On 17 Okt., 13:55, Midjis <midwinte...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 10:18, gudl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>
>
> > > discussion on Usenet is like making wishes to a leprechaun.
Phrasing
> > > must be absolutely precise.
>
> > Actually you said that he "...does not respond to 'theists bringing up
> > their beliefs
> > inappropriately"'.
>
> Select one of the following words:
>
> "just"
> "only"
> "simply"
> "merely"
>
> Insert into the statement initially made, after "does not", and re-
> read.
>
> Leprechauns, like I said.
>
> > I take it that you said that he did a specific thing that you disagree
> > with. I am asking you what he said and why you disagree. Is that an
> > odd question?
>
> I'm assuming you're not demanding a detailed and sentence-by-sentence
> critique of everything Dawkins has ever said about religion. You're
> intelligent enough, I'm sure, to know his position. My position, as I
> frequently try to explain, is that religion, or the lack thereof, is
> an individual choice, and not something that should be decided by
> others. Thus, while I defend the right of atheist and theist alike to
> reach a decision to believe or not and express the reasons behind it
> (free speech, and all that), I reject anyone's authority to make
> demands about what another person should believe or not believe with
> regard to religion; and I reject anyone's judgement on another's
> sanity or intelligence based on whether or not they have reached the
> same conclusion in this area. That means that I oppose militant
> religionists who treat non-believers with contempt; and similarly I
> oppose militant atheists who treat believers with contempt; and as is
> usually the case for those who stand between two extremes, I have
> become enemy to both.
>
> Dawkins falls into the category above because he is not satisfied with
> simply explaining why he doesn't believe, as he would and should have
> every right to do, but because, like some individuals in these groups,
> he also adopts a superior position and looks down on those who do not
> agree with him. He also relies on simplistic tactics - again often
> seen here - like the categorisation of theists as insane or stupid; or
> blaming religion as a concept for the evil that mankind inflicts on
> itself, rather than recognising it as the weak excuse it so often is.
>
> Given that Dawkins is highly intelligent, and an eloquent and
> expressive writer, these tactics are far below him - as they're far
> below many of those who make them in here. It's simplistic to argue
> that religious people are stupid when there are clearly many who are
> not (and when there are clearly atheists who are). It's simplistic to
> argue that religious people are insane if in order to do so you first
> have to assert a premise that religion is a symptom of insanity
> (something that isn't accepted by the psychiatric profession in
> general). And finally, to wrap up all the complex problems of human
> society and dismiss them all with a claim that "religion did it" does
> nothing to address them, but in fact avoids addressing them by
> transferring much of the responsibility of those who perpetrate
> atrocities, or contribute to injustices, to the bogeyman of
> 'religion'. It becomes religion's fault - the fault of the *concept*
> - that these things are done, rather than the fault of the people who
> make conscious decisions to abuse, or to oppress, or to violate, and
> then offer flimsy justification by appealing to the 'will of God' - as
> though God couldn't manifest His own will if He so chose.
>
> Religion, or spirituality, or the non-adoption of either, is the one
> thing that no-one else can help us with. Despite the appeals of the
> religious to various 'holy' books or 'miracles', or of the atheistic
> to 'logic' and 'objective evidence', there will never be an
> 'objective' answer to this question - only the individual ones that we
> have to reach for ourselves. I believe a civilised society would
> respect every person's right, atheist or theist, to reach their own
> conclusions on this question, and their right to state and manifest
> those beliefs provided - and I say this advisedly, knowing how loosely
> 'harm' could be interpreted - they do not harm anyone else in doing so.
You certainly use a lot of words to, in effect, repeat the claim you
made about Dawkins. You forgot, however, to provide an example.
|
