News2 mins ago
Atheist Authors/broadcasters Talk Rubbish….
112 Answers
….. a cry often seen on these pages – and this from a week or so back.
//I find that the propaganda spouted by such as Fry and Dawkins is just as gibberish rubbish as you think the bible expounds//
If someone asks me why I think the bible contains nonsense I am happy to tell them and to go into detail if necessary, but I asked the author of that gem to explain to me what precisely these people say that makes their opinions “gibberish rubbish”, and was met with silence.
In the hope of obtaining an answer from him or from anyone else who thinks the same I’ll throw the question open to all.
//I find that the propaganda spouted by such as Fry and Dawkins is just as gibberish rubbish as you think the bible expounds//
If someone asks me why I think the bible contains nonsense I am happy to tell them and to go into detail if necessary, but I asked the author of that gem to explain to me what precisely these people say that makes their opinions “gibberish rubbish”, and was met with silence.
In the hope of obtaining an answer from him or from anyone else who thinks the same I’ll throw the question open to all.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Interesting. Many years ago I began to write down my objections as to why I couldnt believe in the bible (it was cathartic for me to do so...clearing out my own indoctrination). A christian acquaintance of mine read it one day and asked if he could borrow it and he would come back with his reply. I happily agreed.
Some time later I asked if he had read it and had he got a rebuttal to what I had written....
Turns out that he had shown it to someone at his church. She took it off him, read it and promptly torn it up declaring that it was....rubbish and of the devil. Ah well, lesson learned. Never expect a reasoned debate from a fundamentalist.
Some time later I asked if he had read it and had he got a rebuttal to what I had written....
Turns out that he had shown it to someone at his church. She took it off him, read it and promptly torn it up declaring that it was....rubbish and of the devil. Ah well, lesson learned. Never expect a reasoned debate from a fundamentalist.
////Or never hand your work over without first taking a copy ..../// LOL
This was in the days before the internet became common place as well, so no quick referencing on a keyboard. It was all done with a lot of reading and note taking.
As I said, lesson learned ;-)
Great question though, would love to hear from a religious believer as to why Dawkins et all talk rubbish.
Wouldnt hold my breath though.
This was in the days before the internet became common place as well, so no quick referencing on a keyboard. It was all done with a lot of reading and note taking.
As I said, lesson learned ;-)
Great question though, would love to hear from a religious believer as to why Dawkins et all talk rubbish.
Wouldnt hold my breath though.
Whatever opinion anyone holds that person should be prepared to explain why they draw their conclusions.
To dismiss such eminent individuals such as Fry and Dawkins and not offer a counter-argument just exposes a lack of credibility.
Some theists will conveniently hide behind the claim of 'what's the point?' for fear of being ridiculed.
It's a tantalising question for sure and it will be interesting to observe if anyone get's anywhere near the level of intellect of messrs Fry and Dawkins....
To dismiss such eminent individuals such as Fry and Dawkins and not offer a counter-argument just exposes a lack of credibility.
Some theists will conveniently hide behind the claim of 'what's the point?' for fear of being ridiculed.
It's a tantalising question for sure and it will be interesting to observe if anyone get's anywhere near the level of intellect of messrs Fry and Dawkins....
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Birdie, idiosyncrasy at 08:22 Mon 07th Sep here:
http://
http://
In this Guardian article writer who was a fan of Dawkins thinks he has lost the plot
http://
http://
With reference to 'The God Delusion' - a book which turned a rather average scientist into a very rich atheist ..'the worst thing Dawkins did in his book was to misquote Robert M Pirsig out of context. "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion." (p. 28)
This is not what Pirsig said. Dawkins apparently does not know what Pirsig believes; or perhaps he finds it convenient to ignore it. He is citing Pirsig's second book, Lila, but proceeds to ignore much else that Pirsig believes.
Pirsig stated clearly that "sanity" for him represents conformity to cultural values. Being "sane" then is not necessarily to be in touch with reality; and to be "insane" is not necessarily to be out of touch with reality. (p 381-85)
Pirsig also stated that his goal in comparing religion to insanity is "not to undercut religion but to illuminate insanity." (p. 433) He also states that "an insane delusion can't be held by a group at all. A person isn't considered insane if there are a number of people who believe the same way. Insanity isn't supposed to be a communicable disease..." (p 432)
His approach to insanity is opposite that of Dawkins.
Pirsig's view of insanity is more nuanced than Dawkins' view, and to misquote Pirsig is perhaps the lowest blow Dawkins has resorted to in this book' Without God, Dawkins would be largely unemployed, so it seems to me gibberish for him to call into question the existence of his employer!
This is not what Pirsig said. Dawkins apparently does not know what Pirsig believes; or perhaps he finds it convenient to ignore it. He is citing Pirsig's second book, Lila, but proceeds to ignore much else that Pirsig believes.
Pirsig stated clearly that "sanity" for him represents conformity to cultural values. Being "sane" then is not necessarily to be in touch with reality; and to be "insane" is not necessarily to be out of touch with reality. (p 381-85)
Pirsig also stated that his goal in comparing religion to insanity is "not to undercut religion but to illuminate insanity." (p. 433) He also states that "an insane delusion can't be held by a group at all. A person isn't considered insane if there are a number of people who believe the same way. Insanity isn't supposed to be a communicable disease..." (p 432)
His approach to insanity is opposite that of Dawkins.
Pirsig's view of insanity is more nuanced than Dawkins' view, and to misquote Pirsig is perhaps the lowest blow Dawkins has resorted to in this book' Without God, Dawkins would be largely unemployed, so it seems to me gibberish for him to call into question the existence of his employer!
Khandro, //'the worst thing Dawkins did in his book was to misquote Robert M Pirsig out of context. "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion." (p. 28)
This is not what Pirsig said.//
I’ve googled this and if it is not what Pirsig said there are an awful lot of people committing the same error. It appears Dawkins didn’t misquote him.
//He [Pirsig] also states that "an insane delusion can't be held by a group at all. A person isn't considered insane if there are a number of people who believe the same way.//
I can’t agree with him there. Among others, think David Koresh and his followers.
Enough of Pirsig’s philosophy. Back to the people in question.
This is not what Pirsig said.//
I’ve googled this and if it is not what Pirsig said there are an awful lot of people committing the same error. It appears Dawkins didn’t misquote him.
//He [Pirsig] also states that "an insane delusion can't be held by a group at all. A person isn't considered insane if there are a number of people who believe the same way.//
I can’t agree with him there. Among others, think David Koresh and his followers.
Enough of Pirsig’s philosophy. Back to the people in question.
naomi; I've given chapter and verse and yet you still say " It appears Dawkins didn’t misquote him." Why do you say that?
As for your feeble attempt at evasion; "Enough of Pirsig’s philosophy. Back to the people in question." I haven't left them, by his clear falsification of another's statements in order to try to prove his views, Dawkins is clearly talking "gibberish rubbish" examples of which is what you requested in the OP.
As for your feeble attempt at evasion; "Enough of Pirsig’s philosophy. Back to the people in question." I haven't left them, by his clear falsification of another's statements in order to try to prove his views, Dawkins is clearly talking "gibberish rubbish" examples of which is what you requested in the OP.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
And this is some gibberish rubbish from buffoon Stephen Fry
http://
http://
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.