• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Richard's Kid Gloves

#35: Jan. - Mar. 2007 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3507 times
Been thanked: 1310 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Would it be fair to say that the Christian Bible tells us that homosexuality is a sin? Would it be fair then to say that this means that Christianity, as a whole, condemns homosexuality and homosexuals?
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Niall:My main point is, that saying homosexuality is a sin is doing just the thing that you accuse me of doing. It is casting a shadow over otherwise good people. It is stigmatizing people based on subjective beliefs. I am willing to stop if you can work on your Christian brethren and sisthren, deal? I have not heard you speak out yet saying that homosexuality is NOT a sin. Do you think it is? Is that because of your faith if so?Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!Mr. P's Bookshelf.I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - AsanaThe one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Saint Gasoline

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Anyone offended by what Richard has written in this book needs to grow a spine. Books exist which basically assert that people will be tortured for eternity for not believing a particular thing, and yet these books are revered and not considered offensive at all. And yet when Richard points out that these books do indeed claim evil things, HE is the one being offensive? Give me a break. Edited by: Saint Gasoline  at: 1/7/07 4:53 pm
FiskeMiles

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Dear Gas:Quote:Anyone offended by what Richard has written in this book needs to grow a spine.Do you even KNOW any Christians? Heck, I'm an atheist and I find the book's tone and (yes!) title offensive. Dawkins argues that anyone who doesn't believe what he believes is delusional even though he has no way to prove his assertion that God doesn't exist. In fact, it has been shown repeatedly on this forum that he draws false conclusions from his reference sources. I have to tell you, I'm even more offended by his misuse and misrepresentation of references than the ridiculous tone exhibited throughout the book.I have many Christian friends and acquaintances running the gamut from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal, and this book would offend every last one of them. Here's just one example: our next door neighbors, who raised nine kids and have lived here since 1951 are devout Catholics. They regularly attend worship service at a Catholic church only three blocks away, Mrs. S. sings in the church choir (Mr. S. took her to midnight mass on Christmas eve and then again to the Christmas morning service -- she sang at both). They don't even have a driveway. They have to walk up and down a 15-stair flight of steps to get to the street, and they're both in their late 70s.One of their sons is active in missionary work in South America. They hold annual fund-raising taco-dinners for him at the church, and we always attend. They are the kindest, most loving and helpful neighbors you could possibly ask for. Do you think for one second I would even mention this ridiculous book to them? I would burn it first. Compared with our 18 years of friendship, it means nothing to me. Less than nothing.Are there fundamentalist nutballs out there? Sure. I have met a couple. But for each one of those, I know 20-30 Christians like Mr. & Mrs. S. Throughout this book, Dawkins argues that fundamentalist nutballs make up some sizable portion of Christians in the U.S. He's wrong. Again.Oh, and one more thing, Mr. S was wounded at Iwo Jima in World War II and awarded a purple heart. Years ago he gave us a United States flag to display on Veterans Day and other national holidays. And he also taught us how to display it properly. Somehow, I don't think HE needs to grow a spine...Fiske Edited by: FiskeMiles at: 1/7/07 6:28 pm
Saint Gasoline

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Quote:For my part, I'll give you a version less likely to offend:The God of the Old Testament is an unpleasant character whose actions could be accurately described as evil by modern standards.Niall, the problem is that you are confusing being descriptive with being offensive. Your version isn't anymore offensive than Dawkins is, really. Both sentences essentially MEAN the same thing: That God is not exactly a "good" being. The only difference is that Dawkins is much more descriptive and actually details WHY God can be described as evil, and WHY he is unpleasant.In short, his version is an example of better writing.Quote:Well for those who think that Dawkins style is acceptable, I advise taking an entire course on writing, where they will teach you that certain styles are appropriate when writing in certain forums and for certain purposes, while others are not.You are missing the point. I am arguing that it was Dawkin's intentions to be descriptive in his writing--this certainly makes a lot more sense, given that he could have said things that were a lot worse about God. The fact that a writing class may not advocate the way Dawkins has written this book in quite an off-hand manner in many respects doesn't show that he was intending to be offensive.Of course, I think your understanding of Dawkins is ridiculous, and it is ludicrous to argue that he is being offensive. Dawkins style is quite acceptable, even given these general writing rules. Dawkins is being descriptive, and that is certainly allowed in "serious" books. Not only that, the fact that he is writing a book for lay people means that he is entirely within his rights to say things like the example you have listed.I have read CLASSICS in philosophy that say meaner things about their philosophical rivals than anything Dawkins has here said about God. Like Nietzsche, I don't believe that passion and seriousness are necessarily mutually exclusive.I wonder, Niall--if Dawkins had been writing about a MAN who was known to rape, kill, and be very violent, would you have condemned him for being "offensive" in describing the MAN in this fashion?
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

nutballs

Unread post

Well, maybe if the Xtians you speak of would SPEAK OUT against the nutballs...I just do not see that happening at all though. But what about those of us that WERE Christian, Catholic and whatnot that have turned away and are NOT offended. Do we not count? Is the fact that we are not offended mean we are wrong? Maybe some of us do have a spine and some do not? Maybe some of us take the message as more important than the specific words chosen to express it?Dawkins, at some points in the book, talks of theists he knows with some kind of respect. So I do not think we can just label him as someone trashing people, just the silly ideas they happen to hold.What gets me and what insults me more than anything is a group of people saying that because two men love one another, they are going to go to hell. Or that when a woman knows that having a baby will cause turmoil and severe hardship in her and the baby's life and thus decides to terminate the pregnancy, she is also going to hell or is a sinner, or worse still...killing her doctor for giving her the abortion she has decided on getting, or that atheists are looked down on as going to hell because we do not believe in some imaginary being that they believe in.It is the people who supposedly follow a loving god behave so badly that turn my stomache. These are the people who have shown hatred, when they are the same people saying that they spread love and understanding. At least atheists never claimed to recv orders from above. But overall, I think that atheists behave much more humanely than any given Xtian or other religious person. But...and even the 'good' Xtians tend to believe this...we are still going to hell if we do not live by their book and believe in their god.Once the 'good' Xtians and other faithful realize this is a bunch of crap, only then will anyone defending religion have a leg to stand on.Mr. P. Edited by: misterpessimistic  at: 1/7/07 6:43 pm
FiskeMiles

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Dear Gas:Quote:But what if they had built their lives around the belief that two and two make five? Would it really be so wrong and offensive to point out that they built their lives around a false belief?The point here is that you don't know they've built their lives around a false belief. In the first place, you don't really know what their beliefs are. (RD is using Christian cardboard cutouts in just the same way fundamentalists use evolutionary cardboard cutouts.) In the second place, you can't prove that God doesn't exist. Maybe they're believing that 2+2 = 4, and you're the one who is insisting that 2+2=5. The problem with your attitude is that you leave no room for the possibility that you might be wrong.Quote:I mean, honestly, what does it matter who has made more beneficial contributions to society, and what does that have to do with our discussion?)The fact that Christian belief motivates millions of people to do much good in the world doesn't matter? I don't agree. I happen to admire people who help others and am not much impressed by arguments from those who not only are not matching their contributions but haven't got the facts to prove what they're saying.I interpret your characterization of this comment as a cheap shot to mean that your atheism doesn't motivate you to perform acts of charity. And while we're on the subject of cheap shots, who was it that said people who are offended by having their most cherished beliefs mocked and ridiculed need to grow spines?Fiske Edited by: FiskeMiles at: 1/8/07 8:54 am
FiskeMiles

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Dear Gas:Quote:Personally, I find little of value in it. Not only is it filled with arbitrary and silly laws and injunctions from a jealous, authoritarian deity, but it is also quite poorly written and bad history, to boot.So it's okay to insult people who do?Fiske
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:00 am
20

--

Unread post

Chris:Quote: Would it be fair to say that the Christian Bible tells us that homosexuality is a sin? Would it be fair then to say that this means that Christianity, as a whole, condemns homosexuality and homosexuals? No. It would not. I'm not going to derail the thread by going into the exact details of this, and besides, didn't we already have this discussion over a year ago?Nick:Quote: My main point is, that saying homosexuality is a sin is doing just the thing that you accuse me of doing. It is casting a shadow over otherwise good people. It is stigmatizing people based on subjective beliefs. I am willing to stop if you can work on your Christian brethren and sisthren, deal? I have not heard you speak out yet saying that homosexuality is NOT a sin. Do you think it is? Is that because of your faith if so? Well I've never heard you say that you think homosexuality is NOT a sin, but I didn't make the assumption that you thought it was. But aside from that, morality is a tricky area to discuss at the best of times. You don't think homosexuality is wrong, then fine. But there are plenty of things that you think are immoral, and no doubt, you'll say as much. No doubt, you think that adultery and theft are often wrong. Maybe not? Well how about genocide?Either way, saying that it is wrong to make gross injustifiable generalisations about the views of certain groups is not the same as making a moral judgement. Even if I say that I think homosexuality is wrong, it is an entirely different thing from saying that most Christians think that homosexuality is wrong. One is a subjective opinion, the other is a statement of fact. St. G.Quote: Niall, the problem is that you are confusing being descriptive with being offensive. Your version isn't anymore offensive than Dawkins is, really. Both sentences essentially MEAN the same thing: That God is not exactly a "good" being. The only difference is that Dawkins is much more descriptive and actually details WHY God can be described as evil, and WHY he is unpleasant. Have you ever been asked this question:Does this make me look fat?If you think that the answer is yes, do you tell the woman as much? How do you phrase it?Would you say that you think that it makes the woman look obese? Corputulent perhaps? Do you say that it makes her look like a blimp? Rotund? Of course not. If you were quite that descriptive, then you would offend her. To use your example:Quote: I wonder, Niall--if Dawkins had been writing about a MAN who was known to rape, kill, and be very violent, would you have condemned him for being "offensive" in describing the MAN in this fashion? Of course I would. There are plenty of horrible people who happen to have perfectly nice relatives. If I were address the relatives of such a person, then I would certainly not describe their relative in such a manner. Now would that mean that I would avoid discussing the issue at all? No. But if I had to address the issue, I'd use a lot more tact that Dawkins did. And less face it, Dawkins only mentions the O.T. God's apparent misdeeds in order to say that he won't be concentrating on them, a bit like going up to the relatives of a murderer/rapist, providing them with a very detailed and blunt description of their loved one's misdeeds then saying that you wouldn't be discussing the matter further with them. It's just plain rude.Quote: The fact that all the religious friends you know would be offended by the book doesn't mean that the book is indeed offensive, or intended to be so. If, for instance, all your Christian friends were offended by my driving a Cavalier, then that wouldn't really matter. Driving such a car is not something that should be offensive. Something is offensive when it is likely to hurt somebody. Now I like swearing/cursing and all that lark. Some might feel it betrays a small volcabularly, but fuck them. Point is, I don't walk into a Church or an old folk's home and start cursing or swearing. That would be rude. Now I don't see why people find the word "fuck" offensive, but a little courtesy costs nothing.Mr. PQuote: Well, maybe if the Xtians you speak of would SPEAK OUT against the nutballs... Yes, because that never happens.Quote: Niall, Fiske:Are you saying that the god of the old testament is being unfairly judged by Dawkins, or that you just disagree with his choice of words? I think that given Dawkins approach to the matter, his conclusion is largely accurate. Now that's not an approach I share given that I've a rather different starting point to Richard. Mostly, I just object to his sensationalism.FiskeQuote: RD is using Christian cardboard cutouts in just the same way fundamentalists use evolutionary cardboard cutouts. Quote:And this is what I personally find offensive. He is insulting my intelligence not by saying I'm wrong, but by using straw men and misrepresenting the arguments of his oppo
Saint Gasoline

Re: Richard's Kid Gloves

Unread post

Quote:The point here is that you don't know they've built their lives around a false belief.If what you mean is that I don't know this with complete certainty, you'd be correct, just as you'd be correct that I don't really know anything with complete certainty aside from a few analytic statements.If what you mean is that they are just as justified in their beliefs as I am, then you would be wrong.Now, I don't know exactly what sort of God they believe in, or what not, but the sheer lack of evidence for any deity at all gives us reason to disbelieve. Pointing out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is actually not quite right--otherwise what WOULD count as evidence of absence? If something does not exist, we would EXPECT it to not produce any evidence whatsoever. One can respond that we wouldn't expect evidence given a supernatural God, as well, but this isn't entirely true considering the qualities of most gods, and when it is true, it is trivial and does little to make belief in God somehow justifiable.If someone claims that there is an elephant in your garage, it is reasonable to disbelieve their claim if there is no evidence. If they then claim that the elephant is "supernatural" and we shouldn't expect to find evidence, this doesn't somehow make their belief more reasonable. We can ask them what they mean by "supernatural", and they say, "It is outside of nature", and then we can ask what this would be like, and essentially they wouldn't be able to answer us aside from defining it purely in terms of what it is NOT. This alone is reason enough to doubt the existence of such a realm, because it doesn't appear that they are claiming that anything exists at all, but are just making a negation and then needlessly reifying it. However, we can also point out that, given the unobservable nature of the elephant, it is quite unreasonable to posit such an elephant, because it requires positing an entire supernatural realm on top of it, and all of that for NO REASON whatsoever. The elephant believer is inventing whole new realms and beings that have no explanatory power and no evidence at all! One is certainly justified in rejecting such claims.Of course, the problem is that God claims often aren't as simple as elephant claims. Most believers don't posit a rather vague God whose only quality is "being supernatural"--he is also called the creator of the universe, all-powerful, and omnibenevolent. This puts God into the realm of inquiry.For instance, if God is omnipotent, and cares about humanity, and wants to judge their deeds, we would certainly expect to find more evidence of such a God, and more direct interaction. The fact that we DON'T see evidence of such expected interaction gives us reason to doubt such a God's existence.If God created the world for the purpose of sustaining life, and if he has views of "good" and "evil" that are meaningful and equivalent to the way we use these terms, then we also have reason to doubt God's existence. The world is hardly perfectly designed for life, and much of the universe is uninhabitable. The world also contains many evils and apparent flaws. This gives us pretty good reason to reject any omnipotent or morally perfect creator deities. To use Paley's watch example--if we came across a watch that told time quite defectively and was made from the ground up bones of little children, we would probably conclude that the maker of the watch wasn't perfect.Then, there' the simple fact that God's qualities seem to conflict with each other. For instance, if God is DEFINED as morally perfect and omnipotent, this means that God cannot be morally imperfect or impotent. A being that is omnipotent but could lose this quality would not be omnipotent "by definition". With that in mind, we can see an apparent contradiction. If God can do anything, then this would mean he should also be able to do evil--but he is morally perfect, so he cannot possibly do evil by definition. The only way to resolve this difficulty is to make God good only in a descriptive fashion, meaning he isn't necessarily good, and meaning God could be evil. But this seems to do away with conceptions of God as perfect and God as we traditionally we know him. Thus, the traditional God is easily refuted.In short, I have plenty of justification for disbelieving in God. The sheer lack of evidence given the fact that I could EXPECT evidence if God existed is perhaps the hugest example. But even if I couldn't expect evidence, atheism would still be more justified if only because the position is more parsimonious and more in tune with the lacking evidence. I don't have to invent a totally new realm to explain th lack of evidence, I can just assert something we all know to be possible--nonexistence.Quote:The fact that Christian belief motivates millions of people to do much good in the world doesn't matter? I don't agree.It doesn't matter in the context of this discussion. You were apparently bringing it up to point out that your Christian friends are somehow better than I. Well, maybe so, but this fact has nothing to do with the topic we were discussing.However, my claims about people needing to grow a spine are relevant to the discussion. I apologize if you found it offensive, but I really do believe that people need to learn to accept criticism more graciously. For the most part, I think people are easily offended and too quick to call someone "mean" before even addressing their points, and as I said earlier, I think this is primarily a technique of diversion, a putting of one's head into the sand like an ostrich. Yes, yes, I realize you are "offended" when I say God does not exist, but what say you to my argument? I am offended that some assert that a murderous being exists, or that morality is not possible without God, but I wouldn't bring it up because frankly it is irrelevant to the discussion about the truth or falsity of God's existence. Saying, 'I don't like the implications of what you are saying' is irrelevant.
Post Reply

Return to “The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins”