Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

ya but islam is an unmitigated evil

― ban drake (the rapper) (max), Wednesday, 11 May 2011 22:14 (4 minutes ago) Permalink

More like a poorly plagarized version of Christianity. Though the idea of an omniscient god who can convict you of thought crimes and torture you for eternity after your die strikes me as evil.

*sigh*

More like a poorly plagarized version of Christianity. Though the idea of an omniscient god who can convict you of thought crimes and torture you for eternity after your die strikes me as evil.

Christopher, if that's you we want to wish you a speedy recovery and/or eternal submission to a sky god.

srsly that's plucked straight from God is Not Great. At least attribute.

EZ - I'd be curious to know if the kinds of atheism that would arise in such societies would have much in common with western atheism.

My point was perhaps too broad- I really mean that the particular atheism that dawkins represents is a product of an empirical/capitalist/materialist modernity and shouldn't be divorced from those circumstances as if theism/atheism is a fundamental or necessary distinction. It just happens to be one some people have a lot invested in.

you guys sure do think a lot

srsly that's plucked straight from God is Not Great. At least attribute.

just a little friendly plagarism

gotcha ryan. The "atheism of the enlightenment" school of reasoning is definitely a western construct.

like literally you don't think a mysterious force that we don't have any real knowledge of created the universe?

Also Shakey, for a guy who claims to represent the nuanced view, you left a pretty enormous hole there with the use of the word "created". Do you mean intentionally created with some kind of intelligence or plan? If so, then no I definitely don't believe that or think it's an accurate reflection of current science. If you mean "created" as in "just sort of happened accidentally without any sort of plan" then I think that contradicts most definitions of god.

do tell. I assume this is his "god of the gaps" angle you referred to

I think if your religious beliefs and definitions are constantly changing in response to new scientific findings, then you've relegated god to a pretty sad role. I think Dawkins' point of view is that you should go ahead and let science keep pushing your god further into the gaps and that your type of belief is not really the kind he's worried about.

Pretty much all of them have at their core an explicit understanding that God essentially transcends human comprehension.

"Pretty much" and "essentially" except for the basic conceptions of their god that are fundamental to their religion. I mean, monotheism itself is a claim to have some kind of concrete knowledge of the nature of god (that there's only one of him.) Most religions add other claims on top of that (he created man in his image, etc.)

gbx otm

some points:

*the thing about about religions encouraging "questioning" is really just lip service to rationality and free enquiry. they don't *actually* want you to question it all the way.

*all this stuff about "god" just being a metaphor for nature, mystery, the universe, etc... ok cool, those are all fine and dandy things to think about and appreciate. BUT why then stick a label on those things that people traditionally associate with a conscious entity that created the universe, and all the baggage that goes with that?

*one really unfair thing about these debates is that religious people can use all kinds of shifting metaphors for god, whichever suits their argument. so god goes from being "our father in heaven" to "the ground of all being" to "an ineffable sense of wonder and mystery" etc, etc... the theists are continuously shifting the goalposts. and i doubt a theologian would call out his nicene-creed-following vicar for an unsophisticated view of god the same way he would with your average sceptic.

* "nuance" this is always wheeled out, isn't it? sceptics views on religion aren't "nuanced" enough. as if something becomes automatically more likely because it's more complicated.

I was going to attribute; it's a good point Hitchens makes. And there are good points Bill Mahr makes, because they directly ask believers if they really believe what their holy texts actually SAY. And what they say, by and large, is often pretty backwards and barbaric.

you're kidding

things are created without intelligence all the time lol

xp

BUT why then stick a label on those things that people traditionally associate with a conscious entity that created the universe, and all the baggage that goes with that?

what better way to get your average idiot to grasp the concept?

Bill Maher has never read a book in his life and is smug about it.

I think if your religious beliefs and definitions are constantly changing in response to new scientific findings, then you've relegated god to a pretty sad role. I think Dawkins' point of view is that you should go ahead and let science keep pushing your god further into the gaps and that your type of belief is not really the kind he's worried about.

and, as I pointed out in a different post, the "god of the gaps" thing was a very narrow idea put forth by creationists in response to evolution. it is not really a commonly accepted or mainstream conception of god. Dawkins angle here is the very essence of a strawman argument.

xp

UNMITIGATED EVIL

The "atheism of the enlightenment" school of reasoning is definitely a western construct.

- EZ snappin

well sure it is, at least in its origins, but i don't know that we can so easily move from that observation to this:

...the particular atheism that dawkins represents is a product of an empirical/capitalist/materialist modernity and shouldn't be divorced from those circumstances as if theism/atheism is a fundamental or necessary distinction.

- ryan

help me out. of what utility is it in this particular discussion to focus on the cultural/economic origins of atheism? and how is the distinction between theism and atheism any less than fundamental?

BUT why then stick a label on those things that people traditionally associate with a conscious entity that created the universe, and all the baggage that goes with that?

cuz just because we answer the questions better these days doesn't mean they're not the same questions

monotheism itself is a claim to have some kind of concrete knowledge of the nature of god (that there's only one of him.)

what better way to refer to the TOTALITY of everything? Monotheism is a way of conceptualizing God as the sum total of everything that exists. Monotheism is like the word "universe", it's a conceptual framework that covers the entirety of existence. It does not have the concept of an individualized personification embedded in it, and there are trunkloads of theological texts delineating this view - that God is infinite, has no boundaries, is eternal, etc.

xp

My point was perhaps too broad- I really mean that the particular atheism that dawkins represents is a product of an empirical/capitalist/materialist modernity and shouldn't be divorced from those circumstances as if theism/atheism is a fundamental or necessary distinction. It just happens to be one some people have a lot invested in.

― ryan, Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:24 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Does this make it a less valid idea, somehow? Is this the Terry Eagleton critique of Atheism?

Max, why do you keep saying "unmitigated evil?"

pretty sure the lads at my local kebab shop aren't unmitigated evil. tbh a doner kebab is mitigation enough.

i assume Dawkins refuses to eat kebabs on principle

"and, as I pointed out in a different post, the "god of the gaps" thing was a very narrow idea put forth by creationists in response to evolution."

nah... loads of mainstream, liberal christians will point to something like quantum mechanics or the uncertainty principle and say "aaahhhh... the traditional newtonian model of the universe is flawed, the universe is stranger than we ever thought, DO YOU SEE?" as if these ideas make a conscious creator any more likely at all.

what better way to refer to the TOTALITY of everything? Monotheism is a way of conceptualizing God as the sum total of everything that exists. Monotheism is like the word "universe", it's a conceptual framework that covers the entirety of existence. It does not have the concept of an individualized personification embedded in it, and there are trunkloads of theological texts delineating this view - that God is infinite, has no boundaries, is eternal, etc.

xp

― american thinker (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:38 PM (43 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

This is just wrong, Obi Wan Kenobi. You're talking about the fucking Force.

Max, why do you keep saying "unmitigated evil?"

top of the thread revive, chuckles

Do you mean intentionally created with some kind of intelligence or plan? If so, then no I definitely don't believe that or think it's an accurate reflection of current science. If you mean "created" as in "just sort of happened accidentally without any sort of plan" then I think that contradicts most definitions of god.

- wk

look, this is simply wrong. it displays a very basic failure to comprehend science and its aims. science has nothing to say about whether or not there is any intelligence behind the order of things. science merely observes and tests the order it can perceive.

and you're speaking awfully blithely about "most definitions of god." though i claim to be an atheist or an agnostic, i've got my inklings. i've known a great many people of various faiths who believe in a divinity that works through the supposedly material "natural order of things."

yeah, just use the word "universe". "god" assumes some sort of consciousness or direction. the universe doesn't "know" or give a fuck about anything. it just is.

nah... loads of mainstream, liberal christians will point to something like quantum mechanics or the uncertainty principle and say "aaahhhh... the traditional newtonian model of the universe is flawed, the universe is stranger than we ever thought, DO YOU SEE?" as if these ideas make a conscious creator any more likely at all.

I was referring specifically to where this concept came from and how it developed, eg:
The term goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th century evangelist lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man. He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."

xp

This is just wrong, Obi Wan Kenobi. You're talking about the fucking Force.

richard dawkins can now reveal that the force is nothing but a poorly plagiarized version of judaism

and you're speaking awfully blithely about "most definitions of god." though i claim to be an atheist or an agnostic, i've got my inklings. i've known a great many people of various faiths who believe in a divinity that works through the supposedly material "natural order of things."

― always have time for the crystalline entity (contenderizer), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:44 PM (23 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

That's called Pantheism.

. the universe doesn't "know" or give a fuck about anything. it just is.

hmm, y'know some people have said this about God too. theologians even.

xp

the universe doesn't "know" or give a fuck about anything. it just is.

hey you know what else people say just is

oh lol xp

The best thing about being Jewish is that you can be a Jewish Atheist.

i've known a great many people of various faiths who believe in a divinity that works through the supposedly material "natural order of things."

― always have time for the crystalline entity (contenderizer), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 5:44 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

this is most of the ppl of faith that i know. who then appeal to personalized conceptions of god/whoever when it suits them

I think if your religious beliefs and definitions are constantly changing in response to new scientific findings, then you've relegated god to a pretty sad role.

- wk

oh come on. you can't both rationally argue against religious mythology and condescendingly sneer at faith that isn't dependent on such mythology.

This is just wrong, Obi Wan Kenobi. You're talking about the fucking Force.

which authoritative religious text/commentary would you prefer me to quote here?

xp

That's called Pantheism.

- thirdalternative

well, it might be called pantheism, but isn't necessarily that. many christians claim to perceive the divine in all aspects of creation, even in science and the material workings of the universe. this isn't pantheism, it's monotheistic christianity.

help me out. of what utility is it in this particular discussion to focus on the cultural/economic origins of atheism? and how is the distinction between theism and atheism any less than fundamental?

I dont think the distinction is "necessary" in the philosophical sense of necessary. There are no fundamental distinctions! We could as easily be debating why there is something as opposed to nothing. The existence or non-existence of God is only meaningful in certain contexts (other distinctions).

It's useful to point this out because the problem with Dawkins et al is just that myopia. He doesn't take his own observational stance as anything less than necessary. As gregory Bateson puts it, science doesnt "prove" things. That's not how it works.

feel like no one itt is really addressing the question at hand, which is: give that islam is an unmitigated evil, should you donate to christian charities in africa

things are created without intelligence all the time lol

Is that what Christians mean by "creation"?

and, as I pointed out in a different post, the "god of the gaps" thing was a very narrow idea put forth by creationists in response to evolution. it is not really a commonly accepted or mainstream conception of god. Dawkins angle here is the very essence of a strawman argument.

I think you misunderstand. Dawkins is hardly using the term as something that a believer would use to self-identify. He's using the term to describe exactly your position. The idea that "God" really means "the whole universe" and beliefs like that.

what better way to refer to the TOTALITY of everything? Monotheism is a way of conceptualizing God as the sum total of everything that exists.

And that is a specific claim about your knowledge of God! It rules out pantheistic points of view for example.

max arrrrrgh OTM

things are created without intelligence all the time lol

ILE threads, fer instance...

surprised that one hung there for as long as it did

easy lay-up

. the universe doesn't "know" or give a fuck about anything. it just is.

hmm, y'know some people have said this about God too. theologians even.

xp

― american thinker (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 11:46 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

the universe doesn't "know" or give a fuck about anything. it just is.

hey you know what else people say just is

oh lol xp

― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, May 11, 2011 11:46 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

hmmm... theologians say a lot of things, don't they? but if you went into even the most inclusive, liberal, modern, practically-bordering-on-agnostic church and told them god doesn't know anything or give a fuck about any of us, i'm sure it would raise a few eyebrows, to say the least.

you can't use the argument that literalist fundies only make up a tiny fraction of religious belief and then use an even tinier fraction of intellectual believers as an example of what religious people really think.

why do you care so much

"I had a kind of revelation in the Sinai desert, where Moses received the Ten Commandments. Suddenly I experienced a total rejection of monotheism. In this very rocky, inspiring land, I said to myself that the idea of believing in only one God was cretinous. I could not think of another word. And the stupidest religion of all is Islam. When one reads the Koran one is devastated, devastated. At least the Bible is very beautiful because the Jews have a sacred literary talent which can excuse a lot of things." (Michel Houellebecq)

"I know that Islam - by far the most stupid, false and obfuscating of all religions - currently seems to be gaining ground, but it's a transitory and superficial phenomenon: in the long term, Islam is even more doomed than Christianity." (Michel Houellebecq, Les particules élémentaires)

"In literary terms, the Bible has several authors, some good and some as bad as crap. The Koran has only one author and its overall style is mediocre." (Michel Houellebecq)

Perhaps the problem is that many of us want to thrust, say, aquinas or cusa or augustine into this debate when really all Dawkins is about is pretty much trolling fundamentalists the way a postmodernist philosopher would troll him.