Yrth Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Fair enough, I stand guilty of generalizing. But I do think the four horsemen and those atheist that follow them are misguided. I'm glad you retracted that bit, it was pure prejudice. I too object to much of the 'new atheist' writings. I find the 'old' atheists much, much smarter. The main problem with the 'four horsemen' is that they're the self-described product of 9/11. Arguments based on 9/11 tend to follow suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I guess I dont understand why people cannot just think for themselves. I can't see much difference between matthew. mark, luke and john and Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens. They are still all someone else's ideas. Is it that one has to hitch one's cart to those judged credible by the new group (athiests)? I really can't see any difference. The authors above don't just spew verbal insanity hoping repetition will may it true. They follow scientific principles of theory and testing. Dennett's "Conciousness Explained" is a great book on how the brain works, not atheism. Hitchens is confrontational, but thats his style. Dawkins a noted biologist. The biblical writers made shit up. Big difference. Legion knows it too. He just likes to prod. I think for myself. The authors above just happen to think like me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chosendarkness Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I guess I dont understand why people cannot just think for themselves. I can't see much difference between matthew. mark, luke and john and Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens. They are still all someone else's ideas. Is it that one has to hitch one's cart to those judged credible by the new group (athiests)? I really can't see any difference. Very few people think for themselves. We all think we draw our own conclusions but probably 99% of it comes from someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I guess I dont understand why people cannot just think for themselves. I can't see much difference between matthew. mark, luke and john and Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens. They are still all someone else's ideas. Is it that one has to hitch one's cart to those judged credible by the new group (athiests)? I really can't see any difference. Very few people think for themselves. We all think we draw our own conclusions but probably 99% of it comes from someone else. Yes, almost every idea comes from someone else. We just think "yeah I think that's right" or "No, I don't believe that." To come upon some insight of your own, and have total conviction about it, I would think would be rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I guess I dont understand why people cannot just think for themselves. I can't see much difference between matthew. mark, luke and john and Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens. They are still all someone else's ideas. Is it that one has to hitch one's cart to those judged credible by the new group (athiests)? I really can't see any difference. The authors above don't just spew verbal insanity hoping repetition will may it true. They follow scientific principles of theory and testing. Dennett's "Conciousness Explained" is a great book on how the brain works, not atheism. Hitchens is confrontational, but thats his style. Dawkins a noted biologist. The biblical writers made shit up. Big difference. Legion knows it too. He just likes to prod. I think for myself. The authors above just happen to think like me. Yeah but do we have to worship them and cite them like they are the new gods? Its probably just me, my organ of veneration is flatter than a pancake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chosendarkness Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I guess I dont understand why people cannot just think for themselves. I can't see much difference between matthew. mark, luke and john and Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens. They are still all someone else's ideas. Is it that one has to hitch one's cart to those judged credible by the new group (athiests)? I really can't see any difference. Very few people think for themselves. We all think we draw our own conclusions but probably 99% of it comes from someone else. Yes, almost every idea comes from someone else. We just think "yeah I think that's right" or "No, I don't believe that." To come upon some insight of your own, and have total conviction about it, I would think would be rare. I did that when I was deconverting, and had conviction that was fueled by people opposing me. I think alot of us have many of the same original thoughts, then when we come here we relate to each other. For instance, I thought today that it's silly for me to be called skeptic or an athiest, why define someone in terms of not believing in ridiculous things? Just because I don't believe in leprechauns doesn't mean I'm an a-leprechaun or a leprechaun skeptic, that's stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elaine Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 It's funny how people react when they learn I'm an atheist. In the last couple of days I had this experience twice on two different forums. These are not forums about religion but about other interests of mine but somehow on both places religion came up for discussion in the past days. And when I tell them I'm an atheist there are always some religious nuts for whom I'm the scum of the Earth for it! This is what I got today from a Catholic: "People like you really make the world a worse place…" This only for saying I don't believe in God! I wasn't even very critical of religion because I didn't want to start a fight and that forum is not really a place for discussion like this. It's kind of funny.... ...and sad. But this is why I do not like Lables. If pushed to provide one I'd say Non-religious, and if pushed further I would say "what ever big word ism, they will have to wiki" Don't let it get to you, so often the judgement we pass on another is really just how we feel about ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Religion has done far more damage than atheism ever has. It's responsible for wars, atrocities and just a general us vs them mentality that caused her to say that in the first place. I've joined atheist forums and a lot of them are assholes. I say that as an atheist. They are no different than other fundamentalists. If you so much as don't fit into the herd group-think you're anathema. On several forums I've seen people ostracized for simply posing the question of the possibility of some divine force creating the universe and in one case for not backing down on the belief despite engaging the questioners with some skill, IMHO. Some forums have changed over the years as well. Dawkins forum and the RRS forums were horrendously bad. Even now I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole despite marked improvements. I know a fair few irreligious or agnostic people and they are generally nice people. I think that anonymity allows people to be jerks when they otherwise wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I guess I dont understand why people cannot just think for themselves. I can't see much difference between matthew. mark, luke and john and Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens. They are still all someone else's ideas. Is it that one has to hitch one's cart to those judged credible by the new group (athiests)? I really can't see any difference. Very few people think for themselves. We all think we draw our own conclusions but probably 99% of it comes from someone else. What a load of crap! Was that something you thought up or does it belong in the 99%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chosendarkness Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I guess I dont understand why people cannot just think for themselves. I can't see much difference between matthew. mark, luke and john and Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens. They are still all someone else's ideas. Is it that one has to hitch one's cart to those judged credible by the new group (athiests)? I really can't see any difference. Very few people think for themselves. We all think we draw our own conclusions but probably 99% of it comes from someone else. What a load of crap! Was that something you thought up or does it belong in the 99%? Ok smart ass, you're right there is no 1%. It doesn't matter though, the important thing is to try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I guess I dont understand why people cannot just think for themselves. I can't see much difference between matthew. mark, luke and john and Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens. They are still all someone else's ideas. Is it that one has to hitch one's cart to those judged credible by the new group (athiests)? I really can't see any difference. Very few people think for themselves. We all think we draw our own conclusions but probably 99% of it comes from someone else. What a load of crap! Was that something you thought up or does it belong in the 99%? Ok smart ass, you're right there is no 1%. It doesn't matter though, the important thing is to try. That's even worse. There is no 1%, there is only the 100% that comes from someone else. Who is the someone else, then, the Brady Bunch? Because I always suspected those bastards were behind all the fucked-up things people say. The truth is we all draw our own conclusions. That's right: 100%. Of course some of us do so with practically no data, say the opinion of someone else. But many of us weigh things quite carefully before we conclude anything. Some of us even revisit our conclusions from time to time. Why are you so down on humankind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chosendarkness Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Why are you so down on humankind? Why is it worse, are you protective of your iindividuality? Is it such a big deal to be one of 'them'? We draw our own conclusions but all I'm saying is in the grander scheme we're not individuals, we're all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKR Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 It's funny how people react when they learn I'm an atheist. In the last couple of days I had this experience twice on two different forums. These are not forums about religion but about other interests of mine but somehow on both places religion came up for discussion in the past days. And when I tell them I'm an atheist there are always some religious nuts for whom I'm the scum of the Earth for it! This is what I got today from a Catholic: "People like you really make the world a worse place…" This only for saying I don't believe in God! I wasn't even very critical of religion because I didn't want to start a fight and that forum is not really a place for discussion like this. It's kind of funny.... Pretty funny coming from a Catholic that supports a child molesting organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Methoxy Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I don't think atheists make the world a worse place. I think people who never question anything make the world a worse place. I wouldn't want a world full of atheistic conformists anymore than I'd want a world full of evangelized sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Why are you so down on humankind? Why is it worse, are you protective of your iindividuality? Is it such a big deal to be one of 'them'? We draw our own conclusions but all I'm saying is in the grander scheme we're not individuals, we're all the same. O.K., I think I see what you are saying now. From a remote perspective, we are all parts of a whole. But yes, I am kinda protective of my individuality. The Borg ain't my bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Dave Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 I guess I dont understand why people cannot just think for themselves. I can't see much difference between matthew. mark, luke and john and Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens. They are still all someone else's ideas. Is it that one has to hitch one's cart to those judged credible by the new group (athiests)? I really can't see any difference. There is a difference between parroting and agreeing. Yep. Dawkins just says stuff that I was already thinking long before he ever started writing about religion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 There is a difference between parroting and agreeing. Yep. Dawkins just says stuff that I was already thinking long before he ever started writing about religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chosendarkness Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Why are you so down on humankind? Why is it worse, are you protective of your iindividuality? Is it such a big deal to be one of 'them'? We draw our own conclusions but all I'm saying is in the grander scheme we're not individuals, we're all the same. O.K., I think I see what you are saying now. From a remote perspective, we are all parts of a whole. But yes, I am kinda protective of my individuality. The Borg ain't my bag. I see individuality as an illusion, something we do to make us feel good. But I don't see anything inherently wrong with it either. Yes I'm so much smarter than everyone else, you're all clueless, innocent sheep to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Droptail Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I guess I dont understand why people cannot just think for themselves. I can't see much difference between matthew. mark, luke and john and Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens. They are still all someone else's ideas. Is it that one has to hitch one's cart to those judged credible by the new group (athiests)? I really can't see any difference. Very few people think for themselves. We all think we draw our own conclusions but probably 99% of it comes from someone else. Yes, almost every idea comes from someone else. We just think "yeah I think that's right" or "No, I don't believe that." To come upon some insight of your own, and have total conviction about it, I would think would be rare. Yeah, not many new thoughts to be had out there, it would seem with 6 billion-plus of us teeming on this orb. Thinking for oneself doesn't have to equate to not adopting others' ideas just because they originally had those thoughts and not you. That's why we think critically, right? Not accepting what someone says because of reputation or tradition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts