What's your definition of "God"?

[John Scott]

Just found this article, by a real Oxford professor, who has known Dawkins for 20 years and calls him a "dogmatic, aggressive propagandist."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

[G10]

Alister McGrath is professor of theology at Oxford University. His new book The Dawkins Delusion?, co-authored by Joanna Collicutt McGrath, is published by SPCK at £7.99.

Damn, he really DOESN'T like him does he

[John Scott]

LOL! I love it.

[BSGCORP]

Great -Organized -Detail

[Rankenstein]

Has anyone actually bothered to read The God Delusion? I have. Dawkins makes some superb points, don't be deceived by his bombast and dogmatism. For example he completely exposes the lie that morality comes from God (or, say, The Bible) and atheists have no morality. The book is splendid on many levels. Just a shame he lets himself down with the hyperbole, but you can't blame him for that. After all, Christians tell me I'm a sinner who's going to hell. It seems Christians can dish out but can't take it.

Anyhow.

[G10]

Then all Christians that tell you that must re asses their viewpoints Rank as they are wrong.

Thing is, it is not up to them to judge you so by them saying that, they have made themselves the judge and juror, in a nutshell, they can't.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Has anyone actually bothered to read The God Delusion? I have. Dawkins makes some superb points, don't be deceived by his bombast and dogmatism. For example he completely exposes the lie that morality comes from God (or, say, The Bible) and atheists have no morality. The book is splendid on many levels. Just a shame he lets himself down with the hyperbole, but you can't blame him for that. After all, Christians tell me I'm a sinner who's going to hell. It seems Christians can dish out but can't take it.

Anyhow.

I can and do blame people for their actions. Dawkins is a fundamentalist who makes arguments by calling names, and if you choose to respect that simply because you agree with his conclusions, you've given up on intellectualism.

When I see people I agree with calling names and using flawed arguments, not only do I not support them, but I do so openly. To not would be to reduce your position and lower your own stock.

Try reading Bertand Russell (atheist) and then read Dawkins. It's like the difference between a child and an adult. I love reading Bertrand Russell, even though I disagree 150% with some of his conclusions.

It's really a matter of honestly recognizing that even good arguments are destroyed by an arrogant and insulting tone.

[Cheers]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I can and do blame people for their actions. Dawkins is a fundamentalist who makes arguments by calling names, and if you choose to respect that simply because you agree with his conclusions, you've given up on intellectualism.

When I see people I agree with calling names and using flawed arguments, not only do I not support them, but I do so openly. To not would be to reduce your position and lower your own stock.

Try reading Bertand Russell (atheist) and then read Dawkins. It's like the difference between a child and an adult. I love reading Bertrand Russell, even though I disagree 150% with some of his conclusions.

It's really a matter of honestly recognizing that even good arguments are destroyed by an arrogant and insulting tone.

So is Dawkins' effort worth a read or not?

[South]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Has anyone actually bothered to read The God Delusion? I have. Dawkins makes some superb points, don't be deceived by his bombast and dogmatism. For example he completely exposes the lie that morality comes from God (or, say, The Bible) and atheists have no morality. The book is splendid on many levels. Just a shame he lets himself down with the hyperbole, but you can't blame him for that. After all, Christians tell me I'm a sinner who's going to hell. It seems Christians can dish out but can't take it.

Anyhow.

I've read just enough Dawkins to dismiss him. In fact, if you're drawing your understanding of Christianity from Dawkins observations of it then you're choosing a poor source.

He has no interest in Christianity except to attempt to villify it and that's apparent from just what you pointed out above.

1) "Atheists have no morality". Not a Christian belief that I'm aware of, in fact the contrary. The entire scoping message of Christianity is the fact that a believer is no different position that a non-believer where certain things are concerned, and none have to do with an individuals personal richeousness. At least not where salvation is concerned.

2) "You're a sinner and you're going to hell". A Christian can only tell you what you can read for yourself, and no Christian is aware of your personal eternal outcome. Anyone who tells you that your actions will condemn you to hell has to believe that your actions can save you...so you're not talking to a Christian.

With people like Dawkins making such blatant presumptions about something he clearly has so little understanding of, I don't wonder why some people have a poor opinion of Christians. A better source for understanding Christianity would be Christians...or better still the new testament of the Bible.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by South

I've read just enough Dawkins to dismiss him. In fact, if you're drawing your understanding of Christianity from Dawkins observations of it then you're choosing a poor source.

My understanding of Christianity is pretty sound, I was generally high up and sometimes first in my year of nearly 200 pupils for Religious Education, and had ten years of RE in all. I've read more than enough of Christianity to dismiss all but Jesus's underlying message, and I know that most people who claim to be Christians nowadays are anything but. The way you talk about Liberals for instance, South. Let those who are without sin cast the first stone? Are you without sin? Yet you cast a lot of stones, it seems to me. I'm not having a go at you, South, by the way - I'm just pointing it out. Another thing I might point out is:
"Where does Christ mention Popes?"
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by South

1) "Atheists have no morality". Not a Christian belief that I'm aware of, in fact the contrary. The entire scoping message of Christianity is the fact that a believer is no different position that a non-believer where certain things are concerned, and none have to do with an individuals personal richeousness. At least not where salvation is concerned.

It's a message I've heard from over the years from many Christians of all stripes - you're claiming not to have heard this?

Here's a conversation between George Bush, supposed Christian (although he isn't) and an atheist reporter which demonstrates that the man who many Christians misguidedly look up to, doesn't even consider that atheists can be citizens or patriots, let alone moral:
RS:"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God
is important to me."
RS:"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS:"Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB:"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

Or do you admit that Dubya isn't a Christian, he's clearly behaving unconstitutionally (which is anti-American), and therefore doesn't know what he's talking about?

Originally Posted by South

2) "You're a sinner and you're going to hell". A Christian can only tell you what you can read for yourself, and no Christian is aware of your personal eternal outcome. Anyone who tells you that your actions will condemn you to hell has to believe that your actions can save you...so you're not talking to a Christian.

OK, they usually add - unless you confess to Jesus. And I was talking to Christians, don't you worry about that.

Originally Posted by South

With people like Dawkins making such blatant presumptions about something he clearly has so little understanding of, I don't wonder why some people have a poor opinion of Christians. A better source for understanding Christianity would be Christians...or better still the new testament of the Bible.

As I say, that's probably more to do with him being a biologist and having to listen to religious people talking about evolution when they know nothing about it, and they basically lie and misquote in order to advance their spurious arguments. That's his background, so those are the kind of people he's used to hearing. It's perfectly acceptable to have a low opinion of those types of religionauts - they're liars, frauds and idiots. (There are liars, frauds and idiots in every class of people, btw.) All Hawkins did originally was explain and popularise evolution - then the religious nutters went on the attack. It's not surprising he ended up trying to write a book to shut the damn fools up. It's a book born of frustration at being beset by fools.

[Rankenstein]

True, but then, it's exactly what my (Jehovah's Witness) aunt told my sister when my sister was about five. That is an example of child abuse by religious people. Dawkins is right about some aspects of that too. Wrong on others, though.

[G10]

Thats is strange as Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that you go to hell when you die, though most other Christian faiths do.

Tell your aunt to get a grip as she's following the wrong faith if she thinks that

[Rankenstein]

Well, she certainly forgets to take her copies of The Watchtower away with her when she visits us. Maybe she wasn't a JW back then? That must be it.

[Rankenstein]

Nah, I don't respect his name calling... I don't respect the fact that as a scientist, he should always allow for the chance that he could be wrong, and he doesn't do that...but that doesn't mean most of his arguments aren't fundamentally sound. My major problem with him actually is that he treats religious people as if they are intellectually inferior, which is plainly and self-evidently not true. I could wish for a better champion of atheism in terms of his interactions with others, but in terms of intellectual rigour he is fairly solid.

I think the problem is that there are so many proponents of religion who are , bluntly speaking, idiots, (same goes for atheists too!) that it is easy to forget that those people aren't your audience. If you enter a debate with a respected imam, rabbi or priest and and your starting position is that they are superstitious children, you lose credibility instantly. Even if you totally oppose someone's point of view, you should respect their opinions or even if you can't, at least be polite.

I've read Russell's History of Western Philosophy, but that's all. I'll take a look in the bookshop for some more. Any suggestions, John?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

I think the problem is that there are so many proponents of religion who are , bluntly speaking, idiots, (same goes for atheists too!) that it is easy to forget that those people aren't your audience. If you enter a debate with a respected imam, rabbi or priest and and your starting position is that they are superstitious children, you lose credibility instantly. Even if you totally oppose someone's point of view, you should respect their opinions or even if you can't, at least be polite.

Awesome way of stating it. *Greened*

[Rankenstein]

Cheers, Dawkins is definitely worth a read, all his books are worth reading but you'd be better off beginning at the beginning if you haven't read any before.

[John Scott]

I found it very entertaining. I would not recommend it alone. You won't get a good understanding of all the varied atheist arguments just by reading that one book. I recommend reading along with the answer to it, by McGrath.

Here's a list of worthwhile titles:

http://www.individualsovereigntist.c...11/21/atheism/

[Cheers]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I found it very entertaining. I would not recommend it alone. You won't get a good understanding of all the varied atheist arguments just by reading that one book. I recommend reading along with the answer to it, by McGrath.

Here's a list of worthwhile titles:

http://www.individualsovereigntist.c...11/21/atheism/

Thanks - I'll see if any are available at the local library.

[Brian]

Dawkins is a fundamentalist who makes arguments by calling names

Sounds familiar

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Brian

Sounds familiar

Brian, a friendly tip on debate, and what does and what doesn’t add value to these discussions.

Innuendo, as a rule of thumb, does not add value. “Sounds familiar” is textbook innuendo. When a person wants to say something, but is afraid because of having their argument torn to shreds by logic, they often turn to innuendo. It’s a form of cowardice, I my opinion. If you have something to say, then put your cards on the table. If not, then don’t think you can hide cowardly behind innuendo.

Basically, what we want to see here is reasoning and a conclusion. If you want, state the conclusion first, then support it with reasoning. Or the other way around. Both ways work. The main thing is, in intellectually sound debate we need to see some reasoning.

Insofar as you intend to represent the Left here, your substitution of innuendo for rational debate not only reflects poorly on you, it reflects poorly on all of your drug loving conspiracy theorist friends as well.

If that's a bit too much to think about, just think whether or not your post adds value to the discussion.