Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 30, 2011, 08:18:19 AM
Quote
1) Everything may substitute morality in your declarations, I really don't see the point of it. Everything changes in history, or else it wouldn't be and existence would be like a giant still photograph. I don't really know what to make of this since morality is not the main point of the article.
Like I said, if history and science have shown morality to be ambiguous and dependant on enviromental circumstance, how can such things as a 'created morality' exist if in fact they are just reactions to laws and upbringing? To me this is just metaphysical idealism, like the 'soul' superstition.

Quote
2) I never suggested that. That goes to show who is the real conditioned one: I never said God was a male, even less, a white one. I just said the word God, you don't know what this means to me and assumed I meant it as a divine white male. That's whacked.

Quote
Maybe we were the designers of ourselves.

Quote
If we did, and could talk to him like another human, then he would'nt be so high after all.

You may not be aware you're even doing it, because civilization's influence is so engraved into your unconscious.

3) A superior morality considers that morality doesn't exist, and all that does is either truth or untruth, as related to the knowledge one has uncovered.


1) Well first I have to state that the article is not about morality, I know it talks about it at some point, but morality could be excluded and replaced with duty or whatever. If you understand the article you will know what I'm saying.

2) You were right about the sex, not species or race. (Not that I really think god is a man, it's way beyond that for me, but if it is to be considered as the creator it has to have the first masculine principle in order to create, in my opinion. But god to me is the Theos Agnostos, beyond all limitation, categorization etc.)

Dinaric leather: This is the title of the article, I must reproduce it.

--
Anyway I think the point is that, when all belief in a planned creation (it is not necessary that this is the exact belief - but not richard dawkin's materialism) fades, power becomes the only thing to be worshiped so Richard Dawkins does not feel it is contradictory for him to think and say that the geologist should not abandon science or that it is not good that he did so, but he only takes those things for granted because he lives in western world, science has brought progress, science has brought answers, etc. and the majority of people would agree, but that is because of power, not because what he's saying (in his world view - nothing has a plan or "should" or "shouldn't"), so, while he as a scientist can understand, biologically, why some people would disagree with this, I think he feels deep down that he is RIGHT, that people who disagree with him are deluded and ignorant. But he only takes that for granted because the power structure is on his side. If the media put shamans, new agers, etc. in the media good looking, with sexy people, sex insinuations, made it hip, etc. it could make richard dawkins look like the fool. And in my opinion from the point of view that dawkins himself exposes that would not be wrong. The strongest force would survive and he could say that it's a shame that knowledge was being supressed BUT, he could not provide any reason as to why that would be BAD, because nature is lawless, and there would not be any OBJECTIVE TRUTH that he could invoke to prove that he was right.



Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 30, 2011, 10:10:57 AM
I tried reading "The God Delusion" today.  Got to chapter three and thought "sod it, this guy has absolutely no understanding of anything remotely akin to proper reasoning practice".  His crass rejection of Anselm's Ontological Argument (a rejection which made no refutation of Anselm's arguments) displays his absolute inability to consider reality beyond the imminent and physical.  As many militant scientists, he is blind to the metaphysical aspects of reality.

Ideal for soccer-moms that want to emancipate themselves from the chains of Relijun but just don't know how or are afraid to.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 30, 2011, 03:05:25 PM
So, the bottom line seems to be this:

Religion is all based on guesswork and neuroses of arrogant, pampered individuals.
Science ignores the opinions of these people.
But crowdists do not understand/read science, so they get angry when science refuses to address fairy tales.

Why are religious types such self-indulgent sissies?

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 30, 2011, 05:11:52 PM
Common man believers and common man aitheists are usually both on some wack shit.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
April 30, 2011, 06:05:52 PM
Religion is all based on guesswork and neuroses of arrogant, pampered individuals.



Where did you get this from?  If anything, it's the arrogant, pampered "individuals" who can't see anything important beyond themselves.  Religion is one way to address that fact.  Please bear in mind that I'm significantly inebriated at this point, if I've mispelled/missed out any words.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
May 01, 2011, 12:12:37 AM
If you're worrying about that enough to mention it in what would otherwise be a three sentence post then it'd probably be best not to post at all.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
May 01, 2011, 01:47:28 AM
Why are all rappers so religious?

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
May 01, 2011, 08:37:53 AM
Why are all rappers so religious?

I'm not really sure.  Maybe it's because they've generally been brought up by their parents to be Christians, and maybe some of them have decided to convert to some form of Islam.  Why was everybody so religious before people realised that the confines of common Christianity were not conducive to philosophical and scientific advancement?  Because it was their birthright.  Christianity was designed to be a self-perpetuating entity: you pass it on to non-Christians, you pass it down to your children, everybody in the world should be Christian because it's the one true religion, blah blah blah.  It's really no wonder that the majority of sub-intelligent humans adopt their demographic's religion without ever looking into the basis of it, or even trying to understand it in any real way.

If you're worrying about that enough to mention it in what would otherwise be a three sentence post then it'd probably be best not to post at all.

I don't remember much about getting home last night.  Beltane is an amusing occasion.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
May 01, 2011, 07:49:31 PM
So, the bottom line seems to be this:

Religion is all based on guesswork and neuroses of arrogant, pampered individuals.
Science ignores the opinions of these people.
But crowdists do not understand/read science, so they get angry when science refuses to address fairy tales.

Why are religious types such self-indulgent sissies?


Congratulations, now you're deviating this against religious people. Yet, I may be an atheist, and I could see how weak your post is.

1.- Do you have any scientific significantly statistical evidence of your psychological asseveration about the preponderance of arrogance, self indulgence, sissiness or neuroses in religious people? If not, then you're talking from your common sense/prejudices. In that case you're in the same department with Dickie. If you know such evidence, congratulations, you're a step ahead from him.

2.- Science ignores atheism too. Atheism denies the existence of metaphysical entities, but that's also irrelevant to Science. If you are honest enough to articulate this characteristic of Science, congratulations, you're ahead from Dickie here.

Yes, I agree that this is the bottom line.. in your lack of understanding of the matter. I'll assume, parallely, ha, that you have barely read about Religion besides Dawkins & Friends., perhaps you have never read academic philosophy seriously, this would mean that you would have not even read classics like Wittgenstein and Russell; otherwise you would have realized that Dawkins atheism is a Teletubbies show in comparison.

Edit: Also, calling Religion "fairy tales" is a basic appeal to ridicule fallacy that no decent atheist should allow himself. But of course, how could you not be amazed by Dawkins Flying Spaghetti Monster?

(Credit to Cargest about Rusell here, Russell's teapot being a previous fallible analogy of God, still I appreciate Russell much more in terms of atheism than Dawkins)

 

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
May 01, 2011, 08:53:35 PM
Since when was Russell "academic"?  It's grade A bullshit, if you ask me.  I like his summaries of Western philosophers and their works, but as for most of his own work, I find it to be tedious and pointless.  1000 pages to prove that 1 + 1 = 2?  Sorry, Goedel called - something about an "incompleteness theorem"...

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
May 01, 2011, 09:06:02 PM
So, the bottom line seems to be this:

Religion is all based on guesswork and neuroses of arrogant, pampered individuals.
Science ignores the opinions of these people.
But crowdists do not understand/read science, so they get angry when science refuses to address fairy tales.

Why are religious types such self-indulgent sissies?


You're angry, and you're not saying anything substantial. What everyone else here keeps saying boils down to "Religion, as a field, is broader, deeper, more diverse and complicated than someone like Richard Dawkins is willing to aknowledge."

If you were to read either of these very approachable, easily digested books on the topic of religious experience, you too would understand that the entire dialectic between 'theism' and 'atheism' really only constitutes a very small portion of the broader territory of religious thought:

"The Power of Myth" by Joseph Campbell.
"The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion" by Mircea Eliade.

I recommend them both. Like I said, they are approachable and easily digested. They will introduce to you something of the methodology of the study of religion. They may also introduce to  you the idea of religion as a kind of language which, like poetry, employs "lies in order to tell the truth". In other words, it allows us to express - through symbols - ideas that are mangled by more mundane forms of expression. Of course, even this latter interpretation of the function of religion does not fully account for the whole range of phenomena falling under that category.

How prepared are you to admit that there was more going on in this field than you previously were aware of?


Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
May 02, 2011, 06:23:30 AM
How prepared are you to admit that there was more going on in this field than you previously were aware of?
You're being gay.

Don't be gay.

Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
May 02, 2011, 06:25:20 AM
Daddy kissed you too much as a child.


Re: The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
May 03, 2011, 06:31:55 PM
The transcendent argument for intelligence is inadequate due to the fact that intelligence is, as a concept and occurence, a structure of many variables. As such, deductionism tears that argument to shreds; hence we are at square one: there is no apparent god -- he/she/it/they/etc. is one of many arguments for the unknown. Whatever existed before The Big Bang (which takes place .000...01 seconds after said existence) is unobservable. Some physicists dare to take the leap of explaining what occured before the Big Bang, but they simply posit abstractions that mirror cosmic radiation. It's mental wankery and buffoonery. Why the hell is ANUS being trolled....again?