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
Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Sage
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm
-
- Sage
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm
Post #2
It is further added:
I have read "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim. And from my perspective of Islam, he failed to quote even a single verse of Quran in support of his views. And Quran is the first, foremost and the principal source of knowledge in Religion, whatever the denomination.
If I missed something, kindly quote the verse/s of Quran which he mentioned in the book.Right, please?
Regards
I have read "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim. And from my perspective of Islam, he failed to quote even a single verse of Quran in support of his views. And Quran is the first, foremost and the principal source of knowledge in Religion, whatever the denomination.
If I missed something, kindly quote the verse/s of Quran which he mentioned in the book.Right, please?
Regards
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?
Post #3Christopher Hitchens was well-versed in Christianity. In fact, he made very good arguments that "Christians" who rejected the idea of Jesus returning for "The Rapture" are clearly far removed from having an understanding of their own religion.
I can't speak to Hitchens' knowledge of Islam. But he was certainly extremely knowledgeable of Christianity.
Richard Dawkins approached the topic entirely from a scientific rational perspective. The problems he had with the Biblical myths of God is that they simply contained far too many claims about reality that are clearly false in comparison with what we currently know today about the true nature of our physical world. I do believe he also was quick to point out the absolute moral absurdities associated with those mythological stories of a God as well. And those arguments would necessarily apply to Islam too since Islam is fundamentally based on the same utterly absurd and immoral myths.
Allah, like Yahweh, would need to be an absolute idiot if he actually existed. And that flies in the face of what these Gods are supposed to be. They are supposed to be the epitome of intelligence, not the epitome of ignorance.
So both Hitchens and Dawkins spoke the truth about these ancient immoral and ignorant God myths. All attempts at trying to defend these ancient God myths as being even remotely rational have clearly failed. You should be able to easily see this by the mere fact, that the overwhelming academics do not treat these religious myths as credible history or truth.
This is why they have remained faith-based religions for eons and have never become either credible historical or scientific knowledge.
They are still recognized today as being nothing more than faith-based religions. No serious academic takes them seriously beyond that realm. Other than a few "faith-based" academics who bring their faith-based beliefs into their professional disciplines despite the fact that this is not truly professional at all.
Religious myths are faith-based beliefs. They do not represent credible, verifiable, or even rational information.
I can't speak to Hitchens' knowledge of Islam. But he was certainly extremely knowledgeable of Christianity.
Richard Dawkins approached the topic entirely from a scientific rational perspective. The problems he had with the Biblical myths of God is that they simply contained far too many claims about reality that are clearly false in comparison with what we currently know today about the true nature of our physical world. I do believe he also was quick to point out the absolute moral absurdities associated with those mythological stories of a God as well. And those arguments would necessarily apply to Islam too since Islam is fundamentally based on the same utterly absurd and immoral myths.
Allah, like Yahweh, would need to be an absolute idiot if he actually existed. And that flies in the face of what these Gods are supposed to be. They are supposed to be the epitome of intelligence, not the epitome of ignorance.
So both Hitchens and Dawkins spoke the truth about these ancient immoral and ignorant God myths. All attempts at trying to defend these ancient God myths as being even remotely rational have clearly failed. You should be able to easily see this by the mere fact, that the overwhelming academics do not treat these religious myths as credible history or truth.
This is why they have remained faith-based religions for eons and have never become either credible historical or scientific knowledge.
They are still recognized today as being nothing more than faith-based religions. No serious academic takes them seriously beyond that realm. Other than a few "faith-based" academics who bring their faith-based beliefs into their professional disciplines despite the fact that this is not truly professional at all.
Religious myths are faith-based beliefs. They do not represent credible, verifiable, or even rational information.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
- Sage
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm
Re: Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?
Post #4Is it a "scientific" approach, of Christopher Hitchens', to speak against a religion without reading its primary book and not quoting even a verse/sentence from it?Divine Insight wrote: Christopher Hitchens was well-versed in Christianity. In fact, he made very good arguments that "Christians" who rejected the idea of Jesus returning for "The Rapture" are clearly far removed from having an understanding of their own religion.
I can't speak to Hitchens' knowledge of Islam. But he was certainly extremely knowledgeable of Christianity.
Richard Dawkins approached the topic entirely from a scientific rational perspective. The problems he had with the Biblical myths of God is that they simply contained far too many claims about reality that are clearly false in comparison with what we currently know today about the true nature of our physical world. I do believe he also was quick to point out the absolute moral absurdities associated with those mythological stories of a God as well. And those arguments would necessarily apply to Islam too since Islam is fundamentally based on the same utterly absurd and immoral myths.
Allah, like Yahweh, would need to be an absolute idiot if he actually existed. And that flies in the face of what these Gods are supposed to be. They are supposed to be the epitome of intelligence, not the epitome of ignorance.
So both Hitchens and Dawkins spoke the truth about these ancient immoral and ignorant God myths. All attempts at trying to defend these ancient God myths as being even remotely rational have clearly failed. You should be able to easily see this by the mere fact, that the overwhelming academics do not treat these religious myths as credible history or truth.
This is why they have remained faith-based religions for eons and have never become either credible historical or scientific knowledge.
They are still recognized today as being nothing more than faith-based religions. No serious academic takes them seriously beyond that realm. Other than a few "faith-based" academics who bring their faith-based beliefs into their professional disciplines despite the fact that this is not truly professional at all.
Religious myths are faith-based beliefs. They do not represent credible, verifiable, or even rational information.
Is it even "critical thinking" or just believing in "magical thinking", please?
Regards
Re: Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?
Post #5You do not need a whole lot of critical thinking to reject fables of Muhammad flying to heaven on a winged horse. Do you reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster without reading and quoting The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?paarsurrey1 wrote:Is it a "scientific" approach, of Christopher Hitchens', to speak against a religion without reading its primary book and not quoting even a verse/sentence from it?Divine Insight wrote: Christopher Hitchens was well-versed in Christianity. In fact, he made very good arguments that "Christians" who rejected the idea of Jesus returning for "The Rapture" are clearly far removed from having an understanding of their own religion.
I can't speak to Hitchens' knowledge of Islam. But he was certainly extremely knowledgeable of Christianity.
Richard Dawkins approached the topic entirely from a scientific rational perspective. The problems he had with the Biblical myths of God is that they simply contained far too many claims about reality that are clearly false in comparison with what we currently know today about the true nature of our physical world. I do believe he also was quick to point out the absolute moral absurdities associated with those mythological stories of a God as well. And those arguments would necessarily apply to Islam too since Islam is fundamentally based on the same utterly absurd and immoral myths.
Allah, like Yahweh, would need to be an absolute idiot if he actually existed. And that flies in the face of what these Gods are supposed to be. They are supposed to be the epitome of intelligence, not the epitome of ignorance.
So both Hitchens and Dawkins spoke the truth about these ancient immoral and ignorant God myths. All attempts at trying to defend these ancient God myths as being even remotely rational have clearly failed. You should be able to easily see this by the mere fact, that the overwhelming academics do not treat these religious myths as credible history or truth.
This is why they have remained faith-based religions for eons and have never become either credible historical or scientific knowledge.
They are still recognized today as being nothing more than faith-based religions. No serious academic takes them seriously beyond that realm. Other than a few "faith-based" academics who bring their faith-based beliefs into their professional disciplines despite the fact that this is not truly professional at all.
Religious myths are faith-based beliefs. They do not represent credible, verifiable, or even rational information.
Is it even "critical thinking" or just believing in "magical thinking", please?
Regards
... and what do you know of The Book of Mormon or The Urantia Book?
-
- Sage
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm
Re: Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?
Post #6[Replying to post 5 by H.sapiens]
Regards
Paarsurrey wrote:
Is it a "scientific" approach, of Christopher Hitchens', to speak against a religion without reading its primary book and not quoting even a verse/sentence from it?
Is it even "critical thinking" or just believing in "magical thinking", please?
Regards
H.sapiens wrote:
You do not need a whole lot of critical thinking to reject fables of Muhammad flying to heaven on a winged horse. Do you reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster without reading and quoting The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Please quote from Quran in this connection. Will one, please?flying to heaven on a winged horse
Regards
Re: Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?
Post #7Winged horse, Buraq, whatever ... "mythical nonexistent creature" will do for the purpose of discussion.paarsurrey1 wrote: [Replying to post 5 by H.sapiens]
Paarsurrey wrote:
Is it a "scientific" approach, of Christopher Hitchens', to speak against a religion without reading its primary book and not quoting even a verse/sentence from it?
Is it even "critical thinking" or just believing in "magical thinking", please?
RegardsH.sapiens wrote:
You do not need a whole lot of critical thinking to reject fables of Muhammad flying to heaven on a winged horse. Do you reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster without reading and quoting The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?Please quote from Quran in this connection. Will one, please?flying to heaven on a winged horse
Regards
-
- Sage
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm
Re: Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?
