You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

nozzferrahhtoo

It comes down to that old saying of "I disagree strongly with what you are saying, but I defend to the death your right to say it". Again you are disagreeing above with what he said. That is fine. I do too for much of the same reasons you have given. But merely being wrong does not make him wrong for saying what he thinks.

As for how much thought he put into it? I guess only he knows that. Neither of us do. So neither or us should pretend to. Given what I have heard about his general twitter output though, I find myself unconvinced he puts much thought into it at all. A critique I would level against twitter in general and is the reason I do not use it at all and secretly dream of the day it's owners wake up and decide to turn it off for the good of humanity.

I think he should stick to books. He is good at books.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As for how much thought he put into it? I guess only he knows that. Neither of us do. So neither or us should pretend to.

I'm not pretending anything, I'm merely airing my suspicions that what he writes is purposeful rather than thoughtless. This seems reasonable of a man many would consider a deep thinker.

Given what I have heard about his general twitter output though, I find myself unconvinced he puts much thought into it at all.

You also appear to be airing your own unfounded suspicions there. How exactly are mine a pretense and yours not?

Bannasidhe

The next time someone cites Dawkins as some sort of spokesperson for Atheism we can direct them to this thread.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The next time someone cites Dawkins as some sort of spokesperson for Atheism we can direct them to this thread.

Schism!! :pac:

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Schism!! :pac:

This could be bigger than the Pineapple on Pizza schism.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

I'm not pretending anything, I'm merely airing my suspicions that what he writes is purposeful rather than thoughtless. This seems reasonable of a man many would consider a deep thinker. You also appear to be airing your own unfounded suspicions there. How exactly are mine a pretense and yours not?

I am not saying either of us are doing so, I am just saying we should never pretend to. I could have phrased that better granted.

I think he can be a deep thinker too when he writes books. But on stage and on twitter my suspicions err more towards him just being reactionary and saying the first thing that comes into his head. Which is fine I suppose, it is what people on twitter seem to do. Which is why I avoid it entirely.

Another poster said it well earlier in the thread though. Context is important. This was not a tweet he seems to have put thought into, rather he was just reacting to someone who played that old "Oh you'd attack Christianity but ya wouldn't say anything to da muslims would ya?" fatwa envy canard. And he just threw this tweet out as a reaction to that.

As I say though, while I might not agree with his conclusions on the matter, I see nothing wrong with his having presented his conclusions/opinions on the matter. The former I can reason with him on, the latter would be my problem not his.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The next time someone cites Dawkins as some sort of spokesperson for Atheism we can direct them to this thread.

Agreed. I do not see him as a spokesperson FOR atheism. Just a popular speaker WITHIN atheism. And he has been quite useful in his own to the entire discourse as a whole.

Hotblack Desiato

For those looking for nuance, subtlety, depth, in relation to pretty much anything - Twitter really isn't the place. No surprises there.

"Fatwa envy canard" though.

nozzferrahhtoo

I'd genuinely love to be able to run a counter history routine and see what our world would be like if Twitter never existed, but everything else remained exactly as is now.

CramCycle

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Obnoxious, and even pr1ckish as CramCycle went on to describe him, is one thing,

Just to be clear I myself am obnoxious and pr1ckish in real life. They are not great features and I do try not to allow them to be defining ones but I am what I am. I am probably nicer on boards than I am in the real world by some margin.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I'd genuinely love to be able to run a counter history routine and see what our world would be like if Twitter never existed, but everything else remained exactly as is now.

I imagine someone would have invented it :pac:
Twitter has positives and negatives, the positives are the limit on words means you can't ramble on like they do in politics to run down the clock and those who you are talking to get bored or simply leave in desperation. The negatives are that nuanced points are lost and views become quite polarised. People who don't necessarily agree with each other state they are on the same side of the discussion even though in reality, many of them are not. The expectation of quick responses means that BS gets through quicker, spreads quicker and has more of an effect than the truth.

Take Trumps twitter of racist kid thing. I had seen that video years ago under the title of cute kids hug or something similar. A quick edit and the gullibility of so many in a desperation to react meant a really nice thing looked awful. Reminds me of that picture of a Garda kicking someone in the head years ago, front page news but it took a day or two and then someone released a video showing the Garda legging it over to kneel and administer first aid. Nowadays, the Garda would be lynched before the person who made the video had even heard about it.

nozzferrahhtoo

CramCycle wrote: »

People who don't necessarily agree with each other state they are on the same side of the discussion even though in reality, many of them are not.

You just put me in the mind of something that happened in the real world to me a couple of times.

Some people I was talking to had been going to mass together for many years. Same time, same place, sitting together on the same bench, the works.

SO they assumed since they were all catholic they agreed with each other on everything. Until one day they got talking to me and I was asking them a few questions about their faith and its tenets.

Turns out they held differing beliefs on quite a lot. It actually got heated and there was almost falling outs over it in fact. In retrospect, especially as their friendship did survive it, it was really amusing. They were so unified under a simplistic banner they never thought to actually talk to each other about any of it.

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You just put me in the mind of something that happened in the real world to me a couple of times.

Some people I was talking to had been going to mass together for many years. Same time, same place, sitting together on the same bench, the works.

SO they assumed since they were all catholic they agreed with each other on everything. Until one day they got talking to me and I was asking them a few questions about their faith and its tenets.

Turns out they held differing beliefs on quite a lot. It actually got heated and there was almost falling outs over it in fact. In retrospect, especially as their friendship did survive it, it was really amusing. They were so unified under a simplistic banner they never thought to actually talk to each other about any of it.

Many decades ago I had a conversation with my devout (but socially very very liberal) went to Mass everyday grandmother about her actual beliefs. Turns out based on what she believed she was a Lutheran.
When I told her this she paused knitting, peered over her glasses at me, and said 'sure didn't my Father convert to the CoI in protest so I didn't lick it off a rock' and resumed her knitting.

I hadn't the heart to tell her that technically CoI is Calvinist not Lutheran.

nozzferrahhtoo

I didn't lick it off a rock That is up there with "You are not as green as you are cabbage looking" in the list of phrases I just do not quite get

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

I didn't use the term utterly vile, I said I find the guy obnoxious. If you call a person stupid it is clearly different to calling their ideas or beliefs stupid. It doesn't need any more qualification than that.

CramCycle did use that term, that's who I originally questioned.

Mark Hamill

CramCycle wrote: »

Just to be clear I myself am obnoxious and pr1ckish in real life. They are not great features and I do try not to allow them to be defining ones but I am what I am. I am probably nicer on boards than I am in the real world by some margin.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any observations of Dawkins at all. I've never read his books, I'm not on twitter and have only ever seen one interview of him. He could be the pr1ckiest of pr1cks and I wouldn't know any different. I just wanted to know what he said or did that is utterly vile.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

But he's a pretty shyte theolgian, sociologist, psychologist and philosopher.

I'd beg to differ - he might not be the most stylish of writers, but he's good enough to be able to ask questions which the religious have not answered - choosing instead to do as you've done here - and just ignored him instead.

antiskeptic wrote: »

He should stick to that which he knows something about.

He has stuck to, uh, that which he knows about - he's reasonable well-informed about religions and has wisely followed your advice and chosen to write about it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The God Delusion makes for is near infantile level reading.

Have you read it? Could you quote a few sentences which you believe are particularly infantile?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

I'd beg to differ - he might not be the most stylish of writers, but he's good enough to be able to ask questions which the religious have not answered - choosing instead to do as you've done here - and just ignored him instead.He has stuck to, uh, that which he knows about - he's reasonable well-informed about religions and has wisely followed your advice and chosen to write about it.Have you read it? Could you quote a few sentences which you believe are particularly infantile?

We do bi-annual clear outs in my gaf. It doubtlessly went to the charity shop long since. I've absolutely no issue with a good argument - heck, a good argument set's you thinking about how to circumvent it. But The God Delusion was just a bumper version of the weakest tropes you see knocking around in the A&A forum. I managed to haul my way half way through it before giving up.

You'd put together far better yourself by way of substance.

Barely perhaps, but definitely.

One of his weak points was his taking on the fact that there isn't a uni-view amongst Christianity. He'd pop at Creationism. Fire away in my book - I agree with him. Or take a pop at right wing Evangelicals in the US who'd bring back public stoning. Fire away in my book - I agree with him. He takes what he supposes is Christianity (and whose take on Christianity is right) and flogs it to death like the best of straw men.

Is his take on Christianity right? He supposes so. Is the fact that Christianity isn't easily nail downable so as to succeed in a headshot a problem for Christianity? It is for anyone taking a pot shot. But I don't suppose so.

CramCycle

Mark Hamill wrote: »

CramCycle did use that term, that's who I originally questioned.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any observations of Dawkins at all. I've never read his books, I'm not on twitter and have only ever seen one interview of him. He could be the pr1ckiest of pr1cks and I wouldn't know any different. I just wanted to know what he said or did that is utterly vile.

I have seen his twitter account over the years and interviews on TV. just found his disdain(and patronising attitude) for anything that didn't agree with him gauling. I had, up until I seen these things been in general agreement with him on most things. Like I said, if we met each other in a pub, we would probably get on like a house on fire but I feel, and maybe i am wrong, that as a scientist, his views on people who don't follow his views and his comments towards them to be unprofessional and unpleasant. Sort of the opposite to most internet cowards who would not repeat their speech in real life, I just found it hard to tolerate him.
Sort of like that randomer you are having a few pints with, getting on great with and then you both stop at a chipper and they start talking to someone else about something else and you realise, actually, just because we agree on somethings, we clearly have very different views on others. Which is fine, except, in this case, its a big enough issue that I don't feel comfy being associated with them anymore.
Maybe I am misremembering his words but I remember at the time thinking his intention in what he said was clear even his words were skirting the right side of the law. It wasn't much different than religious hate speakers who know how to skirt the line.

Zubeneschamali

It is true that Dawkins mainly argues with rather simple minded versions of Christianity, but he explains why.

Nobody really cares about the sort of liberal Christianity in which it doesn't matter whether God even exists, the sort that inspires no particular action by its believers.

It is the simple minded versions which ban science textbooks, hate on gays, and generally inspire the actions of which Dawkins disapproves.

robindch

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is true that Dawkins mainly argues with rather simple minded versions of Christianity, but he explains why.

I don't recall this - what's his explanation?

Not that I disagree arguing with simple-minded versions of christianity, since that's what the majority of people who self-describe as christian appear to believe.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Could you quote a few sentences which you believe are particularly infantile?

antiskeptic wrote: »

One of his weak points was his taking on the fact that there isn't a uni-view amongst Christianity. [...] He takes what he supposes is Christianity (and whose take on Christianity is right) and flogs it to death like the best of straw men.

I'm not sure I follow you. So far as I'm aware, most or all christians believe that they're believing the right version of christianity while seemingly unaware or unconcerned that their neighbors are just as sure that they're right, while believing something different. Is it really a "weak point" to say that christians can't agree amongst themselves about what's true? Or is it just a point you don't want to address?

The fact that almost no two christians believe exactly the same thing would suggest that there's some fairly basic problems with what christians are supposed to believe, let alone the allegedly infinite wisdom of a transcental deity who's presiding over the whole mess.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

I don't recall this - what's his explanation?

His position is basically that people who are not simple-minded fundamentalists are not real Christians. It's a "no true Scotsman" stance.

robindch wrote: »

Not that I disagree arguing with simple-minded versions of christianity, since that's what the majority of people who self-describe as christian appear to believe.

It really isn't.

(And I note that this is a reversal of the usual position on this Board, which is that the majority of people who self-describe as Christian don't hold Christian beliefs and therefore shouldn't self-describe as Christians. Exhibit A: numerous threads about the Census.)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

(And I note that this is a reversal of the usual position on this Board, which is that the majority of people who self-describe as Christian don't hold Christian beliefs and therefore shouldn't self-describe as Christians. Exhibit A: numerous threads about the Census.)

Funnily enough you get the exact same argument from the more conservative types on the Christianity forum, giving various reasons why people who consider themselves to be Christian aren't in fact Christian. Personally I take the view that if someone professes have a given religion, that's good enough for me.

CramCycle

Peregrinus wrote: »

His position is basically that people who are not simple-minded fundamentalists are not real Christians. It's a "no true Scotsman" stance.


It really isn't.

(And I note that this is a reversal of the usual position on this Board, which is that the majority of people who self-describe as Christian don't hold Christian beliefs and therefore shouldn't self-describe as Christians. Exhibit A: numerous threads about the Census.)

smacl wrote: »

Funnily enough you get the exact same argument from the more conservative types on the Christianity forum, giving various reasons why people who consider themselves to be Christian aren't in fact Christian. Personally I take the view that if someone professes have a given religion, that's good enough for me.

I think you are mixing up Catholic and Christian in this discussion. Alot of Irish people describe themselves as Catholic or Roman Catholic but they are not. They are in fact Christian (alot aren't even that but lets not get into the nitty gritty). It's like a Venn Diagram, all Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are Catholic.

smacl

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is true that Dawkins mainly argues with rather simple minded versions of Christianity, but he explains why.

Nobody really cares about the sort of liberal Christianity in which it doesn't matter whether God even exists, the sort that inspires no particular action by its believers.

It is the simple minded versions which ban science textbooks, hate on gays, and generally inspire the actions of which Dawkins disapproves.

If that's the case, I'd consider Dawkins to be straw-manning as he's attacking Christianity on the basis of the actions of a small subset of Christianity. If you take this country for example, or even Europe in general, the number of Christians who would seek to ban science textbooks and/or hate on gays is a very small minority. Quoting chapter and verse from the bible doesn't really help here either as most Christians don't live their lives in accordance with the bible. Until such time as you can empirically quantify a set of beliefs and behaviours common to all Christians any statements about Christianity are little more than speculation. If you look at attitudes toward homosexuality in Christian majority countries, the majority are accepting of it, even the yanks.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

If that's the case, I'd consider Dawkins to be straw-manning as he's attacking Christianity on the basis of the actions of a small subset of Christianity. If you take this country for example, or even Europe in general, the number of Christians who would seek to ban science textbooks and/or hate on gays is a very small minority. Quoting chapter and verse from the bible doesn't really help here either as most Christians don't live their lives in accordance with the bible. Until such time as you can empirically quantify a set of beliefs and behaviours common to all Christians any statements about Christianity are little more than speculation. If you look at attitudes toward homosexuality in Christian majority countries, the majority are accepting of it, even the yanks.

This. It seems to me that Dawkins generalises his criticism of simplistic literalist fundamentalist Christianity into an attack on theism in general because he regardes SLFC as normative for religion in general. But his position on this isn't - ahem - an evidence-based position.

smacl

CramCycle wrote: »

I think you are mixing up Catholic and Christian in this discussion. Alot of Irish people describe themselves as Catholic or Roman Catholic but they are not. They are in fact Christian (alot aren't even that but lets not get into the nitty gritty). It's like a Venn Diagram, all Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are Catholic.

Depends who's definition you go by. If Joe down the road says he's a Catholic and his local PP says, "yep Joe's a Catholic, baptised him myself", I'd question whether it is for me, you or anyone else to state otherwise. Now Joe might not be a good Catholic, but that's another matter.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Depends who's definition you go by. If Joe down the road says he's a Catholic and his local PP says, "yep Joe's a Catholic, baptised him myself", I'd question whether it is for me, you or anyone else to state otherwise. Now Joe might not be a good Catholic, but that's another matter.

Also this. Religions are voluntary communities, meaning they get to define themselves. If Joe says that Joe's a Catholic and Catholics say that Joe's a Catholic, then anyone else saying that Joe's not a Catholic is just honking folornly into the void.

nozzferrahhtoo

Dawkins is no hero for me beyond critique or requiring defending. As said before it was almost a "For Dummies" book for the complete lay man so it strikes me as odd to expect all that much from it in the first place.

But it does strike me as interesting that the people MOST critical about the book on this thread.... are the ones who are also admitting to either not really remembering anything that was in it or did not even bother to read more than half of it.

I guess everyone is different but if I do not read a book, remember it, or even read it or reach the end of it, I tend not to critique it out loud or complain about it. Because I know I would not really know what I am talking about and I would be entirely unable to cite ANYTHING to back up my points.

In fact I think moaning about a text I either do not remember, or did not even bother to read, would be infantile and lacking in substance. Which would make it especially rich if the very critique I was making of the text was that IT was infantile and lacking in substance

I have met many atheists who moan about the Bible yet have never read it. Granted most Christians I have met have not bothered to read it either, begging the question about how seriously they actually take it themselves. But I have equal disdain for the atheists moaning about the Bible if they have not bothered to read it themselves. I have read it multiple times. More than a couple of versions too. So on the rare occasions I mention something problematic about it, I at least know what I am at. But I would always defer to people who have studied it closely like OldrnWisr for example.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Depends who's definition you go by. If Joe down the road says he's a Catholic and his local PP says, "yep Joe's a Catholic, baptised him myself", I'd question whether it is for me, you or anyone else to state otherwise. Now Joe might not be a good Catholic, but that's another matter.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Also this. Religions are voluntary communities, meaning they get to define themselves. If Joe says that Joe's a Catholic and Catholics say that Joe's a Catholic, then anyone else saying that Joe's not a Catholic is just honking folornly into the void.

Sure, when some surveys even show that people who identify as "Catholic" do not actually believe in a virgin birth, a reincarnation, or in some cases do not even believe in a god..... which I once upon a time would have thought was the lowest bar you would have to cross to qualify..... then I think it is outside my paygrade and wheelhouse to even attempt to define what the word means or who qualifies for it.

So rather than worry about who is a catholic or not, I tend to ignore the labels people self identify with entirely.... and try to get to the meat and bones of what they as an individual actually believe. If someone answers something I ask with "Well I am a catholic" I will simply say "Thats great" and ask the question again.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Dawkins is no hero for me beyond critique or requiring defending. As said before it was almost a "For Dummies" book for the complete lay man so it strikes me as odd to expect all that much from it in the first place.

But it does strike me as interesting that the people MOST critical about the book on this thread.... are the ones who are also admitting to either not really remembering anything that was in it or did not even bother to read more than half of it.

I guess everyone is different but if I do not read a book, remember it, or even read it or reach the end of it, I tend not to critique it out loud or complain about it. Because I know I would not really know what I am talking about and I would be entirely unable to cite ANYTHING to back up my points.

In fact I think moaning about a text I either do not remember, or did not even bother to read, would be infantile and lacking in substance. Which would make it especially rich if the very critique I was making of the text was that IT was infantile and lacking in substance

Not sure who or what you're referring to there. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific and quote actual posts to support and better define your point above rather than taking a general side swipe. My take on Dawkins comes from what I've read and seen in the media which wouldn't really tempt be to buy and read his books.