PDA

View Full Version : Richard Dawkins - What do you think of him?



Loki
07-01-2013, 11:58 AM
There may be an old thread about this, but we have many new members now.

What is your perception of Richard Dawkins and his teachings/investigations?

Discuss :)

Methusalem
07-01-2013, 12:11 PM
He is a very polemic demagogue.

Loki
07-01-2013, 12:17 PM
This is one of few topics that could actually unite Christians, Muslims and Jews :heh:

Loki
07-01-2013, 12:20 PM
He is a very polemic demagogue.

I don't think he fits the bill:



A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ or rabble-rouser is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, prejudices, and ignorance of the population in order to gain power and promote political motives. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness.

Methusalem
07-01-2013, 12:26 PM
I don't think he fits the bill:

Yeah. I just used it in an anti-religious sense.

alb0zfinest
07-01-2013, 12:59 PM
:D (starts at 1:10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SINJTza98w
Anyways "He's a hero of humanism and free thought" is the best option.

101DT
07-01-2013, 03:43 PM
Fame Whore and Clever Businessman;

He knows his message sells well; and by the looks of it really sells well;
He is not that successful in Europe; but even more so in the USA;
I suppose it impresses the Americans when a person with British accent talks about Scientific facts;

all in all; this whole (new) Atheist scene is nothing but a money making trend;
and becomes more and more a mockery of what Atheism actually is;

If one is an Atheist or non-religious (at all) than there is no need to have him as a "leader"
and purchasing all his merchandise and books;

Loki
07-01-2013, 03:52 PM
Fame Whore and Clever Businessman;

He knows his message sells well; and by the looks of it really sells well;
He is not that successful in Europe; but even more so in the USA;
I suppose it impresses the Americans when a person with British accent talks about Scientific facts;

all in all; this whole (new) Atheist scene is nothing but a money making trend;
and becomes more and more a mockery of what Atheism actually is;

If one is an Atheist or non-religious (at all) than there is no need to have him as a "leader"
and purchasing all his merchandise and books;

He is quite successful in Europe. At least, here in England for sure.

As for him being a "leader" - he is not that. He merely writes down his opinions. What is wrong with that, other than that he is breaking taboos and talking about things that most other people are too afraid to talk about?

Amun
07-01-2013, 03:58 PM
He is gaining too much publicity that he doesn't deserve. I don't mind if he is Atheist, it is his choice, but he is using that as a way to gain money.

101DT
07-01-2013, 04:00 PM
He is quite successful in Europe. At least, here in England for sure.

Of course; But England goes without saying


As for him being a "leader" - he is not that. He merely writes down his opinions. What is wrong with that, other than that he is breaking taboos and talking about things that most other people are too afraid to talk about?

His Opinions?

Humans and Apes having a common ancestor and the Earth being 4.5 Bil. years old -
are not his "Opinions"; those are long established Scientific facts;
And who is afraid to state those facts out loud?

Again;
i respect him for spotting that niche and making Millions with it;
who would have thought that elementary text book info is so popular and profitable;

Loki
07-01-2013, 04:02 PM
Would you rather prefer he set up a charity to spread his ideas? lol ...

101DT
07-01-2013, 04:14 PM
Would you rather prefer he set up a charity to spread his ideas? lol ...

I still dont know what his Ideas are; and why they need to be spread;

Most western countries have institutions known as Schools and Universities?
- Hows that for a proper education;

Loki
07-01-2013, 04:27 PM
I still dont know what his Ideas are; and why they need to be spread;

Most western countries have institutions known as Schools and Universities?
- Hows that for a proper education;

So free thought should not be encouraged, but only accepted curriculum?

101DT
07-01-2013, 05:05 PM
So free thought should not be encouraged, but only accepted curriculum?

I think we are talking aneinander vorbei;

Nobody is discouraging free thought; Thats him just building up an imaginary opposition;
Enhances the concept of marketing your trend;

Credits to him for making millions by stating the obvious and creating a hype;
But what has all that to do with Scientific advancement or free thought?

