Jacob Rees-Mogg

[Jinx]

dieselgrunt said:

HairyPoppins said:

I've read the book 3 times, which bit of the first chapter? Give me clue about the part that irked the most and I'll look it up.

You won't get a response. The God Delusion was an excellent read.

Not really -very much stawman Christianity with little acknowledgment of the excellent Christian thinkers of medieval times. Selfish Gene and Extended Phenotype were much better reads.

[HairyPoppins]

Jinx said:

dieselgrunt said:

HairyPoppins said:

I've read the book 3 times, which bit of the first chapter? Give me clue about the part that irked the most and I'll look it up.

You won't get a response. The God Delusion was an excellent read.

Not really -very much stawman Christianity with little acknowledgment of the excellent Christian thinkers of medieval times. Selfish Gene and Extended Phenotype were much better reads.

What do you mean by 'Straw Man Christianity'?

[Jinx]

HairyPoppins said:

What do you mean by 'Straw Man Christianity'?

The Christianity Dawkins argued against was "stereotype" Christianity. Not Christianity as practiced by anyone I have ever met or seen or even based on writings from Christian scholars. He was arguing against his own perception of Christianity and hence a stawman Christianity.

[James_B]

Jinx said:

The Christianity Dawkins argued against was "stereotype" Christianity. Not Christianity as practiced by anyone I have ever met or seen or even based on writings from Christian scholars. He was arguing against his own perception of Christianity and hence a stawman Christianity.

It's amazing how slippery people get, though, when anyone criticises bits of their religion.

You'll get people happy to say that they are Christian, for example, but who don't believe in the resurrection, the miracles, the Old Testament, and so on. When you get down to it, many people seem to think being Christian just means being nice, which is obviously stupid.

Dawkins tends to argue against what is Christian doctrine. Claiming that no Christians really believe that stuff anyway makes little sense.

[ATG]

James_B said:

Jinx said:

The Christianity Dawkins argued against was "stereotype" Christianity. Not Christianity as practiced by anyone I have ever met or seen or even based on writings from Christian scholars. He was arguing against his own perception of Christianity and hence a stawman Christianity.

It's amazing how slippery people get, though, when anyone criticises bits of their religion.

You'll get people happy to say that they are Christian, for example, but who don't believe in the resurrection, the miracles, the Old Testament, and so on. When you get down to it, many people seem to think being Christian just means being nice, which is obviously stupid.

Dawkins tends to argue against what is Christian doctrine. Claiming that no Christians really believe that stuff anyway makes little sense.

You are simply repeating the strawman error. Who are you (or Dawkins) to tell Christians what they ought to believe in order to qualify as Christians, particularly given you think that that position is untenable? It's a completely circular argument.

[gadgetmac]

James_B said:

Jinx said:

The Christianity Dawkins argued against was "stereotype" Christianity. Not Christianity as practiced by anyone I have ever met or seen or even based on writings from Christian scholars. He was arguing against his own perception of Christianity and hence a stawman Christianity.

It's amazing how slippery people get, though, when anyone criticises bits of their religion.

You'll get people happy to say that they are Christian, for example, but who don't believe in the resurrection, the miracles, the Old Testament, and so on. When you get down to it, many people seem to think being Christian just means being nice, which is obviously stupid.

Dawkins tends to argue against what is Christian doctrine. Claiming that no Christians really believe that stuff anyway makes little sense.

Agreed, he attacks the basic tenets of Christianity as Christians seem to enjoy a mix 'n' match approach to their faith. Some might say that each individual Christian carries around in his head his own personal religion that no other Christian exactly matches.

[ATG]

gadgetmac said:

Some might say that each individual Christian carries around in his head his own personal religion that no other Christian exactly matches.

Correct. Some flavours of Christianity, e.g. Unitarianism, make that idea of individual and personal faith an absolutely central part of their doctrine. They explicitly reject the idea that the bible is infallible, for example.

[James_B]

ATG said:

You are simply repeating the strawman error. Who are you (or Dawkins) to tell Christians what they ought to believe in order to qualify as Christians, particularly given you think that that position is untenable? It's a completely circular argument.

Then if that's your view the word has no meaning at all.

You seem to be getting awfully confused here. No-one's telling people what to believe, but your contention is that the word Christian has no meaning at all, it's just a label that absolutely anyone can choose to have. The churches, of course, don't agree with you.

Actually, pretty much no-one does.

[Burwood]

James_B said:

Jinx said:

The Christianity Dawkins argued against was "stereotype" Christianity. Not Christianity as practiced by anyone I have ever met or seen or even based on writings from Christian scholars. He was arguing against his own perception of Christianity and hence a stawman Christianity.

It's amazing how slippery people get, though, when anyone criticises bits of their religion.

You'll get people happy to say that they are Christian, for example, but who don't believe in the resurrection, the miracles, the Old Testament, and so on. When you get down to it, many people seem to think being Christian just means being nice, which is obviously stupid.

Dawkins tends to argue against what is Christian doctrine. Claiming that no Christians really believe that stuff anyway makes little sense.

A tiny percentage of any religious, have any idea what their book really says. Dawkins feels obligated to push back against the ever present 'religious' that try to influence others. I don't need him to tell me about religion being nonsense. I'm more interested in the science.

[gadgetmac]

James_B said:

ATG said:

You are simply repeating the strawman error. Who are you (or Dawkins) to tell Christians what they ought to believe in order to qualify as Christians, particularly given you think that that position is untenable? It's a completely circular argument.

Then if that's your view the word has no meaning at all.

You seem to be getting awfully confused here. No-one's telling people what to believe, but your contention is that the word Christian has no meaning at all, it's just a label that absolutely anyone can choose to have. The churches, of course, don't agree with you.

Actually, pretty much no-one does.

And thats how I see it too. So, for instance, if you don't believe in the historicity of the Jesus character but see him as somehow allegorical, spiritual, or a mystical deity then you directly contradict the mainstream Church's teaching and cannot be said to be Christian in the sense that it's widely accepted today. You may have a Christian 'outlook' on life, you may even go to church on a Sunday, but 'you're no Christian bruv'.

[NJH]

Thing is to be fair to ATG I was like that from about the age of 10 right up until I stopped attending Mass as an adult. Very few people that I know or knew growing up believe in it all 100%, I made the point maybe 20 pages back that I bet a great many practising Christians (as in attending Mass or Service on Sunday etc.) will be in a similar position.

[V8 Fettler]

Religion = delusion

[otolith]

NJH said:

Thing is to be fair to ATG I was like that from about the age of 10 right up until I stopped attending Mass as an adult. Very few people that I know or knew growing up believe in it all 100%, I made the point maybe 20 pages back that I bet a great many practising Christians (as in attending Mass or Service on Sunday etc.) will be in a similar position.

If they don't believe in it, it's just a harmless Sunday morning social club. They're not going to be protesting gay marriage or evolution or reproductive rights.

[Burwood]

otolith said:

NJH said:

Thing is to be fair to ATG I was like that from about the age of 10 right up until I stopped attending Mass as an adult. Very few people that I know or knew growing up believe in it all 100%, I made the point maybe 20 pages back that I bet a great many practising Christians (as in attending Mass or Service on Sunday etc.) will be in a similar position.

If they don't believe in it, it's just a harmless Sunday morning social club. They're not going to be protesting gay marriage or evolution or reproductive rights.

Exactly.

[NJH]

Agreed.

Makes one wonder how on earth this went to 50+ pages.

[Carl_Manchester]

beedj said:

Sorry if posted earlier somewhere in the 53 pages of this thread...

https://www.facebook.com/ISeeYouStories/posts/1230...

...bang on ??

awful tripe written by the tin-hat Facebook Brigade. I would sooner read a post by Yipper.

[Carl_Manchester]

NJH said:

Agreed.

Makes one wonder how on earth this went to 50+ pages.

Because Mogg-Rees and Religion create a great set of things for discussion. We have had the odd knuckle draggers dip into this thread but for the most part it has been a reasoned debate.

It has not changed my positive views on Mogg or Christianity but I have enjoyed reading the arguments against.

It's not something that can be solved in a post or a sentence, Mogg is giving air to things that have been buried for years. Looking forward to his next QT appearance.

[chrispmartha]

Carl_Manchester said:

NJH said:

Agreed.

Makes one wonder how on earth this went to 50+ pages.

Because Mogg-Rees and Religion create a great set of things for discussion. We have had the odd knuckle draggers dip into this thread but for the most part it has been a reasoned debate.

It has not changed my positive views on Mogg or Christianity but I have enjoyed reading the arguments against.

It's not something that can be solved in a post or a sentence, Mogg is giving air to things that have been buried for years. Looking forward to his next QT appearance.

They've been buried for years because that's where those views belong - in the past

[Deptford Draylons]

Julia Hartley-Brewer chats with JRM and asks him why his God killed her 4 children during her miscarriages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h6XgmzQObY

[Burwood]

Deptford Draylons said:

Julia Hartley-Brewer chats with JRM and asks him why his God killed her 4 children during her miscarriages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h6XgmzQObY

And his answer was pathetic. That is the mystery of the Catholic Church. Here is a man that is so ahead of the curve as an orator. And that is the best he can come up with.