You attack me by using another posters words? You also reply to my questions with insults. And you want me to be impressed? Look at what I've said in this thread and then read what you've said and maybe you will open your eyes.
I just control-f'd "follow his teachings" and got your post as the first result. Are you quoting yourself in the future tense? I didn't think that was possible.
it's really about defending secular society - everything that is noble about the US republic - which is under sustained assault by christian evangelicals.
George W Bush, the Iraq war, no condoms in Africa - all of this craziness and more was made possible by evangelicals.
If you want to know Dawkins' answer to your questions, then read his book. Everything you are saying is precisely that which he argues.
CKent
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 9,020
- 0
- 0
Actually it's the idea I've gotten as well. You've expressed this thought on more than one occasion, as well as the thought that God is "everything" (which you often use to counter the 'big guy in the sky' stereotype), both of which are only your own expressed belief system, nothing more.
You sound like a guy I met through a friend of mine awhile back. He was a pretty normal college kid until he started doing tons of LSD. Last I heard, God had spoken to him during a trip and instructed him to enter the priesthood.
As for atheists being more radical than the religious, we've spoken about this before. Not only does a minority viewpoint of the same strength as the majority one stick out like a sore thumb, but most young "atheists" are kids or young adults going through a rebellion phase.
Tsk tsk, stooping to grammar naziism? (I bet I spelled that wrong)
not at all. Dawkins, like any good scientist, wants to encourage people to think and reason. he is not presenting an ideological truth that must never be questioned (as do christian, muslim authorities). He is presenting argument, reason - and encouraging people to assess his reasoning. I think the many atheists so respect Dawkins because:
1) he is a brilliant scientist and theorist, who has made huge contributions to evolutionary theory, and
2) as a public figure who is an atheist, he is remarkably eloquent in his critique of religion and religious fundamentalism.
I hate to say it, but I agree with spidey. Granted, calling him the messiah is a bit much, but the point is clear.
I've been reading Dawkins long before he was what he is now, but The God Delusion does read somewhat like a bitter diatribe against theists. Atheists, or people simply looking to be different, eat this up and praise his ideas. In this sense, people are becoming something of a Dawkins fanboy and simply regurgitating his thoughts rather than creating their own.
So, Dawkins' writings are almost doctrine for atheists at this point, imo. He's obviously brilliant, and all of his books are fantastic (my favorite being The Blind Watchmaker), but he might be a victim of his own success. The good that will come of this is increased awareness, and he even speaks to this in The God Delusion; of course, as I said, he may make a lot of sacrifices as a result of creating that awareness.
*sigh*
False. Read his book before you say such things. I'm not going to constantly play to Dawkins' defense, but the man does cover most of the arguments put forth in this thread, including what you just said.
Read the book.
It's not an unanswerable question, it is a moronic question designed to scare you into believing in Christianity. It is a simple as that.
I can answer the question just fine.
Like all things, you take anything out of context and it makes little sense. It would be a disservice to pull even a chapter out of his book and suggest it a microcosm of his thoughts. It's not something you can easily distill. I'd say the same thing about any other book, including the Bible.
Suffice it to say that he does not take a position that cannot be tested, and he supports his position quite well. You're free to disagree of course.
I think for many atheists, the bitterness comes from seeing evangelical christians trying to impose their (imo) warped, perverted ideals on the entire society via their intense and well-funded political activism. let's face it, the administration of George W Bush would not have occurred if it were not for the evangelicals. The Iraq fiasco would not have occurred. How many Africans are going to die from HIV/ AIDs, because the evangelicals have decided Africans should practice "abstinence" over safer sex.
I just don't see it in this thread, go reread page 1. Loic said he pittied religious people, an asshole comment, but it certainly doesn't turn us all into the religion of athiests with Dawkins as our messiah. Spidey's comment was particularly trollish, I do not see why you would agree with it.
Edit: Aidan, finger pointing is not helping my argument here...
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
the better question is why is it the US government's job to prevent the spread of aids in africa?
as for dawkins, isn't he an atheist? doesn't he profess that he doesn't think there is a god? what evidence does he have for that?
atheists are skeptics. atheism is the religious version of "show me the money". i.e., give me some evidence. an atheist would say she hasn't seen any convincing evidence for a god or gods. thus, to the atheist, christian/ muslim/ jewish/ anceint greek/ ancient roman/ australian aborginal/ whatever religious beliefs appear to be as absurd as the fairy stories you read to your children. an atheist might suggest that given there is no particularly compelling evidence for your particular god, then the is really not much of a good reason to suscribe to your religious beliefs. which is quite a different thing than saying, categorically, that your god does not exist. which can't be proven. but then, you can't prove the fairies at the bottom of the garden do not exist, either.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
i thought that was agnostics.
and if the point is that there is no evidence then you've got irreconcilable diametrical opposites. if the test is pure faith, then it's not pure faith if you have evidence.
it's not my job and given the way society is going i'd probably get sued for abuse or something.
why volunteer and change the world yourself when you could be an activist and get the US government to do it for you
and if the point is that there is no evidence then you've got irreconcilable diametrical opposites. if the test is pure faith, then it's not pure faith if you have evidence.
it's not my job and given the way society is going i'd probably get sued for abuse or something.
why volunteer and change the world yourself when you could be an activist and get the US government to do it for you
So basically choose the easier of 2 paths. There is no way to prove He doesn't exist so you'll twist it and force the believers to prove it does.
for most, the "easier" path is just to accept what you are told - no matter how absurd or nonsensical or inconsistent the religious ideology is.
asking for data - the reasonable, sensible, dare I say it, the scientific, approach - apparently doesn't come easily to many folks. hence you have a situation where >50% of the US population think planet earth is less than 10,000 years old. :roll:
imo, the onus is always on the proponent of an ideology to provide supporting data.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter