Jones: I would argue yes, in the same way that some mathematical problems simply don't have answers. A null set, I guess is what it's called. I dunno, I only had one math class in my life where I had a teacher who could teach. Asking an atheist what if they're wrong is sort of pointless, because you're asking what if you're wrong about MY (my being the speaker) belief system? I think Dawkins' point is, there's no difference in his mind between "being wrong" about Jehovah then there is "being wrong" about Wotan. And if he can be wrong about Jehovah, then she can certainly be wrong about Wotan. Or any other God that's ever been invented. I believe he was trying to get the questioner to think about where she was in even asking the question in the first place. Regardless, if he's wrong, then I guess the Answer Answer is he'll be subject to whatever punishment is laid out for non-believers of whatever faith he's wrong about. In this case, for Jehovah, I believe that means he'll go to hell, and I'll be glad to buy him drinks for a good portion of eternity. Because I'll be there with him, Leary and Scorsese.
See, that's, I'm not sure about that. Traditionally, I suppose arguing against God might not go down well with the traditionalists, but what have they done for us, ever? But if there is an afterlife, and it is, I dunno, a 'worthy' one, then as a person who's essentially calling for mankind to wake up, take more responsibility for it's actions and use solid common sense in it's decision making, I'd think Richard would be fine with the 'big guy upstairs'. I'm not sure if his book also argues against spiritualism, nor am I sure if that was the point of the question (maybe the question was about religion holding civilisation together) but anyway, as long as he's not promoting hate, I'd think he'd be ok. But he seems so quick to dismiss the possible heart of the question in order to stay on the offensive about religious people being wrong.
Jones: That assumes one believes in a "big guy upstairs" who actually wants mankind to "wake up, take more responsibility for its actions and use solid common sense in its decision making." I would advise reading his book and Christopher Hitchens', as they lay out that while a lot of people might believe in a God that wants that, that's not really the same God that the Bible lays out. Sadly, most people haven't read the very book they believe in.
And no, he's not promoting hate in the least. I wouldn't be posting videos of somebody like that. He might be accused of hating, but I haven't seen anything to support that.
I agree, I don't think he's hating on people at all, it seems he and Hitchens are trying to get people to stop destructively focusing on their differences and start focusing on their shared interests, like survival. Which is a great message, and if the religious are truly religious then logically they should be solidly behind it.
John Robinson is a writer of prose, poetry and comics who also writes under
the pseudonym of Widgett Walls.
This is my latest book. Short stories written especially for you, or at least someone who reminded me a lot of you at the time.
Er, did he actually answer the question?
Comment by Jones — October 14, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Jones: I would argue yes, in the same way that some mathematical problems simply don't have answers. A null set, I guess is what it's called. I dunno, I only had one math class in my life where I had a teacher who could teach. Asking an atheist what if they're wrong is sort of pointless, because you're asking what if you're wrong about MY (my being the speaker) belief system? I think Dawkins' point is, there's no difference in his mind between "being wrong" about Jehovah then there is "being wrong" about Wotan. And if he can be wrong about Jehovah, then she can certainly be wrong about Wotan. Or any other God that's ever been invented. I believe he was trying to get the questioner to think about where she was in even asking the question in the first place. Regardless, if he's wrong, then I guess the Answer Answer is he'll be subject to whatever punishment is laid out for non-believers of whatever faith he's wrong about. In this case, for Jehovah, I believe that means he'll go to hell, and I'll be glad to buy him drinks for a good portion of eternity. Because I'll be there with him, Leary and Scorsese.
Comment by Widge — October 14, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
See, that's, I'm not sure about that. Traditionally, I suppose arguing against God might not go down well with the traditionalists, but what have they done for us, ever? But if there is an afterlife, and it is, I dunno, a 'worthy' one, then as a person who's essentially calling for mankind to wake up, take more responsibility for it's actions and use solid common sense in it's decision making, I'd think Richard would be fine with the 'big guy upstairs'. I'm not sure if his book also argues against spiritualism, nor am I sure if that was the point of the question (maybe the question was about religion holding civilisation together) but anyway, as long as he's not promoting hate, I'd think he'd be ok. But he seems so quick to dismiss the possible heart of the question in order to stay on the offensive about religious people being wrong.
Comment by Jones — October 15, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Jones: That assumes one believes in a "big guy upstairs" who actually wants mankind to "wake up, take more responsibility for its actions and use solid common sense in its decision making." I would advise reading his book and Christopher Hitchens', as they lay out that while a lot of people might believe in a God that wants that, that's not really the same God that the Bible lays out. Sadly, most people haven't read the very book they believe in.
And no, he's not promoting hate in the least. I wouldn't be posting videos of somebody like that. He might be accused of hating, but I haven't seen anything to support that.
Comment by Widge — October 15, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
I agree, I don't think he's hating on people at all, it seems he and Hitchens are trying to get people to stop destructively focusing on their differences and start focusing on their shared interests, like survival. Which is a great message, and if the religious are truly religious then logically they should be solidly behind it.
Comment by Jones — October 15, 2007 @ 10:15 pm