Re: [asa] dawkins and collins on "Fresh Air" interview program

Re your comments below about the militant atheists who support Dawkins...

I noticed that on the Dawkins website there were a number of pictorial
tributes to Dawkins on the occasion of his 66th Birthday by his admiring
fans. Several of these had a manipulated version of the famous painting (I
think by Da Vinci) of the creation of Adam, with a naked Adam and God in the
sky touching fingers. In the manipulated image the hand of "Adam" is turned
round the other way so "Adam" is giving the offensive "one-finger" gesture
to God. In some of them also "Adam's" head is replaced by that of Dawkins.

I'm wondering if Pim would not classify that sort of thing ( as I understand
it the one finger gesture means F*** off) as hateful bigotry. If he does,
then he must at least admit that Dawkins's writing incites hateful bigotry
amongst his fans.

If Pim is not willing to concede this much, then I guess the killfile
beckons because I am becoming increasingly enraged by this ridiculous
defense of Dawkins.

Iain

On 4/3/07, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
>
> PvM wrote:
>
> So let me ask you a question: Who is doing more damage to religious
> faith? Dawkins or ID which argues that science has shown the existence
> of a Designer? By making such a statement ID has made design
> falsifiable, or so it claims, and thus anytime science closes a gap,
> God becomes less relevant.
> ID has been a gift to Dawkins and he has aptly turned it in a weapon
> against that which ID claims to defend. Perhaps ID was nothing more
> than a knee jerk reaction to Dawkins but their response has played
> into the hands of Dawkins rather than propose a serious alternative.
>
>
>
> Since we preach Christ crucified, we already speak what
> is viewed as "foolishness". We were off to a good start
> from the beginning if we measure our faith in terms of
> the world.
>
> I agree that the ID position is not helping things; particularly
> when the rhetoric has been vociferously aggressive but the delivery
> quite paltry. I think it would be better that we just follow Jesus
> and live lives that show our repentance of worldly ways. At least
> that way, we might at least do what is right when our name is called.
>
> Nevertheless...
>
> You can argue that Dawkins' views are nuanced
> such that he does not literally _hate_ Christians,
> just religion.
>
> However, the issue is not limited just to what Dawkins'
> thinks or doesn't think. The direction of his works
> tends to be antichristian, and this is what his
> followers will pick up. If Dawkins was perhaps
> nuanced, his followers are less likely to be so.
> And this is largely what I have observed.
>
> Increasingly militant, one gradually gets the
> impression from the hoipolloi on skeptic lists
> (where it's "cool" to be an atheist), that some
> people actually think the world would be a better
> place if that "thing" was cut out. Moreover,
> I of read people who would actually conflate
> rape with religion. Should I then suppose that
> eating or relieving oneself also a crime? (I guess
> that the latter most also have came as a result
> of evolution.) But propagating ones genes
> through a highly antisocial act of aggression
> hardly equates the two and I seriously doubt that
> there is a strong selective advantage for rape.
> Yet this is the kind of retort you can encounter
> (as the Wired magazine article reports).
>
> And should I expect it will stop at that?
>
> So exactly who is more noxious is hardly an easy
> answer to assess in a bigger picture.
>
> by Grace we proceed,
> Wayne

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.