Whats your opinion of Richard Dawkins?

@ebrown p,

Anytime you come across anybody talking about others wasting their lives or telling them to get a life you should assume there is no chance of carrying on an intelligent conversation with them.

If there are any third parties involved it is useful for them to expose the idiocy of such a position in order to protect them from ever falling into the same solipsist mind-set.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Although it pains me to acknowledge it, i agree, to a limited extent, with Brown.

Blimey!!

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Thomas, are you really claiming that the illusions on which you base your life are any less illusionary or that your life (not being wasted) is of any more import?

I dont mean to be churlish but youve really gotta read what DAwkins is saying.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I dont mean to be churlish but youve really gotta read what DAwkins is saying.

What do you suggest? Would finishing "The God Delusion" do the trick?

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Thomas, are you really claiming that the illusions on which you base your life are any less illusionary

Illusions like what?

ebrown p wrote:

Any attempt to give meaning to life is based on illusion;

I like my life just fine without a meaning. Why would I attempt to give one to it? I don't.

1 Reply

Just to be honest here, i do mean to be churlish, whenever the opportunity offers.

(Gee, i wonder if i should click on the "Learn biblical Hebrew" link at the bottom of this page.)

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Would finishing "The God Delusion" do the trick?

I doubt it eb. The title says it all. The arguments to justify the title are all well known.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

What do you suggest? Would finishing "The God Delusion" do the trick?

Thanks for asking. Finishing The God Delusion would certainly be a start, and would cover almost all of Dawkins's thoughts about religion. In addition, if you wish to form a well-founded opinion about how he originally conceived the term meme, you'll have to read The Selfish Gene.

There's more to learn about memes though: Dawkins hasn't published much about them since The Selfish Gene first came out in the 1970s. But other authors have developed the concept further, and Dawkins generally approves of the way they did that. So if you want to understand memes as their proponents conceive them today, I recommend Daniel Dennet's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea. As an optional encore, you might read about some of the most radical applications in Susan Blackmore's Meme Machine. Happy reading!

0 Replies

eb--I'd read Tom Jones or Tristram Shandy first. There's nothing in Dawkins for a sophisticated man about town.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

I like my life just fine without a meaning. Why would I attempt to give one to it? I don't.

I find your claim that people were "wasting" their lives with an "imaginary friend illusion" to be problematic. If your life has no meaning without belief in a deity, what would someone with a belief in a deity be wasting?

The word "waste" implies something with intrinsic value is being lost.

3 Replies

@ebrown p,

Disgusting . . . just disgusting . . .

Once again, he's right . . . that's a perfectly logical response on his part . . .

(You're makin' me crazy here, Thomas . . .)

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

I find your claim that people were "wasting" their lives with an "imaginary friend illusion" to be problematic. If your life has no meaning without belief in a deity, what would someone with a belief in a deity be wasting?

I agree with you if you restrict it to just the inherent belief and I also agree that the concept of "wasting" your life is problematic as it depends on each person's values.

But in practice those beliefs can often result in foregoing pleasure and that's a pity (to me, perhaps not to the believer). I'd hate to have missed out on bacon for some religious belief for example.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

If your life has no meaning without belief in a deity, what would someone with a belief in a deity be wasting?

Nothing. And the fact that you're asking this tells me I didn't communicate the point I intended to make. Let me try again.

My intended point wasn't that believers are wasting their lives, or that atheists should save the from such a waste. Rather, it was that when an atheist's case against the existence of god persuades believers, it will inevitably instill in them a sense that they have wasted whatever parts of their lives they had invested in their religion. In turn, an inevitable consequence of instilling that sense is to offend them. But that's no good reason for atheists to abstain from making the case, and from stating it as forcefully and clearly as they can.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

I don't think it will "inevitably instill in them a sense that they have wasted whatever parts of their lives they had invested in their religion".

It might. But it wouldn't make sense to let it happen. That would mean that they felt they had learned nothing from the experience or benefited in other ways. If they had, and it would be a difficult argument to make that they hadn't, they would see it in the same light as any other activity they had engaged in in the past, such as collecting Johnny Cash records, which they felt they had risen above.

And I don't see how you could persuade a believer anyway.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

it will inevitably instill in them a sense that they have wasted whatever parts of their lives they had invested in their religion.

This is not correct (certainly not the "inevitably" part).

I went from being a quite devout believer to being someone with no belief in any God. The difficult part of this process for me was losing a community. I never figured that I had "wasted" any part of my life, and I certainly didn't regret any waste of life.

Life is for living. Being part of an organized religion is an experience that I value as much as the other things I have experienced.

I am sure that different people have different experiences then I have, but the word "inevitably" is an awfully strong generalization.

Interestingly enough, people who go the other direction-- from atheism to religion, often talk about how they were "wasting their lives" before they found God.

3 Replies

@ebrown p,

They are making a mistake too I think.

There's a value judgement involved in saying any one minute of a life is wasted and any other one isn't. And a highly subjective one too.

No doubt the not wasted life thinks its own life not wasted.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

I gave up a community and , just because we have to be honest to ourselves, never needed to look back with any of the silliness that spendi and a few others spout, Like "Time is relative to earth processes and their interpretation", or "christianity has given us all our sciences"

DAwkins is merely guilty of lacking patience with those who require spirits and devils to fill in the gaps.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

This is not correct (certainly not the "inevitably" part).

Fair enough. Maybe it's not inevitable to offend every single believer. But when you write a book presenting a case against the existence of god, forcefully and in clear language, you inevitably offend a large number of believers. That's the sense in which I meant "inevitable".

farmerman wrote:

DAwkins is merely guilty of lacking patience with those who require spirits and devils to fill in the gaps.

I think that's a fair statement.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

it will inevitably instill in them a sense that they have wasted whatever parts of their lives they had invested in their religion.

Quote:

But when you write a book presenting a case against the existence of god, forcefully and in clear language, you inevitably offend a large number of believers.

Come on Thomas. These are two completely different statements.

The first statement you are claiming that when an Atheist persuades a believer, the believer will be upset because they will regret the "waste" of their life to religion.

The second statement is claiming that a clear and direct case against the existence of God will offend believers. Presumably in this case the believers, being offended, are not being persuaded. In any case, here you are not specifying the reasoned for the presumed offense, nor are you addressing the fact that Dawkins has offended non-believers.

I may be wrong, but my impression is that you are still assuming that Dawkin's argument is somehow superior to that of a generic "believer".

I would point out that there are atheists who are offended by Josh McDowell (who writes books such as "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" that believers claim prove the existence of God). Of course, neither your argument or this counter argument prove a thing.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown wrote:

Come on Thomas. These are two completely different statements.

That's a fair objection. Consider my first statement revised them. A clear case against theism will offend (a large share of) believers even without convincing them, but merely by confronting them.

ebrown wrote:

I may be wrong, but my impression is that you are still assuming that Dawkin's argument is somehow superior to that of a generic "believer".

I am not assuming that, I'm concluding it, having considered both kinds of arguments.

ebrown wrote:

I would point out that there are atheists who are offended by Josh McDowell (who writes books such as "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" that believers claim prove the existence of God).

I don't know Josh McDowell, but I'll take your word for it. And my answer is that atheists taking offense is no reason why he shouldn't make a case for god's existence to them. If this genocidal douchebag character from the Old Testament really exists this is horrible for us, but we'll just have to suck that up.

0 Replies

Whats your opinion of Richard Dawkins?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know