Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 108
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Richard's Kid Gloves
Rereading chapter one I was struck by the following juxtaposition. Here is the final sentence from the first chapter:
Quote:I shall not go out of my way to offend, but nor shall I don kid gloves to handle religion any more gently than I would handle anything else.
And here is the first sentence of chapter two. In fact, the very next sentence in the book:
Quote:The God of the Old testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
If this Richard's idea of not going out of his way to offend? Because if it is, he sucks at it.
Going out of his way to offend is precisely his intent. So why make the first statement? I'm seriously asking -- why make the first statement and follow it up with the second?
Fiske
PS: Okay, I had to look filicidal up.
PSS: Is anyone else reminded of Chevy Chase's tirade against his boss in Christmas Vacation when he gets the jelly of the month membership instead of a bonus? Edited by: FiskeMiles at: 1/4/07 1:52 am
Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 111
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: Richard's Kid Gloves
Quote:In fact, NOT the Christian God but the God of the Old Testament
I know Dawkins was talking specifically about the OT in that section, but technically it is not incorrect to refer to the OT god as Christian, is it? Edited by: Federika22 at: 1/4/07 2:10 am
Joined: May 2002 Posts: 12136 Images: 0 Location: Florida Highscores:145 Thanks: 861 Thanked: 378 times in 300 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Richard's Kid Gloves
Fiske
I don't think Dawkins is going out of his way to offend. I think Dawkins is brutally honest and telling it like it is. Nothing in his description of the Christian God is untrue or embellished, so he cannot be faulted for being completely honest. If his words offend it might be because the truth can sometimes hurt.
Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 111
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Richard's Kid Gloves
I don't see a problem with the two statements. There may be other comments made in the book that come across as designed for offense, but the description of the OT god is right on, IMO. Like Chris said, all the statements Dawkins made are true about the OT dude. So what's the prob? What's should be offensive is when we hear someone trying to square those qualities with the notion of the height of love.
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 150
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: Richard's Kid Gloves
Like Chris said, this is remark isn't made just to be offensive. It will certainly offend believers, but as Dawkins routinely points out, believers are routinely offended by even the most subtle of criticisms.
Frankly, I don't see how it is offensive for Dawkins to list off some obvious truisms about the God of the Old Testament. He does murder people, he is vindictive, he is jealous, and he does everything that Dawkins lists. If one is offended, then they should be offended at their own religion, not Dawkins for merely pointing out the obvious.
Joined: Jun 2004 Posts: 3552 Location: NJ
Thanks: 1 Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Richard's Kid Gloves
Yes, I agree with everyone here that there is nothing really wrong with the chosen approach or what was said. Just because something may offend someone, does not mean that saying it is looking for trouble.
But this is what Harris and Dawkins and others mean when we say religion is granted some sort of buffer zone when it comes to talking honestly about it and it's shortcomings.
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. - Asana
The 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
Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 108
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: Richard's Kid Gloves
Dear Saint (et al):
Quote:Like Chris said, this is remark isn't made just to be offensive.
Okay, then why WAS it made?
The statement IS true, but why make it at the beginning of a chapter devoted to RD's God Hypothesis?
Here's what I'm getting at. Let's say you visit some friends, and they have a fat kid. Would you say to them, "My, but your son is rotund?" If they had taken their son to a doctor, and he told them that Little Johnny needs to lose weight, or else become the subject of even more jokes, not to mention a lot of health problems, the statement would not only have a purpose but have been solicited and ethically required. But in the first instance would you really preface the comment by saying you weren't going out of your way to offend? Would your friends believe that? Or would they be even more offended? Think about it -- the prefatory comment just makes the following comment even more offensive.
Oh, a structural point about what is being done here: not only does RD trash Yahweh in his very next sentence, he makes sure that sentence falls at the beginning of a chapter. This is a typical device used for dramatic effect. In other words, to make it even more shocking.
Here's how Dawkins begins his next paragraph:
Quote:It is unfair to attack such an easy target. The God Hypothesis should not stand or fall with its most unlovely instantiation, Yahweh...
So if it was unfair, Richard, why did you do it?
He follows this up by stating:
Quote:I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Wotan.
The heck he isn't! What did he just do? (In fact, what he continues to do throughout the book.)
The point I'm making is that when Dawkins states he is not going out of his way to offend religious believers he is being disingenuous. That is exactly what he is doing. The intent of this book, following Sam Harris' lead to a certain extent, is to position Dawkins as an atheist shock jock in the Fox News style. His subsequent media-blitz is part and parcel of the enterprise.
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 150
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: Richard's Kid Gloves
Fiske, you're misrepresenting what Dawkins is saying, though, in an effort to portray him as "the nasty old atheist".
You ask why he made the statement, if not to be offensive. Well, the obvious reason is because it is true, and because the Old Testament conception of God just goes to show how reprehensible the concept can be.
Now, you compare the situation to one in which someone remarks about the weight of someone's child. I don't really think this is analagous. I think it is more analagous to a reporter at a murder trial commenting that the person on trial is a "heinous monster". Generally, we wouldn't regard this as rude, because frankly the person has performed terrible acts and we have laxer standards for such people--but with children and weight issues the standards aren't as lax. We see the child as innocent, as not deliberately trying to do anything, and weight gain as something that is not an evil equivalent to theft or murder. That's why we find it rude to say to a child who is fat, "My you are tubby!" but we don't find it rude to remark to a person convicted of murder, "You are a monster!"
Richard's remarks are more analagous to the murder trial than the fat kid.
Now, perhaps his remarks about God would be offensive if he were attributing the qualities to God without reason--for instance, if someone were not known to be a murderer, but we went about slandering them and calling them a monster, then that would indeed be rude. However, the Bible makes God's atrocities clear, so I don't think this argument can be made.
You also criticize Dawkins because he says that he is not attacking the particularly nasty traits of the God of the Old Testament. You are blatantly misreading him. He isn't trying to say that, "I have never said anything critiquing this conception of God in this book". What he means is that the FOLLOWING remarks are not geared solely to this rather easy target, but to all conceptions of God. He starts off the chapter by critiquing the Old Testament God, and then he goes on and says that though he started off focusing on that God, his arguments are meant to apply to all gods, even those that aren't such easy targets.
Dawkins is NOT going out of his way to offend religious believers in making these remarks. He is treating these issues with the same level of contempt and respectfulness that we'd treat them in normal situations, as I've shown you with my example regarding murderers. He is not trying to be an atheist "shock-jock", and the only way you can maintain this is to misread what he is saying and apply standards that simply aren't applicable--like those involving ridiculing a fat kid. But the problem is that God is not just an innocent fat kid--he is a murdering, vindictive monster. Could I phrase this a little less harshly? Perhaps. I could call him "a bad example of moral perfection", but this doesn't get the point across about just how heinous his actions truly are, which is what Richard is trying to convey.
Dawkins' purpose with this book isn't to be scholarly, nor is it to offend religious people. I believe what he is actively attempting is "consciousness-raising", as he repeatedly states. He wants to get the atheist point of view out there in the world, and he is succeeding admirably in doing so. If the theists are offended by the fact that he does not treat murdering deities with respect, then that is their own problem. I don't respect people who murder their children and claim God told them to do so just as I don't respect a conception of God that frequently commands murder and violence in his name! Edited by: Saint Gasoline at: 1/4/07 12:35 pm
Joined: Jun 2004 Posts: 3552 Location: NJ
Thanks: 1 Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Richard's Kid Gloves
Quote:And Mr. P, try and phrase things a little better. I don't hate gays, thanks very much. If I came out with a sentence like say "atheists hate theists", it might be true of some atheists, but it would be a particularly tactless way of phrasing it.
But there are those that do have a hatred for homosexuals...so why should I curb my criticism, based on your point that since not all religious hate them we should not say that. Does not the reverse work as well? Or do I just have to phrase everything I feel about religion based on what YOU believe? See the point? I am arguing against religion...I feel that the ills of religion outweigh the good, and that we can get the same good without it. We can be moral without religion...and the religions that preach love and acceptance have within them hatred at the base.
So why should I curb my tounge based on what you believe? I am ready to give you a pass...but I am not ready to surrender my point.
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. - Asana
The 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
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 150
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: Richard's Kid Gloves
Niall, you said there's a difference between saying something and saying something in the most offensive manner possible, and you have compared Dawkins' statements to calling one's mother a no-good whore.
I think your comparisons are way off and I think you are going out of your way to interpret Dawkins in this way. For one thing, he did not describe God in the most offensive manner possible. He DID describe God in a very imaginative, adjectivized manner, but using adjectives like "mean", "jealous", and so on are not equivalent to "whore", "asshole", "prickish asshat", and so on. So you are clearly wrong when you that Dawkins is saying this in the most offensive manner possible. Here's just one example that is much more obviously offensive:
"God is a no good son of a dirty whore and a fucking asshole with the moral knowledge of a rapist who likes to fuck children in the ass with tire irons."
Your examples, in short, are not applicable to what Dawkins has said. He has not used words that are necessarily offensive that are equivalent to calling someone's mother a whore for no apparent reason. He uses the only words that can possibly describe the God of the Old Testament. And for those who can't understand WHY he decided to begin the chapter in that manner, just take a writing class--they teach you to begin chapters with interesting, or eye-catching statements, and Dawkins certainly did a good job.
Joined: Sep 2003 Posts: 716
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: Richard's Kid Gloves
St.G,
Tell you what, find me a way of phrasing what Dawkins was trying to say in a more offensive manner (without resorting to using curse/swear words) and I'll consider the possibility that Dawkins was merely being imaginative.
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.
Quote:And for those who can't understand WHY he decided to begin the chapter in that manner, just take a writing class--they teach you to begin chapters with interesting, or eye-catching statements, and Dawkins certainly did a good job.
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.
If Dawkins wants us to take him seriously, then he had best address us in a serious manner.
Joined: Sep 2003 Posts: 716
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: Richard's Kid Gloves
Quote:But there are those that do have a hatred for homosexuals...so why should I curb my criticism, based on your point that since not all religious hate them we should not say that. Does not the reverse work as well? Or do I just have to phrase everything I feel about religion based on what YOU believe? See the point? I am arguing against religion...I feel that the ills of religion outweigh the good, and that we can get the same good without it. We can be moral without religion...and the religions that preach love and acceptance have within them hatred at the base.
So why should I curb my tounge based on what you believe? I am ready to give you a pass...but I am not ready to surrender my point.
Look, your point about being free to say things that might offend other people is fine. What is not fine, is the notion that it's appropriate to go around saying "Christians hate Gays" or "Atheists are Child Molestors" in the same way that we might say "Dogs like meat".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.
Support BookTalk.org
BookTalk.org is being upgraded to a totally new design. This upgrade is expensive. Any support would be VERY helpful! See who supports us.
Make a donation
PEOPLE PAYING FOR OUR UPGRADE:
• afv - $10 May
• LevV - $50 March
• Dexter - $10 March
• supernova38 - $25 March
• Oblivion - $20 March
• jheimlich - $20 February
• Robert Tulip - $50 February
• giselle - $50 January
Children here need worming
regularly, and I think I
need to buy more worming
tablets, so while my friends
sit on the beach, I have to
catch bush taxis up to the… more
The children have a long way
to walk to the nearest primary
school. At the moment they are
in temporary accommodation,
with volunteer teachers. There
is community land available,
a… more
The price of The 12th Disciple
has been updated to $3.99 for
Kindle readers. The book is
still available for free to
borrow for Amazon Prime
members. To be
competitive, and s… more
The 12th Disciple has been
reviewed by two different
people on Amazon. They
purchased the Kindle edition;
one in the US, one in the
UK. One review was
5-stars (US) and the oth… more
I'd like to say I've
been reading Harry Potter
since the day the world renown
series appeared on the
scene. Unfortunately,
the truth is I began reading
Harry Potter… more
Easter teaches many of us the
importance of redemption and
resurrection. Regardless of
what faith people follow, the
story of Jesus Christ has been
told in many languages in many
c… more
Our Book Talk will begin on
Wednesday, May 2nd. I look
forward to hearing about your
learning and classroom
experiences with Number Talks
as it all unfolds...
NONOPPOSITIONAL NONVIOLENCE
“The minute you conquer the
fear of death, at that moment
you are free. I submit to you
that if a man hasnÂ’t
discovered something that he
will die f… more
Yesterday, when I went to feed
Jeni the donkey, I noticed
swarms of bees entering
EbrimaÂ’s house through the
cracks in the door. We both
had a look, but he didnÂ’t
open his door… more
Whether you want to implement
number talks but are unsure of
how to begin or have
experience but want more
guidance in crafting
purposeful problems, this
dynamic multimedia resourc… more
Do you feel entitled? For
years I have listened to and,
in some instances, complained
that some people in America
feel entitled. For years I
have watched as these people
are portra… more
On Fat Tuesday and Ash
Wednesday of 2012, The 12th
Disciple was free to Kindle
users on both days. In all,
about 550 worldwide Kindle
users downloaded a copy of the
book.
‘Sacred Are the Brave’ a
collection of short stories
about the nonviolent
revolutions 1986-1989 is now
available in Kindle. Each of
the nine stories has
characters who are just
… more
The Weekend TrippersÂ’ is the
true story of Rfn Ted Taylor
and his part in the heroic
last stand in Calais May 1940.
The Weekend Trippers is based
on TedÂ’s diaries written at
the… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
If you enjoy business bestsellers and would like to expand your business knowledge check out the quality book summaries offered by the world's leading book summary company.
BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.
Tweet This Topic
In fact, NOT the Christian God but the God of the Old Testament. Christ came later and offered a new covenant with a "kindler, gentler" God...
If they had taken their son to a doctor, and he told them that Little Johnny needs to lose weight, or else become the subject of even more jokes, not to mention a lot of health problems, the statement would not only have a purpose but have been solicited and ethically required. But in the first instance would you really preface the comment by saying you weren't going out of your way to offend? Would your friends believe that? Or would they be even more offended? Think about it -- the prefatory comment just makes the following comment even more offensive.
at: 1/4/07 12:35 pm
