Gray on 20/12/2007 at 07:14
The problem with Dawkins is that he's such an arrogant condescending prick. It works against what he's trying to accomplish. BUT, being an arrogant godless atheist pinko leftist commie eurotrash bastard myself, I pretty much agree with what he's saying, just not how he does it.
Now, Jesus, OTOH, seems like such a nice fellow. But I really can't agree with the grander scheme there.
Shug on 20/12/2007 at 07:49
Quote Posted by ercles
On the topic, I personally subscribe to the theory that atheist extremists (such as Dawkins) are just as dangerous as religious extremists, except obviously in a much less immediate and obvious way.
You could only really argue that in the sense that he may incite violence from religious bodies. He's not exactly attempting to misuse the atheist wave for personal power
Thirith on 20/12/2007 at 08:36
Quote Posted by Gray
The problem with Dawkins is that he's such an arrogant condescending prick. It works against what he's trying to accomplish. BUT, being an arrogant godless atheist pinko leftist commie eurotrash bastard myself, I pretty much agree with what he's saying, just not how he does it.
Heh. You seem to be my atheist twin, or I'm your religious twin, separated at birth. :D
After reading
The God Delusion, I can say that I agree with 3/4 of what Dawkins writes and says. But I agree: his rhetoric pretty much guarantees that he reaches those who are already converted to his cause. Does he want to be effective, or does he want to be Right(tm)? If he thinks that religion is as evil as he always says, then perhaps he should think about more effective ways of communicating his ideas who don't agree (yet). Otherwise I think it's not too farfetched to assume that he's in this to massage his ego, not to have much of a positive effect on the world.
SD on 20/12/2007 at 10:50
Quote Posted by Gray
The problem with Dawkins is that he's such an arrogant condescending prick.
Is he though? I hear this all the time, and I must confess, I hear nothing from him that suggests he's anything but humble. He's never professed to have all the answers, he's never labelled religious people stupid or inferior. Where does this impression come from?
Mind you, I also hear that he's an "atheist fundamentalist", which appears to be any atheist that actually dares to suggest that God might be a load of hokey.
Quote Posted by Thirith
After reading
The God Delusion, I can say that I agree with 3/4 of what Dawkins writes and says. But I agree: his rhetoric pretty much guarantees that he reaches those who are already converted to his cause.
I think it was intended that
The God Delusion was aimed at those with a greatly wavering belief, or fence-sitting agnostics. There seems to be a general misunderstanding that the book is aimed at converting the steadfastly religious, when there are other books that might be more suited for this purpose, such as Sam Harris's
Letter to a Christian Nation, Daniel Dennett's
Breaking the Spell, Robert M. Prices's
The Reason Driven Life or even Carl Sagan's
Cosmos.
Raven on 20/12/2007 at 11:59
fett - please tell me that in your 20 years experience you studied widely and so have a firm grip of the Catholic (and for the record – the widest spread, and greatest in number Christian Community) theology?
If not please start reading through the likes of (
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm) and pick up a copy of the Catholic Church's Catechism. I know that you are now firm in your belief that it is all nonsense – but hopefully not to the point of wishing ignorance on such matters.
I am going to agree with you that if not done properly (faith & religion) then it is possible for people to be stupefied by dumb/blind faith (and hence the mental illness that you were talking about?). I will also admit that I have seen instances of this in Catholic communities as well (definitely not as wide spread as you have noted, and none more so in other communities of people – be them atheists, agnostics, Protestants, wasters or intellects). There is the question of how can it/why is it allowed for such a false message to spread in a community when the message is supposed to be about the saving grace from a guiding and loving God. Ofcourse, (being blinded by my faith :p) I see this as a human failing again; pride and personal agends getting in the way of the message (that damn ego again I guess :P).
Thirith on 20/12/2007 at 12:59
Quote Posted by SD
Is he though? I hear this all the time, and I must confess, I hear nothing from him that suggests he's anything but humble. He's never professed to have all the answers, he's never labelled religious people stupid or inferior. Where does this impression come from?
For instance from Dawkins' implicit assumption that people who have some sort of religious belief are either indoctrinated, intellectually lazy or weak-minded fools who can't think for themselves. It may surprise him (and quite possibly you), but not every religious person is really a sheep or a hypocrite, which is what much of
The God Delusion suggests. Dawkins doesn't really seem to allow for any other possibilities of arriving at religion.
Vasquez on 20/12/2007 at 13:52
I wonder how long I can shut up about the Catholic church, as it keeps turning up as a positive example? :eww:
Kaleid on 20/12/2007 at 13:54
Quote Posted by Gray
The problem with Dawkins is that he's such an arrogant condescending prick.
Hitchens perhaps but Dawkins? Can't agree..
paloalto90 on 20/12/2007 at 15:14
Professor Dawkins supposed cure for the supposed disease is based on fear and the side effects would be a great limit on individual liberties and the exercise of free will.
Kaleid on 20/12/2007 at 15:27
Quote Posted by paloalto90
Professor Dawkins supposed cure for the supposed disease is based on fear and the side effects would be a great limit on individual liberties and the exercise of free will.
He's not out to destroy religion, he is a realist enough to understand that it will never happen. And the exercise of the free will cannot happen as long as religion is indoctorinated on people, often against their own wishes and self interest.
As always, the religious have more work to do:
(
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2218406,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=10)
