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

Accountability requires that someone not only cares enough to find out, but also has the power to effect a change. Putting yourself in a position of unquestioned power by "framing" what other people think, makes the system of accountability redundant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And what is the way to change people? If geology, cosmology, biology, chemistry, physics and yes philosophy ... is not enough? Once the earth was thought to be flat. The evidence proves otherwise. Once the earth was thought to be the centre of the universe. The evidence proves otherwise. But sometimes evidence is not enough. And that's where rhetoric comes in. Pointing fingers, calling people silly buggers. This actually works for some people! It's the silly buggers who need it the rest can read the books.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps to them, you come off looking like a silly bugger.

So what does that achieve?

Ignoring the evidence is hardly a way to indicate your superior thinking ability.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Self confessed silly bugger.
There are many ways to get rid of a fly. A lightweight tool specifically designed for the job perhaps, a rolled up newspaper may be effective, a hammer definately so. Some might try opening a window.
Ignoring evidence certainly does not indicate superior thinking ability. Therfore....if you possessed superior thinking ability... and you ignore evidence you might predict that people might use other methods of persuasion.

 

I am glad you asked.

As I said earlier the non-moral approach is the only good one since it allows for self-development. The selfish gene was therefore a good educational book. It allowed for the development of the individuals intellect without requiring to slide into a moral corner.

The greatest scientific educator currently alive is of course not Dawkins by far. Dawkins wasn't the man who enthused me for nature.

This man was David Attenborough.

He warmed the hearts of millions of people for nature and sometimes eventually for science.

David showed nature as it is without a moral verdict. Although recently some morality has crept into his work, the need to preserve our natural heritage, it has remained to a minimum. And after all anyone can share in this kind of moral view: creationist and scientist alike.

Tell a creationist his views are bollocks and he is delusional and you will receive only one reaction; a defensive one. After all, the views of creationists have the identical effect on scientists like Dawkins. Do you really expect that the righteousness gives you an edge in an ideological argument? It does not. Opposite parties are both righteous.

Show the marvels of nature and explain how it works and one day the quarter might drop. And we should concentrate on the young. They should be the target for education. Show them nature. Explain them nature. Educate them about nature.


rhetoric is pedantic. We do not want to brainwash people. We want people who think for themselves. You do not fight terrorism with terrorism. You do not fight rhetoric with rhetoric.

At least, I have no interest to join the dark side.

 

Ah but spurious those who are on the 'dark side' get the message about children and are busily indoctrinating away...no questioning, no wonder, just blind faith and false evidence. Dawkins has pointed this out, yes using strong language sometimes, because those who speak softly are being drowned out.

School teachers have been enthusing children to the wonders of nature indeed science generally. For years the mighty David Attenbrough has been educating people as have the Durrell family and more recently Nick Baker, Michaela Strachen et al (UK TV nature presenters).

As I have said even in the face of evidence people hear what they want to hear. The earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days or whatever. Even if we could take everyone to the seaside and show them layers of rock and carbon date samples before their very eyes...trawl them all through the fossils in all the museums in all the world. In the end if people refuse to believe the evidence (unless they have convincing counter evidence of course) then some people might resort to pointing and calling them silly buggers.

 

Dawkins has done much more of the former than the latter. Just want that on record.

 

You think he overlooks education?

 

You know very well what I mean.

 

*Shrug*
I thought there was a Sunni/Shia divide between the two countries. Apparently I'm wrong.
I still could really care less -- see my remark about the British.

As I said, this is only proving my point.

I'm not sure who you're referring to here. You seem to want to turn this into a referendum on U.S policy post 9/11, and to be unaware that I am not a supporter of many of those acts.

I'm pretty sure that flesh wouldn't burn the way wood does, SAM. :bugeye:
In fact, flesh burns at a higher temperature.

What the frack does this have to do with imperialism and religion?
The CIA propped up various fascists in South America during the 70s and 80s, next are we going to talk about them? We funded the fucking Taliban because we wanted to use them against the Soviets, what does that have to do with atheism or religion?

It's cool to kill sexual minorities because contemporary Western culture rides the failboat?

 

And, as Dawkins points out, theistic religion cleverly employed does exactly that.

It's a very handy frame to have established, because it does not have to make sense. The removal of the constraints of reason benefits power very much.

 

I'd say the absoulte ennui of the secular countries towards the cost of their lifestyles would indicate otherwise.

 

<< And what is the way to change people? >>

Ah thats a good question. Certainly not through atheism..the road to nowhere. Rene Geunon tells us that Spiritually the World tends to get worse not better through time...I'm afraid there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

There was an interesting programme about Art and about how the discovery of perspective was supposed to change Art forever by bringing some scientific method into proceedings. Instead it merely stemmed creativity and the purity of simplicity and there was of course a return to source.

To put limits and measurements on creativity is to stem its flow and the hoopla over 'perspective' proved to be a passing fad. I'd suggest that Dawkins fall into the same cetegory..if lucky a curious footnote in history.

 

Supposition.

Oh well, another "appeal to authority"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Arrant nonsense - maybe you mean geometrical perspective, there were many types of perspective already in use.

Again, pure poppycock.
What it did was add another string to the bow of art.

Which, of course, is why it is never used anymore

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Rubbish.

You suggest many things.
Few of them have any merit whatsoever.

 

I didn't reply to you, you strange little man. And there isn't enough acid in the world to make me able to understand your poorly worded, badly spelled, incoherent and illogical drivel.

Well that's obvious, Bush II is known for his hatred of Christianity.

 

How is asking for evidence aiding al-Qaeda?

Yeah, in absence of wood, burn flesh.

Systematic elimination of all liberal groups tends to concentrate power in the hands of the survivors. And the survivors of torture frequently adopt the methods of their torturers.

See previous.

 

bonus round

"I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent. We would also dismiss it as barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity which has dulled our objectivity"

from the God Delusion

 

Atonement is sado-masochistic? What does he advocate? Indifference?

 

Umm, what are you talking about?

Flesh isn't that flammable. You actually need a large quantity of wood to fully burn flesh, so your idea of people roasting marshmellows on burning bodies, while very cool, would not be efficient.

That's....really sad. But you still haven't explained the relevence. I mean, can we stipulate that America is evil and move back to discussiong the matter at hand?

What does that have to do with his post?!

 

You claimed to have read the book, you should know the answer.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!