Post #8Now one gets confirmed that it is not mentioned in Quran. Right, please?H.sapiens wrote:Winged horse, Buraq, whatever ... "mythical nonexistent creature" will do for the purpose of discussion.paarsurrey1 wrote: [Replying to post 5 by H.sapiens]
Paarsurrey wrote:
Is it a "scientific" approach, of Christopher Hitchens', to speak against a religion without reading its primary book and not quoting even a verse/sentence from it?
Is it even "critical thinking" or just believing in "magical thinking", please?
RegardsH.sapiens wrote:
You do not need a whole lot of critical thinking to reject fables of Muhammad flying to heaven on a winged horse. Do you reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster without reading and quoting The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?Please quote from Quran in this connection. Will one, please?flying to heaven on a winged horse
Regards
Yet, Christopher Hitchens mentions it in his book "God is not Great".
Christopher Hitchens had very shallow knowledge of religion, specifically about Islam/Quran/Muhammad. Right, please?
Regards
Re: Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?
Post #9No, thank youpaarsurrey1 wrote:Now one gets confirmed that it is not mentioned in Quran. Right, please?H.sapiens wrote:Winged horse, Buraq, whatever ... "mythical nonexistent creature" will do for the purpose of discussion.paarsurrey1 wrote: [Replying to post 5 by H.sapiens]
Paarsurrey wrote:
Is it a "scientific" approach, of Christopher Hitchens', to speak against a religion without reading its primary book and not quoting even a verse/sentence from it?
Is it even "critical thinking" or just believing in "magical thinking", please?
RegardsH.sapiens wrote:
You do not need a whole lot of critical thinking to reject fables of Muhammad flying to heaven on a winged horse. Do you reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster without reading and quoting The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?Please quote from Quran in this connection. Will one, please?flying to heaven on a winged horse
Regards
Yet, Christopher Hitchens mentions it in his book "God is not Great".
Christopher Hitchens had very shallow knowledge of religion, specifically about Islam/Quran/Muhammad. Right, please?
Regards
Wrong, thank you
Wrong, thank you
Regards
-
- Sage
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm
Re: Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ....?
Post #10Divine Insight wrote: Christopher Hitchens was well-versed in Christianity. In fact, he made very good arguments that "Christians" who rejected the idea of Jesus returning for "The Rapture" are clearly far removed from having an understanding of their own religion.
I can't speak to Hitchens' knowledge of Islam. But he was certainly extremely knowledgeable of Christianity.
Richard Dawkins approached the topic entirely from a scientific rational perspective. The problems he had with the Biblical myths of God is that they simply contained far too many claims about reality that are clearly false in comparison with what we currently know today about the true nature of our physical world. I do believe he also was quick to point out the absolute moral absurdities associated with those mythological stories of a God as well. And those arguments would necessarily apply to Islam too since Islam is fundamentally based on the same utterly absurd and immoral myths.
Allah, like Yahweh, would need to be an absolute idiot if he actually existed. And that flies in the face of what these Gods are supposed to be. They are supposed to be the epitome of intelligence, not the epitome of ignorance.
So both Hitchens and Dawkins spoke the truth about these ancient immoral and ignorant God myths. All attempts at trying to defend these ancient God myths as being even remotely rational have clearly failed. You should be able to easily see this by the mere fact, that the overwhelming academics do not treat these religious myths as credible history or truth.
This is why they have remained faith-based religions for eons and have never become either credible historical or scientific knowledge.
They are still recognized today as being nothing more than faith-based religions. No serious academic takes them seriously beyond that realm. Other than a few "faith-based" academics who bring their faith-based beliefs into their professional disciplines despite the fact that this is not truly professional at all.
Religious myths are faith-based beliefs. They do not represent credible, verifiable, or even rational information.
Whether Christopher Hitchens was well-versed in "Pauline Christianity" or not I leave, for the time being, that to the adherents of the "Pauline Christianity" to comment upon and defend it, if they so like. There are many of them in this forum. Right, please?Christopher Hitchens was well-versed in Christianity.
Christopher Hitchens chose the title of the book as "God is not Great", and the Muslims have a slogan/motto "Allahu Akbar" or "God is the Greatest"*. This shows that he had in his mind to criticise Religion and oppose Quran/Islam/Muhammad, primarily. He had no knowledge of Quran as is evident, perhaps he never read it, or if he read Quran he could find no verse supporting his irrational views. There he failed miserably. Right, please?
Regards
__________
*Allahu Akbar (Arabic: الله أكبر) is an Islamic phrase, called Takbir in Arabic, meaning "Allah is Greater" or "Allah is [the] greatest"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahu_Ak ... biguation)