| Blogs > Xenocide_Knight |
|
Holgerius
Sweden16951 Posts
On October 13 2009 18:35 50bani wrote: Yes it is true that Dawkins is making preacher-like propaganda for atheism, without understanding why religion is so popular in the first place. You clearly haven't read his stuff. He explores religions roots, what it is and why it's so popular quite thoroughly. Don't talk out of your ass. | ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
Apparently the Eastern culture gave him much insight. | ||
micronesia
United States24484 Posts
On October 13 2009 19:41 Sadistx wrote: I find it hilarious that IdrA's insight (out of all things) on these matters (biological imperatives of feeling "seemingly" illogical attraction) is leaps and bounds above everyone else in this thread. Apparently the Eastern culture gave him much insight. No he's just not dumb. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
 wtf I said the same stuff he said.... | ||
|
wurm
Philippines2296 Posts
On October 13 2009 19:14 Holgerius wrote: You clearly haven't read his stuff. He explores religions roots, what it is and why it's so popular quite thoroughly. Don't talk out of your ass. Tis true. He dedicates entire chapters to religious roots and its popularity. One chapter I believe is called "The Roots of Religion", found in "The God Delusion". | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 13 2009 16:09 omninmo wrote: everything you said about cavemen is probably right, but how would we know? you did confuse the two relation-modes i was trying to distinguish between though: -one is romantic, passionate, emotionally gratifying love for a selfish end (cuz it feelz good). -the other is the love between two who mate, produce, and raise a child together. this type is not for oneself but rather it is aimed at ensuring the furthering of one's genetic self- a task for which two are better suited than one. why are you splitting it into 2 categories when there is no reason for a split? a man and a woman love each other, they have sex, that leads to children. if they love each other theyre more likely to stay together, allowing them to better care for the child. genes do not give an organism instructions. they are not sitting there in your head telling you explicitly to have sex with a person, and then a different gene comes along and starts telling you to stay with this person in order to raise the child. they manifest in physical and mental characteristics. like the drive to stay with a mate. i think you're confusing hornyness with a special kind of love. there is no need for love to explain mating, plenty of species come together only to mate and then never see each other again. in some the female actively drives off the male. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 13 2009 19:41 Sadistx wrote: I find it hilarious that IdrA's insight (out of all things) on these matters (biological imperatives of feeling "seemingly" illogical attraction) is leaps and bounds above everyone else in this thread. Apparently the Eastern culture gave him much insight. what? | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 13 2009 19:52 wurm wrote: Tis true. He dedicates entire chapters to religious roots and its popularity. One chapter I believe is called "The Roots of Religion", found in "The God Delusion". And he does a poor job of it, and I doubt he really understands it. He's not a sociologist; he has no business pretending to be one, let alone attempt to do it in such a watered down way. But alas, the Super Academic always thinks they're an expert on everything. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 13 2009 20:47 Jibba wrote: And he does a poor job of it, and I doubt he really understands it. He's not a sociologist; he has no business pretending to be one. But alas, the Super Academic always thinks they're experts on everything. its not intended to be a comprehensive study of the beginnings of religion. the book is an overall look at some of the problems with religion, and he addresses the roots of religion as they apply to that. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 13 2009 20:49 IdrA wrote: its not intended to be a comprehensive study of the beginnings of religion. the book is an overall look at some of the problems with religion, and he addresses the roots of religion as they apply to that. It's intended to identify the appeal of religion, and he doesn't know how to do it. This is like Moon telling you how to macro in SC properly. He's an expert in biology, with a shiny title and lots of publicity. If you want religious philosophy or a real investigation into religion and fanaticism, there is research by people who actually study these things. They'll probably never be on the NYTimes best seller list and they don't come in shiny covers, but their work is infinitely better than Dawkins'. | ||
|
madnessman
United States1581 Posts
One interesting thing to note was that this lecture was sponsored by the Secular Alliance at our school and it's not like they go around protesting religion at the campus churches on sundays.. Good point. I hate it when people aren't tolerant of other peoples religious views. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
any rational person looking in on a religion from the outside can pick it to pieces, and anyone reasonably smart can figure out whats so appealing about it. and unless its changed his current job is professor for the public knowledge of science or something so attempting to communicate all that to the public is what hes supposed to be doing. now i dont think his approach is particularly effective since he doesnt seem to understand how people can see things from an irrational perspective, but hes certainly doing more good than harm simply by pushing things into the spotlight. and again hes not claiming to be writing academic papers on the foundations of religion or fanaticism or any such thing. | ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
That fact doesn't invalidate my comment. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
| ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
On October 13 2009 21:05 IdrA wrote: the fact that it made no sense might though I was commenting on your comments about cavemen mentalities from pages 2&3. W/e though. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
"Hey guys, I just finished The God Delusion. I'm smarter than Wolterstorff and Plantinga put together!" Hardline atheists, in particular, have this ridiculous belief that they're smarter than everyone else; that their conclusions are unshakably right and anyone that doesn't share them is irrational/idiotic/etc. It's not as if the best minds in theology are unaware of his work and have yet to respond. Humility is important when entering any realm of knowledge, and Dawkins' has none even when he is completely outclassed by other philosophers in the area. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
i mean, look at it from the perspective of an atheist. what i said on the first page "a zombie jew who will cleanse us of the sins of a woman who ate an apple because a talking snake tricked her, but only if we eat his body." looking at christianity as a complete non believer that is a big part of what you see. yes theres more to it than that, but, really, its hard not to laugh at people who actually take something like that literally. when you're explaining something like "no those crackers do not actually become the body of a 2000 year old man/diety" its hard to avoid sounding condescending. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
"Right amount of... really big words/scientific facts to keep the audience guessing..." I wouldn't even qualify that as a good thing. In science, you are attempting to explain the nature of the universe. An explanation is completely worthless if nobody understands it. The audience shouldn't be "guessing" anything. I've seen several interviews of Dawkins and I like him (at least so far). But I really want to stress that the way you wrote about him is not very persuasive. :/ | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On October 13 2009 12:45 Draconizard wrote: So the truth doesn't matter then? You really ought to care, since many of these "condescending, uptight fucks" also happen to have high positions in the government, at least in the US. lol@you if you think any of these people give the truth. At the end of every religious debate you'll find that there is no end. Of course everyone should give a serious thought about these things, but there is a point where further headbutting goes nowhere for most people. Seriously, as long as governments abide to a secular model and can keep their personal beliefs out of politics then every individual has the right to hold to whatever religious belief they want. There are more important things to look at in every person than their religious belief, and you will find both decent and abhorrent individuals from every demographic. I personally think most Atheistic circles have lost their intellectual edge due to it being flooded by idiots nowadays. | ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
HomeStory Cup
SOOP
Oliveira vs Trap
HomeStory Cup
StarCraft2.fi
OlimoLeague
StarCraft2.fi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
StarCraft2.fi
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
