richard dawkins (2 Viewers)

[egg_]

erm.. are you saying athesists have more fulfilling lives?

No. I'm saying the answer to the question "how do we make the world a better place?" can be answered more effectively by atheists than by theists.

Either love is a real thing or it is a bunch of hormones, sentimentality and loyalty etc that our DNA needs to survive and thrive.

You may as well say "either a daffodil is a real thing, or it's a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons". Obviously it is both, and if your understanding of the word "real" doesn't accommodate that then your understanding is wrong

edit: not wrong, more just not useful or meaningful

 

[egg_]

I'm saying the answer to the question "how do we make the world a better place?" can be answered more effectively by atheists than by theists.

Or, rather, that an atheist's "better world" is more achievable than a theist's

 

[flashback]

I think a lot of Diurmuids arguments are stem from a reification of the No Means Yes and Yes Means Up The Holeists primary tenet.

 

[Diumraid]

No. I'm saying the answer to the question "how do we make the world a better place?" can be answered more effectively by atheists than by theists.


You may as well say "either a daffodil is a real thing, or it's a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons". Obviously it is both, and if your understanding of the word "real" doesn't accommodate that then your understanding is wrong

edit: not wrong, more just not useful or meaningful

I admire your faith in atheism.

There is an enormous difference between the concept of love and a flower. Nobody actually derives meaning from flowers, except maybe florists but I don't know for sure.
Your point is wrong - well maybe not wrong....

 

[Diumraid]

I've written several attempts at getting my take on the big picture across and they just get too big..

Perhaps some people here can do it as a thought experiment. Calling all professed atheists!! Really imagine how utterly wrong you might be; imagine the very best argument against yourself possible without recourse to: 'Uh-oh, God is real'. The theist / spiritualist case must be faith-based, not proof-based.

My personal definition of a sense of irony is knowing how entirely wrong I might be. The power of weakness and the weakness of power.

OK.... go!

 

[ann post]

if this thread proves anything, its that athiesm is due a schism.

 

[egg_]

There is an enormous difference between the concept of love and a flower. Nobody actually derives meaning from flowers

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.

Either love is a real thing or it is a bunch of hormones, sentimentality and loyalty etc that our DNA needs to survive and thrive

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

 

[egg_]

Calling all professed atheists!! Really imagine how utterly wrong you might be; imagine the very best argument against yourself possible without recourse to: 'Uh-oh, God is real'.

Dude, fucken hell. You expect me to guess what's in your head and express it for you?

 

[Green Goblin]

People seem to piss their brains out whenever they talk about Richard Dawkins. The problem is that anyone outspoken about anything nowadays will be looked down on.

Richard Dawkins is not "smug" compared to his opponents in the slightest. There's nothing more smug than a religious conservative little prick who's delighted they can talk pure shit and have it taken as an "equal opinion" without backing it up.

I don't even agree with Richard Dawkins on everything, but he's actually somewhat polite as opposed to faux-polite and sneering like most conservatives.

 

[snakybus]

things just got interesting...

 

[pissypants]

2UP...

 

[Lepra]

who cares, like

 

[piratecore]

People seem to piss their brains out whenever they talk about Richard Dawkins. The problem is that anyone outspoken about anything nowadays will be looked down on.

Richard Dawkins is not "smug" compared to his opponents in the slightest. There's nothing more smug than a religious conservative little prick who's delighted they can talk pure shit and have it taken as an "equal opinion" without backing it up.

I don't even agree with Richard Dawkins on everything, but he's actually somewhat polite as opposed to faux-polite and sneering like most conservatives.

no no no youre thinking of the other richard dawkins that doesnt exist

 

[flashback]

First, fuck this thread.
Second, its funny the way that people feel it necessary to continually argue evolution.

Its an awful lot of wasted brain power.

No one feels the need to continuously argue the merits of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, or the Schrodinger equation.


Despite everything that it was alleged God did, nothing has ever actually turned out to be resulting from God.

So far 100% of those hypotheses were wrong. Of the answers we have, God has been the answer for no question.

Its a poor track record.

 

[Diumraid]

Dude, fucken hell. You expect me to guess what's in your head and express it for you?

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. The best position to be in, obviously, is when you know your opponents argument better than he or she does.

 

[Diumraid]

First, fuck this thread.
Second, its funny the way that people feel it necessary to continually argue evolution.

Its an awful lot of wasted brain power.

No one feels the need to continuously argue the merits of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, or the Schrodinger equation.

Despite everything that it was alleged God did, nothing has ever actually turned out to be resulting from God.

So far 100% of those hypotheses were wrong. Of the answers we have, God has been the answer for no question.

Its a poor track record.

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..

 

[ann post]

so I suggest, as a thought experiment that people argue against themselves, as any good arguer should be able to do. The best position to be in, obviously, is when you know your opponents argument better than he or she does.

you should try that dude. if you master it you wouldnt need to debate on the internet.

 

[Diumraid]

you should try that dude. if you master it you wouldnt need to debate on the internet.

What dude should I try?
How are you getting the idea that I don't get the opposing argument?

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.

The sheer level of resistance is gratifying, not because I'm contrary (and I am) but because it shows the profound need for the argument to be made, like it or not!

There's little real challenge here because just about everybody is in the same box saying that what's outside the box doesn't exist so there's no argument QED.

 

[sugar_referee]

I suggest, as a thought experiment that people argue against themselves, as any good arguer should be able to do. The best position to be in, obviously, is when you know your opponents argument better than he or she does.

Just read The Blind Watchmaker , and though I did get annoyed at Dawky's style and didn't need convincing by him regarding evolution anyway up to a fairly advanced stage of the book, he did make a good point regarding arguments about theism/atheism and evolution etc

There really is a sophist, pointless aspect to arguing the other side. Yes, you should be able to understand and erode the arguments of the other side, but to actually argue it with conviction is impossible- shows you don't believe either side, you're just exercising your arguing skillz.

It's very, very hard to argue against your own point of view if you truly believe your own conclusions.If you've ever done any formal logic you'll know what I mean. Using formal, 'mathematical' logic you could put forward a convincing argument against the existence of life, if you wanted.

Just saying ,though- I don't want to get into an argument about arguments , but I'm with Dawkins on that one.

 

[Diumraid]

Just read The Blind Watchmaker , and though I did get annoyed at Dawky's style and didn't need convincing by him regarding evolution anyway up to a fairly advanced stage of the book, he did make a good point regarding arguments about theism/atheism and evolution etc

There really is a sophist, pointless aspect to arguing the other side. Yes, you should be able to understand and erode the arguments of the other side, but to actually argue it with conviction is impossible- shows you don't believe either side, you're just exercising your arguing skillz.

It's very, very hard to argue against your own point of view if you truly believe your own conclusions.If you've ever done any formal logic you'll know what I mean. Using formal, 'mathematical' logic you could put forward a convincing argument against the existence of life, if you wanted.

Just saying ,though- I don't want to get into an argument about arguments , but I'm with Dawkins on that one.

Even David Hume (an atheist hero) said that philosophy will take you to the brink of the abyss and oblige you to look into it; so the question of life itself is certainly pertinent, primary maybe. What if our entire conception of ourselves and our cosmos is simply not what we like to think it is? Hume's answer to the problem was to go to the pub and play backgammon with his mates because madness lies the other way. Most people still have to get out of bed and deal with breakfast or somesuch. The question of arguments is not mere sophistry, it's the only way to make a model of reality that isn't one dimensional.
Dawkins' smugness just irks me more and more.