Anti-theistic strawmen?

moderation and wisdom does not require this crap.

Pat Robertson is not like Lot. Pat Robertson is applying tales like Lot's tale (and more obviously Noah's tale) in order to come to the conclusion that Hurricane Katrina was punishment from God and the only question remaining is figuring out what God is so pissed about. You ask what Dawkins' point is, and you come close to answering it yourself here:

quote:

---

Of course, irritated theologians will protest that we don't take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is my whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the atheist's decision to follow this moral precept or that was a personal decision, without an absolute foundation...In any case, despite the good intentions of the sophisticated theologian, a frighteningly large number of people still do take their scriptures, including the story of Noah, literally. According to Gallup, they include approximately 50 per cent of the US electorate.

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Then you misunderstand me, my apologies. I was giving my own opinion on this area of theology hoping you'd understand. Metaphorical thingies can be used in the world of ideas, I am not discounting that. The problem is when metaphorical ideas are used to make decisions in the real world that affect other people's lives. That is when such ideas must be shown for what they are: metaphor. They are not evidence and they should be afforded the same kind of respect as other metaphors in the realm of ideas: baseless without real world evidence. I wasn't making an argument, I was simply stating that Dawkins doesn't address this branch of theological discussion. He doesn't address God is in the community (that I've heard as a refutation of Dawkin's criticism) or God is a metaphor for how we live kind of stuff. He specifies the kind of God and the kind of faith he is addressing, it is a real thing that really exists in the real world and he is attacking its grounds. He attacks the beliefs that imply certain actions are correct and moral based on religious faith (or any kind of faith), since these things might be moral, but it would be better to have good reasons rather than bad reasons (or more accurately: made up reasons). If the theist in question believes in a deity that doesn't get involved in human affairs or decide absolutely on moral issues, then yes - they need not bother with Dawkins. Buddhism does make absolute statements of morality though, last time I checked the precepts. Thou shalt not harm living beings is one of them.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Objective persons know it is very logical to point out that the person who believes Hitler (Crashfrog) is a rabid Atheist. Then you agree: when he claimed to be a Christian he was lying? Then Crashfrog, your comrade in Atheism, is ignorant?Objective and honest persons know that "since we are modified apes" the person who selected his enemies for extinction, and murdered millions of persons, was an Atheist-evolutionist.Ray

And it is relevant to point out that you are a rabid superstitionist. Hitler was not a Atheist. Try to keep that in mind... Have you ever tried being intellectually honest?Your moronic attempt to compare Crashfrog to Hitler is just stupid and immature.

It's not a syllogistic structure at all. It's just a mish-mash of granola ideas and crystal worship just vague enough to avoid being pinned down. It's self-refuting, so it's hardly necessary for Dawkins to expend effort to refute it.There's nothing mature or sophisticated about it.

It doesn't require "God", either, so in what sense precisely does someone who espouses moderation and wisdom on their own merits constitute a "theist"?If you're going to say that "God" is just a metaphor for human community and everything good about us, not an actual conscious being who takes real action in the universe for our benefit, in what sense are you a theist? Sounds like atheism to me, except that you apparently take such a dim view of humanity that you feel the need to dehumanize the best in each of us.Somebody who says that "God" is only as real as love is no kind of theist. They don't believe in the existence of God - only in the existence of metaphors.

i said no such thing. god can be a real being taking action in the universe without being the malevolent beast most christians take him to be. mature theology moves past legalism (read: fundamentalism) into an understanding of who god is and what he does and does not do and what people have said about him and how those things differ. it has nothing to do with "feelings" or "hand-waving". but it may still give more questions than answers.

Look, if your "sophisticated theology" only defends itself from refutation by being a complete fucking secret, I don't know what to tell you.I'm not going to sit here and fucking guess what you believe, Brenna, in order to take potshots at it. But neither am I going to take very seriously an argument that says "Dawkins isn't the smarty-pants he thinks he is, because he can't refute my oh-so-mature and sophisticated secret theology."Regardless of what you said, what I described was the beliefs of the "mature theologians" whom Dawkins is accused of ignoring. The reason that it's appropriate to ignore them is because their "theology" isn't; it's completely content-free. There's no "there" there. Dawkins refutes that God, and I have as well, on many occasions. The theism you describe has been refuted. In AO's eyes, I imagine that makes your theology quite immature. Actually, the fact that you assert a God who actually exists makes you a country bumpkin, theologically-speaking, in the eyes of Dawkins' detractors, who are convinced that nobody at all could possibly be so gauche as to propose a God who actually exists and takes action in the universe in response to supplication.I'm just saying. The God you believe in is not the God Dawkins is being accused of ignoring. The God you believe in is the one people are saying is Dawkins' strawman characture.

it isn't. you just have to actually study it with people who've studied it for a long time and not people who are "leik omgz! when wuz you saveed!!!" says you. dawkins is a biologist. he can't possibly refute god with any authority. that's nice.

Millions of persons murdered in the most horrifying ways possible says he was indeed an Atheist. How do we explain such a brazen and vicious misrepresentation?When Crashfrog said that he believed Hitler's claim of being a Christian, in response, I explained Crashfrog's belief by reminding the Group that he was a rabid Atheist. This explains why Crashfrog believes a mass murderer. Apparently, Iceage, after reading the exchanges saw no way to harm or defeat the logic of explaining Crashfrog's belief by pointing out his Atheism. But being angered by said logic and argument Iceage, in response, relied upon gross misrepresentation. Therefore the degree of misrepresentation employed is in direct ratio equal to the degree that said logic and argument was perceived to be true and invulnerable to refutation - that is why said misrepresentation was employed and how we explain its existence.Ray

Millions of Jews murdered in horrific ways says that he was indeed a Christian. The Holocaust was a sectarian conflict.

So let's sum it up...Atheists are evilBecause Hitler was an AtheistAnd you know he was an Atheist because he was evil...Makes perfect sense. Not circular logic at all.

---

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

Sophistry, then? Dawkins makes clear which God he is discrediting, and he does so. If you, or anyone else, has a conception of God that is not inline with the God Dawkins is discrediting, then Dawkins isn't discrediting it. If someone wants to describe a God different to the ones Dawkins speaks of, then that description of God can be critqued as it comes. Do you have any links to articles describing such a God?You are making the claim that Dawkins does not tackle a certain kind of God. Show us this god being written about and we can see if Dawkins addresses this deity. Why not? Because he specializes in one field, does not discount him from discussing other fields. Dawkins certainly refutes the type of God he is saying he is going to discredit, biologist or no biologist.Besides, he is an ethologist, which means he studies animal behaviour, culture etc. Humans are an animal, and their culture is very much part of Dawkins' field.A scientist is definitely qualified to refute claims of an entity that is said to influence the physical world. An ethologist is qualified to refute claims that such an entity is the only possible explanation for the existence of morality in homo sapiens. An evolutionary biologist is perfectly qualified to refute the claims that God had to be involved in life in certain ways.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

And you are a christian zealot which explains why you deny Hitler's christianity.

---

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor