Probably, I would have to see him acknowledging the results of Pape's or other similar work, before I can be convinced of his objectivity,
Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?
- Thread starter francois
- Start date
Probably, I would have to see him acknowledging the results of Pape's or other similar work, before I can be convinced of his objectivity,
What is objectively immoral behaviour?
That which harms others; or harms them at a rate greater than that at which net gain is provided to society.
So it should be measured quantitatively then? And do the people harmed have to be third world while the gains are to the white and rich?
And who "objectively" decides what constitutes harm and gain?
Of course.
...I'm sorry, I don't understand your point here. Is this related to the idea that a religion is a codified set of rules rather than being inherently 'moral'?
It should be apparent to all, really. A sociologist would be a better person to ask about social harm. Execution and murder would be starters for a poor moral system, as an example.
I don't think you need to give up on starting to criticise Dawkins's assertions and arguments, either. There's still time, even this many pages into a thread.SAM said:
One avenue of approach might be to counter an impression of objectivity, a vague one, left by the circumstance that people here have pointed to scenes in which Dawkins appears to them "tongue tied" or "arrogant" or otherwise flummoxed and outdone by theists: in Dawkins's own videos, edited by Dawkins himself .
Open letter to Richard Dawkins
Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?
With an uneasy feeling I went to the official website of Dawkins to confirm my suspicion. Oh, how much I want Dawkins to represent me as an atheist! He is so well spoken. He writes so well, although a bit pedantic. He is loved by all except lovers of Jesus, Mohamed and the assortment of various other messiahs, deities and bringers of faith.
I wish to place him on a pedestal. But I am looking at him right now.
I feel defeated. Dawkins looks worn out. He looks nothing like the man I grew up with as a biologist. Vital, strong lines, determination, eloquence.
He is worn out. Life has given him lines of wisdom, ...
or sorrow?
Is this man carrying the collective atheist guilt on his shoulders? We failed him. He failed. He lives on petty victories writing well-written books, giving thoughtful lectures, doing entertaining interviews.
The strain is there though.
There is no faith left.
Despite the advance of 'science', society regressed. Despite all the efforts of 'atheists' theists rule the world. Despite the increase in funding for science, science has become less than science. It has become industry.
The ivory tower of science has come down. Remnants of the old scientific ways are kept as exhibits of times gone by.
Dawkins is a monkey in a theist zoo.
Faith is king. Faith in prosperity and not in education. Faith in the holy cause of war on terrorism and the rest of the world, because the individual nation or person has become the center.
Books have no value. A library is not the center of civilization.
I feel for your cause because I am part of it. We fight the windmills of the 21st century. Windmills made out of plastic and circuit boards. Windmills made out of cloth and brick. We bash books against steel to no avail.
We will have to wait for the tide to turn.
Yours truly,
spuriousmonkey
Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?
With an uneasy feeling I went to the official website of Dawkins to confirm my suspicion. Oh, how much I want Dawkins to represent me as an atheist! He is so well spoken. He writes so well, although a bit pedantic. He is loved by all except lovers of Jesus, Mohamed and the assortment of various other messiahs, deities and bringers of faith.
I wish to place him on a pedestal. But I am looking at him right now.
I feel defeated. Dawkins looks worn out. He looks nothing like the man I grew up with as a biologist. Vital, strong lines, determination, eloquence.
He is worn out. Life has given him lines of wisdom, ...
or sorrow?
Is this man carrying the collective atheist guilt on his shoulders? We failed him. He failed. He lives on petty victories writing well-written books, giving thoughtful lectures, doing entertaining interviews.
The strain is there though.
There is no faith left.
Despite the advance of 'science', society regressed. Despite all the efforts of 'atheists' theists rule the world. Despite the increase in funding for science, science has become less than science. It has become industry.
The ivory tower of science has come down. Remnants of the old scientific ways are kept as exhibits of times gone by.
Dawkins is a monkey in a theist zoo.
Faith is king. Faith in prosperity and not in education. Faith in the holy cause of war on terrorism and the rest of the world, because the individual nation or person has become the center.
Books have no value. A library is not the center of civilization.
I feel for your cause because I am part of it. We fight the windmills of the 21st century. Windmills made out of plastic and circuit boards. Windmills made out of cloth and brick. We bash books against steel to no avail.
We will have to wait for the tide to turn.
Yours truly,
spuriousmonkey
Last edited:
Wow, "Pan's Labyrinth", and now this. Are you trying to give me chronic depression?
Spurious
Or the pendulum to swing back!
