The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A badge of courage > Comments

A badge of courage : Comments

By Jane Caro, published 18/3/2010

Richard Dawkins - a strident man? 'Strident' is a word reserved for silencing those impudent enough to challenge the status quo.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Thanks Jane Caro, I can now embrace "strident" and wear the epithet with pride, now that men are being called strident.

Gotta love irony.
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 18 March 2010 9:33:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Strident atheists are rude about the Pope's red Gucci slippers.

Strident believers kill people.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 18 March 2010 9:38:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Waah.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 18 March 2010 9:51:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From another OLO article today...

'In recent weeks both the Murdoch and the Fairfax/Rural Press media interests have made strident attacks on the ABC.'
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 18 March 2010 9:54:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A disappointing essay. I would have liked to have been there and I was looking forward to reading what Richard Dawkins or some of the others had to say, but alas, nothing. Perhaps a follow up article instead of this piece of trivia. (Other less generous ajectives also come to mind)

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 18 March 2010 9:58:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
VK3AUU

Point taken, however Caro's article more than balances out the waffle written by Rowan Forster. At least Caro's opinion has a basis in fact.

Sometimes the religious bias on OLO makes claims about the ABC bias appear very slight indeed. Where is Peter Sellick these days anyway?
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 18 March 2010 10:05:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The poor man is only after a religion. Give him and his crowd a go.

After all, there are no burnings at the stakes any longer.
Posted by skeptic, Thursday, 18 March 2010 10:23:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David
The Australian, A PLus, Monday March 15th gave as good a summary of the conference proceedings as one could find anywhere. Jane's article addressed 'strident'.
General
There is no doubt that Dawkins, as wise as he appears to be and obviously recognised as the mouthpiece of Atheism, is sometimes hard on some people in his responses to questions. That could be called strident. It is a pity that he reacts as he does as it really was the only criticism that you really find about the conference other than on the subject of atheism itself from those who do not seem to really understand the subject, as clearly exampled by writings in previous Online Opinion articles.
It is as though he is now tired of answering all those repeated questions from people who genuinely want to hear his response. The fact that quite often, probably more often than not, he has answered the same question a dozen times before, is hardly the fault of a questioner in another country. I think he seems to forget that. For them it is a genuine interest in the answer which they may never have asked or heard before. Perhaps he needs to hone his tolerance level just a little.
So I would say his 'stridency' (not literally correct)is based on an element of boredom on the subject and perhaps a low level of arrogance, thus his replies are born of these two factors.

Now if you want to read strident in its glory, The Australian on Tuesday 16th, 'Commentary" had an article by a UK writer, Melanie Phillips on Dawkins.
Now she is what I would call strident in every way possible, her articles always reflecting the arrogance that comes from an irrational Jewish writer, blinkered from reality and thumping a drum from atop a self-made pedestal while calling Dawkins "the Savonarola of scientism and the intolerant closer of minds".
Her ability to really understand anything other then her own imprinted Judaism is patently obvious by her jaundiced writings. She could be called the Savonarola of extreme and irrational thinking.
Posted by rexw, Thursday, 18 March 2010 11:19:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Jane, it is good that people like Dawkins and yourself are breaking the silence that has slowly descended since the days of "Damn Whores and God's Police". There's another noun that is usually used in conjunction with "strident" and that is "socialist", and I became one some time after I was a "strident feminist and athiest"!
Posted by KA, Thursday, 18 March 2010 11:27:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes REXV the rant by Phillips was strident, and awful, and ignorant too. This was published in a rag that pretends to "inform" the nation, and to be the "heart" of the nation too.

And yet this rant quite typical of those on the right side of the culture wars when they write in the defense and advocacy of what they call "religion".
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 18 March 2010 11:28:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that's a pretty fair assessment, rexw. Dawkins will always explain the science carefully when questioned, but he doesn't always hide his lack of respect for his interlocutors. Sometimes that's because he is exchanging with young earth creationists who hold objectively laughable beliefs, ala Fielding, and other times its because of the inherent repetition or basic misunderstanding of science inherit to the question. After all, it must be difficult to keep showing forbearance when someone asks a basic science question for the millionth time with a tone of gotchya triumphalism.

To his credit, in the case of the DNA lady at the Convention, he did actually intervene against the crowd who thought she was lacking good faith. His calling the Fielding's IQ lower than an earthworm was less generous, however.
Posted by BBoy, Thursday, 18 March 2010 1:01:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
REXV Thanks for that. I will see what I can find about it in the internet. I would also have to agree with your comments about Philips. Her breed is the cause of most of the angst in Palestine.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 18 March 2010 1:01:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
”Combined with the word militant you create the impression of someone who is both obnoxious and deeply intimidating.

It’s the people who use words like ‘strident’ and other abusive words who should be regarded as “obnoxious”; whether or not they are intimidating is up to the targets of their abuse. I was called a “bigoted prat” today by one of OLO’s resident would-be bullies. I gave him up as a moron long ago, so his bullying tactics have not been successful.

But, many people are intimidated by name-calling thugs, and as the author says, ‘strident’ is mostly aimed at women by men.

I think that the author is right when she suggests that ‘strident’ (and any other terms of abuse) be worn as a ‘badge of honour’. When they start calling you names, as many posters on OLO do, you’ve got them. They don’t have any arguments, so they slip into their bully mode and try to silence you in the only way they know how.

I don't think Dawkins much cares what people call him. Why should the rest of us?
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 18 March 2010 1:09:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From memory, Richard Dawkins did not comment on Stephen Fielding in his speech at the Conference.

It was Robin Williams who made the earthworm remark (although he claimed to be quoting Dawkins, though in private conversation) and also Robin Williams who (very funnily) began his speech by saying he could prove there was no god in two word - PAUSE - Senator Fielding.

It is quite interesting to watch Dawkins being blamed for someone else's speech, by people who were not present.
Posted by ena, Thursday, 18 March 2010 2:55:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What self-indulgence, to write an article ostensibly about the atheists’ convention which is mostly about Jane Caro.

And what flawed logic - because Dawkins is called strident, the word can be taken as a compliment.

It recalls the argument: “people said that Einstein was mad, and he was really a genius. People say that I’m mad, I must be a genius too."
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 18 March 2010 3:04:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've also had the term strident thrown at me.
As well as socialist, leftist, and many other
terms not as polite. It usually happens when my
views tend to question what is the acceptable
"norm," be it same-sex marriage, or acceptable
posting behaviour on the web. By the way, I am
not an atheist, however, I saw the "Q and A,"
program on which Mr Dawkins was a guest. I found
it somewhat disappointing - not because of anything
Mr Dawkins said, but I blame the weak calibre of
panelists that were on the program with him.

Strident was defintely not a word that I would use
to describe Mr Dawkins. Polite, intelligence, yes.
Strident? - definitely not
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 18 March 2010 4:22:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steve Fielding only had himself to blame for his pathetic attempt to defend his faith on Q & A. By allowing himself to be bullied by such a puny fist waving human being hiding behind pseudo science was an embarasment to Christians who believe the Scriptures and scientist who are not prepared to twist what they observe to fit the evolution fantasy. Dawkins in all his slime understands that his total faith system relies on the myth of evolution. Everyone who thinks, understands this and that is why they have to so arrogantly dismisses creation (even though it is obvious). His disciples show the same arrogance and self righteousness. God deniers are champions at making heroes out of men with slimy tongues and little substance. They are not afraid to applaud those who make themselves feel comfortable in their own immorality as seen by the way they cheer the likes of the foul mouth Deveny. Strident and smooth talking yes but slimy and deceitful doubly yes.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 18 March 2010 5:39:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to agree Jane's article would have been more at home in some
commercialized 'woman's' magazine the type at check out counters.
it was weak and light on substance. Hardly appropriate for OLO.
More than a little like what I did on my holiday with a sexed up title.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 19 March 2010 12:16:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, might I suggest that the invective that you heap on those of us who know and understand real science, not only falls upon deaf ears, but might in turn be redirected to those of your ilk who follow the completely illogical creation line.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 19 March 2010 6:43:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crummy little know-nothing tirades from you, runner, do more to discredit christianity than all the atheist conventions in the world. *you* speak for christianity? Dump the lot in that case. That better christians don't shout you down is misapplied politeness on their part.

*your* issue is that science is not religion's lap-dog, and the most capable and eminent the least so. That bitter and vicious twits like yourself want to silence atheists is no surprise. What is surprising is the forbearance that doesn't punish you.

Not sure how long that will last. Reasonable christians already protest about being conflated with your type, so they may need to do the work to shut you up themselves.

Well, how about it?

What "christians" are willing to *say* they are sick of being treated like runner are willing to stand up and say runner does not speak for them?

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Friday, 19 March 2010 8:50:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's okay, Leigh. You wear your "bigoted prat" badge with pride.

I'm relieved that you don't feel bullied by me - you'd have to be ridiculously precious if you did. Oh, hang on...
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 19 March 2010 9:46:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty

There are certainly plenty of scientist that would say that you don't represent them. You however are all to willing in your arrogance to dismiss anyone not agreeing with your dogma.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 20 March 2010 10:50:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As you say, runner, I'm not representative.

For instance, most wouldn't bother to acknowledge that views like yours exist outside the most looney fringe, let alone be worth rebutting.

You indulge in daily vituperation against all not in your (oh so precious) singular church, insulting our love of family, whatever differing beliefs we do have and, in the case of scientists, their honesty and skill without knowing a single *damn* thing about it.

Actually, runner, the problem is yours. You use the most tawdry of pamphlets as a basis. You don't check your supposed references, so even cursory examination shows you to be completely the dupe of quote-miners. Who is more contemptible: the quote miners you read, or the dupe who believes on such shallow basis? You poor innocent sucker. *of course* I dismiss *your* dogma!

There *are* better arguments out there runner. You won't find them in typical creationist literature however, so you'll have to work a lot harder than you ever have to find them. That's *your* journey, after which you might have a less paranoid response to those who differ.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Saturday, 20 March 2010 12:35:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Might intrude once again to report that in a worrying world OLO has become bloody boring.

It has become very much like a University of the 3rd Age in Mandurah WA, which though begun by retired journo's and Mature Age students, formerly had the old journos and Late Age students taking groups on mostly political problems, one very interesting six monthly renewing one titled the Changing Global Political Economy.

Might say the subjects studied right now are mostly oldies talking about their own experiences, especially trips, etc.

And any news right now mostly just entails local news, even down to local sport.
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 20 March 2010 1:23:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, your views are not typical of mainstream Christianity, which has no problems in holding evolution as a mechanism, and God as the cause! Christian theology is way beyound the simplistic veiw you present as Christian.
Posted by Lecy, Monday, 22 March 2010 10:51:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lecy

With all due respects what you regard as mainstream Christianity has more than likely never represented Christ or biblical teachings in many areas. IF you want to compromise plain teaching of Scriptures and observing the obvious using pseudo science as a reason so be it. No doubt you won't upset anyone with your compromised beliefs.
Posted by runner, Monday, 22 March 2010 11:04:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, I am curious. What do you regard as "real science"?
Who might you regard as the real scientists of the past couple of generations?

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 22 March 2010 10:03:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been looking at the essay that John Perkins delivered to the Atheist conference. the paper is titled "The Cost of Religious Delusion: Islam and terrorism" and can be found at his home page: http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/Articles.htm

John makes a lot of remarks about Islam but does not support his opinions with serious scholarship. This seems to be characteristic of the other essays that i have been able to read.

For example, he states that

--the Qu'ran "describes the sun as being in orbit around the earth." p4

--"Islam is the only religion born of war and established by war." p4

--that Muhammad "became wealthy from the booty of war." p4

...among other things.

I would contend that John has not a leg to stand on and this is reflected in the fact that he does not provide scholarship to support these statements. I would contend that he would not be able to find a serious scholar (i.e. anyone with an academic reputation of integrity to protect and peer-reviewed publications to their name) in Islam who would support such statements.

My follow up question is this: Why didn't the organisers of the conference invite a speaker who would be in a position to challenge Islam with real scholarship? Or couldn't they find one?
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 27 March 2010 2:27:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jane, I can relate to a lot of what you say, but from the other side of the fence.

As someone who has tried to put forward an opposing view to that of Dawkins here at OLO, I can tell you that I’ve received more colourful words than ‘strident’. (You can look through my history and find some of them).

When you put a view clearly and expressively that lands in awkward places, you can expect to be called some names. And as you say, you might as well wear them as a badge of honour.

‘Strident’ has a meaning, and may be used appropriately on the right occasion. Your beef seems to be that it is usually just a putdown term. I’m also irritated by those who throw around the word ‘fundamentalist’ when it is seemingly only used as slight or slander. When the word was first coined, it did have a specific meaning. Nowadays it’s just used as a synonym for Neanderthal or extremist. So exactly what kind of preacher would you say was Dan Barker?

While we’re talking about words, I saw on PZ Meyers’ website a response he posted to a challenge put from Australia’s leading creationists to Atheist conference speakers to publicly debate the issue of our origins.

Did you read Meyers’ response? He actually didn’t use any words. Instead he posted a renaissance style portrait of Jesus with the middle finger flashing the bird. Would you call that strident?

Did you see Dawkins’ performance on the ABC’s Q&A the other day? If you didn’t, here’s a taste -

DAWKINS: “If you believe in the New Testament, that God, the all powerful creator of the universe couldn't think of a better way to forgive humanity's sins than to have himself put on earth, tortured and executed in atonement for the sins of humanity? What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?”

Would you call that admirably strident?

I only wish the ABC had the guts, or at least a descent sense of theatre, to give him a worthy debating opponent.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 27 March 2010 6:19:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by Dan S de Merengue:
QUOTE

Did you see Dawkins’ performance on the ABC’s Q&A the other day? If you didn’t, here’s a taste -

DAWKINS: “If you believe in the New Testament, that God, the all powerful creator of the universe couldn't think of a better way to forgive humanity's sins than to have himself put on earth, tortured and executed in atonement for the sins of humanity? What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?”

UNQUOTE

Interesting ... Dawkin's view is similar to what the Qur'aan says:

"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is." (Surah Maryam, ayat 35)

Allah does not need to become a man to forgive us our sins :-)
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 27 March 2010 10:34:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I agree. Dawkins has a few similarities with the prophet Mohammed.

Both are a little intolerant of Christians. Both agree that it is not fitting for a righteous God to allow a prophet such as Jesus to suffer a shameful execution. Both are making theological comment about the nature of God. The difference is that Mohammed believed in God.

But why does Dawkins waste him time defaming the character of a being that he thinks doesn’t exist?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 28 March 2010 11:42:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice try, Dan S de Merengue.

And nice to have you back after your vacation.

>>Yes, I agree. Dawkins has a few similarities with the prophet Mohammed. Both are a little intolerant of Christians.<<

Teensy weensy correction: Dawkins does not discriminate between religions. He is equally dismissive of the god worshipped by Mohammed. (Which would actually be the same one that you worship, I believe?).

An "equal opportunity" atheist, in fact.

>>Both agree that it is not fitting for a righteous God to allow a prophet such as Jesus to suffer a shameful execution.<<

Nope. Off the mark again, I'm afraid.

Dawkins is suggesting that a religion that imagines that its god carries on in this manner, is not setting a particularly good example. You see, Dawkins doesn't actually believe there is a god, so can only speak about what he observes religious people get up to.

Which, you must admit, is pretty bizarre. All this business about "man being in his image", for example, is puzzling when viewed against, for example, thalidomide babies. Or conjoined twins.

>>Both are making theological comment about the nature of God.<<

That's hardly a defining characteristic, I would have thought. If this is one of your criteria, it would be equally appropriate to say "Dan S Merengue has a few similarities with the prophet Mohammed".

Which, on reflection, is also a pretty sustainable premise.

>>But why does Dawkins waste him time defaming the character of a being that he thinks doesn’t exist?<<

Oh, that old furphy. You really are scraping the bottom of your Creationist/fundamentalist barrel, aren't you?

The observations are made on the actions of the "followers" of these religions, not the object of their devotions.

It is impossible to "defame" something that does not exist. It is however perfectly reasonable to suggest that the image created by its acolytes is thoroughly suspect.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 28 March 2010 12:24:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My turn to respond to Dan S de Merengue. :-)

First an apology to you brother if i caused any offense. for me the coincidence of conclusions is an example where the Qu'ran fits so well what we would deduce through reason: the Creator need only say "Be!" and it is (no need to become a man). Perhaps i was being a little too strident. :-)

Second, several corrections. While there are those followers of ibn Wahhab who are certainly intolerant of anyone who does not conform to ther anthropomorphic and corrupted interpretation of the Qur'an (and remember most of their victims are Muslims), Muslims or Islam as a religion can never be accused of being intolerant of Christians, whether one looks at it from the perspective of its teachings, particularly through the example of the Prophet and his companions, or its history.

A second correction: Islam teaches that while there was an impression that Jesus was executed, in fact he was not executed. What is unbecoming is to imagine our Creator being executed!

salaams
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 28 March 2010 11:36:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
You suggest that Dawkins is not wasting his time, but is making good use of time in discussing with Christians the nature and character of a being that he thinks doesn’t exist.

Grateful,
No need to apologise. There was no offense taken. We (Dawkins included) were simply entering a discussion of theological perspectives.

While we’re here, could I ask for your opinion on Daniel Scott? I once was chatting to him, and he told me about the persecution he suffered for his faith at the hands of Muslims in Pakistan. It was such that he had to immigrate to Australia. I read in the newspaper last week of the court case brought by Australian Muslims against Scott that was finally settled out of court after three years of legal wrangling with both parties agreeing that Australians should be free to enter rigorous theological discussion.

By your understanding, Jesus was not crucified by the Romans. Therefore is what Christians are about to memorialise in the coming week an apostasy? And what is the correct view of Jihad and the correct attitude that Muslims should take to apostates?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 29 March 2010 7:21:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I admire your ability to sidestep, Dan S de Merengue, I really do. Maybe it goes with the nick - perhaps people dancing the merengue spend a lot of their time travelling backwards, then hopping sideways...?

>>Pericles, You suggest that Dawkins is not wasting his time, but is making good use of time in discussing with Christians the nature and character of a being that he thinks doesn’t exist.<<

It actually makes me wonder whether you have actually read any of Dawkins' work, or listened to him speak.

If you had, you would notice that he spends no time at all on discussing with believers the nature of their gods, but a lot of time discussing the impact of their beliefs about their gods, on their behaviour.

You see, it is the impact on religionists' behaviour that we atheists find difficult to get our heads around. You all seem to have a different impression of what your imaginary being wants of you.

Does he want you to be good? Or is he happy that you are bad, so long as you ask him (not your fellow-humans) for forgiveness?

Or does he want you to go on a crusade to kill those who don't believe in the same version as you? Does he want you to seek out those individuals who don't agree with your specific interpretation of what he's talking about, and torture and/or kill them?

One of the confusing factors is, of course, the "scriptures" used to justify all these various behaviours. They can be - and are - "interpreted" differently by different people, each with their own particular agenda. Hardly surprising, then, that different denominations of Christians are at each others' throats, different denominations of Muslims are at each others' throats, and those two religions - despite sharing the same god - are at each others' throats too.

These are the meat of Dawkins' discussions, Dan S de Merengue, not the actual nature of the deities involved. To us atheists, they are all much of a muchness.

But you knew that really, didn't you?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 29 March 2010 8:07:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
If the varying concepts associated with God are much of a muchness to atheists, then why did the Christian revelation of God rile Dawkins on Q&A the other night?

You say I scrape the bottom of the creationists’ barrel of arguments. Does that suggest that creationists have better arguments than that which I’ve used?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 11:49:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Knowing your ability to obfuscate, Dan S de Merengue, I simply have to ask the obvious questions.

What do you characterise as "the Christian revelation of God" that you suggest "rile[d] Dawkins on Q&A the other night"

Here's the transcript - just copy and paste the relevant part

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2831712.htm

Take your time.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 3:55:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’ve already read the transcript and reprinted the relevant portion earlier (see above).

Dawkins speaks of God, the all powerful creator coming to earth [in the person of Jesus] and suffering an ignominious death. This was acknowledged as the means for forgiveness of sins and the bringing of atonement to humanity.

The death of Jesus and his rising to life again is a core element of Christianity, is celebrated at Easter, and is the central focus of New Testament teaching.

It was to this that Dawkins seemed to take objection.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 8:25:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue: << The death of Jesus and his rising to life again is a core element of Christianity, is celebrated at Easter, and is the central focus of New Testament teaching. >>

As I imagine Dawkins does, I regard the literal resurrection of Jesus to be a myth, but it doesn't "rile" me in the least. However, it's certainly one of the reasons I'm not a Christian.

I guess that makes me "strident" too.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 9:48:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’d have to agree.

The resurrection myth doesn’t “rile” me either, but it certainly does amaze me that it never occurs to Christians that the story isn’t even really one of sacrifice.

It’s like I’ve said on another thread, if I had the choice of being tortured, crucified, suffering Hell for three days, rising then getting to be God for an eternity, I’m gonna choose that.

Not really a sacrifice when you put it into context now, is it?

Stridently yours,
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 10:12:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
QUOTE
... could I ask for your opinion on Daniel Scott? ...he told me about the persecution he suffered for his faith at the hands of Muslims in Pakistan. ...
UNQUOTE

Based on the demonstrably false statements about Islam and Muslims that Daniel Scott engages in with his parishioners i would not trust a word he said.

And by the way such incitement to hatred is felt in the Muslim community in the form of threats, spitting and violence...a message that can be equally be directed to fundamentalist Atheists.

One of the things that always impresses me is the contrast in manners between Muslims and the Christians you have referred to. I have yet to come across a grouping of Muslims, large or small, who speak in the manner of these Christians. It is as if they have so little faith in their own doctrine that they need to prove themselves by vilifying others.

Muslims follow the following advice

(109) “Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after Truth hath become manifest unto them; but forgive and overlook, till Allah hath power over all things.

(110) And be steadfast in prayer and regular in charity: and whatever good ye send forth for your souls before you, ye shall find it with Allah, for Allah sees well all that ye do.

(111) And they say: “None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.” Those are their (vain) desires. Say “Produce your proof if ye are truthful.”

(112) Nay, -whoever submits his whole self to Allah is a doer of good, -he will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” (Qu’ran, 2:109-112)

AND

“And abuse not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest exceeding the limits, they abuse Allah through ignorance. Thus to every people have We made their deeds fair-seeming; then to their Lord is their return so he will inform them of what they did” (Qu’ran, 6:109)
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 11:05:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, that, Dan S de Merengue.

Let's try this again, now that we know what you are talking about

>>If the varying concepts associated with God are much of a muchness to atheists, then why did the Christian revelation of God rile Dawkins on Q&A the other night?<<

It was not "the Christian revelation of God" that annoyed Dawkins, but the notion put forward that while the Old Testament was a bit iffy in places, the New Testament was, somehow... nicer.

A member of the audience asked Senator Fielding:

"As a believer in God, do you accept the Bible as the word of God and those who participate in homosexual behavior ought to be shunned or be put to death as the Bible demands? Or do so called ‘moderate Christians' simply choose to ignore the word of God in this case, picking what passages they feel best suit our social trends of the day?"

Fielding huffed and puffed a bit until Julie Bishop came to the rescue.

"The new testament tells the story of a man who tried to do good things and who began this movement of Christianity that is still with us today. He must have been an outstanding person, let's face it. But the beautify of the psalms, the message behind the parables, doesn't mean that you have to be absolutely wedded to each word. It means that there were messages there that live through the ages and I don't have any difficulty with the New Testament at all in that regard."

Dawkins response - "riled", according to your view - was to point out that the "message" of the resurrection was equally barbaric as the stoning of women "taken in adultery", or whatever, in the OT.

>>It was to this that Dawkins seemed to take objection.<<

Not at all. He was simply pointing out the many inconsistencies that are an everyday, essential part of being a Christian.

>>You say I scrape the bottom of the creationists’ barrel of arguments. Does that suggest that creationists have better arguments than that which I’ve used?<<

If you say so.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 11:12:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan in response to: "By your understanding, Jesus was not crucified by the Romans. Therefore is what Christians are about to memorialise in the coming week an apostasy?"

This is a letter to the Monks of St. Catherine Monastery from the Prophet

In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt.Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such
topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war. An English translation of that document is presented here:

“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

“Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet.

Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them.

If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”

http://darvish.wordpress.com/2006/10/20/the-prophets-letters-to-christians/
Also see the Prophet's message to the Assyrian Christians at the above site.
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 11:30:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,
Thanks for the quote and link I did not know of.
If I may ask, what is your relation to sufism, in what sense do you see it as the essence of islam?
Are you a follower of Fethullah Gülen, or what is your opinion of him?
Posted by George, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 12:34:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

You sound like someone looking for knowledge, so a sincere thank-you for you questions.

Sufism is a science of Islam, also known as Tassawuf. The deen (religion, but as a complete way of life) of Islam consists of Islam, Iman and Ihsan. These are explained in a key Hadith often referred to as the The Jibril Hadith (for a translation and interpretation see: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=879&CATE=1).

So to put sufism in context it is best to begin with these three concepts

'Islam is that you witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and you establish the prayer, and you give the Zakat, and you fast Ramadan, and you perform the hajj of the House if you are able to take a way to it.'

Iman is 'That you affirm Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day, and that you affirm the Decree, the good of it and the bad of it.'

And finally Ihsan:
'That you worship Allah as if you see Him, for if you don't see Him then truly He sees you.'

Ihsan is the realm of Tassawuf (Sufism).

If you have been patient enough to read thus far then perhaps you would be interested in the following introduction to Tassawuf by Shaykh Nuh Ha Min Keller in the form of lectures given to his students in Virgina in 1998 (http://www.shadhiliteachings.com/tariq/?act=file&id=3).

Otherwise, there is a brief introduction here: http://www.shadhiliteachings.com/tariq/?act=file&id=18

In fact there is something there for everybody.

For Dan there is something on Jihad, downloadable to your ipod :-) (http://www.shadhiliteachings.com/tariq/?act=file&id=3)

For athiests in general there are a number of lectures on scientism, atheism and so on (http://www.shadhiliteachings.com/tariq/?act=file&id=20)

..and here is a special something for Richard Dawkins: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

Shaykh Nuh is based in Jordan, although orignally from the U.S.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuh_Ha_Mim_Keller).

Happy listening/reading :-)

salaam
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 11:33:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I’ve read the transcript.

You may want to interpret it differently to me, but it appears evident that Dawkins was saying more than reacting to the ideas of ‘niceness’ portrayed by Julia Bishop. He seemed to want to go higher in accusing the God of the New Testament for his method of bringing forgiveness and atonement. Dawkins appears to be saying (like our Muslim colleague, Grateful) that God could have or should have done it a different way.

I do not see any inconsistency within the New Testament. When you speak of barbarism within in the account of the death and resurrection of Jesus, you perhaps refer to the horrific method of execution enacted by the Romans. Crucifixion was a common form of execution at the time.

I don’t see how this reflects negatively on Jesus. This possibly makes the story of Jesus’ sacrifice more heroic and meritorious.

That Dawkins wants to make comment about the nature and character of God is his right or pleasure. I think it’s funny that it should bother him as an atheist to the degree that it does.

Grateful,
I asked your opinion of Daniel Scott. Since you’ve given it fairly forcefully, I’d like to say a few words in his defence.

In my experience of meeting him, Scott is scholarly (educated in Pakistan) and well understands the Koran and its supporting commentaries. He’s uncompromising; he calls things as he sees it. He’s gentle and hospitable in his attitude towards Muslims and would be as saddened as any by threats and violence. Though accused of religious vilification, the case was eventually settled by the parties, with an accompanying statement agreed by both sides towards the right to rigorous debate. This is a value that we all share here at OLO. The madness in the whole affair was the inadequacies evident within the Victorian government’s trendy new law, which threatened our right to speak openly.

Thanks for your detailed response.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 1 April 2010 1:01:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Dan S,

Since you apparently know Daniel Scott quite well, would you be able provide examples of his scholarship, whereby he supports his assertions with serious scholarship and not unverifiable anecdotes.

Likewise, can you provide examples of such scholarship for anything that has been written or spoken under the banner of the Catch the Fire Ministries?
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 3 April 2010 2:11:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grateful,
Thanks for the info and links. I should have mentioned that I do not understand Arabic, so some of the links were lost on me. So you approve of sufism, but did not answer my question about Fethullah Gülen.
Posted by George, Saturday, 3 April 2010 2:19:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry George,

I'm not a student of Fethullah Gülen and i do not know much about his background, qualifications etc.

As for the links, yes there are a lot of Arabic terms in some of the material which were originally intended to address students.

However, articles on the theory of evolution (the one i said was for Dawkins) or Shaykh Nuh's description about how he came to Islam (http://www.shadhiliteachings.com/tariq/?act=article&id=5)are straight forward.

Also the following one on kufr (unbelief) should be readable: http://www.shadhiliteachings.com/tariq/?act=article&id=31

I'm just pointing these out because they are all issues that some people have a lot to say about but little if any knowledge. And the information comes from someone with the authority to discuss these matters.

salaams
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 3 April 2010 3:50:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy