Seeing the Dark

[Didimus]

Note that "the god delusion" is in there as well. The message is that nothing is sacred; nothing.

I got that. Although as I have never heard even Maurice describe RD's work as sacred I think it's inclusion is rhetorical more than anything.
And it is a respectable position to hold, and argue for. However I still think there is something peculiar going on in the deliberateness of the offensiveness.
In an anthropological context it looks very much like those early encounters by christian missionaries with animist religions whereby the strength of the reaction to fethistic and taboo objects by the missionaries betrayed a unspoken fear that those very objects which they ridiculed might indeed have a power unknown to them.
Atheist missionaries beware.
Have another look at Dancing at Lughnasa.

[Cato]

one man's rubbish is another man's treasure

Yes, but the gold of religion is really just iron pyrite.

[paulp]

"The God Delusion" and his more recent book are full of clues.


When I know a lot more about Richard Dawkins I may be able to answer that question with certainty.

Will you be so dogmatic next week?


Some people here think I'm an Elvis fanatic they introduce him on my threads where I have not mentioned him. Get my drift?

then describing Dawkins as a fundamentalist atheist might not be a million miles (or a couple of universes in a megaverse if you prefer) from being accurate?

[toxic avenger]

Oh dear Christ, another one. Is this Politics.ie or Proselytise.ie? How many "Why I think people who believe in something I don't are peasant idiots" threads do we have to have? We get it, you're all wonderful, way cleverer and more rational than the lumpen masses, well done...

[Cato]

Oh dear Christ, another one. Is this Politics.ie or Proselytise.ie? How many "Why I think people who believe in something I don't are peasant idiots" threads do we have to have? We get it, you're all wonderful, way cleverer and more rational than the lumpen masses, well done...

Instructive that you didn't think to post something like this on the atheist bashing thread. Double standard much?

[paulp]

Yes, but the gold of religion is really just iron pyrite.

may well be, but so what?

would you tell a friend that they are ugly, have a big nose, that their child is a spoilt brat?

[MauriceColgan]

I got that. Although as I have never heard even Maurice describe RD's work as sacred I think it's inclusion is rhetorical more than anything.
And it is a respectable position to hold, and argue for. However I still think there is something peculiar going on in the deliberateness of the offensiveness.
In an anthropological context it looks very much like those early encounters by christian missionaries with animist religions whereby the strength of the reaction to fethistic and taboo objects by the missionaries betrayed a unspoken fear that those very objects which they ridiculed might indeed have a power unknown to them.
Atheist missionaries beware.
Have another look at Dancing at Lughnasa.

Atheist missionaries are few and far between but they would know all about imagined supernatural powers anyway.

I saw the "Wolfman" film in 1957. It's back again! Always had a liking for those weird wolves.

[toxic avenger]

Instructive that you didn't think to post something like this on the atheist bashing thread. Double standard much?

I haven't even looked at an atheist-bashing thread, suffice to say if there is one set up for that purpose then it is as moronic and mis-placed as all the Catholic bashing ones.

[Cato]

I haven't even looked at an atheist-bashing thread, suffice to say if there is one set up for that purpose then it is as moronic and mis-placed as all the Catholic bashing ones.

This isn't a Catholic bashing thread; few of them are. They are anti-religion threads. Anti-clerical and anti-religion ideas have a long political pedigree and are not out of place here. To believe otherwise is ahistorical.

[MauriceColgan]

then describing Dawkins as a fundamentalist atheist might not be a million miles (or a couple of universes in a megaverse if you prefer) from being accurate?

The word Fundementalist carries too much religious baggage for it to be an accurate description of Richard Dawkins.

Having a blind belief, faith, and fanaticism, doesnt quite describe the man of science, does it?