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?

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.

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

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?

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?

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?