Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Richard Dawkin's remedy... Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 09:54 |
Well done Denis
|
That is exactly what you said. I said:
Name me one atheist who wants to forcibly convert a believer into an unbeliever
|
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 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 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.
|
|
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.
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 12:56 |
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? |
...Because the topic is about Richard Dawkins , not them!
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Quote Reply
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
From that point of view I cannot see Dawkins as a liberator
of our consciousness, just one who tries to rearrange the deck chairs on the
sinking ship of present disagreements. Better, I suppose, than those who believed the ship of the world they sailed in to be unsinkable and now try to hide away from the consequences of what they have brought about by living in denial of present knowledge.
|
elenos
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
|
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: 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 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 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
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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: 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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|