 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
great decline in faith in Europe in the midst of the Enlightenment.
Richard Dawkins writes good well reasoned books, but I find him a little shrill, even though I agree with him.
Rob
"great decline in faith in Europe in the midst of the Enlightenment."
Tommorows news head line, "Ice age sweeps across europe".
Not the meaning of the word hypocrisy. Maybe he's not a native speaker? Maybe he's just ignorant? How does the word hypocrisy apply to someone following their faith, as he admits they are?
Most of us are guilty of it. However, we watch football and know, at least, the fundamental rules and principles of plays. We know that hole-in-one, home run, or 3 point play are not football terms. But none of us feel qualified to successfully coach either team in the Super Bowl
Dawkins, a prominent much admired scientist and educator is a leader in his fields of expertise. However, this does not qualify him to coach Believers. He knows some terms, knows some well-known players, and talks the talk.
However, he cannot be objective, or walk the walk because as a Non-Believer, his opinions are subjective, That is because, IMO, the beliefs of a Non-Believer are just as subjective as those of a Believer. Thus his faith in his beliefs are as strong as that of the Faith of Believers.
Yet he felt qualified to critique the reactions of Believers to "one of their own". His celebrity is what prompted his proselytizing being published.
Angeline
There's always the chance that something will be said.
That article was, IN MY OPINION, full of misstatements and hatred against Christians and religious people. Some examples:
The religious mind, however, hubristically appropriates the blind happenings of physics for petty moralistic purposes.
Loathsome as Robertson?s views undoubtedly are, he is the Christian who stands squarely in the Christian tradition.
Among all the ideas ever to occur to a nasty human mind (Paul?s of course), the Christian ?atonement? would win a prize for pointless futility as well as moral depravity.
Even without the stark heartlessness of Pat Robertson, tragedies like Haiti are meat and drink to the theological mind.
Get it?
from Angeline?? and you add "as usual"??
WOW!!
that's rich!, coming from someone who has made it a hobby to be
as nasty as possible toward certain members
coming from someone who has adopted 'obnoxious' as his trade mark
coming from someone who is so intent on getting rid of certain members
that he couldn't see the ridiculousness of alerting on this as an
"Offensive Post"
Ed....whoever is forging your reality checks is doing a lousy job
,.
If you were paying attention you'd know something. But you're not, so you don't.
'obnoxious' as his trade mark HA! YOU should talk!!!!
Speaking of lousy job, Jonah... YOU.
Bye.
Was I wrong? Did either of you address the subject of my post?
That article was, IN MY OPINION, full of misstatements and hatred against Christians and religious people. Some examples:
The religious mind, however, hubristically appropriates the blind happenings of physics for petty moralistic purposes.
Loathsome as Robertson?s views undoubtedly are, he is the Christian who stands squarely in the Christian tradition.
Among all the ideas ever to occur to a nasty human mind (Paul?s of course), the Christian ?atonement? would win a prize for pointless futility as well as moral depravity.
Even without the stark heartlessness of Pat Robertson, tragedies like Haiti are meat and drink to the theological mind.
Get it?
Try thinking a little, instead of making the usual snide remarks.
if your argument applied across the board, Speakeasy would shut down tomorrow and we would have little or nothing to say to each other. None of us are qualified to speak, well very few that is and those that are, are in doubt. No offence intended.
....... because I thought his words illustrated he has no insight into those who profess to be Believers. IMO, being an expert on a number of subjects does not mean one is an expert on everything.
Angeline
Answer to Dawkins' hate piece:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100024264/poor-old-richard-dawkins-has-really-lost-the-plot/
Our old chum Professor Richard Dawkins really loses it in The Times today. It?s not so much his weary, worn and poorly researched line that?s so funny anymore ? there?s an earthquake in Haiti, people suffer, some mad religious people say it?s God?s judgment, so there?s no God and Christians are hypocrites. It?s the sheer, swivel-eyed, foam-flecked delivery that?s becoming hilarious.
Dear old Dawky clearly can?t bear that he?s been banging on now for so long that he?s proved that there?s no God and faith in him is silly and nobody much is taking a blind bit of notice of him. So he?s become really shrill: ?You nice, middle-of-the-road theologians and clergymen, be-frocked and bleating in your pulpits,? he rants, before putting himself in a pulpit thus: ?Where was God in Noah?s flood? He was systematically drowning the entire world, animal as well as human, as punishment for ?sin?. Where was God when Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed with fire and brimstone? He was deliberately barbecuing the citizenry, lock, stock and barrel, as punishment for ?sin?.?
"swivel-eyed, foam-flecked delivery" That's a good one!
He is the writer of that article.
"George Pitcher is Religion Editor of Telegraph Media. He is an Anglican priest and serves his ministry at St Bride's, Fleet Street, in London ? the "journalists' church".
I would expect nothing else from a man of the cloth who is also a reporter. An interesting combination. I bet his sermons are full of joy and happiness.
Mark
I haven't seen Dawkins' latest hatefest, but from what I have seen I'd say the writer of the article pretty much nailed the description.
Did you read Dawkins' piece? Was it not a tirade of hate?
If anything Pitchers' response was too reserved.
Is it okay to post hate screeds here now?
you may not have noticed that Pitcher didn't actually take
him to task for what he said, merely A: the way he said it
and B: he's been saying it for so long, nobody wants to
hear it any more
,.
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic