It bears repeating

Advertisements

8 Responses

  1. I’m in agreement. Dawkins statement needs repeating. But I find it more polarizing than causing thoughtful insights. I think It’s good for continuing to get the base riled up but don’t believe it expands it.

  2. This is one of those “’67 borders” type statements that as Paul notes, “gets the base riled up”, while not contributing anything more.

    You catch flies with honey, not snide, mocking remarks.

  3. I don’t believe they are snide mocking remarks…your belief not mine. I believe Dawkins speaks the truth….and the truth can be polarizing.

  4. I myself rather like Dawkins’s hyperadjectivial style.

    “New Atheists” strikes me as a comical misnomer, since the authors so labeled are only saying what atheists have been thinking and saying in the privacy of their homes for centuries. What is “new” is that they are now saying it openly.

    It seems especially ironic that such a direct and pointed statement should be called “snide.” Like many quotations, it loses some of its effect and meaning when taken out of context, but I don’t assume that his purpose is either to “catch flies” or to “rile up the base.” My guess would be that Dawkins’s purpose is not to win friends or adherents or whatever, but rather, to invite the reader to think.

  5. He’s just presenting his opinion on the matter, truth is a hard word to plaster on it.

    As far as snideness, I wasn’t necessarily talking about this comment. In general mocking people or being snide doesn’t help you very much, particularly if you are debating. Petulance doesn’t endear you to an audience.

    I find that there are many atheists that are perfectly pleasant. Than I find some with a superior manner about them, behaving like a pigeon on a statue. Which is fine, but certainly isn’t doesn’t win people over and there is no truth available to us when it comes to this subject.

  6. It’s a fair assessment. Once you size up the Christian “god” as just another person according to the moral standards of humanity, he looks awful. If not for the ‘special exempt status’ that supposedly forbids us from judging his behavior, he’d be condemned as one of history’s greatest monsters.

    I’ve asked some Christians “What is God like?” and gotten gushing explanations of his infinite mercy, love, compassion and concern… and then I ask “Where is that in the Bible?” and they’re flummoxed.

  7. Teg, I agree Dawkins is trying to get his audience to think, as he has indeed got me to think and widen my perspectives on life. But as a former life long Catholic, I find his style somewhat abrasive to beliefs that are so inbred, it chafes rather than soothes.

    Maybe he is not speaking to people like me…people written off as an irrelevant generation…maybe it is a younger audience he is trying to reach before inbred beliefs harden into irrational stances.

    But pardon me, I’m going along with the ride…..

  8. I don’t think you’re irrelevant Paul! I don’t care what Michael says about you!

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: