Richard Dawkins FUNNY mistake
by Christ Alone 14 Replies latest social entertainment
-
-
Finkelstein
Being that there were different tittles used in the publication of the book, kind of reveals a bit of stupid vindictive ploy
by Giles Fraser. Dawkin's analogy that he used has more convincing weight to show that most devout Christians in the entirety of
this recognized group probably couldn't name the first book of the New Testament .
Mind you being forgetful is a human trait in all of us, including R Dawkins.
-
glenster
As Higgs pointed out, when Dawkins uses phrasing that frames the whole issue
as a choice to be a fundamentalist or not, not recognizing the differences
between liberal (MLK, RFK, Colbert, etc.) and conservative, it's the same
purview of the fundamentalist. Having stacked the deck that way, he badmouths
a lot of people different than him including some who don't deserve it. The
result is more propaganda than college comparative religion course so not useful
as a reference source.
Not recognizing the harm of 'centric intolerant believers and non-believers
but attributing it to believers is a case of it, and ironically 'centric and
intolerant while purporting to be against it. A couple examples of Dawkins
doing that then judging against believers regarding wars and destruction of art,
etc., are at the next link:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1108-gardinerThose are the first mistakes, not funny but unfriendly, I think of for
Dawkins. I'd rather see the friendliness in agreement to not want harm. It's
more conducive to the conversation if you want to persuade someone to your view.
Dawkins sort of hooray for us/bash them is, ironically, behind most of the harm.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+dawkins -
Eustace
The full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life is very important. It sums up what Darwin was saying in his book very well, and I'm a surprised that a scientist wouldn't have the title memorized.
At the same time I'm not sure about the analogy to a Christian who doesn't know Matthew is the first book of the New Testament. A one word title is way easier to remember.
Does anyone know if Christian pastors, who would probably be the Christian equalivalent to Richard Dawkins, know that Matthew is the first book of the New Testament?
It would be very weak if they didn't, much more pathetic even than Dawkins failure of memory.
-
Eustace
He remembered most of it.
A brain fart is not really that embarrassing when you compare it to complete ignorance.
That's a good point. Somewhere in Dawkin's brain he had the title, certainly, whereas what Dawkins was talking about was some idiot going aroudn saying he's Christian while having not the slightest clue of what's in the bible.