Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?

Oh god.

Alright, this has all gone far enough. Dawkinians (or whatever one might call us) are happy enough with Dawkins' representation, except for spurious, who seems to have been gripped by some kind of fatal figurehead ennui...

Anyway. Dawkins is crass, and brass, and an ass, but he's happy enough to be a beligerent prick without ever needing to punish anyone or hack anyone's head off. And that's good enough for me.
 
GeoffP said:
Oh god.

Alright, this has all gone far enough. Dawkinians (or whatever one might call us) are happy enough with Dawkins' representation, except for spurious, who seems to have been gripped by some kind of fatal figurehead ennui...

Anyway. Dawkins is crass, and brass, and an ass, but he's happy enough to be a beligerent prick without ever needing to punish anyone or hack anyone's head off. And that's good enough for me.
Click to expand...

lmao, "Dawkinians"? That sounds like a religion in disguise to me. Muslims follow Muhammad's teachings, Christians follow Jesus' teachings, and atheists follow Dawkins' teachings (based off your pleasure with his representation). I guess we're not so different at all.
 
Kadark said:
lmao, "Dawkinians"? That sounds like a religion in disguise to me. Muslims follow Muhammad's teachings, Christians follow Jesus' teachings, and atheists follow Dawkins' teachings (based off your pleasure with his representation). I guess we're not so different at all.
Click to expand...

You may choose to follow that line of one-dimensional thinking, but remember the latter does not deal in fantasies. So, it's VERY different.
 
(Q) said:
You may choose to follow that line of one-dimensional thinking, but remember the latter does not deal in fantasies. So, it's VERY different.
Click to expand...
Leaving aside the rather obvious descent into circular argument, at issue is the extent to which both theism and atheism prove capable of generating self-serving and often bigoted dogmatism.
 
Leaving aside the rather obvious descent into circular argument, at issue is the extent to which both theism and atheism prove capable of generating self-serving and often bigoted dogmatism.
Click to expand...
Nah - there's general agreement on that. No issue.

The issue is more what exactly "self-serving" means in that context. And where "dogmatism" parts company from "insistence on reality".

Atonement differes from repentence, btw, if that's where the apparent confusion lies - the masochism allegation has an obvious source in the practices of atonement.
 
Kadark said:
lmao, "Dawkinians"? That sounds like a religion in disguise to me. Muslims follow Muhammad's teachings, Christians follow Jesus' teachings, and atheists follow Dawkins' teachings (based off your pleasure with his representation). I guess we're not so different at all.
Click to expand...

No, you misunderstand: we couldn't be more different. Atheism is not a religion, but the absence thereof. It's curious that you seem to want to drag naturalistic atheism down to "your level". What level is your belief system at, and why?
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Did you interview all Dawkinians?
Click to expand...

No; just some proportion of Hamiltonians, on an observed binary scale, at typical a priori thresholds. Then I ate their livers. Dawkins is beholden to Hamilton anyway, and the public eye of Hamiltonianism to Dawkins. Like jam and bread.
 
Jayhawker Soule said:
Leaving aside the rather obvious descent into circular argument, at issue is the extent to which both theism and atheism prove capable of generating self-serving and often bigoted dogmatism.
Click to expand...

Not precisely. If your argument is that people are often self-righteous pricks, you're really not going to find much objection. People ARE often self-righteous pricks, regardless of religious affiliation.

Dawkins pisses people off because he's not following the script that atheists are supposed to adhere to. He isn't miserable, he isn't apologetic, he isn't humble and he isn't content to bleat about how he just wants to maintain his right to free speech. He's an asshole, and atheists, being a minority and one not well liked, are not supposed to be assholes.
 
GeoffP said:
No; just some proportion of Hamiltonians, on an observed binary scale, at typical a priori thresholds. Then I ate their livers. Dawkins is beholden to Hamilton anyway, and the public eye of Hamiltonianism to Dawkins. Like jam and bread.
Click to expand...

As a peer reviewer I seriously have to reject your previous post anyway despite this lovely comment you made here on the basis that you mislabeled 'spurious' (which should be Spuriousmonkey sapiens in italics btw) as being a Dawkinian. Personal communication with this specimen confirmed the notion that he is in fact not a Dawkinian.

Therefore we urge you to resubmit your post and suggest major revisions.
 
Xev said:
Dawkins pisses people off because he's not following the script that atheists are supposed to adhere to. He isn't miserable, he isn't apologetic, he isn't humble and he isn't content to bleat about how he just wants to maintain his right to free speech. He's an asshole, and atheists, being a minority and one not well liked, are not supposed to be assholes.
Click to expand...
Hey, I'm an atheist and I've had the good fortune to spend much of my life in the company of atheists, starting with parents who never even told me that religion existed. None are humble or apologetic. Many are miserable but that's true of the general population these days. Isn't that why people turn to religion, because a faith that is based on archetypal instincts rather than observed reality and reason feels so good? And many are evangelists who confront religionists, since Jung's archetype-based explanation for the phenomenon of religion is not well-known in a world that still clings to Freudianism. Most people are not highly rational and are not going to be easily argued out of an instinctive belief system that makes them feel good by shrill, angry logic. Any more than they can be argued out of a drug addiction that makes them feel good. (Marx didn't know how right he was to call religion an opiate.)

However, I do believe in free speech and that applies to everyone, not just me. I also, sadly, believe in its corollary, freedom of religion. The human race needs to be educated out of their superstitions, but they must not be persecuted out of them. Persecution leads to war, which causes more damage to civilization than even religion.

Astrologers understand archetypes too and they tell us that the Age of Pisces (roughly the last two millennia) was the age of religion and the Age of Aquarius will be the age of science. I hope they just happen to be right.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
As a peer reviewer I seriously have to reject your previous post anyway despite this lovely comment you made here on the basis that you mislabeled 'spurious' (which should be Spuriousmonkey sapiens in italics btw) as being a Dawkinian. Personal communication with this specimen confirmed the notion that he is in fact not a Dawkinian.

Therefore we urge you to resubmit your post and suggest major revisions.
Click to expand...

Dear reviewer,

The author would like to thank the reviewer for his review of post #1008 "Why evolutionists are Dawkinian bastards". I have taken the time to review all comments by the reviewer; however, I must reject them on priniciple, since most evolutionary scientists agree in whole or in majority with Hamiltonian ESS theory and, thereby, with Dawkins' reiteration of same, although not, perhaps, his forthrightness in his discussion of theism. Spurious' rejection is tantamount to scientific heresy.

We rest our laurels on the support of the editorial office.

:p
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Please people, this is a seance forum!

Geoffp is a Ananas comosus, and Xev is the Odobenus rosmarus!
Click to expand...

Anus cosmonautus?? Are you calling me some kind of ass-tronaut? I've never even been to uranus. Or space!

Odobendoverus rosebudwhatnowus?

You're demented. Seek help.
 
Last edited:
GeoffP said:
Oh god.

Alright, this has all gone far enough. Dawkinians (or whatever one might call us) are happy enough with Dawkins' representation, except for spurious, who seems to have been gripped by some kind of fatal figurehead ennui...

Anyway. Dawkins is crass, and brass, and an ass, but he's happy enough to be a beligerent prick without ever needing to punish anyone or hack anyone's head off. And that's good enough for me.
Click to expand...

That sums it up.

Can we move on now...he's irritating enough in real life without him infecting threads here.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
Hey, I'm an atheist and I've had the good fortune to spend much of my life in the company of atheists, starting with parents who never even told me that religion existed. None are humble or apologetic. Many are miserable but that's true of the general population these days. Isn't that why people turn to religion, because a faith that is based on archetypal instincts rather than observed reality and reason feels so good? And many are evangelists who confront religionists, since Jung's archetype-based explanation for the phenomenon of religion is not well-known in a world that still clings to Freudianism. Most people are not highly rational and are not going to be easily argued out of an instinctive belief system that makes them feel good by shrill, angry logic. Any more than they can be argued out of a drug addiction that makes them feel good. (Marx didn't know how right he was to call religion an opiate.)

However, I do believe in free speech and that applies to everyone, not just me. I also, sadly, believe in its corollary, freedom of religion. The human race needs to be educated out of their superstitions, but they must not be persecuted out of them. Persecution leads to war, which causes more damage to civilization than even religion.

Astrologers understand archetypes too and they tell us that the Age of Pisces (roughly the last two millennia) was the age of religion and the Age of Aquarius will be the age of science. I hope they just happen to be right.
Click to expand...

It was going so well until you ventured into unknown realms.

The Age of Aquarius implys the expectation of an imminent breakdown of society through war and catastrophe which is followed by new dawning of peace and relative world harmony. Not in a preordained pattern but by forcing humanity to realise its full potential.

The whole point being that it has to be an effort of 'free will' rather than 'fate' and it has to come from the Individual first. All Societal change must by definition come from the Individual first, personal change must precede collective change. In other words far from being predetermined its is entirely dependent on personal free will.



There is no point in Americans attempting to profer goodwill and generousity when a large proportion of them voted for George Bush..not once, but twice. Just as there is no point in the poorer nations thinking they can retaliate by sheer terrorism. Therefore if we take the age old Apocayptic view there has to be a major catastrophe before any real evolution of peace and human goodwill between nations emerges.

Hopefully this Apocalyptic world view is merely a historical artefact..although with the emergence recently - in Earth time - of the destruction of the Environment, Nuclear Holocaust and increasing war, stratifications between rich and poor...well maybe the ancient view is the correct one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top