Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?

[paarsurrey1]

Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have a shallow knowledge of Religion?

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, they have a shallow knowledge of Religion proper and whatever they have written against religion is not science even, as religion is not a subject/discipline of science. Right, please?
Regards
_______________
Reference Post 188: Thread “Is the story of the crucifixion actual history? “

viewtopic.php?p=888452#888452

[paarsurrey1]

All the main religions see God as a Supreme Being/Creator of all there is
and he should be well versed in all religions if he wants to appear as someone who knows something about God.

But if a group of religions all share the same god, all you have to do is disprove the original one and the rest will fall like dominoes. Once Hitchens disproves the Christian god, that automatically disproves Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. If they are all based on the same false god, you don't need to know the specific traditions of each individual religion.

Like I said before, once you see how the magic trick is done you can spot it easily, even when someone adapts it.

Bashing religion sells books.

Bashing the bible doesn't make nearly as much money as thumping it. I'm sure we all agree on that. Plus you have to pay your fair share of taxes!

But if a group of religions all share the same god, all you have to do is disprove the original one and the rest will fall like dominoes. Once Hitchens disproves the Christian god, that automatically disproves Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. If they are all based on the same false god, you don't need to know the specific traditions of each individual religion.

One is simply wrong. If that was the approach that Christopher Hitchens subscribe to then he neither knew anything real about Islam/Quran/Muhammad nor about Christianity.
Muslims don't believe in Jesus-God or Holy-Spirit-God or that Jesus was son-of-God or that Mary was wife of God or that Jesus died on the Cross or that Jesus could forgive sins of the people. In that case Christopher Hitchens was beating about the bush just to please Atheism people and its sub-sets/denomination/sects. It is OK if he made some money by tricking the non-believers.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards

[Rufus21]

Muslims don't believe in Jesus-God or Holy-Spirit-God or that Jesus was son-of-God or that Mary was wife of God or that Jesus died on the Cross or that Jesus could forgive sins of the people.

The god that spoke to Muhammad was not the same one that spoke to Moses (Musa) and Jesus (Isa)? If portions of those books are false, all of the religions that I mentioned are effected.

It is OK if he made some money by tricking the non-believers.

As I already showed, money was not his goal. Why should we believe that the pursuit of truth was not his goal? Did he ever stray from that goal?

[paarsurrey1]

Muslims don't believe in Jesus-God or Holy-Spirit-God or that Jesus was son-of-God or that Mary was wife of God or that Jesus died on the Cross or that Jesus could forgive sins of the people.

The god that spoke to Muhammad was not the same one that spoke to Moses (Musa) and Jesus (Isa)? If portions of those books are false, all of the religions that I mentioned are effected.

It is OK if he made some money by tricking the non-believers.

As I already showed, money was not his goal. Why should we believe that the pursuit of truth was not his goal? Did he ever stray from that goal?

The god that spoke to Muhammad was not the same one that spoke to Moses (Musa) and Jesus (Isa)?

The One-True-God is ONE irrespective of whether one believes in Him or not. God of the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism people is the same ONE, though they deny Him and though He does not Converse with them.
The Absolute and positive verities found and manifest in the Universe are His attributes, these verities exist and everything else is under the concept of relativity having been bestowed temporary existence by Him.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Right, please?
Regards

[Rufus21]

The One-True-God is ONE irrespective of whether one believes in Him or not. God of the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism people is the same ONE, though they deny Him and though He does not Converse with them.
The Absolute and positive verities found and manifest in the Universe are His attributes, these verities exist and everything else is under the concept of relativity having been bestowed temporary existence by Him.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Right, please?
Regards

Do you have any evidence to support any of the things you just said? They all sound like hearsay to me. Perhaps instead of asking me to prove you wrong you should be offering evidence that you are right.

And you did not address my question: If several different religions are all following the same god and that god can be shown to be false, don't all of the religions crumble? Do we have to investigate each religion separately once we know that the god they follow is false?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 34 by Rufus21]

"And you did not address my question: If several different religions are all following the same god and that god can be shown to be false, don't all of the religions crumble? Do we have to investigate each religion separately once we know that the god they follow is false?"

I don't know how would yu do that?

When Swedenborg came accross beings from other planets the first thing he asked them, what God do you worship. You'd have to traverse the whole universe and do huge research to get your proof.

[paarsurrey1]

The One-True-God is ONE irrespective of whether one believes in Him or not. God of the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism people is the same ONE, though they deny Him and though He does not Converse with them.
The Absolute and positive verities found and manifest in the Universe are His attributes, these verities exist and everything else is under the concept of relativity having been bestowed temporary existence by Him.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Right, please?
Regards

Do you have any evidence to support any of the things you just said? They all sound like hearsay to me. Perhaps instead of asking me to prove you wrong you should be offering evidence that you are right.

And you did not address my question: If several different religions are all following the same god and that god can be shown to be false, don't all of the religions crumble? Do we have to investigate each religion separately once we know that the god they follow is false?

Christopher Hitchens's approach was most unreasonable. When he did not know much about Islam he should not have consented to the publishers to name the title of the Book "God is Not Great" making Quran/Islam/Muhammad his specific target . It is like conducting a scientific experiment without having the respective data. If he had knowledge only about Christianity, he should have written the book on it only.His generalization from just one religion and inclusion of other religions in it is lamentable and smells of insincerity. Right, please?
Regards

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 36 by paarsurrey1]

If he had knowledge only about Christianity, he should have written the book on it only.His generalization from just one religion and inclusion of other religions in it is lamentable and smells of insincerity. Right, please?

I think Hitchens (like Dawkins) universally bashed all religions that have as their basis the belief that a supernatural being exists that is called "God" (replace with whatever specific name a given religion uses), that has influence on the subjects, can be communicated with, etc. There is no need to know anything about the specifics of each religion to have this general view ... if a God figure is believed to exist and is worshipped, then it was fair game for Hitchens and Dawkins.

Of course their main point was that there is no evidence for the existence of any of these God beings, so therefore no reason to believe that they exist. And it is true that the evidence for the existence of the Christian God, the Muslim God, Hindu Gods, Zeus, Thor, etc. is all the same ... exactly zero. It made sense to believe in these beings many hundreds, or thousands of years ago when scientific understanding of nature was nearly nonexistent. But in the 21st century there is no rational reason to believe that any of the past or present Gods that humans have invented in their heads exist, or ever did exist, and both Hitchens and Dawkins promoted that viewpoint (which is far more sensible than belief in imaginary gods).

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 36 by paarsurrey1]

If he had knowledge only about Christianity, he should have written the book on it only.His generalization from just one religion and inclusion of other religions in it is lamentable and smells of insincerity. Right, please?

I think Hitchens (like Dawkins) universally bashed all religions that have as their basis the belief that a supernatural being exists that is called "God" (replace with whatever specific name a given religion uses), that has influence on the subjects, can be communicated with, etc. There is no need to know anything about the specifics of each religion to have this general view ... if a God figure is believed to exist and is worshipped, then it was fair game for Hitchens and Dawkins.

Of course their main point was that there is no evidence for the existence of any of these God beings, so therefore no reason to believe that they exist. And it is true that the evidence for the existence of the Christian God, the Muslim God, Hindu Gods, Zeus, Thor, etc. is all the same ... exactly zero. It made sense to believe in these beings many hundreds, or thousands of years ago when scientific understanding of nature was nearly nonexistent. But in the 21st century there is no rational reason to believe that any of the past or present Gods that humans have invented in their heads exist, or ever did exist, and both Hitchens and Dawkins promoted that viewpoint (which is far more sensible than belief in imaginary gods).

Clearly that is eminently reasonable. I really do not have to know all that there is to know about lycanthrope to reasonably consider anyone who claims to turn into a wolf at the full moon to be nuts.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 38 by H.sapiens]

Do I really have to know all that there is to know about lycanthrope to reasonably consider anyone who claims to turn into a wolf at the full moon to be nuts?

If there has been any mention of a "lycanthrope", or of a bloodthirsty wolf in Islam/Quran/Muhammad, then, of course, one could have made Islam/Quran/Muhammad a target of one's criticism or bashing. Is it mentioned in Quran, please?
If not, then it is meaningless for one to write a book and made it the target of one's bashing. Right, please?
Regards

[marco]

[Replying to post 38 by H.sapiens]



If there has been any mention of a "lycanthrope", or of a bloodthirsty wolf in Islam/Quran/Muhammad, then, of course, one could have made Islam/Quran/Muhammad a target of one's criticism or bashing. Is it mentioned in Quran, please?

Lycanthropy isn't covered in the Koran but Jinn are. Is there any difference between accepting naughty spirits interacting with us and wicked wolf beings? Jinn, as you know, can change shape and of a Saturday night might well appear as wolves.

All nonsense, of course, but it's Islamic belief.