Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheist attitudes.
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 61 of 121 (523853)
09-13-2009 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by mark24
09-12-2009 2:20 PM


Re: Dangerous Dawkins' Dark Designs for Deity Destruction
quote:
quote:
I'm saying that he is planting seeds of hate when he uniformly accuses everything religious as dangerous.
Except that he doesn't. He accepts there are good points to religion. And show me one instance, just one, where he can be considered to be planting seeds of hate.
As Hyroglyphx said, Dawkins does uniformly accuse everything religious as dangerous. And I believe this does promote hatred toward God and religious faith. How can you have read The God Delusion and not seen this? It is frequent in the book!
Here are some examples (GD=The God Delusion):
Dawkins writes:
"I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."--reference unknown??
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:"--GD p. 31
"I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."--GD p. 36
God described as "the Old Testament’s psychotic delinquent"--GD p.38
"I have yet to see any good reason to suppose that theology ... is a subject at all."--GD p. 57
"Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument."--GD p. 308

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 09-12-2009 2:20 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2009 3:03 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 09-13-2009 6:26 AM kbertsche has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 62 of 121 (523860)
09-13-2009 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by kbertsche
09-13-2009 12:46 AM


Sewing the seeds of hate
How can you have read The God Delusion and not seen this? It is frequent in the book!
Dawkins thinks a case can be made that faith is a great evil. Is this planting a seed of hate? Technically, the quote doesn't even specify religious faith - though Dawkins does say he addresses religious dogma and faith because of its special status in society...the last quote mentions this. Is this planting seeds of hate or isit is a single sentence which tells us his position regarding 'faith'?
There are two quotes in which he expresses his opinion of YHWH as depicted in the Old Testament. Hardly planting seeds of hate to describe a character in a book in a negative light, is it? If you replace "God of the Old Testament", with "Sauron of the Lord of the Rings" does it still sound the same?
And yes, Dawkins is 'attacking...everything supernatural', by which Dawkins reassures his readers that they won't easily get to play the "Dawkins is not criticising any deity that I believe in!" card. Does this qualify as a seed of hate? The Bible 'attacks' many ideas - by this standard do you suggest that the Bible plants the seeds of hate?
Finally there is a quote in which he gives us opinion on theology as an academic subject. The argument is that theology (as opposed to biblical history and literature which is what the elipses have taken out, presumably because it paints Dawkins in a better light than whoever compiled the quotes wanted) can't answer questions about star formation etc, so let the theologians tackle questions that cannot be answered.

If you think that this is planting the seeds of hate, that's your judgement - though I would like to see your reasoning behind arriving at it. I think your 'hate' detector is simply over-sensitive when it comes to matter of religious discourse. He doesn't attempt to dehumanise believers as some might dehumanise homosexuals, or illegal immigrants or Muslims or what have you. He doesn't paint a picture of believers as seething with some intrinsic 'sin' or moral corruption.
Who is more inclined to be 'planting seeds of hate':
1. Those who criticise the leaders of a nation, based on the perceived consequences of their policies. Those who also criticise those that follow the leaders direction without question - arguing that it might be for the good in our leader's case, but that it creates an environment in which a leader can commit terrible acts.
2. Those who shrink at vocal criticism of the leaders, and accuse those that do criticise the leaders thusly as 'planting the seeds of hate' and attempting to 'destroy {leader x}' and characterise the critics as 'unpatriotic' etc?
There are many examples of humans trying to cultivate hate throughout history and in the news today. If Dawkins is trying to create his own harvest, I would argue that he is particularly incompetent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2009 12:46 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2009 3:17 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 67 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2009 3:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 63 of 121 (523862)
09-13-2009 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Modulous
09-13-2009 3:03 AM


Re: Sewing the seeds of hate
If you replace "God of the Old Testament", with "Sauron of the Lord of the Rings" does it still sound the same?
No, one is omnipotent, omniscient and eternal, Sauron is not.
The Bible 'attacks' many ideas - by this standard do you suggest that the Bible plants the seeds of hate?
YES, God hates sin and disobedience.
Further and sorry I forgot this the first edit. Its not about hate, its about the fact that Mr Dawkins, Harris and others ARE the very things that they attack and hate. They have all the same qualites, even before a topic is discussed, they are just blind to that fact and bury thier heads in the sand and ascribe it to everyone else but themselves. I believe the term is Secular Fundamentalist
EMA
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2009 3:03 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2009 3:33 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-13-2009 9:43 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 74 by Rrhain, posted 09-13-2009 7:43 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 64 of 121 (523867)
09-13-2009 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2009 3:17 AM


Re: Sewing the seeds of hate
No, one is omnipotent, omniscient and eternal, Sauron is not.
So why doesn't it sound the same? What do the properties you provide (assuming that YHWH is as you describe) have to do with whether criticising them constitutes 'planting seeds of hate' and why? Incidentally, Sauron may well be eternal - does that change things?
Would it make things significantly different if I replaced Sauron with Eru Ilvatar? Is criticising Eru Ilvatar planting the seeds of hate?
YES, God hates sin and disobedience.
I didn't ask about the opinions of the characters of the bible. I asked about the effect upon its reader. Do you think the bible is attempting to make some of its readers 'hate'?
Further and sorry I forgot this the first edit. Its not about hate, its about the fact that Mr Dawkins, Harris and others ARE the very things that they attack and hate. They have all the same qualites, even before a topic is discussed, they are just blind to that fact and bury thier heads in the sand and ascribe it to everyone else but themselves. I believe the term is Secular Fundamentalist
It isn't about hate, it is about how Dawkins is the very thing he hates? Sounds to me it is about hate. But kbertsche made statements about how Dawkins 'plants the seeds of hate' if you don't stand by his comment then that's fine.
If you would like to expand on how Dawkins is as you describe, then by all means do - otherwise it is just an empty thing to say. The subject had turned to asking about specific examples of the claims people were making about certain atheists. Do you have an example of
a) Dawkins criticising something.
and
b) Falling foul of his own criticism?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2009 3:17 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 65 of 121 (523884)
09-13-2009 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by kbertsche
09-13-2009 12:46 AM


Re: Dangerous Dawkins' Dark Designs for Deity Destruction
kbertsche,
Dawkins does uniformly accuse everything religious as dangerous.
No he doesn't, he is on record as admitting there are good aspects to religion.
My message to you is the same as Hyro's, learn your subject before commenting. How can you have read The God Delusion and not seen this?
And I believe this does promote hatred toward God and religious faith. How can you have read The God Delusion and not seen this? It is frequent in the book!
How does pointing out that religion has a net negative effect equal promoting hatred? Your argument falls flat when you consider how impossible it is to hate something you don't believe exists.
"I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."--reference unknown??
This isn't promoting hate. Just saying negative things about your beloved evidentially vacuous position that has indocrinated, enslaved, & murdered for thousands of years doesn't equal promoting hatred.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:"--GD p. 31
So not liking someone who according to Judeo-Christian scripture assuredly IS the most unpleasant chacter of all time & saying so is promoting hate now?
"I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."--GD p. 36
Verbally attacking the notion of belief with no evidence in anything isn't peomoting hate.
God described as "the Old Testament’s psychotic delinquent"--GD p.38
This is true, he far worse than this quote states, but again, pointing out the truth of it isn't promoting hate.
"I have yet to see any good reason to suppose that theology ... is a subject at all."--GD p. 57
Sigh... This hatespeak to you?
"Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument."--GD p. 308
Again true. Is saying the 9/11 bombers were evil hatespeak?
It seems to me that you think that merely vocalising a negative opinion of something equals promoting hate.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.
Edited by mark24, : spelling

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2009 12:46 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2009 3:52 PM mark24 has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 121 (523916)
09-13-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2009 3:17 AM


Re: Sewing the seeds of hate
No, one is omnipotent, omniscient and eternal, Sauron is not.
Maybe there is, no way to tell.
Mr Dawkins, Harris and others ARE the very things that they attack and hate. They have all the same qualites, even before a topic is discussed, they are just blind to that fact and bury thier heads in the sand and ascribe it to everyone else but themselves.
It appears you and I are in total agreement about something. I couldn't agree more. They are hypocrtically the same as everything they demonize and push secularism as if it were a religion. The sad part is that they are so invested in preaching secularism that they've lost all objectivity on the subject.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2009 3:17 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 67 of 121 (523936)
09-13-2009 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Modulous
09-13-2009 3:03 AM


Re: Sewing the seeds of hate
quote:
If you replace "God of the Old Testament", with "Sauron of the Lord of the Rings" does it still sound the same?
...
If you think that this is planting the seeds of hate, that's your judgement - though I would like to see your reasoning behind arriving at it.
It should be patently obvious that God is completely different from Sauron, faeries, spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, cosmic teapots, etc--whether you believe in God's existence or not. God garners devotion and generates strong feeling. Many have given up promising careers in the sports or business world for a life of poverty in service to God. Many have sacrificed their lives as martyrs. This cannot be said regarding the other characters above.
I haven't found a very good analogy to convey this yet, but perhaps this rewording of Dawkins will illustrate the point:
"I think a case can be made that belief in the holocaust is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."
"The holocaust is one of the most unpleasant events in all fiction."
"I am attacking belief in the holocaust and anything and everything related to it."
"I have yet to see any good reason to suppose that holocaust studies are a subject at all."
"Belief in the holocaust is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument."
Do you see how this could be seen as offensive and planting seeds of hate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2009 3:03 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-13-2009 4:17 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 75 by Rrhain, posted 09-13-2009 8:04 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 76 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2009 2:23 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 68 of 121 (523937)
09-13-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mark24
09-13-2009 6:26 AM


Re: Dangerous Dawkins' Dark Designs for Deity Destruction
quote:
It seems to me that you think that merely vocalising a negative opinion of something equals promoting hate.
Absolutely not. See Message 67.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 09-13-2009 6:26 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 09-13-2009 4:13 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 73 by mark24, posted 09-13-2009 7:11 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 69 of 121 (523942)
09-13-2009 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by kbertsche
09-13-2009 3:52 PM


Re: Dangerous Dawkins' Dark Designs for Deity Destruction
kbertsche writes:
Absolutely not. See Message 67.
Shouldn't it be "Sewing the seams of hate"?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2009 3:52 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 121 (523944)
09-13-2009 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by kbertsche
09-13-2009 3:50 PM


Re: Sewing the seeds of hate
It should be patently obvious that God is completely different from Sauron, faeries, spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, cosmic teapots, etc--whether you believe in God's existence or not.
It doesn't make it any more real or provable, is what he's saying.
God garners devotion and generates strong feeling. Many have given up promising careers in the sports or business world for a life of poverty in service to God. Many have sacrificed their lives as martyrs. This cannot be said regarding the other characters above.
I assume though you believe Allah is as false a god as Artemis was in Paul's day, and an equal amount of people in devotion to Allah have done the same. That really does nothing to advance your argument.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2009 3:50 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by kbertsche, posted 09-14-2009 10:33 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 71 of 121 (523965)
09-13-2009 5:20 PM


Jon Ronson On... Internet Loons
Listening to the excellent Jon Ronson On... programme on Radio 4 the other night, I was reminded of the original post of this thread. Here is what Ronson has to say on the subject of why people on the internet can believe nonsense so readily and behave so appallingly;
How did the internet get so vicious? I think I have the answer.
The internet gives us the illusion that we’re wonderfully gregarious people. When we type away on discussion boards and post comments on our blogs, it feels like we’re sitting outside a pub in the evening sunshine, with our attractive, cool friends, but we aren’t. That’s something we used to do, before we got addicted to the internet. What we do instead is some empty, unsatisfying facsimile of that. We sit alone in our rooms, becoming more and more isolated from society and inevitably this turns us into mad, yelling, wild-eyed loons.
Specifically, Ronson is talking about internet conspiracy theorists (7/7 "truthers"), but I think his comments are equally true for the Youtube comments that Mike was talking about.
Jon Ronson BTW, is a fantastic journalist, one of those people who just ploughs his own furrow. The whole show is worth listening to and is available here;
BBC Radio 4 - Jon Ronson On, Series 3, Uncontrollable Responses
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 72 of 121 (523979)
09-13-2009 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Hyroglyphx
09-12-2009 7:36 AM


Hyroglyphx writes:
quote:
Replace the word "religion" and substitute it with "black people."
Right, because a racial characteristic is equivalent to a dogmatic philosophy. Everybody who is black behaves in a (reasonably) consistent way while those who follow a dogma have absolutely no common traits. I mean, it isn't like a dogma is a system of principles or tenets, established beliefs, or opinions. No, that's race. You can tell what a person thinks just by looking at the color of his skin, right?
But when a person says, "I believe in thus-and-so," there's just no way to tell, right?
quote:
You have to look at on a case-by-case basis.
You affect that such hasn't been done.
How many cases do we need to examine before we can conclude that it is not a problem of "a few bad apples" or "bad luck" or "poor implementation" but is rather a systemic problem inherent in the enterprise at its foundation?
quote:
Yes, that is true, but it doesn't overshadow the fact that for every ugly thing that comes about from various religions, there is a lot of good too.
Ah, yes...the trains ran on time. That's sufficient to make up for anything else.
quote:
In the keeping of the current topic, I should also add that you sound completely militant and one step away from purchasing some Zyklon B.
Thus proving that your entire argument is full of shit.
Thanks for playing.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-12-2009 7:36 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2009 1:41 PM Rrhain has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 73 of 121 (523980)
09-13-2009 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by kbertsche
09-13-2009 3:52 PM


Re: Dangerous Dawkins' Dark Designs for Deity Destruction
kbertsche,
mark writes:
It seems to me that you think that merely vocalising a negative opinion of something equals promoting hate.
Absolutely not. See Re: Sewing the seeds of hate (Message 67).
from msg 67 writes:
I haven't found a very good analogy to convey this yet, but perhaps this rewording of Dawkins will illustrate the point
A "rewording" of Dawkins? Good fucking grief. Is that the best you can do?
Either show Dawkins is involved in hate mongering or retract your accusation.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : drunken misspelling, if that's how it's spelt.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2009 3:52 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by kbertsche, posted 09-14-2009 10:45 AM mark24 has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 74 of 121 (523983)
09-13-2009 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2009 3:17 AM


EMA writes:
quote:
one is omnipotent, omniscient and eternal
Says who? You? Why should we believe you?
This is the very point: You're making an assertion, absolutely no evidence to be found anywhere, and then insist that anybody who dares question such is "militant."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2009 3:17 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 75 of 121 (523985)
09-13-2009 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by kbertsche
09-13-2009 3:50 PM


kbertsche writes:
quote:
It should be patently obvious that God is completely different from Sauron, faeries, spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, cosmic teapots, etc
Oh? Why? What is that difference?
quote:
God garners devotion and generates strong feeling.
Have you forgotten the hordes seeing The Lord of the Rings? Have you forgotten the number of people who do believe in fairies? There are people who do advocate for spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, and teapots.
But let's say that what you say is true: Why does it matter how emotionally attached a person is to an object? Why does the fact that you are emotionally invested in something make it "hate" to question its existence? To point out that you haven't presented any evidence of it? That your actions are actually causing harm to people?
By this logic, adults "hate" children since they don't cotton to their demands about Santa Claus and other imaginary friends.
quote:
"I think a case can be made that belief in the holocaust is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."
"The holocaust is one of the most unpleasant events in all fiction."
"I am attacking belief in the holocaust and anything and everything related to it."
"I have yet to see any good reason to suppose that holocaust studies are a subject at all."
"Belief in the holocaust is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument."
Do you see how this could be seen as offensive and planting seeds of hate?
No.
We have evidence of the Holocaust.
Where is your evidence of god?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2009 3:50 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by kbertsche, posted 09-14-2009 10:54 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024