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

[S.A.M.]

SAM:



There is always accountability. Accountability to other human beings is what counts - not accountability to a big man in the sky who may or may not exist and who will only hold you to account after you die.

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.

 

[sniffy]

Whether anyone agrees with him or not is besides the point. Dawkins has put himself in a position that will not allow him to create an educational environment that lets people educate themselves. He is guiding them with morals. He is guiding people by raising a finger and telling them that they are silly buggers. They might be, but it is not the way to change people.

He has become a priest for science, but he is not serving 'science' or 'society'.

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

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.

 

[sniffy]

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.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

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.

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.

 

[sniffy]

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.

 

[sniffy]

Yeah, we should overlook education and focus on removing "delusion" by spouting righteous rhetoric.

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

 

[S.A.M.]

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

You think he overlooks education?

 

[sniffy]

You know very well what I mean.

 

[Xev]

All of them were one nation under the Ottomans for 600 years; whats changed now?

*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.

Think; its the secular Tamils attacking Indians for not allowing them their own state in Sri Lanka.

As I said, this is only proving my point.

who asked for evidence of al Qaeda involvement over and over as a condition of handing them over for extradition? Was that wrong of them?

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.

And throwing chopped off heads to use as firewood; nothing to do with 8 years of famine, competition for scarce land and resources and the fruits of post colonial divide and rule, of course.

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

onder where those guys were during the democratically elected regime of 1952, wonder why they instituted an extremist government in 1979, hmm, after 25 years of having the liberal parties selectively tortured and eliminated. Nah, no connection at all.

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?

Yeah, those weirdos, after seeing the excellent example of Western society and values for the last 60 years.

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

 

[iceaura]

Putting yourself in a position of unquestioned power by "framing" what other people think, makes the system of accountability redundant.

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[Atom]

<< 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.

 

[Oli]

Certainly not through atheism..the road to nowhere.

Supposition.

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.

Oh well, another "appeal to authority"

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.

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

Instead it merely stemmed creativity and the purity of simplicity and there was of course a return to source.

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

and the hoopla over 'perspective' proved to be a passing fad.

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

I'd suggest that Dawkins fall into the same cetegory..if lucky a curious footnote in history.

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

 

[Xev]

I like to stalk you, Duckie

Perhaps you could try answering the post rather than whinge about a percieved feeling of persecution. I simply reply to who replies to me...I don't know you from Adam.

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.

Still no news on the Atheist Hitchens..a man so barkingly Atheistic that he sqiftly changed sides from being a Trotskyite (ah always the extremist!) to one of George Bush's greatest admirers.

Why?

Because he hates Religion.

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

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

How is asking for evidence aiding al-Qaeda?

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

Yeah, in absence of wood, burn flesh.

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?

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.

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

See previous.

 

[Xev]

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

 

[S.A.M.]

"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?

 

[Xev]

Originally Posted by Xev
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.

How is asking for evidence aiding al-Qaeda?

Umm, what are you talking about?

Yeah, in absence of wood, burn flesh.

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by iceaura
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.

What does that have to do with his post?!

 

[Xev]

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

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