EPTyou really didn't have to write all that much. the only objectionable jump he made was attributing some validity to religious 'evidence,' by equivocating all forms of evidence. that was the last sentence in his post. the rest is in agreement with your thing.
The Richard Dawkins Thread - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you really didn't have to write all that much. the only objectionable jump he made was attributing some validity to religious 'evidence,' by equivocating all forms of evidence. that was the last sentence in his post. the rest is in agreement with your thing. | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
| ||
|
KoveN-
Australia504 Posts
@BottleAbuser It depends on how much you believe it, obviously there are varying degrees. Religious extremists are just a good example becuase it shows how much power a belief can have. If there is no emotion attached to it, then it's just an idea, not a belief and that idea can be relatively easily changed as it has not been driven into the emotional brain, it will still reside just in the logical brain. It is only when the idea reaches the emotional brain, which is done by repeatedly hearing or seeing the idea (true or not) and then putting your emotional FAITH in that idea. It takes a fairly long time to make an idea an unshakable belief, usually a few years. Certain things can speed it up, like hearing it from people you trust (parents, priests, teachers, close friends etc.) You can say that anoyone that believes in God only believes in the idea of a God that was put there by someone or something. They were then convinced and/or convinced themselves that this God exists. The possibility to change this belief will vary, some people that have not had the idea hammered into their emotional brain could read "The God Delusion" once and their belief system could begin to change, by considering the new ideas. However if a Priest were to read it he would reject almost every idea that was in the book, whether it was true or not, simply because he has so much emotional faith in the opposing idea. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
although as we have conceded, the direct positives of aggressive atheism are few, there are serious arguments in favor of its cultural presence, among other things. first we can say that, although people who are excited by the idea of 'there is no god!' are cute, they are at least thinking. you can't fault people for being enthusiastic, you only advice them to calm down and gain a broader perspective. second, the drama is hilarious. third, although mobilizing fundies could cause temporary disruptions, with no disrespect to the victims of oppressive social legislations, such reactionary spurts only dig their own grave. much of the negative publicity about religious fundamentalism, and perhaps the image of 'fundies' itself, is constructed from the fundies' own reactions to slights. fourth, it gives scientists excuse to write amateur philosophy and earn something on the side. fifth, it gives philosophers and teh srs thinkers excuse to write about themselves. going back on the concession, dawkins is not even representative of the 'atheist movement.' the 'movement' is positively described as secular humanism. if we can call it an 'ism' or a 'movement.' the most famous project associated with the 'movement' is called 'enlightenment 2.0,' which has produced some excellent talks that are much more than mere 'atheism.' if you only care to look. in any case, dawkin's atheism is a small part of the outside world with which some religious folks seem to have little contact. he is not representative of either secular humanism or the real problems of religion as a social and political issue. he is only seen as such by religious folks who are especially ticked off by the aggressive atheism. looking at the broader cultural current of which dawkins is a part, the entire 'movement' is really as old as modern philosophy and science itself. so one of the remarkable things about this dawkins thing is that, there is little originality in dawkins' popular "atheism" work, aside from the much maligned meme theory. even his attitude is not that new. there were always folks who treated their atheism seriously, see david hume, and this so called 'attack on religion' is nothing new. christianity itself is on a gentle decline, and there are no recent 'nuclear' arguments that can mark a particularly eventful episode of its ideological history. serious talks about the existence of god have been relegated to the 'for lulz' section for quite a while, and it isn't going anywhere. most people who make a big deal out of this mess are either new to the idea that there is no god (much respect for your mighty dwelling under the rock), or religious folks that were fighting the good fight since the beginning. either way, nothing remarkable. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On July 16 2008 06:03 Funchucks wrote: I call what he promotes "religion" because he asks for unquestioning deference. As I complained before, he doesn't tell people to go out and do science, he proclaims the virtues of the scientific method for the sake of demanding that people not only accept the findings of scientists, whose work they haven't personally audited, but also defer to their opinions outside of their field. That's not science. That's the Cult of the Expert. i see dawkins as mainly reacting, specifically to well publicized atavistic anti-science movements. obviously, dawkins would encourage science education etc, so to say he advocates unthinking devotion is misunderstanding his position. however, dawkins is working against people who tick him off. you say different things to different people, and in dawkins case, his rants are tailored to particular enemy hordes of interest. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On July 17 2008 12:04 oneofthem wrote: i see dawkins as mainly reacting, specifically to well publicized atavistic anti-science movements. obviously, dawkins would encourage science education etc, so to say he advocates unthinking devotion is misunderstanding his position. however, dawkins is working against people who tick him off. you say different things to different people, and in dawkins case, his rants are tailored to particular enemy hordes of interest. I am sure his intent is pure and admirable, but in the heat of passion, which he has not mastered, he oversteps the bounds of pure reason and becomes a zealot. MY LIFE FOR SCIAIURNCE! | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
Oh yeah, bitches, small squads of speedlot raiders and you won't believe in a benevolent God anymore. GIVE ME YOUR LIVES You think you're so hot with your mass goliaths. YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A SHORT-BUS FIELD TRIP! TRY TO GO UP SOME STAIRS, YOU MOTHERFUCKERS! fucking technology has no soul it obeys the rules, but it can't bend them SHOW ME A FUCKING ROBOT ARM WITH ENOUGH STRENGTH TO BEND THE RULES fuck that give me natural minds, give them natural world, let them feel their supremacy god damn all AI lovers, who could call a robot a grandchild let's peck out their livers and see how they love their prometheus myth then soulless abominations are not our children, they are anathema we seethe, we hate, we hunt fear us, the human | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
Not hatred of the absurd, of the superstitious, of the false. Hatred of the inuman. God can't hurt us. He isn't real. Robots will kill us all. Give a robot a mind, and you put the human race to death. Only humans matter. Only humans. (P.S. if aliens also exist, we should make nice with them. Maybe they'll be generous. But jesus christ, don't encourage the creation of superior rivals. Even if they don't kill us, they'll reduce us to dogs. Human priority abhors a strong AI.) (P.P.S. Time to eat some fucking chocolate. OH YEAH! FUCKING. CHOCOLATTTTTTEEEE! I AM SO DRUNK!) | ||
|
Underwhelmed
United States207 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
It is that I disagree that he has considered the full social implications of his hardline stance against useful lies. Truth is not the ultimate value. Utility is the ultimate value. | ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
I imagine that it has happened to many regular readers here, but probably not as a result of arguments posted here. | ||
|
yoshtodd
United States418 Posts
| ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 17 2008 16:13 Funchucks wrote: It is not that I disagree that he is using sound reasoning. It is that I disagree that he has considered the full social implications of his hardline stance against useful lies. Truth is not the ultimate value. Utility is the ultimate value. ew. no. i don't think keeping people in the dark about some things because it makes them behave better is some how a good thing. | ||
|
0z
Luxembourg877 Posts
On July 17 2008 16:43 MyLostTemple wrote: ew. no. i don't think keeping people in the dark about some things because it makes them behave better is some how a good thing. why? | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
Well, they could. Can you prove they won't? | ||
| ||
