JPD

Unfortunately the power and influence of organised religion goes unchallenged still in some parts of the world. Should this 'peace' not be an entirely internal affair, ie. kept private, not used to influence others, since by its very nature it is something 'in here' or 'out there' that cannot be demonstrated to be anywhere at all? The whole point is - quite clearly you have not understood this - is that Dawkins is not concerned with the textual minutiae of inane belief systems. Once the argument comes to interpretation and context, anything goes, including universal applicability.

Clete

Contrast? What contrast? Every born-again I've ever encountered is as dogmatic and un-peaceful as Dawkins, if not more so. :huh:

fatpie42

The contrast is that he shouts that "they are fools for believing in God" while they shout that "he is a fool for not believing in God". You see the contrast there?

Quetzalcoatl

Nope I only see your mission to slander Dawkins. It is considered good practice to argue against someone’s position and not the person.

Oolon Colluphid

Where and when?
Please cite the source of that quote.

fatpie42

It isn't a mission. It's just the truth. Didn't you watch the programme last night? He quite happily dismisses behaviour which he blatantly doesn't understand as wild delusion. I don't need to argue this - we all SAW it.

Why should I argue against Dawkins' position? I believe in naturalism and evolution. Hell, I pretty much agree with his arguments. The Bertrand Russell argument he borrows about the teapot in space is great. I just don't agree when he makes that little extra step from disagreeing with religious belief to calling it delusion and even insanity.

It amazes me that Dawkins is able to take a good argument and make it sound bad.

Quetzalcoatl

Let me ask you again. As an atheist if I ask you if god exist, you will answer in the negative. If people believe in the existence of god why is this not a delusion? I am confused on this issue.

Oolon Colluphid

I too would like to know why you think believing something that is, as far as we can tell, untrue and contrary to the evidence is not a delusion. Suppose Dawkins had visited, not Lourdes, but a convention of UFO abductees. Would you chastise him if he said they were deluded?

Oolon Colluphid

Fatpie, is it okay by you if I call this guy delusional?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2610795.stm

If so, please explain, as an alleged atheist, the difference between the Raelians and the Catholics at Lourdes. Is it only the nuttiest of the delusions that may be called that?

Xrikcus

I tend to see Dawkins reacing slightly less than calmly to unfounded preaching. I'm not sure he can be blamed for that. How many Christians who argue anything anywhere are peacful?


It wasn't clear to me that he dismissed anything he didn't understand as delusion. What he dismissed as delusion were cases where the people were behaving based on something he saw as a delusion. That is it isn't the behaviour he doesn't understand, but the cause of the behaviour... and that lack of understanding seems legitimate and is arguably quite reasonable to call a delusion.