Gripes with your own...

dvpower · 06-05-2009 2:35pm

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, so summarize again. Yes, such comments as printed are as unhelpful as they are stupid, but it's no less unhelpful or stupid to claim that this is what Dawkins actually believes, when it is clearly not what Dawkins believes.

I didn't claim anything about Dawkin's beliefs. I was commenting on his choice of language. I'm in general agreement with Dawkins when he talks about the damage religion can do to children, but if he wants to communicate a difficult subject to a wide audience (a skill he is renowned for), I think using this language is fully counter productive.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you're going to give an example of harsh language, pick a different one because he specifically acknowledged that it was overly harsh by saying that it was and spur of the moment comment which should not have been applauded.

It seems to me a good example of harsh language, since you, me and Dawkins himself all agree it was harsh.

Sam Vimes · 06-05-2009 2:43pm

dvpower wrote: »

It seems to me a good example of harsh language, since you, me and Dawkins himself all agree it was harsh.

You're still missing the point mate. He emphatically said at the start of the book that he was not setting out to be offensive but that he wasn't going to treat it with kid gloves

If you're going to say he is regularly harsh you should come up with more than one example and one that he doesn't specifically state was overly harsh. Iirc he mentioned the lecture as an example of something that was overly harsh. Find something he doesn't consider harsh but you do

Dades · 06-05-2009 2:52pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I absolutely agree, there really no difference between an agnostic and an atheist other than one has a narrow definition of what a god is and the other doesn't. The strength of that definition allows for an absolute statement, in the case of the latter.

Okay so far...

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Again I agree.
But you're making the assumption that your definition of the word is the only possible one which can be applied. The very fact of saying you're an agnostic is an act of sticking your hands up in the air and saying I don't know. Saying you don't know doesn't the statement invalid.

Not sure what you're getting at here. I never defined God - only suggested that the word is meaningless if someone can say absolutely anything can be a god.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Which sounds like an agnostic from here.

I'm agnostic because I can't rule supernatural things out?

How does one go about 'ruling out' invisible, intangible beings anyway?!

philologos · 06-05-2009 2:56pm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Jakkass, I notice that you have no gripes with the Bible, as such. Just with issues regarding human interpretation of its teachings. Do you really have no problems with the Bibles validity or its authors? No problem with any of the stories contained within, such as the more gruesome/unfair elements?

I don't consider what you consider to be cruel and unfair to in actuality be cruel and unfair.

As for the validity of the Bible, it stands out above many other texts of it's age.

Human interpretation is what skews the true intention of Christianity.

Rev Hellfire · 06-05-2009 3:01pm

Dades wrote: »

I'm agnostic because I can't rule supernatural things out?

Only as far as "possibility of a spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all", which is a common attribute defined to a deity, unlike faires at the bottom of the garden. But even then it comes down to strength of your belief. If you can say with conviction there no spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all, then I'd say your a card carrying atheist, but if you're hedging your bets...

But I guess its all semantics, I'm not sure its even important either way.

Sam Vimes · 06-05-2009 3:06pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Only as far as "possibility of a spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all", which is a common attribute defined to a deity, unlike faires at the bottom of the garden. But even then it comes down to strength of your belief. If you can say with conviction there no spiritual or supernatural force being behind it all, then I'd say your a card carrying atheist, but if you're hedging your bets...

But I guess its all semantics, I'm not sure its even important either way.

The type of atheist you're describing is very rare and is really no better than a theist because he's making a claim that can never be proven.

robindch · 06-05-2009 3:06pm

dvpower wrote: »

I'm in general agreement with Dawkins when he talks about the damage religion can do to children, but if he wants to communicate a difficult subject to a wide audience (a skill he is renowned for), I think using this language is fully counter productive.

Er, yes. What he said was inaccurate, stupid and unhelpful, but he corrected in print what he said in the heat of the moment. Why concentrate on the original error and ignore the correction?

