Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Dawkins is wrong about believers

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Dawkins is wrong about believers
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Patrick Bateman

Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers

Big_Bird wrote:

Um, please learn to use the quote function. Second, that was the biggest load of garble I have read in ages.

I don't read stuff by atheists? There are atheists all over the place. How can I avoid reading stuff by atheists? I should read stuff about the human condition? - can you be more specific? Secondly, I don't read about religion as a solution. I haven't been reading about any religion's take on how to fix the human condition. Why would I?

Your post just seems vague and pointless.

To simply address your questions:

Big_Bird wrote:

I don't read stuff by atheists? There are atheists all over the place. How can I avoid reading stuff by atheists?

I asked you what books by an atheist you have read because, like I have said before, to speak from any position requires a certain degree of brevity on the material. You have alluded to not reading things by atheists because they simply don't believe in God, so what more could they have to say on the matter.

Big_Bird wrote:

I should read stuff about the human condition? - can you be more specific?

I am not targeting you out. I have no idea what your reading habits are, so I wouldn't make suggestions without knowing. I never said you should read more stuff on the human condition. You asked me why a person should read something by an atheist about atheism (because there is more to it then, hey there is no God). I tried to answer it. But in an attempt to be more specific:
A. Human Condition refers to the state of being a human and the responsibilities a single human has in existing in a plurality of people, and vis versa.
B. For a considerable amount of time, the issue of the human condition has been dealt with solely from a religious influence.
C. Atheism is brand new in popular thought. It might be worthwhile to read these works, as well as those by theists to find what one personally believes to be the best way.

Big_Bird wrote:

Secondly, I don't read about religion as a solution. I haven't been reading about any religion's take on how to fix the human condition. Why would I?

I don't know anything about your choice in reading. If you want to talk about books, I'd be more than happy to. I find it a fun, and usually agreeable, topic.

I hope this post is more specific and less vague for your liking.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 8:31 pm Post subject:

I didn't read the last couple of pages because the thread started to seriously suck, but one thing I'd like to say is that I was always an agnostic (a philosophy degree will do that to you) until I read God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger (a physicist). It's frustrating that theism/atheism is such a sensitive topic, unlike belief, or no belief, in, say, ghosts. What's the difference?

Interested

Joined: 10 Feb 2003

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:22 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

I didn't read the last couple of pages because the thread started to seriously suck, but one thing I'd like to say is that I was always an agnostic (a philosophy degree will do that to you) until I read God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger (a physicist).

Which made you lean which way? You don't say. Did he convince you of his argument, or did you reject own hypothesis outright?

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

It's frustrating that theism/atheism is such a sensitive topic, unlike belief, or no belief, in, say, ghosts. What's the difference?

I'm from Britain and I've never known it to be an issue there. I'd say believing in ghosts was more of an issue. If the PM said he was an atheist, I doubt many would care. If he said he believed in ghosts - that would be a whole other story!

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:09 pm Post subject:

Interested wrote:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Which made you lean which way? You don't say. Did he convince you of his argument, or did you reject own hypothesis outright?

I became an atheist. That wasn't the only reason, but it had a lot to do with it. God: the Failed Hypothesis does exactly what it says on the tin. Laughing

I haven't read the God delusion.

Interested

Joined: 10 Feb 2003

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:24 pm Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

postfundie wrote:

The reasons that the Nazis got out of control was because the ordinary Germans didn't speak up enough.

Yeah, and that's how the Palestinians continue to live in such miserable conditions. That's how Arab children are regulalry subjected to vicious wars that blast them to shreds. Because ordinary Americans (whose tax financees it all) don't speak up enough.

Too true:

Quote:

When attending weddings or other celebratory gatherings, we aren�t concerned about drone barrages or suicide bombers. No matter where they go or in what activities they allow their children to participate, even remaining in their homes, the real housewives of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Gaza must always be on alert for an attack, one delivering made-in-the-USA destruction that could kill or maim their children, their husbands, themselves.

Imagine the mothers in Gaza, holding their children close, covering the small bodies with their own to protect them from weapons unleashed by the IDF, weapons developed by US companies and paid for by US tax dollars, weapons that wreak so much civilian carnage that they are banned by international law but employed without consequence by those who decide their use.

Our consciences should throb with shame from invasions where civilian deaths, many of them women and children, are acceptable to our indifferent leadership and a percentage of the electorate, because it is the United States, the Decider Nation, that perpetrates and perpetuates the violence. Our fingerprints are all over the shattered lives.

Fingerprints on Shattered Lives

Interested

Joined: 10 Feb 2003

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:25 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Interested wrote:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Which made you lean which way? You don't say. Did he convince you of his argument, or did you reject own hypothesis outright?

I became an atheist. That wasn't the only reason, but it had a lot to do with it. God: the Failed Hypothesis does exactly what it says on the tin. Laughing

I haven't read the God delusion.

I've never had to read anything to be an atheist.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:49 pm Post subject:

I've never been a believer, even as a child, and my parents are atheists, but God: the Failed Hypothesis showed me that there's no reason to be agnostic about the existence of a supernatural creator.

dporter

Joined: 26 Apr 2009

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 5:01 am Post subject:

Funny, I never believed in a god but I strongly suspect I am a brain in a vat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 8:20 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

I didn't read the last couple of pages because the thread started to seriously suck

Yes, this is a shame. It started off a good thread and went down the toilet. But I just had to have it out with someone because stuff had been going on too long.

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

It's frustrating that theism/atheism is such a sensitive topic, unlike belief, or no belief, in, say, ghosts. What's the difference?

Where are you from? This is not really a very sensitive topic in the UK.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 8:35 pm Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers

Patrick Bateman wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

I don't read stuff by atheists? There are atheists all over the place. How can I avoid reading stuff by atheists?

I must have read thousands of books by atheists. Quite possibly more by atheists than by theists, given my interests. It doesn't tend to be announced whether an author is atheist or theist, unless it's somehow relevant.

Perhaps you are actually trying to ask me what I've read regarding the topic of atheism? Why would I read that stuff? That's the kind of thing Agnostics read. Razz

I don't understand you at all. You say that I "have alluded to not reading things by atheists because they simply don't believe in God" and I really can't fathom where I have 'alluded' such a thing. I think you are confused.

A fictional Serial Killer wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

I should read stuff about the human condition? - can you be more specific?

Um. For one thing, is Atheism really brand new in popular thought? Maybe in the US? I always assumed Atheists and their indecisive Agnostic cousins to be the majority, at least in the UK.

Humanists have been around a long time - modern humanists a few centuries. That's hardly brand new. Maybe it's you who needs to do a bit of reading?

Secondly, there are plenty of people who - despite having religious beliefs - are able to offer 'solutions to the human condition' that don't involve prayer or hail Marys.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 9:13 pm Post subject:

Definitions of Atheist fundamentalism:

There's a whole lot of discussion about it here: http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/01/12/atheist-fundamentalists-and-extremists/

Here's an example:

Quote:

Atheists simply don�t believe in any God. They understand that there isn�t much logic in wasting time or money debating, arguing and worrying about something that doesn�t even exist. They don�t even feel the need to announce or proclaim what doesn�t exist. Thus they get on with their lives in peace.

Fundamentalist Atheists feel the need not only to announce and proclaim the non existence of God but they also feel the need to mock others who do believe in God with using such terms as �sky pixie� and �flying spaghetti monsters�.

Extremist Atheists seek to ban religion through legislation and/or vandalism of religious places and symbols.

Patrick Bateman

Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation

Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 12:09 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers

Big_Bird wrote:

I guess I am mainly considering philosophy books when I am talking about this subject (for better or worse). And I would say, though I know you will disagree, that regardless of whether or not a person is an atheist, reading a book concerning atheism is relevant, and at the very least, interesting.

Actually, if you want to bring this all back full circle (to the original post), Both Dawkins and Hitchens discuss ways in which an atheist can confront a religious world and a religious person. I don�t really see either of those authors as being atheist fundamentalists. In fact, Dawkins has a wonderful chapter about NOMA (I may have gotten the acronym wrong) about where science stops having a right to speak about religion (and vis versa). I�m obviously overly simplifying, since Dawkins does criticize NOMA, but such ideas are discussed, and I wouldn't have known about them had I not read the book.

You may want to reread what I wrote if you want clarity.

Big_Bird wrote:

Yes, I would consider atheism brand new in popular thought. I�m not quite sure why the country matters. It�s like I mentioned before in my vague and useless post, the complete denouncement of religion did not occur in a book before the late 19th century. At least, not without the author being persecuted. Did people still hold those views? I�m sure they did, but to exist in popular thought, the idea must be in the free and public exchange of ideas.

You do bring up a very interesting point with Humanists, and I must say that by and large I agree. My only contention would be, Humanists had to tread carefully with regards to religion, and almost no one completely denounced religion. Thus, the complete freedom from requiring religion is new. I am not sure how, if at all, this would affect a person's writings, but it may, and I think it's worth considering.

But you are also right. A person can be religious and offer a great perspective. I guess I just always like reading a wide variety of perspectives. And no, I�m not trying to make myself sound fair and balanced, rather, sometimes it�s just fun reading something you disagree with.

Patrick Bateman

Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation

Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 12:32 am Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

Definitions of Atheist fundamentalism:

There's a whole lot of discussion about it here: http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/01/12/atheist-fundamentalists-and-extremists/

Thanks for the info/link. That is exactly what I wanted to know.

I�m sure such people are out there, but I just never hear about them, nor meet them. I have known about the spaghetti monster thing though, and I found that annoying.

Also, I know Dawkins, whether in seriousness or jest, wanted to call atheists �brights� (which regardless is also annoying), but other than that, I just don�t see this kind of stuff.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 2:05 am Post subject:

Patrick Bateman wrote:

but other than that, I just don�t see this kind of stuff.

That's because you haven't been roving these forums enough.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 2:30 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers

Patrick Bateman wrote:

Interesting. Fine. That's a very good reason for anything at all. That is a good reason to read books on atheism. That is, if there are not a million other things in the world that interest you more. But I do not see why anyone has a duty to read books on atheism. I don't think understanding all the arguments for atheism are a prerequisite for atheism either.

Quote:

Both Dawkins and Hitchens discuss ways in which an atheist can confront a religious world and a religious person.

I don't feel a need to confront a religious world, but that's probably because I'm from the UK which is a much more secular society than the US (yes I know I know Henny Penny*, the Muslim hordes are upon us). Generally I live in harmony with it.

As for confronting religious people, either they're beyond help and completely nutty about their religion trying to push it down everyone's throat - in which case I just avoid/ignore them - or much more usually their religious beliefs do not perturb me in anyway. In fact often their faith really compliments them. I have good solid intelligent friends who are theists. Sometimes I envy them their faith. It must be much easier to deal with the terrible distress of losing a loved one, for example. Or at least I imagine so.

Quote:

I don�t really see either of those authors as being atheist fundamentalists

.

This thread is really directed at their over-zealous followers.

Quote:

Yes, I would consider atheism brand new in popular thought. I�m not quite sure why the country matters.

It matters because countries have very different religious climates. For example, in the US, it seems nigh impossible for an Atheist to be elected as a President. In Britain, I don't think many would give a hoot.

Quote:

It�s like I mentioned before in my vague and useless post, the complete denouncement of religion did not occur in a book before the late 19th century. At least, not without the author being persecuted. Did people still hold those views? I�m sure they did, but to exist in popular thought, the idea must be in the free and public exchange of ideas.

Yes, but that's not even within living memory. For a few generations now atheism and agnosticism and a fair sprinkle of piss-weak I-never-go-to-church-or-nuthin-but-I-think-there-could-be-something-out-there theism have been quite the norm. At least in the UK.

Quote:

You do bring up a very interesting point with Humanists, and I must say that by and large I agree. My only contention would be, Humanists had to tread carefully with regards to religion, and almost no one completely denounced religion. Thus, the complete freedom from requiring religion is new. I am not sure how, if at all, this would affect a person's writings, but it may, and I think it's worth considering.

Perhaps once upon a time, it might have been a major consideration. But in the latter part of the twentieth century, I don't believe it's been an issue. Mind you, we kicked out our fundamentalists centuries ago and sent them off to the colonies.

Quote:

But you are also right. A person can be religious and offer a great perspective. I guess I just always like reading a wide variety of perspectives.

I'm thinking more along the lines of people being privately religious, but still being able to offer secular/humanist solutions.

* Henny Penny knows who he is.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 8 of 9

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe