Disgusting article from the telegraph

[cajar]

Dawkins actually did visit Jerusalem, Palestine and the bible belt of the US to talk with academics there.

 

[sooey]

Blasphemous, you obviously don't understand the difference between preaching and lecturing.
If you read back a few posts cajar has explained it very well.

 

[Blasphemous]

I full understand.

 

[sooey]

Oh ffs Preaching is putting forth teachings based on faith alone...therefore unchallengeable. Lecturing as practised by Dawkins is putting forth teachings based on current scientific knowledge.....eminently challengeable.

 

[Blasphemous]

Oh ffs Preaching is putting forth teachings based on faith alone...therefore unchallengeable. Lecturing as practised by Dawkins is putting forth teachings based on current scientific knowledge.....eminently challengeable.

Erm, ANYONE can challenge 'faith'..... AH! We're going round in circles here. Look, you have it your way, I'll have it mine. It's pedantic anyway. It doesn't matter what you want to call his preaching, lecturing, speeches, talks etc. Let's forget about preaching, we're both flogging a dead horse... which may or may not go to a horsey heaven that may or may not exist!

Let's get back to your original point. Your opening post complained that The Telegraph featured a 'disgusting article', and went on: 'attacking a man for something his ancestors did 3 hundred years ago. There are even calls in the article for him to apologise.'

I previously asked you:

...if his ancestors were involved in the slave trade, then they were involved, why does that make this article in the Telegraph 'disgusting'?

And your response was:

I would say...because of the way it's written, as though that somehow demeans him or his beliefs.

If you find an article that reports 'facts' as demeaning toward Dawkins that's your issue and you're entitled to your opinion but there is nothing 'disgusting' about the article sooey. It is a report, a real and factual story and 'real' and 'factual' is what Dawkins is passionate about so surely you don't wish to suppress facts?

It would appear that Dawkins ancestors were indeed involved in slavery. That's not Richard Dawkins fault. He can't change or be blamed for the acts of his father, his father's father, his father's father's father.... It happened, he doesn't like that it happened but he has to accept 'facts'.

The 'article' does NOT call for him to apologise. The article reports that he is now 'facing calls to apologise and make reparations for his family's past.' That's not the article stating it, that's the article REPORTING it.

 

[sooey]

Fine, let's clear this up first though.

Erm, ANYONE can challenge 'faith'.

No they can't, not scientifically. It can naver be proven that god does not exist. That's the only reason that faiths exist today with such large followings, if they could be disproven they would be reduced to the level of crank offshoots of society or go out of existence. As regards the article, you see it as mere factual reporting, fine. I see it as an attempt to discredit a man based on things which happened hundreds of years before he was born. Which I do indeed find disgusting.,

 

[Blasphemous]

Fine, let's clear this up first though.

Erm, ANYONE can challenge 'faith'.

No they can't, not scientifically. It can naver be proven that god does not exist. That's the only reason that faiths exist today with such large followings, if they could be disproven they would be reduced to the level of crank offshoots of society or go out of existence. As regards the article, you see it as mere factual reporting, fine. I see it as an attempt to discredit a man based on things which happened hundreds of years before he was born. Which I do indeed find disgusting.,

We agree (on most things actually), that the existence of 'god' cannot be scientifically challenged yes but that doesn't stop Dawkins challenging it does it? Nor does it stop any of us from challenging it.

As to the article. It is your opinion that it is disgusting but I think your disgust actually lies with those that are seeking apologies and reparations, not with the article. The article, as I have stated, is simply the vessel/medium that is communicating this story. It makes no judgement on either side.

 

[cajar]

The article juxtaposes Richard Dawkins and the involvement his ancestors had in slavery, suggesting his personal wealth (inherited) is the result of it and implies that he supports it.

No reasonable person would suggest that someone should be held responsible for the actions of their ancestors, thus the article is nothing short of an ad hominem attack no matter who it happens to be directed at.

The article itself (not the reported facts, these are after all just facts) is appalling, IMO.

 

[sooey]

As to the article. It is your opinion that it is disgusting but I think your disgust actually lies with those that are seeking apologies and reparations, not with the article.

I've explained why I find it disgusting.
FYI as you seem to think I am some kind of fan/acolyte/defender of Dawkins. I agree with what he says but I don't particularly like the way he says it. He's too non confrontational for my liking, as I've already said I preferred Christopher Hitchens' style. Much more direct, allied to his amazingly sharp wit and his amazing ability to articulate along with his great intelligence, he was hard to beat. Dawkins once said that he disagreed with him over the Iraq war but wouldn't like to debate it with him. He knew what would happen if he did.

 

[Blasphemous]

FYI as you seem to think I am some kind of fan/acolyte/defender of Dawkins. I agree with what he says but I don't particularly like the way he says it. He's too non confrontational for my liking, as I've already said I preferred Christopher Hitchens' style. Much more direct, allied to his amazingly sharp wit and his amazing ability to articulate along with his great intelligence, he was hard to beat. Dawkins once said that he disagreed with him over the Iraq war but wouldn't like to debate it with him. He knew what would happen if he did.

Yep, he's not the sharpest tool in the atheist box. For instance if you're going on a chat show to talk about a survey you've created to determine a 'Christian', at least be prepared for the opposite argument and for your own survey questions to be questioned. For instance, when he asked in his survey "What is the first book of the new testament?" He decided that anyone not able to answer that question correctly was not a Christian. So based on the blueprint of Dawkins, son of Atheist God Hitchens, for how the belief of an individual is defined, Dawkins himself is NOT an atheist. He was unable to give the full name of his very own bible, Darwin's, On The Origin of Species, when asked to do so!

Dawkins, academic?

 

[Blasphemous]

I've just had a quick read back through your points sooey. You still feel the article is 'disgusting'.

As regards the article, you see it as mere factual reporting, fine. I see it as an attempt to discredit a man based on things which happened hundreds of years before he was born. Which I do indeed find disgusting.,

So are you saying Dawkins shouldn't be punished or dealt with in anyway with relation to what his forefathers have done?

 

[sooey]

Are you saying he should?

 

[Blasphemous]

Are you saying he should?

Not at all but over in your 'I always thought' thread, you stated:

If they weren't born here, send them back whence they came. If they were born here send them back whence their parents came from to give their offspring better life. When they ask why, tell them it's because they can't expect the country that welcomed their parents to extend the same welcome to them after the way they have shown their gratitude.

Now, like you, I have NO sympathy for these scum if they did indeed commit the crimes they're accused of and they should be banged up forever if guilty but you've stated in this thread that someone (Dawkins), cannot be held accountable for the actions of their forefathers and yet you believe someone should be deported if their forefathers came from a different country?

 

[sooey]

Now, like you, I have NO sympathy for these scum if they did indeed commit the crimes they're accused of and they should be banged up forever if guilty but you've stated in this thread that someone (Dawkins), cannot be held accountable for the actions of their forefathers and yet you believe someone should be deported if their forefathers came from a different country?

And you somehow think that that is inconsistent? Offspring of immigrants are often sympathetic to the culture of their parents, and dismissive of large parts of ours. If they can't settle into this society without committing horrendous acts like the one that started this thread (remember, as joe said there is no way they would commit those acts against their own) then send them back to where their culture is. See how they like that. That would be as a direct consequence of acts that they had committed, nothing to do with their forefathers.

 

[Blasphemous]

It certainly is inconsistent.

If Darwin and modern research is correct then we ALL came from elsewhere originally. Probably Africa. Are we going to deport all criminals to Africa?

As I have stated, I have NO sympathy for criminals such as this and would be happy to see them locked away forever but if they were born here, they are British scum not African, Iranian, Afghan etc etc. Would you be happy to receive all the criminals from Australia?