richard dawkins (1 Viewer)

[sugar_referee]

but that's why his answer is so banging. I always liked that he essentially listed out a few essential philosophical problems very articulately and then (essentially) said fuck that. You can question life only as an exercise in debating, and the important bits, the detail ,is exemplified in the last 18 pages of this thread. Life is what it is, and that's not being glib .
He's all the more irking because the smug prick is on my side of the argument...
post-midnight thread-killer.ignore this post.

 

[flashback]

People don't generally understand particle physics or theology. Arguing that myths are primitive is a primitive argument. Religious language is not a set of hypotheses..

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Froog]

okay guyz, my final two cents:

people are the only problem when it comes to fanaticism, be it hardcore sneering atheists or nutty born again christians, and you get assholes in every group, if they weren't fanatical about god or science would be harping on about some other shit. and among the moderates, no one will ever convince the other side of the merits of their belief system because you can't compare science and religion, nor should you. both sides should get off their fucking high horses and stop talking down to the other side like their a bunch of simpletons. a bit of acceptance for your fellow man should be standard practice no matter what you believe/don't believe. i really don't give a shit what people want to believe as long as doesn't hurt other people, and i couldn't care less about trying to convince people they're wrong about stuff.

 

[Diumraid]

but that's why his answer is so banging. I always liked that he essentially listed out a few essential philosophical problems very articulately and then (essentially) said fuck that. You can question life only as an exercise in debating, and the important bits, the detail ,is exemplified in the last 18 pages of this thread. Life is what it is, and that's not being glib .
He's all the more irking because the smug prick is on my side of the argument...
post-midnight thread-killer.ignore this post.

Should we just skip the abyss and go directly to the pub?

okay guyz, my final two cents:

people are the only problem when it comes to fanaticism, be it hardcore sneering atheists or nutty born again christians, and you get assholes in every group, if they weren't fanatical about god or science would be harping on about some other shit. and among the moderates, no one will ever convince the other side of the merits of their belief system because you can't compare science and religion, nor should you. both sides should get off their fucking high horses and stop talking down to the other side like their a bunch of simpletons. a bit of acceptance for your fellow man should be standard practice no matter what you believe/don't believe. i really don't give a shit what people want to believe as long as doesn't hurt other people, and i couldn't care less about trying to convince people they're wrong about stuff.

I couldn't agree less. I don't accept everything my fellow man might do, I don't accept the values that are normative today or the arguments that support them.

 

[Froog]

I couldn't agree less. I don't accept everything my fellow man might do, I don't accept the values that are normative today or the arguments that support them.

so get in line with your views or fuck off you retards?

 

[Lili Marlene]

YouTube - Blowing up my head

to be fair, your argument appears to be that God doesn't make scientific sense.

Which is completely missing the point of faith.

 

[Vinnie]

so get in line with your views or fuck off you retards?

That's about as far from his point as you could possibly be

 

[Diumraid]

so get in line with your views or fuck off you retards?

Your choice of words like 'retard' and 'simpleton' and 'fuck off' says more about your feelings than it does about mine. I think our generation has been sold complacency and inertia in the guise of open-mindedness and understanding. The current paradigm is open to question, this makes entrenched people uncomfortable. The hostility is not the least bit hurtful.

 

[ann post]

is it possible to debate about religion in everyday language?? this shit melts my head, i lose comprehension within about 8 words of every sentence.

 

[egg_]

Not what's in my head.... what my head is concerned with. I find most of the arguments lacking in any serious sense of irony (particularly your own point about Abraham and Isaac) so I suggest, as a thought experiment that people argue against themselves, as any good arguer should be able to do

But ... but ... irony? My Abraham/Isaac comment was just a jokey illustration of my previous post. It should have been more ironic, is that what you're saying? Or are you saying wouldn't be ironic if I'm totally wrong and em ... what then?

I've been trying really hard to understand what you're saying, but you've completely gone over my head here. Can you please let me know if my gropings in the gloom of your arguments are getting anywhere remotely close to what you're trying to get across?

Throw me a bone here, dude

 

[Moods For Mallards]

You'll convince nobody with these high-flown notions!

