Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[--Pete]

Hi,

Why don't you pretty much then once try to understand why he would do this?

I think that both Occhi and I understand him quite well. The fact that we, coming from opposite viewpoints, both agree on what is wrong with his argument is rather telling.

What is the sense of verbally attacking the worshipping of the God of fruitbats which is common with the ungubungi tribe living around the south-western Amazon banks?

Well, first of all, this might very well be, of all the gods ever proposed, the one true god. So, focusing entirely on Christianity would be stupid, since that focus would be against a group that is wrong by definition and ignores the ungubungi and their truth. His argument is that god does not exist. He supports his argument by attacking Christianity. That is like arguing that equines do not exist because unicorns are mythical.

Second, attacking the worship of any god is a poor strategy. If a personal god exists and if that god demands worship, then it is correct to worship that god. And if a person believes that that god exists, it is that person's obligation to worship. To be effective, the argument should focus on the underlying causes of the behavior and not on the behavior itself. In his earlier work, Dawkins was less strident and more general and logical. I think years of banging his head on the wall of stupidity, ignorance, and superstition have made him too bitter.

Also, it is imperative to distinguish religion (especially as in 'organized religion') from worship. Worship is a private interaction between a person and his perceived god. Regardless of your opinion about that god's validity, it is the worshiper's right and privilege. Religion in these discussions is usually understood to mean 'organized religion' which are institution putatively formed for spiritual matters but most often (I know of no exceptions) devolve into the secular. It is the actions of organized religions in secular matters that gives rise to the whole argument about the desirability of religion.

If you have an opinion like his it is very normal to attack the 'religion in charge'......the religion that is used by the powers of the world in order to keep the people stupid.

While Christianity is (perhaps) the dominant religion of the world, it still only accounts for about a third of the population. If your claim (like Dawkins') is that religion itself is wrong, then you either need to show that for each case (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, . . ., and even "the worshipping of the God of fruitbats") or you need to show it in general without reference to any one religion.

Why would he want to discuss with Jemenite tribes about genetics if these people still chop of hands of thieves and give women the same status as cattle? Even when he would I don't think he would sell many books there either.

Total non sequitur. We're talking about his views on religion, not on genetics. He might very well want to talk to the Jemenite tribes about religion and what in their beliefs justifies their treatment of criminals and of women. And the results of those conversations might end up as anything from a footnote to a whole book devoted to comparative religions which, while it might not sell too well in the Congo basin, might well end up on the NY Times bestsellers list.

So you can use big words to describe why you don't like Dawkins, but first, his opinions and choices are very logical, . . .

In genetics, most definitely. As regards to religion, not really. He might be right in his opinions (I think he is) but he does not do a logical job of expressing them for the reasons already pointed out in this post. The problem with Dawkins is that he generates too much heat and not enough light. Yes, he is a hero to those of us who think like he does because he is outspoken and willing to take on the establishment. But he is a hero who, in some ways, may be doing more damage than good by his incompletely conceived arguments. "Christianity is wrong, therefore there is no god" is not a valid argument. Even if the premise is right, the conclusion still does not follow, and while saying it cleverly, loudly, and often may impress or even convince many with weaker minds, those on whom Jedi mind tricks do not work see through the arguments.

. . . so 2nd the reason why you tell us you don't like him is silly, . . .

Only on a shallow examination. Just because you don't understand the reasoning does not make it wrong.

. . . and 3rd for sure he also has problems with Islam and other religion as well as with the chinese goverment etc......but if everybody who writes a book needs to spell out his or her opinions on everything in order for you to like them.....they would use quite a lot of extra pages.....I think they would not find this worth the trouble.

What BS. First of all, how long a book should be is simple: as long as it needs to be to cover the subject and no longer. Second, not "opinions on everything", but if a person is expressing opinions on religion then I want to hear what he thinks about other religions, not just Christianity.

Intellectual honesty requires that you apply the same rules to your supporters as you do to your opponents. Anything else is bigotry.

--Pete