Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

Some people claim "they know things" that they cant possibly know, they make it up, believe it, peddle it as truth,

The saddest thing of all is that the Bible authors weren't aware that they were making it up. They were convinced that "god" was guiding them! And all their followers have fallen for it.

[Rhiannon]

Some people claim "they know things" that they cant possibly know, they make it up, believe it, peddle it as truth,

The saddest thing of all is that the Bible authors weren't aware that they were making it up. They were convinced that "god" was guiding them! And all their followers have fallen for it.

We don't know that. Many scholars agree that the two nativity narratives are literary devices invented to illustrate particular theological points in line with the conventions of the time in heroic and mythic literature.

[Leonard James]

We don't know that. Many scholars agree that the two nativity narratives are literary devices invented to illustrate particular theological points in line with the conventions of the time in heroic and mythic literature.

Whatever their reasons were, it was all from their own minds ... not "divinely inspired" as they thought.

[jjohnjil]

Most of the time I try to hold back from getting involved in these discussions for that very reason, but sometimes it gets just too frustrating and hard to resist it!

Absolutely true! My birthday resolution is going to be "post as little as possible". 

Excellent news!  As little as possible should mean, none at all!   

Bashful, I think it's you who should post on this forum far less.  You have a 'Faith sharing' forum where you can all agree with each other to your heart's content! 

If you want to post on a forum that debates the rights and wrongs of Christianity - you give your opinion and listen to other opinions, not whinge the whole time!

I see you haven't even read my posts today, which contradict your "allegations."  I have discussed my views and explained them, not in a whingeing manner, either.    It's always a good idea to know what you are talking about before you make your claims!  And, incidentally, I find myself being criticised by other Christians repeatedly.

Yes, BA, Good boy!

You see, you can do it, so try harder to stick to playing the ball instead of the player in future, eh?

[SusanDoris]

As far as I have seen RD is always polite. He simply successfully rebuts all "God" arguments. I have never seean him answer anybody rudely.

Totally agree. If rose can find an interview or debate where he is discourteous , I will be surprised.

[SusanDoris]

author=jjohnjil link=topic=10333.msg531919#msg531919 date=1434970204]

Bashful, I think it's you who should post on this forum far less.  You have a 'Faith sharing' forum where you can all agree with each other to your heart's content! 

If you want to post on a forum that debates the rights and wrongs of Christianity - you give your opinion and listen to other opinions, not whinge the whole time!

Oh, I do so agree! He does seem to have such a large chip on his shoulder.

[Leonard James]

As far as I have seen RD is always polite. He simply successfully rebuts all "God" arguments. I have never seean him answer anybody rudely.

Totally agree. If rose can find an interview or debate where he is discourteous , I will be surprised.

Well I thought this was quite rude.

http://youtu.be/6mmskXXetcg

He belittles people.

He answered in exactly the same tone as he was questioned. "What if you're wrong?" If he belittled the questioner, then she had done the same to him.

[Shaker]

That sort of thing really does say to me that the whole modern-day "respect/offence" circus has bred an awful lot of incredibly thin-skinned people who it seems almost go out of their way to find things to be offended about or at.

What happened to the days when, if people expressed an opinion you didn't like, you either ignored it or responded with another opinion, hopefully better expressed, better argued? These days it appears that people rush to the moral high ground because there seems to be a widespread (perceived) equivalence between being offended and automatically being right, and that to me is deeply pernicious trend.

[Alan Burns]

As far as I have seen RD is always polite. He simply successfully rebuts all "God" arguments. I have never seean him answer anybody rudely.

Totally agree. If rose can find an interview or debate where he is discourteous , I will be surprised.

Well I thought this was quite rude.

http://youtu.be/6mmskXXetcg

He belittles people.

He answered in exactly the same tone as he was questioned. "What if you're wrong?" If he belittled the questioner, then she had done the same to him.

He did not answer the question.  He avoided it by trying to lump Christianity in with the most primitive religion he could think of just to belittle the girl who dared to suggest that he might be wrong.  His tone might have been polite but the content certainly was not.

[Nearly Sane]

As far as I have seen RD is always polite. He simply successfully rebuts all "God" arguments. I have never seean him answer anybody rudely.

Totally agree. If rose can find an interview or debate where he is discourteous , I will be surprised.

Well I thought this was quite rude.

http://youtu.be/6mmskXXetcg

He belittles people.

He answered in exactly the same tone as he was questioned. "What if you're wrong?" If he belittled the questioner, then she had done the same to him.

He did not answer the question.  He avoided it by trying to lump Christianity in with the most primitive religion he could think of just to belittle the girl who dared to suggest that he might be wrong.  His tone might have been polite but the content certainly was not.

I note you think these are primitive religions and therefore are insulting them. Your tone might be polite but your content certainly is not.

[Shaker]

He did not answer the question.  He avoided it by trying to lump Christianity in with the most primitive religion he could think of just to belittle the girl who dared to suggest that he might be wrong.  His tone might have been polite but the content certainly was not.

Actually he did answer the question, though I'm not at all surprised that you don't understand why and how he did. To you, Christianity is not only true but so true that you are constitutionally incapable (much evidence of this) of being able to step outside of your Christian mindset even for a moment. To those outside it, though, and not wrapped up in as you are, there are absolutely no more reasons to take its wild and fantastical and nonsensical claims any more seriously in any way whatever than similar claims about the Great JuJu. You reject such claims. In fact you reject all claims about all other gods and all other religions except Christianity, because you have somehow managed to persuade yourself that this one is the final, unalterable and absolute truth. It takes a remarkable degree of intellectual myopia however not to be able to see that the reasons why you reject everything but Christianity are frequently the same reasons that others employ to reject all those religions and Christianity too. You don't take seriously the claims and threats of other religions; you don't give head-room to the possibility that you are destined for eternal post-mortem fire because Islam is the one true religion. At this point I should be saying congratulations, now you know why people reject Christianity ... except that I don't think that you do.

[Nearly Sane]

I am struggling with the idea of all content being polite: this seems like a new way of smuggling in random offence. If I think your ideas are ridiculous such as ,say I do, for Jesus appearing in a slice of toast,  are you saying that I have to restrain myself from pointing out that it is ridiculous to me and that it is nearly as ridiculous as the transubstantiation because absolutely no one could be as witless to believe the second?

[Rhiannon]

The problem with the Dawkins comment on Downs/ abortion, as with so many people in the public eye who find themselves having to retract unfortunate ststemènts, is that he said on social media the kind of thing that used to be confined to conversation in the pub, over dinner or at a lecture when ideas need to be brought out and debated.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not wrapped up in Christianity but I still found RD's reply pretty rude both in tone and in implication.

I wonder how he feels when creationists do that to biology and his belief in the scientific?

He probably finds it rude..... 😉

Which it would be......... And illustrates my point about that sort of attitude.

It would be hypocritical surely of anyone to talk something they found patently ridiculous seriously just to avoid offence? Most of the things that Dawkins used are long standing beliefs but you and Alan seem happy to pull him up because the 'implication' and that they are primitive religions - which seems to be that in order to take offence, you have to be quite rudely, in your terms, dismissive of other religions - which reads like hypocrisy here.

[Shaker]

I wonder how he feels when creationists do that to biology and his belief in the scientific?

He probably finds it rude..... 😉

Which it would be......... And illustrates my point about that sort of attitude.

I doubt if he finds it "rude." "Rude" is quite an odd word to use in that context. I don't have to guess, he's on record as having said that it's merely ignorant and, more often than not, wilfully ignorant.

[Nearly Sane]

I am struggling with the idea of all content being polite: this seems like a new way of smuggling in random offence. If I think your ideas are ridiculous such as ,say I do, for Jesus appearing in a slice of toast,  are you saying that I have to restrain myself from pointing out that it is ridiculous to me and that it is nearly as ridiculous as the transubstantiation because absolutely no one could be as witless to believe the second?

 I think it is how you put it across and if you give the impression you are stating that it looks ridiculous to you, or if you come across as mocking and belittling the other person.

And there is always a clear line here? People seem inordinately happy to kill when their ideas are ridiculed as well, in part because we don't really make that distinction that clear for ourselves. To an extent, our ideas are us and in the reply in the clip, Dawkins was not mocking of the person.


I have to say I find the whole 'Can Richard Dawkins be a bit rude sometimes?' Thing a side show. It does not, even if he is ruder than Cursing Randy Rudeman the 5 time winner of Rudest person in Strathpfeffer,  make any difference as to whether he is correct or, more relevantly, whether he would be likely to cone off better in a quick discussion with Alan B.

[Nearly Sane]

On the point of speculating where she got her belief, it is a relevant point since huge percentage of religion is directly in family or culturally passed on , that is precisely important to the idea if what wrong means to each person - so at a loss to where any mocking of the person was there.

[Shaker]

In the video clip I put up, I felt he ridiculed her individually, even speculated about where she had got her belief.

It sort of made it personal rather than impersonal.

In that clip wasn't it the young lady (who I assume got up voluntarily to ask her question) who made it personal by asking Dawkins what if you're wrong?

[Nearly Sane]

I am struggling with the idea of all content being polite: this seems like a new way of smuggling in random offence. If I think your ideas are ridiculous such as ,say I do, for Jesus appearing in a slice of toast,  are you saying that I have to restrain myself from pointing out that it is ridiculous to me and that it is nearly as ridiculous as the transubstantiation because absolutely no one could be as witless to believe the second?

 I think it is how you put it across and if you give the impression you are stating that it looks ridiculous to you, or if you come across as mocking and belittling the other person.

And there is always a clear line here? People seem inordinately happy to kill when their ideas are ridiculed as well, in part because we don't really make that distinction that clear for ourselves. To an extent, our ideas are us and in the reply in the clip, Dawkins was not mocking of the person.


I have to say I find the whole 'Can Richard Dawkins be a bit rude sometimes?' Thing a side show. It does not, even if he is ruder than Cursing Randy Rudeman the 5 time winner of Rudest person in Strathpfeffer,  make any difference as to whether he is correct or, more relevantly, whether he would be likely to cone off better in a quick discussion with Alan B.

 I think you are right in that it isn't clear, and we all see it differently.

I suppose I just dislike people in a position of power, ie teacher or person with a microphone, delivering withering put downs and getting a laugh at the expense of the shy and awkward soul in the audience, who has no opportunity to reply.

those are not withering put downs, you have no justification. To assume shy and awkward, it is apparently on some form of university book tour.

I'd suggest it's a very gentle reply and only ideas are roasted in the making of it.

[Nearly Sane]

We may well be reading him differently. I would suggest though so far noone has been able to point out anything in that clip where he mocks the individual in any way.

I would further suggest that most of the issue is tone and that is on part he has a lecturing tone built up over doing precisely that in a subject that while it studies empathy doesn't do empathy. 

[Alan Burns]

Actually he did answer the question, though I'm not at all surprised that you don't understand why and how he did. To you, Christianity is not only true but so true that you are constitutionally incapable (much evidence of this) of being able to step outside of your Christian mindset even for a moment. To those outside it, though, and not wrapped up in as you are, there are absolutely no more reasons to take its wild and fantastical and nonsensical claims any more seriously in any way whatever than similar claims about the Great JuJu. You reject such claims. In fact you reject all claims about all other gods and all other religions except Christianity, because you have somehow managed to persuade yourself that this one is the final, unalterable and absolute truth. It takes a remarkable degree of intellectual myopia however not to be able to see that the reasons why you reject everything but Christianity are frequently the same reasons that others employ to reject all those religions and Christianity too. You don't take seriously the claims and threats of other religions; you don't give head-room to the possibility that you are destined for eternal post-mortem fire because Islam is the one true religion. At this point I should be saying congratulations, now you know why people reject Christianity ... except that I don't think that you do.

But it was not the Great JuJu who came into my life and made itself known to me.

[Shaker]

But it was not the Great JuJu who came into my life and made itself known to me.

Not that that's relevant to anything. But in any case, that statement is based entirely on your own perception, interpretation and belief, nothing else.

[savillerow]

Rose. Can you explain further the last bit of your last post about "no doubt"

[Nearly Sane]

We may well be reading him differently. I would suggest though so far noone has been able to point out anything in that clip where he mocks the individual in any way.

I would further suggest that most of the issue is tone and that is on part he has a lecturing tone built up over doing precisely that in a subject that while it studies empathy doesn't do empathy.

You are probably right. ☺️

It's why someone like Alan giving him a quick chat won't work. Dawkins has spoken hundreds, probably thousands of times now, and has the equivalent of hours of speeches questions etc to go on this. In addition I think his style becomes quite lecturing if he sees it as an argument or he is giving the equivalent of a lecture. He's been much better on those occasions where I have seen him in discussions at Hay or in Edinburgh with Richard Holloway.


To some extent, I am reminded of a priest who was a friend of the family, who would come round and visit till late telling jokes and being the life and soul but in the pulpitc his sermons were dour black obsidian with no humanity. As you were discussing on the thread about meeting up, we are different in differing situations and we go back to old comforting tropes when we are not fully relaxed.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

I think Richard Dawkins for all his advanced age, is a bit of an immature man.  He uses his knowledge of evolution as a tool to try and demolish all religion and spirituality....which is rubbish.

He seems to have no understanding of the emotional needs of people and the role religion and faith play in the lives of people. He also over emphasizes the negative aspects of some religions (Islamic terrorism) to condemn all religions in general.

He also shows a surprising lack of understanding of philosophy in general and Indian religions in particular, which brings out the  limited scope of his arguments.

He generally appears stuck on the 'Theory of Evolution disproves the six day creation/Adam & Eve' argument....which has become rather boring if not archaic IMO.

Cheers.

Sriram