J'accuse!

[Khandro]

Has boring rationalism, secularism and atheism squeezed out the very life of our society leaving a vacuum which is now being readily filled by Islam?
I read in an article written by a worried mother on her son's 'conversion'; Spectator 4:10:14.

"...Our boy had never shown any interest in religion before he found Islam at 16. We're atheists, and we raised him to be tolerant of all faiths but wary of anyone selling easy answers ....."

She seems to fail to see that there just might be some connection.

[jomifl]

/Quite a lot actually/ convince me.

[Khandro]

jomifl; // convince me. //
No, I don't think anyone could do that, your 'cold philosophy' would, as John keats said, 'unweave a rainbow'.

[jomifl]

Khandro, so really you can't think of any examples and have resorted to mild insult... Can you not for once invent your own metaphors instead of nicking them off dead poets and philosophers?...being as you are so warm and creative.
Ye Artists****! madmen that ye are!
Keats

[Khandro]

jomifl; I thought you might be astute enough to grasp the reference to your guru the Archbishop of atheism, R. Dawkins, 'twas he not I who stole the metaphor :0)

[jomifl]

Khandro, I'd have thought that you might have been astute enough to realise that being an atheist doesn't make me feel duty bound to read everything that Dawkins writes. So you do admit to being a fence?

[Khandro]

The myopic Dawkins of course, produced a book entitled 'Unweaving the Rainbow'. I see him as a cack-handed mechanic who dismantles your car and can't put it back together! :0)

By the way, you seem to be lacking your feminine support, where is she?

[jomifl]

'feminine support' being some kind of euphemism for....?

how about woof and weft as we are into weaving related metaphors.

I think you take Dawkins too seriously, I'm sure most atheists become so by their own reasoning and are not in the least compelled by Dawkins.
I do admire his combative attitude to the platitudinous sycophants that pass themselves off as clerics.

[Khandro]

//'feminine support' being some kind of euphemism for....?//
I'm too much of a gentleman (ha-ha) to mention her name, but she usually haunts R&S posts, a strong supporter of the anti-Christ. Clue; N.

[jomifl]

Looking for a mixed doubles match?

[jomifl]

PP, he demolishes serious religious folk too, he seems to enjoy being an atheist more than some bishops enjoy being christians.

[birdie1971]

Khandro "... The myopic Dawkins of course, produced a book entitled 'Unweaving the Rainbow'. I see him as a cack-handed mechanic who dismantles your car and can't put it back together!..."


I can honestly say that I've warmed to you of late. But this kind of post really does you no favours at all. It's all very well disagreeing with Dawkins. Many people do. I don't agree with everything he says despite us sharing a disbelief in a supreme creator deity. But to post the above comment is nothing more than a cheap ad hominem shot that is vague and without substance.

Play the ball, not the man. If there is something specific Dawkins has written or said that you fundamentally disagree with then quote him and let's all discuss it. As it stands right now, your post is quite shameless in its obtuseness.

You're better than this.

[mibn2cweus]

Might someone be suffering from a powerful craving for a custard fix?

[naomi24]

Mibs, my pleasure. Khandro …… sperlatt!!

Birdie, //You're better than this.//

Since many of Khandro’s posts amount to ‘cheap ad hominem’ attacks, evidence indicates otherwise. He claims I hobnob with the anti-Christ, so if he would be kind enough to tell me who that is, I’ll be able to confirm or deny his bizarre accusation.

Khandro, perhaps the mistake these parents made was to raise their son to be tolerant of ‘faith’ at all.

[jomifl]

Khandro, despite your frequent suggestions that atheists have a poor quality of life because they cannot comprehend the works of artists and musicians or appreciate the true beauty of (gods) creation I suggest that the opposite is true. Because many people of a religious leaning waste time and effort attempting to conform to the religious orthodoxy and trying to comprehend something that doesn't exist in reality, they really have a poor idea of how the world that they inhabit actually works and therefore are incapable of appreciating it's beautiful subtleties.

[naomi24]

With his constant references to a plethora of writers and philosophers, and his constant criticism of Richard Dawkins, Khandro clearly depends upon other men to tell him how to think – and mistakenly assumes the rest of us do likewise.

[Khandro]

jomifl; //they really have a poor idea of how the world that they inhabit actually works and therefore are incapable of appreciating it's beautiful subtleties.//

Richard Dawkins "The total amount of suffering in the natural world is beyond all decent computation" and notes, "in the moment it took me to compose that phrase, thousands of animals would have been eaten live and died from disease and starvation."
He sees life from the Hobbesian view as being "nasty, brutish and short" which might be true for the survival of the fittest, but it is a view not shared by the many creatures (including some humans) which exhibit pleasure at being alive.
When his infant daughter said how pretty the flowers, were he confesses to telling her that the colours were purely to attract insects and there shapes were to collect sunlight.

An excellent unweaver of rainbows!

naomi; unreserved apologies.

[jim360]

I don't agree that rationalism sucks the fun out of life. If used properly, it has the ability to enhance it, if anything.

[jomifl]

Khandro, are you really suggesting that all those creatures that get eaten actually enjoy it?
/When his infant daughter said how pretty the flowers, w(h)ere he confesses to telling her that the colours were purely to attract insects and there (their)shapes were to collect sunlight. /
And did they become less pretty for that? do you find the incomprehensible more beautiful than tha comprehensible. Should he have said god made them like that for your enjoyment? You accuse atheists of not being able to appreciate religious art and music because they don't understand their religious context, yet following your reasoning those very works should seem more beautiful to atheists because they don't understand the context.
Things may become less 'marvelous' when we understand them but not less beautiful. We have numerous paintings on the walls of our home, they are not less beautiful because we know who painted them or even know the painter.