CNN - Richard Dawkins Interview

[tradeunionsupporter]

CNN - Richard Dawkins Interview


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt8SsANP8KY


Richard Dawkins is right if you believe in a Afterlife you don't live this life here on earth to the fullest because you believe/think your going to get another life does anyone agree thanks ?

[ВАЛТЕР]

Dawkins is awesome.

I agree with the sentiment that many people worry too much about the afterlife.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I agree.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Reactionary scumbag says a thing, Revleft wets itself.

[The Jay]

Reactionary scumbag says a thing, Revleft wets itself.

He may be reactionary, since I don't know his politics, but how is he a scumbag?

[Franz Fanonipants]

He may be reactionary, since I don't know his politics, but how is he a scumbag?

Because he's a reactionary.

[Nox]

What are Dawkins' political/economic views?

[Franz Fanonipants]

What are Dawkins' political/economic views?

God is a lie

oh wait that's neither political or economic. i wonder what they could be.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I think he's full of shit, atheism frees us to live our lives to the fullest because we don't believe in a afterlife? I don't think so, that hasn't been my personal experience.

[Queercommie Girl]

Sometimes people worry that they might get punished for the bad things they've done etc in the afterlife. Marxism doesn't believe in this kind of abstract moralism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Dawkins is a continuation of the imperialist British mindset that sees wogs and Roman popery everywhere.

Reactionary scum.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's not like one doesn't have to limit oneself and temper temptation if one wishes to live rationally, or even to become physically healthy.


What are Dawkins' political/economic views?
I remember him having been a Labourite at some point, or something of the sort.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's not like one doesn't have to limit oneself and temper temptation if one wishes to live rationally, or even to become physically healthy.


There is a big difference between this kind of rational consideration and commandments set in stone. And there is a big difference between descriptive rational consequence and normative moral punishment. For one thing, rational consideration isn't the same for everyone, and it isn't the same for all contexts, and no people don't have to become physically really fit either.

Many things traditional religionists consider to be "morally bad" aren't really "bad" from a rational perspective at all.

[Robocommie]

I think living a life where you try and do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and value peace and compassion and all that malarkey, would be a pretty damn good life. Dawkins, like most hardcore atheists, basically prattles on about how other peoples lives are affected by their own viewpoints and assumes nasty things about how it makes their lives less enjoyable, when he really has no way of knowing the extent to which that's true in every single case.

If you aren't religious, don't be religious. But don't act like a jackass to people who are because you don't know what positive things it might bring to their lives, and just because you don't share their perspective doesn't make them wrong.

[Robocommie]

There is a big difference between this kind of rational consideration and commandments set in stone. And there is a big difference between descriptive rational consequence and normative moral punishment. For one thing, rational consideration isn't the same for everyone, and it isn't the same for all contexts, and no people don't have to become physically really fit either.

Many things traditional religionists consider to be "morally bad" aren't really "bad" from a rational perspective at all.

Enshrining rationality as a pure and inherent good thing that exists in and of itself is ridiculous Enlightenment drivel.

I mean c'mon, you say rational consideration isn't the same for everyone - and then you say that not all things considered "morally bad" by traditional religionists are actually bad from a rational perspective. Well, which rational perspective? What's rational to you is informed by your perspectives, your experiences, your prejudices and biases. That's why reifying rationalism as a Thing is dumb.

[Franz Fanonipants]

That's basically comrade Iseul's specialty comrade so...

[Nox]

Dawkins is a continuation of the imperialist British mindset that sees wogs and Roman popery everywhere.

Reactionary scum.

What exactly are his political views?

[Franz Fanonipants]

What exactly are his political views?

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/624093-support-christian-missions-in-africa-no-but

Impfuckingerialism

[ВАЛТЕР]

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/624093-support-christian-missions-in-africa-no-but

Impfuckingerialism

So he doesn't want to send aid because of peoples religious choices?

He views Islam as dangerous? The majority of the world is Muslim, so in his head we should all be besieged by swarms of Muslims demanding we convert any minute now?


I never knew his politics were such. I enjoy his speaking on atheism, biology, evolution and whatnot, but I do not like this aggression towards Islam in particular.

Islam has been painted badly in recent years mostly because of the development of fundamentalist groups, however these groups are not a result of Islam, but a result of western intervention in the region.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I never knew his politics were such.

Apparently most of Revleft didn't either so...

E: the best part is that you "enjoyed" his speeches on Atheism since they're basically the germ at the heart of this reactionary, evil bullshit.

[Queercommie Girl]

Enshrining rationality as a pure and inherent good thing that exists in and of itself is ridiculous Enlightenment drivel.

I mean c'mon, you say rational consideration isn't the same for everyone - and then you say that not all things considered "morally bad" by traditional religionists are actually bad from a rational perspective. Well, which rational perspective? What's rational to you is informed by your perspectives, your experiences, your prejudices and biases. That's why reifying rationalism as a Thing is dumb.

Frankly, I don't think you understand my point at all. Rationality is a methodology rather than an "end", let alone something "enshrined". And Rationalism is not just an Enlightenment idea, the idea that God is inherently Rational is a belief of many famous theologians.

I'd think that unless you are a mindless extreme fundamentalist or some kind of hyper-mystical charlatan, most ordinary religious people who take their religions seriously would also agree that religious belief is not fundamentally contrary to Reason at all.

Personally I am not anti-religion in general, I think I've told you this already. But I am anti-fundamentalist. I don't think religions are, or should be, against the basic tenets of Rationalism in a serious philosophical sense.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Apparently most of Revleft didn't either so...

E: the best part is that you "enjoyed" his speeches on Atheism since they're basically the germ at the heart of this reactionary, evil bullshit.


I never bothered to hear of his politics since I just cared about the science of evolution and whatnot. I mean, all I ever read/watched were his speeches on evolution.


Either way, I am not going to let my opinion of his work in biology be effected by my opinion of his politics. However shitty they may be.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think living a life where you try and do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and value peace and compassion and all that malarkey, would be a pretty damn good life. Dawkins, like most hardcore atheists, basically prattles on about how other peoples lives are affected by their own viewpoints and assumes nasty things about how it makes their lives less enjoyable, when he really has no way of knowing the extent to which that's true in every single case.

If you aren't religious, don't be religious. But don't act like a jackass to people who are because you don't know what positive things it might bring to their lives, and just because you don't share their perspective doesn't make them wrong.

Yes, there are some positive aspects in religious ethics, I don't deny that.

But you are being selective if you deny that some nasty things exist in religions too. I once knew a Christian fundamentalist who literally believes that if you've heard the Gospel but refuse to believe in Christ, then you will surely burn in eternal hell, and that many of the followers of non-Christian religions would end up in hell too, that ultimately God would only save a "minority". I think anyone who is left-wing really have no choice but to utterly reject that kind of fundamentalist drivel.

Not to mention that many religious people today are still quite LGBT-phobic, sexist etc.

Of course, this is not a general critique against religion. There are good progressive religious people too. But my point is that for those people who wish to focus on the "evils" of contemporary atheism all the time, they should be fair (which I believe is also a religious ethic, no?) and acknowledge that a lot of "evil" exists in every religion too.

[Robocommie]

Frankly, I don't think you understand my point at all. Rationality is a methodology rather than an "end", let alone something "enshrined". And Rationalism is not just an Enlightenment idea, the idea that God is inherently Rational is a belief of many famous theologians.

I'd think that unless you are a mindless extreme fundamentalist or some kind of hyper-mystical charlatan, most ordinary religious people who take their religions seriously would also agree that religious belief is not fundamentally contrary to Reason at all.

Personally I am not anti-religion in general, I think I've told you this already. But I am anti-fundamentalist. I don't think religions are, or should be, against the basic tenets of Rationalism in a serious philosophical sense.

The funny thing about this Iseul, is that I've been studying religious fundamentalism in depth lately and one of the major consensus' of religious historians is that religious fundamentalism is actually a product of rationalism mixed with traditional religion.

So, whatever.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I never bothered to hear of his politics since I just cared about the science of evolution and whatnot. I mean, all I ever read, watched were his speeches on evolution.

Either way, I am not going to let my opinion of his work in biology be effected by my opinion of his politics. However shitty they may be.

As Comrade Gramsci stated, anything that does not explicitly serve the proletariat is explicitly serving the bourgeois.

His scientific work, as "value-free" as it might be still is tainted by the conclusions he draws about the world. Sorry comrade, but you've gotta dispose of him.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The funny thing about this Iseul, is that I've been studying religious fundamentalism in depth lately and one of the major consensus' of religious historians is that religious fundamentalism is actually a product of rationalism mixed with traditional religion.

So, whatever.

A scientist saying things about social sciences that don't parse with any sort of critical, peer-reviewed social science methodology?

I never!

[Robocommie]

Yes, there are some positive aspects in religious ethics, I don't deny that.

But you are being selective if you deny that some nasty things exist in religions too. I once knew a Christian fundamentalist who literally believes that if you've heard the Gospel but refuse to believe in Christ, then you will surely burn in eternal hell, and that many of the followers of non-Christian religions would end up in hell too, that ultimately God would only save a "minority". I think anyone who is left-wing really have no choice but to utterly reject that kind of fundamentalist drivel.

So it's on the leftist agenda to promote the concept of a more inclusive afterlife? :confused:

Leave theology to the theologically inclined, Iseul.



Not to mention that many religious people today are still quite LGBT-phobic, sexist etc.

Religious people who are assholes are assholes about their religion. Go figure.



Of course, this is not a general critique against religion. There are good progressive religious people too. But my point is that for those people who wish to focus on the "evils" of contemporary atheism all the time, they should be fair (which I believe is also a religious ethic, no?) and acknowledge that a lot of "evil" exists in every religion too.

In fact, religion explicitly predicts that not everyone who claims to be a righteous person is going to be genuine and that hypocrites abound. That's a central tenet of most major world religions. That's not really a coup, to point that out.

[Queercommie Girl]

The funny thing about this Iseul, is that I've been studying religious fundamentalism in depth lately and one of the major consensus' of religious historians is that religious fundamentalism is actually a product of rationalism mixed with traditional religion.

So, whatever.

In this case it's more likely to be pseudo-rationalism.

I've actually studied some theology before. In general Catholic theology (which isn't really fundamentalist at all) for instance, it is generally believed that God is a rational being and the natural world God created can be understood through a rational and scientific process. After all, some of the relatively progressive Catholics in history, like the Jesuits for instance, also made great contributions in natural science. Natural Theology is a major branch of theology in Christianity, together with Revelatory Theology and Systematic Theology.

And I once knew the pastor of a Protestant Church who said that the serious believer should never lightly believe any claims of "miracles" etc and that these mystical things are not the way by which one should approach God.

On the other hand, I've been to Christian fundamentalist churches who take a very irrational approach and always have people who "speak in tongues" and "shake around on the ground" etc. Yes, the theological and ethical views of these churches are much more fundamentalist and reactionary than those of the more rationalist ones.

So really the idea that religion and science/rationalism should be absolutely and utterly counter-posed to one another is ignorant drivel.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Matthew 25:31-46 or gtfo

[Franz Fanonipants]

So really the idea that religion and science/rationalism should be absolutely and utterly counter-posed to one another is ignorant drivel.

Look comrade, you obviously don't understand what Robocommie and I are identifying as "reason." Fucking leave it alone because if you don't get the terms of the argument, what's the point?

[Kenco Smooth]

As Comrade Gramsci stated, anything that does not explicitly serve the proletariat is explicitly serving the bourgeois.

His scientific work, as "value-free" as it might be still is tainted by the conclusions he draws about the world. Sorry comrade, but you've gotta dispose of him.

Yeah, fuck the popularisers of science. They should be writing on Marx or not at all. What the hell has the theory of evolution ever done for anyone anyway?

Why don't the reactionary conclusions occasionally reached by Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. require them being 'disposed of'?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Yeah, fuck the popularisers of science. They should be writing on Marx or not at all. What the hell has the theory of evolution ever done for anyone anyway?

I'm for it.

[Queercommie Girl]

So it's on the leftist agenda to promote the concept of a more inclusive afterlife? :confused:


I fail to see how the concept of a more inclusive afterlife can have any kind of positive result in the ethical sense. Marxists don't believe in relying on the legal punishments of the state and they shouldn't believe in relying on the imaginary spiritual punishments of an afterlife to make people behave in a good way too. As a Marxist proverb says: heaven is often a reflection of earth.



Religious people who are assholes are assholes about their religion. Go figure.


I realise there are religious people who are pro-LGBT as well. But those who are not aren't merely "ass*holes", for they believe that their homophobic and transphobic viewpoints come from the religious tenets which they believe in.

[Queercommie Girl]

Look comrade, you obviously don't understand what Robocommie and I are identifying as "reason." Fucking leave it alone because if you don't get the terms of the argument, what's the point?


Sorry, but you don't monopolise what "religious thought" is. There are many serious religious people who genuinely believe religion and science are completely compatible, and their views are just as valid as yours, if not more so.

You can't coerce people to abandon or change their viewpoints with words like "fucking leave it alone". People are free to make points about religion.

[Robocommie]

In this case it's more likely to be pseudo-rationalism.

Sure, it's pseudo-rationalism because it doesn't meet your conclusions.



I've actually studied some theology before. In general Catholic theology (which isn't really fundamentalist at all) for instance, it is generally believed that God is a rational being and the natural world God created can be understood through a rational and scientific process. After all, some of the relatively progressive Catholics in history, like the Jesuits for instance, also made great contributions in natural science. Natural Theology is a major branch of theology in Christianity, together with Revelatory Theology and Systematic Theology.

Don't lecture me about Catholic theology and Jesuit history, Iseul, at certain points in my life I had considered becoming a Jesuit priest.



And I once knew the pastor of a Protestant Church who said that the serious believer should never lightly believe any claims of "miracles" etc and that these mystical things are not the way by which one should approach God.

On the other hand, I've been to Christian fundamentalist churches who take a very irrational approach and always have people who "speak in tongues" and "shake around on the ground" etc. Yes, the theological and ethical views of these churches are much more fundamentalist and reactionary than those of the more rationalist ones.

So really the idea that religion and science/rationalism should be absolutely and utterly counter-posed to one another is ignorant drivel.

I get so utterly tired of your use of subjective value statements to categorize things as "better" or "worse" when it comes to cultural practices and religious beliefs. You've done it for as long as I can remember and I can only roll my eyes every single time. If you're a secularist - be a secularist.

[Robocommie]

Sorry, but you don't monopolise what "religious thought" is. There are many serious religious people who genuinely believe religion and science are completely compatible, and their views are just as valid as yours, if not more so.

The problem Iseul, is that you don't actually really know what Franz and I's view on religion is. I can't speak for Franz, but my personal objection is that you seem to be making the argument that irrational "mystical" religion is bad, whereas rational "logical" religion is good. That's prejudicial on your part and I really don't care for it.

If I get around to it I'll probably at some point type up some of the readings I've been doing on this subject so I can actually show you what I mean, about rationalism and religious fundamentalism, as well as why I think it's completely silly for you to categorically dismiss "mysticism" in religion.

[Queercommie Girl]

Sure, it's pseudo-rationalism because it doesn't meet your conclusions.


Not really. There is nothing personal about it. Many respectable figures in the history of religions also consider certain forms of incorrect beliefs to be pseudo-rationalism and pseudo-faith.



I get so utterly tired of your use of subjective value statements to categorize things as "better" or "worse" when it comes to cultural practices and religious beliefs. You've done it for as long as I can remember and I can only roll my eyes every single time. If you're a secularist - be a secularist.


No it's not "subjective" at all. Actually let me be frank with you: Yes I am a secularist, but I'm not intrinsically anti-religion and I don't mind any kind of religious practice in themselves per se, for it's none of my business. Nevertheless, when Christian fundamentalists begin to say things like Muslims are going to hell, Buddhists are worshipping demons, and LGBT people are condemned by God, then yes it does become my problem, for these positions are not acceptable and in a socialist society they cannot exist. Marxism never believes that religious freedom should be "absolute" in any sense. Religious people are only free if it does not violate the freedom of other people. Exactly how this basic point is "subjective" is utterly beyond me.

[Queercommie Girl]

The problem Iseul, is that you don't actually really know what Franz and I's view on religion is. I can't speak for Franz, but my personal objection is that you seem to be making the argument that irrational "mystical" religion is bad, whereas rational "logical" religion is good. That's prejudicial on your part and I really don't care for it.

If I get around to it I'll probably at some point type up some of the readings I've been doing on this subject so I can actually show you what I mean, about rationalism and religious fundamentalism, as well as why I think it's completely silly for you to categorically dismiss "mysticism" in religion.

No I don't categorically dismiss mysticism in religion necessarily either.

The fact of the matter is though, firstly I don't think you and Franz necessarily have the same ideas about religion, and secondly I hope you can stop attributing my beliefs about religion solely on some kind of "subjective" factor. After all, I did interact with some religious groups of all kinds in the past, so I've absorbed some of what they think about religion. Many Catholics for instance tend to be dismissive of Christian fundamentalism. (Which also tends to be quite anti-Catholic)

After all I'm generally a secularist and an atheist so it's not my actual belief, but rather I'm commenting on something objectively.

I don't mean to be disrespectful to you (and frankly I find you to be more approachable than Franz), but I'm merely laying out some of my thoughts and understanding on this matter.

[Luís Henrique]

Reactionary scumbag says a thing, Revleft wets itself.

I would by no means put it in such a simplistic way, but no, Richard Dawkins is not a comrade of us, by any stretch of imagination.


What are Dawkins' political/economic views?

He doesn't seem to care too much about politics, and seldom makes explicitely political points that I am aware. He votes for Labour.

What he often does is to say, unintentionally, reactionary things, and then spends a lot of time backpedalling.

More worrysome, his views on biology and evolution do imply a pro-market philosophy, in that he distinctively sees market mechanisms operating at the biological level. So he is one step ahead of the traditional defenders of markets (who try to apply physical or biological models to market economies): he sees no problems in applying marginalist economic models to biology.

His takes on social sciences are delusional and dangerous (and could eventually base a far right movement if people take the time to connect the dots). I am talking about the pseudo-science of "memetics", that implies that abstract ideas, not concrete people, are the subject of history. He also does this kind of stuff against hard sciences (his idea of reproducing universes, for instance), but as physics and cosmology are much more established sciences than sociology or economics, he has much less success with that.


Either way, I am not going to let my opinion of his work in biology be effected by my opinion of his politics. However shitty they may be.

That's how it should be. However, do take into consideration that the man is much more into divulgation than into research, and that his writings and public speeches don't go into the way of popularising evolutionary biology as much as into divulging social views - namely those of a militant, though unconnected to material conditions, brand of atheism.


As Comrade Gramsci stated, anything that does not explicitly serve the proletariat is explicitly serving the bourgeois.Did he say such foolery? If so, he was just plain and simply wrong, and my views of him would be quite diminished.

Luís Henrique

[Robocommie]

No it's not "subjective" at all. Actually let me be frank with you: Yes I am a secularist, but I'm not intrinsically anti-religion and I don't mind any kind of religious practice in themselves per se, for it's none of my business.

Exactly my point.


Nevertheless, when Christian fundamentalists begin to say things like Muslims are going to hell, Buddhists are worshipping demons, and LGBT people are condemned by God, then yes it does become my problem, for these positions are not acceptable and in a socialist society they cannot exist.

One of the central tenets of orthodox Christianity is that there is only one God and that only through accepting Christ can salvation be achieved. What exactly gives you, the secularist, the right to dictate proper theology based on what you think is acceptable or not?



Marxism never believes that religious freedom should be "absolute" in any sense. Religious people are only free if it does not violate the freedom of other people. Exactly how this basic point is "subjective" is utterly beyond me.

And how exactly are privately held religious opinions, however disagreeable to you and I they may be, an issue of the violation of other people's freedoms? What kind of truly secular society would let this become a problem?

[Kenco Smooth]

I'm for it.

You didn't answer my second question.

[Queercommie Girl]

One of the central tenets of orthodox Christianity is that there is only one God and that only through accepting Christ can salvation be achieved. What exactly gives you, the secularist, the right to dictate proper theology based on what you think is acceptable or not?


From my understanding of Christian theology, there is no conclusive belief that non-Christians or LGBT people are damned at all. It seems to me that Christians argue with each other on this point, for instance the Anglican Church at the moment is divided on the issue of gay marriage. I would say that just as religious people can argue with each other, secularists can also participate in the argument in principle. A secularist may not personally believe in God or Karma, but it doesn't mean he/she can't discuss such religious issues. I think potentially discussion should be open to all people in a democratic society, and I don't think I'm talking about these issues in a disrespectful way either.



And how exactly are privately held religious opinions, however disagreeable to you and I they may be, an issue of the violation of other people's freedoms? What kind of truly secular society would let this become a problem?


Well, I don't believe religious opinions are ever completely "privately held". Generally they tend to have organisational consequences, such as aggressive evangelism in the hope of trying to "save the souls" of those who follow other faiths, which frankly many non-Western cultures consider to be a form of cultural imperialism to some extent.

[Robocommie]

No I don't categorically dismiss mysticism in religion necessarily either.



The fact of the matter is though, firstly I don't think you and Franz necessarily have the same ideas about religion, and secondly I hope you can stop attributing my beliefs about religion solely on some kind of "subjective" factor.Franz and I are very old friends, we go way back. Our attitudes differ on many fine details but in many ways we have similar feelings about religion.

And as far as the subjectivity goes, I really have heard you make way too many comments in the past about Abrahamic religious concepts, monotheism, religious morality as opposed to the religious morality of paganism or polytheistic cultures, and things like the culture of medieval Christianity vs Chinese culture, and then comment about some of these things being better or worse, or more or less progressive than others, to really think you're as objective as you say you are.

And I mean, whatever. That's how it goes. The problem is, you think of yourself as a wholly neutral, objective observer, except you're not. Nobody is. And that makes you blind to your own bias.



After all, I did interact with some religious groups of all kinds in the past, so I've absorbed some of what they think about religion. Many Catholics for instance tend to be dismissive of Christian fundamentalism. (Which also tends to be quite anti-Catholic) After all I'm generally a secularist and an atheist so it's not my actual belief, but rather I'm commenting on something objectively.But Iseul, if you've absorbed some of what these groups have thought of in the past, then you're not being objective. You're measuring things by the subjective perspectives of another group. If you want to talk about this stuff then you need to be anthropological - and one of the first things you have to do there is shed the notion that you can be or ARE objective. That's a fallacy of Rationalism, that objectivity is a thing which people can obtain.



I don't mean to be disrespectful to you (and frankly I find you to be more approachable than Franz), but I'm merely laying out some of my thoughts and understanding on this matter.I don't ever find you disrespectful, actually I think you're a model of civility and I should probably be nicer in general to you. However, I get really frustrated because I think you're one of the smarter posters here, but I think you're beholden to some very silly conceits that lessens you.

[Robocommie]

From my understanding of Christian theology, there is no conclusive belief that non-Christians or LGBT people are damned at all. It seems to me that Christians argue with each other on this point, for instance the Anglican Church at the moment is divided on the issue of gay marriage.

Absolutely they do, and I happily argue for a pro-gay stance within religion.



I would say that just as religious people can argue with each other, secularists can also participate in the argument in principle. A secularist may not personally believe in God or Karma, but it doesn't mean he/she can't discuss such religious issues. I think potentially discussion should be open to all people in a democratic society, and I don't think I'm talking about these issues in a disrespectful way either.Well of course you can say what you want, and get involved in discourse, but I have to point out that any arguments you make are going to be extremely weak if only because everyone, both liberal and conservative, are going to be aware that you don't actually believe in God, so any arguments you make on people's personal theology is going to be based on your own preferences. If you don't think any of it's real, then why would you argue which view of God is the correct one?

I don't think you're intending to be disrespectful, but I do think you're being a touch condescending towards Pentecostals and the like, the more "mystically" inclined groups. Religious ecstasy is a good thing, I think, and I don't like the idea that the more valid religious traditions are the staid, academic versions of lecture halls. Too much brain, not enough heart.



Well, I don't believe religious opinions are ever completely "privately held". Generally they tend to have organisational consequences, such as aggressive evangelism in the hope of trying to "save the souls" of those who follow other faiths, which frankly many non-Western cultures consider to be a form of cultural imperialism to some extent.Sure, but those forms of cultural imperialism won't have much wind to them if they're not being enforced by the local colonial magistrate, or brought in with medical aid and food like a lot of missionary organizations do. That's the real beast of cultural imperialism - the extent to which it has forced people to adopt an imperial culture or ideology or starve.

[Queercommie Girl]

And as far as the subjectivity goes, I really have heard you make way too many comments in the past about Abrahamic religious concepts, monotheism, religious morality as opposed to the religious morality of paganism or polytheistic cultures, and things like the culture of medieval Christianity vs Chinese culture, and then comment about some of these things being better or worse, or more or less progressive than others, to really think you're as objective as you say you are.


I don't think I've ever said that one is better or worse than the other. I mean from the perspective of modern socialism both are pretty reactionary. Whatever I may comment on regarding ancient religions is secondary at most.

I did raise the question of whether or not non-Abrahamic religions are generally less LGBT-phobic than Abrahamic ones, but I didn't say they were. I only raised the point, which many other posters answered. (The answer it seems isn't a very clear or conclusive one either way)

Apart from this, I don't think I've categorically criticised Christianity or Abrahamic religions anywhere. But it's true that although I'm an atheist, my philosophical background probably has more similarities with Buddhism and Daoism than with the Abrahamic religions, due to my ethnic background.



And I mean, whatever. That's how it goes. The problem is, you think of yourself as a wholly neutral, objective observer, except you're not. Nobody is. And that makes you blind to your own bias.

But Iseul, if you've absorbed some of what these groups have thought of in the past, then you're not being objective. You're measuring things by the subjective perspectives of another group. If you want to talk about this stuff then you need to be anthropological - and one of the first things you have to do there is shed the notion that you can be or ARE objective. That's a fallacy of Rationalism, that objectivity is a thing which people can obtain.


I don't think I've ever said that people can become absolutely objective. Nevertheless, some points of view are still much more objective than others, and there is no reason why we shouldn't strive to be as objective as possible, even though pure objectivity cannot be reached. No scientific theories can ever be completely true, but scientists never stop in their search for the truth either.



I don't ever find you disrespectful, actually I think you're a model of civility and I should probably be nicer in general to you. However, I get really frustrated because I think you're one of the smarter posters here, but I think you're beholden to some very silly conceits that lessens you.

Ok, well I don't know what "silly conceits" you mean. Maybe you misunderstood some of my points in the past, or perhaps I misrepresented what I said. But really apart from being very passionate about upholding the equality and equal dignity of all religious and cultural traditions and defending LGBT peoples against religious people who are prejudiced against them, I don't even really have very strong opinions regarding religious issues. As I told you many times in the past, I'm by no means a militant atheist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Why don't the reactionary conclusions occasionally reached by Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. require them being 'disposed of'?

Engels for sure I hate that dude.

[ComradeMan]

Right well, I listened to the interview and made notes. If I have missed anything please forgive me. These are the points of contention I have with Prof. Dawkins (whom I respect as a scientist- to make that clear).

Firstly, I don't feel he answers the first question, he answers the question with a question, which in my opinion is always a sign of not being able to answer the damn question- but anyway. I think his use of "atheist" in a modern sense is inaccurate too. An atheist is not just an atheist to one or other particular religion but an atheist accepts no religion as such, nor do they accept, I presume in Dawkins' vision, any kind of supernatural religious beliefs that would also include the so-called atheistic Jains etc.

Prof. Dawkins talks about evidence. But what is this evidence? I'll be the first to admit that charlatans and frauds exist but there remains that core of stuff we cannot explain. What evidence would he accept as evidence for G-d or the supernatural? Is it not a case of the evidence may be damned beforehand anyway? People have had experiences of the supernatural and of G-d since time immemorial, the "evidence" is there but unfortunately I doubt whether Dawkins would consider it.

Dawkins then talks of freedom to believe and say what we want, within reason. But what is this reason and who decides how reasonable this reason is?

I think he's making up a bit of a strawman about people viewing "atheists" as having "two horns and a tail"- where is the evidence for this? On what basis was the "stat" he cited determined? Dawkins then goes on to say that atheism is a "different belief system", I personally thought it was a none-belief system to be honest in that there's nothing to believe in- hence it's atheism. Other than that, I note he uses a lot of Islamic examples as evidence of religious nastiness but can he really say that atheism as a whole has its hands entirely clean? Nothing nasty was ever done in the pursuit of anti-religious atheistic policies and regimes? He cites personal anecdote of the atheists like himself and those he knows as being gentle people- I know plenty of gentle people who are religious too. ;)

The next thing I take issue with is the apparent implication that atheists are de facto scientific, they talk about the "cosmos"- so what do non-atheists talk about then? I wonder what Max Planck would have thought, or the Catholic Georges Lemaitre who came up with the Big Bang Theory?

I find it ironic that Dawkins mentions "misunderstanding" and "missing what's valuable" given the rather scathing critique of The God Delusion- where, if I am not mistaken, many complained of Dawkin's rather misunderstanding a lot about religion and theology. It seems Dawkins himself concentrates on every negative perceiced to be connected with religion without considering much the positives.

Dakwins goes on to claim that atheists know, or believe, or both- I am not sure what he means here, that this life is the only life. Can such a claim be made empirically? Can it be said 100%? In addition many religions have very different ideas about the afterlife, some almost believing in no such thing and others with very different theories. Is it empirical and scientific to make such a bold claim outside of the laboratory? Do all religious people believe in exactly the same way about the afterlife?

Dawkins then makes another rather unsubstantiated claim about not living life to the full. He doesn't state what "living life to the full" actually means but I would argue, if we took Judaism as an example, that it is basically very life-centred, so too Hinduism. Indeed, Isaiah 56:12 we find "Come," each one cries, "let me get wine! Let us drink our fill of beer! And tomorrow will be like today, or even far better." and in a similar vein we find in Christianity, Luke 12:19, the words "And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry."

My final criticisim would be when Dawkins says ""...frees you up to live this life properly...", fine but how do you live this life properly and according to whom? What is proper and what is not?

[Franz Fanonipants]

truthfully i view atheists as having cheeto stains on their fingers and dragon t-shirts

[GPDP]

As an atheist, I also find Dawkins to be pretty damn out of touch with people when he claims shit like being an atheist allows you to live your life properly.

I'm an undocumented immigrant with no real stable job. I still live with my parents, and we struggle to make ends meet. But hey, at least the chains of religion are off! :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

Reactionary scumbag says a thing, Revleft wets itself.

Ya, that's right. If someone's not a leftist, nothing they say is ever true. That's not fallacious thinking or anything like that....




Matthew 25:31-46 or gtfo

How about this; we should not practice good works, or avoid the bad, because we expect reward or fear punishment from some cosmic dictator. Why? Because if we happen to stop believing in the cosmic dictator, what is to stop us from ending our belief in practicing good works and avoiding bad?

Do good for goodness sake, and therein you will find goodness. G-D is, as G-D has always been and always will be, irrelevant.



One of the central tenets of orthodox Christianity is that there is only one God and that only through accepting Christ can salvation be achieved. What exactly gives you, the secularist, the right to dictate proper theology based on what you think is acceptable or not?

It is harmful to the community to think that no matter how good a person is, they are a bad person because they don't believe this one certain thing.



And how exactly are privately held religious opinions, however disagreeable to you and I they may be, an issue of the violation of other people's freedoms? What kind of truly secular society would let this become a problem?
The belieft that homosexuality or atheism are condemmed to eternal suffering by G-D often leads to a belief in the oppression of homosexuals and atheists.

[Franz Fanonipants]

How about this; we should not practice good works, or avoid the bad, because we expect reward or fear punishment from some cosmic dictator. Why? Because if we happen to stop believing in the cosmic dictator, what is to stop us from ending our belief in practicing good works and avoiding bad?

Do good for goodness sake, and therein you will find goodness. G-D is, as G-D has always been and always will be, irrelevant.

I'm cool w.out the vanilla platitudes bro thx

That was specifically addressing how "believers" were going to be judged. i.e. giving textual proof to the notions that Robocommie was bringing up to iseul.

And yeah basically if you're not a leftist whats the fucking point.

[ComradeMan]

Do good for goodness sake, and therein you will find goodness..

What is good and what is goodness?

[Revolution starts with U]

That was specifically addressing how "believers" were going to be judged. i.e. giving textual proof to the notions that Robocommie was bringing up to iseul.

Yeah, and the unbelievers are going to be judged because of their lack of belief, regardless of their goodness. That was my point. The idea of doing good for the sake of our cosmic Kim Jong Il is ignorant and can easily lead to a lack of doing good works.



And yeah basically if you're not a leftist whats the fucking point.

Idk, maybe that truth lies outside meaningless labels and political philosophies...? Black/white thinking is dangerous in a world of color ;)


What is good and what is goodness?

That's up for you to decide. Im not going to tell you, and neither is G-D. :cool:

[ComradeMan]

That's up for you to decide. Im not going to tell you, and neither is G-D. :cool:

The kingdom is within..... ;)

But you do see how problematical it becomes when we use such value adjectives without a common, or "objective" point of reference.

[Revolution starts with U]

The kingdom is within..... ;)

But you do see how problematical it becomes when we use such value adjectives without a common, or "objective" point of reference.

As within, so without... ;)

Do you see how problematical it has become trying to use an objective point of reference for them?

[Kenco Smooth]

Engels for sure I hate that dude.

Nice dodging of the question again.

What possible effects do an individuals political opinions essentially have on largely unrelated work?

And if we're discarding Dawkins work on evolution simply thanks to his political position what should we replace it with? Marx's understanding of evolution seemed to carry with it a fair few assumptions from the work of Lamarck. Do his revolutionary conclusions in matter of politics work backwards and lend credence to Lamarck's theories in the same way you suppose Dawkin's politics should result in his biology being discarded?

But really I suppose this question isn't even that important because it isn't explicitly taking the side of the proletariat. Certainly no worker ever died due to antibiotic resistant bacteria.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Richard Dawkins - A VERY IMPORTANT GENETICIST

laffo

[ComradeMan]

Richard Dawkins - A VERY IMPORTANT GENETICIST

laffo

Instead of acting like a dick, why don't you listen to the interview, take notes and write up your critique as I tried to do?

[Revolution starts with U]

Instead of acting like a dick, why don't you listen to the interview, take notes and write up your critique as I tried to do?

Reason is not in the forte of M-Ls when it is far easier to just dismiss everyone as a reactionary :lol:

[Franz Fanonipants]

Instead of acting like a dick, why don't you listen to the interview, take notes and write up your critique as I tried to do?

Because to engage w/a fuckhead like Dawkins is beneath me? idk

The point is that throwing out the scientific "work" of a science popularizer (the guy is pretty behind on current literature from my very limited understanding of state of the field) because he's a horrendous reactionary and apologist for imperialism is not the same as throwing out evolutionary biology. Leeb is only being needlessly hysterical.

[Revolution starts with U]

A nobody says engaging with a PhD is beneath him. That's rich :lol:

[Kenco Smooth]

Because to engage w/a fuckhead like Dawkins is beneath me? idk

The point is that throwing out the scientific "work" of a science popularizer (the guy is pretty behind on current literature from my very limited understanding of state of the field) because he's a horrendous reactionary and apologist for imperialism is not the same as throwing out evolutionary biology. Leeb is only being needlessly hysterical.

So have you completely arbitrarily singled out Dawkins here or should we not engage with work from other scientists who's work you deem reactionary? Does their contribution to the field have any influence on how we should treat them? If the entire field woke up tomorow as Fascist's would we be oblidged to abandon their work as reactionary? Should we throw out work by figures who occupy similar political ground to Dawkin's such as Steven Pinker?

Your posts in this thread have simply been absurd and not helpful to any discussion.

[Franz Fanonipants]

If the work is a. not original, b. not foundational, c. non-functional (as most of Dawkin's work is actually popular scientific writing and not actual applied work) and its author is an asshole?

I'm more than comfortable dismissing it.

You guys seem to be mostly stuck with the problem that an asshole like Dawkins appeals to you on some level while being insanely problematic.

[Franz Fanonipants]

A nobody says engaging with a PhD is beneath him. That's rich :lol:

how do you know i'm not a phd?

[Revolution starts with U]

Becuase I've never heard you say something intelligent ;)

(To clarify, you can disagree with him. You should consider him your equal. But for some nothing to say engaging a PhD is "beneath" him, is absurd).

[ZeroNowhere]

He's a PhD, guys. Bow to the glittering trinkets of academia.

[Revolution starts with U]

He's a PhD, guys. Bow to the glittering trinkets of academia.

Or, you know, recognize that they have put in a lot of time and study to achieve that glittering trinket and realize it would be absurd to say "engaging with them is beneath me."

[R_P_A_S]

Get over your selves.

[Drosophila]

When it comes to discussing religion and politics, I tune him out. However I love hearing him speak on biology and science.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Or, you know, recognize that they have put in a lot of time and study to achieve that glittering trinket and realize it would be absurd to say "engaging with them is beneath me."

a lot of time and study to achieve a deep and complete understanding of how to get rich off of popularizing other people's work.

you guys still haven't answered the allegation that you're literally freaking out and calling people who disagree w/you idiots and nobodies simply because some popular science writer you adore is a disgusting human being.

E: SJGould owns and has none of the ridiculous goddamn evil shit that you'd have to "tune out" to appreciate.

[Revolution starts with U]

a lot of time and study to achieve a deep and complete understanding of how to get rich off of popularizing other people's work.

Well you have proved you're not a PhD... if you were you would know it's certain that he didn't get his degree for writing The God Dellusion :rolleyes:


you guys still haven't answered the allegation that you're literally freaking out and calling people who disagree w/you idiots and nobodies simply because some popular science writer you adore is a disgusting human being.

I don't remember ever calling you an idiot. And I only called you a nobody because you said engaging a PhD was beneath you.
And it's not about his disgusting reactionary tendencies. The problem is your want and ability to throw out truth simply because it came from the wrong source. If he was a leftist would it make what he says any truer (dealing with non-political topics; his biology, etc)?

[Franz Fanonipants]

the "truth" is pretty mutable on genetics comrade. sorry.

E: but then again you would be more concerned with how cool memes are than really actually understanding academic discourse so...

[Revolution starts with U]

the "truth" is pretty mutable on genetics comrade. sorry.

E: but then again you would be more concerned with how cool memes are than really actually understanding academic discourse so...

Ya, you know. All that time I've spent studying anthropological journals and all that was just so I could learn about Dawkin's bullshit meme theory :rolleyes:

Would you believe I don't even watch Dawkins, and only read one of his books (for a class)? I don't care about him. What I do care about is people who have done nothing thinking they are better than people who have done things. It's absolutely ridiculous.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Why is it you keep insisting I'm a nothing or a do-nothing?

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not. I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of someone with no credibility (maybe you do, but you have given no reason to think you do) off-handedly dismissing someone who's spent their lives studying the topic.

Again; I'm not saying you are lower than Dawkins. I am saying it is ridiculous for you to just dismiss him as "beneath you."

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm not.


What I do care about is people who have done nothing thinking they are better than people who have done things.


And I only called you a nobody because you said engaging a PhD was beneath you.


But for some nothing to say engaging a PhD is "beneath" him, is absurd


A nobody says engaging with a PhD is beneath him.

comrade either you're fucking stupid or you're happily trying really hard to ignore your prior statements. you have literally turned this into a dismissal of me because of my non-personhood while not answering any of my criticisms.

[Revolution starts with U]

comrade either you're fucking stupid or you're happily trying really hard to ignore your prior statements. you have literally turned this into a dismissal of me because of my non-personhood while not answering any of my criticisms.

No. As I said before, I only called you a "nothing" because you said engaging Dawkins was beneath you. Yes, I called you a nothing. I don't deny that, but not because you are a nothing. I did it to point out the ridiculousness of your stance.

What criticisms? He's not a leftist therefore he is wrong? Ya, I answered that criticism by calling it absurd.

[Franz Fanonipants]

No. As I said before, I only called you a "nothing" because you said engaging Dawkins was beneath you. Yes, I called you a nothing. I don't deny that, but not because you are a nothing. I did it to point out the ridiculousness of your stance.

What criticisms? He's not a leftist therefore he is wrong? Ya, I answered that criticism by calling it absurd.

:thumbup1:

[Luís Henrique]

The problem is that Dawkins trades his expertise in his field of speciality for a semblance of wisdom in other subjects.

"I am an expert in evolutionary biology, so I know that your irrational beliefs hinder you from living a good life". Please.

If his achievements as a scientist can not be called in to question because of the nonsence he spouts on other subjects, much less his credibility as an evolutionary biologist qualifies him as a critic of religion, as an amateur sociologist, or as a philosopher in the field of ethics.

Luís Henrique

[Franz Fanonipants]

My understanding of dude's state of field is that he's ok, but that there's plenty of other geneticists who think he's full of shit (on scientific grounds) out there that you don't need to enshrine the guy or his work.

There's a guy like that in the Southwestern U.S. History field. His 1992 book was pretty groundbreaking and amazing, but the state of the field has kind of moved past him. Sure, he did some cool stuff or whatever but his work has aged, his conclusions aren't really au currant or w/e.

[Revolution starts with U]

Honestly Luis, anyone can be a critic of religion, no degrees needed (and would be absolutely unnecessary) and philosopher in the field of ethics is about the same.

[Luís Henrique]

Honestly Luis, anyone can be a critic of religion, no degrees needed (and would be absolutely unnecessary) and philosopher in the field of ethics is about the same.

Of course. But not everyone is a good critic of religion, or a consequent philosopher in the field of ethics (Dawkins is neither, besides being a very incompetent amateur sociologist). And he is only taken into account on these subjects because he is an expert in a completely different, and unrelated, field (and yes, one of his many mistakes is to ignore this difference and lack of relation: one cannot derive an ethics from evolutionary biology, as he tries to do - it does not dictate us what to do and what not to do).

Luís Henrique

[ZeroNowhere]

To be fair, Dawkins isn't quite as presumptuous when it comes to philosophical fields as, say, Sam Harris is.

[GPDP]

To be fair, Dawkins isn't quite as presumptuous when it comes to philosophical fields as, say, Sam Harris is.

True. There's Dawkins, and then there's that asshole. Also, Hitchens.

[RadioRaheem84]

Also, Hitchens.


Hitchens takes the cake on sophomoric philosophical defenses of atheism.

[ComradeMan]

Why don't we actually discuss the points he made in the interview- or would everyone prefer to engage in character assassinations that don't actually deal with the OP?
FFS....:mad:

[Revolution starts with U]

I actually think he's a great critic of religion, and that's why you don't like him. He talks about the things religous people always dismiss; rape and pillaging in the name of G-D.

[Franz Fanonipants]

It's awesome that he talks about the very pressing and real issue of rape and pillage in the name of God.

Why I hope soon he talks about the curious stone fortifications they are building on the coast against these Northmen in this the year of our Lord 950.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's awesome that he talks about the very pressing and real issue of rape and pillage in the name of God.

Why I hope soon he talks about the curious stone fortifications they are building on the coast against these Northmen in this the year of our Lord 950.

Or you know, Islamophobia, Christian and Muslim terrorism, and all that contemporary junk.

Also, you know, biblical justifications for genocide and slavery :thumbup1:

[ComradeMan]

Or you know, Islamophobia, Christian and Muslim terrorism, and all that contemporary junk. Also, you know, biblical justifications for genocide and slavery :thumbup1:

I don't think his critique of religion is very good at all. In fact I think it's about as good as most creationists' critique of evolutionary biology. Worse still, I think it's on the level of what I call modern day popular polemics- he could quite easily have called it the "Black Book of Religion". ;)

Not related to him really but this is where I find the anti-religious left very hypocritical at times. When someone names the terrbible things that have been done in the name of communism there's the excuse "they weren't communists", despite calling themselves communists, using communist paraphernalia, basing their theories on Marx and Lenin etc and being members of Comintern- communist "members" of which still exist today and so on. However when it comes to a "religious" group, it's perfectly acceptable to dig up whatever trash is possible, ignore every other act of kindness or charity or postive contribution ever made and scream OMG OMG look how evil religion is. Religion isn't evil and neither is communism, it's what people do with those things that's evil and that comes down to humans.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't think his critique of religion is very good at all. In fact I think it's about as good as most creationists critique of evolutionary biology. Worse still I think it's on the level of what I call modern day popular polemics- he could quite easily have called it the "Black Book of Religion". ;)

Perhaps, but he does not focus solely on these acts. And critiquing religion, something some guy somewhere made up, can never be the same as critiquing evolution, oberservational peer-reviewed theoretics.
His arguments against G-D are good. But I think what the religous despise about New Atheists (and for it call them militant, despite no militancy... oooh character assassination, nothing new for the religious community, eh?) is the fact that they don't let people live down the violence that is a part of their history. They do this to show you can be a good person with G-D, and you can also be an asshole with G-D.



