Mankey Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 As for a humanist chaplain. What's your problem with that? Humanists who don't want the Church officiating at their wedding or funeral are/should be grateful that there is such a thing as a humanist chaplain. Here in Canada the word we use is "officiant." I think the term they use in Australia is "celebrant." Apparently the Americans just borrow the Christian term. So what? If you don't like it then don't ask for their services. But please don't ostracize those of us who appreciate what the chaplains/officiants/celebrants have to offer. I never said my fear was rational. hehe. Its just a fear. Did you read some complaints from other atheists on the link I gave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I never said my fear was rational. hehe. Its just a fear. Did you read some complaints from other atheists on the link I gave? I don't think I read your posts because I just read the first batch of this thread. I think you joined very recently so that would not include your links. Finally I decided to just say my thing and let it go. I stand behind what I said but I don't think it's worth fighting over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I never said my fear was rational. hehe. Its just a fear. Did you read some complaints from other atheists on the link I gave? I don't think I read your posts because I just read the first batch of this thread. I think you joined very recently so that would not include your links. Finally I decided to just say my thing and let it go. I stand behind what I said but I don't think it's worth fighting over. Here is the link right here Food for thought. You are the last person I would fight with. We may not agree but I consider you one of my mentors..... An atheist theologian? That is way cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Almost forgot. POWER TO THE PEOPLE! EVERYONE! I have had too much coffee. hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I admit it is true that Dawkins and some other atheists look like they are ranting against religion for the sake of it. But imagine there was no Dawkins, would there still be as many of us here today. What I mean is someone is needed to at least lure people out of the closet. True there are certain groups I don't like (*cough* Rational Squad). I find that they are very provocative and just down-right ill-mannered. Sure there are fundamentalists around, but does that mean we stoop down to their level of argument? Personally I think Dawkins is still mild. It's his passion of pulling people into rational thought, and asking questions that may have been in one's mind sometime, but were too afraid to ask. I don't know if I classify as an atheist. I believe in humanity, which is the sole ingredient of what makes us, us. Be it a result of evolution or not. My point being if there is a supernatural being, isn't it a bit petty to burn people for eternity, simply because they don't believe? (Never mind not actually appearing in the first place) Before the age of science, our ancestors sat in the caves, making stories to try and explain the world. It was a pastime, an activity, to bond, a social gathering. At first they were genuine stories, tales of imagination. Then more stories were made up along the way. Then even more stories until a select few of them were taken by the strongest in the group/tribe, and used as a tool to control the people. These stories had an impact on people, psychologically or otherwise. As more and more heard the stories, they spread like fire, especially ones that play on fears. Hence except a select few, the masses submitted to the stories. Religion is born. Something that was relatively harmless turned into a monster we know today. Can we ever get rid of it, maybe not. But to at least to expose the truth, then yes. God, is only so mysterious, and powerful, because we are kneeling in submission with our faces looking on the ground. Nobody stood up to see that the only one that was talking, was a fragile old man with a weak voice, and his very own imagination. The inaccurate opinion on religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I admit it is true that Dawkins and some other atheists look like they are ranting against religion for the sake of it. But imagine there was no Dawkins, would there still be as many of us here today. What I mean is someone is needed to at least lure people out of the closet. True there are certain groups I don't like (*cough* Rational Squad). Nice atheists are every bit as valuable as atheists that criticize. I find that they are very provocative and just down-right ill-mannered. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. You would have to lurk there regularly to get a feel for the Rational Response squad. They have Christians and theist non-christians who are regulars there that like them just fine, or at least respect if not like. I lurk there a lot. Never post. Sure there are fundamentalists around, but does that mean we stoop down to their level of argument? Antitheists do not stoop to the fundies level and neither do Ex-Christians....so long as we have more than just appeals to emotion....but actual arguments to go with any rhetoric. Personally I think Dawkins is still mild. It's his passion of pulling people into rational thought, and asking questions that may have been in one's mind sometime, but were too afraid to ask. I don't know if I classify as an atheist. I believe in humanity, which is the sole ingredient of what makes us, us. Be it a result of evolution or not. My point being if there is a supernatural being, isn't it a bit petty to burn people for eternity, simply because they don't believe? (Never mind not actually appearing in the first place) Hmmm. A bit of rational rhetoric you got going here william. I agree. Before the age of science, our ancestors sat in the caves, making stories to try and explain the world. It was a pastime, an activity, to bond, a social gathering. At first they were genuine stories, tales of imagination. Then more stories were made up along the way. Then even more stories until a select few of them were taken by the strongest in the group/tribe, and used as a tool to control the people. These stories had an impact on people, psychologically or otherwise. As more and more heard the stories, they spread like fire, especially ones that play on fears. Hence except a select few, the masses submitted to the stories. Religion is born. Something that was relatively harmless turned into a monster we know today. Can we ever get rid of it, maybe not. But to at least to expose the truth, then yes. I think it is best that people shut up when it comes to any claims of what God wants from us... be'ins that no one can prove it and odds are some ones opinions might get deified.....just like religion. God, is only so mysterious, and powerful, because we are kneeling in submission with our faces looking on the ground. Nobody stood up to see that the only one that was talking, was a fragile old man with a weak voice, and his very own imagination. The inaccurate opinion on religion Agreed. God is an invisible friend that religion speaks for. If anyone is interested on Brian Sapients views on militant atheism yall might want to read this. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Having watched Dawkins in action, I'd not put him on a much higher pedestal than any evangelist. I've seen him use special pleading parallels, emotional manipulation, goading and, very occasionally, discredited science... He also labours under the misapprehension that he is the 'voice of reason', rather in the way James Randi, who is a stage illusionist, seems the think he can speak to scientific protocols... I dislike their inductive methods, I dislkie their panzer division tactics, and I dislike their prima facie assumption they have some 'higher' grasp of 'the truth'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Having watched Dawkins in action, I'd not put him on a much higher pedestal than any evangelist. I've seen him use special pleading parallels, emotional manipulation, goading and, very occasionally, discredited science... He also labours under the misapprehension that he is the 'voice of reason', rather in the way James Randi, who is a stage illusionist, seems the think he can speak to scientific protocols... I dislike their inductive methods, I dislkie their panzer division tactics, and I dislike their prima facie assumption they have some 'higher' grasp of 'the truth'... I did say.... "so long as we have more than just appeals to emotion....but actual arguments to go with any rhetoric." I do not have to necessarily agree in everything from either of those gentlemen to be an antitheist. At any rate my antitheism is a low priority for me.... I really do not know what you are talking about as far as James Randi. So I can't comment on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I'd agree... I have an inherent dislike of 'poster boys'... They don't speak for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I'd agree... I have an inherent dislike of 'poster boys'... They don't speak for me. I do not have to agree with everything the Rational Response squad says either.... I just think that some folks are blowing things way out of proportion is all Gramps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Problem is, if you don't say something, they think you don't mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Problem is, if you don't say something, they think you don't mind. Yea... My POV is Theism is irrational. Religion is irrational and I just can't seem trust any religion. Islam and Christianity I am very anti. Equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 TBH you can't really trust anyone who sets them selves up as a spokesman... It's why I distrust clergy and wannabe clergy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 TBH you can't really trust anyone who sets them selves up as a spokesman... It's why I distrust clergy and wannabe clergy... The Rational Response Squad does not expect anyone to agree with everything they say. I do not agree that theism in and of itself is a menace.....I do agree that getting rid of theism would get rid of religion, which would get rid of fundies. In one fell swoop. I am an antitheist in that regard. However, Dawkins lumps the three abrahamic religions with other kinds of theism. I am not sure that is fair. I am afraid of many religions. Not all of them. I am not against the Rational Response Squad even though I do not agree with everything they might say. I think that many people criticize it without any real understanding of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 He also labours under the misapprehension that he is the 'voice of reason', rather in the way James Randi, who is a stage illusionist, seems the think he can speak to scientific protocols... These were very much my thoughts about him. He oversimplifies philosophical positions and brushes them with a swipe of the hand - an easy feat when you under-state what's behind it. He really comes across as some sort of philosopher which he is not. I dislike their inductive methods, I dislkie their panzer division tactics, and I dislike their prima facie assumption they have some 'higher' grasp of 'the truth'... It's that very thing that gets him labeled as a fundamentalist. It's like hearing someone who deconverted saying, "The difference between when I was a Christian and now, is that now I actually do have the truth". Truth is far more tricky a business than that, whether you use a Bible or Science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 A-MEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 He also labours under the misapprehension that he is the 'voice of reason', rather in the way James Randi, who is a stage illusionist, seems the think he can speak to scientific protocols... These were very much my thoughts about him. He oversimplifies philosophical positions and brushes them with a swipe of the hand - an easy feat when you under-state what's behind it. He really comes across as some sort of philosopher which he is not. I dislike their inductive methods, I dislkie their panzer division tactics, and I dislike their prima facie assumption they have some 'higher' grasp of 'the truth'... It's that very thing that gets him labeled as a fundamentalist. It's like hearing someone who deconverted saying, "The difference between when I was a Christian and now, is that now I actually do have the truth". Truth is far more tricky a business than that, whether you use a Bible or Science. I am not very familiar with Dawkins. and less so with James Randi.... I plan on learning from textbooks and interacting with others who are interested in Logic and science. Not just from people like Dawkins or James Randi. I have only heard what their fans have said about them. Not from people who dislike them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I've never read any of Randi's books, so I can't comment on literary style or content Dawkins it excellent in writing (although 'The God Delusion' is average at best, since Dawkins is outside his primary area of expertise) but in debate outside his area he's at best 'ok' and at worst a zealot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I've never read any of Randi's books, so I can't comment on literary style or content Dawkins it excellent in writing (although 'The God Delusion' is average at best, since Dawkins is outside his primary area of expertise) but in debate outside his area he's at best 'ok' and at worst a zealot... I never read the God delusion. I am going to see if they have it at our library. I will not buy it until I read it first. hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I never read the God delusion. I am going to see if they have it at our library. I thought "The Selfish Gene" was better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I never read the God delusion. I am going to see if they have it at our library. I thought "The Selfish Gene" was better. Thanks Legion. I will read that first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I'd miss the God Delusion altogether... The Blind Watchmaker is quite good though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I'd miss the God Delusion altogether... The Blind Watchmaker is quite good though... Thanks Gramps. I want to read his books where he is within his expertise first before reading the God Delusion. That way I can really be disappointed by comparison....if I should find the God delusion lacking. I do not agree with everything Dawkins claims about theism, but I only know from others who talk about Dawkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 The Blind Watchmaker is quite good though... Yeah I'd agree with that. It's kind of a toss up for me as to whether "The Selfish Gene" or "The Blind Watchmaker" is better. Mankey, the point is... "The God Delusion" may not be his best work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 The Blind Watchmaker is quite good though... Yeah I'd agree with that. It's kind of a toss up for me as to whether "The Selfish Gene" or "The Blind Watchmaker" is better. Mankey, the point is... "The God Delusion" may not be his best work. Yea,but if it stinks that bad I will be able to comment on it after reading it. I like to be a pain in the ass even to other antitheists. Free Thought comes first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts