A Conversation Among the Four Horsemen

[_GoodK]

Isn't that what a careful, honest scholar would do? Correct a mistake instead of ignore it?

It isn't a mistake you'd expect a careful scholar to make. I mean seriously, just find something from the internet that you like and use it without verifying it? This proves that Dawkins is agenda driven. He begins with an agenda to prove something and he carefully ignores evidence that undermines the thesis while focusing on evidence, or in this case, inventing evidence that seem to support it.

I wanted to compare McGrath's awards and recognition wiki-page with Dawkins, just for fun, and found that the Mcgrath doesn't have one.

I hope you're not following JAK's philosophy: "If the wiki doesn't say it, it simply ain't true." Here is the biography of McGrath, and yes, he has won awards: ftp://oucsweb.ox.ac.uk/public_html/biography.html

Here is an interview of Alister McGrath by Richard Dawkins for those of you who haven't seen it yet - be prepared to see Dawkins disemboweled

McGrath is a gentleman above all. Why would he accept an invitation to be interviewed and then use it to turn against the man interviewing him?

They're both gentlemen. I know about Wiki. I critised RoP for relying on it for a definition of nihilism. But I compared Dawkins wiki page to McGrath's wiki page because it's already obvious who the more noteworthy scholar is.

[_Moniker]

I don't see what dart said as being hateful in anyway? I'm not fond of Dawkins either so I must be a hateful person that wants to institute a theocracy as well?

These are just authors.... I don't understand some of the loyalty seen for some of these men. I don't really get it. I have favorite authors and books, yet, I don't really get rabid about it.............. ........... ............... ...............

[_dartagnan]

P.S If you want a rational response to McGrath's book, skip forward to the 3 minute 30 second mark in the video, when Dawkins addresses his criticism.

He is responding to only a couple of points from a previous book. He is not holding a copy of The Dawkins Delusion? which was published a month after this interview.

hey're both gentlemen. I know about Wiki. I critised RoP for relying on it for a definition of nihilism. But I compared Dawkins wiki page to McGrath's wiki page because it's already obvious who the more noteworthy scholar is.

More noteworthy? All the wiki proves is that a fan of Dawkins decided to write up a detailed piece on him. That's it. We don't even get to find out who that person is. And this is your evidence that Dawkins is more remarkable than McGrath?

The fact is Dawkins has no expertise on many of the subjects he is speaking. He is becoming notorious for this. He is a zoologist by trade. He has no interest or expertise in the sociology of religion. He has no interest or expertise in psychology of or the accurate meanings of Christian concepts like faith, but he will gladly create a definition of his own making to suit a straw man. For example:

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/mcg ... html#faith

by the way, I wasn't saying you were a irrational thinker. You were already participating in the discussion.

[_dartagnan]

I don't see what dart said as being hateful in anyway?

This is what I find fascinating about atheism today. The fanatics are more intolerant and scarier than any Bible-thumping nimrod I have ever come across.

I mean listen to what mercury just said. He said he couldn't wait until the day when he will be able to put a bullet in my head!

Where is the protest from the other atheists here? If a Christian says something like a atheist will go to hell, the atheists go nuts and cry bigotry and insist the person is a danger to our children and to society. Even though they don't even believe hell exists, they feel threatened somehow.

But when atheists openly call for the eradication of religion (Dawkins), make blatant threats of violence (mercury), create an atmosphere of fear and conspiracy mania (JAK) and refuses to allow theist to enter his own home because he thinks they are a disease (Penn), well then this is just considered good common sense, right?

Amazing.

Mercury, if you've got macho inadequacy issues that you need to resolve, just send me a PM so we can set up a time and place for you to let out your frustrations on me in person. I'd rather you give it your best shot physically than to have a whack like you catch me by surprise later on with a real bullet.

I've got a family and kids, and you're talking about taking pleasure in making my wife a widow and my children fatherless.

And you wonder why so many theists think atheism leads to immorality.

[_Moniker]

Well, when I wrote my reply (see above) I had commented on Mercury's remarks. I don't think they help dispel the notion of atheists being hateful and intolerant. What's odd is that posters that appear to be intolerant are calling people that disagree with them intolerant.

It's that "us" vs "them" mentality that creeps the hell out of me on these boards.

I mean, seriously, some of the black and white thinking -- did that persecution complex just do a flip over when leaving the LDS Church and then the "thems" just became the theists?

I don't understand it. It quite frankly freaks me out.

I deleted a lot of what I wrote 'cause I didn't want to get into it... But, I suppose I will.

[_GoodK]

P.S If you want a rational response to McGrath's book, skip forward to the 3 minute 30 second mark in the video, when Dawkins addresses his criticism.

He is responding to only a couple of points from a previous book. He is not holding a copy of The Dawkins Delusion? which was published a month after this interview.

hey're both gentlemen. I know about Wiki. I critised RoP for relying on it for a definition of nihilism. But I compared Dawkins wiki page to McGrath's wiki page because it's already obvious who the more noteworthy scholar is.

More noteworthy? All the wiki proves is that a fan of Dawkins decided to write up a detailed piece on him. That's it. We don't even get to find out who that person is. And this is your evidence that Dawkins is more remarkable than McGrath?

The fact is Dawkins has no expertise on many of the subjects he is speaking. He is becoming notorious for this. He is a zoologist by trade.

Dawkins isn't simply a zoologist, he is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, where McGrath also hales from. But to be fair, I haven't read McGrath's book and don't know too much about him to feel comfortable knocking around his credentials, especially off of Wikipedia.

He has no interest or expertise in the sociology of religion. He has no interest or expertise in psychology of or the accurate meanings of Christian concepts like faith, but he will gladly create a definition of his own making to suit a straw man. For example:

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/mcg ... html#faith

by the way, I wasn't saying you were a irrational thinker. You were already participating in the discussion.

I know, I was just trying to be funny :)

[_GoodK]

I don't see what dart said as being hateful in anyway?

This is what I find fascinating about atheism today. The fanatics are more intolerant and scarier than any Bible-thumping nimrod I have ever come across.

I mean listen to what mercury just said. He said he couldn't wait until the day when he will be able to put a bullet in my head!

Where is the protest from the other atheists here? If a Christian says something like a atheist will go to hell, the atheists go nuts and cry bigotry and insist the person is a danger to our children and to society. Even though they don't even believe hell exists, they feel threatened somehow.

But when atheists openly call for the eradication of religion (Dawkins), make blatant threats of violence (mercury), create an atmosphere of fear and conspiracy mania (JAK) and refuses to allow theist to enter his own home because he thinks they are a disease (Penn), well then this is just considered good common sense, right?

Amazing.

Mercury, if you've got macho inadequacy issues that you need to resolve, just send me a PM so we can set up a time and place for you to let out your frustrations on me in person. I'd rather you give it your best shot physically than to have a whack like you catch me by surprise later on with a real bullet.

I've got a family and kids, and you're talking about taking pleasure in making my wife a widow and my children fatherless.

And you wonder why so many theists think atheism leads to immorality.

I think Merc was trying to be more rhetorical than he was serious, I doubt he really wants to put a bullet in your head. But if he's serious, I would OF COURSE protest to something that awful.
My morals are fine.

[_dartagnan]

But the point is, even if he was trying to be funny - which he wasn't - there is no way in hell a theist could ever get away with this without having their theological belief thrown up as the cause for their intolerance.

Mercury is a coward. He wants to make death threats over the internet but he doesn't have the chutzpah for man to man confrontations. That would've course require that he first be a man.

[_marg]

But the point is, even if he was trying to be funny - which he wasn't - there is no way in hell a theist could ever get away with this without having their theological belief thrown up as the cause for their intolerance.

Mercury is a coward. He wants to make death threats over the internet but he doesn't have the chutzpah for man to man confrontations. That would've course require that he first be a man.

Out of interest sake I thought Mercury wasn't an atheist? I believe I read somewhere he is Jewish however, I could be confusing him with someone else.

What Mercury says is not reflective of all atheists, though I'm sure you'd like to make that argument and beat it to death. Not all atheists want you hurt, the majority of atheists don't know you. How fortunate for them. However Christianity promotes a teaching in a Hell in which certain individuals typically non believers will eventually be subjected. So it's institutionalized teaching as opposed to Mercury who just doesn't like you. And I can understand why, though I'd never suggest to anyone I'd want them physically hurt just because I find them annoying. but on this message board it's a lot of hot air. You say derogatory things to me which roll off my back. I take none of it seriously.

[_dartagnan]

Was that supposed to be your best effort to put a smiley face on a tolerant atheism?

Gee, "I don't condone him wanting to kill you... but I can understand why he would."

The fact is atheists are not in danger of Christians. Christians have historically been in danger of atheism, especially when secular governments have imposed legalized persecution of theists.

You say derogatory things to me which roll off my back. I take none of it seriously.

Well that is easy to say when no theists here have threaten to kill you.