Is Richard Dawkins An Arrogant Bully, Or An Honest Truth Seeker?

[woodsmoke]

I think a lot of people, whatever their theological/philosophical/what-have-you outlook on life, like to pretend black-hearted, rotten-and-loving-it bastards like us just don't exist, VC. Or, at least, that there's just something wrong with us for laughing at uncouth references to each others' mothers and dead baby jokes.

 

Personally, I'm with you. They're welcome to their fancy happy-land utopia without me. I like my dead baby jokes.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

Piracy, it just appeared to me you have such a hard-on for Dawkins you might read something into responses that conclude he may be an ass, but he is much more correct in his thinking than Chopra. That may have led you to ask that we continue to disprove Chopra's position.

 

FTR, I'd rather go have a beer with Deepak than with Dawkins. I'd probably rather have a beer with you, too!

 

Yeah, he is rather sexyin that smug english way, I really just want to get him alone to discuss MY big bang!! You're welcome to come along

 

Seriously though, I did come to my conclusion regarding this matter and I am able to see both sides a little better...although we never quite got to one of those sides!!!!!!! Despite my many attempts to do so.\

 

I think you offered the most info concerning Chopra on your off topic rants than I got out of anybody actually answring my questions.

 

I myself like to see things in both left and right brain thinking, I want to have facts and evidence and proof and logic...and I also like to be open to the idea that not everything can be judged or even viewed one way, so it can be difficult for me in the sense that I am not either/or on subjects most people would be.

 

That was one of the reasons I kept moving about through Xtianity, I wanted to believe and be purely mystical, yet my critical, skeptical side kept pushing me along the road to more rational xtianity, in the sense that I ended up in a Xtianity that was at least a 2000 year old Xtianity that had a Canon guiding it other than "The holy spirit told me so"...

 

I worked my way through fundyville, to charsmania, then to a church based ont he Westminster Confession, then to the Episcopal arena, then Catholic and at the end the Orthodox Christian Church.....I just wish I had known it was ALL bullshit in the first place.

___________________________________________

 

The beers sound great, I'm Irish so it wont end with just one.

 

Cheers!!!

[PiracyOfTheHead]

Asimov, Woodsmoke, Vigile,

 

Your mamas.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

Vomit...

 

In response to your "lame ass humanist paradise", i never offered up a version of th noew world to even criticize, I am assuming you were speaking in response to this:

 

Why does Dawkins have any right to act like a prick in the name of making a better world??

 

Why doesnt he start with the most dangerous threats to humanity that are in the world then work his way down, it seems very easy and profitable to go after someone like Chopra, but should Chopra's teachings be eradicated before the teachings of Radical Islam or "Satan Worshipping Demon Lovers" who preach violence head on??? if Dawkins is so tough and so concerned for the good of humanity why is he wasting his time on people who teach love, peace, goodwill, oneness with humanity, healthy living, charity, kindness and other virtue, just because he doesnt believe all the claims of Chopra, so friggin what Chopra isnt destroying humanity like many other people and groups that are out there......

 

Am I correct?

 

I am going to answer ahead of time due to the fact that I dont recall anywhere else I was writing where you could have taken what you thought were my ideas for society. If I am wrong then point out where and what I said and I will address it.

 

One of the reasons religion persists is the absence of a clearly defined ruling principle that is fair to all people, at least in the minds of religious adherents which make up the majority of the world, thus the Xtians want a Xtian society, Islam wants the world Islamic, Jews want the Theocracy of Israel to spread over the entire globe, because in these religions the rules to a way of life, a way of judging right and wrong are a part of their belief system, each person would inherently desire his/her religion to be the standard of living since it demands of the world exactly what that person believes to be proper conduct (even if their version is a misrepresentation of the fundamental teaching of the religion, in their mind they represent "the truth") and Im not speaking only of religion but any group for that matter that concerns itself with a desire for society to function properly.

 

It would be fair to say that at heart, every person on the planet realizes the necessity for laws, for rules, for codes of conduct that can be enforced, there are not many true anarchists, and I have found the anarchists I have heard from in the past speak of abolishing government ins ome form yet insist upon some "code'to follow, so even in their sense, they seem to want the world to function in a certain way, their way...in this all of humanity is the same, in fact its part of being human, knowing how to survive, or else we wouldnt still be here on the planet.

 

My sentiments concerning Dawkins' behavior were simple, what code of conduct does he follow? I was more pointing out a contradiction in his methods and not trying to lay out any ideas for the new world.

 

Getting rid of assholes by being an asshole?? getting rid of sophists by using sophistry? getting rid of murderers by murdering them?? I was expecting to see a man using better tactics than those he is criticizing.

 

Those ideas I rattled off....I just tried to use terms that are common to all religious or non-religious, love, peace, charity.....for the sake of this conversation, I chose simple and ordinary concepts. Only for illustration.

 

I really wasnt saying what should or shouldnt be...I dont even know my own views yet, I am so new to being non-Xtian that I havent had the time.

 

I certainly dont know what a humanist society would be like, I was in a cult the last few years.

 

So I havent given any basis for a "lame-ass humanist paradise" I will have to wait until I know what I do believe and dont believe until I can even begin to look into ideologies.

 

1984 would be cool to watch right now....wonder if its on the net......

[Asimov]

Asimov, Woodsmoke, Vigile,

 

Your mamas.

 

Yea, well you're a poop-face.

 

[Legion]

Asimov, Woodsmoke, Vigile,

 

Your mamas.

POTH, I don’t know about Asimov but from what I’ve observed here, Woodsmoke and Vigile seem like buddies. And I think they may be similar in that their most cherished emotion is probably contempt.

[Vomit Comet]

Getting rid of assholes by being an asshole??

 

Why not?

 

Here's a question to ask: you've got one asshole and then you've got the other asshole. Which of the two assholes would you rather have a beer with?

 

getting rid of sophists by using sophistry?

 

Well, that doesn't work.

 

getting rid of murderers by murdering them??

 

There are some people in the world that deserve to get greased by some shady black ops outfit.

 

I was expecting to see a man using better tactics than those he is criticizing.

 

I find him to be entertaining. A hoot. That perhaps serves to make more people listen. I know it did with me, when I was still on the fence. Everyone was saying what a rotten bastard he was, and I just had to check it out.

 

Those ideas I rattled off....I just tried to use terms that are common to all religious or non-religious, love, peace, charity.....for the sake of this conversation, I chose simple and ordinary concepts. Only for illustration.

 

I really wasnt saying what should or shouldnt be...I dont even know my own views yet, I am so new to being non-Xtian that I havent had the time.

 

Fair enough.

 

 

1984 would be cool to watch right now....wonder if its on the net......

 

Some people say the movie falls short of the book, but I think it was good.

[Vomit Comet]

I think a lot of people, whatever their theological/philosophical/what-have-you outlook on life, like to pretend black-hearted, rotten-and-loving-it bastards like us just don't exist, VC.

 

Tell me about it! I feel like an endangered species sometimes.

 

Personally, I'm with you. They're welcome to their fancy happy-land utopia without me.

 

I'm all for opposing power and trying to make a better world for all the people being stepped on.

 

But it would have to be a better world for cantankerous jerk-offs like you and I, too, and not just for the ones who feel they are at peace with the universe.

 

As for making a better world, I'm fairly certain that it'll take a little more than the "hearts and minds" approach.

 

As we hear from the German ideologists, Germany has in the last few years gone through an unparalleled revolution. The decomposition of the Hegelian philosophy, which began with Strauss, has developed into a universal ferment into which all the "powers of the past" are swept. In the general chaos mighty empires have arisen only to meet with immediate doom, heroes have emerged momentarily only to be hurled back into obscurity by bolder and stronger rivals. It was a revolution beside which the French Revolution was child's play, a world struggle beside which the struggles of the Diadochi appear insignificant. Principles ousted one another, heroes of the mind overthrew each other with unheard-of rapidity, and in the three years 1842-45 more of the past was swept away in Germany than at other times in three centuries.

 

All this is supposed to have taken place in the realm of pure thought.

 

I like my dead baby jokes.

 

Ya got any?

[woodsmoke]

Asimov, Woodsmoke, Vigile,

 

Your mamas.

Are very classy ladies.

 

POTH, I don’t know about Asimov but from what I’ve observed here, Woodsmoke and Vigile seem like buddies. And I think they may be similar in that their most cherished emotion is probably contempt.

Oh, Legion, there's no need to be coy. If you're jealous of all the attention I give Vigile, all you have to do is say so. I've got plenty of love to go around.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

Getting rid of assholes by being an asshole??

 

Why not?

 

Here's a question to ask: you've got one asshole and then you've got the other asshole. Which of the two assholes would you rather have a beer with?

 

getting rid of sophists by using sophistry?

 

Well, that doesn't work.

 

getting rid of murderers by murdering them??

 

There are some people in the world that deserve to get greased by some shady black ops outfit.

 

I was expecting to see a man using better tactics than those he is criticizing.

 

I find him to be entertaining. A hoot. That perhaps serves to make more people listen. I know it did with me, when I was still on the fence. Everyone was saying what a rotten bastard he was, and I just had to check it out.

 

 

No Vomit, it wasnt literal.

 

The point being, if you murder all the murderers, you're still left with murderers, if you use lies to get rid of liars, youre only left with liars....you cant exterminate that which you perpetuate.

 

I am paraphrasing Einstein..... "We cant expect to make progress using the same level of thinking that got us into the mess in the first place"

 

If Dawkins or anybody else for that matter wishes to see a new world free of certain trappings then he should be setting a standard, not using the same methods that he despises, or he should shut the fuck up and admit he only wants the world to be how he wants it to be, full of shit, run by narrow-mindedness, built upon half truths but done by people that share his viewpoint, not from Xtians, Hindus, Muslims or ( Insert anything Dawkins doesnt like here).

 

Or we get people like him making the same mistakes, doing the same shit but under a different umbrella. Not much progress.

 

You are left with the same problem you started with when you become like those you denounce.

[Ouroboros]

The point being, if you murder all the murderers, you're still left with murderers, if you use lies to get rid of liars, youre only left with liars....you cant exterminate that which you perpetuate.

Depends how we define it.

 

Executing serial killers are considered justified killing, so if you have justified killing of all murdered, you're left with justified killers.

 

We have the same problem with something like: should we tolerate intolerance? The answer is more towards the "no" rather than "yes", because if you have a society where you tolerate those who are intolerant, the intolerance will eventually take over anyway, and the tolerant people will not be accepted (or tolerated) by the intolerant. You see there's a problem.

 

We could also ask, should we incarcerate those who have made a false imprisonment of someone else (like kidnapping)? Is it right to put the kidnapper in a cell as a punishment for having put an innocent person in a cell?

 

With the above reasoning, we shouldn't! What kind of society will we then end up with?

 

The position we have to take is not 100% to the left, or 100% to the right, but somewhere in the middle. That's the only way for having a somewhat functional society. You place the line arbitrarily somewhere in between, and let time show when and where to move it (depending on advancement in culture etc). Which means, we have to have some level of justified "bad" actions.

 

The police is allowed to lie (if I understand it right) during interrogation, for the purpose of making the suspect tripping themselves and hopefully revealing that they are guilty (or not). If this is true, we allow liars to lie for the purpose of catching liars (and guilty of a crime of course).

[R. S. Martin]

I'm looking at Dawkins's age, his position in society, and the world situation. The way I see it, at this point in history we NEED someone to shake up The Establishment--and good! and Richard Dawkins is the man for the job. He can afford to say things that would get some of the rest of us--if not killed, then fired or ostracized in the most cruel manner possible. He's got the guts to stick out his neck and say what the rest of us can only dream of saying. He's untouchable. He's ready to retire, if he hasn't already. He's financially secure I would guess.

 

He's got social prestige on too many levels to count, what with his academic and professional circles that are totally unconnected with his atheist activism. He's probably got family and friends and relatives, too. And, if he's like most people, he's likely got local connections through hobbies, personal interests, and business. He seems like a likeable guy on the personal level. This insolates him from the kind of threat most of us would face from speaking out like he does.

 

I dunno, but I am inclined to think that people who oppose him--or what he is doing--simply have not looked at the very real and very serious threat of fundamentalist religion to life on this planet. I don't get how we can rant against the fundy religionists on one hand and ALSO against the fundy atheist activists who are doing all within their might to break the power of fundy religion.

 

And for those of you who don't believe that moderate religion covers for fundy religion. Here's a concrete example from the Mennonite situation in Ontario as it was told to me in the summer of 2000. The guy was top of Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) when he told me. MCC apparently advocates for the horse and buggy people when there are issues between "the world" and the horse and buggy people. These items are not "issues" for MCC. The people who work at MCC are modern Mennonites and live like the rest of the world--moderate to liberal religion. But they think they have to "help" the horse and buggy people so they (MCC) advocate before government officials on the behalf of the horse and buggy. This serves to keep the horse and buggy people isolated and separate.

 

If this is not liberals covering for the fundamentalists then I don't know what it is. If the Mennonites do it, how do we know others don't do it?

 

Hirsi Ali's story shows the same thing happening in the Muslim world. She sought political asylum in the Netherlands. Here is a quote from the New York Times article of April 3, 2005:

 

Asked her opinion of Pim Fortuyn's characterization of Islam as a ''backward religion,'' Hirsi Ali replied that by certain measures, including the treatment of women, Fortuyn's statement was not an opinion but a fact. Muslim leaders began to threaten her and her employers. ''Every time I went on TV,'' she says, ''I got a threat.'' In London, her father received menacing calls about her from Italy, Sweden and the Netherlands. Not only Muslims but also multiculturalists were outraged.

 

Thus, when she as an exMuslim atheist and politician in the Netherlands spoke out against Islam, her father who remained a Muslim in England got menacing calls from fellow-Muslims in three other countries. That is enough to make most people keep their mouths shut. Again, that would be the liberals and moderates covering for the fundies.

 

The price Hirsi Ali pays for speaking out and activating as she does is life behind locked doors and transportation in bullet-proof cars under heavy guard, and no social life.

[Asimov]

The point being, if you murder all the murderers, you're still left with murderers,

 

Since murder is a legal term, anyone who murders a murderer would be guilty of murder. Legal execution of a murderer does not involve murder, therefore you can't state that by executing murderer you are murdering him.

 

 

if you use lies to get rid of liars, youre only left with liars....you cant exterminate that which you perpetuate.

 

While it may be true for some things, you can't transpose that onto everything. You would be guilty of a categorical error.

 

If Dawkins or anybody else for that matter wishes to see a new world free of certain trappings then he should be setting a standard, not using the same methods that he despises, or he should shut the fuck up and admit he only wants the world to be how he wants it to be, full of shit, run by narrow-mindedness, built upon half truths but done by people that share his viewpoint, not from Xtians, Hindus, Muslims or ( Insert anything Dawkins doesnt like here).

 

Or we get people like him making the same mistakes, doing the same shit but under a different umbrella. Not much progress.

 

You are left with the same problem you started with when you become like those you denounce.

 

You would have to point out what's wrong with having a world in which "faith" is considered a bad thing and progressive science isn't considered a stigma in the most developed country in the world (supposedly). Dawkins is far from full of shit, nor is he narrow-minded. Rejecting fantasy as fantasy isn't narrow-mindedness. It's justified skepticism.

[MathGeek]

I find myself to really be out of water here, but I like the way Dawkins writes and speaks. He is a jack of both the spoken and written word, and I think he can be really articulate on some basic points about atheism. I have only read (actually listened to the audio version) of the "God Delusion" and I didn't find his words to be overly militant or resentful. Where his book lacks in my opinion is that his coverage of both atheism and theism are shallow to some degree, which may explain why both theistic and atheistic philosophers have given Dawkins flack for writing it. As was explained in an earlier post, Dawkins is just a popularizer of the subject.

 

Further, as explained in an earlier post, Dawkins has a lot of clout in England's social communities and in worldwide academic circles. It isn't surprising to me that he cashed in on it. As I read the God Delusion and even God is Not Great, I noticed a particular theme in the ages of the authors. Each of them is over 50 years old. To a degree, each book is really just a long collection of thoughts about why each man thinks religion is a bad idea overall. They excelled in other arenas of life and yet knew enough about the subject of religion to make a rather convincing case for why religion should be rejected. Since each author has the reputation for excellence and each can be pretty handy with a pen, it may explain why the criticism has slid off Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

[Vigile]

Asimov, Woodsmoke, Vigile,

 

Your mamas.

POTH, I don’t know about Asimov but from what I’ve observed here, Woodsmoke and Vigile seem like buddies. And I think they may be similar in that their most cherished emotion is probably contempt.

 

Both of us get along fine with just about every member here LR. But when you come along with your little pithy smart ass remarks both Woody and I are not afraid to call you out on it. You're the one with the problem here.

