Which part of the God Delusion did you find most offensive? (beliefs, experience)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I found ... his book to be an insult to my intelligence, ...

I also found his book to be an insult to your intelligence.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I do recall watching an interview of him a while back in which he stated -- much like Sam Harris -- that his attitude towards theism changed on 9/11. This is a bit off topic, but I think anyone who wants an insight into the "new atheists" might take note that at least two of them became anti-religious or anti-faith in the wake of 9/11.

Funny that you should bring this up because I almost did twice. This to me proves his blatant anti-theist bent.

And it's worse, imo. I could actually understand his anger with the Abrahmic faiths if it were in response to the attacks. But it wasn't.

In the interview with him that I saw, it wasn't the 9/11 attacks that did it for him. It was the fact that after the attacks Christian and Jewish and Muslim clergy united to denounce the attacks and pray for peace. According to Dawkins, he was so incensed that they would respond in that way that he decided that religion couldn't be tolerated he used to, that the world would be better off without it and he was going to do his part to make it so.

“My respect for the Abrahamic religions went up in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th. The last vestige of respect for the taboo disappeared as I watched the ‘Day of Prayer’ in Washington Cathedral, where people of mutually incompatible faiths united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place: religion. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say ‘Enough!’ Let our tribute to the dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.”

When I heard that clergy had untied to denounce the attacks and pray for peace, I thought "good." When Dawkins saw it, he thought, we need to get rid of religion.

[Apex]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Funny that you should bring this up because I almost did twice. This to me proves his blatant anti-theist bent.

And it's worse, imo. I could actually understand his anger with the Abrahmic faiths if it were in response to the attacks. But it wasn't.

In the interview with him that I saw, it wasn't the 9/11 attacks that did it for him. It was the fact that after the attacks Christian and Jewish and Muslim clergy united to denounce the attacks and pray for peace. According to Dawkins, he was so incensed that they would respond in that way that he decided that religion couldn't be tolerated he used to, that the world would be better off without it and he was going to do his part to make it so.

“My respect for the Abrahamic religions went up in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th. The last vestige of respect for the taboo disappeared as I watched the ‘Day of Prayer’ in Washington Cathedral, where people of mutually incompatible faiths united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place: religion. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say ‘Enough!’ Let our tribute to the dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.”

When I heard that clergy had untied to denounce the attacks and pray for peace, I thought "good." When Dawkins saw it, he thought, we need to get rid of religion.

Wow, just... wow. He actually said that? Exactly what kind of "reason and logic" is this guy trying to put forth?

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Apex

Wow, just... wow. He actually said that? Exactly what kind of "reason and logic" is this guy trying to put forth?

Give it some thought! I didn't get it right off either. His reasoning is subtle, but that doesn't mean it's illogical. In this case, I think it's a matter of opinion how one would interpret the prayer day.

[gnomon]

Originally Posted by Apex

Wow, just... wow. He actually said that? Exactly what kind of "reason and logic" is this guy trying to put forth?

Dawkins should be applauded for that statement. He is saying exactly what many other non-theists believe. That the taboo of frank, honest and open discussion of religious beliefs, and to extent any idea we put forward, should be as subject to any other belief any human puts forth.

for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say ‘Enough!’ Let our tribute to the dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.

Sounds pretty liberal to me. Same process put forward when Stanton tried to change the culture in allowing more freedom for women, when DuBois and Douglas fought to alter the culture to allow recognition of Africans as humans, etcetera and so on. But for some reason, questioning faith in a religious belief is hands off.

Not any more. It never should have been. Religious belief is just one other cultural aspect. It deserves no special regard.

The singular claim made against Dawkins is his arrogance. The argument can be quoted thus,

"This man is as arrogant as we are!".

Pretty much end of story. I agree that he comes off as arrogant and combative. However, I do not see these as necessary faults and some of the events, such as his response to a student when asked "What if you are wrong", while seemingly abrasive was wholly appropriate.

[*Paul*]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Heya *Paul*,
Thanks very much for your reply. That part in particular came to my mind immediately when I heard Dawkins' remark. I was confused as to how he thought that that passage could be taken inoffensively.

I tell ya my blood when straight to my head and I almost switched it off but I did not want to match his ignorance, I wanted to hear his arguements and I listened, I have also listened to him debate alistair mcgrath but I think he really needs to debate a fundamentalist as that is what most of his stuff is against. He reminds me of the so called free thinker from the 19th century who's name escaped me just now. Frubals to the one who can give it to me first.

[Apex]

Originally Posted by gnomon

Dawkins should be applauded for that statement. He is saying exactly what many other non-theists believe. That the taboo of frank, honest and open discussion of religious beliefs, and to extent any idea we put forward, should be as subject to any other belief any human puts forth.

I do not see how what you said, and what he said, have anything to do with one another. His statement again reminds me of "Go God Go".

Sounds pretty liberal to me. Same process put forward when Stanton tried to change the culture in allowing more freedom for women, when DuBois and Douglas fought to alter the culture to allow recognition of Africans as humans, etcetera and so on. But for some reason, questioning faith in a religious belief is hands off.

You think the annihilation of religion is comparable to giving women more freedom and the recognition of Africans as humans?

[gnomon]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

I tell ya my blood when straight to my head and I almost switched it off but I did not want to match his ignorance, I wanted to hear his arguements and I listened, I have also listened to him debate alistair mcgrath but I think he really needs to debate a fundamentalist as that is what most of his stuff is against. He reminds me of the so called free thinker from the 19th century who's name escaped me just now. Frubals to the one who can give it to me first.

Robert Ingersoll?

not sure what you mean by so called.

[gnomon]

Originally Posted by Apex

I do not see how what you said, and what he said, have anything to do with one another. His statement again reminds me of "Go God Go".

You think the annihilation of religion is comparable to giving women more freedom and the recognition of Africans as humans?

Who's talking about the annihilation of religion.

Think about it and get back to me on that. Spare me hyperbole.