|
the end of faith was interesting, but harris' views on some of the fringe topics like parapsychology were kind of odd
breaking the spell was an excellent book, dennet is probably the best suited for the leadership position that dawkins isnt. whether its genuine or not he comes off as much more open minded and accepting, while still making the same points in the end.
never read hitchens though.
|
On September 25 2007 06:27 IdrA wrote: the end of faith was interesting, but harris' views on some of the fringe topics like parapsychology were kind of odd Haha, exactly what I thought when reading about that. He has some very controversial ideas. He also had some discussion where he -almost- justified torture of prisoners by comparing the situation to having to accept certain civil casualties in wars.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
since we are been called upon, this not so humble rationalist, is here to represent ~
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i really dont think secularism is where it is at as far as The principle for crusadings etc, try something like humanism, which is in this present condition rather necessarily secular. at leat in the sense that it is devoid of all the bad religious tradition.
|
On September 25 2007 05:16 jtan wrote: Care to expand on what it is we misunderstand? I already know you and like-minded people (ie, those who look to people like Dawkins for the last word) are incredibly static, so your challenge is not genuine, but a primer for all the ways you could inform me of my ignorance. But since you do not come to the table with an open-mind, you remove my motivation to have a discussion. In general, if I come to the table fronting "Position-A", and you come with "Position-B", I would normally listen-to and discuss Position-B, but since Position-B's primary precondition is that "Position-A" is wrong, there will undoubtedly be circular reasoning. And name-calling. Additionally, this speck of a topic is localized to the blog section, where my prose would not see it's deserved audience, and so I have chosen to forego the effort entirely.
|
why bother posting if you're going to hide behind empty excuses to not provide any reasoning behind your claim?
|
Because as a community, we've walked this path many times, and today, I'd like to step out of the box and comment on the context of such questions.
|
On September 25 2007 04:44 jtan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people. Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong. where u get that from?
|
On September 25 2007 09:55 HeadBangaa wrote: Because as a community, we've walked this path many times, and today, I'd like to step out of the box and comment on the context of such questions. making an unfounded statement and then refusing to provide any reasoning behind it is hardly any better than the endless religious vs atheism debates.
i would assume your initial statement simply meant that secularists dont understand that most religious people have no problem basing their beliefs off of faith at the expense of rationality or logic. thats not true, we realize theyre willing to do it, but that doesnt make it any easier to accept.
|
On September 25 2007 10:19 TesisMech wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2007 04:44 jtan wrote:On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people. Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong. where u get that from? if you believe you're right and people who disagree are wrong, obviously you think your position is superior to theirs.
|
On September 25 2007 10:34 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2007 10:19 TesisMech wrote:On September 25 2007 04:44 jtan wrote:On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people. Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong. where u get that from? if you believe you're right and people who disagree are wrong, obviously you think your position is superior to theirs. yeah were talking about superior persons not positions, which is not true ,i like how u twist that one tho. and about what you say about different positions that goes for atheists and all people in the world too.
|
On September 25 2007 10:55 TesisMech wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2007 10:34 IdrA wrote:On September 25 2007 10:19 TesisMech wrote:On September 25 2007 04:44 jtan wrote:On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people. Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong. where u get that from? if you believe you're right and people who disagree are wrong, obviously you think your position is superior to theirs. yeah were talking about superior persons not positions, which is not true ,i like how u twist that one tho. and about what you say about different positions that goes for atheists and all people in the world too. a person is defined by what how they act and what they think, believing you are right about a very important issue, and that others are wrong, would make you a superior person. at least in that respect
and yes, i never denied that. its kind of inherent in what i stated. religious people are not the only ones who believe they are right and people who disagree are wrong.
|
On September 25 2007 11:08 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2007 10:55 TesisMech wrote:On September 25 2007 10:34 IdrA wrote:On September 25 2007 10:19 TesisMech wrote:On September 25 2007 04:44 jtan wrote:On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people. Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong. where u get that from? if you believe you're right and people who disagree are wrong, obviously you think your position is superior to theirs. yeah were talking about superior persons not positions, which is not true ,i like how u twist that one tho. and about what you say about different positions that goes for atheists and all people in the world too. a person is defined by what how they act and what they think, believing you are right about a very important issue, and that others are wrong, would make you a superior person. at least in that respect and yes, i never denied that. its kind of inherent in what i stated. religious people are not the only ones who believe they are right and people who disagree are wrong. If we play along in what you say, being superior in a subject according to you , would just make you superior in that subject according to you, not the ENTIRE person. "Superior" its a terrible choice of word anyways, its like suggesting right now that you are being superior than me in this argument just because we disagree.
|
if i am right and you are wrong then yes, objectively i would be superior to you. assuming all else is equal.
its common sense, you're just annoyed by the wording because you're trained to think of everyone as equals and the idea of one person being superior to another seems odd.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you can hold academic disagreements, i hope
|
na im more annoyed at the term "trained to think" than a person being "superior". I dont think Dakwins thinks his superior to anyone who disagree with him Christians.. its just different positions, believing in a superior position =/= being a superior human being. anyways are we really debating about this?
|
hitchens is SUCH A BADASS. easily my favorite. i've got to read some of these books.
|
Nice, thanks for compiling the information for all of these guys. I'll have to watch the videos later and comment.
|
On September 25 2007 11:59 TesisMech wrote: na im more annoyed at the term "trained to think" than a person being "superior". I dont think Dakwins thinks his superior to anyone who disagree with him Christians.. its just different positions, believing in a superior position =/= being a superior human being. anyways are we really debating about this? yes we are, because you questioned someones statement about christians believing they are better than non believers.
and you're still missing the point, but theres not much more to do but reiterate what ive already said so you're just going to keep missing the point. so i wont bother.
|
The problem Idra, is that you and the others will not respect the person you are arguing with, which makes nobody want to discuss. We don't need to relive it to substantiate it, we've been here long enough, we've seen enough religion vs atheism threads. You asking me to substantiate that fact is an attempt to obfuscate.
|
|
|
|