the bible

[AmandaGal]

Tripe,
You're wrong.









Someone had to say it.

[esoobaC .T bocaJ]

Oooh, snap!

[Tripe]

Tripe,
You're wrong.









Someone had to say it.

You make my inner Dawkins daughter cry

[esoobaC .T bocaJ]

Oooh, snap!

[torgosPizza]

Ha! Well done, old chap.

[Tyrant]

No it's not the telling her she's wrong it's the way you phrase that. That's what I meant, I thought it was funny.

See I can tell my daughter that that's not why the flowers are all those colours in ways that are less blunt and flat as "your wrong!"

See that is the thing about Dawkins he is very bright but he's also a quintessential science nerd/Mr. Logic at times, or at least that's sometimes the image he has. It's kind of amusing.

And really Honesty may be the best answer in some situations but Blunt and Honest do not have to go hand in hand. In fact just saying "your wrong" isn't even the best way to communicate that fact 

  He could have also told her, since she was a child, that perhaps that's ONE of the reasons why flowers are different colors, and then given her the scientific reason. Or perhaps told her that's what some people say and it's a nice idea, but science says......Hell, she was partially right anyway since hummingbirds and probably bees are attracted to flowers of certian colors, but that's splitting hairs.

   I agree with you 100%. I'm all for honest answers too, especially with kids. But being so honest that you're just blunt about it doesn't necessarily promote critical thinking in children. Wrong tone and wrong wording, and the kid isn't even concerned about what they're being told anymore, but rather concerned that they've gone and displeased their parent in some way. How are they learning anything then, other than what NOT to say to piss off Mommy and Daddy? If told they're flat out wrong enough times, they might even stop asking questions.

  This story is a nice example of how I've observed Dawkins' general treatment of anyone he doesn't agree with. One thing's for sure, and that's a damn interesting biography should Dawkins' daughter ever decide to write one. 

[ScottotD]

I've read parts of the bible and I take it in much the same way I do something like Easop's fables, a collection of short stories with a message.

For the sake of peace I'll leave it at that.

[Tripe]

I've read parts of the bible and I take it in much the same way I do something like Easop's fables, a collection of short stories with a message.

For the sake of peace I'll leave it at that.

No actually that's exactly what the intent of the thread was; Discussing the literary elements of the bible.

Carry On

[DarthChimay]

Dawkins? Really? I've never had that sort of moment with his writing. The closest was in The Ancestor's Tale when he started talking about logarithms. In that case it was, "you've got to be kidding me... you expect me to understand this?!?" But I was never taught math properly.

As far as The God Delusion goes, I think people have said that Dawkins says a lot of things that he just doesn't. They tend to portray him as this crazed rabid atheist, but they've turned his argument into a caricature. And how can you not like a man who's married to frakkin' Romana? Granted, I do wish that he'd gone into some of the more complex arguments for god from people like Tillich, but that's not really the kind of god most people believe in, so I see why he didn't.

I like Dawkins, but he does have a habit of portraying himself as a somewhat rabid Atheist. In the God Delusion he refers to Agnostics as being "Fence Sitters" and basically says he has no respect for anyone who puts themselves in that category. I read it as his way of saying "Be a man, make up your mind." A short time later, when talking about his sliding scale, he admits that there is a tiny molecule of himself that isn't sure whether or not there is a God.

This may sound odd, but I have more respect for him when he recognizes that one molecule of himself than when he goes on as if it isn't there. Basically the difference between "There is no God" and "Based on all of this, I just can't buy into it.". It isn't his arguments that bother me, it's some of his statements. I just have this little voice saying "Me thinks he doth protest too much."

Well, he is a scientist and as such he can never say anything with 100% certainty. That's just the nature of science. I'm an atheist and as such, I can't say that there certainly is no god, much as I can say there certainly are no square circles, or no unicorns. It's just not possible to prove something isn't. On the other hand, I haven't seen or heard any compelling evidence otherwise

It certainly seems that people have a knee-jerk reaction whenever someone talks about their atheism. I've noticed this personally. When someone talks to me about his or her faith, it's considered fairly normal. Most of those people wouldn't even be considered rabid in their faith; they just like to talk about it. Yet, when I talk about my lack of faith to the same person, they all of the sudden act as though I were some crazed baby-eating lunatic who wants to destroy freedom and wants to wipe out all religions. I like Dawkins because he's making it more normal to talk about atheism outloud as I'm gathered with my friends around a bucket of delicious fried baby arms.

As far as The God Delusion goes, I think people have said that Dawkins says a lot of things that he just doesn't. They tend to portray him as this crazed rabid atheist, but they've turned his argument into a caricature. And how can you not like a man who's married to frakkin' Romana? Granted, I do wish that he'd gone into some of the more complex arguments for god from people like Tillich, but that's not really the kind of god most people believe in, so I see why he didn't.

Did you see the perfect example of this 'railing against what I think Dawkin stands for, not what he really says' last week?

No. I missed that.

Anyway, back to the bible. How 'bout that Song of Solomon, huh?

[Tripe]

Anyway, back to the bible. How 'bout that Song of Solomon, huh?

Akiva's most contentious inclusion.

[basselope]

Well, he is a scientist and as such he can never say anything with 100% certainty.

Precisely. I just think he should keep the tone of his statements a little closer to that thought. Kinda follows the baby eating thing.

Anyway, back to the bible. How 'bout that Song of Solomon, huh?

Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that feed among the lilies.
Would you like to run naked through my flower bed?

Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine.
Lay off the Pork Rinds and Ripple, Lard ass!

Yes, I know... there's a special Hell waiting for me.

[DarthChimay]

Well, he is a scientist and as such he can never say anything with 100% certainty.

Precisely. I just think he should keep the tone of his statements a little closer to that thought. Kinda follows the baby eating thing.
[/quote[

I dunno. I guess I see it the same as when someone says with certainty there is a god.

Anyway, back to the bible. How 'bout that Song of Solomon, huh?

Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that feed among the lilies.
Would you like to run naked through my flower bed?

Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine.
Lay off the Pork Rinds and Ripple, Lard ass!

Yes, I know... there's a special Hell waiting for me.

You know, when I get mixed wine in my navel, girls think I'm a slob. Typical double standard.

[BathTub]

Well, he is a scientist and as such he can never say anything with 100% certainty.

Precisely. I just think he should keep the tone of his statements a little closer to that thought. Kinda follows the baby eating thing.

There was a real good example of this a couple of weeks ago when Dawkins was on the The Big Questions, I'm at work so I can't tell you exactly at what point in the show it was. But it was the black lady, an Evangelical Christian who made a statement, "I believe that Gay People have a choice about their sin" or something close to that. And Richard Dawkins response gets everyone worked up. He of course says "You are wrong. People were saying stuff like "Everyone is entitled to their opinion" while ignoring the point he was making, and tried to make repeatedly was that 'Your Opinion' can indeed be wrong when you are disagreeing with reality. It was interesting to watch.

[BathTub]

As far as The God Delusion goes, I think people have said that Dawkins says a lot of things that he just doesn't. They tend to portray him as this crazed rabid atheist, but they've turned his argument into a caricature. And how can you not like a man who's married to frakkin' Romana? Granted, I do wish that he'd gone into some of the more complex arguments for god from people like Tillich, but that's not really the kind of god most people believe in, so I see why he didn't.

Did you see the perfect example of this 'railing against what I think Dawkin stands for, not what he really says' last week?

No. I missed that.

It was funny. This guy Mark Ravenhill wrote an article for the Guardian titled "Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art" He goes on and on about how 'the myth of christianity' has given us all this beauty and we must defend it from Dawkins the  Destroyer so that the little kids can have an understanding of it in the future and so on.

Of course all this completely ignores that Dawkins positively encourages knowledge of religion to aid in an understanding of our culture, he's said it repeatedly (and recently) and there is a section of The God Delusion on that subject. So they have now published that section online for anyone to read here.

A small portion...

"The King James Authorized English translation includes passages of outstanding literary merit in its own right, for example the Song of Songs and the sublime Ecclesiastes. "

[DarthChimay]

It's probably because it just soaks into the lint there. You gotta have hygiene, man, hygiene!

Well, yeah, but the lint is in there to soak it up. Otherwise, it'd just be leakin' out all over the place. Duh.

As far as The God Delusion goes, I think people have said that Dawkins says a lot of things that he just doesn't. They tend to portray him as this crazed rabid atheist, but they've turned his argument into a caricature. And how can you not like a man who's married to frakkin' Romana? Granted, I do wish that he'd gone into some of the more complex arguments for god from people like Tillich, but that's not really the kind of god most people believe in, so I see why he didn't.

Did you see the perfect example of this 'railing against what I think Dawkin stands for, not what he really says' last week?

No. I missed that.

It was funny. This guy Mark Ravenhill wrote an article for the Guardian titled "Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art" He goes on and on about how 'the myth of christianity' has given us all this beauty and we must defend it from Dawkins the  Destroyer so that the little kids can have an understanding of it in the future and so on.

Of course all this completely ignores that Dawkins positively encourages knowledge of religion to aid in an understanding of our culture, he's said it repeatedly (and recently) and there is a section of The God Delusion on that subject. So they have now published that section online for anyone to read here.

A small portion...

"The King James Authorized English translation includes passages of outstanding literary merit in its own right, for example the Song of Songs and the sublime Ecclesiastes. "

Oooo... Dawkins is going to be on Dr. Who? I can't wait to see that. I wonder if he'll bring Romana.

After that, the article really goes off-track. It reminds me of the time I was debating the existence of god with a friend and he said it was obvious god existed because beauty exists. I ended the debate then.