 

[egg_]

Ah wait, I found your definition of irony - knowing how utterly wrong you could be. And therefore my Abraham/Isaac post was too confident in my own correctness

I'm wrong all the time about all kinds of things. I'm used to it and I'm ok with it. But whether or not I'm aware that I might be wrong is hardly the point of this thread is it? Or is it? Could your entire point be "hey guys, you might be wrong!"? Hardly. If it's not, though, please explain to me how I'm wrong in language I can understand.

 

[Moods For Mallards]

Diarmuid - can I get a couple of things straight, that I think might be pertinent to the discussion?
Do you have faith in the existence a particular God, in the traditional sense? Or are you espousing something less tangible or familiar?

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

I’m not conflating atheism with logical-postivism here. Atheism derives meaning from the God question so they’re clearly not the same. The ground on which atheists criticize religious thinking, however, is founded on logical-positivist methods; there’s an inbuilt problem in the model because the average atheist is not going to let go of the question of meaning too easily nor many of the other intangibles I mentioned. To my mind atheists are far closer in fact to religious types than they are to what I imagine as genuine post-religious thinking.

I don't need to debate on the internet, I'm arguing because there seems to be very little suspicion that the lazy modern dogma is not sufficient to begin to describe things as they might actually be.

Throw me a bone here, dude

i'd really need a job in an office to try and keep up with this thread... is it the case that you're saying atheism, as practiced by egg_ (and myself i think) fails to engage with the existence and meaning of things (such as the universe or flowers for example) in the same way that old fashioned religion did and is therefore a step backwards in terms of human understanding of ourselves even if it is also the case that old fashioned religion didnt come up with any suggestions that were particularly helpful in that regard? or something like that? perhaps i might take up your earlier offer of a plain english version... its 10 years since i studied philosophy and i barely scraped through

 

[Diumraid]

But ... but ... irony? My Abraham/Isaac comment was just a jokey illustration of my previous post. It should have been more ironic, is that what you're saying? Or are you saying wouldn't be ironic if I'm totally wrong and em ... what then?

I've been trying really hard to understand what you're saying, but you've completely gone over my head here. Can you please let me know if my gropings in the gloom of your arguments are getting anywhere remotely close to what you're trying to get across?

Throw me a bone here, dude

(edit: you beat me to the punch!)

I was assuming that you were making a serious point in jest, that we have no need for Abraham and Isaac stories because were so past all that. The ironic take would be that there is still profound value in the story and that it's a mistake to write it off. Your joke represents the entrenched view as I see it... I meant to pick up on a few of your points earlier but things have moved pretty fast. Will go back and see if we can't understand each other better.

 

[Diumraid]

Diarmuid - can I get a couple of things straight, that I think might be pertinent to the discussion?
Do you have faith in the existence a particular God, in the traditional sense? Or are you espousing something less tangible or familiar?

I believe in the meaning of meaning; most definitely not in the mega-dad in the sky.

 

[Diumraid]

i'd really need a job in an office to try and keep up with this thread... is it the case that you're saying atheism, as practiced by egg_ (and myself i think) fails to engage with the existence and meaning of things (such as the universe or flowers for example) in the same way that old fashioned religion did and is therefore a step backwards in terms of human understanding of ourselves even if it is also the case that old fashioned religion didnt come up with any suggestions that were particularly helpful in that regard? or something like that? perhaps i might take up your earlier offer of a plain english version... its 10 years since i studied philosophy and i barely scraped through

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that religion didn't come up with helpful suggestions...
But you're right, I feel that something enormously important has been lost in the modern mindset.

 

[nooleen]

this thread looks really boring, is there any entertaining drama in it that i should read?

 

[Diumraid]

We're coming from such different places dude that I'm kinda having to guess at the meaning of what you're saying. But if I'm right about what you mean by "meaning", my reply is this:

No-one derives meaning from the concept of love either. We derive meaning from the experience of love.


I really really don't see where you getting the either/or from.

The either / or is that hormones, sex-drive etc. require no attached meaning in terms of physical experience. What you experience and the meaning you might ascribe to it are two different kinds of thing.

The meaning we attach is often the romantic, enchanted concept of love with all attached mythologizing of the self and of the other (I'm her prince - she's my princess) and of providence, destiny, the hand of God or any other supernatural concept that might be thrown in for good measure. That's love!::clef::

 

[Diumraid]

this thread looks really boring, is there any entertaining drama in it that i should read?

No, it's really boring... why don't you liven it up a bit?