Kevin's Watch

While attending the University of Kentucky, I saw a study carrel where a student had scrawled "Trust Jesus" and below it another student added "and he will help you vandalize". Good Stuff.

Dawkins did state in the book (intro, I believe) that he was writing it for people who were already leaning towards atheism, and needed someone to show them that it's okay, that it's a respectable, defensible position. He told a story of a lady who wrote him a letter, thanking him for his pro-atheism work. She told him that she didn't know it was okay to be an atheist, when she was growing up. So Dawkins was writing the book for people like her, people oppressed by their parents' worldview.

His shrill tone is something that I identify with. His personality suits my own. I understand the passion that produces it. And I find it inspiring.

A truly defensible position is one that understands the best arguments of its opponents, not merely an ability to spout off the worst.

Malik23 wrote:His shrill tone is something that I identify with. His personality suits my own. I understand the passion that produces it. And I find it inspiring.

That's how I feel. I think it's great there's this growing trend to release books like Dawkins' openly stating atheistic beliefs. There is no belligerent motive against Christians, Muslims, etc - it's simply encouraging over views.

I kind of said it before, but I agree - it is an important question, and the worst thing you can do is treat it as unimportant - but that's exactly what political correctness - the practical application of pluralism - demands in our society today. So I do appreciate anyone taking a stand and insisting that there is truth and that not everyone who happens to hold an opinion can all be right.

Like I said, the theme of Chesterton's "The Ball and the Cross" - the atheist and the Christian find that they have more in common than with the rest of the world, which doesn't want to think about truth and take a stand where it is found.
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/ball_and_cross.txt

SoulBiter wrote:

The Dreaming wrote: It wasn't the JEWS who killed Jesus, it was the Pharisees.

The Pharisees were Jews. They were the religious leaders of the time among the Jewish people.

The Dreaming wrote: People who make a point of carrying a bible with them everywhere and reading it in front of other people, for example.

They carry the word of God with them and actually read it in front of others and thats a bad thing? Sounds to me like they are following the word they are given where we are told to not 'hide it under a bushel'. Should they instead be ashamed of their Christianity and hide it from all others so as not to offend anyone?

Yeah, but every damn character in the story was a Jew. It's a horrible and destructive half-lie to say that the Jews killed Jesus. It was a powerful faction among the Jewish people. It's like saying that the damn Indians killed Ghandi.

Let's forget the fact that Christianity and Judaism were the exact same religion for 150 years..., that every author of every page of the bible was a Jew... And let's all decide to hate Jews for sins that represent the sins of ourselves. Anti-Semitism is horribly, horrifically stupid. An Anti-Semitic christian is a moron who isn't worth an ounce of my, or anyone's attention.

The Dreaming wrote:

SoulBiter wrote:

The Dreaming wrote: It wasn't the JEWS who killed Jesus, it was the Pharisees.

The Pharisees were Jews. They were the religious leaders of the time among the Jewish people.

The Dreaming wrote: People who make a point of carrying a bible with them everywhere and reading it in front of other people, for example.

They carry the word of God with them and actually read it in front of others and thats a bad thing? Sounds to me like they are following the word they are given where we are told to not 'hide it under a bushel'. Should they instead be ashamed of their Christianity and hide it from all others so as not to offend anyone?

Yeah, but every damn character in the story was a Jew. It's a horrible and destructive half-lie to say that the Jews killed Jesus. It was a powerful faction among the Jewish people. It's like saying that the damn Indians killed Ghandi.

Let's forget the fact that Christianity and Judaism were the exact same religion for 150 years..., that every author of every page of the bible was a Jew... And let's all decide to hate Jews for sins that represent the sins of ourselves. Anti-Semitism is horribly, horrifically stupid. An Anti-Semitic christian is a moron who isn't worth an ounce of my, or anyone's attention.

Haven't seen anyone advocating anti-semitism. I think you're reading that in to SB's post.

Malik,

I don't feel as if a book as combative as Dawkins's is needed to prove that atheism is a respectable paradigm. Some of the greatest intellectuals of Western culture (intellectuals far more eminent than Dawkins) have been atheists and have said so. You may find the shrillness inspiring; I find it counterproductive to a cause that Dawkins and I both share.

Loremaster,

There is no belligerent motive against Christians, Muslims, etc

Like hell there isn't! Every word he writes oozes with belligerence.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Malik,

I don't feel as if a book as combative as Dawkins's is needed to prove that atheism is a respectable paradigm. Some of the greatest intellectuals of Western culture (intellectuals far more eminent than Dawkins) have been atheists and have said so. You may find the shrillness inspiring; I find it counterproductive to a cause that Dawkins and I both share.

Loremaster,

There is no belligerent motive against Christians, Muslims, etc

Like hell there isn't! Every word he writes oozes with belligerence.

I actually agree with LM. The whole problem is when you don't know the best arguments of your enemy - as I said above. Any idiot can knock the stupid ideas - but if that's all you know, when you discover that they are really intelligent and that you have been suckered in by propaganda, you are liable to be converted.

By the way, LM... kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=663933#663933 ???

Lord Mhoram wrote:Loremaster,

There is no belligerent motive against Christians, Muslims, etc

Like hell there isn't! Every word he writes oozes with belligerence.

If you replace 'belligerence' with 'intelligence' I am inclined to agree with you. I realise you are exaggerating for effect, as it is hardly every word, but he does what few atheists don't do - and that's not pull punches; of course atheists think anyone who believes in a God who one cannot objectively prove deluded. That's not really belligerent.

Unfortunately, atheists (and I include myself), do tend to have the same sort of view of theists that theists do of atheists. Everybody wonders how the other bunch can be so blind as to not see their point of view.

I know that in the past, I've tried to save people from their belief. Because it pained me that otherwise rational and intelligent people still clung to this delusion. Just like the religious have tried to save me from my own delusion.

I finally realised that it doesn't matter. I don't care what you believe, only how you act.

--A

Loremaster wrote:

Lord Mhoram wrote:Loremaster,

There is no belligerent motive against Christians, Muslims, etc

Like hell there isn't! Every word he writes oozes with belligerence.

If you replace 'belligerence' with 'intelligence' I am inclined to agree with you. I realise you are exaggerating for effect, as it is hardly every word, but he does what few atheists don't do - and that's not pull punches; of course atheists think anyone who believes in a God who one cannot objectively prove deluded. That's not really belligerent.

Uh, yes it is. But I don't mind affording him his right to do so, even though he is wrong.

rusmeister wrote:Uh, yes it is. But I don't mind affording him his right to do so, even though he is wrong.

Prove it.

Avatar wrote:I finally realised that it doesn't matter. I don't care what you believe, only how you act.

*bows*

--A

CovenantJr wrote:

Avatar wrote:I finally realised that it doesn't matter. I don't care what you believe, only how you act.

To me this no longer makes sense, because people act in accordance with what they REALLY believe - as opposed to professed belief. Therwefore, the only beliefs worth discussing are beliefs truly held and acted upon - otherwise it is useless theory.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Malik,

I don't feel as if a book as combative as Dawkins's is needed to prove that atheism is a respectable paradigm. Some of the greatest intellectuals of Western culture (intellectuals far more eminent than Dawkins) have been atheists and have said so. You may find the shrillness inspiring; I find it counterproductive to a cause that Dawkins and I both share.

There are plenty of people who agree with you. And many of them are the very same people whom you and I think are quite plainly wrong (creationists, for example). I suppose that people who know they are right simply lose patience after a while (I've been known to do the same in the Tank. )

I think Dawkins is the best person to respond to this charge. I think his response is damn funny. But I'm sure there will be those who think it is simply offensive. You've really got to watch the whole 2 minutes to get the context. If you do, you'll be rewarded by an extremely eloquent articulation of your own complaint, stated by an extremely intelligent man. But if you can't sit through the whole 2 minutes, the 8 second punch line is also provided in the second link (but if you click there first, I bet you'll want to see what provoked such a response).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEl4QfcAK2o&feature=related

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyP44Xu5FA

Loremaster,

There is no belligerent motive against Christians, Muslims, etc

Like hell there isn't! Every word he writes oozes with belligerence.

[/quote]
Yeah, I've got to agree with LM. There is some belligerence. My links prove that!

In the end, I'm not sure Dawkin's goal is to show atheism to be respectable. He's not worried about appearances. He's worried about the truth. And if someone is going to let their emotions get in the way of seeing the truth, that's their problem. They are not his audience anyway.

Malik,

I've most definitely seen that video actually. I had been interested in Dawkins myself a while ago and saw a bunch of videos of him on YouTube. Anyway, I think it demonstrates two things. One, Dawkins is a compelling, charismatic, and witty figure. He's one of the great minds of our time. (That's not necessarily demonstrated in the video, but we all know he is.) But the other scientist who offered his "rebuke" gave a nuanced and thoughtful critique of Dawkins's methodology. I think it was fair. And it basically echoes my own concerns. How does Dawkins respond? He gives a glib answer which I think said nothing about the substance of the critique, but simply dismissed it. It wasn't a real answer. And this leads to the second thing the video demonstrates. He may be charismatic and smart and all the other things I mentioned, but what substance is there to Dawkins's mission? I think it's very thin. His methods may give atheists almost a sadistic pleasure, but in the long run, I don't think it's the right method because of its ultimate inability to convince any others but the choir. This is a danger a lot of guru-type intellectuals encounter.

LM, unless that is the majority of the choir, IOW, the majority of atheists are like Dawkins and malik, the beligerent type. Then, he would be really effective.

Good point, he doesn't answer the rebuke.

And I have no problem w/the passion, but the bias is just too apparent. I mean, when trying to defend your position logically, by just complaining about something else, not only does it only appeal to those who want to complain as well, but contributes nothing but, yes, I'll say it, divisiveness. And not just from Christians it seems.

However, the wittiness, as demonstrated in the video, is the tactic of choice among many debaters. Why? Because it wins. The average listener remembers the funny parts, not the substance. And, if you can get them to laugh at the other person, that's gold. Sad.

I thought he answered the criticism directly. There is nothing more direct than, "if you don't agree, you can fuck off."

Yes, it was a joke. But I believe he meant it. His story was ostensibly, "This is to show you I'm not the worst when it comes to being belligerent," but the fact that he thought it was an appropriate (and funny) response might imply that he agrees in spirit with the man in his anecdote.

I don't believe you can convince religious people to be atheists by being nice and sensitive. That's only good for making people like you. But they still think you deserve eternal damnation, even if they like you.

Atheism is shocking and audacious. I believe this is why so many atheists are shocking and audacious themselves.

I'm not entirely convinced that Dawkins's style is the worst way to get his message out. It's certainly a lot better than being merely boring. The more shocking or offensive he is, the more people pay attention. And the more Christians he pisses off, the more they will attack him. The more they attack him, the more his fans will take up for him. Nothing draws attention like a good fight. Conflict and drama go a long way to drawing an audience and spreading the story.

I think whether you are nice or arrogant, you will not convince a single person who doesn't want to be convinced. I think you're always "preaching to the choir" whether it is politics or religion. The people you convince to break out of their religious heritage are the ones who were already having doubts. Dawkins's audacity merely gives them courage to finally break away from something they had already wished they were brave enough to give up.

Becoming an atheist in a Christian family is a lot like a gay person coming out of the closet. In fact, it's probably harder. Atheists don't have pride parades and a powerful liberal lobby. So telling your entire Christian family that you have basically sold your soul to the devil (in their eyes) is very difficult. Dawkins's audacity gives those people the courage to do what they already wanted to do. That's an entirely different enterprise than persuading people to change their minds. He is leading, not persuading.