|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Atheists and Holidays
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
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.
i originally used the example of Dawkins to differentiate his brand of muscular atheism from the common "live and let live" brand. It was completely relevant to a discussion of whether atheists should celebrate religious holidays. His defenders did get rather personal about defending "the man" which led to a bit of derailment which continues....
Quetzal, I meant I'm not a fan of Dawkin's manner of popularising science, it's so long ago that I glanced at his stuff that I struggle to do an in-depth critique to justify my thoughts, just my feeling that he never acknowledges the limitations of science, it's as though science is omniscient and beyond question, and that's fine if you're talking about some aspects of it but he extends that to areas of inquiry that are conceptual and it does science a disservice in my opinion but I'm not a scientist.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So we should not talk about any examples, lest it derail the thread, and speak only in generalities?
That depends on whether you are trying to make a point about Dawkins personally or atheists in general. He may be an example of an atheist, but he is by no means representative of most other atheists.
I would interpret Siegfried's suggestion as meaning that, if you have to use Dawkins as an example of the beliefs or actions of atheists in general then your arguments are on pretty dubious footing to start with.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Evangeline wrote:
Quetzal, I meant I'm not a fan of Dawkin's manner of popularising science, it's so long ago that I glanced at his stuff that I struggle to do an in-depth critique to justify my thoughts, just my feeling that he never acknowledges the limitations of science, it's as though science is omniscient and beyond question, and that's fine if you're talking about some aspects of it but he extends that to areas of inquiry that are conceptual and it does science a disservice in my opinion but I'm not a scientist.
I do think that Dawkins' approach to religion is often sloppy, especially when he attempts to discuss more philosophical issues. But I feel that in his science books, he is a very fine writer about complicated issues, especially, obviously, in evolutionary biology. So I make a distinction here. But then other scientists make unwise forays into such areas, Hawking for example.
--------------------
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 Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So we should not talk about any examples, lest it derail the thread, and speak only in generalities?
That depends on whether you are trying to make a point about Dawkins personally or atheists in general. He may be an example of an atheist, but he is by no means representative of most other atheists.
I don't think anybody here has claimed otherwise.
quote:
I would interpret Siegfried's suggestion as meaning that, if you have to use Dawkins as an example of the beliefs or actions of atheists in general then your arguments are on pretty dubious footing to start with.
Could be. But that's irrelevant on this thread because that hasn't happened here.
--------------------
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 Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So we should not talk about any examples, lest it derail the thread, and speak only in generalities?
That depends on whether you are trying to make a point about Dawkins personally or atheists in general. He may be an example of an atheist, but he is by no means representative of most other atheists.
I don't think anybody here has claimed otherwise.
quote:
I would interpret Siegfried's suggestion as meaning that, if you have to use Dawkins as an example of the beliefs or actions of atheists in general then your arguments are on pretty dubious footing to start with.
Could be. But that's irrelevant on this thread because that hasn't happened here.
What MT said!
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I do think that Dawkins' approach to religion is often sloppy, especially when he attempts to discuss more philosophical issues.
Can you give an example? (she asks in a very mild, non-challenging voice!)
***
The strong appeal of the carol tunes is a part of so many lives, well, my life anyway. I think it would be lovely to have new, strong, inspiring, powerful , but non-religious words to replace the ones so familiar and memorised unforgettably by so many, particularly people in my age group.
--------------------
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
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
There are lots of opinions on the topic from atheists as well as Christians. Here are a few:
Dos and Don'ts for Atheists at Christmas
Which says it's a good time to engage Christians on why you don't believe - but still don't be a jerk about it.
Why do atheists need to celebrate Christmas? written by an atheist who disagrees with celebrating it.
quote:
Many atheists even celebrate the pagan festival of winter solstice. Why do they need to celebrate a Pagan festival? It is true that many rituals of modern Christmas celebrations are pagan. But this is not a good reason to celebrate Christmas or Solstice. Atheists are neither pagan nor Christian. They don’t uphold ancient pagan superstitions, so why do so with those which happen to be popular at Christmas time? There’s nothing about ancient paganism which is any more rational than modern Christianity.
If Christmas didn't come along with gifts and a nice meal, I don't think the majority of atheists who celebrate it would be interested in doing so.
Coming from the US, we have Thanksgiving which is the big secular cross-religion feast holiday. So an atheist can do Thanksgiving and not celebrate Christmas, and pretty much still have a nice holiday season. In the UK/Europe Christmas is the main event, so it would be more of a sacrifice not to participate in it.
I've spent the holidays in Turkey where obviously most people do not celebrate Christmas, but they've seen enough foreign films to be influenced by it so they give gifts for New Year's. That might make more sense for an atheist to shift their celebrations to, as a matter of consistency.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The strong appeal of the carol tunes is a part of so many lives, well, my life anyway. I think it would be lovely to have new, strong, inspiring, powerful , but non-religious words to replace the ones so familiar and memorised unforgettably by so many, particularly people in my age group.
I suggest you go to any football ground on Boxing Day, and you'll hear exactly that.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Coming from the US, we have Thanksgiving which is the big secular cross-religion feast holiday. So an atheist can do Thanksgiving and not celebrate Christmas, and pretty much still have a nice holiday season. In the UK/Europe Christmas is the main event, so it would be more of a sacrifice not to participate in it.
Except WAAAAAY back on the first page you were questioning how one could be thankful without a belief in God. You're trying to have it both ways now.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Except WAAAAAY back on the first page you were questioning how one could be thankful without a belief in God. You're trying to have it both ways now.
It was not me! I will quote to prove it.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Dog Dad:
New Year's Eve is fine, but even something like Thanksgiving could potentially be 'out'.
Well technically the New Year occurs at the time that the baby Jesus would have been circumcised, so it's related to Christianity.
Thanksgiving is not religious at all, I don't see how being atheist would disqualify one from celebrating it. Surely the apocryphal feast between the pilgrims and the Native Americans meant (at least) two different religious groups were at the first one.
Apologies will be accepted ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
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.
As a tolerably attentive reader of Dawkins, it's news to me that he holds either of those opinions.
As far as I am aware he's in favour of teaching about religion, and I think has said that you can't understand, for example, European history or English literature without knowing about Christianity. He famously objects to children being labelled as members of the religions of their parents before they can make up their own minds. His comments on religion and child abuse are probably the least well-judged of his career, but really are not all that extreme or outrageous. What he despises (and considers outright abusive) is traumatising children with unnecesary guilt, fear and hate on the basis of bad or non-existent evidence. Where he differs from most believers is that he doesn't just condemn the worst excesses of religion (we pretty much all do that) but thinks that 'moderate' religion is dangerous because it provides space and support for the more horrible manifestations of faith.
I don't think he's ever advocated teaching unbelief. Critical, evidence-based thinking, perhaps, but not unbelief. I'm not sure where he stands on teaching children his particular take on natural selection as opposed to any alternative version - my guess is that he would be unspeakably delighted if science education in Britain reached the point where the average child could appreciate the distinction.
He's an enemy of Christianity, certainly, but a friend of truth, and for that reason alone I won't be begrudging him his carols at Christmas.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Where [Dawkins] differs from most believers is that he doesn't just condemn the worst excesses of religion (we pretty much all do that) but thinks that 'moderate' religion is dangerous because it provides space and support for the more horrible manifestations of faith.
[...]
He's an enemy of Christianity, certainly, but a friend of truth, and for that reason alone I won't be begrudging him his carols at Christmas.
Christmas is arguably a time when many Christians feel more confident about discussing their faith and religious activities, because it's more culturally acceptable to do so than at other times of the year. So the participation of atheists like Dawkins at this time of the year doesn't help Christians to think logically about the folly of religion, but probably gives religion an annual boost.
IOW, cultural Christianity may be part of the chain that connects 'moderate' Christianity and 'horrible manifestations of faith'.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Coming from the US, we have Thanksgiving which is the big secular cross-religion feast holiday. So an atheist can do Thanksgiving and not celebrate Christmas, and pretty much still have a nice holiday season.
Rather than saying simply that it is "secular," I would say Thanksgiving isn't necessarily religious and can be celebrated in a totally secular way. But many (including me) do consider it a religious or semi-religous holiday—or, if you will, a civil holiday with strong religious (but not sectarian) overtones that can be embraced or ignored by those celebrating.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
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.
As a tolerably attentive reader of Dawkins, it's news to me that he holds either of those opinions.
As far as I am aware he's in favour of teaching about religion, and I think has said that you can't understand, for example, European history or English literature without knowing about Christianity. He famously objects to children being labelled as members of the religions of their parents before they can make up their own minds. His comments on religion and child abuse are probably the least well-judged of his career, but really are not all that extreme or outrageous. What he despises (and considers outright abusive) is traumatising children with unnecesary guilt, fear and hate on the basis of bad or non-existent evidence. Where he differs from most believers is that he doesn't just condemn the worst excesses of religion (we pretty much all do that) but thinks that 'moderate' religion is dangerous because it provides space and support for the more horrible manifestations of faith.
I don't think he's ever advocated teaching unbelief. Critical, evidence-based thinking, perhaps, but not unbelief. I'm not sure where he stands on teaching children his particular take on natural selection as opposed to any alternative version - my guess is that he would be unspeakably delighted if science education in Britain reached the point where the average child could appreciate the distinction.
He's an enemy of Christianity, certainly, but a friend of truth, and for that reason alone I won't be begrudging him his carols at Christmas.
Yes, I was puzzled by those comments. I'm not aware that Dawkins has ever argued that children should be taught that atheism is correct; he would certainly not want children to be taught that religion is! Critical thinking is where it's at.
On 'his version of natural selection', again, I've never seen him say this. He has been involved in a number of controversies, particularly with Gould, on topics such as gene selection, group selection, the role of mass extinctions, punctuated equilibrium (and the Cambrian explosion), convergent evolution, and so on.
Interesting that the Christian paleontologist, Simon Conway Morris, has used convergent evolution to argue that it is predictable.
I doubt if Dawkins would argue that children should be taught his side of these controversies, although I suppose older ones might find some of the controversy interesting.
There is a Wiki entry 'Dawkins vs. Gould', which summarizes some of it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Thanksgiving is not religious at all, I don't see how being atheist would disqualify one from celebrating it. Surely the apocryphal feast between the pilgrims and the Native Americans meant (at least) two different religious groups were at the first one.
Hmm, everything I've read on the origin of Thanksgiving, both American and Canadian, mentions the thanking of God as part of the festivities. Both Washington's first official American Thanksgiving speech and Lincoln's in establishing it as a national day, reference God. And Canada's Parliment mentions thanking God as a reason for the day at least once.
I think Wikipedia says it best. I cannot quote it directly because the new OS on my iPad is not reply window friendly, but it is basically: Thanksgiving has its roots in religious and cultural traditions and has long been celebrated as a secular manner as well.
Christmas is part of a secular tradition as well, along with its carols and other religious symbols. It doesn't intrinsically harm your celebration because others enjoy it as well.
[ 18. November 2014, 16:20: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Except WAAAAAY back on the first page you were questioning how one could be thankful without a belief in God. You're trying to have it both ways now.
I think that was me. My point, which no one has successfully dissuaded me from, is that to be thankful, one has to have someone to thank.
In the case of a birthday present, it's fairly obvious. It's the person who gave it to you. In the case of the good things of life, doubtless there are politicians who would like us to feel grateful to them that the sun rises each morning, but that is so obviously nonsense, that few even of history's most extreme tyrants have been foolish enough to make that claim.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
My point, which no one has successfully dissuaded me from, is that to be thankful, one has to have someone to thank.
You're a retired lawyer, right? Did you have to retire because your brain's shit?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Yorick, knock off the personal insults now, or take them to Hell.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Oh, shit. I am genuinely sorry! This isnt Hell, is it? I am terribly Ship-rusty, having been absent for a while, and lost my bearings. I sincerely alologise to Enoch for being so inappropriate here, and to the H&As for being a cock.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Thank you. Your rustiness is noted. To avoid increased rustiness as delivered by the traditional H&A rusty farm implements, please check your board before posting.*
/hosting
*Yes, this is also a note to self.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Nevertheless, after the insult is decanted, there is still a point left in the bottle: "Thank" is a transitive verb, and that implies an object. I can thank my mom for a Christmas present, I can thank my wife for marrying me, but I can't just thank. Thanking requires a thankee.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
You can thank your community for helping you make a good harvest. That community may or may not include one or more gods.
Next your going to tell me the banks need Christ to close for Christmas.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You can thank your community for helping you make a good harvest. That community may or may not include one or more gods.
Next your going to tell me the banks need Christ to close for Christmas.
Did my post even mention God? Holster your weapon until you learn to aim.
--------------------
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 quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
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.
As a tolerably attentive reader of Dawkins, it's news to me that he holds either of those opinions.
As far as I am aware he's in favour of teaching about religion, and I think has said that you can't understand, for example, European history or English literature without knowing about Christianity. He famously objects to children being labelled as members of the religions of their parents before they can make up their own minds. His comments on religion and child abuse are probably the least well-judged of his career, but really are not all that extreme or outrageous. What he despises (and considers outright abusive) is traumatising children with unnecesary guilt, fear and hate on the basis of bad or non-existent evidence. Where he differs from most believers is that he doesn't just condemn the worst excesses of religion (we pretty much all do that) but thinks that 'moderate' religion is dangerous because it provides space and support for the more horrible manifestations of faith.
I don't think he's ever advocated teaching unbelief. Critical, evidence-based thinking, perhaps, but not unbelief. I'm not sure where he stands on teaching children his particular take on natural selection as opposed to any alternative version - my guess is that he would be unspeakably delighted if science education in Britain reached the point where the average child could appreciate the distinction.
He's an enemy of Christianity, certainly, but a friend of truth, and for that reason alone I won't be begrudging him his carols at Christmas.
Yes, I was puzzled by those comments. I'm not aware that Dawkins has ever argued that children should be taught that atheism is correct; he would certainly not want children to be taught that religion is! Critical thinking is where it's at.
On 'his version of natural selection', again, I've never seen him say this. He has been involved in a number of controversies, particularly with Gould, on topics such as gene selection, group selection, the role of mass extinctions, punctuated equilibrium (and the Cambrian explosion), convergent evolution, and so on.
Interesting that the Christian paleontologist, Simon Conway Morris, has used convergent evolution to argue that it is predictable.
I doubt if Dawkins would argue that children should be taught his side of these controversies, although I suppose older ones might find some of the controversy interesting.
There is a Wiki entry 'Dawkins vs. Gould', which summarizes some of it.
I did a quick google to find something "linkable" about Dawkins and his claims that parents bringing children up in their religion is child abuse and found something from the Daily Wail (yeah I know not the best source but it's succinct and I have no reason to believe they misquoted Dawkins"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312813/Richard-Dawkins-Forcing-religion-children-child-abuse-claims-atheist-professo r.html
amongst other things Dawins says
quote:
Professor Dawkins said at the festival that children should be taught religion but scorn should be poured on its claims.
Sounds like teaching atheism to me!!
He also belittles child abuse in a way that, quite rightly would be decried if a representative of the church did so by saying
quote:
In remarks to Qatar-based TV network Al Jazeera, he said: ‘Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.’
Interviewer Mehdi Hasan asked: ‘You believe that being bought up as a Catholic is worse than being abused by a priest?’.
Professor Dawkins replied: ‘There are shades of being abused by a priest, and I quoted an example of a woman in America who wrote to me saying that when she was seven years old she was sexually abused by a priest in his car.
‘At the same time a friend of hers, also seven, who was of a Protestant family, died, and she was told that because her friend was Protestant she had gone to Hell and will be roasting in Hell forever.
‘She told me of those two abuses, she got over the physical abuse; it was yucky but she got over it.
‘But the mental abuse of being told about Hell, she took years to get over.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312813/Richard-Dawkins-Forcing-religion-children-child-abuse-claims-atheist-professo r.html#ixzz3JUgixX4I
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
So we have some indirect speech ("Dawkins said that:") where we don't even have a journalists' "quote", much less his actual words, and his report of someone telling him that an aspect of their Catholic upbringing was worse than sexual abuse.
Your point?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So we have some indirect speech ("Dawkins said that:") where we don't even have a journalists' "quote", much less his actual words, and his report of someone telling him that an aspect of their Catholic upbringing was worse than sexual abuse.
Your point?
So are you asserting Dawkins was misrepresented in the article?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So we have some indirect speech ("Dawkins said that:") where we don't even have a journalists' "quote", much less his actual words, and his report of someone telling him that an aspect of their Catholic upbringing was worse than sexual abuse.
Your point?
So are you asserting Dawkins was misrepresented in the article?
I think it eminently likely that the journalist's report of what Dawkins said, which doesn't even include a "quote", bears only a passing resemblance to what he actually said.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So we have some indirect speech ("Dawkins said that:") where we don't even have a journalists' "quote", much less his actual words, and his report of someone telling him that an aspect of their Catholic upbringing was worse than sexual abuse.
Your point?
So are you asserting Dawkins was misrepresented in the article?
Namely her Protestant friend roasted in hell
Yes - not to misrepresent child abuse - abuse before the age of 7 can lead to fragmentation of the soul. But trauma is only defined by what feels to be overwhelming. A one-off abuse in relatively ameliorating circumstances (lack of violence, support and solidity and a sense of protection in the family, etc) might not lead to major long term traumatiusation. But the problem with religion is that it operates at the ultimate Meta level. You can escape a rapist by all kinds of means, but you can't escape a vengeful and malicious God. And in that sense, the pernicious and malevolent drivel preached by xenophobic and bigoted so-called upholders of particular faiths is about the worst kind of abuse there is. Maybe they think that scaring children is one way to ensure their salvation by making them "God-fearing", but it's one of the most destructive generational myths (thinat this is useful) to ever have existed. How many people growing up to fear God have learned to love themselves and love God? Precious few. It's hard enough for a child that has not been loved ("attachment deficit") to contemplate alowing itself to accept love from a fellow human being.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nevertheless, after the insult is decanted, there is still a point left in the bottle: "Thank" is a transitive verb, and that implies an object. I can thank my mom for a Christmas present, I can thank my wife for marrying me, but I can't just thank. Thanking requires a thankee.
Sure. But that linguistic object can be unreal or conceptual, as in I thank my lucky stars!, or thank goodness for that!, or even thank fuck!.
One need not believe in lucky stars or gods to thank them, nor need they exist. Gods and lucky stars are very similar like that.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Surely we can just be thankful, without having an object for our thanks?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something, and, if you thank god, logic states that god must exist. Da-daa! The the existence of gods was so much easier to prove than everyone thought!
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something, and, if you thank god, logic states that god must exist. Da-daa! The the existence of gods was so much easier to prove than everyone thought!
Shouldn't atheists be thankful for the Earth and its resources that provide the basis for most of what we have? Our intellect and opposable thumbs would be little use without that.
Theists have it easy of course: we thank God or the gods. Any day.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something
You've never felt a sense of undefined or unfocused gratitude? The sort of feeling that you might get when something you thought was going to be a disaster, by some fluke actually turns out quite well and you feel very relieved and thankful, but have no clear idea who or what to attribute that to?
(Emotions aren't logical.)
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Absolutely, yes. My above post was entirely sarcastic.
I think we all feel this sense of gratitude for good things that we experience. It's probably one of the main reasons people invent gods and lucky stars and heavens and all that- to function as objects of their gratitude (and the same goes for fear, awe and all the other superstitious feelings we have hardwired in our natural fabric).
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something, and, if you thank god, logic states that god must exist. Da-daa! The the existence of gods was so much easier to prove than everyone thought!
Shouldn't atheists be thankful for the Earth and its resources that provide the basis for most of what we have? Our intellect and opposable thumbs would be little use without that.
Theists have it easy of course: we thank God or the gods. Any day.
Nah, I thank God whenever I'm feeling fortunate. It's pithy.
(It doesn't magic Him into existence, though. Sorry about that.)
