Why atheists love to talk about God?

Here is an interesting thought!

Why is it that those who don’t believe in God so often talk about him? Why do they try and disprove him, when no action would be needed by the standards of their own philosophy? What is more fascinating to me is the fact that they come in waves and they come with their answers but as their questions are answered they only come back with hateful comments and will use any given opportunity to divert attention of any given question to the next point. In which case they can feel superior because nobody could answer all the question in one single post. But most of all their insistence that they have answers when it is often obvious from what they are saying that precisely the opposite is true. Reductionism and oversimplifications are part of the process that helps them feel secure, and wining debates is far more important then finding the truth. But my final thought of the day is that there is nothing wrong with talking about any topic as long as if you are going to invoke reason and logic you stay reasonable and logical. Why do they always try to provoke reaction from Christians, probable answer, to make themselves feel better and secure in the knowledge that there is no such thing as perfect human.

Advertisements

About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to defend.theword@ntlworld.com
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Bible, Christ, Christianity, Church, Church History, Discernment, Evangelism, Faith, God, Hedonism, Jesus, News, Photography, Prayer, Prophecy, Religion, Theology, Videos. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Why atheists love to talk about God?

  1. Lucy Lowe says:

    Interesting question. I suppose you could ask the same question as to why some religious people blog/write about atheists. Why do those who believe in God so often talk about those who don’t.

    Personally, I would hope in both examples the answer to be: To try to gain some understanding of those who think differently from me. Sadly there are those on both sides of the debate who probably see it as cheap point scoring.

  2. M. Patterson says:

    I think this line sums it up, “…but as their questions are answered they only come back with hateful comments….” When the attack on ideas fails, people generally resort to attacking the people who hold those ideas. This is the essence of the ad hominem argument. It is easier to deride someone mindlessly than to engage thoughtfully. Having failed in the arena of ideas, they resort to the easier, lower road.

  3. I agree with you 100% thanks for your comment.

    Defend the Word

  4. tildeb says:

    Tildeb: “Because religion is ubiquitous yet ill-informed, and interfering religious belief is founded on the notion of god/gods that offers us no way to discern if the hypothesis can be tested to discern its truth value, then the extended truth claims made by the devout and actions based on them inserted into the lives of atheists must be challenged and criticized for the lack of falsification they offer.”

    Defend the Word: It is this, kind of false accusations that are always strongly rejected and refuted on this blog. And you would do better to take note of what was answered to you previously rather than simply repeat same mantra that is beginning to be tiresome.

    Tildeb: “In other words, it seems to fall on the honest atheist to point out with intellectual integrity the obvious: that I don’t know, and you don’t either.”

    Defend the Word: Hones atheist do not exist, because they claim to use logic yet they trample over logic all the time, ignore evidence and refuse to accept that part of their world view is element called “FAITH” but they would argue that despite the fact they don’t know much they know there is no God.

    Tildeb: “Accept that simple truth, withdraw ill-founded religious notions and their vacuous justifications from the public domain, and I think you’ll find atheists will be quite content to leave well enough alone. Until then, espouse your notions and justifications for imposing religious nonsense on the public but be prepared to be held to account rationally for promoting your disrespectful, dishonest, anti-intellectual, anti-secular, anti-enlightenment positions to promote willful ignorance.”

    Defend the Word: You make me question your understanding of anything previously stated here. It is that lack of honesty that makes others shout foul play, simply because they use big words to deliver so little. It is this attempt to hide behind complicated ideas that are full of hot air that makes them look ridiculous. Fist, prove it to me that anything I said and that the faith of millions of other Christians is not logical and philosophically correct. Secondly if we are to talk about teaching then Atheism has far bigger problem. You have no basis for morality yet you feel compelled to plead your case. On what bases mister Atheist I ask you? Secondly according to my logic based on the data we exchanged so many times before, it makes more sense to believe in God then not to. That is abased on observable data, we find from complexity of universe, from origin of life, from ecosystem that is interlinked and from fact that you and I can reason (Which is based on intelligibility of human mind and fact that things will make sense rather then be nonsensical foolishness and chaos) logic can also only be explained by the fact that cause and affect are not only observed but also understood. So what is your answer? I don’t know! Well if you don’t know would you not do better to listen and take things in, before committing to the answer that is not an answer?

    Tildeb: “It’s the least atheists can do on behalf of your mortal coil because we care about the welfare of our fellow citizens.”

    Defend the Word: Why would you care? If you belive in selfish gene, survival of the fittest and so on? Would you not do better to get on with your life and better yourself, after all you live for a very limited time and you are wasting your most precious of resources, your life! Is this not illogical to you???? Or did you fail to spot the irony of your condition. People like Dawkins say that this is because you have God gene and you just can’t help either fight it or agree with it. Which ever you choose question is if there really is God gene could this not be the evidence that God left his fingerprint for people like you to say, Tildeb I’m here just come and find me!

    Tildeb: “I know, I know. No need to thank us. Just doing our civic duty.”

    Defend the Word: It is because Jesus had sent his followers to go out and witness and tell others about him that we do what we do. We base our faith on reasonable amount of data and facts. But atheists civil duty, often lingers around wanting to show off their intellect, without considering obvious question, why is he/she doing this? As one of my friends use to say, just ask them why they get so angry and why bother is this not all contrary to everything they believe. I don’t want you to go away; in fact I often get a bit provocative in order to engage people and get them to come back. Precisely because I believe that one chance at life is a precious gift that should not be wasted. And by the sound of you I can tell that you have plenty to offer. I just think you are heading in the wrong direction.

  5. harry says:

    Harry: Patterson when has Dawkins ever personally attacked anyone in any of his writings. Yes he has taken aggresive pot shots at that m***n kirk cameron and other such uneducated imbeciles, but he doesnt exactly go around screaming at people for being stupid.

    And dont say picking of kirl cameron is enough to show his true colours. Kirk cameron is an i***t. He is dedicating his life to deriding evolution, which plenty of people do, but he doesn’t even understand the basic principle of common ancestory (and still insists that there should be a crocoduck, or a horsebadger). He IS a brainwashed i***t.

    But he is the only example i can find of dawkins personally attacking anyone.

    It strikes me only i mentioned dawkins, but its only the picture that refers to him.

    There is plenty to attack religion on without resorting to personal insults. And if you think

    the attack on (religious) ideas fails, your in denial.

    Defend the Word: All I would say is that you have handed this Rebuttal on the plate to the Mr Patterson. Not only did you prove him right by your outburst but you also show why so many atheists fail to grasp basic facts. Truth is not dependent on the actions of someone standing on the outside of it? No human action Or sayings can distort factual truths!

  6. Tildeb: “Because religion is ubiquitous yet ill-informed, and interfering religious belief is founded on the notion of god/gods that offers us no way to discern if the hypothesis can be tested to discern its truth value, then the extended truth claims made by the devout and actions based on them inserted into the lives of atheists must be challenged and criticized for the lack of falsification they offer.”

    Defend the Word: It is this, kind of false accusations that are always strongly rejected and refuted on this blog. And you would do better to take note of what was answered to you previously rather than simply repeat same mantra that is beginning to be tiresome.

    Tildeb: “In other words, it seems to fall on the honest atheist to point out with intellectual integrity the obvious: that I don’t know, and you don’t either.”

    Defend the Word: Hones atheist do not exist, because they claim to use logic yet they trample over logic all the time, ignore evidence and refuse to accept that part of their world view is element called “FAITH” but they would argue that despite the fact they don’t know much they know there is no God.

    Tildeb: “Accept that simple truth, withdraw ill-founded religious notions and their vacuous justifications from the public domain, and I think you’ll find atheists will be quite content to leave well enough alone. Until then, espouse your notions and justifications for imposing religious nonsense on the public but be prepared to be held to account rationally for promoting your disrespectful, dishonest, anti-intellectual, anti-secular, anti-enlightenment positions to promote willful ignorance.”

    Defend the Word: You make me question your understanding of anything previously stated here. It is that lack of honesty that makes others shout foul play, simply because they use big words to deliver so little. It is this attempt to hide behind complicated ideas that are full of hot air that makes them look ridiculous. Fist, prove it to me that anything I said and that the faith of millions of other Christians is not logical and philosophically correct. Secondly if we are to talk about teaching then Atheism has far bigger problem. You have no basis for morality yet you feel compelled to plead your case. On what bases mister Atheist I ask you? Secondly according to my logic based on the data we exchanged so many times before, it makes more sense to believe in God then not to. That is abased on observable data, we find from complexity of universe, from origin of life, from ecosystem that is interlinked and from fact that you and I can reason (Which is based on intelligibility of human mind and fact that things will make sense rather then be nonsensical foolishness and chaos) logic can also only be explained by the fact that cause and affect are not only observed but also understood. So what is your answer? I don’t know! Well if you don’t know would you not do better to listen and take things in, before committing to the answer that is not an answer?

    Tildeb: “It’s the least atheists can do on behalf of your mortal coil because we care about the welfare of our fellow citizens.”

