Dawkins Demolished

[John Skelton]

This conversation between Richard Dawkins and Steven Rose is interesting.

http://atheistmovies.blogspot.com/2010/06/richard-dawkins-interviews-steven-rose.html

[Richard Tarleton]

Here (its in am's post above)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/9696135.stm

thanks Mr GG and am!

[scottycelt]

I can well understand some atheists being 'embarrassed' by Dawkins in much the same way as some Christians are 'embarrassed' by the actions and words of other Christians.

Dawkins is the almost exact mirror-image of a 'bible-thumper' at Hyde Park Corner. He is on a crusade, a mission, a self-appointed evangelist for atheism.

Nothing much wrong with that, expect that most of us are perfectly capable of making up our own minds about the big questions of life without the need for a censorious bible-thumper or smugly self-regarding Richard Dawkins insisting that they do it for us ...

[french frank]

I haven't read The Dawkins Delusion, but if as I imagine it's arguing against the non-existence of God I'd politely suggest that it's impossible for such a work to be "surgical" or "logical".

It isn't that. It analyses the arguments Dawkins uses and what the author regards as Dawkins' 'Wikipedia knowledge' of some of the other disciplines he ventures into. It points out his wide use of rhetoric rather than rationalism to press his view, and that some of his arguments are identically flawed like those he seeks to destroy. It claims that in scientific fields outside his own area of expertise he blunders; and that he distorts the arguments and beliefs of his opponents.

This doesn't mean that he isn't 'right' but that he is himself too much of a fundamentalist to be a convincing advocate for his cause.

[MrGongGong]

I can well understand some atheists being 'embarrassed' by Dawkins in much the same way as some Christians are 'embarrassed' by the actions and words of other Christians.

You mean the ones who actually do what Jesus suggested ?

[Flosshilde]

most of us are perfectly capable of making up our own minds about the big questions of life without the need for a censorious bible-thumper ... insisting that they do it for us ...

But isn't that exactly what you have in the Pope, Scotty?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

..do i get a feeling this might be a touch ad infinitum as well ........................................... eh?


meanwhile this was an eloquent and informed programme on not too far away topics

[Bryn]

This conversation between Richard Dawkins and Steven Rose is interesting.

http://atheistmovies.blogspot.com/20...even-rose.html

Many thanks for that. I always enjoyed Rose's lectures and debates.

[amateur51]

This conversation between Richard Dawkins and Steven Rose is interesting.

http://atheistmovies.blogspot.com/20...even-rose.html

Very interesting, John - many thanks

Nice scarf, Prof Rose

[amateur51]

I can well understand some atheists being 'embarrassed' by Dawkins in much the same way as some Christians are 'embarrassed' by the actions and words of other Christians.

Dawkins is the almost exact mirror-image of a 'bible-thumper' at Hyde Park Corner. He is on a crusade, a mission, a self-appointed evangelist for atheism.

Evangelist for evolution and Darwinism, scotty.

The atheism is a consequence of that

[scottycelt]

But isn't that exactly what you have in the Pope, Scotty?

Nope ... I can either regard or disregard whatever comes from Rome by either choosing to remain Catholic or not ... no problem whatsoever. The Pope and Cardinals merely intrepret scripture and teach (which is their job) and It's entirely up to me or anyone else to decide for themselves whether to accept that teaching.

Dawkins wants to ban religion from public life which is a direct assault on free thought and individual freedom of action. He, not the Pope, wants to impose his will on others ... quite different!

On reflection, I may have been a bit unfair on bible-thumpers in carelessly lumping them with Professor Dawkins ...

[scottycelt]

..do i get a feeling this might be a touch ad infinitum as well ........................................... eh?

Yes, but dont blame me, Guv, the record shows it's never me that starts such threads ... they are irresistible, though ...

[amateur51]

****

Nope ... I can either regard or disregard whatever comes from Rome by either choosing to remain Catholic or not ... no problem whatsoever. The Pope and Cardinals merely intrepret scripture and teach (which is their job) and It's entirely up to me or anyone else to decide for themselves whether to accept that teaching.

Dawkins wants to ban religion from public life which is a direct assault on free thought and individual freedom of action. He, not the Pope, wants to impose his will on others ... quite different!

On reflection, I may have been a bit unfair on bible-thumpers in carelessly lumping them with Professor Dawkins ...

'Ang on, 'ang on! Prof D does not want to ban anything - he just wants the considerable benefits that the Christian religion has been afforded in our society for centuries to be ended and for creationism to be excluded from the science curriculum.

And I agree with him.

[Flosshilde]

Nope ... I can either regard or disregard whatever comes from Rome by either choosing to remain Catholic or not ... no problem whatsoever. The Pope and Cardinals merely intrepret scripture and teach (which is their job) and It's entirely up to me or anyone else to decide for themselves whether to accept that teaching.

Dawkins wants to ban religion from public life which is a direct assault on free thought and individual freedom of action. He, not the Pope, wants to impose his will on others ... quite different!

On reflection, I may have been a bit unfair on bible-thumpers in carelessly lumping them with Professor Dawkins ...

Hmm - I've always thought that the Catholic Church's view is 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic', and that there is also a doctrine of 'Papal infalibility'. As far as deciding to accept the Pope's teaching, what about things like contraception? I know many Catholics do use it, but the Pope's instruction is that it's sinful, & it is preached against by priests. If you doubt that, consider this -

"Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly."
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control (scroll down to the end to find this quote)

[Bryn]

Hmm - I've always thought that the Catholic Church's view is 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic', and that there is also a doctrine of 'Papal infalibility[sic]'. As far as deciding to accept the Pope's teaching, what about things like contraception? I know many Catholics do use it, but the Pope's instruction is that it's sinful, & it is preached against by priests.

I used to believe all the stuff about 'Papal infallibility' until an old flame (a committed Italian RC on the council of her local church in Piacenza) advised that the final arbiter for a Roman Catholic was always their personal conviction, not that of the Pope.