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I am often very thankful with no object for my thanks.
I'm a Christian and believe in God - but I'm not happy with God at the moment and I'm throwing a strop which has lasted a year or so.
But I am very thankful for many, many things every day. I've just, somehow, lost God as the focus for that thanks.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
My Sarkometer needs a recharge.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Sorry, SS. I was trying to appear clever. I should just have replied to mousethief's nonsense with "Bullshit".
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
amongst other things Dawins says
quote:
Professor Dawkins said at the festival that children should be taught religion but scorn should be poured on its claims.
Sounds like teaching atheism to me!!
There is actually no supporting quote from Dawkins in the article on the “scorn” point. The quotes that do appear suggest that he thinks it essential to teach children about religion, but wrong to indoctrinate them with it. Which is what I said.
I don’t doubt, by the way, that you could find a quote by Dawkins saying that religious claims should be treated with scorn. However the Mail article appends that to his views on religious education as if he were saying that religious claims should be treated with scorn in the specific context of teaching children what the various religions believe. That is the point where the supporting evidence vanishes. If he has ever said any such thing it would be at odds with his much better known views on the importance of teaching about religion in a cultural context, and the importance of evidence-based thinking in the search for truth.
Dawkins does actually care passionately about what is true. That is the driving force behind just about everything he has written. Understanding the world, and helping others to do so, is, for him, the greatest purpose and privilege of life. If you don’t get that, you don’t understand him.
quote:
He also belittles child abuse in a way that, quite rightly would be decried if a representative of the church did so
I think it’s generally foolish to compare anything to child abuse. The emotional connotations that the mention of child abuse raises are so powerful as to swamp anything else.
That said, it requires only a little effort to see that belittling child abuse is not part of his objective at all. And what he actually says is both moderate and fair. It is not unreasonable to suggest (on the basis of a victim’s personal testimony) that being subjected to a sexual assault was less unpleasant than being made to believe that a person (a child) she cared about would suffer unspeakable pain for ever at the hands of God. I can well imagine that I would feel the same thing. Saying that does not in any way minimise the evil of abusing children.
I accept that it is to a degree Dawkins’ own fault that he is misunderstood in this way, but it’s still a misunderstanding to think that he belittles child abuse.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I do think that Dawkins' approach to religion is often sloppy, especially when he attempts to discuss more philosophical issues.
Can you give an example? (she asks in a very mild, non-challenging voice!)
I hadn't forgotten your question; I just had to dig some books out of their depository - in other words, I'd lost them.
One of the themes running through 'The God Delusion' is the improbability of God; Dawkins refers to it as the 'ultimate Boeing 747'. This refers to Fred Hoyle's analogy of a hurricane sweeping through a junk-yard, and producing a 747, in other words, something extremely improbable. The analogy was not about God but the existence of life on earth, but Dawkins borrows it.
OK, he makes this interesting comment: 'however statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable' (TGD, p. 138, Black Swan ed.).
I feel that this argument is vitiated however, since while Boeings are material things, God is not. In fact, I would say that you can't use probability estimates about non-natural or supernatural entities.
So in this case, I think Dawkins is equivocating like mad about probability, and also the nature of God. I don't think that the supernatural is probable or improbable. Some people go so far as to argue that theism is not truth-apt; hmm, well, pass on that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something, and, if you thank god, logic states that god must exist. Da-daa! The the existence of gods was so much easier to prove than everyone thought!
sigh
The definition for thank is "Express gratitude to"
mt is correct. People are misusing the word when thanks are not directed towards something.
Perhaps if Alanis Morrisette wrote a song about thanks, this would be more clear.
--------------------
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 Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nevertheless, after the insult is decanted, there is still a point left in the bottle: "Thank" is a transitive verb, and that implies an object. I can thank my mom for a Christmas present, I can thank my wife for marrying me, but I can't just thank. Thanking requires a thankee.
Sure. But that linguistic object can be unreal or conceptual, as in I thank my lucky stars!, or thank goodness for that!, or even thank fuck!.
I never said otherwise.
quote:
One need not believe in lucky stars or gods to thank them, nor need they exist. Gods and lucky stars are very similar like that.
I never said otherwise.
You and Palimpsest are accusing me of saying something I never said. A careful reading of what I said would reveal this, I believe.
quote:
Sorry, SS. I was trying to appear clever. I should just have replied to mousethief's nonsense with "Bullshit".
But you explicitly agreed with what I said. "Thank" takes a direct object. You added bullshit to it that I never said -- if you thank God that proves he exists. THAT is the real bullshit here. Not what I said.
Clearly one can do eisegesis with other things than scripture. For instance, posts on Ship of Fools.
Read what people say, people, not what you think they said.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something, and, if you thank god, logic states that god must exist. Da-daa! The the existence of gods was so much easier to prove than everyone thought!
sigh
The definition for thank is "Express gratitude to"
mt is correct. People are misusing the word when thanks are not directed towards something.
Perhaps if Alanis Morrisette wrote a song about thanks, this would be more clear.
Maybe I'm being thick here. Please bear with me while I try to get this right (and I apologise to anyone who finds this tangential or just plain silly).
We are NOT talking here about the act of expressing thanks. We are talking about being or feeling thankful. The two are categorically different.
A sense of gratitude, or being thankful, is not possible unless it's directed at some specific thing which confers that gratitude on the thankful person. Is that really what you're saying? Because it's utter bollocks. It's saying that one cannot have a feeling of gratitude for, say, a happy feeling when the sun comes out on a rainy day, except where there is a recipient object of that thankful feeling.
Help me here.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I am saying it is a misuse of the word. Perhaps happy or relieved would be more accurate words. hence my reference to ms Morrisette. Nothing in her song is ironic, despite many people using the word in the ways she does.
Now, it could be argued that the word thanks has been misued often enough that it has acquired new meanings, but in its original definition it does require a thanked.
But this is a tangent to the original discussion that does not further it, so I'd rather not go too far with it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Happy or relieved do not describe the feeling of gratitude that comes over me when I feel glad to be alive, and that I so easily couldn't be. It's thankful. Nothing else.
Isn't this just one of those cases in which theists claim a monopoly on something that is in fact universal?
[ 19. November 2014, 15:13: Message edited by: Yorick ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Happy or relieved do not describe the feeling of gratitude that comes over me when I feel glad to be alive, and that I so easily couldn't be. It's thankful. Nothing else.
Isn't this just one of those cases in which theists claim a monopoly on something that is in fact universal?
Not at all, but in addition to being thankful for something, theists have someone or something they can be thankful to.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
The OP is full of this sort of presumptuous rubbish. Atheists are not only entitled to and logically coherent in celebrating religious festivals, but they are also capable of feeling thankful for the exact same kinds of things as theists. Clue: we're all the fucking same.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I do think that Dawkins' approach to religion is often sloppy, especially when he attempts to discuss more philosophical issues.
Can you give an example? (she asks in a very mild, non-challenging voice!)
I hadn't forgotten your question; I just had to dig some books out of their depository - in other words, I'd lost them.
One of the themes running through 'The God Delusion' is the improbability of God; Dawkins refers to it as the 'ultimate Boeing 747'. This refers to Fred Hoyle's analogy of a hurricane sweeping through a junk-yard, and producing a 747, in other words, something extremely improbable. The analogy was not about God but the existence of life on earth, but Dawkins borrows it.
OK, he makes this interesting comment: 'however statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable' (TGD, p. 138, Black Swan ed.).
I feel that this argument is vitiated however, since while Boeings are material things, God is not. In fact, I would say that you can't use probability estimates about non-natural or supernatural entities.
So in this case, I think Dawkins is equivocating like mad about probability, and also the nature of God. I don't think that the supernatural is probable or improbable. Some people go so far as to argue that theism is not truth-apt; hmm, well, pass on that.
You are making Dawkins point for him. If you read around page 113. What he is doing is turning the intelligent designer argument of improbability being an argument FOR god into an argument against god. If probability does not apply to god it also undermines its use in favor of god's existence. If it can be used for, it can be used against.
[ 19. November 2014, 15:42: Message edited by: Ikkyu ]
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
