Richard Dawkins, the cultural christian

[egb_hibs]

"Scientist Richard Dawkins, an atheist known worldwide for arguing against the existence of God, has described himself as a "cultural Christian".

He told the BBC's Have Your Say that he did not want to "purge" the UK of its Christian heritage.

The comments came after Tory MP Mark Pritchard accused "politically correct" people of undermining Christmas.

Professor Dawkins, author of the God Delusion, added that he liked "singing Carols along with everybody else"."

[Only Registered Users Can See Links. Click Here To Register]

he's a cheeky wee chappie in 'e? fair dos for the admission but i'm still not sure he understands it on a level more profound than xmas carols.

more seriously this bit is plain wrong and indeed cowardly, and it's serious because it is atheists or at least secularists of the town hall commisar type that are responsible for this and not minority cultures. pretending otherwise is not on whendoing so can lead to racial and social division:

" I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.

"If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists."

[egb_hibs]

ps tbf, the prof is a sharp dude, and if that last bit refers to the correct identification of socialism as a religion, then he may be on stronger ground.

[Colr]

You read his book yet, then?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You read his book yet, then?

told you before, i've read the material that i understand he retreads in it.

and i'm also not really arsed with reading the screeds of fanatics of any kind. i can hack it in column sized bites, but it gets tedious at book length.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

told you before, i've read the material that i understand he retreads in it.

and i'm also not really arsed with reading the screeds of fanatics of any kind. i can hack it in column sized bites, but it gets tedious at book length.

You should try it, then you you wouldn't ave to go around talking out of your arse so much.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You should try it, then you you wouldn't ave to go around talking out of your arse so much.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ok, which bit would be new to me:

science provides explanation of the world - i agree

social evolution can explain religion - i agree

religion has outlived it's usefulness / does more harm than good - i disagree

that's about it really int it?

i prefer the equally virulent but much wiser john gray, who unlike rd, can see the embedded assumptions inherited from christianity that trap dawkins, grayling et al like bugs in amber.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ok, which bit would be new to me:

science provides explanation of the world - i agree

social evolution can explain religion - i agree

religion has outlived it's usefulness / does more harm than good - i disagree

that's about it really int it?

i prefer the equally virulent but much wiser john gray, who unlike rd, can see the embedded assumptions inherited from christianity that trap dawkins, grayling et al like bugs in amber.

Right enough. Don't waste your time. You clearly can't get your head round the concept that someone doesn't believe in God.

I've read John Grey. He's a verbose wind-bag who can stretch a point well beyond the limits of its elasticity.

[KerPlunk]

I propose a gladiatorial fight to the death between you two as obviously this board isn't big enough for two windbags* of Hindenburg dimensions.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


egb gets the trident and the net.

Col gets the wee shield and the stabby sword.

[Only Registered Users Can See Links. Click Here To Register]


P.S. Erik von Daniken & David Icke are right.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


*windbag - it's a term of endearment really.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
hmmm

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Right enough. Don't waste your time. You clearly can't get your head round the concept that someone doesn't believe in God.

eh? i'm just asking you if there's anything new in the book beyond these arguments, which i've read from him elsewhere.

I've read John Grey. He's a verbose wind-bag who can stretch a point well beyond the limits of its elasticity.

make you uncomfortable did he?

i grant you he can be repititive, but it's such a fundamental point he's trying to make, that i can almost understand why he tends to the monomania that richard d also exhibits.

[Keepitgreen]

I heard Richard Dawkins on Radio 2 today talking about the Christmas carols thing.

At first I was agreeing with what he said; namely that one does not have to be religious in order to enjoy singing a carol. Makes sense to me. A former vicar they had on was arguing against this, asking would you sing Nazi songs if they had a good tune etc. This made me reconsider.

Then the vicar said something along the lines of 'if you do not believe in God or Jesus Christ then you should not sing about Him'. This I found strange; isn't the church supposed to be inclusive, not exclusive?

It didn't sound in the spirit of Christianity at all and made me side with Dawkins again.

It does seem strange for Dawkins to come out and say this though. It's like he's fucking with them a little bit, trying to provoke reaction. As if he hasn't did that already I know but the argument got a little petty I thought.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Keepitgreen
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I heard Richard Dawkins on Radio 2 today talking about the Christmas carols thing.

At first I was agreeing with what he said; namely that one does not have to be religious in order to enjoy singing a carol. Makes sense to me. A former vicar they had on was arguing against this, asking would you sing Nazi songs if they had a good tune etc. This made me reconsider.

i don't buy this argument - although i might if i was dawkins. i don't buy it because i'd find singing the words in nazi songs outright incompatible with my position, similarly, were i labour party member i'd find it hard to sing a long with the internationale at drunken knees up, given it's the anthem of so many brutal killers.

i would otoh be quite happy to sing another countries national anthem because while i'm not aligned to it it's not outright appalling to me. i'd have thought that a better comparison maybe?

Then the vicar said something along the lines of 'if you do not believe in God or Jesus Christ then you should not sing about Him'. This I found strange; isn't the church supposed to be inclusive, not exclusive?

seems a bit daft to me too

It didn't sound in the spirit of Christianity at all and made me side with Dawkins again.

It does seem strange for Dawkins to come out and say this though. It's like he's fucking with them a little bit, trying to provoke reaction. As if he hasn't did that already I know but the argument got a little petty I thought.

i don't think he's fucking with them here, i think he is being profoundly cowardly, in trying to shift responsibility for things he's been an active part in stoking, onto the shoulders of ethnic minorities. it's really quite reprehensible.

i don't know if his game plan may is to divide and conquer, if so it's not only dishonest and cynical, but callous too, given that people could get hurt.

then again maybe he's not that cunning at all, and it really is just plain cowardice; a retreat from those very implications.

i can't figure out which is more likely, but if pushed i'd plump for the latter. he's a very unworldy man, and connecting moral ideas and their consequences consistently seems to be one of his weakspots.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by Keepitgreen
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I heard Richard Dawkins on Radio 2 today talking about the Christmas carols thing.

At first I was agreeing with what he said; namely that one does not have to be religious in order to enjoy singing a carol. Makes sense to me. A former vicar they had on was arguing against this, asking would you sing Nazi songs if they had a good tune etc. This made me reconsider.

Then the vicar said something along the lines of 'if you do not believe in God or Jesus Christ then you should not sing about Him'. This I found strange; isn't the church supposed to be inclusive, not exclusive?

It didn't sound in the spirit of Christianity at all and made me side with Dawkins again.

It does seem strange for Dawkins to come out and say this though. It's like he's fucking with them a little bit, trying to provoke reaction. As if he hasn't did that already I know but the argument got a little petty I thought.

Its kind of an extension of the point he makes about the quality of art and architecture inspired by and patronised by the church. It is a fantastic example of human achievement and what people can achieve when they are not trying to kick lumps out of one another.

From an aetheists point of view, the vicar's point is rather irellevant as God doesn't exist. One sings about Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer as well, after all.

Can't say that I know any Nazi songs (but I could call Godwin) - is Tomorrow Belongs to Me from the mucisal Cabaret one.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Funnily enough, would he make the same point about Muslim, Hindus and others enjoying Christmas (as many of them do) without absorbing the religious aspects? Probably not.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by KerPlunk
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I propose a gladiatorial fight to the death between you two as obviously this board isn't big enough for two windbags* of Hindenburg dimensions.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


egb gets the trident and the net.

Col gets the wee shield and the stabby sword.

[Only Registered Users Can See Links. Click Here To Register]


P.S. Erik von Daniken & David Icke are right.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


*windbag - it's a term of endearment really.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
hmmm

The sword of truth against the fork (tongue), huh?

Erik von Daniken got me in terrible trouble with a very religious supply teacher in primary school once!!

[alexi]

Originally Posted by Keepitgreen
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I heard Richard Dawkins on Radio 2 today talking about the Christmas carols thing.

At first I was agreeing with what he said; namely that one does not have to be religious in order to enjoy singing a carol. Makes sense to me. A former vicar they had on was arguing against this, asking would you sing Nazi songs if they had a good tune etc. This made me reconsider.Then the vicar said something along the lines of 'if you do not believe in God or Jesus Christ then you should not sing about Him'. This I found strange; isn't the church supposed to be inclusive, not exclusive?

It didn't sound in the spirit of Christianity at all and made me side with Dawkins again.

It does seem strange for Dawkins to come out and say this though. It's like he's fucking with them a little bit, trying to provoke reaction. As if he hasn't did that already I know but the argument got a little petty I thought.

Kinda like my dad, raised a Catholic but he always likes the Sash-reckons it was a good tune.

Anyone read Christopher Hitchens book -God is not Great??

[superbam]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

i don't buy this argument - although i might if i was dawkins. i don't buy it because i'd find singing the words in nazi songs outright incompatible with my position, similarly, were i labour party member i'd find it hard to sing a long with the internationale at drunken knees up, given it's the anthem of so many brutal killers.

i would otoh be quite happy to sing another countries national anthem because while i'm not aligned to it it's not outright appalling to me. i'd have thought that a better comparison maybe?

You say you would feel uncomfortable singing the internationale as it has been the anthem of so many brutal killers, but would this not also be true of many national anthems of other countries that you say you would be quite happy to sing ?