Not related to him really but this is where I find the anti-religious left very hypocritical at times. When someone names the terrbible things that have been done in the name of communism there's the excuse "they weren't communists", despite calling themselves communists, using communist paraphernalia, basing their theories on Marx and Lenin etc and being members of Comintern- communist "members" of which still exist today and so on. However when it comes to a "religious" group, it's perfectly acceptable to dig up whatever trash is possible, ignore every other act of kindness or charity or postive contribution ever made and scream OMG OMG look how evil religion is. Religion isn't evil and neither is communism, it's what people do with those things that's evil and that comes down to humans.
I agree with that, and that is where I think the New Atheists take it too far. Honestly, I think it's about time everyone became a Methodological Individualist: groups do not act, people act in groups.
But neither do I think we leftists should run from the USSR. We should acknowledge it was not socialism, and also acknowledge that murder was done in our name.
I think the difference is largely in culture tho. The culture of religion tends towards a "TRUTH" that must come from G-D. So it is valid to point out that G-D, according to historical acts taken, can be just as big a dick as he can a nice guy.

[Luís Henrique]

Hitchens takes the cake on sophomoric philosophical defenses of atheism.

Hm, no. Dawkins is sophomoric; Hitchens deals with kindergarten atheism.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Perhaps, but he does not focus solely on these acts. And critiquing religion, something some guy somewhere made up, can never be the same as critiquing evolution, oberservational peer-reviewed theoretics.

It is of course impossible to criticise religion without criticising the ethical aspects of both the doctrine and practice of religion. Science is a different thing; it must be criticised on its own basis: that of methodology. But, again, this is a typical Dawkins' mistake: to try to somehow build up an ethical doctrine out of biological scientific experimentation and discussion.

It can't work.

Of course, there is the nasty theist argument, that since science cannot provide a basis for an ethic, then atheists must by definition be unethical. But the falsety of this is easily shown if we call the bluff of the counterpoising of science vs religion. Individuals may base their ethics - and can indeed have very solid ethics this way - in ethical considerations per se, whithout need of either God or science. In other words, not everything that isn't religion is science, and not everything that isn't science is religion, and ethics is neither (or, perhaps, it is a science of itself, with a different subject and different methods from biology).


His arguments against G-D are good.

His arguments are 18th century-ish: pre-Marxist arguments. They are perhaps as good as one can get without making a proper critique of religion, focused on the critique of the material basis of religion, but they are no better than that.


I agree with that, and that is where I think the New Atheists take it too far. Honestly, I think it's about time everyone became a Methodological Individualist:

Methodological individualism leads us nowhere.


groups do not act, people act in groups.

So there isn't class struggle, only strife among individuals?

***

Dawkins completely fails to realise the causes of religion (indeed he has invented a bogus cause for it, with his superstition of "memetics"), and so is bound to fighting windmills. Marxists shouldn't share his methods; we realise that religion is not an ex machina invention, but the necessary result of the material conditions in which people have been living for centuries and millenia. It is those material conditions that we fight against; wiping them away disposes with religion altogether.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Or you know, Islamophobia, Christian and Muslim terrorism, and all that contemporary junk.

But we are Marxists, so we perfectly know this aspect of religion is only an ideological dressing under which people (mis)understand their material strifes ([one of the] ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out, as Marx puts it). Religion is not the cause of those horrors, it is merely the language in which those horrors are expressed.

Luís Henrique

[Revolution starts with U]

It is of course impossible to criticise religion without criticising the ethical aspects of both the doctrine and practice of religion. Science is a different thing; it must be criticised on its own basis: that of methodology. But, again, this is a typical Dawkins' mistake: to try to somehow build up an ethical doctrine out of biological scientific experimentation and discussion.

It can't work.

Of course, there is the nasty theist argument, that since science cannot provide a basis for an ethic, then atheists must by definition be unethical. But the falsety of this is easily shown if we call the bluff of the counterpoising of science vs religion. Individuals may base their ethics - and can indeed have very solid ethics this way - in ethical considerations per se, whithout need of either God or science. In other words, not everything that isn't religion is science, and not everything that isn't science is religion, and ethics is neither (or, perhaps, it is a science of itself, with a different subject and different methods from biology).


:thumbup1::thumbup::tt1::w00t:

Keep in mind that the New Atheists are "playing for the crowd" so to speak. So while you are right, the arguments can at times be sophomoric... the average person is a freshman :lol:



Methodological individualism leads us nowhere.



So there isn't class struggle, only strife among individuals?

No. MI is the only valid intellectual way of looking at groups; even classes. The class does not act (right? Would you deny that some proles are reactionary as all get-out?). So yes, class struggle is just strife among individuals acting in groups.

MI, contrary to many of the people who founded the idea, does not destroy the idea of groups. What it does is allow you to better understand groups by realizing "groups don't act, they are acted in by persons."


But we are Marxists, so we perfectly know this aspect of religion is only an ideological dressing under which people (mis)understand their material strifes ([one of the] ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out, as Marx puts it). Religion is not the cause of those horrors, it is merely the language in which those horrors are expressed.

Luís Henrique

I agree. But once again, the NA's are "playing to the crowd." We shouldn't call them "bad" arguments just because we have learned beyond them to far better arguments.

Consider that often these guys with "sophomoric" stances stand toe-to-toe with the "masters" from the theist side... Id like to see more debates between master atheists and master theists then; where are these?

[Luís Henrique]

Id like to see more debates between master atheists and master theists then; where are these?

Here (http://www.amazon.com/Belief-Nonbelief-Dialogue-Umberto-Eco/dp/1559705736), for instance.

(ETA: though Eco isn't technically an atheist, but rather an agnostic. It's an interesting debate, nevertheless.)

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Keep in mind that the New Atheists are "playing for the crowd" so to speak. So while you are right, the arguments can at times be sophomoric... the average person is a freshman

Sorry, I don't think that Dawkins has a profound comprehension of religion, and just happens to dumb down his arguments when he writes or speaks against it for the sake of the general public. He actually believes his arguments are correct and effective against religion. And he is wrong.


No. MI is the only valid intellectual way of looking at groups; even classes. The class does not act (right? Would you deny that some proles are reactionary as all get-out?). So yes, class struggle is just strife among individuals acting in groups.

MI, contrary to many of the people who founded the idea, does not destroy the idea of groups. What it does is allow you to better understand groups by realizing "groups don't act, they are acted in by persons."Nope. The behaviour of groups, and systems, cannot be reduced to the behaviour of their isolate elements. In More is Different (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=more%20is%20different%20anderson&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Frobotics.cs.tamu.edu%2Fdshell%2Fc s689%2Fpapers%2Fanderson72more_is_different.pdf&ei=b7usTv6OLM7LtgeGuf2bAw&usg=AFQjCNFL5oFofFpwoGozrE3zx1yhosUDYg&sig2=2Nj2KM_AiYMwFPMBF_SX3A&cad=rja), Phillip Anderson discusses some of the implications of complexity; methodological individualism (http://171.67.193.20/entries/methodological-individualism/) is unable to deal with that.


I agree. But once again, the NA's are "playing to the crowd." We shouldn't call them "bad" arguments just because we have learned beyond them to far better arguments.They are bad arguments, which imply a completely wrong comprehension of religion and other ideological phenomena. The fact that they may convince naïve people doesn't turn them into good arguments - and if succesfull, they are winning people for a wrong, and I would say reactionary, position about religion.

Luís Henrique

[ComradeMan]

J1ldYmg0lpE

[Revolution starts with U]

Here (http://www.amazon.com/Belief-Nonbelief-Dialogue-Umberto-Eco/dp/1559705736), for instance.

(ETA: though Eco isn't technically an atheist, but rather an agnostic. It's an interesting debate, nevertheless.)

Luís Henrique

Dyou perhaps have something I don't have to buy?

[Luís Henrique]

Dyou perhaps have something I don't have to buy?

Ya know, we live in a capitalist society, and all that.

There is a preview in Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=QTyTyo1wLy0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=belief+or+nonbelief%3F#v=onepage&q&f=false), but, of course, it ends when it starts to get interesting. I have a done a cursory search in the net, and haven't found any better option though.

It is not a rare book, perhaps in the library close to you?

Luís Henrique

[NGNM85]

Richard Dawkins is, in no way, a reactionary. Even if it were so, it still would not be sufficient cause to categorically dismiss everything he ever said.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Richard Dawkins is, in no way, a reactionary. Even if it were so, it still would not be sufficient cause to categorically dismiss everything he ever said.

hahahahahaahahaahaahaha

[NGNM85]

hahahahahaahahaahaahaha

There's simply no other way to see it. You've utterly failed to make your prima facie case that Richard Dawkins is a reactionary, not in the least because he's nothing of the sort. Also; it should come as no surprise that the 'Christian Leftist' dislikes the author of The God Delusion.

[La Comédie Noire]

Richard Dawkins should stick to Biology. Honestly anything else he ever has to say is embarrassingly declamatory.

[Franz Fanonipants]

There's simply no other way to see it. You've utterly failed to make your prima facie case that Richard Dawkins is a reactionary, not in the least because he's nothing of the sort. Also; it should come as no surprise that the 'Christian Leftist' dislikes the author of The God Delusion.

you should make a thread about in politics bro oh wait

[Franz Fanonipants]

Richard Dawkins should stick to Biology. Honestly anything else he ever has to say is embarrassingly declamatory.

the thing is even his biology work isn't awesome.

you guys need to really try to understand that the guy really is a science popularizer and less of an actual, up-to-date guy in the field. I mean i guess not having academic consensus behind you is fine, but there's a school of thought in ev bio. that holds that Dawkins is actually wrong on a lot.

[ComradeMan]

There's simply no other way to see it. You've utterly failed to make your prima facie case that Richard Dawkins is a reactionary, not in the least because he's nothing of the sort. Also; it should come as no surprise that the 'Christian Leftist' dislikes the author of The God Delusion.

What is his political position? Do you know? Are there any sources?

Not all atheists liked the The God Delusion either.

Here's an interesting article
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/dawk-m15.shtml

[NGNM85]

What is his political position? Do you know? Are there any sources?

He's not particularly ideological. He's against the war in Iraq, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, etc. He's no radical, but clearly Left-wing.


Not all atheists liked the The God Delusion either.

Here's an interesting article
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/dawk-m15.shtml

I only got the chance to quickly scan the article, I'll read it more thoroughly later. The chief criticism seems to be that Dawkins is not a Marxist. Neither am I.

[La Comédie Noire]

the thing is even his biology work isn't awesome.

you guys need to really try to understand that the guy really is a science popularizer and less of an actual, up-to-date guy in the field. I mean i guess not having academic consensus behind you is fine, but there's a school of thought in ev bio. that holds that Dawkins is actually wrong on a lot.

Gould is where it's at. :cool:

[Judicator]

Gould is where it's at. :cool:

Politics first, science second :lol:

[Franz Fanonipants]

Politics first, science second :lol:

i mean i don't see why you all seem to think that in issues around theoretical scientific shit (which ev. biology is when you get to the level where dawkins gould etc. are in discourse) there's a "more right" category.

i am "more right" than Walter Prescott-Webb when i do my historical inquiry, but it also helps that i don't refer to indians as squat mudpeople for the most part.

[OHumanista]

If you said Hitchens is a reactionary I'd totally agree with you. Dawkins is deluded at worst but considering he usually doesn't involves himself in political discussions and sticks to atheism, science and rationalism I can only appreciate his work.

[Franz Fanonipants]

If you said Hitchens is a reactionary I'd totally agree with you. Dawkins is deluded at worst but considering he usually doesn't involves himself in political discussions and sticks to atheism, science and rationalism I can only appreciate his work.

comrade check out the shit i posted about dawkins saying that supporting evangelical churches in africa is better because of the mahometan horde.

that fool talks about politics all the fucking time. everything is political. EVEN SCIENCE.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

comrade check out the shit i posted about dawkins saying that supporting evangelical churches in africa is better because of the mahometan horde.

that fool talks about politics all the fucking time. everything is political. EVEN SCIENCE.

You mean the shit you posted where Dawkins rejects the very tactic you are accusing him of?

[Franz Fanonipants]

You mean the shit you posted where Dawkins rejects the very tactic you are accusing him of?

"Maybe the enemy of our enemy can be our firend" - > The strongest repudiation of a position possible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Maybe the enemy of our enemy can be our firend" - > The strongest repudiation of a position possible.

It generally helps to refer to an idea when dismissing it.

[Franz Fanonipants]

It generally helps to refer to an idea when dismissing it.

dawkins "refutes" the idea of supporting evangelical christians in Africa in the softest terms possible.

[L.A.P.]

Anyone who knows of the theories brought up in The Selfish Gene knows how reactionary Richard Dawkins is. The God Delusion is also an incredibly overatted book.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Anyone who knows of the theories brought up in The Selfish Gene knows how reactionary Richard Dawkins is. The God Delusion is also an incredibly overatted book.

no see he is the most foundational evbiologist in the world there is no dissenting or more cutting-edge voice in the field of biology i sure don't think he is a reactionary but his biology is flawless i

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

dawkins "refutes" the idea of supporting evangelical christians in Africa in the softest terms possible.

So Dawkins' language wasn't strong enough for your taste? I guess if you bothered to read the comments you would find stronger criticisms of the idea.


Anyone who knows of the theories brought up in The Selfish Gene knows how reactionary Richard Dawkins is. The God Delusion is also an incredibly overatted book.

Did you read beyond the title? Because selfish genes =/= selfish organisms. Social animals in general and humans in particular are more than the sum of their genes.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Did you read beyond the title? Because selfish genes =/= selfish organisms. Social animals in general and humans in particular are more than the sum of their genes.

/smugdog

[ColonelCossack]

I hate how evolution is used to justify right-wing politics.

Unfortunately I'm under informed as to Dawkins' politics to make a judgement, but the only political thing I've ever heard him say was when i saw him say this on TV...

[Iron Felix]

He has political opinions? I thought he was a biologist that writes about religion in his spare time and many basement-dwelling neckbeards atheists get excited about it.

[Azraella]

The God Delusion is also an incredibly overatted book.

It makes the same mistakes that many philosophers have made for centuries. It's filled with logical fallacies. Honestly I don't feel like getting my copy out and pointing them out, here's a dozen (http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/Dawkins%20Debunked%20Summary.htm) that have been pointed out. Honestly, I couldn't care less if Dawkins was an atheist or not, I am hardly ignorant, stupid, or insane as he'd like to believe about me being a theist.

I don't see that there's anything to refute in that book. I was unimpressed with the general discourse of the book. Although he raised many interesting points in trying make his case he did little to present a sound argument against God. I found many of his arguments no more convincing than that employed by religious fundamentalists.

I don't have the time, patience, or masochistic tendencies required to go through and refute his arguments on a point by point basis so this sweeping statement will have to satisfy you. I was in the middle of 48 Laws of Power when my brother in law presented me with The God Delusion and convinced me to trade him until we saw each other again. I'm thinking he got the better end of that deal. Look at the Fundie Christian/Atheist debate in all of its adolescent glory. Throw in a good editor and you have The God Delusion. The only thing Richard Dawkins convinced me of was his need to hear himself talk, a need for validation, and a propensity to ignore his own logical fallacies while pointing out those of others. This to me is doubly sad because he seems to be a generally intelligent person who, like those he so vehemently opposes, has become lost in his own rhetoric.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It makes the same mistakes that many philosophers have made for centuries. It's filled with logical fallacies. Honestly I don't feel like getting my copy out and pointing them out, here's a dozen (http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/Dawkins%20Debunked%20Summary.htm) that have been pointed out.

Right from the get-go, the linked article reveals itself to be a load of cobblers:


1. Ad baculum (veiled threat): Mr. Dawkins threatens his opponents. He implies that scientists who disagree with him can expect to pay a penalty from other atheists like him (e.g. to be scorned and shunned). For example, he argues that no one who agrees with Mother Teresa about the sanctity of life should “be taken seriously on any topic, let alone be thought seriously worthy of a Nobel Prize” (p. 330). This implied threat has been exposed as a real threat by Ben Stein in the documentary: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (http://www.expelledthemovie.com). Stein interviews numerous scientists who have lost funding and even their jobs just for questioning Darwinism. Such threats and intimidation have no place in logical argument or legitimate science.

[emphasis mine]

The very first point references Ben Stein's sophomoric "documentary", which is suitably ripped to pieces HERE (http://www.expelledexposed.com/) among other places. Why is a Pagan(?) like you taking Christianist propaganda seriously?

[Azraella]

Why is a Pagan(?) like you taking Christianist propaganda seriously?


I remembered there being a lot of fallacious reasoning in the book, but I couldn't recall specifics, so I just did a quick search on it and found that link. I haven't read The God Delusion in several years.

[IndependentCitizen]

What are Dawkins' political/economic views?

right-wing....

[ColonelCossack]

right-wing....

But, (as I have stated), I have seen him say that he "hates how evolution is used to justify right-wing politics".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But, (as I have stated), I have seen him say that he "hates how evolution is used to justify right-wing politics".

He did more than complain. He made a documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6rgWzYRXiI) on the subject.

[Revolution starts with U]

People just parrot what they have heard other people say, without researching it themselves. That's why they say things like "Dawkins is right wing" and "leftists are all emotion, no reason" and all the other various parrot responses people throw out.

Dawkins is clearly a somewhat apolitical Social Democrat. If that's not clear it's because you're not listening.

[Misanthrope]

Reactionary scumbag says a thing, Revleft wets itself.

That doesn't discredit his work. He's a great voice of atheism.

[Elysian]

Dawkins' fans are usually high school kids/college dropouts who feel superior by quoting his books. It gives them a sense of accomplishment.

[Franz Fanonipants]

That doesn't discredit his work. He's a great voice of atheism.

lol so if he's "not a great voice for atheist justice" he's a great voice for biology. and vice-versa.

basically a lot of Richard Dawkins jock riding itt

[mrmikhail]

right-wing....

Dawkins is centre-left, not right wing. He is a Liberal Democrat(UK party)....

He event wrote an article (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/468663-electoral-reform-the-liberal-democrats-must-stand-firm) on how they must stand firm, ect.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Dawkins is centre-left, not right wing. He is a Liberal Democrat(UK party)....

because that isn't right-wing

you motherfuckers spend all day talking about how republicans and democrats are the same thing, but the messiah of the new white man's burden is a capitalist, idealist, liberal pigfucker and you all line up to hug him.

you guys are silly.

[mrmikhail]

because that isn't right-wing

correct, that is centre-left.

[mrmikhail]

you motherfuckers spend all day talking about how republicans and democrats are the same thing, but the messiah of the new white man's burden is a capitalist, idealist, liberal pigfucker and you all line up to hug him.

you guys are silly.

Did I ever once say he was "the messiah of the new white man's burden"

or did I ever once say he wasn't a capitalist, wasn't an idealist, and wasn't a liberal?

In fact, I believe I just stated he was a liberal! imagine that!

But nope, I do not "line up and hug him" I merely read the book on Atheism, and as an atheist found it of interest, no more no less. Also found him telling off right-wing christian fundamentalists at a college here in Virginia entertaining while getting journalism credit for being my university's "representative" at the event. Don't recall reporting anything aside from the speech talking of how he backs up his atheist views and so on and so forth.


EDIT: and for the record, I have not, as of yet, fucked anyone's mother.

[Franz Fanonipants]

stuff

i was talkin in the corporate you

[Franz Fanonipants]

correct, that is centre-left.

also "centre-left" in capitalism

is right

[mrmikhail]

also "centre-left" in capitalism

is right

I believe you might be thinking of centre-right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre-right) as right wing, easy mistake them being only one word off and all.


The fact of the matter is there is only a left, a centre, and a right on the political chart. While each of these have their own mini-charts of left-centre-right, the main chart is the one which determines if something is left or right, and centre-left is "liberal" rather than "conservative", but all bourgeois capitalists, of course.

[NGNM85]

right-wing....

You're merely advertizing you're ignorance.

[Franz Fanonipants]

advertizing you're ignorance.

laffo

[Franz Fanonipants]

The fact of the matter is there is only a left, a centre, and a right on the political chart.

that's silly

[NGNM85]

laffo

Richard Dawkins is not Right-Wing. That's just a fact. There's no other way to see it. You can like him, you can dislike him, you can be completely indifferent. You are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Richard Dawkins is not Right-Wing. That's just a fact. There's no other way to see it. You can like him, you can dislike him, you can be completely indifferent. You are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

:laugh:

[RadioRaheem84]

What use is his militant atheism if his foreign policy views are kind of reactionary? His extremely Western-centric chauvinist views are as annoying as Chris Hitchens smug demeanor.

There are plenty of good atheists to tout.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What use is his militant atheism if his foreign policy views are kind of reactionary?

well he's a great biologist and

[RadioRaheem84]

well he's a great biologist and

.....a terrible philosopher (atheist).

[Franz Fanonipants]

.....a terrible philosopher (atheist).

the joke is that everyone in the thread who is pro-dawkins for a while was raging out about how "I CAN'T BELIEVE HE WAS LIKE HEY NO WE SHOULDN'T SUPPORT EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AGAINST THE MAHOMETAN HORDE BUT I SURE HATE MUSLIMS SO ITS A TICKLISH THOUGHT!" and switched over to how much they love his biological "work" from 30+ years ago.

the irony, which i pointed out, is that 30+ year old biological work (or any other academic or scientific work) is not really state of the field nor is it embraced by every single biologist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What use is his militant atheism if his foreign policy views are kind of reactionary?

What foreign policy views?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

the joke is that everyone in the thread who is pro-dawkins for a while was raging out about how "I CAN'T BELIEVE HE WAS LIKE HEY NO WE SHOULDN'T SUPPORT EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AGAINST THE MAHOMETAN HORDE BUT I SURE HATE MUSLIMS SO ITS A TICKLISH THOUGHT!" and switched over to how much they love his biological "work" from 30+ years ago.

More well-poisoning from the liar. Orientalist terms like "Mahometan" are first brought up by shits like you.

[Misanthrope]

lol so if he's "not a great voice for atheist justice" he's a great voice for biology. and vice-versa.

basically a lot of Richard Dawkins jock riding itt

point?

[Misanthrope]

Dawkins' fans are usually high school kids/college dropouts who feel superior by quoting his books. It gives them a sense of accomplishment.

Shut up with your anti-intellectualism and ageism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Shut up with your anti-intellectualism and ageism.

Not being a fan of Dawkins doesn't mean one is anti-intellectual.

[Franz Fanonipants]

More well-poisoning from the liar. Orientalist terms like "Mahometan" are first brought up by shits like you.

bro whatever basically you are asshurt because stephen j gould schooled the shit out of dawk and etc.

p.s. dawkins and you would use the word mahometan if it was still au currant, you're both the same kind of imperialist shithead white man's burden worshippers of "progress."

[RadioRaheem84]

What foreign policy views?

His arguments seem to take a "clash of civilizations" perspective, which while he doesn't personally promote war still excuse the war on terror. He strikes me as a guy who disagrees with the war on terror because of tactic not because he believes the Islamist threat is BS.

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly, Franz. There are better atheists like Steven Jay Gould (RIP), John Bellamy Foster, Michael Parenti, that make a better case than Dawkins.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Exactly, Franz. There are better atheists like Steven Jay Gould (RIP), John Bellamy Foster, Michael Parenti, that make a better case than Dawkins.

better biologists to like too

[Franz Fanonipants]

Dawkins: "I'm reasonably optimistic in America and Europe. I'm pessimistic about the Islamic world. I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world, and I fear that we have a very difficult struggle there."

Narrator: "Why is it more problematic than Christianity, for instance?"

RD: "There is a belief that every word of the Koran is literally true, and there's a kind of closemindedness which is, I think, less present in the former Christendom, perhaps because we've had long - I don't know quite why - but there's more of a historical tradition of questioning. There are people in the Islamic world who simply say, 'Islam is right, and we are going to impose our will.' There's an asymmetry. I think in a way we are being too nice. I think that it's possible to be naively overoptimistic, and if you reach out to people who have absolutely no intention of reaching back to you, then you may be disillusioned

E: wogs will never be civilized and etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

bro whatever basically you are asshurt because stephen j gould schooled the shit out of dawk and etc.

Covering up with more irrelevancies, I see. What has that argument between Dawkins and Gould got to do with your irrational hatred of those who criticise Islam as well as Christianity?


p.s. dawkins and you would use the word mahometan if it was still au currant, you're both the same kind of imperialist shithead white man's burden worshippers of "progress."

I'm sorry, am I somehow expected to know what words will fall out of favour in the future?

As for the tired old canard about the "white man's burden" - superstition is bollocks regardless of skin colour, you shitsmearing loon. By the way, since races are completely arbitrary categories, would you mind explaining to me what definition of "white" you are using?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Dawkins: "I'm reasonably optimistic in America and Europe. I'm pessimistic about the Islamic world. I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world, and I fear that we have a very difficult struggle there."

Narrator: "Why is it more problematic than Christianity, for instance?"

RD: "There is a belief that every word of the Koran is literally true, and there's a kind of closemindedness which is, I think, less present in the former Christendom, perhaps because we've had long - I don't know quite why - but there's more of a historical tradition of questioning. There are people in the Islamic world who simply say, 'Islam is right, and we are going to impose our will.' There's an asymmetry. I think in a way we are being too nice. I think that it's possible to be naively overoptimistic, and if you reach out to people who have absolutely no intention of reaching back to you, then you may be disillusioned

E: wogs will never be civilized and etc.

Source? Believe it or not, I haven't read or watched everything Dawkins has been in.

[Franz Fanonipants]

stuff

w/e honky

[Franz Fanonipants]

Source? Believe it or not, I haven't read or watched everything Dawkins has been in.

dawk (http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/479-richard-dawkins-islam-is-one-of-the-great-evils-of-the-world.html) is horrible, objectively

[RadioRaheem84]

Dawkins: "I'm reasonably optimistic in America and Europe. I'm pessimistic about the Islamic world. I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world, and I fear that we have a very difficult struggle there."

Narrator: "Why is it more problematic than Christianity, for instance?"

RD: "There is a belief that every word of the Koran is literally true, and there's a kind of closemindedness which is, I think, less present in the former Christendom, perhaps because we've had long - I don't know quite why - but there's more of a historical tradition of questioning. There are people in the Islamic world who simply say, 'Islam is right, and we are going to impose our will.' There's an asymmetry. I think in a way we are being too nice. I think that it's possible to be naively overoptimistic, and if you reach out to people who have absolutely no intention of reaching back to you, then you may be disillusioned

E: wogs will never be civilized and etc.

This is exactly what I was going post.

The guy is Samuel Huntington with a Zoology degree. The Dawkins boot licking in here is astounding.

[RadioRaheem84]

Source? Believe it or not, I haven't read or watched everything Dawkins has been in.

http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/479-richard-dawkins-islam-is-one-of-the-great-evils-of-the-world.html

Look harder, bro.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Saying a religion is more culturally entrenched is not the same as saying "they will never be civilised". Fucking hell.

[Franz Fanonipants]

This is exactly what I was going post.

The guy is Samuel Huntington with a Zoology degree. The Dawkins boot licking in here is astounding.

no comrade dick dawkins is basically the secular marxist god so...

[Franz Fanonipants]

Saying a religion is more culturally entrenched is not the same as saying "they will never be civilised". Fucking hell.

and another beautiful dodge

E: "I DON'T KNOW WHY MUSLIMS DON'T QUESTION ANYTHING BUT THE WEST CERTAINLY HAS A HISTORICAL RECORD OF QUESTIONING!"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

w/e honky

Fuck off, hypocrite. It's obvious that you have some political problem with me that you're cloaking in racialised language rather than just having an honest disagreement.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Fuck off, hypocrite. It's obvious that you have some political problem with me that you're cloaking in racialised language rather than just having an honest disagreement.

it's a personal problem bro. you're an asshole.

[Franz Fanonipants]

plus, dawkins called Ayaan Hirsi Ali a "major hero of our times."

[RadioRaheem84]

Saying a religion is more culturally entrenched is not the same as saying "they will never be civilised". Fucking hell.

And of course Christian values are not entrenched in the States? I mean even our secularized values presuppose Christianity/religion. The Deism in the States is thick and has nuclear weapons to boot.

We are a far worse fundamentalist society in this regard.

Dawkins is just awful. Quit peddling his junk.

Get yourself a copy of Monthly Review where real atheists using a materialist perspective offer a better view.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Get yourself a copy of Monthly Review where real atheists using a materialist perspective offer a better view.

that would require putting Popular Science or whatever Tor science fiction he's reading down, and, welp...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

and another beautiful dodge

E: "I DON'T KNOW WHY MUSLIMS DON'T QUESTION ANYTHING BUT THE WEST CERTAINLY HAS A HISTORICAL RECORD OF QUESTIONING!"

There are also fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is "literally true". And I'm sure just like the Muslims who believe the same about the Koran, they both in actuality arbitrarily pick and choose which edicts to follow and which not to follow. But of course the prevalence of this is dependant on various historical factors, which will be different for the two different religions.

But of course, in the crazy world that Franz Fanonipants lives in, noting different histories is morally equivalent to saying they're beyond reason and deserve nuking to the stone age. :rolleyes:

[Franz Fanonipants]

But of course, in the crazy world that Franz Fanonipants lives in, noting different histories is morally equivalent to saying they're beyond reason and deserve nuking to the stone age. :rolleyes:

motherfucker please, don't insult my intelligence.

there's a HUGE difference between saying that there's a lack of secularism in a society and saying that Islam just doesn't live up to the West's standards of doubt.

E: laffo (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/20)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And of course Christian values are not entrenched in the States? I mean even our secularized values presuppose Christianity/religion. The Deism in the States is thick and has nuclear weapons to boot.

We are a far worse fundamentalist society in this regard.

Did I say the States didn't have entrenched religiosity? No. I said "more" because the US is fairly anomalous in that regard.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Did I say the States didn't have entrenched religiosity? No. I said "more" because the US is fairly anomalous in that regard.

memetics: a Thing

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

motherfucker please, don't insult my intelligence.

there's a HUGE difference between saying that there's a lack of secularism in a society and saying that Islam just doesn't live up to the West's standards of doubt.

The West's standards? What are these mysterious "Western" standards of doubt?


E: laffo (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/20)

So someone can't like a fictional character for saying ostensibly nice things? In any case, this is a point where Dawkins and I disagree. I think we can make better fictional characters for aspirational purposes.

[RadioRaheem84]

Did I say the States didn't have entrenched religiosity? No. I said "more" because the US is fairly anomalous in that regard.

I would say the US has more entrenched religiosity, a fundamentalist perspective in which divine providence shines upon the American way and our military endeavors.

I think Dawkins misses this because he thinks Mid East fundamentalism is just crude.

He doesn't get that we're just more "civil" in our brutality.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The West's standards? What are these mysterious "Western" standards of doubt?

Dawkins said that the "former christendom" has a longer historical tradition of doubt, signaling that the historical tradition of doubt in the West was the standard to pursue.

dude why do you love Dawkins so bad?

[Franz Fanonipants]

He doesn't get that we're just more "civil" in our brutality.

that would require that he actually observe mat'l conditions in his "civilized" former christendom.

but he's busy floating on a sea of memes.

[tbasherizer]

God damn, everyone! Richard Dawkins makes some good observations from a scientific point of view about how evolution works and hints at how that might be applicable to ideas! That's it! Can't the pro-Dawkins types in the thread accept that he may have inherited the meme of Anglocentrism and might be wrong in his interpretation of radical Islam (or whatever you want to call the ideology of the self-proclaimed Muslims who blow themselves or others up)? Yeah, a liberal doesn't apply Marxian historical materialist analysis- what's new? It doesn't mean he's a Rhodesian (EDIT: He was born in Rhodesia- I mean that he doesn't share that former country's namesake's ideology) imperialist who wanks to the Queen. Jesus hell. Let's all just calm it down a notch.

I personally admire Dawkins' attempts to colloquialize evolutionary science and denounce religious reaction, not to mention that his anecdotes on memetics have helped me develop my materialist conception of society. That being said, his especial denunciation of Islam and seeming misapplication of his own philosophy in regards to the Middle East and Islam as a meme leave me with some reservations when it comes to declaring him God's replacement.

[Revolution starts with U]

Any time Franz shows up, the standard of debate goes down the shitter; it becomes useless 1 liner trolls with no substance.

Insult your intelligence? Seriously, I think I would find it easier to find physical evidence of string theory, than to do that.

So why don't you just crawl back into your hole and go back to writing poems about how girls hate you because you're too brilliant for them :rolleyes:

[Franz Fanonipants]

homie, girls love me CUS i'm brilliant.

[dodger]

God damn, everyone! Richard Dawkins makes some good observations from a scientific point of view about how evolution works and hints at how that might be applicable to ideas! That's it! Can't the pro-Dawkins types in the thread accept that he may have inherited the meme of Anglocentrism and might be wrong in his interpretation of radical Islam (or whatever you want to call the ideology of the self-proclaimed Muslims who blow themselves or others up)? Yeah, a liberal doesn't apply Marxian historical materialist analysis- what's new? It doesn't mean he's a Rhodesian (EDIT: He was born in Rhodesia- I mean that he doesn't share that former country's nanesake's ideology) imperialist who wanks to the Queen. Jesus fuck. Let's all just calm it down a notch.

I personally admire Dawkins' attempts to colloquialize evolutionary science and denounce religious reaction, not to mention that his anecdotes on memetics have helped me develop my materialist conception of society. That being said, his especial denunciation of Islam and seeming misapplication of his own philosophy in regards to the Middle East and Islam as a meme leave me with some reservations when it comes to declaring him God's replacement.

Rather perverse, my step son who is a science teacher(Philippines) believes that the earth was made in 6 days. I on the other hand went to a school and did no science subjects. I am an atheist. Maybe the ideal Christmas present for him is a couple of Dawkin's books...if he rejects them so much the better. I shall read them myself. Many thanks for the recommendation Tbasher I look forward to reading them. I do think he fights his corner well.....and of course he has made great strides in popularizing science in UK. I think one has to actually live in a Catholic country to even have any idea how much it stinks. What a millstone around the necks of people religion is. They must tame religion and soon. They nail children to crosses here yer know!! Scumbags.

[Franz Fanonipants]

dodger you are crazy bro

[Revolution starts with U]

homie, girls love me CUS i'm brilliant.


dodger you are crazy bro


Case. In. Point.

[RadioRaheem84]

They're witty one liners though and most of the time quite relevant to the discussion.

[dodger]

dodger you are crazy bro

nail me to a cross, Franz

[Franz Fanonipants]

nail me to a cross, Franz

in the American Southwest we tie people to crosses, not so much w/the real nailing. in the day it was claimed that we did, but that's probably white propaganda about Mexicanos in New Mexico more than truth.

[Misanthrope]

Not being a fan of Dawkins doesn't mean one is anti-intellectual.

but making life style based attacks due to using a credible source is..

[dodger]

in the American Southwest we tie people to crosses, not so much w/the real nailing. in the day it was claimed that we did, but that's probably white propaganda about Mexicanos in New Mexico more than truth.

Yes Franz, I am sure the good people of New Mexico do not indulge in such acts, much less subject their children. Here in Philippines it is a event that happens every Easter in several Islands. It is a media circus too. I resisted any idea of posting links, as I resisted looking at Youtube footage. As well as being priest ridden we also have WAK-WAKS, THEY SHARE WITH VAMPIRES A FEAR OF GARLIC. However a crucifix, holy water, or incantations indeed any incense is next to useless. Half man/half bird our local ones are almost playful if mischievous. If I leave a spanner or half drunk cup of coffee, go back to retrieve, they're gone. My mobile was taken whilst left charging. No the WAK-WAKS we fear, feast on external sexual organs of both sexes. They fly in at the end of the rainy season, from Indonesia,on prevailing winds. Pedro a very distant relative of Wifey went off late afternoon hunting birds with friends. home made guns and Tanduay(No garlick). We had eaten and were settling down to watch a movie, me and daughters and grandchildren, Wifey was away on business. Terrible shrieking and wailing outside. I opened the spyhatch, PEDRO bloodied and in rags screamed to be admitted. His companion white with fright took refuge in the well. Daughter got my revolver and loaded it . Wifey keeps it hidden from me. She said don't let it in...if IT wont stop banging shoot, daddy dear. I told her he carried you back from the hospital when you were born. IT'S N O T Pedro.!! dO SOMETHING, SHOOT. By this time the door looked like disintergrating...Pedro was beyond all reason. I fired several shots through the door. Mercifully it didn't take long to die. Very sad, what a way to end your days. That money I spent on adult literacy classes was a complete waste. I sent off a worker to buy petrol , he came back with a police sergeant. Daughter said nothing to worry about, just a routine matter. The mayor pays a bounty for each adult. I told the sergeant to keep the reward for all his time and trouble. I suddenly remembered the poor fellow in the well. We both drew our guns and inched towards the hatch.....he needed to be carried to the house, he had escaped he told us later, Pedro had not been so lucky. Wifey made an appearance, wanted to know what I had done wrong. ha. She fairly melted into my arms when daughter related the nights events. "I knew I could leave everything to you!!"

What I need to know, if the church of Rome is so bloody all powerful, how come in over 500 years we still have W A K- W A K S?? (mark_marx sounds like)

I have emailed THE GOOD PROFESSOR. i'll post any answer, or correspondence on the matter. Be interesting what he has to say. Him being educated.

[blah]

Dawkins: "I'm reasonably optimistic in America and Europe. I'm pessimistic about the Islamic world. I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world, and I fear that we have a very difficult struggle there."

Narrator: "Why is it more problematic than Christianity, for instance?"

RD: "There is a belief that every word of the Koran is literally true, and there's a kind of closemindedness which is, I think, less present in the former Christendom, perhaps because we've had long - I don't know quite why - but there's more of a historical tradition of questioning. There are people in the Islamic world who simply say, 'Islam is right, and we are going to impose our will.' There's an asymmetry. I think in a way we are being too nice. I think that it's possible to be naively overoptimistic, and if you reach out to people who have absolutely no intention of reaching back to you, then you may be disillusioned.

I find it a reasonable analysis. Pointing out the fact that modern islam is less liberalised and less moderate than modern christianity (there are more fundamentalist believers among todays muslims than christians) does not make anyone reactionary or hateful. Not every criticism of islam is irrational islamophobia. Besides, Dawkins criticised christianity far more often, so he is not biased.

[Tim Finnegan]

I find it a reasonable analysis. Pointing out the fact that modern islam is less liberalised and less moderate than modern christianity (there are more fundamentalist believers among todays muslims than christians) does not make anyone reactionary or hateful.
It is entirely ahistorical, however, because it pays no reference at all to the evolution of the various trends of Islamic thought, or the conditions in which it evolved, simply assuming that what is now, always was. For someone so preoccupied with their own majestic empiricism, it's a remarkably lazy retreat into idealism.

[blah]

It is entirely ahistorical, however, because it pays no reference at all to the evolution of the various trends of Islamic thought, or the conditions in which it evolved, simply assuming that what is now, always was. For someone so preoccupied with their own majestic empiricism, it's a remarkably lazy retreat into idealism.

I dont think pointing something out always requires deep historical elaboration on how the state of it evolved to its current status. Especially in an interview. I would certainly not call it idealism just because he did not included historical genesis of islamic fundamentalism.

[Tim Finnegan]

I dont think pointing something out always requires deep historical elaboration on how the state of it evolved to its current status. Especially in an interview. I would certainly not call it idealism just because he did not included historical genesis of islamic fundamentalism.
I've read enough of his commentary elsewhere to know that this comment wasn't just a hasty generalisation. His analysis of religions is basically idealistic, assuming that they represent some essential, eternal core around which all other traditions are built. (This is usually reconciled with his nominal materialism by the more or less baseless assumption that a hard-headed textual literalism is intrinsic to all religions, and departures from it represent a form of revision.) That's why he's able to skim so neatly over the question of moderate and liberal denominations, because he's able to claim that they don't represent the "real" versions of those religions, but compromised, "cherry-picked" (a favourite term) versions. In that, he's surprisingly close to very ideologues he condemns.

[RadioRaheem84]

His analysis of religions is basically idealistic, assuming that they represent some essential, eternal core around which all other traditions are built.


nuff said. :thumbup1:

[Franz Fanonipants]

I dont think pointing something out always requires deep historical elaboration on how the state of it evolved to its current status.

yes, you're right. pointing out the HISTORICAL FACT of a culture does not require deep historical elaboration.

dumbass reactionary apologism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

crazy stuff about wak-waks

thats amazing

[Luís Henrique]

The truth about Richard Dawkins, unveiled!


Portrait of the Scientist... https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqBFd6v7KpoZuBK3qpdtq4R6T88nmOk Vtpw60nRUdMxb35onGf2A

Portrait of the Scientist as a Young Man... https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRD6ehB0ECHIGaTiTnZjB0E00CT4JDqk EnuSJUlfcJTfkRWmoBwdA

I wonder what happened to the famous scar in the forehead. Aesthetic surgery, I presume.

Luís Henrique

[cynicles]

Are you trying to say that as Harry grew up he was burned by his own magic and turned to a life of disparaging all things supernatural as
vengeance upon the magic world?

[Paul Cockshott]

What are Dawkins' political/economic views?

Liberal left.

[Paul Cockshott]

and another beautiful dodge

E: "I DON'T KNOW WHY MUSLIMS DON'T QUESTION ANYTHING BUT THE WEST CERTAINLY HAS A HISTORICAL RECORD OF QUESTIONING!"

That is not quite what he said what he said was :

"There is a belief that every word of the Koran is literally true, and there's a kind of closemindedness which is, I think, less present in the former Christendom, perhaps because we've had long - I don't know quite why - but there's more of a historical tradition of questioning.

Ok so he does not have a Marxist explanation for why in the former Christendom there is a historical tradition of questioning, but on the fact of the matter he is right. What he fails to bring out was the role of the bourgeois revolution in bringing this about.

[Luís Henrique]

Ok so he does not have a Marxist explanation for why in the former Christendom there is a historical tradition of questioning, but on the fact of the matter he is right. What he fails to bring out was the role of the bourgeois revolution in bringing this about.

And, of course, and even more importantly, the role of the bourgeois regimes of the "former Christendom" in preventing any bourgeois revolution in the Islamic countries.

Which is the reason that he thinks he can ally with the "former Christendom" in a crusade against "backwards Islam". And also the reason why such alliance can result only in increased Islamic backwardness.

Luís Henrique

[Paul Cockshott]

In what sense does he ally with the bourgeois regimes against backward Islam?
He spoke out against UK agression against Iraq for example. He seems to be being condemened here for attacking both reactionary islam and reactionary christians.

[Luís Henrique]

Are you trying to say that as Harry grew up he was burned by his own magic and turned to a life of disparaging all things supernatural as vengeance upon the magic world?

Either that, or his separated-at-birth twin is seeking equal attention.

Anyway, I think we can agree that Richard Dawkins is a Muggle.

Luís Henrique

[Orange Juche]

I've taken Dawkins as counter-productive toward his own ends, he preaches to the choir with his views more than anything. If he really wanted to advance that perspective, he'd take the calmer type approach that Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example, takes - because it's simply more proactive, and he'd get more "converts" if that's the appropriate term.

If I had to speculate, I tend to think Dawkins' intensity with the issue is more about his own ego than anything else.

[Hex_Omega_]

The soul and the afterlife are earth bound concepts invented by the weight of human insecurities, desperate to ease away the pains of an unfulfilled life, while trying to impose meanings where there are none.