Dawkins Demolished

[scottycelt]

Because (and to repeat I'm not a "follower" of anyone !!) there is a deep hypocrisy at the heart of much "christianity". From what I understand christians should renounce all acts of violence (for example) yet we see the leaders of the churches praying for the military and justifying acts which are completely counter to what they apparently espouse.

If you REALLY believe what it says in the book then why not act accordingly !

That is a gross misunderstanding of Christianity.

Praying for those involved in military adventures not does indicate support for any adventure. Christians believe that everyone is a sinner including the Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury and, not least, themselves. Priests and vicars don't normally go around waving nationalist flags and banners, they simply offer prayers for everyone, including atheists like Professor Dawkins.

However, to respond to your remarks head on there can be such a thing as a just war, as you possibly might agree, though such cases probably apply to a very small minority of human conflicts.

The fight, say, against Nazism would almost certainly come under that category, and people of all religions and none were involved in the struggle.

Alas, we all tend to be hypocrites, which Christ was not particularly slow to point out to his followers and secular audiences!

[MrGongGong]

That is a gross misunderstanding of Christianity.

Praying for those involved in military adventures not does indicate support for any adventure. Christians believe that everyone is a sinner including the Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury and, not least, themselves. Priests and vicars don't normally go around waving nationalist flags and banners, they simply offer prayers for everyone, including atheists like Professor Dawkins.

However, to respond to your remarks head on there can be such a thing as a just war, as you possibly might agree, though such cases probably apply to a very small minority of human conflicts.

The fight, say, against Nazism would almost certainly come under that category, and people of all religions and none were involved in the struggle.

Alas, we all tend to be hypocrites, which Christ was not particularly slow to point out to his followers and secular audiences!

classic fudge

Which part of "Thou Shalt not Kill" have I misunderstood ?
seems pretty unequivocal to me

and


"Praying for those involved in military adventures" DOES imply support i'm afraid , whenever clergy (and all respect to them) have tried to involve the "enemy" in these prayers they have been attacked and marginalised ............I seem to remember a controversy about this after the Falklands war.......

(which is not to say that everyone in the world is lovely and nice etc etc etc )

[vinteuil]

... there is a deep hypocrisy at the heart of much "christianity". From what I understand christians should renounce all acts of violence (for example) yet we see the leaders of the churches praying for the military and justifying acts which are completely counter to what they apparently espouse.
If you REALLY believe what it says in the book then why not act accordingly !

The words of Jesus are not always as cuddly-kind as some people imagine -

Matthew 10:
34. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

He is also particularly unkind to a fig-tree in Mark 11. vv 13-14...

[aeolium]

I don't think it "depends" on them at all; I think it's a "happy coincidence" as far as he's concerned that his views on religion are not inconsistent with the current state of scientific theory. If his views "depended" on those things you would expect all scientists to be convinced atheists like Dawkins, which they aren't.

That doesn't follow at all. One can be strongly influenced by particular thinkers or ideas without colleagues coming to the same conclusions about those thinkers or ideas as you.

As for Dawkins as a Western supremacist - if you don't see that emerging from everything he has to say about geopolitics, from his views on Islam to his views on Africa, then I wonder what you would infer from those views.

You don't mention his views on America, on the 'war on terror', on Bush or on Blair. It's curious for a Western supremacist to be opposed to the actions of Western governments in Iraq and on numerous areas of domestic policy. On the one hand, Dawkins is accused of racism for apparently implying that atheism had no prospects in the foreseeable future in Africa, and on the other, he is accused of Western supremacism in seeking to promulgate that idea there - he really can't win, can he?

[Serial_Apologist]

The words of Jesus are not always as cuddly-kind as some people imagine -

Matthew 10:
34. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

He is also particularly unkind to a fig-tree in Mark 11. vv 13-14...

And not very kind to swine into whom he cast demons...

[scottycelt]

He is also particularly unkind to a fig-tree in Mark 11. vv 13-14...

Maybe it was because the tree was an atheist and didn't give a fig ... ?

[Lateralthinking1]

The problem is that the two people who are wearing boxing gloves on this site - metaphorical (individual representation for groups) - don't make any sense.

They both condemn the human rights abuses of Islam and other religions. In the main, they both condemn the abuses of capitalism which has close links to evolutionary theory and can be more atheist than devout.

It is a fight to the bitter end. Each can only allow one winner and one loser. While values are in the words, it is sadly the fight that is relished most.

Save the planet from the horrid people. Knock someone out.

(Being victims ourselves, we are benign)

[french frank]

(ps - listening to the ubiquitous Richard Coles at the moment; perhaps Rob should have Richard Dawkins on next week, as balance )

Does he like classical music?

1995 choice ... I do appreciate an open mind!

[MrGongGong]

Does he like classical music?

1995 choice ... I do appreciate an open mind!

Indeed
now I wonder whether you would get an archbishop choosing some black metal ? (I would recommend "Carving a Giant" by Gorgoroth for starters )

[french frank]

now I wonder whether you would get an archbishop choosing some black metal ? (I would recommend "Carving a Giant" by Gorgoroth for starters )

Nah, nothing more than The Incredible String Band. Still, they have RVW and Bach in common (I wonder if they'll get sidetracked?).

[Panjandrum]

Does he like classical music?

1995 choice ... I do appreciate an open mind!

Knowing Dawkins' legendary SoH, I suspect there was a little teasing going on with some of those choices.

[teamsaint]

Indeed
now I wonder whether you would get an archbishop choosing some black metal ? (I would recommend "Carving a Giant" by Gorgoroth for starters )

A Metal thread on this site would be fun.............

[John Skelton]

Knowing Dawkins' legendary SoH

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/643452-honouring-christopher-hitchens

I wonder what he'd be like if he didn't have that legendary SoH ("We treasure his bon mots ... " "that this valiant horseman led the charge against the follies and lies of religion.")?

[french frank]

I wonder what he'd be like if he didn't have that legendary SoH

To the cuttingly witty:

“Everybody does have a book in them, but in most cases that's where it should stay.”

Not quite as elegant as Russell Lynes' "Every journalist has a novel in him, which is an excellent place for it." But not bad.

[scottycelt]

classic fudge

Which part of "Thou Shalt not Kill" have I misunderstood ?
seems pretty unequivocal to me

and


"Praying for those involved in military adventures" DOES imply support i'm afraid , whenever clergy (and all respect to them) have tried to involve the "enemy" in these prayers they have been attacked and marginalised ............I seem to remember a controversy about this after the Falklands war.......

(which is not to say that everyone in the world is lovely and nice etc etc etc )

You do have a point regarding 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'

Is shooting dead a gunman (or gunwoman to satisfy the PC-types among us ) who is threatening to spray innocent people with bullets ever justified? The huge majority of people, whether Christian or not, would argue that, sadly, sometimes it is. Christ was surely referring to killing for wholly selfish and personal motives though there are some who might prefer to take a purist view and claim that killing is wrong in any circumstances, even if it saves poor old Granny being battered to death by some thug with a hammer. These same people would not have fought the Nazis (as some refused to do) on moral grounds. Difficult choices!

Your second point is frankly ridiculous, where you appear to suggest that Christians are to blame when others 'attack' and 'marginalise' them for wishing to pray for all combatants in battle.

Maybe you didn't actually mean to suggest that ... ?