2 ms·

Let's assume there's no God, and Dawkins is merely pointing out that fact without offering an alternative. Then he's speaking the truth, and to me that's more i

by epups 4y ago

Let's assume there's no God, and Dawkins is merely pointing out that fact without offering an alternative. Then he's speaking the truth, and to me that's more important than any religion. Let's not even get into the fact that most religions are covered in blood throughout history. I'll take an inconsiderate jerk any day over genocidal liars.

mistermann 4y ago
> Let's not even get into the fact that most religions are covered in blood throughout history. It's interesting how commonly non-theist's facts are expressed in conveniently ambiguous figures of speech when it is convenient, but when something similar is done in religious scripture it is considered a big no no.
- epups 4y ago
  There's nothing ambiguous about my statement, which is factual.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    Regarding "most religions are covered in blood".....what does this mean? Does it mean that all religious scriptures have blood on their pages? Does it mean that every single "member" (according to some unstated categorization algorithm) of every single religion across time was "covered in blood" (a phrase for which we we lack a definition)? Or, maybe only some members (which would then require a universally agreed upon cutoff point)? Or, something else entirely? And then if we were being thorough, we may find it interesting to compare the frequency of this phenomenon in other, non-religious forms of human collectives, lest our comments are misinformative (a big no non these days, at least sometimes)....but then, would that be in violation of the "Whataboutism" rule, the origin and validity of which seems rather unclear? Possibly relevant: https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-christian-the-views-of-joseph-smith-and-sren-kierkegaard/ https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a... https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-th...
skissane 4y ago
> Let's assume there's no God, and Dawkins is merely pointing out that fact without offering an alternative. Then he's speaking the truth, and to me that's more important than any religion. If his views are true – then he's doing the truth a disservice by arguing for it in such a sloppy manner. A lot of well-educated theists read Dawkins, and come away more convinced of theism – they see how incompetent Dawkins' arguments are, and they (wrongly) conclude Dawkins is the best atheism has to offer. Atheism would be better off without his book–and the truth would be too.

by epups 4y ago

mistermann 4y ago

> Let's not even get into the fact that most religions are covered in blood throughout history. It's interesting how commonly non-theist's facts are expressed in conveniently ambiguous figures of speech when it is convenient, but when something similar is done in religious scripture it is considered a big no no.

epups 4y ago
There's nothing ambiguous about my statement, which is factual.
- mistermann 4y ago
  Regarding "most religions are covered in blood".....what does this mean? Does it mean that all religious scriptures have blood on their pages? Does it mean that every single "member" (according to some unstated categorization algorithm) of every single religion across time was "covered in blood" (a phrase for which we we lack a definition)? Or, maybe only some members (which would then require a universally agreed upon cutoff point)? Or, something else entirely? And then if we were being thorough, we may find it interesting to compare the frequency of this phenomenon in other, non-religious forms of human collectives, lest our comments are misinformative (a big no non these days, at least sometimes)....but then, would that be in violation of the "Whataboutism" rule, the origin and validity of which seems rather unclear? Possibly relevant: https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-christian-the-views-of-joseph-smith-and-sren-kierkegaard/ https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a... https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-th...

skissane 4y ago

> Let's assume there's no God, and Dawkins is merely pointing out that fact without offering an alternative. Then he's speaking the truth, and to me that's more important than any religion. If his views are true – then he's doing the truth a disservice by arguing for it in such a sloppy manner. A lot of well-educated theists read Dawkins, and come away more convinced of theism – they see how incompetent Dawkins' arguments are, and they (wrongly) conclude Dawkins is the best atheism has to offer. Atheism would be better off without his book–and the truth would be too.