| Forum Index > General Forum |
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
What you said earlier is largely true. On a side note, I just wanted to add the ironic thing is everyone who reads Dawkins probably is already an atheist that is just looking for some rational justification, whereas those who are not atheist (and more importantly, don't want to be) will probably never read his books. In the end, you believe what you want to believe. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 14 2008 00:04 Cogito wrote: ????? Dawkins is a distinguished professor with full tenure at arguably one of the world's best university. You don't obtain such a position without being an educator first... And its precisely because Dawkins is a scientist first, public advocate 2nd, that I respect him. I listen to facts, data, and clear and rigorous analysis. Not charisma and petty rhetoric. well actually he's quite charismatic, just watch some of the clips of him. the problem is with his writing. basically he's so hard on religion that if you were remotely religious at all you would probably put down his books after a few paragraphs. to an atheist it isn't something that's upsetting, but try reading thru a few chapters of 'The God Delusion' pretending to be a religious person (if your not one already) and imagine yourself not being offended right away and disregarding the book entirely. Daniel Dennet, one of his friends (seen in the last video) has even openly criticized his writing style. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
First one is on memes: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html Second one on our conscience: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.html Both great talks even if they don't have much to do with religion  | ||
|
KrAzYfoOL
Australia3037 Posts
 | ||
|
HaFnium
United Kingdom1075 Posts
| ||
|
KrAzYfoOL
Australia3037 Posts
). The nearest large galaxy to the Milky Way is the Andromeda Galaxy. The Andromeda Galaxy lies about 2 1/2 million light years from Earth. The light we see from it tonight left it more than 2 million years ago, when our species was just beginning to establish its fragile foothold on planet Earth. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
As for the former, do you all realize how many people hold the exact same views as Dawkins, yet refuse to say anything that could actually offend religious people? If this method of persuasion has been consistently failing to convince most people, even when the evidence against creationism is so overwhelming, why complain about Dawkins approach? Dawkins does open the debate, he does allow other people to make their points about creationism, and then he obliterates their arguments. He doesn't shallowly dismiss them as just being nonsensical, it just appears that way because of how unsound their arguments always are. In comparison to ANY of the american conservative talking heads, he's actually quite reasonable. I believe it's incredibly misleading to call Dawkins a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists base their beliefs on faith, or on a single book, or anything else that is not credible evidence. If Jesus came down today and performed miracles and said all the things Pat Robertson teaches, it would be hardly fair to call even Pat Robertson a fundamentalist. However, there is this enormous imbalance between the amount of evidence for Dawkins believes relative to the evidence for creationism. As for Dawkins statements about religion causing harm, I don't believe he has ever stated that religion always causes harm or that it is always a problem. Most of his statements have been that religion causes more harm than good. In many instances I have seen him tell people it's fine if they have beliefs that make them act in better ways or helps them sleep at night. So long as these people don't try to convince anyone that these beliefs are true, and realize that their beliefs are nothing but faith, he seems to be accepting. | ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
On July 14 2008 00:21 KrAzYfoOL wrote: while we're on the topic of religion, i would just like to ask a Christian (or anyone else that believes the earth is only a few thousand years old) to justify how we are able to see the Andromeda galaxy. It must be understood that light does indeed travel at a very quick pace in fact Light covers 186,000 miles every second. The nearest large galaxy to the Milky Way is the Andromeda Galaxy. The Andromeda Galaxy lies about 2 1/2 million light years from Earth. The light we see from it tonight left it more than 2 million years ago, when our species was just beginning to establish its fragile foothold on planet Earth. Well I don't believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old but there a severe logical fallacy in your argument. As long as the Andromeda Galaxy has existed for more than 2 million years it doesn't really matter how long the earth has existed...that light has already reached earth. Earth could not come into existence until tomorrow and that light would still be here Your argument would work better if it was regarding the age of the universe...(or the age of the Andromeda Galaxy) but then again the universe started at a small point and then expanded right? So maybe that light got pulled apart. Alternatively any creationist can just argue "well God made it so we could see the light already." And really, you can't use logic to argue against God, since he's not bound by logic | ||
MasterOfChaos
Germany2896 Posts
No science, but it shows how redicolous some of the christian claims are. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On July 14 2008 00:29 caution.slip wrote: And really, you can't use logic to argue against God, since he's not bound by logic. I hate it when Christians say that and then go on to argue against atheism using logic  | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
On July 13 2008 23:13 Juicyfruit wrote: He is a little extreme, DeGrasse's criticism is that Dawkins isn't 'wicked' enough to try to 'trick' people in believing/accepting that what they don't want to. Calling Dawkins 'extreme' is totally missing the point and falling for Fox news propaganda, since Tasteless made this thread. He is probably the most moderate of all intellectual atheists out there. And really, you can't use logic to argue against God, since he's not bound by logic. No one can prove that a god exists. So how can you ever dream of proving this? You just made this up on the spot because it's convenient. And because of the wording the criticism you got later doesn't apply. According to his claim, God can follow logic. Just sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Even if you can prove god isn't bound by logic you still have to prove that a specific type of logic is 'out of bounds' while other logic concerning god, whatever a god is in the first place because no atheists has any idea about what it is supposed to be and I bet the same goes for probably every non-atheist, isn't and does apply. So it's clear this is just made up, like the idea of god itself, for convenience. | ||
|
KrAzYfoOL
Australia3037 Posts
On July 14 2008 00:29 caution.slip wrote: Well I don't believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old but there a severe logical fallacy in your argument. As long as the Andromeda Galaxy has existed for more than 2 million years it doesn't really matter how long the earth has existed...that light has already reached earth. Earth could not come into existence until tomorrow and that light would still be here Your argument would work better if it was regarding the age of the universe...(or the age of the Andromeda Galaxy) but then again the universe started at a small point and then expanded right? So maybe that light got pulled apart. Alternatively any creationist can just argue "well God made it so we could see the light already." And really, you can't use logic to argue against God, since he's not bound by logic thank you, great response | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
My view is this: As science gets more and more complex and people can't understand anymore what's going on, there's the threat that the common people will instead go and find their "answers" in the realm of superstition/faith etc., that they will begin to question science and see it as "just another religion". In the USA, which have big problems in the area of education, there's also the rise of Intelligent Design and similar bullshit. Some US states want to start teaching it in schools. This is ridiculous and also dangerous, because ID is not scientific at all. They can discuss it in religion courses but not as a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. Teaching ID in a biology course would be a huge step back to middle-age-like thinking where religion and superstition dominated everything. "Retarded" would be the perfect word for it. How dare these people even suggest something like this. That's religious fundamentalism, these people are as bad as Islamists. Having said that, I think it's good that some people like Dawkins make an effort to bring science closer to the people again, and to show how stupid and also dangerous superstition/faith can be sometimes. I think what he's doing is important. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner He is pretty good at converting all those semi-theists in the US who have just grown up with a christian tradition and who haven't given their faith much thought. People who would probably already be atheists if they lived in say... Sweden Oh another thing that has to be mentioned about Dawkins. He was a good friend of Douglas Adams, the author of the Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
| ||
|
Cogito
United States453 Posts
On July 14 2008 00:08 MyLostTemple wrote: well actually he's quite charismatic, just watch some of the clips of him. the problem is with his writing. basically he's so hard on religion that if you were remotely religious at all you would probably put down his books after a few paragraphs. to an atheist it isn't something that's upsetting, but try reading thru a few chapters of 'The God Delusion' pretending to be a religious person (if your not one already) and imagine yourself not being offended right away and disregarding the book entirely. Daniel Dennet, one of his friends (seen in the last video) has even openly criticized his writing style. Don't get me wrong. I think Dawkins is incredibly charismatic. I was just emphasizing that charisma and superficial things like it can only take you so far, especially with learned individuals. No matter what your beliefs, I think we can all agree that we occupy a space for a limited period of time on this Earth, and after that we die. Other than that, you believe what you want to believe, and hopefully, your beliefs are ones that allow you enjoy life and help others enjoy life as well. | ||
|
MasterOfChaos
Germany2896 Posts
You are simply presented with the facts that in a hundred years you don't exist anymore, and with great probability(unless you did something really remarkable) nobody remembers you another hundred years later. This is very depressing imo. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
He's a polarizer, not a persuader, and therefore a bad influence in the world. Furthermore, he has a dangerously naive view of humanity. Civilization is not based on reason and natural goodwill, it is based on getting cooperation and appropriate behavior by hook or by crook. We need the cooperation of people who are fundamentally incapable of good reasoning and uncoerced decency, because they exist in large numbers. Religion is one of the essential tools for the reasoners to control the unreasoning. The people who will follow bad reasoning and plausible lies easily had better be given some productive bad reasoning and plausible lies to follow before they latch onto some destructive ones. And nobody can come out and say this in response to his attacks. They'd only help him undermine what they're trying to accomplish. I'm not a fan. | ||
|
anotak
United States1537 Posts
On July 13 2008 23:57 Hypnosis wrote: There is a reason why athiests are generally much smarter individuals than other people. That sentence is a fine example of arrogance. How can you expect people to listen to you if you insult their intelligence. edit: Just on the subject of y'all talking about Catholic upbringings and whatnot. I was raised in an Atheist household. My mother and brother both with very Dawkins-like viewpoints, although I never heard the name until later and not from them. My father I've never been sure about. I know that for years he was a practicing Muslim but I'm not sure if it was an act or not, as he had to get a job in Saudi Arabia and with discrimination and all there... I don't know. I know that if he is still, he hides it from my mother as she would never stand for it. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
However, the way he says a lot of his stuff is well... really frustrating. He goes around nigh-insulting anyone religious. Which in my opinion really undermines his message. Going to a religious school and telling everyone that they need to go to a "real" university, is well, mean. He's probably the like atheist equivalent of those radical Christians who go around preaching that "(insert minority group of your choice) is going to burn in hell forever." | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
BSL 21
Cross vs Dewalt
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
OSC
Solar vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Krystianer
Spirit vs TBD
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
OSC
OSC
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
