Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
41 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, kjsimons, PaulK, xongsmith (5 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,011 Year: 9,759/23,288 Month: 774/1,544 Week: 166/322 Day: 20/66 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas carols?
alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 2845 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 106 of 301 (441789)
12-18-2007 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Silent H
12-18-2007 6:21 PM


...but that is not the same as answering a question if it is hypocritical... which was the question.

No, the question was Does anyone else find this a wee bit hypocritical? , which answered No, I could care less if Dawkins sings carols, puts up a tree and decorates it, gives out presents, or even tries kissing under the mistletoe.

If it bothers you then deal with it .See, does anyone else find this a wee bit hypocritical


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Silent H, posted 12-18-2007 6:21 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 12-18-2007 7:42 PM alacrity fitzhugh has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1034 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 107 of 301 (441792)
12-18-2007 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Silent H
12-18-2007 6:21 PM


Silent Homes writes:

I happen to agree there is no hypocrisy for an atheist to do something like that, but as I've said upthread when you beat xianity and theism with an ugly stick as much as he does, it is a tad askew to announce onesself a cultural xian and join in the rejoicing.

It's not hypocritical, but it is "a tad askew"?

On ugly sticks: Dawkins mainly criticizes the Abrahamic God and His three religions and numerous sects. This God is very definitely a one and only true God, and a jealous God, which is why those three religions have a tendency to beat heretics and infidels (often each other) with a very ugly stick.

However, he is far from simple and narrow minded in his attack, can appreciate the art done in the name of religion (hence the carols) and frequently praises individual theists, past and present, for their personal achievements and qualities.

I don't think there's anything ugly about his attitude towards religion at all. In a world dominated by aggressive superstitious fools like Osama Bin Laden and G. W. Bush, who both go to war with the Abrahamic God on their respective sides (someone must be suffering from God delusions there), I think religion needs more critics like Dawkins.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Silent H, posted 12-18-2007 6:21 PM Silent H has not yet responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1198 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 108 of 301 (441799)
12-18-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by jar
12-18-2007 6:19 PM


How sad and pitiful you seem.

What on god's green earth are you talking about Jar?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 12-18-2007 6:19 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by jar, posted 12-18-2007 7:25 PM molbiogirl has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32683
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 109 of 301 (441800)
12-18-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by molbiogirl
12-18-2007 7:22 PM


Your 8-Step program.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by molbiogirl, posted 12-18-2007 7:22 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by molbiogirl, posted 12-18-2007 7:27 PM jar has responded
 Message 111 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2007 7:30 PM jar has not yet responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1198 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 110 of 301 (441801)
12-18-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by jar
12-18-2007 7:25 PM


It's a parody, Jar.

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by jar, posted 12-18-2007 7:25 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2007 7:34 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded
 Message 129 by jar, posted 12-19-2007 10:36 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1034 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 111 of 301 (441802)
12-18-2007 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by jar
12-18-2007 7:25 PM


jar writes:

Your 8-Step program.

I think she was being ironic, jar, don't you? As I was when I suggested that Christians shouldn't use pagan names for the days of the week. We all have complex cultural histories, whatever our beliefs, as I'm sure you know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by jar, posted 12-18-2007 7:25 PM jar has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1034 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 112 of 301 (441803)
12-18-2007 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by molbiogirl
12-18-2007 7:27 PM


mobiogirl writes:

It's a parody, Jar.

I hate when I'm writing a post, click submit, and find someone's said effectively the same thing 3 minutes earlier!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by molbiogirl, posted 12-18-2007 7:27 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4376 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 113 of 301 (441806)
12-18-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by alacrity fitzhugh
12-18-2007 6:47 PM


Okay, I don't want to make this into some big thing. But I was trying to point out her question was about the existence of hypocrisy, not whether anyone cares about the hypocrisy.

Your answer seems to combine the two, and insinuates she shouldn't care. That is if she does she should deal with it.

I didn't see her "caring" about what he does, just pointing out the potential hypocrisy to raise a question about atheism v enjoying Xian holidays.

If my distinction isn't clear, we can just drop the matter. It isn't that important.


h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 12-18-2007 6:47 PM alacrity fitzhugh has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Kitsune, posted 12-19-2007 1:45 AM Silent H has not yet responded

LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 301 (441854)
12-19-2007 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by bluegenes
12-18-2007 3:14 PM


Enlightenment
bluegenes writes:

How, incidentally, do you look beyond science for enlightenment?

First of all you have to admit to yourself that the ability of the human mind to perceive is limited. (To five senses and four dimensions).

Then (this is the hard bit for you) you have to admit that it’s methods of discernment are limited.

Then you’ve got a start.


Mutate and become a burden on society

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2007 3:14 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 12-19-2007 5:09 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded
 Message 143 by sidelined, posted 12-19-2007 1:33 PM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2857 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 115 of 301 (441856)
12-19-2007 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Silent H
12-18-2007 7:42 PM


To set the record straight, I'm not bothered at all. I just had a bit of a chuckle from the story, as presumably did others, hence its appearance on the BBC website. I thought it might provoke some interesting comments here -- about Christmas, Dawkins, atheism, whatever. Seems to be working OK.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 12-18-2007 7:42 PM Silent H has not yet responded

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2857 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 116 of 301 (441859)
12-19-2007 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by bluegenes
12-18-2007 3:14 PM


It was a serious question, and neither you nor the person I addressed it to will be able to explain how you can "look beyond science". So both of you have replied to my question with obvious evasion.

No, it's just that the idea that there could possibly be anything about existence or the universe that is not measurable by science, is not itself explainable through the empirical answer you want. Your demand in itself is an impossibility: "Tell me empirically how there's anything empiricism can't measure." When anyone makes an attempt at explaining, you put their suggestions into the same fanciful made-up categories as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Never mind that intelligent, grown-up human beings have held these kinds of beliefs for millennia. They're all deluded, right? Maybe you ought to honestly ask yourself who is really in denial, and why.

"The best truths cannot be spoken. The second best are misunderstood." -- Heinrich Zimmer


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2007 3:14 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by bluegenes, posted 12-19-2007 6:29 AM Kitsune has responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1034 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 117 of 301 (441867)
12-19-2007 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by LucyTheApe
12-19-2007 12:24 AM


Re: Enlightenment
LucyTheApe writes:

bluegenes writes:

How, incidentally, do you look beyond science for enlightenment?

First of all you have to admit to yourself that the ability of the human mind to perceive is limited. (To five senses and four dimensions).

Certainly, that's easy and obvious.

Then (this is the hard bit for you) you have to admit that it’s methods of discernment are limited.

No, it isn't hard. It's also easy and obvious.

Then you’ve got a start.

Really?

None of which, of course, answers my question, does it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-19-2007 12:24 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1034 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 118 of 301 (441877)
12-19-2007 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Kitsune
12-19-2007 1:53 AM


LindLou writes:

No, it's just that the idea that there could possibly be anything about existence or the universe that is not measurable by science, is not itself explainable through the empirical answer you want. Your demand in itself is an impossibility: "Tell me empirically how there's anything empiricism can't measure." When anyone makes an attempt at explaining, you put their suggestions into the same fanciful made-up categories as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

Why should someone make an attempt at explaining if it's impossible? Remember, my question was about how people can look beyond science, and was a response to this:

LucyTheApe writes:

LindaLou, if it is enlightenment you’re looking for you’ve come to the wrong place.
No science forum or science discipline is going to give you that, no, not even evolutianity. You have to look beyond science for that.

Lucy is suggesting to you that you can find enlightenment by looking beyond science, and I can assure you that I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to be done.

LindaLou writes:

Never mind that intelligent, grown-up human beings have held these kinds of beliefs for millennia.

A nice argumentum ad populum. Do we all have to believe in all the world's contradicting religions on the basis of that? Or only the ones that have lasted for millennia?

They're all deluded, right?

In a post above, I mentioned G. W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden both going to war with versions of the Abrahamic God on their side as an example of a situation in which either one or the other or both must be suffering from superstitious delusions. Such examples (and there are many) illustrate that superstition based delusions do exist and are widespread. Whether or not all people who believe in magic are deluded depends on whether or not some have hit on a true magic.

Maybe you ought to honestly ask yourself who is really in denial, and why.

What on earth makes you think I haven't?

There are certainly things that are not known to science, and there are almost certainly things that can never be known to science. However, Homo Sapiens certainly has a fertile imagination, and I think it's important to try and distinguish the world (or universe) of the imagination from possible things that are perhaps on the edge of our present knowledge, or way beyond it.

It looks like I'm never going to find out how we can look beyond science.

As you've suggested a question that you think I should ask myself, I'll suggest one for you.

Have you considered the possibility that a desire for some kind of direct or indirect evidence that you might have an immortal soul sometimes overrides your reason and common sense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Kitsune, posted 12-19-2007 1:53 AM Kitsune has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Kitsune, posted 12-19-2007 8:09 AM bluegenes has responded

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2857 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 119 of 301 (441885)
12-19-2007 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by bluegenes
12-19-2007 6:29 AM


Lucy is suggesting to you that you can find enlightenment by looking beyond science, and I can assure you that I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to be done.

Try some meditation or tai chi. Look into the religions of the world, not for empirical evidence (or lack thereof) for the credibility of their concrete claims, but for the spiritual truths that their stories and ideologies express. Joseph Campbell was a pivotal figure in my life, and his research in comparative mythology blew my little Catholic world right open.

A nice argumentum ad populum. Do we all have to believe in all the world's contradicting religions on the basis of that? Or only the ones that have lasted for millennia?

What I'm saying is that if many people have said for millennia that they have experienced or believed something, it might well be worthy of study. It's possible that they are all "deluded" of course, but it's also possible that they are not. You have not produced any evidence that they are, nor can you, because God and religion can neither be verified nor "debunked" by science, however much some people like to try.

In a post above, I mentioned G. W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden both going to war with versions of the Abrahamic God on their side as an example of a situation in which either one or the other or both must be suffering from superstitious delusions. Such examples (and there are many) illustrate that superstition based delusions do exist and are widespread. Whether or not all people who believe in magic are deluded depends on whether or not some have hit on a true magic.

There are a few fallacies in this statement. First of all, you have chosen two representatives of fundamentalist branches of different faiths. They believe in the literal truth of their holy texts, which is a fallacy in itself as the greater and deeper meanings are lost this way. Mythology is not something that is meant to be taken literally, that is not where its wisdom truly lies. These two people are also hate-filled bigots. This is not an accurate description of many of the peaceful and loving followers of religion in the world.

You therefore misrepresent the majority of religious people in the world by choosing these two examples. What's more, you do not seem to have made a distinction between religion and spirituality. Apparently it is all delusional to you.

Finally, you misrepresent religion and spirituality by calling them "magic," which is the equivalent of claiming these beliefs to be on a par with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. As I said in my previous post, it is insulting and, I believe, mistaken, to deride serious beliefs about life and the universe, common in intelligent and mature people for millennia, by equating such beliefs with made-up childish fallacies.

Thank you for this enlightening conversation. I'm learning a lot here. It's never what people here want me to learn, either, which is always the fascinating twist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by bluegenes, posted 12-19-2007 6:29 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 12-19-2007 9:17 AM Kitsune has responded
 Message 128 by bluegenes, posted 12-19-2007 10:26 AM Kitsune has not yet responded
 Message 135 by nator, posted 12-19-2007 11:24 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 120 of 301 (441890)
12-19-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kitsune
12-15-2007 7:15 AM


I don't find it hypocritical at all, no.

Christimas, no matter its pagan and Christian roots, is a Western cultural tradition and can easily be celebrated in an entirely secular manner. I have done so for many years. I even put little cherub and angel ornaments on my tree.

Most adult Christians don't believe in Santa Claus, yet they still give gifts at this time of year. Most adult people in the west are not pagans celebrating Solstice, yet they bring an evergreen into the house in the middle of winter.

Hmmm, I wonder if the very anti-Catholic fundies allow the concept of a Catholic saint to be spoken of?

And yes, it can have deep meaning, even to the non-believer, atheist-types.

"Peace on Earth, good will to men" is not a religious statement.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kitsune, posted 12-15-2007 7:15 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020