[Antlerman]

The point being, if you murder all the murderers, you're still left with murderers,

 

Since murder is a legal term, anyone who murders a murderer would be guilty of murder. Legal execution of a murderer does not involve murder, therefore you can't state that by executing murderer you are murdering him.

Yes, but in the context of Piracy's example, your analysis of capital punishment is not relevant. It would be being a vigilante, taking the law into one's own hand and exacting an eye for an eye, which on every law book is considered murder. The individual is essentially justifying their bad behavior by pointing to the supposed fault of another. That's not progress for the individual or the society.

 

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind, says Gandhi.

 

if you use lies to get rid of liars, youre only left with liars....you cant exterminate that which you perpetuate.

 

While it may be true for some things, you can't transpose that onto everything. You would be guilty of a categorical error.

I think the context of his example was speaking about individuals behaving badly in response to those who behave badly. The context was not a general, blanket statement as I saw it. Yes of course lying to someone at the door who is asking if your brother is home so he can kill him, that he isn't home would be an exception to the rule of "lying".

 

If Dawkins or anybody else for that matter wishes to see a new world free of certain trappings then he should be setting a standard, not using the same methods that he despises, or he should shut the fuck up and admit he only wants the world to be how he wants it to be, full of shit, run by narrow-mindedness, built upon half truths but done by people that share his viewpoint, not from Xtians, Hindus, Muslims or ( Insert anything Dawkins doesnt like here).

 

Or we get people like him making the same mistakes, doing the same shit but under a different umbrella. Not much progress.

 

You are left with the same problem you started with when you become like those you denounce.

 

You would have to point out what's wrong with having a world in which "faith" is considered a bad thing and progressive science isn't considered a stigma in the most developed country in the world (supposedly). Dawkins is far from full of shit, nor is he narrow-minded. Rejecting fantasy as fantasy isn't narrow-mindedness. It's justified skepticism.

It doesn't have to do with faith versus science. It has to do with being a fundamentalist about one's own views, being dogmatic, etc. Piracy is talking about the behaviors, not the specific ideologies themselves. It has to do with behaviors.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

The point being, if you murder all the murderers, you're still left with murderers,

 

Since murder is a legal term, anyone who murders a murderer would be guilty of murder. Legal execution of a murderer does not involve murder, therefore you can't state that by executing murderer you are murdering him.

 

 

You make my point for me...

 

If you get rid of murderers by legal execution in a right way, by using the law, by using the truth, by holding to a certain standard, then you're not murdering....you have used better tactics, the right tactics to eradicate the problem then you would be doing the world a service....

 

I thought the way to get rid of lies was with the truth, by definition?It's a perfectly valid example and i dont think you are understanding the heart of what I am saying, i think you are looking for any way to pick at it and put it down, try to understand whats being said before finding some angle, some loophole to find fault with it, you dont get the concept, that is certain by your statements

 

While it may be true for some things, you can't transpose that onto everything. You would be guilty of a categorical error.

 

Thats exactly why I am asking for a standard and clarifying the need for that standard by what I am stating.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

Antlerman, you are correct, your responses echo exactly what I am putting forward.

 

:goodpost:

[PiracyOfTheHead]

The point being, if you murder all the murderers, you're still left with murderers, if you use lies to get rid of liars, youre only left with liars....you cant exterminate that which you perpetuate.

Depends how we define it.

 

Executing serial killers are considered justified killing, so if you have justified killing of all murdered, you're left with justified killers.

 

Exactly, by definition you are not murdering, you are executing, and one can only assume you have done it ithin the confines of the laws of the land, within the confines of truth.

 

By changing the "murderers" in my scenario to "justified killers" or "executioners in the legal sense" then you are ontologically changing its meaning.

[woodsmoke]

The point being, if you murder all the murderers, you're still left with murderers,

 

Since murder is a legal term, anyone who murders a murderer would be guilty of murder. Legal execution of a murderer does not involve murder, therefore you can't state that by executing murderer you are murdering him.

 

 

You make my point for me...

 

If you get rid of murderers by legal execution in a right way, by using the law, by using the truth, by holding to a certain standard, then you're not murdering....you have used better tactics, the right tactics to eradicate the problem then you would be doing the world a service....

 

I thought the way to get rid of lies was with the truth, by definition?It's a perfectly valid example and i dont think you are understanding the heart of what I am saying. i think you are looking for anyone to pick at it and put it down, try to understand whats being said before finding some angle, some loophole to find fault with it, you dont get the concept, that is certain by your statements

Friendly tip: Take a good look at what I did there. You'll make a lot more friends around here if you give people the benefit of the doubt before launching in with the accusatory language.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

Asimov, Woodsmoke, Vigile,

 

Your mamas.

POTH, I don’t know about Asimov but from what I’ve observed here, Woodsmoke and Vigile seem like buddies. And I think they may be similar in that their most cherished emotion is probably contempt.

 

Both of us get along fine with just about every member here LR. But when you come along with your little pithy smart ass remarks both Woody and I are not afraid to call you out on it. You're the one with the problem here.

 

 

Come on...this thread was a serious discussion that was moving along great until a certain few got involved, the last page and a half is littered with personal attacks and nonsense thanks to those few.

 

Over 1100 people have read the thread so far and now they are just getting bits and pieces of the important stuff in between huge chunks of petty nonsense.

 

I would like it to continue being productive, I would appreciate a cease fire concerning the personal attacks, a few ribbings at the beginning was fine but its become the floor for putting people down and if we have to we can do that in PM, if its so important.

 

It's all good, not everybody agrees, we got a little testy, lets move on.

[Asimov]

Yes, but in the context of Piracy's example, your analysis of capital punishment is not relevant. It would be being a vigilante, taking the law into one's own hand and exacting an eye for an eye, which on every law book is considered murder. The individual is essentially justifying their bad behavior by pointing to the supposed fault of another. That's not progress for the individual or the society.

 

Ok, I guess I missed that point then. I assumed that he was equivocating "kill" with "murder" as many people do.

 

I think the context of his example was speaking about individuals behaving badly in response to those who behave badly. The context was not a general, blanket statement as I saw it. Yes of course lying to someone at the door who is asking if your brother is home so he can kill him, that he isn't home would be an exception to the rule of "lying".

 

While I agree that honesty is generally a better policy in building productive relationships, and it is true what you point out that there are anomalous situations which one would make concessions for in obvious circumstances to uphold a higher value (life).

 

I think that was kind of the point I was trying to get across. That it isn't necessarily bad behavior in response to bad behavior; it can be in some situations, but it isn't always.

 

It doesn't have to do with faith versus science. It has to do with being a fundamentalist about one's own views, being dogmatic, etc. Piracy is talking about the behaviors, not the specific ideologies themselves. It has to do with behaviors.

 

Like I said I see nothing wrong with being hard-lined against religion in regards to its evidential status and how people treat it factually. One can be TOO skeptical (as can be seen in Universal Skepticism) and one can be too gullible. If you're fanatical about removing religion entirely and willing to violently do so, then there's a problem of course. However, I don't see that Dawkins is doing that. He's using a more rationalist and empirical approach to religion, which is something that fundamentalists admittedly do not use.

 

Of course, I could still be missing what you guys are saying and we might be talking past each other.

 

If you're using Dawkins as an example of "fundamentalist" behavior then I disagree that he's a fundamentalist.

If you're stating that fundamentalist behavior is bad in virtually all aspects of human relationship and harmony, then I agree.

 

[Asimov]

If you get rid of murderers by legal execution in a right way, by using the law, by using the truth, by holding to a certain standard, then you're not murdering....you have used better tactics, the right tactics to eradicate the problem then you would be doing the world a service....

 

I thought the way to get rid of lies was with the truth, by definition?It's a perfectly valid example and i dont think you are understanding the heart of what I am saying, i think you are looking for any way to pick at it and put it down, try to understand whats being said before finding some angle, some loophole to find fault with it, you dont get the concept, that is certain by your statements

 

It would be nice if you didn't analyze my motives for discussion.

 

Antlerman has a decidedly better approach to discussion and while I may not agree with him on many aspects of his perspective of reality he's inspired me on many occasions to change for the better.

 

Perhaps if you tried to explain the heart of what you are saying in a different way, more people would get it. Don't blame us for not getting your explanation and then accuse people of trying to sabotage your thread.

[woodsmoke]

If you're going to call Vigile, Asimov and myself out on alleged bad behavior, PotH, at least have the intestinal fortitude to do it openly.

 

Personally, I've seen a hell of a lot more disrespect and inflammatory comments flying from your side of the discussion than from all three of us put together, and not just in this thread. Anytime you think someone disagrees with you, you immediately assume they intentionally misread you just to make you look bad and launch into a rant, usually with no shortage of comments calling their integrity and personal character into question. My last post above your own clearly documents that, as does this post in the N&CE forum.

 

You wanted our opinions on Dawkins' methods and material. That's exactly what I gave with my first reply, as well as an explanation of why I feel that way. Some of us may have disagreed on certain points (such as AM and I about the value of spirituality), but I didn't see any loss of civility until you came back and started attacking people for daring to voice an opinion contrary to your own.

 

This isn't church. We're not necessarily going to accept you simply because we're "on the same team." If you want to be treated with respect, you'd be well-advised to first extend to us the same courtesy.

[Antlerman]

It doesn't have to do with faith versus science. It has to do with being a fundamentalist about one's own views, being dogmatic, etc. Piracy is talking about the behaviors, not the specific ideologies themselves. It has to do with behaviors.

 

Like I said I see nothing wrong with being hard-lined against religion in regards to its evidential status and how people treat it factually.

For the effect of making my seemingly "soft" approach to some forms of religion clear in case some are confused, I'm very much in agreement with you here. Anytime someone tries to reject what science strongly informs of us, for no other reason than it conflicts with an unfounded idea about the natural world derived from their religious beliefs alone, then I'll definitely find myself in support of fighting against that, i.e., the whole ID taught as science in school issue, etc. I would go also one step further and say they also don't even understand what the nature of what their own damned religion is about either! They are in effect in many cases neither secular nor religious - just willfully ignorant across the board.

 

One can be TOO skeptical (as can be seen in Universal Skepticism) and one can be too gullible. If you're fanatical about removing religion entirely and willing to violently do so, then there's a problem of course.

Agreed

 

However, I don't see that Dawkins is doing that. He's using a more rationalist and empirical approach to religion, which is something that fundamentalists admittedly do not use.

He is doing as you say, and in some cases this is good and I agree with his approach. However, my major bone of contention with him is that he seems to take his focus on those things that come out of the anti-intellectual, anti-science, religious fundamentalist/political activist crowd and apply it to the whole of religious faith, as those it was operating on the same level. That's where I see him falling miserably short of actually addressing anything relevant to the problems we have in religion today.

 

Fundamentalism, the stuff he rightly criticizes does not translate up outside of that to where other people who are religious live. I've heard very educated religious scholars chuckle about the things Dawkins says about religion as not applying to them at all, saying "I'm sure who he's talking to, but he certainly isn't talking about how I believe", and essentially dismissing him as irrelevant calling him "the village atheist". He seems to see all religious belief as operating out the same place, and as an atheist myself looking at it, I see him as falling way short of actually understanding it enough to offer something useful. You may note that when I start attacking religious thought, I'll usually make a point to clarify, "literalism", fundamentalism, evangelical, creationists, etc.

 

Maybe Dawkins knows better and just has poor word use leaving the impression he thinks what he sees in fundamentalists is what it all is, or he simply is ignorant and is as that one scholar called him, "the village atheist". If Dawkins were to identify exactly who he is critiquing with the tool rational argument, rather than sounding like he judges it's all something it's not, then I'd see him in a better light.

 

BTW, I've heard him take his rationalist materialist philosophy and pull the same scoffing ridicule he does towards religion, to other secular philosophies he doesn't appear to know much about either.

 

If you're using Dawkins as an example of "fundamentalist" behavior then I disagree that he's a fundamentalist.

If you're stating that fundamentalist behavior is bad in virtually all aspects of human relationship and harmony, then I agree.

 

Is Dawkins a fundamentalist? I'm not sure calling him that is technically valid. I'd say it's fair to say he is pretty opinionated and vocal, (like my Rush Limbaugh comparison), and he doesn't sound like he's really offering learned and balanced perspective to his opinions. In that sense, he could be compared to doing the same thing as the fundamentalists he takes to task. Neither looks beyond their prescribe ideas and is critical and dismissive of anything that goes beyond or outside their "doctrines". That's "religious" behavior actually. So, I say he possibly borders on being religious himself.

 

Antlerman has a decidedly better approach to discussion and while I may not agree with him on many aspects of his perspective of reality he's inspired me on many occasions to change for the better.

Awww... that gave me the warm fuzzies. Now lets go share some Romulan Ale .