentalist would do ....



... wait a minute ... Christianity ... the Bible ... inerrant word of God ... so the cops knew internal affairs were on to them!! :pac:

antiskeptic

A Primal Nut wrote: »

It is not empirically blind and he never says this. It is empirically measurable as false as there is plenty of evidence that the idea of a theistic god can't exist, mainly that it breaks every law of physics/chemistry/biology known to man.

Faith, being based on non-empirical evidence (goes the argument) isn't involved in the empirical realm (in any primary sense). And because it is not involved in the empirical realm it cannot be measured empirically - not to find it true. Not to find it false.

Dawkins sidesteps biblical faith and attacks a strawman, finding it (as you do), empirically measurable and subsequently, false.

How can God, who transcends the laws of physics/chemistry/biology (as their creator) be supposed to be subject to them? He 'breaks' a law of physics - so what?

Its a shame everyone chooses to judge him based on the God Delusion. He has written other books you know. The Selfish Gene is amazing and contains loads of his own ideas that have now become accepted.

I never read the God Delusion, so I don't know if he comes across as arrogant or not, but certainly he doesn't in other books. Perhaps it is a bad book (I don't know) but all the other books he has written that I have read more than make up for it.

When he's popularising complex scientific subjects he's on firmer ground and is indeed a worthwhile read. The God Delusion reflects his evolving fundamentalist outlook

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Really ? I think you'd probably consider me a 'fundamentalist atheist', how have I shown you this example ?

No, I wouldn't consider you a fundamentalist atheist at all.

What did he get wrong ? Maybe I missed the point.

He got quite a few things wrong, but the particular point we were discussing was that he made a false blanket statement about religion teaching people to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

As in the X side Y side of the brain test ? How so ?

Maybe you should read the thread?

PDN how was the Universe created/started ? How was life created/started ?

Most Christians I've had discussions with here would put a "God done it" for both answers. They don't know how "God done it' (except JC etc) but they know god was responsible for it

Which demonstrates that some religious people hold an opinion as to who created the universe and life - but that is irrelevant to the question of whether they are satisfied with not understanding the world.

Holding an opinion on a matter does not mean that you are satisied with not understanding it. To claim it does so would be a stupendous leap of logic.

Dawkins said "religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world". That doesn't mean religion succeeds now does it ?

Well it can't really succeed at something that it doesn't teach in the first place, can it?

Take our little friend in the creationism thread as an example of the extreme. He isn't interested in learning how the universe started/life started/different species came about because he already knows from the Bible. He's not interested in learning.

Well he would probably say the same thing about you, but that's not the point here. Taking a minority of one religion is no reason to make a sweeping generalisation about religion in general.

It would be like saying, "Politics teaches people that whites are superior to blacks." and then defending that statement by pointing to one or two political systems that are racist.

Or do you think Dawkins meant all religious people suddenly stop 'thinking' about 'everything' ?

No, but as you well know that isn't remotely what I said. He made a sweeping statement about religion in general, and it was a false statement because it was based on his own dogma and prejudices rather than on facts.

How would you interpret the following ?
"I teach students how to drive carefully" -> Does that mean all students I teach drive carefully ?

I would interpret it as a piece of silliness that is irrelevant to this thread.

It is a sweeping statement that may or may not be true, whereas Dawkins made a sweeping statement that is untrue.

I think I'm beginning to get the hang of debating with you.

Perhaps. You've evidently learned that if you change the subject often enough, or insert a rant about fundamentalists in Korea, then I get bored, stop reading your posts, and ignore you. If that is your purpose in entering discussions then you are getting the hang of it very well.

Please tell us how he made a boo-boo ? We promise we won't get all defensive and start crying if you insult our glorious great leader.

You want me to repeat it again?

Ok, he made a false generalisation about religion that is not borne out by the facts.

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

He's only able to embarrass opponents because of the ridiculousness of their positions to be honest.

Well done! You come onto the Christianity forum and call it all a load of tosh. Point in case.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I dislike his pejorative language. For instance, his use of the word "faith-heads" to describe believers. In itself it's not a bad insult, rather it is symptomatic of his approach to the debate. Like a recent poster, I seem to think that Dawkins prefers at times to embarrass and ridicule his opponents. In doing so he seems to be playing up to the expectations of certain members of his audience. Rabble rousing, in other words.

I think thats a very good point actually but I'd have a slightly different opinion on it.

I do think Dawkins does prefer to just ridicule some people at times and while I may not agree with everyone he uses it on, he does use it in some very acceptable situations.

Example. When talking to Ted Haggard about his church's preaching style Dawkins said "It reminds me of a Nuremberg rally". Haggard didn't get it.

Do you have a problem with this Fanny ? To me Haggard and people like him represent the very worst aspects of religion. People like this do not listen to reason or facts or reality, they don't listen at all so what is left only ridicule ?

Look at the creationism thread. Our little resident creationist has been wilfully ignoring the truth and lying through his teeth for 5+ years. People come to the thread, they always start by debating him with facts and evidence until they realise that he won't listen to facts or evidence.

Some people are so close minded and mentally warped that they deserve ridicule.

But in agreement with you I do think he overuses it on too wide a group of people.

Can we agree on this ?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

No, I wouldn't consider you a fundamentalist atheist at all.

hooray

He got quite a few things wrong, but the particular point we were discussing was that he made a false blanket statement about religion teaching people to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

I'm honestly not understanding you here.

I don't have the book so I'm just going to assume he said what you8 just quoted. "religion teaching people to be satisfied with not understanding the world"

He isn't saying;

"All religious people are satisfied with not understanding (everything about) the world."

He's saying that's what religion teaches people.

Which demonstrates that some religious people hold an opinion as to who created the universe and life - but that is irrelevant to the question of whether they are satisfied with not understanding the world.

Hang on a minute, lets go with the creationists for a minute.

Creationist belief -> God created life/species as recorded in genesis. End of. Any evidence which contradicts this is automatically wrong.

Conclusion -> Creationists are satisfied with not understanding how life began or how species emerged because they already (think they) know.

Holding an opinion on a matter does not mean that you are satisied with not understanding it. To claim it does so would be a stupendous leap of logic.

How so ? The proof is in the creationism thread drawing smiley's as we speak.

Well it can't really succeed at something that it doesn't teach in the first place, can it?

Religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
Scientology teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding mental health.
Ancient Greek religion taught people to be satisfied with not understanding the weather.
etc

What's wrong with those statements ?

Well he would probably say the same thing about you, but that's not the point here.

Come on PDN. Don't lower me (or anyone else) to that level.

Taking a minority of one religion is no reason to make a sweeping generalisation about religion in general.

Are we talking about the same thing ?

Religion = Religious people ? Because I was talking about the religion itself.

It would be like saying, "Politics teaches people that whites are superior to blacks." and then defending that statement by pointing to one or two political systems that are racist.

No its not, but it would be like saying, "Politics teaches people to be satisfied with allowing others to control their lives."

It is a sweeping statement that may or may not be true, whereas Dawkins made a sweeping statement that is untrue.

How is it untrue ? All religions teach something (X) as a fact that you should believe is true. If X is true and you believe it 100% to be true according to the religion then why try and understand X outside of your religion ?

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well done! You come onto the Christianity forum and call it all a load of tosh. Point in case.

I don't think he meant christianity Fanny in fairness, he was talking about certain opponents.

Take this interview for example -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

I really like this talk and I think its the 3rd time I've posted it but oh well.

Anyways, he's talking to a Catholic priest here and he doesn't try to ridicule him or embarrass him.

But look at his interview with Ted Haggard and he does ridicule him. And he's absolutely correct in doing so. The man's a lunatic.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

I'm honestly not understanding you here.

I don't have the book so I'm just going to assume he said what you8 just quoted. "religion teaching people to be satisfied with not understanding the world"

He isn't saying;

"All religious people are satisfied with not understanding (everything about) the world."

He's saying that's what religion teaches people. ?

No, he's not saying what religion teaches people, because religion per se does not teach people what he claimed. Therefore he is making a false and untrue blanket statement about religion.

What is there not to understand about that?

Hang on a minute, lets go with the creationists for a minute.

No, let's not. Quoting a few minority examples does not justify making a sweeping statement about the majority or of the whole.

Religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
Scientology teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding mental health.
Ancient Greek religion taught people to be satisfied with not understanding the weather.
etc

What's wrong with those statements ?

What's wrong with those statements is the dishonest attempt to present them as being comparable. The first is a false statement about religion in general. The other two are cherrypicked examples of particularly unrepresentative varieties of religion.

It is the kind of comparison that is excusable when made by someone on an internet message board who freely acknowledges that they have little knowledge of the subject of religion, but inexcusable when someone sets themselves up as an expert and puts it in a book.

Come on PDN. Don't lower me (or anyone else) to that level.

I don't think I'm lowering you at all by placing you on that level.

Are we talking about the same thing ?

Religion = Religious people ? Because I was talking about the religion itself.

Religions are made up of people. You are now splitting hairs to avoid admitting an elementary mistake. You cannot make a sweeping generalisation about religion in general on the basis of how one minority group within one religion behaves.

No its not, but it would be like saying, "Politics teaches people to be satisfied with allowing others to control their lives."

That would be an equally silly sweeping statement. Some forms of politics may indeed do so, but to apply that to politics in general would not be true.

How is it untrue ? All religions teach something (X) as a fact that you should believe is true. If X is true and you believe it 100% to be true according to the religion then why try and understand X outside of your religion ?

You could use the same bad logic against history, mathematics or science. There are certain things that we all accept as facts. Indeed, these facts often provide us with the foundation we need to conduct investigation and experimentation.

In fact, the only alternative to believing some things to be true is to posit that nothing can be truly known for certain. And that is a philosophy that would indeed hinder the thirst for understanding.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You could use the same bad logic against history, mathematics or science.

Er, no actually you couldn't. None of these areas expect (or require) people to take inerrant revelation as fact based on faith in the revelation

Knowledge from revelation is what Dawkins is talking about (since that is basically what religion is), accepting and believing things about the world because you are told they are true but you don't (and more often than not can't) understand why.

Turtwig

Wicknight wrote: »

Knowledge from revelation is what Dawkins is talking about (since that is basically what some religions are), accepting and believing things about the world because you are told they are true but you don't (and more often than not can't) understand why.

Fixed.

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

Fixed.

Perhaps, but can you think of a religion that isn't based on the idea of inerrant revelation?

Turtwig

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps, but can you think of a religion that isn't based on the idea of inerrant revelation?

Buddhism.
On a side note, it's probably worth mentioning what Dawkin's took as religion when dealing with TGD. He considered buddhism to be a philosophy of ethics and not under what he was describing as religion. Make of that what you will.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Like I said already Dawkins is not implying that a religious says to a person answers every question in Trivial Pursuit with "Umm, God?"

What is he implying? Given the man's credentials I assume he would be more careful not to confuse 'the world' with 'faith in the existence of God'. I am giving the man the benefit of doubt.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a silly straw man to attack Dawkins.

Taking a direct quote, (as requested by Sam), that on the face of it, without a feat of mental gymnastics to imagine what he meant, is false. How is that a straw man?

Wicknight wrote: »

While railing against Dawkins none of you are saying you don't actually do what he is talking about, only a straw man extreme literal interpretation.

He didn't say people do anything. Really, you are having a hard time getting to grips with that quote.

Wicknight wrote: »

Examples for your straw man that isn't what Dawkins said .. nope, can't think of any of the top of my head. .

Except it is exactly what Dawkins said.

Wicknight wrote: »

I've already given you examples of what Dawkins is talking about, for example faith in an explanation of something that is not understood or verified, which you happily admit to doing.

Where have I happily admitted not wanting to understand anything?

Wicknight wrote: »

ssshhh monosharp, you are ruining the attempt to make us out as if we believe in the infallibility of Dawkins and his inerrant text, because apparently, that is really bad and something only a crazy fundamentalist would do ....

Quite an ironic statement, given that a quote from Dawkins was requested to show where he could possibly be wrong, when one is provided then it has to be reinterpreted and obviously wasn't meant literally. I'll keep that in mind the next time, a non-literal approach is taken with parts of the Bible and is greeted with the usual scoffs etc.

Turtwig

Aww bloody heck.
This quote thing is depressing. Firstly has anyone bother to find out where it was quoted? I think, if memory serves correctly, it was with a talk session with Lawrence Krauss. And, again if I recall correctly, Dawkins went back on the statement.
It was kinda like the Barrack Obama moment - "We are no longer a Christian Nation". Beautifully quote eh? Well it turns out Obama borked his speech script and made amends rather quickly "- At least not just.". If memory serves me right, Dawkins wasn't as fast to realise his mistake (it took him a whole minute or two) but when he did he retracted it and clarified himself. Now I might be wrong here but seeing as no one has shown the source of the quote I'm just going to assume that it was Krauss discussion.

Turtwig

Ok after about ten minutes of googling I got this.
"What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding."
Heart Of The Matter: God Under The Microscope | BBC (1996)

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well done! You come onto the Christianity forum and call it all a load of tosh. Point in case.

Oh, I thought this was in A&A. I do apologise.

So this is the Christianity forum and there are rules and that is just fine. But when Dawkins talks in the public domain I don't see why he should keep mum.

As far as I see it there are only two options that would improve Dawkins in your eyes. Either he:

1) Doesn't say anything about religion at all - this would be against his moral senses
2) He lies and says he actually does respect religion

I don't suppose either option has crossed his mind since they are both dishonest. So what would you have him do?

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

Buddhism.

True, though still Buddhism as far as I know is based on the teachings of Buddha who is considered to be an enlightened being (after sitting under a fig tree for days or something). I would still count that as revelation.

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

Aww bloody heck.
This quote thing is depressing. Firstly has anyone bother to find out where it was quoted?

Yes AFAIK it was (at least repeated) in a talk with Krauss. A talk in which Dawkins also made mention of the fact that he was more interested in 'killing religion' than he was in educating people. Showed him up for what he is tbh, a one-trick pony.

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok after about ten minutes of googling I got this.
"What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding."
Heart Of The Matter: God Under The Microscope | BBC (1996)

Important difference in that quote however. The absence of "the world" at the end.

Now perhaps you could use google and find the retraction..

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

What is he implying?

That religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding things about the world around them. Which it does, Christianity teaches that trust and faith in divine revelation is paramount. I've had countless discussions on this forum with Christians where they have said that they don't need to know the details of something because they trust God and his revelation (a good example is Adam and Eve, or the Flood, or the resurrection)

And given that we have already established that you, like most religious people, are happy and satisfied to believe things based on faith in revelation, his comments seem perfectly accurate.

But he is not saying every single thing around you you are satisfied with not understanding.

I imagine if Dawkins said "I went on holiday for two weeks and saw India" you guys would be crying "Arrogant liar, you couldn't have possibly seen all of India in two weeks!!" :rolleyes:

prinz wrote: »

Given the man's credentials I assume he would be more careful not to confuse 'the world' with 'faith in the existence of God'.

Well that is probably because Dawkins knows perfectly well that such a qualifier is nonsense, that Christians believe a whole range of things about the world around us that stem from their faith in God and the Bible.

If your religion believed in the existence of a god but didn't believe this god did anything to our universe, and your holy book didn't describe any real world effects of interactions with this god you might have a point. But consider that isn't the case it is just a pointless straw man.

prinz wrote: »

Taking a direct quote, (as requested by Sam), that on the face of it, without a feat of mental gymnastics to imagine what he meant, is false. How is that a straw man?

Because you know perfectly well that the common phrase "the world" is rarely if ever used in the context you are implying, any more than someone saying I'm visiting America tomorrow means a person is going to go to every single spot in America.

prinz wrote: »

Quite an ironic statement, given that a quote from Dawkins was requested to show where he could possibly be wrong, when one is provided then it has to be reinterpreted and obviously wasn't meant literally. I'll keep that in mind the next time, a non-literal approach is taken with parts of the Bible and is greeted with the usual scoffs etc.

That in itself seems a perfectly ironic statement since you guys seem perfectly capable of understanding something like when Jesus says I bring the sword he doesn't mean he is actually holding out a sword.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

A talk in which Dawkins also made mention of the fact that he was more interested in 'killing religion' than he was in educating people.

We should probably have him arrested for murder then shouldn't we :rolleyes:

Turtwig

prinz wrote: »

Important difference in that quote however. The absence of "the world" at the end.

Now perhaps you could use google and find the retraction..

Excuse me? You're the one who provided the quote without giving it's source (obviously more than just who said it). Usually I just ignore quotes provided like that now. I was astonished to see the atheists here defend that statement without checking the quote out first.

Zulu

iUseVi wrote: »

As far as I see it there are only two options that would improve Dawkins in your eyes. Either he:

1) Doesn't say anything about religion at all - this would be against his moral senses
2) He lies and says he actually does respect religion

I don't suppose either option has crossed his mind since they are both dishonest. So what would you have him do?

The above doesn't hold true for me. I appricate that he challanges religions, in fact, I read his book in the hope it would provide some insights, and possibly nudge me off the fence I sit on. It didn't however, and the option that would improve Dawkins agruments isn't listed above. You've neglected:

3) Drops the arrogant tone & stops belittling people he chooses to debate.

It's quite simple really, no matter how correct you are, once you start slagging people off, or belittling them, your points fade to the background (it can be seen in many threads here on Boards). This makes for VERY tedious reading for alot of people, others love it (clearly). Personally I prefer more from a book.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

That religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding things about the world around them. Which it does, Christianity teaches that trust and faith in divine revelation is paramount..

..and I am asking what about the world around does Christianity teach me to be satisified in not understanding?

Wicknight wrote: »

And given that we have already established that you, like most religious people, are happy and satisfied to believe things based on faith in revelation, his comments seem accurate..

And given that I have said believing something does not equal being satisfied not understanding it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that is probably because Dawkins knows perfectly well that such a qualifier is nonsense, that Christians believe a whole range of things about the world around us that stem from their faith in God and the Bible...

Again belief in something does not preclude wanting to understand it.

Wicknight wrote: »

If your religion believed in the existence of a god but didn't believe this god did anything to our universe, and your holy book didn't describe any real world effects of interactions with this god you might have a point. But consider that isn't the case it is just a pointless straw man....

And yet you still cannot give an example of religion telling me not to try to understand something about it/about faith/about God/about the world...

Wicknight wrote: »

That in itself seems a perfectly ironic statement since you guys seem perfectly capable of understanding something like when Jesus says I bring the sword he doesn't mean he is actually holding out a sword.

and yet you'd be the first one in to mock Christians because they choose not to take a literal interpretation of something.

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

Excuse me? You're the one who provided the quote without giving it's source (obviously more than just who said it)..

And you just claimed it was retracted without giving a source. So called 'official website'..as per google..

http://richarddawkins.net/quotes