|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas carols? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, it isn't. Faith is driven by emotion and personal opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
So, the period of European history called The Age of Enlightenment you could call it the age of warm fuzzy bunnies. it doesn't matter what you call things. you should know better than to make points like that. they called it enlightenment because they thought they were awesome. mental masturbation and self-congratulatory drivel. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
But without reading his avtual books, you don't really know what his point of view is, completely. i've seen episodes of his show. that's enough to tell me he's a jerk and i have no interest in reading his book. unfortunately, i've decided to do it and bought it last year. it's not very high on my list, though. i'm still trying to get through reproductive rights and wrongs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
not all evidence is "scientific evidence(tm)"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
riverrat writes: Faith is driven by evidence. Simply, no. Religious faith is probably more driven by things like desire.
Atheism is also driven by evidence, or evidence against the evidence, or even the lack there of. Either way it is not proven, and you must take a "leap of faith" to come to a conclusion about such a thing. It is not black and white, but gray. Lack of belief in propositions like Gods or wood elves is due to the natural interaction between complete lack of evidence and intelligence. Do you require a leap of faith to lack belief in elves? I find it easy, no leaping required. If, one day, evidence turns up for them, I'll be happy to believe.
Merry Christmas And to you, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
LucyTheMutantApe writes: bluegenes writes: When you look beyond science, do you prefer crystal balls, mediums or tarot cards? I thought them things were for the atheists. In my experience, those things are most often used by;a: neo-pagans b: people with self-created, pick and choose, magpie religions, usually espousing a little bit of paganism, a little eastern mysticism, a bit of Christianity, etc. c: folks who claim to "believe in something", without actually being very sure about what that might be. d: spiritualist Christians. I think you'll find that most atheists have little time for such things. LucyTheApe writes: Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas Carols?Because he’s a closet Right Wing Christian. And he’s got you all sucked in. The atheism thing is only to make money and fame. Um...OK.You are kidding, right? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: They were correct, though. It was awesome Using reason as the basis for most everything was an enormous leap forward for humanity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
LucyTheApe
First of all you have to admit to yourself that the ability of the human mind to perceive is limited. (To five senses and four dimensions). The human senses are limited yes. The human mind is not so limited and has achieved a great deal in the ways of understanding the world around us. That said , you are also included among those with that limitation and as such are not able to make claims beyond what you can reasonably account for yourself.
Then (this is the hard bit for you) you have to admit that it’s methods of discernment are limited. We have no idea how much discernment we are capable of and remember that being unable to solve some mysteries does not mean that the pursuit of those mysteries leaves us without insight. It is a consequence of the structure of the universe that it is impossible to resolve the nature of spacetime to less than the planck level of reality.Since there is a built in uncertainty in nature events occur at the level of quanta that defy common sense.The emptiness of space is the seat of the most violent physics. Devoid of matter we have learned that there is a substrate that seethes behind the curtain so to speak. Enough power that a cubic meter of "empty" space could boil the oceans of the earth. That the world is reduced to only probabilities means that the world seems to be discontinuous and lacks an ability to be endlessly divided. Nature places barriers in the way of resolving ability because beyond a certain point there is nothing to be resolved. From this probability structure we are able to arrive at devices such as the scanning tunneling microscope.We are so inept at discernment. Then you’ve got a start. A start into what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Using reason as the basis for most everything was an enormous leap forward for humanity.
I totally agree and don't believe the age of enlightenment was a misnomer, even if a bit of pat on the backing. The Renaissance and age of enlightenment pulled us out of a long period of imposed ignorance, for the purposes of maintaining power. Unfortunately, I think the age of enlightenment is well over, and we are now entering a period of self-imposed ignorance, for the purposes of maintaining individual arrogance. Practical reason is being subverted by those who use it, and its products, to cast their own personal visions on everything. I really do believe Dawkins is one of those kinds of people. No I have not read his books but I have read articles by him, and seen numerous interviews, lectures, and documentaries with him (usually by him). Indeed some have just been him reading from his book (one hilarious one where he is reading it on what appears to be a boat cruise in white t-shirt and shorts). I am very much an atheist (agnostic, whatever) and love science, and I believe he is doing both a disservice. The more I hear him discussing what he believes and what he wants to do (shaping other peoples beliefs), combined with his bizarre reverence for Xian culture (while alternatively blasting it as the product of insanity), makes me think he simply became jealous of priests and wants to knock them out of the pulpit and place himself there. Yes, I believe he does not like the mythology, except as fantasy material, but he loves everything else. Here are two issues I'd like to see addressed by anyone who is a Dawkins supporter, and thinks he is not being hypocritical. For a man who popularized the concept of memes, why would he want the words and concepts contained within religious culture... that he considers a form of viral insanity... celebrated just as it always has been? On top of the idea of finding reverence for particulars you think were generated by lunatics, doesn't this perpetuate the meme? At the very least on a subliminal level? You can't have kids growing up with Xmas carols and imagery and not have some of them get interested and begin to believe what they are singing, reading, and watching. Or take away the moral drivings found within it. In fact, I find it very funny how many atheists (Dawkins especially) who argue that it is important for everyone to keep Xian culture going. That it is important to understand, or you lose something substantial. That you cannot understand or appreciate great Western literature/art as much as you should, without knowing the Bible and its stories. Really? How many Xians know the Bible and its stories? And is he telling me that he cannot appreciate greek or roman or japanese or chinese or indian etc cultural works without full knowledge of their religious texts/stories? Come on. I really don't think there is a problem with atheists enjoying parts of theistic culture, but intentionally perpetuating it as important, and taking on some of the worst aspects of theism (namely evangelizing and dogmatic tenets)... ugh. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Edited by Silent H, : -n h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
But you are still willing to entertain the possibility that you are wrong aren't you? Merry Christmas. As I have stated many times before, yes. Especially since I can't prove God. But that would only be in light of new and overwhelming evidence, to precisely counter everything that has led me to my belief's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Simply, no. Religious faith is probably more driven by things like desire. As Brenna put it, not all evidence is scientific evidence. People wouldn't even know about God at all without evidence. The bible is evidence, love is evidence, subjective things, and objective things are evidence, desire is evidence.
Do you require a leap of faith to lack belief in elves? I find it easy, no leaping required. Yes, it is required to take a leap of faith to not believe in elves, since I cannot prove it. The only things that do not require a leap of faith, are the things that we haven't heard of yet. Keep in mind that the word leap, is a variable. That is why I said it is "gray".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2895 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
Christianity could recognise some of the responsibility for the confusion. The recruitment techniques that Christian churches employ in order to "reach out" to the masses involve more than just the Christian message. They involve various "sweentners" and sales techniques. For example, vulnerable youngsters may get an invite to a funky party, with the assurance that, "no! no! no! You don't have to be Christian. It's 'just' a chance to meet lots of nice people like you!". Christianity is often sold by association, and association, like mud, often sticks.
Richard Dawkins, aa with any other non-Christian who sings Christmas carols, appears to me to be someone who has no issue saying what he does not necessarily believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Richard Dawkins, aa with any other non-Christian who sings Christmas carols, appears to me to be someone who has no issue saying what he does not necessarily believe. To quote Bluegenes:
When Christians stop using words like Wednesday and Thursday (I'm sure they're all polytheistic pagans at heart) I'll agree to that. Y'all got plans to rename Wednesday and Thursday any time soon?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
oh please. not using words because you fall into a different belief system is stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I agree, Brenna.
Insisting that an atheist not celebrate a pagan holiday is stupid too.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024