The concept is known Science vs. Religious beliefs; and he sells it well;

Aunt Hilda
07-01-2013, 05:09 PM
love him, I would have his children

Daniele90
07-01-2013, 05:11 PM
For me most of religions as institutions are an insult to people, having cause in the past and still now destruction and poverty, yet, they still have the hypocrisy to pretend they're something innocent.. but I believe in God and some ethics, and I'm against any extremism , including atheism (and what Dawkins says); I have nothing against atheists as many of them behave better than the so called catholics, protestants etc, and at least are less hypocrite, but they must be able to separate faith from religion, and not judge people basing on what they believe

Loki
07-01-2013, 05:14 PM
I think we are talking aneinander vorbei;

Nobody is discouraging free thought; Thats him just building up an imaginary opposition;
Enhances the concept of marketing your trend;

Credits to him for making millions by stating the obvious and creating a hype;
But what has all that to do with Scientific advancement or free thought?

The concept is known Science vs. Religious beliefs; and he sells it well;

Well let those who want to read his stuff, read it. Others can just ignore, not? :)

101DT
07-01-2013, 05:16 PM
Well let those who want to read his stuff, read it. Others can just ignore, not? :)

100% Agree

mr. logan
07-01-2013, 05:25 PM
What do atheists need a leader for?

Loki
07-01-2013, 05:58 PM
What do atheists need a leader for?

They don't need a leader, nor do they want one. Atheism is not a movement or religion.

Loki
07-01-2013, 05:58 PM
What do atheists need a leader for?

They don't need a leader, nor do they want one. Atheism is not a movement or religion.

alb0zfinest
07-02-2013, 02:59 AM
I still prefer Lawrence Krauss over Richard Dawkins though. He is not only knowledgeable in Science (the better aspect of science) but in Politics as well. Plus he's really funny.

SkyBurn
07-02-2013, 03:05 AM
Richard Dawkins is my spirit animal. I love his confidence and his method of desiccating any theistic argument placed in front of him.

And contrary to opinions above, he is not a "leader", not does he state the obvious. He writes down and codifies all rational arguments against any aspect of religion; it is no different to any book on philosophy.

Scholarios
07-02-2013, 03:21 AM
very boring. very sophomoric. if he can just talk about biology he's fine, but when he sits there and argues with a high school student about why she loves jesus, it's just obnoxious.

Skerdilaid
07-02-2013, 03:43 AM
For me most of religions as institutions are an insult to people, having cause in the past and still now destruction and poverty, yet, they still have the hypocrisy to pretend they're something innocent.. but I believe in God and some ethics, and I'm against any extremism , including atheism (and what Dawkins says); I have nothing against atheists as many of them behave better than the so called catholics, protestants etc, and at least are less hypocrite, but they must be able to separate faith from religion, and not judge people basing on what they believe

People should be judged by what they believe! Nobody want's a moron that believes dinosaurs lived 2000 years ago to lead a country or lead anything for that matter.

Drawing-slim
07-02-2013, 05:05 AM
As I am undecided unsure whether there's a god or not, Dawkins gives me this impression of a soulless face, just words, emptiness.

Sblast
07-22-2013, 10:35 AM
I don't prefer any of the New Atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism) (c, Harris, Hitchens, maybe Dennet) to a philosopher of religion like Maki, Baggini, Rowe, Austin or Oppy. Out of the three Harris was the most thoughtful (Hitchens the most fallacious, but a rhetoric monster), but none of them presented really new ideas. What they did do is not less important, they formed a social movement which may have (if now already) political consequences (hence "He's a hero of humanism and free thought").
They also never win debates, because they never make their homework (http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0495007250). The best debate I've seen by an Atheist was Austin vs Craig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnof3-hdMOE). Austin actually did his homework (as far as populations go in philosophy faculties, atheists don't prefer to study philosophy of religion over mind).

Loki
07-22-2013, 10:37 AM
I don't prefer any of the New Atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism) (c, Harris, Hitchens, maybe Dennet) to a philosopher of religion like Maki, Baggini, Rowe, Austin or Oppy. Out of the three Harris was the most thoughtful (Hitchens the most fallacious, but a rhetoric monster), but none of them presented really new ideas. What they did do is not less important, they formed a social movement which may have (if now already) political consequences.
They also never win debates, because they never make their homework (http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0495007250). The best debate I've seen by an Atheist was Austin vs Craig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnof3-hdMOE). Austin actually did his homework (as far as populations go in philosophy faculties, atheists don't prefer to study philosophy of religion over mind).

