Dawkins

Post Reply New Topic

I think all this anger against Dawkins is rather misplaced. Before I read his book I had the impression from all the commotion that he was forceful and arrogant in his views. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find the book full of logical arguments, rather than pure vitriol. There are some aspects of his arguments that I disagree with in a minor way, and he does seem to lack understanding that many people need some type of religion in their life, particularly if they have endured suffering, but he does not preach intolerance towards religion at all. All he wants is for people to think for themselves more critically (and children to be taught to do so) to decide for themselves what to believe, and for the country to be run on a secular basis, rather than biased towards the religious. I don't see any possible objection to this - apart from of course by the religious establishments themselves who stand to lose out.

I think Dawkins fills an important role - as he says, atheists generally lack any sort of coherent grouping, unlike organised religion, which means the needs/rights of atheists compared to powerful religious groups is not recognised. Putting adverts on buses saying 'There is probably no God' is no different from the 'Jesus lives' and similar slogans, seen all the time outside churches and in other places. Dawkins is no crusader, but he is giving people who have not seriously considered things from a non-religious perspective, and believed automatically, due to upbringing and convention, a chance to rethink things that they might have never otherwise done.

Superior dictionaries do have it.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sheeple

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 26 May 2009, 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I wonder whether he believes in love, beauty, truth, justice, freedom etc.

I'd be interested to know if he understands that they have no objective existence either, just like god, and that if he does believe in them he has gods too, ( I think the greeks had names for them like Aphrodite, Apollo, Athena, Zeus, etc ! !! ).

I suspect his god is "truth".

.

If they had no objective existence nobody would be able to claim a condition existed that demonstrated them. The important question is where they derive their standards.

See you and him are not remotely on the same wavelength. He would view love as 'emotive' brain activity plus some chemical and other form of communication working in conjunction with the peripheral and 'sympathetic' nervous system (such sensation such as butterflies in the stomach, etc) and a means to an end. beauty, justice, freedom and partially love he would view as human constructs and ideals. they are also shared ideals or 'memes' . Truth he would view that as natural laws.

What he certainly wouldn't do is view them as god. He would point out there is no reason to do that. He might argue that people like Greeks did is require these gods as they simply couldn't explain everything about those concepts, so that mystery made them personify them. In away the pursuit of god, it a bit like a mirror. It reflects back to humans quite a lot (even with animal gods). That is because we are aware of ourselves and are self-centred. So it makes sense that we personify things. Even people who keep pets have difficulty not attributing theme with human characteristics in their minds. E.g. cats and Aspergers

Truth is different from the other concept you mentioned, because all of those other are not fully understood and/or subjective. Whereas truth is not lacking truth, otherwise it wouldn't be truth.

Can an atheist believe that there is no god but life does have a meaning or purpose? I'm not sure the two are interchangeable. If RD truly believes there is no meaning to life, then I suggest he practice what he preaches and burns all his pointless books after giving away all the money he's earned from them. This would be a grand gesture for a man who had the courage of his convictions, rather than hedging his bets, just in case.

Is being an atheist the same as saying all existence is pointless?

Couldn't an omnipotent being be the end result of infinite evolution?

I can't stand him. He insults Christians like me and calls us mean names.
He is an arrogant, foolish, bully and Jerk.

These videos would describe someone like him well

Atheists Who Mock God vs. God's View Of Things
Part 1
http://connect.tangle.com/view_video...1cda0adc46c346

Part 2
http://connect.tangle.com/view_video...0e1247d3e3fc57


Glenn Rebenstorf's videos are really well done and said.

Atheism doesn't necessarily lead to nihilism. Secular humanism, for example, which according to Wikipedia, Dawkins subscribes to, values reason and humanity. It is much harder to justify meaning without religion, though.

(Also note that nihilists could never fully act on their beliefs. It's a bit funny.)

You're saying that he does believe in "love". Actually I think this is what you believe in.


If you believe that something has objective existence then you don't "have" to think of your belief in it as being like belief in a "god".


You believe that truth, beauty, love, justice, freedom, etc have objective existence?


What shelf-life do you expect something to have to qualify as truth? How many people have to agree on it at the same time?

.

This is true. I would generally count myself more as a nihilist rather than a secular humanist, although as I am aware that other people do ascribe meaning to life even if I don't, and I have no desire to pull anyone else down to my level, my actions are more humanistic than my intellectual beliefs would proscribe - in fact I would say I am more altruistic now than I used to be when I did think life had meaning, because my own life is relatively unimportant. Saying that, I do get pleasure from some things and would resist them being taken away. I also have a strong sense of morality, although I am aware that this is something evolved and is not derived from absolutes - still I am stuck with it. I guess I am somewhere between the two - intellectually a nihilist, but more of a humanist in the way I feel and act. Which is probably just as well.

From other words/parts of language.

.

I would I agree with you on that. I think he takes atheism and turns it inot a religion. I also think much of what he says is athiesm is acutlaly anti religionism. I say this since I have tlaked to atheists that have no problems with believing their is a god to them the evidence just says there is most likely not a god. Never really into the whole 3 monotheistic religion things (christianity, Judaism, Islam)

Yes, maybe because whatever 'meaning' you choose to ascribe, appears 'religious' to those who don't hold that meaning.


Their soul doesn't agree with what their mouth is saying...

Technically yes. All Atheism is, is a disbelief in Gods or higher powers of the sort. If you really wanted to, you could believe that the Earth is alive and that created you for some reason. Although few Atheists would believe such a thing obviously. I don't really see the need though for a meaning or purpose, but if it's that important to you, make one up.


No, it's just the truth merely, there are no Gods. And as I stated above you can still add 'point' to your life if you so feel the need. Although honestly I recommend you stop thinking you're the most important thing in the universe because you're not.


I doubt it but I wouldn't rule it out. But if one did, that obviously does not make it the creator of the universe either.

I expect he believes something that he uses the word truth to describe. No idea about the rest.


I believe things exist that I use those words to describe, although I see nothing of deities in it.


I expect so. I do not believe in the existence of any God or deity or concept of such as they have been described to me, but to my perception, self-awareness is innately meaningful.

No. I never said existence was pointless before I heard anything about any deities, nor do I do so now.

I do not believe so.

i dont get it though...all this talk about "Wants you to think for yourself" "Wants you to find the answers" etc. what if you do that and still find yourself to religion? i doubt the criticism would end.



anyways, the only redeeming quality of dawkins is that he doesnt have a neckbeard.