    Defend the Word: Why would you care? If you belive in selfish gene, survival of the fittest and so on? Would you not do better to get on with your life and better yourself, after all you live for a very limited time and you are wasting your most precious of resources, your life! Is this not illogical to you???? Or did you fail to spot the irony of your condition. People like Dawkins say that this is because you have God gene and you just can’t help either fight it or agree with it. Which ever you choose question is if there really is God gene could this not be the evidence that God left his fingerprint for people like you to say, Tildeb I’m here just come and find me!

    Tildeb: “I know, I know. No need to thank us. Just doing our civic duty.”

    Defend the Word: It is because Jesus had sent his followers to go out and witness and tell others about him that we do what we do. We base our faith on reasonable amount of data and facts. But atheists civil duty, often lingers around wanting to show off their intellect, without considering obvious question, why is he/she doing this? As one of my friends use to say, just ask them why they get so angry and why bother is this not all contrary to everything they believe. I don’t want you to go away; in fact I often get a bit provocative in order to engage people and get them to come back. Precisely because I believe that one chance at life is a precious gift that should not be wasted. And by the sound of you I can tell that you have plenty to offer. I just think you are heading in the wrong direction.

  7. John says:

    Despite agreeing with him and a lot of what he says, (I also disagree with a lot) I have lost almost all respect for Dawkins now. His earlier contributions to biology have been significantly tainted by his foray into philosophy and theology.

    He is certainly an interesting fellow, so much so that I have managed to keep abreast of the majority of his known TV and press interviews as well as his debates. His strongest reactions appear linked to situations when talking about Christianity and I would go so far to say when also in the company of Christians. This is as opposed to when in the company of a TV interviewer talking about biology for example. In and of itself this is not surprising, he clearly has disdain for religion (strange that he allows himself to lampoon Christianity when much of his ire for religion is linked to events by Muslim groups….I think he’s aware he might be in serious danger if he was more overt in attaching ownership to Islam) but it does tend to suggest he is somewhat effected emotionally. This would result his ability to be as rational as he would like when talking about such matters. Of course we all have our bias and prejudices but I’m certain his outward disdain is thinly covering an intense ‘hatred’ of religion; possibly a consequence of some previous and unresolved psychological trauma. There is a growing distinction between ‘anti-theists’ and ‘atheist’ and to class him (in fact I think he has admitted himself) as an ‘anti-theist’ is not unreasonable. Be aware there is significant psychological research being done on the difference.

    Having read his popular work ‘TGD’, he’s a good writer and his popular arguments feed a popular audience. The crux of what bothers me about this book though is that it seems to bank on a majority of its readers not checking his references to establish the accuracy of some of his claims/assertions. I don’t have the book in front of me to provide pages numbers, but in several places he ‘suggests’ (and reinforces that suggestion) that the person Jesus is not even a figure in history. I would not have been the first person to have concluded that his source for this claim was entirely inadequate. From memory he used the work of a single scholar, who turns out to be a Professor of literature (German I think). To make an argument on the work of a single professor working in a field, outside what would be appropriate given the claim is beyond comprehension. Dawkins ‘mistake’ was easily discovered upon investigation and apart from being intellectually dishonest, it begs the question, if he’s easily found to be making inaccurate claims that can be checked with a little further research and investigation, what about those claims that can’t be so easily checked? This goes to the heart of his credibility to engage in these matters objectively as possible. To his credit, he has since publicly stated his source was not credible and that it goes against the main body of scholarship in the area of 1st century history. He also has stated he has no doubt that Jesus was a historical figure. However laudable this is, it does nothing to correct the mistaken understanding still held by those readers whose only exposure to the subject has been through Dawkins work in TGD.

    The fact that he is somewhat of a poster for atheism is most concerning. Only recently I was at a book store browsing, only to come across a book on evolution, which to my astonishment quoted Dawkins on the back saying “(author’s name) case for Evolution is compelling. Anybody who does not accept Evolution as true after reading it, I think, could be reasonably thought of as ignorant and stupid”. Like many of his statements, he needs to articulate what he really means by ‘Evolution’ for it to be useful, however there is a subtle tone to many of these quips that points to a person who lacks any respect for fellow human beings who disagree with him. Hubris maybe, but history tells a grim tale of the consequences of such thought systems whose leader thinks in such ways.

  8. John says:

    I note some small grammatical errors in my post, I’m sure you’ll see past them.

    Regards

    John.

  9. I could not see any big issues with your grammar and your thoughts are very sharp. As usual I consider that to be of far greater importance.

  10. russ says:

    I agree. thanks for these thoughts and the blog.

  11. harry says:

    John

    The crux of what bothers me about this book though is that it seems to bank on a majority of its readers not checking his references to establish the accuracy of some of his claims/assertions

    I’ve caught you out on doing that yourself..

    was at a book store browsing, only to come across a book on evolution, which to my astonishment quoted Dawkins on the back saying “(author’s name) case for Evolution is compelling. Anybody who does not accept Evolution as true after reading it, I think, could be reasonably thought of as ignorant and stupid”.

    You are reffering to Coyne’s work ‘Why evolution is true, in which Dawkins states on the back cover (my copy anyway)

    I ONCE wrote that anyboy who didnt believe in evolution must be stupid, insane, or ignorant, and i was careful to add IGNORANCE IS NO CRIME. (ie if you have looked at the proper evidence you must be willfully denying it to not believe)

    ”I SHOULD NOW UPDATE MY STATEMENT. Anybody who doesnt believe in evolution is stupid, insane OR HASNT READ JERRY COYNE.”

    NOT ‘if you still dont think evolution is true after reading this book, your stupid’

    The distinction might seem pedantic, but its actually quite major. As he has only insulted the willful deniers. Those who have looked at the evidence and choose to mis-represent it to spread their beliefs and their ilk.

    He is actually simply saying you are either stupid etc, or are ignorant (NOT A CRIME) because you have not read this book…

    Your hypocrisy astounds me…

    That said
    Dawkins actually is quite a rude fellow. Browsing his forum I have seen 1 or 2 posts out of hundreds that give veiled insults to those that dont agree with him.

    TO BE COMPLETELY FRANK HOWEVER i have NEVER met a university proffessor who isnt more than a little arrogant.

    ”Of course we all have our bias and prejudices but I’m certain his outward disdain is thinly covering an intense ‘hatred’ of religion; possibly a consequence of some previous and unresolved psychological trauma.”

    I call absolute codswallop. You have fallen into the precise trap that I loate so much. Relgious organisations have spread the notion that one must be ‘traumatised to hate us’

    The church has not traumatised me, I am not personally damaged, but I loathe it with such a passion If I was unhinged i’d martyr myself by blowing up the Vatican…ehem.

    Do you have to be traumatised to hate Hitler? Or Stalin? Or as people like to say now GW Bush? No ofcourse not, you just see the injustice done and you hate it and you want to do something about it.

    You are elevating religious organisation to a place about any other common criminal organisation, which most are not. YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE TRAUMATISED TO HATE A RELIGIOUS NICHE THAT CONDONES THE MURDER AND RIOTING OVER A CARTOON.

  12. Harry

    If anyone was clutching at straws… you should really be careful not to pick such minor points and yes you are right I would call it pedantic. I would however like to thank you for openly stating some of your hatred of religious things. This is very helpful in understanding why you say things you do and why you can’t see beyond your hatred.

    You are obviously very bright man, but you use your intelligence in a very focused way, that needs desperately to be broadened. As I said before, there are number of things you said about religious organisation that I would whole heartedly agree with you. But this does not mean that the original message by Jesus was wrong or irrelevant.

    After all it was Gandy who said something along these lines. “I would be the first one to become Christian if I could find someone who actually practices Jesus teaching”. I am very glad that you acknowledge that Professors can be arrogant and in a way this shows that your respect for them is based on their ideas not their character.

    Should same not be applied when dealing with Christians. After all Jesus himself said same thing about Pharisees, “do as they teach not as they do”. But in this world of religion and Atheism wars where clashing is around ideas is increasingly turning to be a scary place when people like you offer to blow themselves up in order to destroy Vatican. How is that different from any other fundamentalist?

    At least I am grateful that you do come back and share your thoughts, for that you can be congratulated.

    Regards

    Defend the Word

  13. harry says:

    ”turning to be a scary place when people like you offer to blow themselves up in order to destroy Vatican. How is that different from any other fundamentalist?”

    It’s not different

    ”If anyone was clutching at straws… you should really be careful not to pick such minor points and yes you are right I would call it pedantic.”

    Its absolutely not pedantic. It’s a major point. One which I would not have made if not in the paragraph before the author was attacking mis-representation.

  14. tildeb says:

    Tildeb: Ah, John, you are one of those “but” people, I see. You’d like to agree more with Dawkins in so many ways … but…

    Defend the Word: Hang on, is this not what happens often with atheists that visit this blog. They just happen to have one more question to ask, it is like never ending story.

    Tildeb: For a start, why not understand his central point, his major thesis, in TGD and deal with the issues it raises about how belief in supernatural and special creationism undermines reason and, more importantly, thwarts honest intellectual integrity rather than spend your efforts attempting to accommodate those who prefer their oogity boogity uncriticized? Rather than do that and in comparison, your central criticism about Dawkins is… his references about Jesus not being an historical figure is a bit dodgy you say, and backing that zinger up with the assertion that Dawkins is also just so mean. Get over it.

    Defend the Word: First of all, you should understand if someone is claiming that he is basing his argument on reason, he should share his reasons on logic and evidence. Which Mr John is raising quite legitimately. Secondly not only is Dawkins using single quotations he is also being very selective in whom he picks for his interviews, which again is very dishonest. Talking to the fringe theologians and pretending that this is what modern Theologians are saying is nothing short of distortion.

    Tildeb Like Dawkins does, I dare you or anyone to read Coyne and commit yourself to continuing to deny evolution. It’s nigh on impossible… if you have honest intellectual integrity, that needing to be said. At least you could not claim ignorance of the subject if you did but rather reveal a great deal of determination to deny fact… a determination that cannot be rooted in intellectual integrity but some other allegiance. And that really says a lot about how important truth is in one’s order of importance. And raises – not begs – the question how much honest intellectual integrity does someone have if what’s true is not the primary concern? As evolutionary deniers, more people than mean old Dawkins would grow tired of your pedantic obstructionist stance, don’t you think? After all, whether or not evolution is true is not important; what’s more important is allegiance to some other belief than intellectual integrity. Put another way, if you denied the fact of gravity and granted clemency to the ideas of those people from a determined group whose membership demanded that gravity be held to be ‘just’ another religious belief headed up by strident, militant, reference-avoiding fundamentalists, I would hope many people would treat your intellectual accommodationism with richly deserved contempt. That accommodation means that you, too, don’t place allegiance to what is true above your allegiance to excuse, which again raises – not begs – the question to what ends?

    Defend the Word: I am nothing short of shocked at your lack of understanding of the issue raised. You are so blinded by what you want to say that you don’t see the obvious. Issue raised is reference inconsistency not evolution process. Secondly your claim that Coyne proved evolution is so laughable based on logic that we are not only observing external we also involve internal intellectual struggle that is part of who we are. You are so strongly driven by what you believe that you fail to understand that you are doing that which you condemn in other people. That is not logical thinking that is emotional manipulation and distortion of facts. Yes evolution is evident but to what extent? And what does this mean to your Atheistic faith? Could God used evolution, there must be resounding yes. Could evolution be limited to the changes within speciation and or linked with limited other species. Fact is we do not have time travel mechanism and bones have no engravings saying evolved from fish, or do we still ignore the fact that people who dig for bones still tell those who sit in the offices we are still missing many needed links.

    Tildeb Gravity is. Get over it. Evolution is. Get over it. All this kowtowing to religious sensibilities of the evolutionary deniers by painting spokespeople of What Is as arrogant is…well, pretty stupid. It serves no purpose other than helping to maintain deniers of fact with a false sense of respect. Why respect beliefs that are not concerned with what is true? Such a stance you have taken is demeaning to those who do care about what is true, demeaning to what honest intellectual integrity stands for, and demeaning to yourself as an apologist first and a rational person who cares deeply about what is true second. That’s not a compliment.

    Defend the Word: To put it plainly, for someone like me it would be undesirable to have people like you to agree with me. I would be ashamed that someone who claims logic and reason displays such lack of respect for others and their processing of that same information. So I welcome ridicule and encourage others to do the same, lets show what many atheists are playground bullies, who are yet to grow up and use real reason and understand those who disagree with them. There is no shame in confronting those who are ignorant, but there is every reason to pretend that you have done your home work and use mental pressure on others in order to show your superiority that is so far removed from intellectual integrity and should be exposed as such.

    Tildeb Do you really think TGD is centred around whether or not Jesus was an historical figure? If so, please read the thing again. You’ve missed 99.99% of the book. What matters – at least to Dawkins if not you – is what is true. And religious claims about creationism and Intelligent Design that are incoherent are not worth our intellectual accommodating and apologies. THAT’S what the book is about… if you really do need a hint and apparently you do. Give it another go. TGD does not rely on references about historical figures to maintain a strong argument in favour of that difficult to find thesis.

    Defend the Word: Note that this is the last time I will allow such insults, please refer to the rules of engagement or could you not understand what it says there. Note that there are number of other atheists who are embarrassed by what Dr Dawkins had said in the past. Disagreement should be welcomed as long as it is supported by reasons and you are attacking the very thing you are suppose to support.

    Tildeb And let’s look at your central argument against Dawkins… that he had the temerity to suggest that perhaps there was some academic question about the validity of Jesus as an historical figure. When he found out there was a preponderance of evidence supporting Jesus as an historical figure – oh, the arrogance! – he CHANGED HIS POSITION. Rather than use this as strong evidence that Dawkins practices what he preaches about intellectual integrity, you can’t possibly overturn your OWN bias against Dawkins even when you have clear and compelling evidence to do so. You stick to your opinion that he has done atheism a disservice with a poor reference. And you compound your bias by suggesting that the great threat to civilization is not from those who read a well crafted book about why gravity is true but who continue to deny its scientific validity. No sir. You think that those folk who hold these denying beliefs are to be excused for their willful ignorance.

    Defend the Word: Fact that atheist changes his position of no consequence to this question. And you are being wilfully blind to notice that his reference material is lacking. His preferential treatment to “evidence” that agrees with his world view is legendary and should not be understated.

    Tildeb We must go after the real global threat: from those who have a track record of intellectual integrity and legitimate scientific achievements like Dawkins because he dares to call people on their willful ignorance. And evolution has exactly the same scientific status as gravity. It’s a fact. Those who deny that fact for whatever reasons you think are excusable – no doubt because of some vast library of legitimate scientific references that empowers that denial (but perhaps exists in some supernatural library unavailable to the rest of us) – can’t possibly have their beliefs held to account, held to the SAME standard you wish to damn Dawkins by. You’re not that intellectually honest, are you? You just want to present yourself as reasonable to people who hold incoherent beliefs at the very small price of your own intellectual integrity.

    Defend the Word: Yet again you fail to see your short-sighted understanding on what is tangible reliable. You make sweeping statements and expect people just to take your word for it. This is the mechanism utilised by many who have no real defence, instead they rely on percentage of people that would agree with him/her. This is not how argumentation is built upon, and neither is it a way that any logician would be proud of. Call to intellectual integrity is nothing else but scare tactics, simply playing on the card of ignorance and intimidation and that my friend is not good either for you or anyone else that engages in conversation with you.

    Tildeb And this is where you attempt to character assassinate Dawkins by confusing a very simple point: he calls people’s unjustified beliefs ignorant and stupid, which you promptly think applies to the people who hold them and then you have the arrogance to think yourself justified to question and determine Dawkins’ arrogance. But you see, John, you – not Dawkins – have assumed people with unjustified beliefs as worthy of being called ignorant and stupid by Dawkins. That’s very revealing about you and how you read, comprehend, formulate, and reply. DTW won’t catch that assumption you have made to criticize Dawkins unfairly, but those of us who are close readers will. For anyone who is passingly familiar with Dawkins and his social circle, you will know that many of friends are religious and he has very high regards for their intellectual integrity. But to a person, none of these religious people deny evolution as a fact. That would reduce them in Dawkins opinion to – as you write – “fellow creatures” who hold ignorant and stupid beliefs as more valid than what is true. Because, you see John, you have compounded your error and confused denying the fact of evolution to mean the same thing as religious, and you are wrong, but again the error in your thinking reveals more about you than legitimately criticizes the ideas of another. And as another ‘But’ person, you need to recognize your biases first before you can compensate for them with justified criticisms. As for your hostility against Dawkins, its shame.

    Defend the Word: First let me point out that neither I nor Mr John are saying that Dawkins is an idiot or ignorant. We are all aware of his intellect, secondly it is not only possible but probable that there will be highly intelligent and capable people who will disagree with Dawkins and as such your critique is unjustified. Lastly your clutching to the theory of evolution whilst very admirable that you have faith is also showing of your preferential “logical” data processing. You must go back to basics, that disagreements are welcomed and should not be treated with contempt. Ideology is different, that on the other hand can as we know lead to the arousal of human emotions that if not corrected could lead to irrational behaviour that is not logical and certainly not helpful to any debate. I have always said that Bible instructs us to use our reasoning to build our faith. And likewise atheist should do the same and stop pretending that they have upper hand and higher moral ground when all they do is intimidate and ridicule when they know that they have no real answers.
    I wish you all the best and that means that you should look at these issues with little more integrity and honesty and not muddy the water by giving swiping statements that mean nothing.

    Regards

    Defend the Word

  15. Tildeb: Ah, John, you are one of those “but” people, I see. You’d like to agree more with Dawkins in so many ways … but…

    Defend the Word: Hang on, is this not what happens often with atheists that visit this blog. They just happen to have one more question to ask, it is like never ending story.

    Tildeb: For a start, why not understand his central point, his major thesis, in TGD and deal with the issues it raises about how belief in supernatural and special creationism undermines reason and, more importantly, thwarts honest intellectual integrity rather than spend your efforts attempting to accommodate those who prefer their oogity boogity uncriticized? Rather than do that and in comparison, your central criticism about Dawkins is… his references about Jesus not being an historical figure is a bit dodgy you say, and backing that zinger up with the assertion that Dawkins is also just so mean. Get over it.

    Defend the Word: First of all, you should understand if someone is claiming that he is basing his argument on reason, he should share his reasons on logic and evidence. Which Mr John is raising quite legitimately. Secondly not only is Dawkins using single quotations he is also being very selective in whom he picks for his interviews, which again is very dishonest. Talking to the fringe theologians and pretending that this is what modern Theologians are saying is nothing short of distortion.

    Tildeb Like Dawkins does, I dare you or anyone to read Coyne and commit yourself to continuing to deny evolution. It’s nigh on impossible… if you have honest intellectual integrity, that needing to be said. At least you could not claim ignorance of the subject if you did but rather reveal a great deal of determination to deny fact… a determination that cannot be rooted in intellectual integrity but some other allegiance. And that really says a lot about how important truth is in one’s order of importance. And raises – not begs – the question how much honest intellectual integrity does someone have if what’s true is not the primary concern? As evolutionary deniers, more people than mean old Dawkins would grow tired of your pedantic obstructionist stance, don’t you think? After all, whether or not evolution is true is not important; what’s more important is allegiance to some other belief than intellectual integrity. Put another way, if you denied the fact of gravity and granted clemency to the ideas of those people from a determined group whose membership demanded that gravity be held to be ‘just’ another religious belief headed up by strident, militant, reference-avoiding fundamentalists, I would hope many people would treat your intellectual accommodationism with richly deserved contempt. That accommodation means that you, too, don’t place allegiance to what is true above your allegiance to excuse, which again raises – not begs – the question to what ends?

    Defend the Word: I am nothing short of shocked at your lack of understanding of the issue raised. You are so blinded by what you want to say that you don’t see the obvious. Issue raised is reference inconsistency not evolution process. Secondly your claim that Coyne proved evolution is so laughable based on logic that we are not only observing external we also involve internal intellectual struggle that is part of who we are. You are so strongly driven by what you believe that you fail to understand that you are doing that which you condemn in other people. That is not logical thinking that is emotional manipulation and distortion of facts. Yes evolution is evident but to what extent? And what does this mean to your Atheistic faith? Could God used evolution, there must be resounding yes. Could evolution be limited to the changes within speciation and or linked with limited other species. Fact is we do not have time travel mechanism and bones have no engravings saying evolved from fish, or do we still ignore the fact that people who dig for bones still tell those who sit in the offices we are still missing many needed links.

    Tildeb Gravity is. Get over it. Evolution is. Get over it. All this kowtowing to religious sensibilities of the evolutionary deniers by painting spokespeople of What Is as arrogant is…well, pretty stupid. It serves no purpose other than helping to maintain deniers of fact with a false sense of respect. Why respect beliefs that are not concerned with what is true? Such a stance you have taken is demeaning to those who do care about what is true, demeaning to what honest intellectual integrity stands for, and demeaning to yourself as an apologist first and a rational person who cares deeply about what is true second. That’s not a compliment.

    Defend the Word: To put it plainly, for someone like me it would be undesirable to have people like you to agree with me. I would be ashamed that someone who claims logic and reason displays such lack of respect for others and their processing of that same information. So I welcome ridicule and encourage others to do the same, lets show what many atheists are playground bullies, who are yet to grow up and use real reason and understand those who disagree with them. There is no shame in confronting those who are ignorant, but there is every reason to pretend that you have done your home work and use mental pressure on others in order to show your superiority that is so far removed from intellectual integrity and should be exposed as such.

    Tildeb Do you really think TGD is centred around whether or not Jesus was an historical figure? If so, please read the thing again. You’ve missed 99.99% of the book. What matters – at least to Dawkins if not you – is what is true. And religious claims about creationism and Intelligent Design that are incoherent are not worth our intellectual accommodating and apologies. THAT’S what the book is about… if you really do need a hint and apparently you do. Give it another go. TGD does not rely on references about historical figures to maintain a strong argument in favour of that difficult to find thesis.

    Defend the Word: Note that this is the last time I will allow such insults, please refer to the rules of engagement or could you not understand what it says there. Note that there are number of other atheists who are embarrassed by what Dr Dawkins had said in the past. Disagreement should be welcomed as long as it is supported by reasons and you are attacking the very thing you are suppose to support.

    Tildeb And let’s look at your central argument against Dawkins… that he had the temerity to suggest that perhaps there was some academic question about the validity of Jesus as an historical figure. When he found out there was a preponderance of evidence supporting Jesus as an historical figure – oh, the arrogance! – he CHANGED HIS POSITION. Rather than use this as strong evidence that Dawkins practices what he preaches about intellectual integrity, you can’t possibly overturn your OWN bias against Dawkins even when you have clear and compelling evidence to do so. You stick to your opinion that he has done atheism a disservice with a poor reference. And you compound your bias by suggesting that the great threat to civilization is not from those who read a well crafted book about why gravity is true but who continue to deny its scientific validity. No sir. You think that those folk who hold these denying beliefs are to be excused for their willful ignorance.

    Defend the Word: Fact that atheist changes his position of no consequence to this question. And you are being wilfully blind to notice that his reference material is lacking. His preferential treatment to “evidence” that agrees with his world view is legendary and should not be understated.

    Tildeb We must go after the real global threat: from those who have a track record of intellectual integrity and legitimate scientific achievements like Dawkins because he dares to call people on their willful ignorance. And evolution has exactly the same scientific status as gravity. It’s a fact. Those who deny that fact for whatever reasons you think are excusable – no doubt because of some vast library of legitimate scientific references that empowers that denial (but perhaps exists in some supernatural library unavailable to the rest of us) – can’t possibly have their beliefs held to account, held to the SAME standard you wish to damn Dawkins by. You’re not that intellectually honest, are you? You just want to present yourself as reasonable to people who hold incoherent beliefs at the very small price of your own intellectual integrity.

    Defend the Word: Yet again you fail to see your short-sighted understanding on what is tangible reliable. You make sweeping statements and expect people just to take your word for it. This is the mechanism utilised by many who have no real defence, instead they rely on percentage of people that would agree with him/her. This is not how argumentation is built upon, and neither is it a way that any logician would be proud of. Call to intellectual integrity is nothing else but scare tactics, simply playing on the card of ignorance and intimidation and that my friend is not good either for you or anyone else that engages in conversation with you.

    Tildeb And this is where you attempt to character assassinate Dawkins by confusing a very simple point: he calls people’s unjustified beliefs ignorant and stupid, which you promptly think applies to the people who hold them and then you have the arrogance to think yourself justified to question and determine Dawkins’ arrogance. But you see, John, you – not Dawkins – have assumed people with unjustified beliefs as worthy of being called ignorant and stupid by Dawkins. That’s very revealing about you and how you read, comprehend, formulate, and reply. DTW won’t catch that assumption you have made to criticize Dawkins unfairly, but those of us who are close readers will. For anyone who is passingly familiar with Dawkins and his social circle, you will know that many of friends are religious and he has very high regards for their intellectual integrity. But to a person, none of these religious people deny evolution as a fact. That would reduce them in Dawkins opinion to – as you write – “fellow creatures” who hold ignorant and stupid beliefs as more valid than what is true. Because, you see John, you have compounded your error and confused denying the fact of evolution to mean the same thing as religious, and you are wrong, but again the error in your thinking reveals more about you than legitimately criticizes the ideas of another. And as another ‘But’ person, you need to recognize your biases first before you can compensate for them with justified criticisms. As for your hostility against Dawkins, its shame.

    Defend the Word: First let me point out that neither I nor Mr John are saying that Dawkins is an idiot or ignorant. We are all aware of his intellect, secondly it is not only possible but probable that there will be highly intelligent and capable people who will disagree with Dawkins and as such your critique is unjustified. Lastly your clutching to the theory of evolution whilst very admirable that you have faith is also showing of your preferential “logical” data processing. You must go back to basics, that disagreements are welcomed and should not be treated with contempt. Ideology is different, that on the other hand can as we know lead to the arousal of human emotions that if not corrected could lead to irrational behaviour that is not logical and certainly not helpful to any debate. I have always said that Bible instructs us to use our reasoning to build our faith. And likewise atheist should do the same and stop pretending that they have upper hand and higher moral ground when all they do is intimidate and ridicule when they know that they have no real answers.
    I wish you all the best and that means that you should look at these issues with little more integrity and honesty and not muddy the water by giving swiping statements that mean nothing.

    Regards

    Defend the Word

  16. tildeb says:

    DTW, why do you edit comments? By taking a post and re-writing it with your comments inserted into it, you interrupt and interfere with the line of reasoning.

    My criticism of John’s critique is quite legitimate but it requires several stages to reveal the scope of his error. And make no mistake, his error is large. My argument is one thing in its entirety. By inserting your comments piecemeal into my original post rather than as a separate one, you mislead readers into thinking that the chunks to which you are responding are my complete but separate thoughts. They’re not. By editing my posts as you do, you mislead.

  17. I understand your frustration, but as you will probably know being also blog owner yourself. We have limited space and I am about to start trimming down on excessive wastage of space. All comments are clearly marked and if readers chose to ignore what I said they can.

Comments are closed.