blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Today, I bought and started reading Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. When I fully deconverted the weekend of the 1st of November last year, I had never heard of Dawkins, or Hitchins, nor any other of atheism's great thinkers. My deconversion had more to do with my own experiences, thoughts, questions, observations, and the hunt for the truth; I was not in any way influenced by these great thinkers. So when I first came to Ex-C, I started hearing these names: Dawkins, Hitchins, Harris, and so on and so forth. Who the hell were these people, I wondered? To begin with, I wasn't too interested- more concerned with discovering why the bible was wrong and all that. but then I saw a debate with Harris in it, and a talk by Hitchins, and I thought to myself, I'm going to investigate these names. So my first port of call was deciding who to start with. I chose Dawkins. Why? Simply because some people didn't like him. I must be utterly contrary to my core, I sometimes think. Can't just go with the crowd-pleasers, got to choose the controversial one first. Truth be told, I wanted to try and work out why some people don't like him. So I started watching his documentaries. I've watched quite a few of them now- I'm starting to run out of footage, actually. It's becoming harder to hunt stuff down. Now, I have been partially deaf since birth, so i don't just hear an argument- I am always reading body language, too. Dawkins body language was very revealing to me. His eyes were kind, and his voice was laced with gentleness. I saw what great control he had over himself, when someone said something to anger or disappoint him. I could see flashes of hurt in his eyes at some of the ignorant accusations levelled at him. In Dawkins I also saw a fierce loyalty to his convictions, and well thought out reasoning. I saw that he cared deeply about the impact of religion and ignorance on children, and his delight in their natural curiosity of the world around them. I realised that children were his driving force, that he was just utterly devastated at the restrictions on their learning and independence of thought that religion placed upon them. Watching his documentaries, I felt an unparalelled admiration for his decision to not be silent in the face of overwhelming opposition. i finally decided that it was time to start reading, and after much research, decided on The God Delusion. It is a fascinating read- I feel as though I am privy to Dawkins innermost thoughts. And already, Dawkins has begun to challenge my thinking in new ways, and I have much to examine and reassess. As a result, I have decided that I not only like Dawkins, but I am thoroughly enjoying his book, and I can't wait to add to my collection. I think I need to buy a nice new bookcase, somehow! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chikirin Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I never read any atheist books either, until after I deconverted. I really wanted to stay a Christian and I didn't want to read anything that would rattle my faith, but now I wish I had read them, it might have set me free a lot earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzy Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I like Dawkins too. The God Delusion wasn't what made me deconvert but it was the first atheist book I read after my deconversion and boy, it was therapeutic! I loved it. The main criticism towards Dawkins is that he mainly addresses fundamentalists and therefore most of his arguments are straw-man arguments, at least concerning moderates. Well, since I was a fundamentalist Christian to me everything he wrote in God Delusion was spot on! Yes, the Christians I know really are like that! Close minded bigots. Anti-science. Creationists. Ignorant. Brainwashed. And so on. So to me nothing of it seemed a straw-man, but very much the Christianity I experienced. He's also right about the Biblegod. How much I loved his rant at the beginning of Chapter 2! "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Can you dispute any of this? I can't. As far as I'm concerned he just tells it like it is. And I like that. And as for moderates. He actually acknowledges that there are many moderates, though he thinks they enable the fundamentalists. Here's an interview he did with Father George Coyne (it has seven parts), a moderate, and it's a pretty good interview from both sides: So it's unfair to say or suggest that Dawkins only ever addresses fundamentalists and makes the impression as if all Christians are fundamentalists. However Christian fundamentalism is not peripheral, not something that is practiced by small minorities within Christianity. In the US Christian fundamentalism is pretty much mainstream and also in some other countries. And they are very political, very aggressive, so they need to be called out and I'm glad Dawkins is doing that. I can totally understand Dawkins' frustration about them as an evolutionary biologist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Dawkins? You're supposed to hate him because he's a reductionist, materialist, and neo-atheist. Personally, I like him. I'm surprised anyone actually dared to start a thread with something positive to say about Dawkins for once. (But, as you always have to do with a positive discussion about Dawkins, I have something negative to say, he messes up things some times, and are wrong at time too. So there. That's the standard disclaimer.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (But, as you always have to do with a positive discussion about Dawkins, I have something negative to say, he messes up things some times, and are wrong at time too. So there. That's the standard disclaimer.) He's not Jesus Christ? Clearly all bath water then. That's how it works, right? A man's message is destroyed if the man is imperfect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I never read any atheist books either, until after I deconverted. I really wanted to stay a Christian and I didn't want to read anything that would rattle my faith, but now I wish I had read them, it might have set me free a lot earlier. I had a similar block to anything remotely to do with the "other" side. I'm not sure if I would say, though, that I wish I'd read them earlier. I can't say that I would have been ready to read them without closing off my mind and taking offense to everything written and said, and possibly going back harder into christianity. I can honestly say that my thought processes would not have coped with reading this stuff even a couple of years ago- they needed some more developing time, as they were impaired by christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 So it's unfair to say or suggest that Dawkins only ever addresses fundamentalists and makes the impression as if all Christians are fundamentalists. However Christian fundamentalism is not peripheral, not something that is practiced by small minorities within Christianity. In the US Christian fundamentalism is pretty much mainstream and also in some other countries. And they are very political, very aggressive, so they need to be called out and I'm glad Dawkins is doing that. I can totally understand Dawkins' frustration about them as an evolutionary biologist. Thanks for the video link, Suzy! I can't wait to watch it I totally agree with everything you said, an I, too, am so glad that Dawkins is prepared to speak out against much opposition. If anything, I think we should support him more, simply because he is taking a stand and being blasted from all sides as it is. However, as it stands, I have not as yet found fault with his reasoning, and was very surprised to see him articulate in the book a train of thought I've been heading in for some time- standing up and being proud to be an atheist, and speaking out against religion. I take my time thinking through an issue and discussing it, but when I have a clear view formed in my head, and something goes against my personal principles, then I find it very hard to remain silent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 Dawkins? You're supposed to hate him because he's a reductionist, materialist, and neo-atheist. Personally, I like him. I'm surprised anyone actually dared to start a thread with something positive to say about Dawkins for once. (But, as you always have to do with a positive discussion about Dawkins, I have something negative to say, he messes up things some times, and are wrong at time too. So there. That's the standard disclaimer.) Are you being sarcastic about a positive Dawkins thread? I'm confused lol. I really don't understand why more people, particularly ex-c's, don't like him. Could it be perhaps because he challenges people, hits a nerve, or pushes them to examine prejudices that they don't want to acknowledge? Or is it just some type of sheep mentality? I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 (But, as you always have to do with a positive discussion about Dawkins, I have something negative to say, he messes up things some times, and are wrong at time too. So there. That's the standard disclaimer.) He's not Jesus Christ? Clearly all bath water then. That's how it works, right? A man's message is destroyed if the man is imperfect? Except Dawkins make no claim to be the messiah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 There was a question I did want to ask, to see if anyone had an idea of an answer. I noticed in the preface of The God Delusion that no reference was made in thanks to Christopher Hitchins, despite Harris, Dennet, and others being thanked. It made me recall something Hitchins said once when in conversation with a christian whom he'd been on a debating tour with, that Dawkins had asked him if he'd want the world to be free of religion, and Hitchins replied that he would not, and Dawkins was apparently surprised, or dumbfounded or something. Was there some sort of schism between Dawkins and Hitchins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 Ugh, *Hitchens. Damn, I need to learn to spell! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (But, as you always have to do with a positive discussion about Dawkins, I have something negative to say, he messes up things some times, and are wrong at time too. So there. That's the standard disclaimer.) He's not Jesus Christ? Clearly all bath water then. That's how it works, right? A man's message is destroyed if the man is imperfect? Correct. He's wrong because he's rude and doesn't use some words according to "community approved usage." And since he doesn't have a degree in theology, but only in biology, he have nothing to say about how religion reflects in evolution; however, anyone with a theology diploma can make all the "right" claims about religion and evolution. (/sarc) Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Dawkins? You're supposed to hate him because he's a reductionist, materialist, and neo-atheist. Personally, I like him. I'm surprised anyone actually dared to start a thread with something positive to say about Dawkins for once. (But, as you always have to do with a positive discussion about Dawkins, I have something negative to say, he messes up things some times, and are wrong at time too. So there. That's the standard disclaimer.) Are you being sarcastic about a positive Dawkins thread? I'm confused lol. Yes. I'm being sarcastic. There's been a lot of anti-dawkins stuff going on in atheist circles for some years because he's so hard-core anti-religious. People are complaining that calling religion a delusion is wrong and rude and false and evil and wrong and just plain wrong and... Anyway. I've grown a little tired of the anti-dawkins stuff. I like the guy. He's not perfect, but, hell, Einstein wasn't perfect either but I respect what he did anyway, even in things he wasn't a specialist in (he had to get help for the math behind relativity!). So in other words, I'm actually glad that someone talks a little positive about Dawkins for once. And that part was not sarcastic, but serious. I really don't understand why more people, particularly ex-c's, don't like him. Could it be perhaps because he challenges people, hits a nerve, or pushes them to examine prejudices that they don't want to acknowledge? Or is it just some type of sheep mentality? I don't get it. He pushing the set borders. Calling religion or belief in God a delusion has started a wave of anti-dawkins responses. One reason is that he doesn't have a degree in theology or psychology, and people think that means he got nothing to say about it. In essence, they write him off because he's rude. I just think he just speaks his mind. He says what he thinks, doesn't mean he's always right, but there's some truth even when he's not quite right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Was there some sort of schism between Dawkins and Hitchins? I haven't seen anything big blowing up. But you know how guys (thinkers) on that level are. There's always pride and ego that can be hurt. I went to a presentation with Dawkins once. A lot of really good stuff. But he said something stupid at the end (don't remember what) that upset the audience (mostly atheists). So, well, they're not perfect and they got opinions like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 Dawkins? You're supposed to hate him because he's a reductionist, materialist, and neo-atheist. Personally, I like him. I'm surprised anyone actually dared to start a thread with something positive to say about Dawkins for once. (But, as you always have to do with a positive discussion about Dawkins, I have something negative to say, he messes up things some times, and are wrong at time too. So there. That's the standard disclaimer.) Are you being sarcastic about a positive Dawkins thread? I'm confused lol. Yes. I'm being sarcastic. There's been a lot of anti-dawkins stuff going on in atheist circles for some years because he's so hard-core anti-religious. People are complaining that calling religion a delusion is wrong and rude and false and evil and wrong and just plain wrong and... Anyway. I've grown a little tired of the anti-dawkins stuff. I like the guy. He's not perfect, but, hell, Einstein wasn't perfect either but I respect what he did anyway, even in things he wasn't a specialist in (he had to get help for the math behind relativity!). So in other words, I'm actually glad that someone talks a little positive about Dawkins for once. And that part was not sarcastic, but serious. I really don't understand why more people, particularly ex-c's, don't like him. Could it be perhaps because he challenges people, hits a nerve, or pushes them to examine prejudices that they don't want to acknowledge? Or is it just some type of sheep mentality? I don't get it. He pushing the set borders. Calling religion or belief in God a delusion has started a wave of anti-dawkins responses. One reason is that he doesn't have a degree in theology or psychology, and people think that means he got nothing to say about it. In essence, they write him off because he's rude. I just think he just speaks his mind. He says what he thinks, doesn't mean he's always right, but there's some truth even when he's not quite right. Well, I had noticed that a fair few people seemed to hold strong opinions about him. That's why I decided to investigate for myself. Whenever someone has strong convictions, and is very public about them, there's always going to be dissent, so I decided to make up my own mind. For all his faults, though, look at what he has done for the secular movement. He has done what others were not prepared to- gone to the front line and taken the brunt of the attack, making it easier for all that have come after him. he is inspiring a whole new generation of atheists, and giving them a voice where before they had none. As far as him speaking his mind, I have no issue with people who do so. Jesus, if people think Dawkins is bad, they should try my gyno. Quotes from my gyno's mouth: "Everything makes you fat. You don't want to get fat? Don't eat. Simple as that." (I asked whether some hormones I had to take would make me put on weight.) "Genital warts? They don't cause problems for men. It's not like their dicks fall off!" (To me, when discussing the prevalence of certain STDs in the area and the impact on female reproductive organs.) "You've got two options: have the operation, or die. I think the first option is the better one." (To my mum after finding cancerous polys on her ovaries) Now, in light of my gyno, how bad does Dawkins seem? LOL! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 Was there some sort of schism between Dawkins and Hitchins? I haven't seen anything big blowing up. But you know how guys (thinkers) on that level are. There's always pride and ego that can be hurt. I went to a presentation with Dawkins once. A lot of really good stuff. But he said something stupid at the end (don't remember what) that upset the audience (mostly atheists). So, well, they're not perfect and they got opinions like everyone else. Well, I did a quick search on google and didn't come up with much in that way. Whatever was going on between them personally, they gave very little hint of it, for the sake of solidarity, I guess. These guys are different- they don't seem to play dirty or let petty stuff come between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Well, I did a quick search on google and didn't come up with much in that way. Whatever was going on between them personally, they gave very little hint of it, for the sake of solidarity, I guess. These guys are different- they don't seem to play dirty or let petty stuff come between them. That's true. I haven't seen much, and I'm certain that there's been disagreements between all of the leading neo-atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurari Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I don't understand why people don't like Dawkins either. I'm a big fan of him. I'm also partially deaf (too many chronic ear infections as a kid) and I also read a lot of body language. So I know what you're talking about in how his body reflects that his very gentle, kind, and intelligent nature. I'm surprised that people have called Dawkins rude. I don't think I've ever heard him be rude. I've heard him be direct, but not rude. If people want rude, Hitchens was the master of it. Hitchens was often very deliberately rude (I loved Hitchens too...I cried when I read he had finally passed) to bring home his point and shock people into thinking. Hence why I have my favorite quotes in my tag line. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I don't understand why people don't like Dawkins either. I'm a big fan of him. I'm also partially deaf (too many chronic ear infections as a kid) and I also read a lot of body language. So I know what you're talking about in how his body reflects that his very gentle, kind, and intelligent nature. I'm surprised that people have called Dawkins rude. I don't think I've ever heard him be rude. I've heard him be direct, but not rude. If people want rude, Hitchens was the master of it. Hitchens was often very deliberately rude (I loved Hitchens too...I cried when I read he had finally passed) to bring home his point and shock people into thinking. Hence why I have my favorite quotes in my tag line. Yes, there is nothing about his expressions, mannerisms, or tone of voice, even when angry, that make me see him as anything but kind and gentle. What I don't think his naysayers get is that he cares, deeply, about the harm being done to children and their lives in the name of religion. As far as I can see, that was what started him on this journey. And that is something that I really respect. I have heard people also say some things about him being sexist due to some incident at a convention, I think. I have seen no evidence of that, thus far. From what I can see, he views and treats women as equals, which is unusual when you consider his age and that he comes from a male-dominated field. While children are his primary focus, he advocates just as much for women. And I'd have to agree that I'm yet to see him be rude, myself. He seems to me to take great pains to get his point across without being rude, and I have seen him resort to silence when unable to do so (the interview with Ted Haggard comes to mind). All in all, I really like him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Was there some sort of schism between Dawkins and Hitchins? I haven't seen anything big blowing up. But you know how guys (thinkers) on that level are. There's always pride and ego that can be hurt. I went to a presentation with Dawkins once. A lot of really good stuff. But he said something stupid at the end (don't remember what) that upset the audience (mostly atheists). So, well, they're not perfect and they got opinions like everyone else. I confess to a personal hatred of Hitchens. IMO, he was a neo con hack that made the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that people who are born into a bad religion necessarily become bad people that must be corrected with bombs and modern torture methods. That puts him on equal footing with the inquisitionists. For the life of me I don't understand how someone can claim to be a free thinker and engage in thoughtless propaganda efforts. I imagine he saw it as accomplishing some greater good, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with such intentions. I don't truly hate many people in this world. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Hitchens are amongst the few who have that honor due to the fact they are/were all intelligent enough to know what they were doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I read his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" and found that enjoyable. When it comes to books like "The God Delusion", he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. I can't be intellectually honest reading or hearing anything he has to say about religion. The same goes for Hitchens and Harris. Yes, they do make some good points occasionally but their critique of religion in general is only convincing to those who already despise it, or those who know little about it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I read his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" and found that enjoyable. When it comes to books like "The God Delusion", he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. I can't be intellectually honest reading or hearing anything he has to say about religion. The same goes for Hitchens and Harris. Yes, they do make some good points occasionally but their critique of religion in general is only convincing to those who already despise it, or those who know little about it in the first place. What do you mean when you say he doesn't know what he's talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I confess to a personal hatred of Hitchens. IMO, he was a neo con hack that made the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that people who are born into a bad religion necessarily become bad people that must be corrected with bombs and modern torture methods. That puts him on equal footing with the inquisitionists. For the life of me I don't understand how someone can claim to be a free thinker and engage in thoughtless propaganda efforts. I imagine he saw it as accomplishing some greater good, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with such intentions. I don't truly hate many people in this world. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Hitchens are amongst the few who have that honor due to the fact they are/were all intelligent enough to know what they were doing. I haven't started on Hitchens yet. I assume that you are talking about his support of the war in Iraq? I only saw something mentioned about that yesterday, so I haven't delved into his reasoning behind his support for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I confess to a personal hatred of Hitchens. IMO, he was a neo con hack that made the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that people who are born into a bad religion necessarily become bad people that must be corrected with bombs and modern torture methods. That puts him on equal footing with the inquisitionists. For the life of me I don't understand how someone can claim to be a free thinker and engage in thoughtless propaganda efforts. I imagine he saw it as accomplishing some greater good, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with such intentions. I thought Hitchens was a Marxist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I confess to a personal hatred of Hitchens. IMO, he was a neo con hack that made the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that people who are born into a bad religion necessarily become bad people that must be corrected with bombs and modern torture methods. That puts him on equal footing with the inquisitionists. For the life of me I don't understand how someone can claim to be a free thinker and engage in thoughtless propaganda efforts. I imagine he saw it as accomplishing some greater good, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with such intentions. I don't truly hate many people in this world. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Hitchens are amongst the few who have that honor due to the fact they are/were all intelligent enough to know what they were doing. I haven't started on Hitchens yet. I assume that you are talking about his support of the war in Iraq? I only saw something mentioned about that yesterday, so I haven't delved into his reasoning behind his support for it. More than just his support. He was a die hard apologist for the war effort, used by Bush and Blaire to gain intellectual credibility. He was then sent out on media rounds apologizing for our torture methods. John Dolan, one of my favorite writers, raked him over the coals for this in this article: http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7919&IBLOCK_ID=35 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts