|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Atheists and Holidays
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
That's how he feels. Other people feel differently. Perhaps very differently. If he, like you, can't imagine how other people think, then that really is irrelevant.
Dawkins has talked about why he attends carol services anyway; why not just take his word for it ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, Dawkins doesn't slag off the Church of England all year - he is always saying how fond he is of it. Inconsistent? I don't care really, as I know how inconsistent I am about tons of things. It's called being human.
He's OK with it so far as it has pretty buildings and nice music. He doesn't like it when it attempts to actually preach the Gospel.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just find it odd to say that atheists having a Christmas holiday is odd. Hint: Christmas is a secular holiday for many people. Big meal, prezzies, tons of booze and telly - not a hint of baby Jesus.
And I've already said there is so much secular stuff about Christmas that for an atheist to also go into church for carols is going well beyond just seeing it as a public holiday.
Anyway I know all you see in my posts is "not same opinion as me so wrong" and skip most of their actual content.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Or why not contact him? He has his own web-site, so you can probably contact him there. It would be interesting to see his reply, although the link above seems to give it anyway.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, Dawkins doesn't slag off the Church of England all year - he is always saying how fond he is of it. Inconsistent? I don't care really, as I know how inconsistent I am about tons of things. It's called being human.
He's OK with it so far as it has pretty buildings and nice music. He doesn't like it when it attempts to actually preach the Gospel.
Correct. Which is why it's perfectly consistent and non-hypocritical of him to attend carol services to belt out carols.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's how he feels. Other people feel differently. Perhaps very differently. If he, like you, can't imagine how other people think, then that really is irrelevant.
Obviously Karl. That's why we're even having a debate. You see things one way, I see it another. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'm not trying to tell anyone what to think. I'm telling you what I think. And being told "seekingsister, you shouldn't think that way." So who's the person who isn't respective of differing opinions, exactly?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's how he feels. Other people feel differently. Perhaps very differently. If he, like you, can't imagine how other people think, then that really is irrelevant.
Obviously Karl. That's why we're even having a debate. You see things one way, I see it another.
I'm not trying to tell anyone what to think. I'm telling you what I think. And being told "seekingsister, you shouldn't think that way." So who's the person who isn't respective of differing opinions, exactly?
I think the problem is that you don't seem to accept Dawkins' own explanation of how he thinks.
And I still can't understand why it bothers you. I understand it does, but I'm not clear why.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
While I speak for no one but myself, many occasions in my life require that I attend religious services. Friends, relatives, colleagues, and clients who themselves are believers get married, have and baptize babies, and sadly, die. When it's someone I care about, and I am invited, I go to their funerals, baptisms, bar- and bas-mitzvahs, and weddings. When I know the relevant hymns and prayers, I join in.
Why?
Not because I believe in God, or in the words, and not because I'm worshipping, but because (A) that's the behavioral norm at such times, and (B)I have been part of this person's (and/or their family's) world for several years. They have honored that by inviting me to the occasion, and I would be a precious and pretentious oaf to withhold my support at such a time.
I am never worshipping when I participate. I am simply recognizing that the occasion, not being about me in any way, shape, or form, is NO TIME TO BE CALLING ATTENTION TO MYSELF OR MY CONSCIENCE by refusing to participate.
And frankly, just as I would be a rude, churlish attention-whore to be expressing my private objections in the midst of someone else's momentous occasion, anyone quizzing me about the nature of my participation would be doing likewise, because occasions like these are NOT ABOUT THE PARTICIPANTS, but about the people whose wedding, baptism, bar-mitzvah, or funeral it is.
As to Christmas, I am often called upon to take clients to various services. Staff (mostly) get that day off; clients (mostly) have no transport or involved family; and the client wants to participate in the grand cultural sweep of things. Why shouldn't I support and facilitate this? It's my job! Why shouldn't I sing along?
And, FFS, why would I relegate myself and my client to the sidelines, grumpily Scrooging at the goings-on around us? What conceivable purpose would that serve?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
He's OK with it so far as it has pretty buildings and nice music. He doesn't like it when it attempts to actually preach the Gospel.
Neither do I, if a church has advertised a carol service or remembrance service etc far and wide, leafleting etc. They clearly want all comers to come. To then wham them between the eyes with an evangelical message is rude imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I very strongly believe there is no god and no supernatural anything, yet I really love Christmas, with full churchy trimmings. I love and admire and appreciate much religious music, art, buildings and indeed many religious practices. The idea of God is plainly silly guff to me, but the cultural heritage of religion is often beautiful, inspiring and profoundly uplifting to me. And I really enjoy the way some Christian people sometimes actually practice their religious philosophy, especially with regard to kindness and charity. For this atheist, Christmas wouldn’t be Christmas without Christ, even though He obviously doesn’t exist.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
He's OK with it so far as it has pretty buildings and nice music. He doesn't like it when it attempts to actually preach the Gospel.
Neither do I, if a church has advertised a carol service or remembrance service etc far and wide, leafleting etc. They clearly want all comers to come. To then wham them between the eyes with an evangelical message is rude imo.
It's "rude" to evangelize in a church?
Wow, no wonder Christianity is in decline in Europe.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I cheerfully sing songs about Santa Claus, about his flying reindeer, about you have to be nice instead of naughty if you want Christmas gifts. I go to parties where we all sing these songs, I don't believed a word of it, but it's fun to get together with other people and sing familiar songs.
So why would I think it odd for an atheist to sing songs about baby Jesus, about a special star and three kings (Bible never mentions 3 kings, it's an unknown number of magi - is that song "worship" when sung in church even though it embraces known inaccuracy)? If I can enjoy gathering with others to sing about a person I don't believe, so can anyone!
To an unbeliever, church is just a building, Jesus as unreal as Santa Claus, and worship is a meaningless word. No they aren't worshiping, they are at a stylized singing party.
Frankly, on Christmas Eve, so am I. It's party time, especially for those of us who live alone and would otherwise have no companionship Christmas Eve, in contrast to happy memories of large family gatherings. Don't go interrupting the party music with long readings - keep 'em short, a pause before the next song.
One friend took me to his church Christmas Eve, and was deeply apologetic when they added Holy Communion. He apologized in church when they started it, and apologized after church. It's not the kind of event he thought he was inviting me to, and we are both Christians! Any Sunday morning, we would expect/want that, but Christmas Eve? No.
So I think it's fair to say neither of us was there to worship, but to enjoy a cultural aspect of Christmas - singing lots of carols with lots of other people in a formalized setting with lots of decorations and stunning organ music, sitting inattentively through the lessons that are just part of the package.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
seekingsister: It's "rude" to evangelize in a church?
Rude perhaps not, but I do tend to avoid churches where they do this. And I'm a Christian.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It's "rude" to evangelize in a church?
Wow, no wonder Christianity is in decline in Europe.
No - it's rude to invite people on one premise then hit them with another, it doesn't get people in. It puts them off, big style.
If people are not asking the questions, don't push them into a corner. Give them what you offered (Nine lessons and Carols with mince pies) then hope they will begin to ask the questions.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I cheerfully sing songs about Santa Claus, about his flying reindeer, about you have to be nice instead of naughty if you want Christmas gifts. I go to parties where we all sing these songs, I don't believed a word of it, but it's fun to get together with other people and sing familiar songs.
Exactly. You don't need to believe what you read or sing. I hate the sentiments of 'My Way' but will warble it with the best of 'em!
My son stopped believing at 12 years old. He was due to read a lesson in Church and suddenly collapsed in a heap of tears. He's a shy boy so I encouraged him to have a go. But he said "No, it's not that, I just don't believe any of this stuff - I'm sorry" He felt awful, like he was letting me down. I said "I don't mind what you believe, you can believe the sun is a fried egg - I will not love you any less. But you promised to read this time, so just read it as a story, like you would any other story." He did.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Neither do I, if a church has advertised a carol service or remembrance service etc far and wide, leafleting etc. They clearly want all comers to come. To then wham them between the eyes with an evangelical message is rude imo.
Of course it's perfectly possible to give an evangelistic message in a carol service which is appropriately and sensitively done, and NOT to guilt-trip people. Evangelistic does not have to equate to being obnoxious. Nor should it. But Christmas does have a loose connection to, you know, Christ. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
An agnostic friend of mine once said she did want some kind of spiritual experience by coming to a carol service, and I think that's fine. I think a carol service can and should provide that, and not be all apologetic for mentioning Jesus.
I've visited synaogogues, mosques, Sikh and Hindu temples: none of those people watered down their faith just because a bunch of Christians were present, and I wouldn't expect them to. Why would anyone expect Christians to water down their faith? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
As for non-Christians enjoying and singing carols, I have no problem with it. If Dawkins wants to sing a carol, he can knock himself out. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It depends on what you mean by 'evangelize'. If that means being called a hypocrite, I think I'd slowly tip-toe out of there.
But I doubt that that sort of language is used much at carol services!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Laurelin: I've visited synaogogues, mosques, Sikh and Hindu temples: none of those people watered down their faith just because a bunch of Christians were present, and I wouldn't expect them to. Why would anyone expect Christians to water down their faith?
So far, we've been talking about walking up to a newcomer after the service is over, with the aim of evangelising.
I've been to all of the places you mentioned, repeatedly. In none of them, someone has come towards me after the event with the goal to convert me.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on what you mean by 'evangelize'. If that means being called a hypocrite, I think I'd slowly tip-toe out of there.
Drop it q - I never said I plan to identify atheists at church and shout "HYPOCRITE" in their faces.
I doubt you'd be caught dead in my happy clappy neck of the woods anyway.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
By her standards, I'm probably a bit staid, but I'm with Seeking Sister on this one. I also agree with Laurelin. I can't see why any unbeliever, whether Dawkins or anyone else feels they have any grounds for complaint whatsoever, if they go to a church, claiming they are just there for the music or a gooey feeling, and when they get there somebody preaches a sermon calling them to repent and believe. We aren't in the business of providing music or a nice gooey feeling unless that draws people towards faith in Jesus.
On the other hand, there's always the thought that Dawkins might go to a carol service and have an experience like St Paul's on the road to Damascus. Wouldn't that be wonderful. What a demonstration of how God 'desireth not the death of a sinner but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live'. I have to admit though, that a less worthy part of me would rejoice at how 'he hath put down the mighty from their seats and hath exalted the humble and meek'.
By the way, the equation with singing about Santa Claus and reindeer doesn't work. Nobody believes in them. So nobody is affronted or suspicious of people singing about them from a position of unbelief 'just because it's Christmas'. Lots of us do believe that "the heavenly babe you there shall find, to human view displayed".
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
By the way, the equation with singing about Santa Claus and reindeer doesn't work. Nobody believes in them.
Plenty of children do
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
I believe all should be welcome and offered hospitality in the church, no questions asked. I do, however, also believe in basic good manners. If somebody offers you hospitality, they shelter you in the building they and their predecessors have built and maintained, they provide entertainment (assuming that's how you see it as an atheist, rather than worship) and refreshments, you accept this hospitality and you should say thank-you and be on your way, if you're really generous you might sling a few bucks into the collection plate.
This is what most atheists/agnostics do. What is grossly ill-mannered (and also hypocritical IMO but I'll settle for ill-mannered) is to accept the hospitality and then go about saying that your hosts are imbeciles, they are the cause of most of the violence and evil in the world and they should be stripped of their centuries old role in society. This is what Dawkins does when he darkens the doorstep of a church. Thankfully, he is in the minority of non-believers who make the occasional visit to church.
As good Christians, we should turn the other cheek of course and pray he does indeed have a road to Damascus experience, actually I think Dawkins and St Paul have a lot in common but that's another story.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Dawkins also says that he loves the church of England, and he is a cultural Christian. Complicated man - but who isn't?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
they shelter you in the building they and their predecessors have built and maintained,
Many churches were built on the back of tithes paid by the whole community whether they wanted to or not. They are now maintained partly through tax exemptions and by appeals to the outside community to pay into the giant thermometers next to the door. They're not just yours.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Christmas is a secular holiday as well as a religious holiday. Are the banks and the post office hypocritical if they are closed on Christmas and are not Christians?
If people participate without worshipping you call them hypocritical. If they refuse to participate there are complaints about the war on Christmas.
Singing carols is an act of worship for you. It's not for me. I know the words are religious but I choose not to believe them any more than I believe Mr Froggy went a courting. I sing songs without avowing the lyrics. If you find that hypocritical or irrational, too bad.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by seekingsister quote:
They are welcome in my church or any church, as long as they are willing to engage if the question is asked, why are you here if you don't believe?
They're in church to little Xanthe dressed as an angel, to see Milo in caftan and tea-towel playing a shepherd and laugh at little Phoebe sending all the other sheep into fits of laughter.
Please, SS, you're trying to complicate something that isn't difficult to understand: people want to sing carols, the church has a carol service or nativity tableau - its the equivalent of 1+1 =
As for why Mr Dawkins likes the music and the architecture but not the message, well thats his prerogative.
And surely if we really believe in the power of the Holy Spirit then we believe and accept that it can work miracles and turn hearts of stone, so maybe the hearts of Dawkins, and the parents of the little angel, will also be touched? Who are we to deny the possibility?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
By her standards, I'm probably a bit staid, but I'm with Seeking Sister on this one. I also agree with Laurelin. I can't see why any unbeliever, whether Dawkins or anyone else feels they have any grounds for complaint whatsoever, if they go to a church, claiming they are just there for the music or a gooey feeling, and when they get there somebody preaches a sermon calling them to repent and believe. We aren't in the business of providing music or a nice gooey feeling unless that draws people towards faith in Jesus.
On the other hand, there's always the thought that Dawkins might go to a carol service and have an experience like St Paul's on the road to Damascus. Wouldn't that be wonderful.
The trouble is, these two perspectives don't sit easily with each other. It's a bit contradictory to promote a worship service 'for everyone', hoping that some might even come to faith through the experience, if you also take the view that only thoroughly respectful and worshipful people ought to attend.
In reality we live in a secular society. Most people appear to be highly ambivalent about the value of respecting religious faith or of worshipping God, even the small number who turn up for a Christmas service. Some of them may well be hypocritical, but it could also be argued that some of the churches are a bit hypocritical too, because they're so desperate to get a few more people through the doors at least once or twice a year that they don't care....
It would be interesting to know more about the range of evangelical responses to the 'problem' of Christmas. In my mother's Pentecostal background not much was made of it, but maybe that was mirrored by the society she lived in them.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Dawkins also says that he loves the church of England, and he is a cultural Christian. Complicated man - but who isn't?
He seeks to destroy that which he loves, perhaps he really IS the antichrist.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
I can see where seekingsister's coming from: for me, personally, I find it hard to take part in things I don't really believe in. For example, I attended the centenary mass of our local RC church in the spring, which included prayers to the saints and Mary. I didn't take part in those prayers (in the sense of joining in the responses), because that's not something I believe in (to put it crudely).
But the point is that that was my choice which I was free to make: when I received the invitation, no one sent me a list of what was going to happen and said my attendance was provisional on me agreeing to all those things. I wasn't quizzed in the presbytery before or on going into the church itself about whether I would agree to and take part in everything that formed part of the liturgy. I wasn't barred from the after-service reception because I hadn't participated in the prayers to the saints. I felt free not to do that.
So I find myself agreeing with L'Organist and others. One of the highlights of the Christmas services at our place is the Carols by Candelight, which some children from our local infant school come and take part in by singing some carols etc. The church is full and, I have to admit, I think it's great.
Now I'm under no illusions: most of those people at the service, aside from the people who attend our church regularly, are not there because they really want to come to church: they're there because their children/grandchildren/nephews/nieces etc. are singing in the service and they're dead proud of them and want to see them singing. We hold the service on a Saturday and none of them will be there the next day.
Does it matter? No, I don't think so. It's part of their Christmas; it's as much a cultural thing as a religious thing and that's, not ideal, but better than nothing. For some people at the service, the carols will reflect their faith and beliefs about Christmas; for some, it will be something you do at Christmas; for some it'll be "what we have to do to see our kids sing". But I really don't think it matters, that much. I'm glad they're there, that it gives us a chance to make links with the community and, yes, to tell them something of the gospel - bearing in mind that this should be good news, shouldn't be rammed down their throats and should never, ever sound like "where the hell have you been for the other 51 weeks of the year? You only come to see your children sing!!"
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I don't pay attention to Dawkins so I don't know his position on churches (which may be a different topic from his position on Christianity).
Most of my atheist friends don't see them as identical. They don't want Christianity forced on them in schools or public gatherings starting with prayer or influencing a "Christian" President's decision to start a war against a country that was not involved in an attack on us.
They have no objection to the existence of churches, admire some of the artwork and music, and appreciate the Salvation Army's work with the poor.
But they strongly argue if people want their special interest club it should not be partially funded by the tax system through deductions for donations and exemptions from real estate taxes, because that requires everyone to indirectly support the churches which benefit only a few.
If Dawkins wants all churches torn down so he never passes a reminder that some people did or do believe in God, then it doesn't make sense to me if he goes to one to sing carols. But if he is merely against the power of the church to tap the wallets of the general public through the tax system and against any church influence on education or public discourse, I see no conflict.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If Dawkins wants all churches torn down so he never passes a reminder that some people did or do believe in God, then it doesn't make sense to me if he goes to one to sing carols. But if he is merely against the power of the church to tap the wallets of the general public through the tax system and against any church influence on education or public discourse, I see no conflict.
Dawkins thinks parents teaching children about their religion is child abuse. Teaching children about religion is one of the prime purposes for churches. He's a hypocrite.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Dawkins thinks parents teaching children about their religion is child abuse. Teaching children about religion is one of the prime purposes for churches. He's a hypocrite.
Particularly since presumably he thinks it should be compulsory to teach children the sort of unbelief he stands for, probably also with his particular version of natural selection as against any of the others.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Dawkins is a hypocrite. But are you proposing booting all hypocrites from the premises? That might be a bit more problematic.....
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dawkins is a hypocrite. But are you proposing booting all hypocrites from the premises? That might be a bit more problematic.....
Not at all, and I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. My purpose is to counter the notion that he's just a nice man who likes the occasional Christmas carol. He is a sworn enemy of Christianity and a foul hypocrite, and the poster child for Arseholes R Us. People need to stop trying to portray him as the atheist Mr. Rogers.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dawkins is a hypocrite. But are you proposing booting all hypocrites from the premises? That might be a bit more problematic.....
Not at all, and I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. My purpose is to counter the notion that he's just a nice man who likes the occasional Christmas carol. He is a sworn enemy of Christianity and a foul hypocrite, and the poster child for Arseholes R Us. People need to stop trying to portray him as the atheist Mr. Rogers.
Exactly MT!!
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dawkins is a hypocrite. But are you proposing booting all hypocrites from the premises? That might be a bit more problematic.....
Not at all, and I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. My purpose is to counter the notion that he's just a nice man who likes the occasional Christmas carol. He is a sworn enemy of Christianity and a foul hypocrite, and the poster child for Arseholes R Us. People need to stop trying to portray him as the atheist Mr. Rogers.
Oh, I am not defending Dawkins. Don't like the man. It is more that I think Christianity faces more internal problems that from tossers like him.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Anyone who founds part of his argument on a notion that the 'memes' that he doesn't like have a life of their own, without being able to see that this is incompatible with any form of materialism, and is dependent on positing the existence of some sort of spiritual or non-material realm unnameable to scientific observation, even is he is hesitant to describe what it's like, lacks any intellectual respectability whatsoever.
He should not be taken seriously. This should be pointed out at every opportunity.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oh, I am not defending Dawkins. Don't like the man. It is more that I think Christianity faces more internal problems that from tossers like him.
No argument here. He is a biting fly with short teeth, and will be long dead while Christianity lives on, cf. Voltaire.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No argument here. He is a biting fly with short teeth, and will be long dead while Christianity lives on, cf. Voltaire.
An odd comparison.
Barring disasters like rapid cataclysmic climate change or nuclear war both Atheism and Christianity will live on long after everyone now alive is dead. If that gives you comfort; enjoy the thought.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Barring disasters like rapid cataclysmic climate change or nuclear war both Atheism and Christianity will live on long after everyone now alive is dead. If that gives you comfort; enjoy the thought.
However, being an optimist, I think that the balance of numbers of adherents will hswing in favour of atheism!
As far as holidays are concerned, my family are atheists. I go to them for the three days of Christmas and we have a very pleasant time, with typical Christmas food and presents. One granddaughter's birthday is on 26th so that's a differently special day.
[ 16. November 2014, 08:51: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Anyone who founds part of his argument on a notion that the 'memes' that he doesn't like have a life of their own, without being able to see that this is incompatible with any form of materialism, and is dependent on positing the existence of some sort of spiritual or non-material realm unnameable to scientific observation, even is he is hesitant to describe what it's like, lacks any intellectual respectability whatsoever.
He should not be taken seriously. This should be pointed out at every opportunity.
I don't think the idea of memes really took off. For one thing, comparing them with genes is a mistake; for another thing, the people in semiotics pointed out that they have been using ideas such as 'signs', 'symbols' and 'icons' for a long time, and the notion of memes doesn't add very much.
I think Dawkins is taken seriously as a popularizer of science, which he is very good at. For example, his book 'The Blind Watchmaker' is a clear exposition of some complicated ideas about evolution. The section on the evolution of the eye is very clear.
He also writes beautifully, and in fact, lyrically at times; for example, here is he describing soldier ants, who guard the queen: 'they guard the master copies of the very instructions that made them do the guarding. They were guarding the wisdom of their ancestors, the Ark of the Covenant'.
Going off topic, really.
[ 16. November 2014, 13:34: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Dawkins is taken seriously as a popularizer of science, which he is very good at. For example, his book 'The Blind Watchmaker' is a clear exposition of some complicated ideas about evolution. The section on the evolution of the eye is very clear.
He also writes beautifully, and in fact, lyrically at times;
He also reads superbly. His voice has all the right qualities for a talking book. It doesn't matter how good the book is, if the voice is wrong, it's just impossible to listen to the contents.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
However, being an optimist, I think that the balance of numbers of adherents will hswing in favour of atheism!
I suspect both will be around for many generations. There will also be new belief practices and variations which will change relative populations.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Dawkins is taken seriously as a popularizer of science, which he is very good at. For example, his book 'The Blind Watchmaker' is a clear exposition of some complicated ideas about evolution. The section on the evolution of the eye is very clear.
He also writes beautifully, and in fact, lyrically at times; for example, here is he describing soldier ants, who guard the queen: 'they guard the master copies of the very instructions that made them do the guarding. They were guarding the wisdom of their ancestors, the Ark of the Covenant'.
Going off topic, really.
Yeah and Mark Driscoll was taken seriously as a "populariser" of the gospel, I accord them about the same respect.
<tongue in cheek> he can bugga off acquiring religious images and concepts too, go find his own atheist equivalent of the ark of the covenant.<end tongue in cheek>
[code]
[ 16. November 2014, 19:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
By the way, have you read anything that Dawkins has written?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Maybe there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says anytime Dawkins is brought up in a discussion about atheism (where something he said/wrote wasn't the original basis), then the argument is lost.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Maybe there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says anytime Dawkins is brought up in a discussion about atheism (where something he said/wrote wasn't the original basis), then the argument is lost.
That's just stupid. And doubly absurd on his thread -- When the thread is about atheists celebrating the holidays, and we know the world's most famous atheist gleefully celebrates Christmas by going to carol services, it's hardly off-topic to bring him in. Cheap shot.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Maybe there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says anytime Dawkins is brought up in a discussion about atheism (where something he said/wrote wasn't the original basis), then the argument is lost.
That's just stupid. And doubly absurd on his thread -- When the thread is about atheists celebrating the holidays, and we know the world's most famous atheist gleefully celebrates Christmas by going to carol services, it's hardly off-topic to bring him in. Cheap shot.
But it had the effect of turning the bulk of the thread into a discussion just of Dawkins, not the larger question (well, except for the delightful excusion courtesy of SeekingSister). That's my reason for raising the comaparison between Godwin's Law and the "Dawkins Corollary"--the discussion then is completely derailed into the endless arguments about Dawkins.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Dawkins is taken seriously as a popularizer of science, which he is very good at. For example, his book 'The Blind Watchmaker' is a clear exposition of some complicated ideas about evolution. The section on the evolution of the eye is very clear.
He also writes beautifully, and in fact, lyrically at times; for example, here is he describing soldier ants, who guard the queen: 'they guard the master copies of the very instructions that made them do the guarding. They were guarding the wisdom of their ancestors, the Ark of the Covenant'.
Going off topic, really.
Yeah and Mark Driscoll was taken seriously as a "populariser" of the gospel, I accord them about the same respect.
<tongue in cheek> he can bugga off acquiring religious images and concepts too, go find his own atheist equivalent of the ark of the covenant.<end tongue in cheek>
[code]
I'm a bit puzzled by your first remark. Are you saying that 'The Blind Watchmaker' is not a very good book?
Or are you saying that Dawkins' atheism renders him unsuitable as a science writer?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Maybe there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says anytime Dawkins is brought up in a discussion about atheism (where something he said/wrote wasn't the original basis), then the argument is lost.
That's just stupid. And doubly absurd on his thread -- When the thread is about atheists celebrating the holidays, and we know the world's most famous atheist gleefully celebrates Christmas by going to carol services, it's hardly off-topic to bring him in. Cheap shot.
But it had the effect of turning the bulk of the thread into a discussion just of Dawkins, not the larger question (well, except for the delightful excusion courtesy of SeekingSister). That's my reason for raising the comaparison between Godwin's Law and the "Dawkins Corollary"--the discussion then is completely derailed into the endless arguments about Dawkins.
So we should not talk about any examples, lest it derail the thread, and speak only in generalities?
[ 17. November 2014, 14:03: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
