Atheist Critique of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al.

[Taraz]

I just read a pretty interesting review of some the new atheist "attack" books. He points out some interesting things and I thought some of you might enjoy it.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=105&ItemID=12845

[vhawk01]

Meh, barely started and I already disagree with his major premise, that religion has ONLY RECENTLY become some major issue, because now people are crashing planes into buildings. Crashing planes into buildings <<<< banning gay marriage and all the other associated suffering that religion causes. With that in mind, it is far less important that Dawkins et al. have a solution in mind, and far more important that we just end the suffering as soon as possible.

Of course, thats granting that religion is really the cause of any of this suffering, which this reviewer does when talking about 9/11.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh, barely started and I already disagree with his major premise, that religion has ONLY RECENTLY become some major issue, because now people are crashing planes into buildings. Crashing planes into buildings <<<< banning gay marriage and all the other associated suffering that religion causes. With that in mind, it is far less important that Dawkins et al. have a solution in mind, and far more important that we just end the suffering as soon as possible.

Of course, thats granting that religion is really the cause of any of this suffering, which this reviewer does when talking about 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't possibly argue that religion was even close to as big a deal before 9/11 as it is now. I don't think that he's saying that it is any more or less important, just that's it's much more prominent in our society's thoughts.

Anyway, I don't necessarily agree with the whole thing, but it's interesting how he points out some of the historical inaccuracies that many of these writers use.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, thats granting that religion is really the cause of any of this suffering, which this reviewer does when talking about 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of course it is not. It is the misinterpretation of religion that is the cause. Well I guess we can stretch it and say since religion was misinterpreted it is therefore the prime cause.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, thats granting that religion is really the cause of any of this suffering, which this reviewer does when talking about 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of course it is not. It is the misinterpretation of religion that is the cause. Well I guess we can stretch it and say since religion was misinterpreted it is therefore the prime cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, as if "misinterpreted religion" is a meaningful phrase. Just because they call their religion the same word (Islam) doesn't mean its the same religion...but it certainly doesn't mean its misinterpreted. Its just differently interpreted...thats the fun of religion!

If people accept the premise that religion can tell you to do good things, there is absolutely no reason they won't accept that religion can tell you to do bad things. What would stop them?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL, as if "misinterpreted religion" is a meaningful phrase.

[/ QUOTE ]


Touché.

[RJT]

Seriously though. To say that you can’t misinterpret religion is no different than to say that you can’t misinterpret Literature or Art. Theoretically I can say that Moby Dick is about gay sex. I suppose I can concoct a nice story to show how this is so. I could not be proven wrong, especially since Melville is dead.

But, we do need to have some parameters when discussing things, otherwise why talk?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously though. To say that you can’t misinterpret religion is no different than to say that you can’t misinterpret Literature or Art. Theoretically I can say that Moby Dick is about gay sex. I suppose I can concoct a nice story to show how this is so. I could not be proven wrong, especially since Melville is dead.

But, we do need to have some parameters when discussing things, otherwise why talk?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not really like that, though. Because I can write a book, call it Moby Dick, and then make it about gay sex. NOW who is correct? I mean, if your point is they are misinterpreting the Koran, you'd have to argue it out with them. But if your point is they are misinterpreting religion, its a meaningless phrase. There is no correct interpretation of religion...all of them are equally valid. The FSM teaches us all this glorious lesson.

[RJT]

Yes, my original point was that they are misinterpreting the Koran. Islam is based on the Koran. What am I missing?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, my point original point was that they are misinterpreting the Koran. Islam is based on the Koran. What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Their Islam is based on the Koran and a bunch of other wackos telling them to kill people.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, my point original point was that they are misinterpreting the Koran. Islam is based on the Koran. What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Their Islam is based on the Koran and a bunch of other wackos telling them to kill people.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it isn’t based on the Koran. It is based on a misinterpretation of the Koran and the other wackos telling them that’s what the Koran says.

This is a classic David 70% rule: the unfortunate fact that at least 70% of humans are equipped with brains with such low horsepower, that teaching them to be more rational might do them more harm than good.

(Actually he should say “...might do us more harm…”)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I just read a pretty interesting review of some the new atheist "attack" books.


[/ QUOTE ]

He offers some legitimate criticism of Dawkins, such as:

[ QUOTE ]

Dawkins's sense of history is so minimal that it approaches the vanishing point


[/ QUOTE ]

and:

[ QUOTE ]

But were he a bit more curious about the phenomenon he is supposedly investigating, he would realize that it has done as much over the long haul to stimulate it. For a world-famous intellectual, he is oddly provincial


[/ QUOTE ]

But he's really just throwing a bone because he mostly agrees with Dawkins' opinion of religion. I think he just wishes Dawkins would stick to what he knows, and be less combative.

As to the accuracy of Dawkins, Lazare could look to himself first when he makes statements like this:

[ QUOTE ]

Why didn't the ancient Israelites conduct their own double-blind experiment to determine whether sacrificing all those bulls, rams and occasionally children to Yahweh was really worth the trouble?


[/ QUOTE ]

There was a period with the Hebrews succumbed to Molech-worship and it was a capital offense under their law:


Leviticus 18:21
'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.

Jeremiah 32:35
"They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

But hey, he's an atheist who is contemptuous of religion(read between the lines) so what are a few minor details, anyway?