Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Chilbudios
Arch Duke
Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Richard Dawkin's remedy... Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 17:07 |
However there's some agreement between the reviews (that the arguments for existence of God are poorly handled, that religion itself is poorly handled, that the style is provocative and rhetorical, that the part on evolutionary biology is indeed showing his brilliant scholarship in his field, etc., etc.) and NY times is not a Christian paper. Some particular claims from The Tablet's review can be verified quite easily (indeed, consequentialism is not the only valid secular theory on ethics; indeed Bernard Williams is a critique of consequentialism). I'm not saying about any of the reviews that is not biased, but that an accusation of bias must be targetted with some accuracy because there are lots of points where the lack of specific (Christian) bias can be showed with ease.
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 15:33 |
I've found a rather dissapointing review:
... and not the only one:
I haven't read that book. But is Dawkins so unfamiliar with philosophy and uses occasionally groundless and aggressive rhetoric? Because this is what these reviews seem to show.
|
Although I agree with these reviews, they are hardly very unbias - one is a Christian site!
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 08:30 |
Originally posted by Chilbudios
I've found a rather dissapointing review:
... and not the only one:
I haven't read that book. But is Dawkins so unfamiliar with philosophy and uses occasionally groundless and aggressive rhetoric? Because this is what these reviews seem to show.
|
Dawkins is his own worst enemy. Unfortunately he's likely his own best friend too
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Sep-2007 at 18:03 |
As an agnostic, I don't feel particular respect either for fanatic religious people or fanatic atheistics.
Atheistics are just the opposite than the follower of a religion. Atheistics "believe" God doesn't exist.... That's important, atheistics are convinced there is no God, and that that conviction is the "truth". With that fixed idea, they sometimes act with the same fanatism as the religious people, and they have resorted to violence as well, particularly in association of totalitarian regimes, like we saw in the Spanish Civil War, in the U.S.S.R. or China, to name a few.
As an agnostic, I don't want to be confussed with atheistics at all. Agnostic believe in the "limits of human knowledge" and it is, therefore, a modest position. We just believe "we don't know!".
Fanaticism is born when people "believe to know"....
In the case of religion, I love free-market of religions and ideas. Let people believe whatever they choose, but stop them from controlling the society and force those ideas upon others. And control fanatic atheistics as well.
Pinguin
Edited by pinguin - 25-Sep-2007 at 18:03
|
|
Chilbudios
Arch Duke
Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Sep-2007 at 17:35 |
I've found a rather dissapointing review:
... and not the only one:
I haven't read that book. But is Dawkins so unfamiliar with philosophy and uses occasionally groundless and aggressive rhetoric? Because this is what these reviews seem to show.
Edited by Chilbudios - 25-Sep-2007 at 17:57
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Sep-2007 at 17:10 |
As Plato said, only the dead have seen the end of war. Humans cause ideologies which can contribute for our inherant barbarism, but it is still humanities' animalistic tendancies that ultimately keep war going.
|
|
JuMong
Knight
Joined: 08-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 89
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Sep-2007 at 05:48 |
Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator
I've been looking around at a lot of literary criticism about The god delusion after reading a fair bit of it, and I and many of the reviewers have come up with one little tick in his argument. It's not a tick in his argument against Theism - I think it's a good a well argued book which deserves its reputation. But many acedemics have argued that Richard Dawkins suffers from what is ultimatley a kind of Christian view of his ideology. He seems to come to the conclusion that by everyone being Atheist, the majority of world conflict will stop. I don't know about you guys, but I think that's rubbish. Humanity is ALWAYS going to fight over something, it's in out nature. |
I often sensed a kind of Anti-Semitic tone in his arguments. There's a chapter in his book that kind of argues that point. Guardian commentary section often talks about him with lots of commentary by internet trolls. The rise of so called New Atheists may have something to do with this stupid war in Iraq. Certainly, Judaism has given rise to three of the most destructive religion in our time: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Often times, religion for Jews seems more politically motivated than religious. Fact is, as much as people like to blame religion, war is generally something that people create. If there wasn't religion it would be something else. You could argue that Communism killed more people than religion, and that was entirely atheistic. Certainly, Nazism had more to do with Nationalism than anything else. I personally think religion is kind of silly, and that you can only become an adult when you can peal yourself off of it, but there are many people who have a need to believe in religion. It's difficult to say why.
|
|
YohjiArmstrong
Knight
Joined: 27-Jul-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 19:15 |
Originally posted by The_Jackal_God
meh, i consider Dawkins and his ilk the West's version of the suicide bomber, except that their casualties are culture. personally, i respect the suicide bomber more for their honesty and sincerity.
|
Better culture than life. Culture can be repaired, corpses can't.
|
|
The_Jackal_God
Pretorian
Joined: 13-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 01:29 |
atheism is just the religious component of nihilism, and in that light, i can think of a lot damage atheism, under the banner of nihilism and cultural revolution has already done. when you say we just haven't seen it yet, it makes me wonder where you were last century.
i mean, do we have to go farther down the road of nihilism to wake up and regain our values? relativism is already run amok. you'd think after fascism and communism we could come to our senses, but i guess hedonism and a form of modern slavery is the next step.
but i agree with your overall message that we need to eschew the extremes. problem is, half a century of relativism assailing the idea of what is normal has dimmed the lights on what is extreme, and cluttered the public sphere with delusion - so that extremists brandishing propaganda accuse common senses of extremism. we are in many areas reaching the point of the absurd.
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 15:57 |
Technology and pure faith in Atheism will not encourage rationalism. Although you USE rationalism in the production of science and technology, that doesn't MEAN that it will make you a more rational person. There are still mad-techno lusting "cults" out there and people with completely irrational beliefs who are atheist and follow science. Dawkins, naturally, would argue that these deviations are smaller when compared to relgion - of course they inherantly are! But frankly, religion has been around for much longer to create such deviations, and the very fact that such groups even exist de-validates Dawkins' claim that Atheism is anymore "safe" than relgion. We just haven't seen it yet. Because of the bloodshead and death that religion has been a contributory factor to, it could be seen to many that Atheism is more safe. No complete faith in one ideology at the expense of others is safe.
...These pictures below are JOKES and believe you me people, I wouldn't want you to think that I take them seriously - but basically, extremists are possible in either way:
...Extreme techno
...Or extreme theist!
EITHER WAY CAN PRODUCE PEOPLE LIKE THESE!
Edited by Aster Thrax Eupator - 12-Aug-2007 at 15:58
|
|
The_Jackal_God
Pretorian
Joined: 13-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 12:18 |
i'm pretty sure Dawkins would be burned at the stake if he lived during the Renaissance. i would call his a perversion of that spirit, not a successor.
Martin Luther King, Jr. John Paul II Winston Churchill J.R.R. Tolkien Roberto Benigni
for a long time in the West, we've had movements arise that proclaimed "matter is evil, spirit is good" in some shape or another. These movements have cut out good elements of life, and denigrated something beautiful and natural to our human nature, and beings of both matter and spirit. Puritanism, Manicheanism, Iconoclasm, Albigensienism, shoot, even the Racism of slavery, dehumanizing fellow humans because of a material difference.
now, this long-winded, short-sighted simpleton wants to go the other way, and cut out the spiritual element of humanity. the renaissance, the enlightenment was about balance, harmony, reconciliation of the the material good and spiritual good.
no, Dawkins is no successor, he's another barbarian at the gates.
|
|
HEROI
Baron
Joined: 06-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 10:58 |
Think about what the Pope said about the way we live in today.
Dictatorship of relativism* Thats what he called it.Now his point was that is somehow wrong,and by using the word Dictatorship it gives a negative aperance.For me it is just the way it is,humans will always be under some form of dictatorship.Only if there is a god,the concept of freedom can become reality.Being under the dictatorship of forces biger then humanity,is an fact that should be accepted,but being under human dictatorship ( Such as Religious institutions) not only should not be accepted by the humans,IT IS NATURALY UNACEPTABLE.
|
Me pune,me perpjekje.
|
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 10:43 |
Originally posted by The_Jackal_God
i cannot count the ways in which elements of the West are trying to self-destruct our civilization. |
Elements of the west are destroying their civilisation you say? Is that not a bit, youknow, *edited. Can you give me one good example of how this is so? If anything Dawkins has more to do with the advent of western thought and dominance than destroying it (Think Enlightenment, Renaissance etc.)
Edited by Parnell - 08-Aug-2007 at 07:25
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 10:22 |
True, but I'm not about to join their ranks, I like things the way they are! Or should I say the way things could be when everyone settles down.
|
elenos
|
|
The_Jackal_God
Pretorian
Joined: 13-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 09:55 |
i cannot count the ways in which elements of the West are trying to self-destruct our civilization.
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 01:19 |
Those of the West are not about to blow themselves up to prove whatever point there is in self-destruction!
|
elenos
|
|
The_Jackal_God
Pretorian
Joined: 13-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 01:05 |
meh, i consider Dawkins and his ilk the West's version of the suicide bomber, except that their casualties are culture. personally, i respect the suicide bomber more for their honesty and sincerity.
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Aug-2007 at 23:20 |
Different strokes for different folks, some find Dawkins inspiring, others find him tedious in him "loving" mankind and yet explaining away mankind's problems in ways to suit his own sets of dogmas!
|
elenos
|
|
Ovidius
Baron
Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Aug-2007 at 13:33 |
Originally posted by AyKurt
Oh and i nearly forgot to add, i am not an atheist because i believe in Atheism, im atheist because i dont believe in religion. I dont have a "faith". |
Doesn't that make you an Agnostic?
One thing this thread has shown is that although many have accused Dawkins of hypocrisy nearly everyone here has shown to be hypocritical in some form or another. I include myself too.
Only one person has so far actually been able to back up what they say, Ovidius, and although i dont agree fully with his opinion about memes being pseudoscience, i tend to think it the same as mental illness, at least he justified his opinion.
|
thankyou. As for memes, i'm sorry but they just don't exist. There is no evidence for them at all. This has been clearly proved by things like Genetic science and neurology. Dawkins is not an expert in this field and really shouldn't form biological theories based on the Science of Behaviour.
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? |
I don't think anyone is really arguing that Dawkins has anymore or less right to evangelise the cause of atheism, than a theist has the right to evangelise their own faith. You have merely misunderstood why the argument has formed when thinking about Dawkins and his work. The God Delusion especially is a book DIRECTED at evangelising. It is like a political tract attempting to expose the weaknesses of an alternate political party or position. When attempting to show the shallow holes within Dawkins work, this idea of evangelising atheism is used to explain why Dawkins uses so much rhetoric and uses little evidence. It is a book completely on the offensive, there is no part dealing with the Science of his own position or a defence of that position. It is hostile rhetoric. That is why people are trying to lable Dawkins differently to how he would like to be labelled, otherwise Dawkins might be mistaken for a proper Scientist and his work taken to be accurate.
Religion often causes war. |
I vehemently disagree with this sort of statement. Where is the evidence that Religion often causes war or has ever "caused" a war. There is a firm difference between the idea of Dawkins which is that "Theism" causes war and Religion causes wars. If you are going to make such an opinion, maybe you could back it up with examples.. I would say that Religion cannot cause war often, or perhaps ever. People carry out actions, not "religion". People can have their outlook manipulated by individuals within a religion. If Religion often causes war, why is it not continually causing war or constantly causing war. Why is it a minority of the religious and not the majority? What is the relationship between wars "caused" by Relgion and those not caused by Relgion. etc.
|
|
AyKurt
Shogun
Joined: 24-Mar-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 236
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 06:17 |
Originally posted by Eondt
Originally posted by AyKurt
, will also feel they have to confront the illogical beliefs of those people. |
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". |
That was me trying to be polite. Religion is illogical its just stating the fact now before you get offended bear in mind that an expression of truth is not an expression of hate or condemnation. Also nobody has been moved by this thread or by me, its pretty clear all the contributors have had already made their minds up before this thread even existed and dont go acting like some kind of spokeperson for this forum, your not. You only speak for your self.
Oh and i nearly forgot to add, i am not an atheist because i believe in Atheism, im atheist because i dont believe in religion. I dont have a "faith".
One thing this thread has shown is that although many have accused Dawkins of hypocrisy nearly everyone here has shown to be hypocritical in some form or another. I include myself too.
Only one person has so far actually been able to back up what they say, Ovidius, and although i dont agree fully with his opinion about memes being pseudoscience, i tend to think it the same as mental illness, at least he justified his opinion. I asked quite a few times for people to back up what they said and that was never answered just more posts from "antis" jumping on a bandwagon.
Ive only read 3 books of Dawkins and i agree with alot and disagree on some, so im not stickin up for the guy just because, if people want to discuss this intellectually then they need to me open minded and look at the facts not on "opinions".
Edited by AyKurt - 04-Aug-2007 at 06:22
|
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
|
|