I've had similar thoughts for a while now and these together with worrying over global warming et al have made me feel quite exhausted and anxious. Thanks for putting them into words. However, I do have faith (ha!) that the pendulum will swing back and may even come to rest one day. In the meantime we can only resist and speak up for what we believe. Evidence, evidence, evidence....
Or the pendulum to swing back!
I've had similar thoughts for a while now and these together with worrying over global warming et al have made me feel quite exhausted and anxious. Thanks for putting them into words. However, I do have faith (ha!) that the pendulum will swing back and may even come to rest one day. In the meantime we can only resist and speak up for what we believe. Evidence, evidence, evidence....
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Don't despair, Spurious. Religion ruled the earth for almost two thousand years. Science has only been with us for about five hundred, and look at all it has accomplished. Perhaps you are an American of my generation and you were dazzled by the great intellectual revolution of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, which was fueled by the Cold War. Math majors got dates, rock and roll songs were written in 11/4 time, and religion was perfunctory everywhere except the Redneck states.
This was not typical of the Age of Science and it could not last. The Religious Redneck Retard Revolution started in the late 1970s and the pendulum has swung back, with an RRR in the White House. But science marches on as it always has. Europe is not caught up in the RRRR and most Christian countries continue their modernization into secular societies. Science has never depended on the active support of more than a tiny segment of the population.
The real threat to secular civilization today is Islam, and it is such a horrifying threat that its impact on science is hardly worth mentioning. Yes, the religion of the people who kept European learning alive during the Dark Ages of Christian supremacy. All things change.
It is worth noting that the development of Islam has been tracking fairly steadily at half a millennium behind Christianity since its inception. Many scholars see the current upheaval in the world Islamic community as the beginnings of its Reformation: a revolt against formalized religion and a return to an individual connection with scripture, including a renewed emphasis on evangelism. The Christian Reformation plunged Europe into a period of violence and destroyed the two civilizations of the New World. But it also made possible the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. And the birth of science.
This was not typical of the Age of Science and it could not last. The Religious Redneck Retard Revolution started in the late 1970s and the pendulum has swung back, with an RRR in the White House. But science marches on as it always has. Europe is not caught up in the RRRR and most Christian countries continue their modernization into secular societies. Science has never depended on the active support of more than a tiny segment of the population.
The real threat to secular civilization today is Islam, and it is such a horrifying threat that its impact on science is hardly worth mentioning. Yes, the religion of the people who kept European learning alive during the Dark Ages of Christian supremacy. All things change.
It is worth noting that the development of Islam has been tracking fairly steadily at half a millennium behind Christianity since its inception. Many scholars see the current upheaval in the world Islamic community as the beginnings of its Reformation: a revolt against formalized religion and a return to an individual connection with scripture, including a renewed emphasis on evangelism. The Christian Reformation plunged Europe into a period of violence and destroyed the two civilizations of the New World. But it also made possible the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. And the birth of science.
Which means nothing, if you look at George Bush, how people project themselves is related to how they view themselves, rather than how they think they are viewed by others.
Give up on starting to criticise Dawkins assertions? Give me a break.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Atheists can be as difficult to understand as religionists.You missed his point, but thats okay.
I agree with much of what you said, except based on Dawkins contributions, I see him adding to the mess rather than doing anything to resolve it.
Just because a man is intelligent, is no guarantee that he knows what he is doing.
Open letter to Richard Dawkins
Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?
With an uneasy feeling I went to the official website of Dawkins to confirm my suspicion. Oh, how much I want Dawkins to represent me as an atheist! He is so well spoken. He writes so well, although a bit pedantic. He is loved by all except lovers of Jesus, Mohamed and the assortment of various other messiahs, deities and bringers of faith.
I wish to place him on a pedestal. But I am looking at him right now.
I feel defeated. Dawkins looks worn out. He looks nothing like the man I grew up with as a biologist. Vital, strong lines, determination, eloquence.
He is worn out. Life has given him lines of wisdom, ...
or sorrow?
Is this man carrying the collective atheist guilt on his shoulders? We failed him. He failed. He lives on petty victories writing well-written books, giving thoughtful lectures, doing entertaining interviews.
The strain is there though.
There is no faith left.
Despite the advance of 'science', society regressed. Despite all the efforts of 'atheists' theists rule the world. Despite the increase in funding for science, science has become less than science. It has become industry.
The ivory tower of science has come down. Remnants of the old scientific ways are kept as exhibits of times gone by.
Dawkins is a monkey in a theist zoo.
Faith is king. Faith in prosperity and not in education. Faith in the holy cause of war on terrorism and the rest of the world, because the individual nation or person has become the center.
Books have no value. A library is not the center of civilization.
I feel for your cause because I am part of it. We fight the windmills of the 21st century. Windmills made out of plastic and circuit boards. Windmills made out of cloth and brick. We bash books against steel to no avail.
We will have to wait for the tide to turn.
Yours truly,
spuriousmonkey
That is too funny.
Is that what it is about? i don't think so.
Did he say weather he is still an Atheist?Open Letter to S.A.M.
Indeed, it doesn't matter what he is doing or how intelligent he is.
Yours truly,
spuriousmonkey
No actually, what it is, is very sad.
Everything is sold to the highest bidder. No one cares what the winner is going to do with it.
We've become far too materialistic.
Even the dawkins 'controversy' is materialistic or sold to the highest bidding media whore/creationist agenda. A comment made by fraggle reminded me of how empty the controversy is. He said he never heard of the fellow.
I have of course.
He was a nice popular science writer from way back. Not controversial at all, except with fellow researchers who despised him (read: were jealous) because he wrote a nice book. Books are not as important in science as good publications because of the way the system works. Books do get more media attention of course. That rubs some people in the wrong way.
I digress.
He was a nice popular science writer from way back. No controversy other than some scientific jealousy.
He wrote a book that the average biology/science student might read out of interest.
That we did.
And then he became deeply involved in the media war of creationists on science. Or more accurately, he always was, but now the debate has become in line with an important development in our society.
And now people make topics on him on sciforums: the last step of the death of intellectual and scientific thought that pervades our society.
He has become part of the creationist train. A train he cannot stop because it is part of a much larger train: the de-intellectualized society.
Where stupid is preferred over smart (see for instance the local classic example of Roman pretending not to be an intellectual, and occasionally slipping up).
Where health magazines are preferred over literature.
Where creationism is sexy.
Where people put money in sex abstinence programs despite science show that they have no effect whatsoever instead of sex education.
it is a sign of the times.
And no, Islam is not threatening secular society in the future. It already happened without Islam.
I have of course.
He was a nice popular science writer from way back. Not controversial at all, except with fellow researchers who despised him (read: were jealous) because he wrote a nice book. Books are not as important in science as good publications because of the way the system works. Books do get more media attention of course. That rubs some people in the wrong way.
I digress.
He was a nice popular science writer from way back. No controversy other than some scientific jealousy.
He wrote a book that the average biology/science student might read out of interest.
That we did.
And then he became deeply involved in the media war of creationists on science. Or more accurately, he always was, but now the debate has become in line with an important development in our society.
And now people make topics on him on sciforums: the last step of the death of intellectual and scientific thought that pervades our society.
He has become part of the creationist train. A train he cannot stop because it is part of a much larger train: the de-intellectualized society.
Where stupid is preferred over smart (see for instance the local classic example of Roman pretending not to be an intellectual, and occasionally slipping up).
Where health magazines are preferred over literature.
Where creationism is sexy.
Where people put money in sex abstinence programs despite science show that they have no effect whatsoever instead of sex education.
it is a sign of the times.
And no, Islam is not threatening secular society in the future. It already happened without Islam.
But isn't it hard to ignore a famous and famously articulate fellow who says that creationist/spiritualists actually almost anyone pertaining to a group ending with an 'ist' is baloney? He asks a few simple questions and points out a few obvious anomalies; the equivalent of holding up a 'mirror' and showing us what idiots we are for listening to those who would have us mooching around in sackcloth waiting to be 'saved' or appealing to the dead for guidance. It is no coincidence that the ists are pouring money into 'museums' or generating terror. They see their grip on the world slipping. They cannot perpetuate their views without resorting to indoctrination. When that doesn't work they resort to using force.
And materialism like anything worshipped will go the way of the gods. Neither are sustainable under scrutiny.
And materialism like anything worshipped will go the way of the gods. Neither are sustainable under scrutiny.
Do you think that is an answer? Materialism. I just hear a lot of talking and nothing getting done. I think we all want to make the rules but we dont want to follow them.
There are no easy answers,
What is wrong with materialism? Aside from our families we live for our toys, they replace our deficiencies\inadequacies that we know exist, and they always will. We are not different, we are all the same, same needs. Belief? It's just whatever we are willing to accept. To us this is reality, but what good is that?
The problem is we (as a civilization) are not on the same page, we play by different rules and deny what being human is about. Self-loathing? The things we hate the most are what we see inside ourselves, the compromising, the limitations.
Last edited: