Love Letters To Dawkins

[Answerprancer]

(Warning: contains words that may be considered offensive).

What do you think of these words of love from the peace-loving religious community?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7607YiBso

[benhilton]

About that video......All of the expletives are emerging from the mouth of Dawkins himself .
I am sure Dawkins receives many letters , but in this video there are no extracts of sensible letters from sensible believers . ...Now why could that be... ?
I can think of two reasons :
1) Believers have either not written any sensible letters to Dawkins ,or are incapable of writing sensible letters .
2) Dawkins has selected only the most foul letters for this video .

Now then all you thinking ABers..... Come on then , which one of those two reasons is it ?

It does say something when an Oxford University Professor has to resort to selecting only the most foul responses he can find in order to discredit Religion .
I repeat , all those swear words are emanating from the mouth of Dawkins himself (though he is not the author....funnily enough we don't get to see the letters in question...)
Also as far as this forum is concerned , from time to time we see an "Answer Removed " - persumably for foulness of some kind - are these answers from believers or non-believers ?
Anyway , I'm off to church now - all the best .

[vulcan42]

benhilton, I'm quite sure that if the religionists can select the parts of the bible that suits their argument then that option is open to Richard Dawkins.

[RATTER15]

Clearly, Dawkins is making a valid point that some, so called "Christians" can be foul mouthed crettins, when mostly they think they occupy the moral high ground!

No of course not all Christians are like this, but some are, and these are example of a few.

[naomi24]

benhilton, number 2 – and with good reason - but he didn’t discredit religion. The authors of those letters did that.

[Clanad]

I don't think that that, even if Dawkins is 'quoting' verbatim, such letters discredit 'religion'… they may (haven't watched the video) certainly discredit the authors.

Thing is, one can read or hear such information about any facet of society… banking, health professionals, business leaders and certainly politicians, but that information doesn't necessarily discredit the institution… we still believe in the over all concept of health care, banking, etc. Same is true in this relevant case… it's not the institution of "religion" (broad concept) it's the individual practitioner, no? In many, if not most, cases the person expressing such ideas are totally outside of the boundaries of their professed brand of religion.

I would also support ben hiltons position… Professor Dawkins would greatly enhance his position if he simply posted the letters for all to read, sans commentary.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Was St Jude thinking of Birdie and anticipating a zealous moderator on AnswerBank when he wrote:
"These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, TWICE DEAD, plucked up by the roots"?

[hungrywolf8u]

Dawkins doesn't "understand" religion is a criticism of the man? I bet he also doesn't understand why fairies twinkle in the moonlight! Expecting him to understand religion trumps all the insults leveled by the authors of the love letters.

[naomi24]

Clanad, //In many, if not most, cases the person expressing such ideas are totally outside of the boundaries of their professed brand of religion.//

I don’t understand how you feel you are qualified to comment on the video without having watched it, but that isn’t true at all. The people who wrote to Professor Dawkins slavering at the prospect of him suffering in hell at the hands of a just and loving God are expressing ideas within the bounds of their professed brand of religion - Christianity.

[Clanad]

I understand your criticism of my point(s), naomi... but would simply ask if, even after watching the video as I ssume you have, have you d the opportunity to read the letters yourself?

My reason for asking is based on the fact that those who strongly support a position are not above inventing such responses from those that disagree with them. I would imagine Dawkins is an honorable man, but then I've never met him.

Additionally, one of the main arguments most often seen in this forum (and others) centers on how badly the adherents of any given religion treat others.

That's as true today as when Ghandi (1934) said (I paraphrase) "... I've read the Bible and believe it, I believe Jesus was the Christ, I was on my way to becoming a Christian... until I met one..." So... it's not the belief "system" so uch as it is those who practice it that cause the problems...

[mibn2cweus]

//So... it's not the belief "system" so uch as it is those who practice it that cause the problems...//

Therein lies the rub. I doubt that Dawkins would argue that beliefs don't have a profound influence on subsequent behaviours.

[naomi24]

Clanad, //those who strongly support a position are not above inventing such responses from those that disagree with them.//

Tut tut! I understand that it grates, but that really is beneath you. Richard Dawkins doesn’t need to invent letters. He is utterly despised in some quarters – and he accepts that.

As for your Gandhi quote, how loosely paraphrased do you go? The nearest quote I can find is the following which is contentiously attributed to Gandhi and says nothing whatsoever about him having read the bible or having believed it or having believed that Jesus was the Christ or having been on the way to becoming a Christian.

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Unless you can point me to the accurate quote, to paraphrase you rather more closely than you appear to have paraphrased Gandhi. “those who strongly support a position are not above inventing responses to those who disagree with them.”

[Clanad]

As I said, "I paraphrase"... although one quote that comes fairly close is this one from zquotes.com "...
“If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today.”
―Mahatma Gandhi

Read more at http://izquotes.com/quote/328426

And this: "... “What does Jesus mean to me? To me, he was one of the greatest teachers humanity has ever had.”6 “Jesus lived and died in vain if He did not teach us to regulate the whole of life by the eternal law of love.”7.
“Jesus, a man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.”8
“Jesus was the most active resister known perhaps to history. His was non-violence par excellence.” 9 “Jesus expressed as no other could the spirit and will of God. It is in this sense that I see him and recognize as the Son of God..." (Source: From the Gandhian Research Institute in Bombay, India
Written by Pascal Alan Nazareth. Numbers represent foot notes))

In re: "...Subsequently he wrote “The New Testament gave me comfort and boundless joy, as it came after the revulsion that parts of the Old Testament had given me. Today, supposing I was deprived of the Gita and forgot all its contents but had a copy of the Sermon on the Mount, I should derive the same joy from it as I do from the Gita”16..."

Finally: “...What does Jesus mean to me? To me, he was one of the greatest teachers humanity has ever had.”6 “Jesus lived and died in vain if He did not teach us to regulate the whole of life by the eternal law of love.”7.
“Jesus, a man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.”8
“Jesus was the most active resister known perhaps to history. His was non-violence par excellence.” 9 “Jesus expressed as no other could the spirit and will of God. It is in this sense that I see him and recognize as the Son of God..." (ibid.)

There are several others... but we've gotten far afield of the original discussion. Apologies if I've offended you with my loosely knit paraphrase.

Additionally, I understand your defense of the character of Dawkins. Obviously you know him much better than I do or could... no grating here!

[naomi24]

Clanad, you haven’t offended me, and I’ve no idea how accurate or authentic those quotes are, but I’ve checked a few and although none actually verify your claims, they appear to come from Christian sources – so no surprise there. More spin and more wishful thinking. And all of this because you’d rather attempt to discredit the integrity of a respected man of science than believe that hate mail is sometimes the handiwork of Christians.

Incidentally, I’m curious to know why you’re so reluctant to watch that video. It’s very short.

[jomifl]

bert, anyone can understand religion(as you apparently claim so to do) but not everyone can understand biology.

[jomifl]

Clanad, if jesus was one of the greatest teachers then it doesn't say much for the others. Strange isn't it that most christians will cheerfully lie, distort and dissimulate in suport of a religion in which forbids such practises. Ignorance of the 10 commandments being their only excuse.