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

[Azakel]

Originally Posted by lilithu

I can't frubal you again, so you'll have to settle for a hug.

I can, and I agree with you both.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by gnomon

Like the bright label Dawkins and I believe Dennet as well adopted. Although it was adopted, at least some claim, to avoid the more controversial atheist label it came off as incredibly arrogant even among other atheists.

I've never really understood why. Do you believe that gay people are claiming that everybody else is unhappy and depressed? Bright was modelled on the term "gay" as a way of having a positive term for the atheist without having any reflection on people who are not atheist. In the same way, people who aren't gay are not "unhappy" they are "straight".

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by lilithu

See, this is why religionists find the statement so offensive and anti-religionists see it as a non-biased statement of fact.

The latter start with the same assumption as he does.

So, the belief that doing what the hijackers did would get them into Heaven had nothing to do with what happened?

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by mball1297

So, the belief that doing what the hijackers did would get them into Heaven had nothing to do with what happened?

Of course it did, but to consider that bad batch indicative of the quality of the majority of religious people is flawed.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by M_C

Of course it did, but to consider that bad batch indicative of the quality of the majority of religious people is flawed.

Agreed and I would also point out that such a thing is not claimed by Dawkins.

[gnomon]

Originally Posted by lilithu

You are equating people praying for peace with the oppression of women and African Americans. He wasn't reacting to people trying to limit BGLT rights. He wasn't reacting to people trying to require prayer in schools. He wasn't even reacting to the terrorists. He was reacting to people of different faiths uniting together in love and for peace, firmly rejecting the hatred that drove other people to kill in the name of their God.

The liberal tradition is not anti-religion. The liberal tradition is anti-oppression. Where religion has supported oppression, the liberal tradition has opposed it. There is nothing liberal about opposing people who are looking past their differences and praying for peace.

I'm talking about altering cultural practices within a society. By altering the culture, which has taken place in the past in this country, and by breaking taboos we are implicitly destroying some notions as acceptable. Dawkins was talking about breaking the taboo of questioning faith. Questioning culture. Dawkins was talking about the bigger picture. The bigger picture that includes religious concepts behind much of the legislation in our nation, the religious concepts behind the opposition to homosexuality, the religious concepts behind the opposition to further scientific understanding.

It is the liberal tradition to question the traditional mores and norms of our society. That is the means by which Western society in the span of two centuries has become more equitable to more people. Religious beliefs and practices are but one other aspect of our culture and one in which open criticism of it has been frowned upon. In some instances, violently opposed. I'm not equating different cultural practices. I'm just stating that religion is merely a part of our culture and that Dawkins references in his works that value of that culture.

I know not of this interview. I do know about the violent responses and "us vs. them" mentality among religious believers that presented itself in both society and in the nature of the laws passed since 9/11. However, I think much of that is applicable to other cultural differences with Islam being scapegoated.

There is much to criticize and debate on Dawkins work. His personality faults I do not believe are worth discussing or representative of his works.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

I wasn't being personal, I'm just propagating discussion.

On your second point, to restrict it to hard drugs is unnecessary. Any drug misapplied is a bad drug. Theoretically, if a drug has a proper application, I see no reason to restrict it's use in that application if there are no better alternatives.

To return to the religion stuff, before this metaphor begins confusing the onlookers, no-one would ban paracetamol just because some people overdose. To call for a ban on religion because of 9/11 is like pulling the plug on the pharmaceutical industry because some of it's products go awry.

OK, here's the problem. I'm not calling for a ban on religion. As I said in the previous post, I'm calling for it to be examined, to get rid of the problems like what caused 9/11. Religion has some good aspects, there's no question. I don't have a problem with all religion, just the idea that you can't question it.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

Of course it did, but to consider that bad batch indicative of the quality of the majority of religious people is flawed.

OK, then religion caused the 9/11 attacks in your opinion. I never applied it to all people. Not all religious people are like that, obviously. It's not a quality of the majority of religious people, but it can be a quality of the religion.