'THE DAWKINS DELUSION' New book responds to Dawkins 'The God Delusion'

by nicolaou 79 Replies latest social current

  • lovelylil


    Thank you. I felt the same way when I read that post. And mind you if you read my husband's post to Tetra, it was only a joke! He was not abusive in any way and did not use any bad language so I don't know why a mod. would have to "deal" with him? I was very confused. Lilly

  • Scully


    Again you are misrepresenting things. I really can't figure out why you feel "confused". This is what your hubby said in his initial post:

    ROCHi I am new - Lovelylilly's husband 01-Feb-07 18:56
    Post 1 of 10
    since 31-Jan-07

    My wife has been keeping me up to date on what goes on in the forum. I finally decided to join myself. I am not as knowledgeable in the scriptures as my wife. But I do believe in Christ and the Bible and I am still learning. I was a MS for about 5 years. We left 3 years ago. As we joined together, we left together although my wife had doubts before me. I look forward to participating on the board. Just to forwarn you all, I am not near as NICE as my wife is. Like they say, your other half is your better half! And she is the best half I have.

    So being ex military on a submarine, I just want to say, I never met a "real" athiest when we had a situation with flooding.

    To me, the highlighted areas explain his position very clearly.

    1. You have been actively involved in his decision to post here.
    2. His need to "forwarn" us that he is "not near as NICE as" you are, tells me that he feels compelled to defend his "nice" wife.
    3. He is here specifically to deal with "not ... NICE" atheists.

    Please stop insulting my intelligence and the intelligence of other people on this forum. It certainly was NOT clear that ROC's post to tetra was a joke. He used large bold ALL CAPS - maybe he is not familiar with netiquette, but that is considered to be "shouting", not joking. I have a hard time believing that you had absolutely NOTHING to do with his post - particularly given that his post was within 10 minutes of yours. Again, please don't insult my intelligence or try to play coy.

    In addition, what was the point of your comment to tetra that he addressed his comments to you instead of the OP? Isn't that exactly what you did on pennycandy's thread - you responded to a comment that I made rather than to the question from the OP?


    Surely you don't expect to be treated any differently than you treat other people?

  • lovelylil


    Roc used all caps because he was emphasing that he was the voice of a God, not because he was yelling.

    As far as his introduction, he did ask me from time to time what is going on in the forum but mostly asked about issues pertaining to the WT, and not people's personal religious beliefs.

    And regarding his statement made against athiests, when I saw that, he and I got into an arguement over it because I felt it was totally inappropriate although he meant it as a joke. I certainly did not like it and he can tell you that. I wanted him to delele it.

    And he is right, I AM a lot nicer then he is and also less judgemental, he will tell you that himself. If he posts here again, because to tell you the truth, I was so livid at him last night because of your last comment about how you think I percieve people who have an athiest view, which is totally off base with who I am as a person, and I knew you felt that way because of his comments, that we got into an another arguement about it. As of this morning, we are not even speaking to each other, that is how upset I was.

    Further, he WAS lurking in the forum for a long time before posting and came to his own conclusions. He is a grown man and trust me, I have NO control at all over what he does or says. I wish I did, but I don't. No more than anyone else here can control thier spouses actions.

    I have never in any way addressed anyone here in an inapproprate way because they did not agree with my personal beliefs. Believe me, I have not one bad thought about anyone who shares a different views. If you knew me as a person, you would know that for sure. Just because I strongly defend my beliefs does not in any way mean I harbor any bad thoughts about people of other views in general. I treat all people with the respect I wish to recieve myself. And as a matter of fact, I've been much harder on my fellow beleivers in this forum then I have been on any un-believers. And my posting record will show that.

    Please do not judge someone by two posts made. And give ROC a break because he is still struggling to get rid of old habits he learned from the WT, and can come off smug sometimes but is really a nice guy deep down. He has a wierd sense of humor, that not everyone gets and does not season his words with salt. But you know what, everyone on this forum has had to adjust their personalities somewhat after coming out of the org. Roc is not as far along this road as others yet. He is still struggling to break down the WT type mentality in some ways which includes judging those of different beliefs than yours. I think being on this forum will help him in this way.

    And to be fair scully, even if you think Roc was being flip to Tetra, he did not use any bad language, threats or behave in any way that went against the posting rules of this forum. That was why I was confused about you stating he could be "dealt with". Lilly

  • Dansk

    Frankly, I'm only sorry Dawkin's book, which I have read, wasn't available in the 1980s when I joined the Watchtower cult. Had it been available then I daresay my life would have taken a different course.

    We need people like Dawkins because he makes one think. He shows that there is an alternative to religion. He never said one should follow his example - he never even even said that God doesn't exist, merely that there is a high probability that he doesn't. What he does convey is his annoyance that religion, i.e., the belief in God, should be looked on as sacrosanct. I don't see Dawkins as being any more arrogant than dyed-in-the-wool religionists. At least he backs up what he says with good sound intelligent argument.


  • Scully
    I have never in any way addressed anyone here in an inapproprate way because they did not agree with my personal beliefs. Believe me, I have not one bad thought about anyone who shares a different views.

    Yet, you are perfectly comfortable misinterpreting viewpoints and attributing to them (me, specifically) "anger", hostility, and inability to read in context over a passage in the bible, when no such emotion was even part of the equation, simply because we disagree over what was meant by "rape" vs. what we would now call "statutory rape", bickering over words written thousands of years ago that cannot withstand our current views on personal autonomy, women's rights and basic human decency.

    In all honesty, I am saddened that discussions here have created tension between you and ROC.

    For the record, his statements that being an ex-military person, his claim of being "not as NICE as" you, and his comment regarding atheists sounded - to me - as more than a tad threatening and on the verge of bullying toward non-believers or atheists. Those comments and the large bold font all caps "joke" to tetra - given his 10-post posting history - are pretty much all anyone (myself included) has to form an opinion regarding his intent. If he is joking, he certainly has the option to come here of his own accord and say so - and he hasn't done that.

    I'm fully prepared to let bygones be bygones if you are too.

  • LittleToe

    I agree entirely with Ian's post. I just find it a shame that Dawkins finds it necessary to use the same methods as those he detracts

  • lovelylil


    I'm sorry to see that you are still upset because we disagreed on a few scriptural passages, and I kind of thought that was behind your anger a little. Just because someone defends their beleif in the bible does not mean they are personally against those of differing views. I think this is a hard concept to convey over the internet. I thought an open forum was so that we can get varying opinions out there. I was not trying to argue with you at all, rather trying to show that there are different interpretations as to the meaning of ancient words. The way your post about rape looked to some reading it is that the victim having to marry a rapist was common practice in the OT which would make some feel disgusted, rightfully so with the Bible itself. But when you understand that rape does not mean what it means today, it gives a different view of the text. There were others who agreed that your post was to put the bible in a negative light and that was the example you picked. I was merely showing the other side of the coin.

    But, yes, we can let bygons be bygons although I did not know we had any hard feelings between us. I'm sorry if you thought otherwise, I certainly did not mean to give that impression.

    I'll be taking a break from the forum for a while anyway. I have some personal issues to work out. Peace, Lilly

  • stillajwexelder

    if he can convince people to move away from blind fundamentalism he must be congratulated for a job well done.

    Hear, Hear

  • Scully
    I just find it a shame that Dawkins finds it necessary to use the same methods as those he detracts

    I noticed that Dawkins attempted to explain his rationale for his scathing remarks vis-à-vis religion in the first pages of the book (p 20, 21):

    But before leaving this preliminary chapter I need to deal with one more matter that would otherwise bedevil the whole book. This time it is a matter of etiquette. It is possible that religious readers will be offended by what I have to say, and will find in these pages insufficient respect for their own particular beliefs (if not the beliefs that others treasure). It would be a shame if such offense prevented them from reading on, so I want to sort it out here, at the outset.

    A widespread assumption, which nearly everybody in our society accepts - the non-religious included - is that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to any other. Douglas Adams put it so well, in an impromptu speech made in Cambridge shortly before his death, that I never tire of sharing his words:

    Religion ... has certain ideas at the heart of which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'.

    Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour Party or the Conservative Party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe ... no, that's holy? ... We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.

  • nicolaou
    I just find it a shame that Dawkins finds it necessary to use the same methods as those he detracts

    Which methods would they be Ross?

Share this