Think and Think, are you familiar with Tim Minchin? A songwriter/comedian from Australia (though he lives in London now) who often sings about atheism and religion.
NC
Why do Americans still dislike atheists?
by behemot 91 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Nickolas
Dawkins' real problem is not his superiority, because he clearly has a superior mind, but his intolerance toward incompetent thinking. He needs to work on that.
-
PSacramento
But how do you decide WHICH parts are right and wrong? Did god not reveal himself to Moses? How about the prophets? Do you just go on what FEELS right?
You take the WHOLE and base it on what we know about how God is revealed in everything else" His Word and the universe He created.
So people that existed before the NT and wanted to serve a god didn't have the same option? Were they not made in god's image as they slaughtered a race of people? Sure believing in Jesus seems more rational but is that to say all those that came before were not rational?
I don't know, are people that do the same TODAY rational?
You would have to show this to me. I've read the bible extensively and at NO TIME did Jesus disown the scriptures. On the contrary he would add authority to his teachings by saying "It is written...".
Notice that everytime Jesus would say "it is written" he would add his "twist" to it?
As for His issues with the scribes:
Matt 23: 27
Look if you want to pick and choose what you believe and what you reject, that is fine. I'm just trying to figure out what method you use. If it feels wrong you don't believe? Or is there some process you use to test the writings to decide. It just seems that you would choose to discount all of the prophets that Jesus referenced. If they were good enough for him, why not today's Christians?
Not the caes at all.
First you take the understanding that God is revealed ina progressive way in the bible, hence the view that the NT God is "different" than the OT one , even though they are the same.
Then you take into account WHO was writing and WHY and for WHOM.
Then you take into account the other ways God has revealed Himself to Us: The bible, His Word ( Christ), the universe we live in.
And IF you accept Christ as the personification of God ( the exact image and representation of God), you accept that no one has ever seen God or known God truly, except His Son and in Konwing His Son, we then truly and fully, Know God.
Does that mean what was written about God was wrong?
Yes, it can very well mean that if what was written about God goes against what Christ has shown God to be.
-
PSacramento
All sounds like New Light reasoning to me, Paul. Sciptures are inspired by God or they're not. If they're not, then they're just the words of men.
As you know Nic, I view scriptures as written by MAN, being the "words" of God written BY MAN and as such, they are only innerrant or infalliable to the extent that they agree with THE WORD of God, Christ.
-
talesin
because he clearly has a superior mind
This statement (and not you, Nickolas, just that statement) rubs my fur the wrong way.
Dawkins is clever, and I think he's hilarious in his dogged determination to wipe religion off the face earth,,, he's smart, and his critical thinking skills are exceptional, but a superior mind? What does that mean?
He comes from privilege, and had all the opportunities for education that we could have wished for. Being in a position at a young age, to develop whatever natural gifts one has, makes a big difference in how smart we 'appear' to be. He is also driven, and ever-so-passionate about his message, to the point of being an evangelist for the 'cause' of atheism.
These are my own thoughts and opinion ,,, I have known quite a few gifted people, but due to life circumstances, they never had the chance to manifest their gifts.
Does that make their minds inferior? No, it only means they didn't have the same opportunities as someone like Dawkins.
Now, if we're talking daVinci, for example, or Hawking, or Mozart, who all had original ideas and developed new schools of thought or ways of doing things in their fields ,,, I would heartily agree.
t
-
PSacramento
Dawkins' real problem is not his superiority, because he clearly has a superior mind, but his intolerance toward incompetent thinking. He needs to work on that.
One of the first signs of NOT having a superiour mind is the erroneous belief that those that do NOT agree with the way we think are ignorant.
Dawkins does indeed have a superiour intellect though, no doubt.
-
Nickolas
One of the first signs of NOT having a superiour mind is the erroneous belief that those that do NOT agree with the way we think are ignorant.
I can't speak for Dawkins but ignorance has less to do with the way one thinks than what one thinks. If one thinks the world is flat, for example, then that person is indeed ignorant. It doesn't matter if he has been confronted with all the facts or not, he is still ignorant of the indesputable fact that the world is a sphere. If he maintains that the world is flat even after all the evidence to the contrary has been put in front of him, then he is still ignorant. It could be because he is intellectually unable to process the evidence or because he is intellectually choosing to dismiss it. In the latter case ignorance is a choice. It's wilfull ignorance, but it's still ignorance.
-
PSacramento
I can't speak for Dawkins but ignorance has less to do with the way one thinks but what one thinks. If one thinks the world is flat, for example, then that person is indeed ignorant. It doesn't matter if he has been confronted with all the facts or not, he is still ignorant of the indesputable fact that the world is a sphere. If he maintains that the world is flat even after all the evidence to the contrary has been put in front of him, then he is still ignorant. It could be because he is intellectually unable to process the evidence or because he is intellectually choosing to dismiss it. In the latter case ignorance is a choice. It's wilfull ignorance, but it's still ignorance.
You do realise the flip side of that coin works for the believer VS the atheist right?
The believer can view the atheist as ignorant of the reality that the believer has seen and has been proven, to the believer, to be true.
Perception is a bitch.
But, back on topic, I submit that it is not atheisim that americans dislike because even the most fundamentalist of americans know at least one atheist that they probably do like and can understand how some people are atheist, it is the arrogance of some atheists that make themselves out to be the "poster children" for atheisim that I would venture to say that americans dislike.
-
Pika_Chu
Well, when you're taught that people who question God are bad and will go to hell, this is what you end up with...
-
NewChapter
Perhaps some atheists are arrogant. Perhaps I am. Perhaps some are humble and some are criminals. But does that absolve Americans from discriminating? If I know an arrogant black man, can I then dismiss all African Americans and discriminate? Atheists have a right to be arrogant. Everyone has that right. To suggest that arrogance is reason enough to discriminate isn't really thinking it all through. And as far as most people having an atheist friend, that reminds me of something. When a racist tries to prove he's not a racist he will often say "Some of my best friends are black" or whatever. So if an atheist doesn't make waves, that is just fine. But if they do---well now we have a problem. This puts us in the mind of a "token". At my church, UU cuz they accept atheists and I need community, we studied the many degrees of acceptance that reach beyond prejudice. It's a process. In the beginning, groups may accept the outsider as long as they act like the rest of the group and don't cause trouble. It is offensive to say that people don't mind atheists they mind arrogance.
Dawkins speaks his mind and has an attitude about it. Well he is probably tired of the constant testing and arguing. I think I heard here that he has decided to simply not debate creationists anymore. That is probably wise. Some people find it arrogant to claim that you are saved and the rest are going to hell, or whatever spin the belief is given. So what is arrogance then? A tone of voice? Or believing you have superior knowledge?
When African Americans started to demand their rights they were often called arrogant. Hell, even Obama got called arrogant. I guess no one likes an arrogant black man---or an arrogant atheist.
NC