Atheists are simply not bothered with philosophy or religion.

Sblast
07-22-2013, 10:48 AM
Atheists are simply not bothered with philosophy or religion.

They are or else the books would not be published, but they largely just not professionally interested in it (the point of my last sentence). Take for example the main argument in Dawkin's book - it's from the field - but it's a mess at best or problematic at worst. You will find much better argument in the literature (http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24209-theism-and-explanation/). Don't get me wrong tho, he has some great moments and I enjoy him.

I'm still hopping my second degree will be in philosophy of religion.

Twistedmind
07-22-2013, 10:48 AM
Atheists are simply not bothered with philosophy ...

Common Loki, where did you pull that :D Bertrand Russel, Karl Marx, Jean Pual Sartr, and so on. They were famous philpsophers and atheists.

Errr, Richard Dawkins might be scientist, but as public person he is clown.

Sblast
07-22-2013, 10:51 AM
Errr, Richard Dawkins might be scientist, but as public person he is clown.

He's not a clown. Especially contrasted with public religious figures.
He goes deep enough to make his point.

Loki
07-22-2013, 10:53 AM
Common Loki, where did you pull that :D Bertrand Russel, Karl Marx, Jean Pual Sartr, and so on. They were famous philpsophers and atheists.

Errr, Richard Dawkins might be scientist, but as public person he is clown.

I didn't say philosophers can't be atheist :) But one doesn't need to be a philosopher to lack belief in a god.

Twistedmind
07-22-2013, 10:55 AM
He's not a clown. Especially contrasted with public religious figures.

Verry genuine way of defending, go and attack other side :D But when you mention that, I didnt saw Pope indulging in petty marketing like mr. Dawkins.



He goes deep enough to make his point.
Deep in mud of massmedia you mean?


I didn't say philosophers can't be atheist :) But one doesn't need to be a philosopher to lack belief in a god.
Tough philosophers were first who did it. And in one or other way, atheists are dependant on some philosopjer for their atheism.

Loki
07-22-2013, 10:57 AM
Verry genuine way of defending, go and attack other side :D But when you mention that, I didnt saw Pope indulging in petty marketing like mr. Dawkins.


The Pope doesn't need to, he has the whole system on his side.



Deep in mud of massmedia you mean?

You butthurt? ;)

Twistedmind
07-22-2013, 10:58 AM
The Pope doesn't need to, he has the whole system on his side.
Circular reasoning, sblast mentioned public figures, not little soldiers of system.




You butthurt? ;)
When you mention it, I think I am, I fell on my bottom this morning, tough I dont see its related to this topic :tongue

Sblast
07-22-2013, 10:58 AM
I didn't say philosophers can't be atheist :) But one doesn't need to be a philosopher to lack belief in a god.

A professional philosopher (everyone do philosophy similar to statistics).

Reminded me of this great fascinating video clip :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNajfMZGnuo

Smeagol
07-22-2013, 10:59 AM
Richard Dawkins, great guy.

Loki
07-22-2013, 11:01 AM
atheists are dependant on some philosopjer for their atheism.

No, not really.

Loki
07-22-2013, 11:02 AM
When you mention it, I think I am, I fell on my bottom this morning, tough I dont see its related to this topic :tongue

You are a priest so you're obviously not going to agree with our arguments, or even have an open mind about the issue ..

Permafrost
07-22-2013, 11:06 AM
In my IRL experience, most of his followers are obnoxious teens and adolescents who subscribe to his ideas exclusively because they find it 'cool' bashing religion.

I see how he could be appealing to young and challenging minds, he probably knows that well too, so naturally exploits it to his own gain.

Petros Houhoulis
07-22-2013, 11:06 AM
Yeah. I just used it in an anti-religious sense.

You are applying collateral damage upon the English language on a daily basis.

Sblast
07-22-2013, 11:08 AM
atheists are dependant on some philosopjer for their atheism.

besides you are not clear about what counts as dependence in this context, it sounds like you're implying it's a religion which is absurd conceptually (if religion revolves around a belief in god) and empirically wrong (atheism spreads across the centuries and cultures and is found in many creeds and in itself is not a creed).

Petros Houhoulis
07-22-2013, 11:10 AM
Would you rather prefer he set up a charity to spread his ideas? lol ...

I would rather prefer that you had placed another option in the poll, something like "He is a proper scientist". This would be enough.

Sblast
07-22-2013, 11:12 AM
In my IRL experience, most of his followers are obnoxious teens and adolescents who subscribe to his ideas exclusively because they find it 'cool' bashing religion.

I see how he could be appealing to young and challenging minds, he probably knows that well too, so naturally exploits it to his own gain.

Did you pick that up by data or is it your heart wishes/biases?
The matter of fact is: Analytical thinking (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120426143856.htm) tends to produce atheism and intuitive thinking (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110920121615.htm) religion. In other words, if you see a problem in probability and you guess you are more likely to be religious - but if you pick up a pen and pencil - an atheist. This also reflects in religious arguments which usually take base in intuitive premises.

Twistedmind
07-22-2013, 11:37 AM
besides you are not clear about what counts as dependence in this context,
Bla bla bla. I gave verry clear sentence, in one way or other al atheists are dependant on some philosphers, since all principles repeated by atheists could be traced back to some philosophers. If you want to negate it be my guest, I am all ears. :D I had history of philosophy in 4 semesters, so I love to discuss it. :cool:



it sounds like you're implying it's a religion which is absurd conceptually (if religion revolves around a belief in god) and empirically wrong (atheism spreads across the centuries and cultures and is found in many creeds and in itself is not a creed).
It sounds you are ready to draw most unbelievable conclusions from rather clear statements, without any implications. ;)

Permafrost
07-22-2013, 11:58 AM
Did you pick that up by data or is it your heart wishes/biases?
The matter of fact is: Analytical thinking (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120426143856.htm) tends to produce atheism and intuitive thinking (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110920121615.htm) religion. In other words, if you see a problem in probability and you guess you are more likely to be religious - but if you pick up a pen and pencil - an atheist. This also reflects in religious arguments which usually take base in intuitive premises.

Yeah, I can somehow understand your hostile tone, it seems I was a little bit too open...


In my IRL experience, most of his followers are obnoxious teens and adolescents who subscribe to his ideas exclusively because they find it 'cool' bashing religion.

What I implied is that humans find some ideas more attractive than others, and that a variable factor in this is their life stage (one of many variables, of course). You, out of nowhere, start stating the obvious, talking about analytical and intuitive thinking without me even asking you anything. Kinda annoying, don't ya think?

Loki
07-22-2013, 12:20 PM
Yeah, I can somehow understand your hostile tone, it seems I was a little bit too open...


It was your comment about Dawkins' followers that seemed a bit hostile to me, rather ..

Sblast
07-22-2013, 02:09 PM
It sounds you are ready to draw most unbelievable conclusions from rather clear statements, without any implications. ;)

You missed "besides you are not clear about what counts as dependence in this context"; your statements are unclear. And why are you trolling? get to the point.

Insuperable
07-22-2013, 02:13 PM
There are atheists out there who defend their views far better and who do not speak only about monkeys and evolution in general.

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 02:30 PM
He is a new prophet to me!!! Prophet of you know what...

Twistedmind
07-22-2013, 02:41 PM
You missed "besides you are not clear about what counts as dependence in this context";Read above.



And why are you trolling?
Please, get serious.



get to the point.
I gave my point on begining. Atheism was concieved as phyilosphica outlook, thats why nobody could say atheists have nothing with philosophy. If you cant get that, everything is wrong with you.

Caismeachd
07-22-2013, 05:07 PM
I thought selfish gene was a good book. Its obvious that his writing and anti religious stance is meant to be as provocative as possible. Perhaps to flatter his own ego and to get celebrity status. But maybe that's needed to counter extreme religious dogma. He has some views about race and stuff and he puts them forward in a thoughtful way as well.

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 05:13 PM
I thought selfish gene was a good book. Its obvious that his writing and anti religious stance is meant to be as provocative as possible. Perhaps to flatter his own ego and to get celebrity status. But maybe that's needed to counter extreme religious dogma. He has some views about race and stuff and he puts them forward in a thoughtful way as well.

I liked Delusion of God of him but haven't read of his selfish gene. I will add this book to my library soon then.

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 05:18 PM
He definetely has a point.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 05:28 PM
However, nobody can be 100% percent sure whether there is a God or not....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

Caismeachd
07-22-2013, 05:35 PM
Ben Stein is a complete moron. He cut and edited Dawkins views in that interview to make him look bad. If they had a serious debate together that was unedited, Dawkins would make Ben Stein sound like a childish backwards ignorant fool.

Stefan
07-22-2013, 05:39 PM
Not a big fan of anti-theism nor the means by which he expresses his views, but I do like his meme theory. My opinions probably align with Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Loki
07-22-2013, 05:39 PM
The fact that religious people get so incredibly upset about Dawkins must surely mean he's hit a nerve or two. :)

Cleitus
07-22-2013, 05:42 PM
Execute this Godless Bastard.

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 05:43 PM
Ben Stein is a complete moron. He cut and edited Dawkins views in that interview to make him look bad. If they had a serious debate together that was unedited, Dawkins would make Ben Stein sound like a childish backwards ignorant fool.

I agree with that. That's obvious and they are doing to Richard Dawkins so often. Is it not a sin for muslims , christians and jews? I don't know... There are many ironic things about theists. They do everything and when they see a good atheist they got shocked! Because they believe that if religions doesn't exist everybody would be "evil". Personally I see myself better than faithful people. I am not arrogant but that's f.ckin' truth. I believe humanity would be better today without religions...

Loki
07-22-2013, 05:44 PM
Execute this Godless Bastard.

lol

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 05:45 PM
Execute this Godless Bastard.

Your Vatican was a criminal state once. They were hanging and torturing like you said. And you are all still the same....

Cleitus
07-22-2013, 05:46 PM
Your Vatican was a criminal state once. They were hanging and torturing like you said. And you are all still the same....
Said the Godless Turk..........

Caismeachd
07-22-2013, 05:49 PM
Dawkins argues with logic and meticulous peer review so to argue against him people just sound hysteric and simple minded.

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 05:50 PM
Said the Godless Turk..........

Yeah I am Godless and a Turk. You should execute me twice....

Insuperable
07-22-2013, 05:53 PM
Execute this Godless Bastard.

Sorry, but you are a little brat:picard2:

Furnace
07-22-2013, 05:53 PM
I find fanatic atheists as him almost as bad as fanatic theists.

I like one thing about him though, the way he described the G-D of the old testament:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Polski
07-22-2013, 05:54 PM
I was born and raised a strong Christian (Catholic) as most Polish are but later on in life in my teens I began to just be a Christian and although I do still consider myself a Christian I'm not very religious and I've often watched speeches and documentaries on agnostic/atheist people such as Dawkins and he does make some good points.

Cleitus
07-22-2013, 05:55 PM
Sorry, but you are a little brat:picard2:
:icon_cheesygrin:

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 05:59 PM
I was born and raised a strong Christian (Catholic) as most Polish are but later on in life in my teens I began to just be a Christian and although I do still consider myself a Christian I'm not very religious and I've often watched speeches and documentaries on agnostic/atheist people such as Dawkins and he does make some good points.

Don't pretend my friend. It is your past fear prevents you leave your religion. Face them and walk on the right path...

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 06:00 PM
I find fanatic atheists as him almost as bad as fanatic theists.

I like one thing about him though, the way he described the G-D of the old testament:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

fanatic theists kill people,insult people, banish people... He doesn't...

Insuperable
07-22-2013, 06:01 PM
Dawkins argues with logic and meticulous peer review so to argue against him people just sound hysteric and simple minded.

I am sorry, but his kind of logic and meticulous peer review is not a way to get to the "hearts" of what you would perceive as religious people or at least believers. I know that at least from my point of view. His words never shook my view at all since he does not know how to approach that line which separates religion and faith. He is good for those who are already leaning towards atheism. I do not know how to explain, sorry. On the other hand I listened to some atheists who know to go there and say exactly what is needed for the discussion. It is like he is arguing about things which are already at least superficially known to most people and just going deeper which would be no news to anyone.

Furnace
07-22-2013, 06:02 PM
fanatic theists kill people,insult people, banish people... He doesn't...

Note how I said 'almost' as bad.

Cleitus
07-22-2013, 06:02 PM
Yeah I am Godless and a Turk. You should execute me twice....
http://downloadwallpaperhd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Memes-Challenge-Accepted-Wallpaper-HD.jpg

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 06:03 PM
I am sorry, but his kind of logic and meticulous peer review is not a way to get to the "hearts" of what you would perceive as religious people or at least believers. I know that at least from my point of view. His words never shook my view at all since he does not know how to approach that line which separates religion and faith. He is good for those who are already leaning towards atheism. I do not know how to explain, sorry. On the other hand I listened to some atheists who know to go there and say exactly what is needed for the discussion. It is like he is arguing about things which are already at least superficially known to most people and just going deeper which would be no news to anyone.

No theist would discuss such subjects he mentioned. You might know them because you are a spiritual atheist...

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 06:04 PM
Note how I said 'almost' as bad.

There is more than almost between the two as a difference...

Furnace
07-22-2013, 06:06 PM
There is more than almost between the two as a difference...

Opinions, opinions..

Insuperable
07-22-2013, 06:07 PM
No theist would discuss such subjects he mentioned.

You would be surprised and judging someone in a advance would lead to nowhere so a mutual respect is also needed. Not all theists are blind followers.

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 06:18 PM
You would be surprised and judging someone in a advance would lead to nowhere so a mutual respect is also needed. Not all theists are blind followers.

Non-blind followers are following them because they fear of the slight possibility of the God. There is a possibility of vampires so we shouldn't go out at nights right?

Sblast
07-22-2013, 06:23 PM
Non-blind followers are following them because they fear of the slight possibility of the God. There is a possibility of vampires so we shouldn't go out at nights right?

I wouldn't generalize so fast. Some theist are quite articulate and sophisticated people. Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, etc.

Insuperable
07-22-2013, 06:24 PM
Non-blind followers are following them because they fear of the slight possibility of the God. There is a possibility of vampires so we shouldn't go out at nights right?

There should not be any fear if there is possibility of God, especially from a Christian point of view. In Balkan countries at least traditions, customs and way of life is very connected to religion so I think people get most of the boost in staying religious from there.

I go out at night because I want to be a vampire.:laugh:

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 06:29 PM
I wouldn't generalize so fast. Some theist are quite articulate and sophisticated people. Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, etc.

I have theist friends who I argue with in a healthy conversation but this doesn't mean they are completely open to everything. As you can see it is a debate of logic against believe.

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 06:35 PM
There should not be any fear if there is possibility of God, especially from a Christian point of view. In Balkan countries at least traditions, customs and way of life is very connected to religion so I think people get most of the boost in staying religious from there.

I go out at night because I want to be a vampire.:laugh:

:) Christian traditions that you mentioned is just a transformed Roman culture. The symbols the way of their pray blah blah. And also muslims and jews have a culture but they are not religious cultures or traditions my friend. They are just the culture of their original or later transformed religiously geographical cultures. And that does not mean they don't need to fear of God. They are going to burn in hell last time I checked Christianity if they deny three form of one God....

Good luck with becoming a vampire...:)

Insuperable
07-22-2013, 06:39 PM
I have theist friends who I argue with in a healthy conversation but this doesn't mean they are completely open to everything. As you can see it is a debate of logic against believe.

My cousin married a militant atheist and he always has a similar approach when discussing theism vs atheism - "You believe therefore logic is on our side". It is an always a wrong start of a conversation. As I have said having a mutual respect will make a discussion go somewhere. Yet someone at least believes, but does not assert that there is no God or that there is God without any evidences. The only counterargument is the usual one that nobody can prove do fairies exist. So I wonder sometimes who has logic on its side.

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 06:47 PM
My cousin married a militant atheist and he always has a similar approach when discussing theism vs atheism - "You believe therefore logic is on our side". It is an always a wrong start of a conversation. As I have said having a mutual respect will make a discussion go somewhere. Yet someone at least believes, but does not assert that there is no God or that there is God without any evidences. The only counterargument is the usual one that nobody can prove do fairies exist. So I wonder sometimes who has logic on its side.

No you got me wrong. I really respect every religious person I just feel sorry for them. And when I said something strong they say I don't know why that is how it is. I just believe that. And I never say I just believe. I always say something with proves.(Slight or Strong)

Insuperable
07-22-2013, 06:48 PM
:) Christian traditions that you mentioned is just a transformed Roman culture.

Ok, if you say so.


And also muslims and jews have a culture but they are not religious cultures or traditions my friend. They are just the culture of their original or later transformed religiously geographical cultures. And that does not mean they don't need to fear of God.

Cool story bro especially when it comes to Muslims.


They are going to burn in hell last time I checked Christianity if they deny three form of one God....

That is just what most of people think, including Dawkins, that people will suffer for eternity in Hell. Have in mind that I not saying that what they read is wrong.

Insuperable
07-22-2013, 06:50 PM
No you got me wrong. I really respect every religious person I just feel sorry for them. And when I said something strong they say I don't know why that is how it is. I just believe that. And I never say I just believe. I always say something with proves.(Slight or Strong)

You think one thing and say another assuring you it is so.

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 06:55 PM
You think one things and say another assuring you it is so.

It is not humiliating if you understand like this. It is like I let my girlfriend go with his friends to the pub alone but I feel sorry about this. OK?

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 06:57 PM
That is just what most of people think, including Dawkins, that people will suffer for eternity in Hell. Have in mind that I not saying that what they read is wrong.

Ask a Christian this then?

Insuperable
07-22-2013, 06:58 PM
Ask a Christian this then?

How about Bible? This was discussed before. You can read post 155.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?82504-Jesus-in-early-christianity&p=1729095#post1729095

Insuperable
07-22-2013, 06:59 PM
It is not humiliating if you understand like this. It is like I let my girlfriend go with his friends to the pub alone but I feel sorry about this. OK?

Hmm not impressed.

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 07:02 PM
Hmm not impressed.

Theists say I pity for them and I suppose feeling sorry about them is more humane! Are you impressed now?

Insuperable
07-22-2013, 07:06 PM
Theists say I pity for them and I suppose feeling sorry about them is more humane! Are you impressed now?

No, I am not. So theists really say that? tsk tsk tsk

Polski
07-22-2013, 07:28 PM
Don't pretend my friend. It is your past fear prevents you leave your religion. Face them and walk on the right path...

Don't tell me what to do, idiot. I am not religious these days although I do consider myself a Christian.

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 07:41 PM
Don't tell me what to do, idiot. I am not religious these days although I do consider myself a Christian.

I am not forcing you to do anything but it is obvious that you are still "religious"...You will go to heaven for saying me that I am an idiot. I am happy for you.

Polski
07-22-2013, 07:59 PM
I am not forcing you to do anything but it is obvious that you are still "religious"...You will go to heaven for saying me that I am an idiot. I am happy for you.

Troll, crawl back under your bridge.

DarkSecret
07-22-2013, 08:07 PM
Troll, crawl back under your bridge.

I don't understand your behavior but I didn't want to insult you or your religion. I am sorry if you misunderstood me, my mistake.

Moonbird
07-23-2013, 08:32 PM
He is gaining too much publicity that he doesn't deserve. I don't mind if he is Atheist, it is his choice, but he is using that as a way to gain money.

I don't mind that he gets money for his books. I like them and agree with many of his thoughts. I think it's more disturbing with all the money that goes to New Age Quacks and their books.

Mason8
07-25-2013, 08:08 AM
What is your perception of Richard Dawkins and his teachings/investigations?


I think he's a professional atheist. He and his compatriots are to atheism what television evangelists are to Christianity. They oversimplify many things about people, society, life, and belief, in order to dramatize their point, that what they believe is right, and you ought to believe it also.

There's nothing wrong with being an atheist. Just like there's nothing wrong with believing in God, or whatever form of spirituality/divinity one's religion or culture happens to have. The problem lies in being absolutely certain that one's particular belief is totally true and correct, and those who do not believe likewise are not merely wrong, but deluded and apt to cause immense harm to the world. I object to that attitude when religious people have it: I object to it just as much when atheists have it.

Hayalet
07-25-2013, 09:49 AM
He is lacking in philosophy, which is an important flaw, as the existence of god is a philosophical and not a scientific matter. This was especially apparent in his debate with that Archbishop of Canterbury.

alfieb
07-25-2013, 09:51 AM
I've read his writings, I've seen him speak, but I don't think about him at all. He is irrelevant to me and how I live my life. Same with the late Hitchens.

