Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Richard Dawkin's remedy... |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
||||||||
elenos 
Chieftain 
Joined: 13-Jun-2007 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1457 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Richard Dawkin's remedy...Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 20:38 |
||||||||
|
With religion as with atheism the name of the game changes
for environmentalism now becomes the de-facto religion of the West. Both
believer and atheists alike are in denial of how this world alters especially
in our mind and our resulting behaviour. When history happens before our eyes
how dull are those who cannot see those changes for they are too busy to care! The
emphasis on scientific development alone is madness; to refuse to see this
world alone supports us is insanity but the same old games continue. I have a
theory that issues where nothing can be are stirred up to divert us from the
realities, where something can be done if enough people had a mind to do what
it takes |
|||||||||
|
elenos
|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended 
Suspended Joined: 18-Jul-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1929 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 12:56 |
||||||||
...Because the topic is about Richard Dawkins
 , not them! |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Seko
Emperor 
Spammer Joined: 01-Sep-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8595 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 10:09 |
||||||||
|
Parnell and Dolphin. No more trolling.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended Joined: 04-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1409 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 10:06 |
||||||||
|
What are you on about, seriously? I called you a twat because you indirectly called me a fool in the post before that? You haven't brought any facts to the table so far Emmet. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke 
Suspended Joined: 06-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1551 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 10:02 |
||||||||
|
When I get miffed I bring out the facts, when you get miffed you bring out the insults. I think I win in a serious debate.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended Joined: 04-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1409 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 09:54 |
||||||||
That is exactly what you said. I said:
As far as I know, Dawkins has never advocated laws infringing on peoples freedom to worship.
Personally I don't really like Dawkins all that much, he is very arrogant yada yada, but there is a lot of truth to what he says. Why does he have less of a right to try and convince people of the error of his ways than say, a Catholic missionary? why do you get so up in arms over Dawkin's and not say Pope Benedict who regards homosexuals to be scum and Protestants not to be Christian?
An enlightened society accepts diverse opinions, why has he not got such a right to express his? Thats what I was talking about, but your sarcastic reaction to my initial post is what got me up in arms, which aptly deserved the reply, 'twat'.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke
Suspended Joined: 06-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1551 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 09:48 |
||||||||
Twat? Do you want me to get thick? He is a militant atheist and in fact those are your words from a much earlier topic under the guise of Denis earlier in the year. Why does he feel the need to 'educate' the blind masses? Why is that his job? He has his belief and he like to throw it down people's throats. He is aggresive in his attitude towards the 'brainless' masses of believers. He has no duty, just like the religions have no duty to outwardly transplant his beliefs and convictions onto others, and I personally dont see him as a paragon of truth, I see him as a dogged self-publicist, intelligent but intolerent of other's beliefs in the way that he talks about religion. So what if people want to belief in Jesus, or Allah, or Vishnu, Or the Sun God or whatever, as long as they respect my views I will respect theirs. So I don't buy into anything like a ' lynching gang of anti-Dawkins activists', as you put it, I think for myself and my view is that he is a militant atheist, just like you have said in the past. So don't bother calling me a twat or anything like it, and think about what you are going to say before you make another fool out of yourself. And if you want me to go into detail, down to the very pedantics of the argument, I will, because I most certainly am aware of what i'm talking about.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended Joined: 04-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1409 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 09:33 |
||||||||
|
You twat, he doesn't want to do it forcibly. He never suggests that. Disappointed in you to be honest that you'd buy into that lynching gang of anti-Dawkins activists.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke
Suspended Joined: 06-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1551 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 09:01 |
||||||||
 Richard Dawkins Well done Denis
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended Joined: 04-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1409 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 08:08 |
||||||||
|
Name me one atheist who wants to forcibly convert a believer into an unbeliever. That seems to be a strictly theistic profession.
Nevertheless, while religious beliefs can be beneficial to the individual it often stands in the way of society as a whole - be it scientific progress (Religion opposing Stem cell research, for example) or morality (Religiously derived morals seem to insist on encroaching its habits on unbelievers. Just remember, Homosexuality was strictly an illegal act in Ireland until 1993)
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke
Suspended Joined: 06-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1551 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 07:47 |
||||||||
|
Religion often causes war. But it is not the cause of all wars. Religion, don't forget is a very broad term, so even ideologies that clash to cause a war can be construed as or linked to religion. I think personally that if someone wants to support a religious ideology, or if someone doesn't it is their call and they are entitled to make it. Either side should not be punished for their convictions, neither should they attempt to enforce or transplant their convictions onto others. Militant atheism as as pointless as militant religious observance
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended Joined: 04-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1409 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 07:34 |
||||||||
I agree, too often people come out with cliche's like 'Religion is the cause of all wars', which is tosh. Religion is in fact rarely a cause of war. It is used as a motivation for the masses by the ruling class who decide to send ordinary people into harms way.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Eondt
Earl 
Joined: 23-Aug-2006 Location: South Africa Online Status: Offline Posts: 279 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 02:24 |
||||||||
It's exactly this kind of language that moved others in this forum to condemn the superior (even, holier than though
 ) attitude of atheists, no offence.Remember that for someone who is religious your "faith" in atheism seem just as "illogical". Edited by Eondt - 03-Aug-2007 at 02:25 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
AyKurt
Shogun 
Joined: 24-Mar-2005 Location: Scotland Online Status: Offline Posts: 236 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 17:29 |
||||||||
|
Fundamentally (
) the point is each to their own so long as they keep it to their own.
The problem is for some time religous extremists dont keep it to themselves and insist on shoving it down others throats, be it through education or media or government. So theres going to be a counter reaction. An atheist reaction, naturally. Its necessary for balance.
Wether you like Dawkins or not he isn't going to go away so long as there are creationists and christian evangelisers. And no doubt there are and will be many more like him who, although on a smaller scale, will also feel they have to confront the illogical beliefs of those people.
These types of atheists wouldnt exist otherwise. If religious folk kept their beliefs to themselves then there would be no need to counter them.
Logical, no?
|
|||||||||
|
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended Joined: 18-Jul-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1929 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 16:02 |
||||||||
|
I'm aware of that, but those things are materialistic and function by the laws of physics - things like metaphysics and philosophy can all have equally valid systems and still be contradictory. People have grappled for millenia with these issues - there is no answer! It's too large a question - t least we can find personal ways which help us look at the question in a way which helps us live our lives. ...Also (this is highly relevant to Mr.Dawkins...) there is such a thing as overstating the case - although they are helpful in today's world, preaching Atheists are boring and frankly tell us the case (which we know is valid) again and again and again. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Omar al Hashim
King 
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 06:40 |
||||||||
Questioning is only useful if you understand and are prepared to accept the answer. If you fail on either of those, especially the latter, there is no point in asking the questions. For example, you could question how a computer works, although if you are not prepared to accept an Engineers explanation, you are a bigger fool than you were before you asked the question. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1457 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 00:07 |
||||||||
|
I saw a full program of Dawkins on TV where he called the shots, it was his program where he said what he wanted to say. The first few minutes was interesting and well told, but the rest of the hour was boring, filled with cliches, redundant statements and repetitions. He is one of those people who after having made a good point keep on and on until the point where the urge to kill him arises!
|
|||||||||
|
elenos
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended Joined: 18-Jul-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1929 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Aug-2007 at 11:46 |
||||||||
|
Precisely! You've always got to machine-gun your own and other peoples' beliefs (...but not literally, like whats happening in Iraq...). In my mind, anyone that dares to oppose the constant questioning is dangerous- be they Religious or Atheist. We must question everything. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Ovidius
Baron 
Joined: 20-Jun-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 422 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Aug-2007 at 11:17 |
||||||||
Yes I am, his attacks on Religion have a similar rhetoric to Supremacist literature attacking Blacks or Jews and a similar rhetoric to attacks on Western Materialism. They use a quasi-Scientific argument to attack everything that is unproved, by offering less supported theories. So his idea of Memes etc is a totally non scientific theory and Psychoanalysts, Psychologists, neuro Scientists etc with EXPERIENCE and EVIDENCE of how the brain works know that his theory is wrong. However, as with the Historical argument, their position is attacked with a logical trap that is laid by Dawkins - the idea that their positions can not be proved either.
Most of his work is irrational. Its based on argument and attack, not on proper science or proper history.
I'm a Post-Structuralist, my belief in "historical-facts" is somewhat questionable. However, i do believe strongly in METHOD and in the discovery of evidence from sources. Dawkins offers no real method or evidence in support of his arguments, they are baseless attacks on theism, not historically constructed criticisms of historical facts. Basically, his historical work cannot be trusted because he knows what he wants the past to say, before he starts researching. Again, this is similar to people with strong political or racial beliefs - they are using the past and researching the past in an true effort to support what they already believe to be true. This is what I find wrong about his history, oh and that fact that its complete nonsense.
Ermm. Viruses of the Mind (1993), The Selfish Gene (1976) and in the God Delusion. He calls Religion a Mind Virus, caused by Memes! The only problem with this is that there is no evidence of Memes. He has never provided a single shred of evidence to support any of his theories. This is why it is fake science. He is again doing it back to front. Creating a theory based on his own bias against theism. He has created a massive theory of why Relgion is a virus without any evidence, observation or discovery. He has also attacked the work of Genetecists and other scientists in their work. Claiming that all Religious Scientists are not Scientists. He also attacks the people that have found evidence that counter his theories.
I'm aware of his other work. The God Delusion is, as I said, an attack on Religion. He IS evangelising the cause of Atheism - he has even made TV programmes to that effect.
So we should substitute blind faith in religion with Blind faith in atheism and Dawkins style of Knowledge? I'd rather stand on the moderates side, with the agnostics. With the rest of the world that 'cannot be sure'. The wonders and strenghts of knowledge and the culmination of enlightenment development of intellectualism are vital and I believe that Dawkins has broken from this development. He prefers to substitute irrational belief in Religion with irrational belief in HIS "science".
No, he's leading a atheistic cult, intent on releasing the world from Theism towards a non-religious utopia, which would inevitably be non-violent etc.
I am not in hysterics about Dawkins, I just find his methods, arguments and theories a complete joke. Not because I am religious, but because I hate they way in which he pretends to represent rational thought. Atheism, in my opinion, is just as irrational as theism.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended Joined: 18-Jul-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1929 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 16:13 |
||||||||
|
When I started this thread, I was not one of the ones who was in "Hysterics" about him- as a PanDeist, I actually share many views with Atheists and think that it is a brilliantly argued and excellent book that certainly should sit on anyone's bookcase - my argument is that he is over-evangelising his philosophy by seemingly blaming religion for everything - one can see that his logic (although it is brilliant) has one flaw, in that it hypothesizes than an Atheist world would have hardly any conflict, and that people who are religious are somehow lower and that Atheists are "superior" to them. I've had many conversations with radical Atheists, and they often use Richard Dawkin's book as a pretext to simply poke needless fun at perfectly moderate believers. People should be allowed to deviate, people should be allowed to have their own interpretation- what worries me is that Dawkins seems to be emphasising that the "true" way is Atheism - THERE IS NO TRUE WAY! (except religious fundamentalism and other wako beliefs). Just because Dawkins sits behind a calm, Scientific exterior that is both brilliant and mind and in literary skill, that doesn't give him the right to effectively use fundamentalist feeling for his own beliefs. He has seen that Atheism is indeed something neccesary for the modern world - contempary religion is dead -, but other strands of Philosophical thinking that do not conform entirely with Atheism are not. It seems that in an effort to appeal to people to rally to Atheism, he is using (as numerous people have said) fundamentalist rhetoric. God is a concept, a theory, an idea - ideas cannot be destroyed - they can be given egos, personalities, but they cannot be destroyed. The fundamental essence behind the concept of god - the "Einstein religion" as Dawkins put it - man's capibility for wonder of the natural world, with never die. If people choose to venerate this with some kind of cultural guise and/or ego, there is nothing that he can do about it and I suggest that he live with it, because religion is not going to die, and Atheism is not the ends and the means. Everyone's got to find their own way, and they've got to find it themselves. Science has advanced to the point that we in the West (and many of you outside of the west) don't need our wonder of the natural world to be given a cultural guise anymore, but infinity/god always has guises, there are always knew philosophical theorems and there will always be conflict.
In case you haven't noticed, not many of us (I hope) have that view, many of us on this forum are self-confessed (they've said in this thread or other parts of the forum) that they are some form of Deist or Moderate Theist - none of us would make so silly an accusation. As many of us here have said, Dawkin's book is very good and such pieces of philosophy should be enouraged, it's his solution that worries me and many of the other people who have contributed to this thread.
...You have hit on it just there, we have been accused of being adherents of such things as "blind faith" and the other quips that you've mentioned just because we are questioning Richard Dawkins - it's this kind of absolution about a Philosophy, ANY philosophy, that I hate, and in that sense, what Richard Dawkins has inspired is hypocrital to say the least. People should constantly debate. If you don't machine-gun your own beliefs and others all the time (a favourite past time of mine) how are you going to get anywhere philosophically? Many Atheists don't because they see Richard Dawkin's word as final.
It's important that people understand that the old "God vs. Science" question doesn't exactly hold up anymore - the stories that contradict science are precisely that - stories and don't entirely discredit all religion. When we percieve that god is a concept (Spinoza and Descartes, for example), then we can see that fundamentally, religion slots in fine with science - veneration of this concept is the problem - each culture has devised their own way with their own cultural "limpets" and it is these "limpets" and socio-political issues that cause the trouble. "Blind faith" can be inspired by any ideology, not neccesarily a religious one - for example, with Islamists, it's more for the political and cultural ties that Islam represents to them that create this "blind faith". "Blind faith" is simply the irrational defense that people who are still practising "limpeted" religion feel when their cultural "limpets" are being attacked - it's a war of culture and religious practicing methods rather than the entire concept of religion.
I say again, I realise that Dawkins is an highly respected figure (by me also  ) but I feel that there are so many ridiculous myths that Atheists assosiate with him that his book certainly desires closer inspection to find out where the basis for these come from.Edited by Aster Thrax Eupator - 31-Jul-2007 at 16:24 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.055 seconds.
