Dawkins

Page 3 of 6 [ 87 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 May 2009, 12:23 pm

Gabe wrote:

What's most annoying about Dawkins is his superficial knowledge of history and the social sciences in general. As long as he stuck to biology he knew what he was talking about, but now he wants to be E. O. Wilson (Sociobiology) without Wilson's sensitivity and range of knowledge. This leads Dawkins to apply the reductionist yes/no standards of natural science to human belief and behavior, which is far more complex and nuanced, involving complex political, demographic and cultural issues that Dawkins' Manichean worldview won't accomodate. Hence the tedious litanies about Muslim fanaticism, evil Christian witchhunters/crusaders/inquisitors, etc...

Reading Dawkins (or his groupies), you would think that religion was responsible for everything bad that's happened since the invention of writing. Yet places where monothism is marginal, and religion is played out as a social force don't seem any more rational or tolerant. The Japanese pioneered suicide bombing in the first half of the 20th century, tend towards xenophobia, and are a breeding ground for some of the nuttiest cults (ranging from the murderous to the merely exploitive) in the world. So much for the superiority of atheistic societies. Atheists should simply accept that most people require supernatural belief of some kind of other; it seems to be a general part of human nature. Instead of trying to eradicate religion, fostering pro-social forms of belief (and weeding out the crazies) looks like a more promising approach.

The Japanese practiced Shinto which was a religion which fostered the extremes of self sacrifice much as the Christian and Muslim martyrs. So much for your understanding of atheism.

Gabe
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 36

25 May 2009, 12:47 pm

MattShizzle wrote:

Japan during WWII wasn't atheistic - they worshipped the Emperor as a god, in fact.

Shinto is a hodge-podge of rituals and pagan myths that were only assembled as a modernizing ideology in the mid-19th century: non-Japanese need not apply. It's been compared to Judaism but it's actually closer to classic nationalism (little theistic belief but lots of rituals, holy sites and celebrations fostering common purpose among a select group...oh look it's Memorial Day) than religion in the Western sense.

In any case, the Japanese didn't become kamikazes and commit war crimes because they believed their God-Emperor had access to supernatural powers or insight, or that they would be rewarded in some afterlife for their sacrifice. Rather because the country was in a desperate economic condition and political chaos in the 30s. Ruthless expansion across Asia looked liked the best solution to the military clique running the country, and Japan was a highly regimented peasant society where the lower classes lived miserable lives and were trained to obey their superiors (even sacrificing their lives) out of social obligation-not superstition.

ZEGH8578
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,532

25 May 2009, 1:03 pm

stop making associations

dawkins = atheism?

al gore = global warming?

bin laden = terrorism?

no.
i aggree w dawkins, but i have no fu**ing clue who he is beyond the name. what he "preaches" is pure common sense.

also
you get
ONE
preachy atheist

and the religious world goes into panic-mode :]

_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 May 2009, 1:23 pm

Gabe wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Japan during WWII wasn't atheistic - they worshipped the Emperor as a god, in fact.

You evidently have rather limited conceptions about what a religion might be. If it doesn't fit into your tight little box it doesn't qualify. A good deal of Christianity can be traced back to earlier religions and considered a hodge-podge of nonsenses. Perhaps that should disqualify it also.

Many American soldiers sacrificed themselves in battle as well, but that, of course, makes them heroes, not fanatics. War is a sh***y business for all sides.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 May 2009, 1:29 pm

Sand wrote:

Many American soldiers sacrificed themselves in battle as well, but that, of course, makes them heroes, not fanatics. War is a sh***y business for all sides.

Especially the losing side.

ruveyn

ManErg
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,090
Location: No Mans Land

25 May 2009, 1:49 pm

philosopher wrote:

Is the view of the athiest that there is nothing else than chemical and electical reactions in the brain and all on offer is the aquisition of wealth and children leading to much happiness.

If there is 'nothing else than chemical and electrical reactions in the brain..", how can even the presence or absence of wealth have any meaning or value? It doesn't.

If there is no purpose at all, why does Dawkins bother writing any books, as nothing matters anyway? Certainly not the ego of any one tiny organism in the sweep of space and time.

How can it matter if we are deluded or not? We get things wrong. So what? We always get things wrong. In 200 years, half of what we believe today will have been changed and corrected. Why care?

Say some crazy religion came along and wiped out 5 billion humans. So what? There is no purpose, no meaning, no higher life forms. It's all just a normal day in the office of meaningless biochemical interractions. How can a true atheist get bothered by what anyone else believes? If they believe you are the devil and deserve to die, well you're life has no purpose or meaning, so you might as well die today as tomorrow or any other day. Why on earth waste your one life swotting over books and pointless words?

_________________
Circular logic is correct because it is.

Last edited by ManErg on 25 May 2009, 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 May 2009, 1:58 pm

ManErg wrote:

philosopher wrote:

Is the view of the athiest that there is nothing else than chemical and electical reactions in the brain and all on offer is the aquisition of wealth and children leading to much happiness.

It matters to us individually. Just because we are living things made of the Stuff does not mean we do not care, we do not plan or we do not have goals and ends.

ruveyn

Tomasu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,193
Location: West Yorkshire, England

25 May 2009, 3:57 pm

ZEGH8578 wrote:

also
you get
ONE
preachy atheist

^^ I believe that Dawkins is not the only preachy atheist to have existed. I am also not certain that the religious world has gone into panic mode. ^^ I think he has upset a number of individuals due to the absolute nature in the he is preaching what he believe. I agree with his main beliefs concerning evolution, perhaps like yourself, yet disagree completely with the fact that he is stating that those who do not believe in what he believes are insane. ^^ I believe this creates great hypocrisy (I am very sorry if this is an incorrect spelling) since I suspect he disagrees with religious individuals in times past who held inquisitions against those such as Galileo. Those religious individuals who did not respect any individual who did hold the sames beliefs as themselves. He is no different I believe. I am sorry if I am very incorrect however.

Ichinin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,653
Location: A cold place with lots of blondes.

25 May 2009, 6:14 pm

Dawkins isnt trying to do anything. He is not an "Atheist-messiah", and he do not want to become one. He just want people to start using their heads.

What he do, or rather does NOT do, is very well explained by Tyson in this clip:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik[/youtube]

_________________
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" (Carl Sagan)

ManErg
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,090
Location: No Mans Land

25 May 2009, 6:48 pm

ruveyn wrote:

ManErg wrote:

If there is no purpose at all, why does Dawkins bother writing any books, as nothing matters anyway? Certainly not the ego of any one tiny organism in the sweep of space and time.

It matters to us individually.

Couldn't any true believer in anything use that argument? Is RD happy to allow anybody to believe what they like so long as it matters only to them as an individual? Does he believe that those who believe something different to what he believes should have their beliefs corrected to be in line with his belief?

_________________
Circular logic is correct because it is.

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

25 May 2009, 8:05 pm

ZEGH8578 wrote:

no.
i aggree w dawkins, but i have no fu**ing clue who he is beyond the name. what he "preaches" is pure common sense.

also
you get
ONE
preachy atheist

and the religious world goes into panic-mode :]

The issue with Dawkins is he's a dick. I'm sure I'm not the only non-religious person who finds his style insulting and dumbass, and many among his legions of sycophants on the internet are among the most irritating self-styled intellectuals on earth.

I used to find him and his ilk annoying, but I've reclassified them as a species of sheeple. And sheeple get no more than contempt from twoshots.

_________________
* here for the nachos.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 May 2009, 3:45 am

twoshots wrote:

ZEGH8578 wrote:

Since "sheeple" is undefined it could be "she people" which may be a gross insult to women or it could be "sheep people" which is a gross insult to sheep or it could be "shell shocked people" which is rather indeterminate.

Anyway, I find it an honor to be considered contemptible by you although the classification is probably very wide spread.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

26 May 2009, 7:31 am

Dawkins shouts loudest. He isn't the only evolutionary biologist. Many of his ideas are not that original. However I do appreciate how he has popularised the field.

I also agree with a point someone else was hinting at before. Religion itself is a product of human behaviour. Without it, we would still have the same problems.

Denying the existence of evolution doesn't stop it from happing, so if people want to deny it so be it.

@LostInEmulation

Interestingly there was a study on acupuncture using fMRI. It can help with pain relief, the other things the tested for were inconclusive, or in the case of smoking didn't work. What they found that sticking the needle in, and burn the end did nothing. It is only the twisting/rotating the needle that seemed to work, which not all practitioners do. Pain is very variable, and a deliberate sensory input. It is not inconceivable that it could have that effect. In a separate study by University College London they found that activating a heat receptor can block the pain receptor signal. So they proved on a molecular level the old wives tale of using a hot water bottle. It is interesting because in certain situations there are few other options, especially abdominal pain.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 May 2009, 8:20 am

0_equals_true wrote:

Dawkins shouts loudest. He isn't the only evolutionary biologist. Many of his ideas are not that original. However I do appreciate how he has popularised the field.

I have heard and seen Richard Dawkins several times and I never heard him shout.

ruveyn

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

26 May 2009, 8:56 am

ruveyn wrote:

I have heard and seen Richard Dawkins several times and I never heard him shout.

ruveyn

Not literally.

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

26 May 2009, 11:12 am

Sand wrote:

Undefined by who? The word is in fairly wide usage at this point, with fairly well understood definitions. If it doesn't appear in ordinary dictionaries that's just too bad for dictionary makers.

Quote:

Anyway, I find it an honor to be considered contemptible by you although the classification is probably very wide spread.

Sorry, you haven't been classified as either him or one of his sycophants just yet, so you're going to need to work harder to earn my contempt.

_________________
* here for the nachos.

Page 3 of 6 [ 87 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Dawkins Post Reply New Topic

Dawkins