Loki
07-25-2013, 12:04 PM
I've read his writings, I've seen him speak, but I don't think about him at all. He is irrelevant to me and how I live my life. Same with the late Hitchens.

Lucky you!

Sblast
07-25-2013, 12:16 PM
He is lacking in philosophy, which is an important flaw, as the existence of god is a philosophical and not a scientific matter. This was especially apparent in his debate with that Archbishop of Canterbury.

Trivially the existence of anything is a matter of philosophical dispute.
Definitively, most professional philosophers are not only not religious or even agnostic, but atheists (and most by a tiny margin Naturalists).
It isn't an argument, but theists should know by now two things, scientists won't come for the rescue - philosophers won't too, and the middle ages are behind us and philosophers are not any more slaves to theology. If you want a decent debate search for Austin vs Craig.

Hayalet
07-25-2013, 12:50 PM
It isn't an argument, but theists should know by now two things, scientists won't come for the rescue - philosophers won't too, and the middle ages are behind us and philosophers are not any more slaves to theology.
I don't really care who comes forth to rescue theism, I'm more of a strong agnostic these days. Still, it's a bit annoying to see Dawkins concede that he doesn't know what would prove the existence of god (by extension, he would be saying that the non-existence of god is unfalsifiable) and then expect natural phenomena (i.e. scientific) evidence from the opposing camp.

Sblast
07-25-2013, 01:00 PM
I don't really care who comes forth to rescue theism, I'm more of a strong agnostic these days. Still, it's a bit annoying to see Dawkins concede that he doesn't know what would prove the existence of god (by extension, he would be saying that the non-existence of god is unfalsifiable) and then expect natural phenomena (i.e. scientific) evidence from the opposing camp.

I think he does know, scientific or well defined daily pragmatic evidence.
Scientific as "natural phenomena" is a problematic statement, by now standard (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Naturalism-Movements-Modern-Thought/dp/1844650790). Science deals with good explanations in general regardless of their metaphysics and settings an a-priori limit to science is a dangerous game, that's where theism fails so far (http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0415997380), producing good explanation. Arguably of course.

Hayalet
07-25-2013, 01:49 PM
I think he does know, scientific or well defined daily pragmatic evidence.
No, he doesn't. When posed a question like "What would it take you to believe in a god?", he said something along the lines of "I used to think I would believe if I saw god walk down from the sky, but now I think I would assume I was hallucinating instead." I actually agree with him too. A man walking down from the sky doesn't mean he is omnipotent, omnipresent and/or omniscient. In fact, nothing means that. Those adjectives are, by definition, beyond our perceptions (hence my strong agnosticism). It is Dawkins who doesn't quite realize what logical ramifications his statement has.


Scientific as "natural phenomena" is a problematic statement, by now standard (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Naturalism-Movements-Modern-Thought/dp/1844650790). Science deals with good explanations in general regardless of their metaphysics and settings an a-priori limit to science is a dangerous game
Can you elaborate on this? I'm of course aware that anti-metaphysical 19th century positivism is now obsolete and realize philosophy and science can be continuous, but that doesn't mean they are ultimately indistinct and interchangeable.

Sblast
07-25-2013, 07:08 PM
It is Dawkins who doesn't quite realize what logical ramifications his statement has.

It's not an issue for me, he isn't Clergy whom I have his honor to protect, I take the good and leave the bad.


Can you elaborate on this? I'm of course aware that anti-metaphysical 19th century positivism is now obsolete and realize philosophy and science can be continuous, but that doesn't mean they are ultimately indistinct and interchangeable.

I apologize for the vagueness.
Both Theists and Naturalists see an historical problem with a naive /B] basing basing of naturalistic metaphysics (physicalism basically) on science given it's history, especially physics. When Newton introduced his notions of forces working from a distance it was utterly new compared to the Aristotelian common-sensical physics that claimed that in order for something to move it needs a pusher (oversimplied, I know, but the point is:) Newton's science was called [B]occult. Quantum physics is just mind bending and very different than classical physics.
So, given this history we could not advance (or change paradigms) in physics if we dogmatically hold a strong metaphysical view based on our current science. hence it is dangerous to science itself. Some philosophers have more intricate arguments and try to avoid this pit (like Alexander Rosenberg).

As far as what I mean by good explanations; I think it's great to see philosophy on TED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folTvNDL08A