Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Basically the documentary consisted of him mocking believers and calling them stupid for two straight hours. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to assume that I agree with him. I don't think believers are stupid...just...maybe a little misguided.
I agree Dawkins' style is way too abrasive and his arrogance is second to none . I saw the documentary too and found it quite off-putting. He needs to soften a bit and realise that his stance is just as fanatical as the believers he so decries.
It's a real shame because he truly is a wonderful scientist and his intellect is of the first order but he has this bee in his bonnet about religion and seems to lose all sense of perspective on the issue.
I suspect he has had the same effect on many people though so maybe he will come to realise his behaviour has the opposite effect than the required one !
It's not likely to be successful to get people to discard their religion-based myths without replacing them with another myth of similar scope and import. A person is not likely to give up belief in the traditional conception of God without already having in mind some other conceptual framework to understand reality/time/history/existence. The atheist popularizers might believe that, in America, a basic secondary-level exposure to scientific knowledge acts as that replacement framework, but they are mistaken.
There is a woman in the Dallas forum who refuses to shop at any grocery store that sells alcohol, all in the name of religion.
Tell me thats not fanatical !
Tell me thats NOT forcing your own belief system on others !
Umm, is she just refusing to shop there or is she trying to force the stores to stop selling alcohol? I fail to see how her refusing to shop at a store that sells alcohol is equal to her forcing her beliefs on others? Please explain this to me.
Once a person accepts the notion of supernatural revelation in general, one can believe almost anything that's anti-reason and anti-intellectual. That can be difficult to accept for some folks who've spent a lot of time, effort, and personal emotion in earning a high level of education.
It is frustrating to be regularly faced with the simple fact that most human beings are too lazy to think, too selfish to go out of their way for their fellow man, too uneducated to trust reason versus positive thinking-style mumbo-jumbo, which is most religous teaching is.
Once a person accepts te notion that there is only matter, and that's that, one can believe almost anything that's anti-reason and anti-intelectual. It's frustrating And "education" is not not issue here (or at least what we currently call "education"). Alas! There is no argument that supports atheism. Or at least, the support is too thin to be useful.
I don't know a single atheist who looks up to Christopher Hitchens. He's an arrogant blowhard.
Most atheists just want to be left alone and be free from undue religious interference, whether it comes from the government or from people knocking on their door trying to convert them.
I think this is a strong psychological motive for people to become, or remain, atheist: not wanting to be told what to do. And a god is someone who tells you what to do
Quote:
Originally Posted by nativeDallasite
Believers make WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much of the "atheist viewpoint" and "atheist philosophy." The only thing all atheists have in common is they do not believe in god. Everything else is all over the map.
I don't think I agree with this. True, "atheism" strictly defined doesn't include any reference to a common set of commitments. But certainly, implied by the definition, there is the common commitment to explain the world in naturalistic terms--so some form of naturalism is the common ground. Obviously not every atheist wants to take up the defense of naturalism (however they construe it). But many realize there is a burden to defend this view, since if naturalism is inadequate as an explanation, then we might end up right back with theism
I don't think I agree with this. True, "atheism" strictly defined doesn't include any reference to a common set of commitments. But certainly, implied by the definition, there is the common commitment to explain the world in naturalistic terms--so some form of naturalism is the common ground. Obviously not every atheist wants to take up the defense of naturalism (however they construe it). But many realize there is a burden to defend this view, since if naturalism is inadequate as an explanation, then we might end up right back with theism
The way I read your point was that "waaaaaaaaay too much" is made of "atheist philosophy" all being the same, and that in fact it is very different for each atheist. The only common denominator is the denial of, or lack of belief in, a god. Right?
But I guess I don't think too much is made of the shared commitment atheists have to naturalism. Reasons for atheism might be different in each case (as with reasons why people are theists will diverge), and yet a commitment to a paticular metaphysical position is, I think, common to all atheists.
The way I read your point was that "waaaaaaaaay too much" is made of "atheist philosophy" all being the same, and that in fact it is very different for each atheist. The only common denominator is the denial of, or lack of belief in, a god. Right?
But I guess I don't think too much is made of the shared commitment atheists have to naturalism. Reasons for atheism might be different in each case (as with reasons why people are theists will diverge), and yet a commitment to a paticular metaphysical position is, I think, common to all atheists.
Where do you think I'm wrong?
The only thing I can say is this: No naturalistic explanation at all does not demand a supernatural explanation.
Just because we don't know the answer to something, anything, or everything, does not mean that God did it.
The only thing I can say is this: No naturalistic explanation at all does not demand a supernatural explanation.
Just because we don't know the answer to something, anything, or everything, does not mean that God did it.
I completely agree. And the same goes for naturalistic explanations--just because we don't know the answer to something, doesn't mean that the correct explanation is naturalistic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And "education" is not not issue here (or at least what we currently call "education"). Alas! There is no argument that supports atheism. Or at least, the support is too thin to be useful.
