MrStakhanovite wrote: When you deal with a concept or idea like God, and you are a public intellectual like Dawkins, it's probably best that you take on the most eloquent and strongest cases for God.
Perhaps. It depends on your intended audience, doesn't it? Clearly, the book wasn't aimed at someone like you. But I think it makes quite an effective case against mainstream god thought.
MrStakhanovite wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:When South Park satirizes a drama, does it become a drama? If it makes fun of a religion, does it then become a religion?
It remains a poor comedy.
You're not conflating your opinion with fact, are you?
MrStakhanovite wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:Do you really think Dawkins and Co are unaware that these kinds of ceremonies could be construed as ritualistic?
Yes. I think everyone in those organizations are totally self absorbed and don't know how stupid they look and act.
I really hope you're joking.
MrStakhanovite wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:Do you really think they think of them as rituals?
No, I see it as another avenue for them to be smug and self important.
Oh... you're not joking.
MrStakhanovite wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:Look, it's one thing to criticize arguments and ideas, but it's not then fair to extrapolate from certain weak arguments that Dawkins is a complete idiot.
He is far from being an idiot. This one book, is just really bad.
Oh, and you are conflating your opinion with fact!
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
You know, the Baha'i people almost (almost) have an idea about this.
From my limited understanding, they seem to believe that God is beyond human comprehension and so every so often, God gives people a revelation about how to relate to him according to their culture and time. This seems to imply that Ra, Thor, Yaweh, Zeus, etc. are all manifestations of "God" and they're all "true" in that that's how God allowed different people to relate to him in different times, cultures, and places.
But then Baha'i had to add in their own social norms, hierarchy and passing of the collection plate. So from my perspective, they propose an interesting answer and then making it basically meaningless in practical daily life.
Some Schmo wrote:Perhaps. It depends on your intended audience, doesn't it? Clearly, the book wasn't aimed at someone like you. But I think it makes quite an effective case against mainstream god thought.
It doesn't even do that. The Blind Watchmaker makes a better case for the non-existence of God.
Some Schmo wrote:I really hope you're joking.
I don't think you are very familiar with these kind of organizations. In the Secular Student Alliance, if you don't textually fellatio Richard Dawkins every chance you get, it's a cardinal sin.
Some Schmo wrote:Oh, and you are conflating your opinion with fact!
I can clarify a few points from my perspective that you may already agree with.
First, I don't think there's anything "militant" about strong atheism. Militancy is more about being aggressive and combative. Mind you, I think militancy is sometimes appropriate for atheists.
I don't think one needs Cartesian certainty to have achieved a case for strong atheism. I don't think I need to deductively prove a statement like, "There is no God" anymore than I do a statement like "Dodos are extinct." There's no reason why some sort of absolute proof would be the standard of acceptance for that proposition. Compelling evidence or argument should suffice.
Whether I'm weak or strong atheist depends on the sort of god we are talking about. Some god-concepts I have no basis to think one way or another and consider myself a weak atheist, some I think there is a boatload of evidence against, and still others I don't even think are coherent enough to have a property like "existence" attached to it.
If you'd like, I could give you an example of a sophisticated argument for strong atheism more philosophically informed atheists are likely to make.
I can clarify a few points from my perspective that you may already agree with.
First, I don't think there's anything "militant" about strong atheism. Militancy is more about having a being aggressive and combative.
I don't think one needs Cartesian certainty to have achieved a case for strong atheism. I don't think I need to deductively prove a statement like, "There is no God" anymore than I do a statement like "Dodos are extinct." There's no reason why some sort of absolute proof would be the standard of acceptance for that proposition. Compelling evidence or argument should suffice.
Whether I'm weak or strong atheist depends on the sort of god we are talking about. Some god-concepts I have no basis to think one way or another and consider myself a weak atheist, some I think there is a boatload of evidence against, and still others I don't even think are coherent enough to have a property like "existence" attached to it.
If you'd like, I could give you an example of a sophisticated argument for strong atheism more philosophically informed atheists are likely to make.
No, I get all that. I think I'm saying that I agree with MrStakhanovite that Dawkins seems to me to be just as self-righteous, smug, and proselytizing as some of the theists he argues with.
In other words, I think Dawkins followers (not including you in this category, Schmo) tend not so much to be "real" atheists as they are hipsters.
Chap wrote:If so, why can only religions have ceremonies without provoking your mockery?
Because most infant baptisms are local and not steeped in pretentious douchebaggery like this was.
Chap wrote:And why shouldn't (some at least, if not all) people who are proud of their new baby like the idea of a 'big name' being involved in his or her naming?
I know, nothing screams " PROUD PARENT!!!!!!11!!" Like a couple who drives over 200 miles to a convention so a bunch of big names in certain circles can partake in a meaningless ritual where the only other family member present is one grandparent (Who isn't affiliated with any other Free Thought groups, BECAUSE THAT IS REALLY IMPORANT AT AN ATHEIST CONVENTION AMIRITE!?!??!).
Yeah, that's really breaking the mold and being edgy.
What a bunch of Dawkfags.
Tsk. Such a display of immoderate ill-nature will I think be found unpersuasive by most people who read it.
I wonder what meaning this poster thinks can possibly attach to a ritual other than the fact that those participating find it meaningful? Since the participants in the ritual referenced above evidently did find it meaningful, it was as meaningful as a ritual can ever get in a world not inhabited by invisible super-beings who have the sole right to validate human actions.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Some Schmo wrote:Perhaps. It depends on your intended audience, doesn't it? Clearly, the book wasn't aimed at someone like you. But I think it makes quite an effective case against mainstream god thought.
It doesn't even do that. The Blind Watchmaker makes a better case for the non-existence of God.
I've only read the preview of that book. It looked pretty good, but I don't know. You could be right.
But I'm afraid that you're incorrect in your assessment of the God Delusion. Just because it wasn't effective to you doesn't mean it's not effective to others. (Quit being so smug... heh)
MrStakhanovite wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:I really hope you're joking.
I don't think you are very familiar with these kind of organizations. In the Secular Student Alliance, if you don't textually fellatio Richard Dawkins every chance you get, it's a cardinal sin.
Ok... not sure how much you're exaggerating here, but ok. I have heard of the Secular Student Alliance but know nothing about them.
MrStakhanovite wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:Oh, and you are conflating your opinion with fact!
Sure.
I knew there was a reason I can often relate to your posts.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.