|
Post by losleandros on Jun 9, 2011 16:25:16 GMT
I have asked my local Catholic Church to organise a weekly Novena in honour of Dickie Dawkins, Atheist Ireland, & RTE. Having listened to Dickie's weird & wacky interview on RTE radio last week, I can think of no greater free advertising plug for the relative sanity of the One, True, Church. Thank you Dickie, Atheist Ireland & RTE. God bless you all & keep the Faith !.
|
|
|
Post by loughcrew on Jun 10, 2011 8:54:07 GMT
I'll make sure to remember Dickie in my prayers. a big up to Atheism Ireland. ;D
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 22, 2011 20:53:22 GMT
What exactly did he say?
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Jun 23, 2011 10:01:31 GMT
The interview was ostensibly about the atheist love-in of that weekend. However we learned absolutely nothing about what atheists believe in ( or dont believe in, to be more precise ) ; it concentrated solely on Dawkins adolescent name calling of the Pope, Catholicism etc. In that sense it proved the superiority of the latter ; in other words there is absolutely no intellectual meat in atheism ; it purely defines itself in negative terms, via it's irrational hatred of Catholicism. The irony was obviously lost on Dawkins & the RTE interviewer ; a typical wishy-washy inane D.4 liberal ; who seemed totally in awe of Dawkins juvenalia.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 23, 2011 21:46:38 GMT
Basically the New atheists are not interested in intellectual exchange - they just wish to establish that they are not bound by the common rules of courtesy in discussing religion and they need not bother to go beyond name-calling. What is interesting is that he should single out Catholicism in particular, and I also notice that Dawkins tends not to engage in similar insults of Islam (unlike PZ Myers who at least has the courage of his obnoxiousness - he desecrated a Koran along with an allegedly consecrated Host online some years ago).
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Jun 24, 2011 8:28:26 GMT
Absolutely correct. That's why when engaging in debate with them one should be equally dismissive, discourteous. You will find they just cant take it. Like all crude/irrational bullies, they are good at dishing it out, but supersensitive to any kind of ridicule of their " religion ".
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 24, 2011 20:44:56 GMT
ONe should be dismissive provided there is a good solid structure of argument underpinning the dismissal (like David Quinn's famous demonstration that Dawkins implicitly denies he himself has freewill). Otherwise it just becomes a slanging match.
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Jun 27, 2011 15:55:58 GMT
Agreed. Keep it civil if at all possible. But that's frequently not the case. Sometimes you just have to slug it out. For example too often we have seen on the likes of the Late, Late Show, where the Catholic side are very polite, respectful, etc., apparently doing all the right things. Yet they get slaughtered, because the other side rely on ridicule, emotional black-mail, & our old friend self-righteous indignation. On many occasions friends & I have watched such programmes in despair, while imploring the Catholic side to get down in the gutter & slug it out a bit more. You can be too polite on occasion.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 27, 2011 17:53:48 GMT
And when they get down in the gutter this is presented as "proof" that Catholics are a bunch of Neanderthals. These debates are rigged so we lose whatever they do. CS Lewis's SCREWTAPE PROPOSES A TOAST has some very apposite comments about how Screwtape tries to get Christians to act up to the bad image he has created for them on the "might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb" basis. RObust debate is Ok, namecalling just falls inot their trap.
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Jun 28, 2011 16:36:39 GMT
I take your point. But the point I'm trying to make is that frequently in these debates the Catholic side allow the enemy to dictate the agenda. It's very easy to get pushed on the back-foot & be seen to be apologising for your position. My point is that the Catholic side should do their best to turn the tables & put the other side on the defensive. Difficult, I agree ( especially with the usual loaded audience/panel ), but too often the Catholic side seem too weak/apologetic. Apologise where appropriate, but swithch the debate as much as possible to the positives of Catholicism.
|
|
|
Post by David Norris on Jul 3, 2011 12:03:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Jul 3, 2011 17:52:34 GMT
However, because atheism is at core irrational, it is very easy to refute. For example, David Quinn made minced meat of Dawkins in an RTE radio debate a few years ago. One actuall felt sorry for the old geezer. He was left floundering. In answer to the question on free will, he came up with the classic - " scientists are working on this as we speak " ; yeah, they have a piece of free will under the microscopoe. Beyond parody. Also the American commentator Ann Coulter ( very intelligent/& very easy on the eye ) wiped the floor with Jeremy Paxman in an interview on Darwinism. So it's easy to do, if handled properly.
|
|
|
Post by David Norris on Jul 5, 2011 9:55:09 GMT
However, because atheism is at core irrational, it is very easy to refute. For example, David Quinn made minced meat of Dawkins in an RTE radio debate a few years ago. One actuall felt sorry for the old geezer. He was left floundering. In answer to the question on free will, he came up with the classic - " scientists are working on this as we speak " ; yeah, they have a piece of free will under the microscopoe. Beyond parody. Also the American commentator Ann Coulter ( very intelligent/& very easy on the eye ) wiped the floor with Jeremy Paxman in an interview on Darwinism. So it's easy to do, if handled properly. Erm.... okay...... Have you anything specific to say about the above exchanges or just general non-specific comments? Who would you like to have seen go up against Fry & Hitchens to represent Catholics better? I am sure you will agree that the above two people were pitiful. Well.... I am assuming you actually lloked at the video when I say that.
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Jul 5, 2011 11:38:22 GMT
I think the idea is that you are supposed to make rational/coherent comments, not puerile non-sequitours. I'm sure you'll get the hang of it eventually. I would'nt be too hung about a loaded debate like that ; particularly one involving Fry & Hitchens. Fry has on seveal occasions revealed himself as a nasty & irrational anti-Catholic bigot. Worse still he made a dreadful homophile film about the great Oscar Wilde ; reducing Wilde to a one dimensional card board cut-out. Poor old demented Hitchens is more to be pitied than anything. The man is going through a serious illness ( ironically with the help of a born again Christian doctor - much to the irrational annoyance of the atheist mob ) ; so even though he might not approve, lets pray for him.
|
|
|
Post by David Norris on Jul 5, 2011 13:06:08 GMT
I think the idea is that you are supposed to make rational/coherent comments, not puerile non-sequitours. I'm sure you'll get the hang of it eventually. I would'nt be too hung about a loaded debate like that ; particularly one involving Fry & Hitchens. Fry has on seveal occasions revealed himself as a nasty & irrational anti-Catholic bigot. Worse still he made a dreadful homophile film about the great Oscar Wilde ; reducing Wilde to a one dimensional card board cut-out. Poor old demented Hitchens is more to be pitied than anything. The man is going through a serious illness ( ironically with the help of a born again Christian doctor - much to the irrational annoyance of the atheist mob ) ; so even though he might not approve, lets pray for him. Erm.... loaded debate? So did you watch it?
|
|