I'm a bit perplexed!

Rev Hellfire · 06-05-2009 3:17pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The type of atheist you're describing is very rare and is really no better than a theist because he's making a claim that can never be proven.

I agree, and I understand where Dades is coming from. If you say you're an atheist most people assume your stating a disbelief in personal gods as espoused by Christianity, Hinduism, etc.

I just disagree with the idea that agnostics are people that can't make the extra step and say they're atheists when you have atheists saying they believe there are no gods but you know what I can't say for definite

Pot met the kettle.

I always liked the stance certain Buddhists have on the matter which was if there are gods, it doesn't really matter since they don't seem to actively participate in any real tangible way, so they may as well not be there.

But I guess we're totally derailing this thread, so I'll leave it there most people know where I stand

Sam Vimes · 06-05-2009 3:23pm

robindch wrote: »

Er, yes. What he said was inaccurate, stupid and unhelpful, but he corrected in print what he said in the heat of the moment. Why concentrate on the original error and ignore the correction?

I'm a bit perplexed!

Exactly! He printed it specifically to correct himself and dvpower is using it as an example of harshness. If anything it's an example of apologising for previous harshness

Sam Vimes · 06-05-2009 3:29pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I just disagree with the idea that agnostics are people that can't make the extra step and say they're atheists when you have atheists saying they believe there are no gods but you know what I can't say for definite Pot met the kettle.

I'd say an atheist is someone who can say "with adequate certainty" that there are no gods. Look at science where we have the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the theory of electro magnetism etc. No matter how sure they are these theories never get upgraded to fact. Until something is 100% proven or disproven it is only prudent to leave some shred of a possibility that you might be wrong, however small

I'd say agnostics in a lot of cases are people who want to believe because the whole heaven thing is a nice idea or because of social pressures etc but can't reconcile it with their logical minds. They will often seek out reasons, however flimsy, to try to convince themselves.

Basically I'd see agnostics as atheists who wish they weren't

Dades · 06-05-2009 3:44pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I just disagree with the idea that agnostics are people that can't make the extra step and say they're atheists when you have atheists saying they believe there are no gods but you know what I can't say for definite Pot met the kettle.

I never meant to suggest all agnostics are like that - my gripe is with people who are atheists but prefer to use the fluffy, less offensive term agnostic.

Anyway. Ahem. Back on topic... me.

Fanny Cradock · 06-05-2009 4:09pm

Dades wrote: »

Anyway. Ahem. Back on topic... me.

Ok, let's get this back on track.

It was a balmy midsummers evening when I first met Dades. As the sun set, casting a golden hue across the azure sky, his muscular frame was silhouetted against the pastoral canvas...

SP-283-0189.jpg?size=67&uid={5D01F1D1-51B7-4EFF-AD90-7292BC3744CE}

SP-283-0189.jpg?size=67&uid={5D01F1D1-51B7-4EFF-AD90-7292BC3744CE}

Naz_st · 06-05-2009 4:15pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Look at science where we have the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the theory of electro magnetism etc. No matter how sure they are these theories never get upgraded to fact. Until something is 100% proven or disproven it is only prudent to leave some shred of a possibility that you might be wrong, however small

Theories don't get upgraded to fact because of some sort of small, inherent doubt about their veracity; they don't get upgraded to "facts" because they are two different concepts:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

So a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon based on the known facts.

E.g. The "law" of gravity is a scientific "fact" that bodies of mass attract each other, but there are different theories of gravity that attempt to explain how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. In this way, gravity is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. (same for Evolution also)

CerebralCortex · 06-05-2009 4:41pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ok, let's get this back on track.

It was a balmy midsummers evening when I first met Dades. As the sun set, casting a golden hue across the azure sky, his muscular frame was silhouetted against the pastoral canvas...

If there was a "raised eyebrow" smiley I'd use it.

Dades · 06-05-2009 5:02pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

If there was a "raised eyebrow" smiley I'd use it.

This one works for me.

:eek:

Galvasean · 06-05-2009 5:08pm

Dades wrote: »

This one works for me.

:eek:

Fanny Cradock · 06-05-2009 5:10pm

I'm guessing it's all down to the Christian/ atheist humour divide.

Sam Vimes · 06-05-2009 5:10pm

Naz_st wrote: »

Theories don't get upgraded to fact because of some sort of small, inherent doubt about their veracity; they don't get upgraded to "facts" because they are two different concepts:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

So a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon based on the known facts.

E.g. The "law" of gravity is a scientific "fact" that bodies of mass attract each other, but there are different theories of gravity that attempt to explain how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. In this way, gravity is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. (same for Evolution also)

This is true but it doesn't really change the point I was making. It was just an example. Although I think that to say evolution is both a theory and a fact might be slightly misleading. Animals have been observed to gradually change over time, that is a fact but it is not necessarily by the process which we call evolution. The theory might be completely wrong which would require us to come up with a new theory to explain the fact and so the process of gradually changing would on longer be called evolution.

But for brevities sake it's just as good to say it's both a theory and a fact

sink · 06-05-2009 5:12pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm guessing it's all down to the Christian/ atheist humour divide.

I don't know I got some lolz out of it.

Fanny Cradock · 06-05-2009 5:23pm

sink wrote: »

I don't know I got some lolz out of it.

Thanks. I'll be here all week.

Naz_st · 06-05-2009 5:30pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Although I think that to say evolution is both a theory and a fact might be slightly misleading. Animals have been observed to gradually change over time, that is a fact but it is not necessarily by the process which we call evolution. The theory might be completely wrong which would require us to come up with a new theory to explain the fact and so the process of gradually changing would on longer be called evolution.

There's a whole article on it in Wikipedia:
"First, the "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experimentations. Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur. Misuse and misunderstanding of how these terms are applied to evolution have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of evolution."

Unfortunately, the different connotations to the word "theory" between the everyday and the scientific causes a lot of confusion.

Anyway, we're so far off topic now. I think. Wait, what's the topic again?

Galvasean · 06-05-2009 5:35pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Thanks. I'll be here all week.

We know

Flamed Diving · 06-05-2009 5:42pm

Any religious folk here who have gripes with their holy book?

Fanny Cradock · 06-05-2009 6:03pm

Not so much with the bible, but more with how people choose to interpret it. While I think that an honest investigation into certain disputed passages can lead to a unified understanding (more or less) this sadly isn't always the case.

Flamed Diving · 06-05-2009 7:17pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not so much with the bible, but more with how people choose to interpret it. While I think that an honest investigation into certain disputed passages can lead to a unified understanding (more or less) this sadly isn't always the case.

There has to be something, though. It's a lengthy book, of disputed origin and accuracy. In addition, you have to question the moral consistency, in parts.

Surely you have some issue with it's contents? Even a passage?

Sam Vimes · 06-05-2009 7:36pm

Naz_st wrote: »

There's a whole article on it in Wikipedia:

I know about the wiki article, I've read it. I still think that technically saying evolution is a fact is wrong because evolution is the name of the theory which does not necessarily fit the facts

Now what was the point again :P

Goduznt Xzst · 06-05-2009 8:22pm

Jakkass the problem with this thread is that you have outlined mainly ideological differences in Christianity that you disagree with. For an Atheist to do likewise we would first need an ideology to form opinions on, which we don't.

For me to even attempt to reply would mean I'd have to start looking at individual traits of Atheists I've met or know that I disagree with or dislike. Chances are the traits that I would not like would span outside of Atheists and across all kinds of people.

Joe Atheist may like to get up on his soapbox in the town square, bend over and proceed to talk out of his ass, a la Ace Ventura, about how religion is all a delusion. I may not agree with his method but it does not impact on me in the slightest, I see myself Atheist like I also see myself Irish.

This being said, the only gripe I have with Atheists, and it's one I have with nationalists also is those that think we have some ideology to live by. Those who think we should be converting theists by biting our tongue or watching how we might be perceived as arrogant or pompous so as not to scare off a ripe convert. Those who think it is our duty to show ourselves as equally or more so moral than theists.

I don't care if the Irish language dies out and I don't care if Theists won't give up the goat because they listened to Hitchens and found him arrogant. Nothing gets under my skin more than when I read something like "You're Irish/Atheist and you should be..."

Naz_st · 06-05-2009 9:07pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know about the wiki article, I've read it. I still think that technically saying evolution is a fact is wrong because evolution is the name of the theory which does not necessarily fit the facts

Are you secretly a creationist?!

What you're saying is that you don't like the generally accepted scientific nomenclature? Because the article is pretty transparent...

1) Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change.
2) Organisms changing generation to generation is called "evolution".
3) Evolution is a fact.

"The explanation of the fact of evolution provided by the modern evolutionary synthesis is the latest and most widely accepted Theory of Evolution."

in exactly the same way that:

"Einstein's explanation of the fact of gravity is called The General theory of relativity."

dvpower · 06-05-2009 9:49pm

@robindch, @Sam Vimes
Sorry to harp on about this but are you sure you're reading the same edition of The God Delusion as me?

Dawkins says:

The God Delusion wrote:

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicised cases of sexual abuse by catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage of bringing the child up catholic in the first place.

He continues:

The God Delusion wrote:

It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience.

I don't consider this sentence or anything he says later as a retraction of his claim of his statement that "the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage of bringing the child up catholic in the first place". He does add this a few pages later:

The God Delusion wrote:

I am persuaded that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven sins in an eternal hell

In an article in the Dubliner magazine, (and I hope this is misreporting), he is reported as saying:

Dubliner Magazine wrote:

I can't speak about the really grave sexual abuse that obviously happens sometimes, which actually causes violent physical pain to the altar boy or whoever it is, but I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild - a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage. Being taught about hell – being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that – is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse.

I consider all of this language objectionable. Others may take a different view.

I was very surprised to read this:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You missed the bit where he said it was a flippant comment that he hadn't thought through and he was very surprised that it got an applause

I did miss the bit where it said it was a flippant comment. I'm still missing it. He did say it was off-the-cuff and heat of the moment. If he didn't mean what he said, he could have taken the opportunity to make this crystal clear.

This I thought was disproportionate:

robindch wrote: »

Yes, such comments as printed are as unhelpful as they are stupid, but it's no less unhelpful or stupid to claim that this is what Dawkins actually believes, when it is clearly not what Dawkins believes.

This I just didn't get:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you're going to give an example of harsh language, pick a different one because he specifically acknowledged that it was overly harsh by saying that it was and spur of the moment comment which should not have been applauded.

Maybe I'm reading an old edition of the book. In my edition Dawkins does not say the comment should not have been applauded. Indeed, he tempers his surprise at the applause by saying the audience were 'composed, admittedly, of Dublin intellectuals and presumably not representative of the country at large'.

And then this:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He printed it specifically to correct himself and dvpower is using it as an example of harshness. If anything it's an example of apologising for previous harshness

@Sam. How on earth do you discern this? For an atheist, your supernatural powers are strong.

Sam Vimes · 07-05-2009 6:55am

I was paraphrasing him, I know he didn't use the exact word flippant. Flippant and off the cuff have pretty much the same meaning in this context
. I see it as acknowledging that the remark was overly harsh but you can believe whatever you want

I see nothing harsh in the dubliner article and in fact I agree with him. Telling a child that their friends whose parents don't believe in the same imaginary friend as the childs own parents are going to burn for all eternity is what I find objectionable

I suppose you think it's objectionable because you think hell is real. Do you think you'd be as supportive of telling children about it and having them believe you if you thought it was all a fairy tale?

Gripes with your own...

Comments