Comments | firecrest: I havent posted this to the site. I might, but not now.

firecrest

I havent posted this to the site. I might, but not now.

Jul 19, 2007 22:24

Dear Mr Dawkins

Its doubtful you will read or reply to this but I felt I should write it anyway. ive been a member of this site around 6 months and like many people here, i came looking for a place on the internet where I could discuss atheism and rational thinking. The forums on this site have been an eye-opener and not for all the right ( Read more... )

Comments 21

blah justreadingct July 19 2007, 22:17:07 UTC

Did you see the South Park episode mocking Dawkins? :) I think Mr. Garrison summed it up best - "Logic and reason aren't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone that doesn't think like you."

I'd like to see people stop equating religion w/morality, but a lot of "freethinkers" dig their own grave when it comes to this stuff. I went to a CFA event a few years ago and I got annoyed by how a number of the atheist wanted to evangelize atheism and how uncomfortable they made my agnostic friend feel. Blah.

Re: blah greatgreybeast July 19 2007, 22:43:42 UTC

I remember that event. I remember watching a couple make out in front of a group of people, I remember a conversation about how Californians use nouns as verbs or something, and I remember the first speaker talking about how we atheists have the advantage because we're the ones who are right. It struck me that that probably wasn't going to accomplish much. It also struck me that our progressive individuality is the reason why we can't effectively organize.

It wasn't the CFA though, it was some splinter group.

Re: blah justreadingct July 19 2007, 23:07:14 UTC

That was the SSA - the people who ran it were nice enough, but again they wanted to evangelize. I went to a CFA and they were worse.

Re: blah greatgreybeast July 20 2007, 00:02:05 UTC

Ah.

Thread 7

poets_hand July 20 2007, 04:04:02 UTC

Damn, I just wrote a great comment about religious tolerance, and how Dawkins et al are feeding religious intolerance, and LJ ate it!! Argh ( ... )

poets_hand July 20 2007, 14:02:32 UTC

I read the thread, and it's incredibly appalling. I couldn't even get half way through the article. It's rubbish, and not worth my attention. I got enough of what was said from the thread to know that it was written by an immature, hateful individual. People like him who attack "the other side" in such a distasteful way are worse in character than those they mock. He doesn't see the irony of the fact that by using another group of people--those who are learning disabled--as the brunt of his joke, he's only proving his own lack of intelligence, not those he's targeting.

You said some very intelligent things. I commend you for that.

firecrest July 20 2007, 16:35:38 UTC

Yes it is appalling and the mods should have removed it. I almost re-wrote the entire thing out replacing the word retard with the word `paki` or nigger. would people have been able to argue it wasnt derogatory then?

firecrest July 20 2007, 16:34:21 UTC

I think the whole issue wil never be resolved to be honest. When we talk of religious tollerance it can only happen if people arent as convicted by their own beliefs as they currently are. After all, if you truly believe somebody is going to hell your not just going to say "well you dont believe in hell and I respect that" People of extremism can never be tollerant because it is religion itself which is a dividing force. Some people are afraid of taining themselves and their own chances of appoval with god by even associating with others of different religions ( ... )

staggeronward July 20 2007, 13:11:33 UTC

The difference between the Dawkins camp and our (ever shrinking) band of heathens is that, well, you and I at least, see good that needs doing and we do it because we recognize that, without that belief that "everything happens for a reason" bull, WE are the ones in charge of becoming the change we want to see in the world ( ... )

"Oh my Science!" justreadingct July 20 2007, 14:35:32 UTC

Well...I agree that he's a jackass, and I don't know what he shot off on the radio, but I don't think he wants to promote a belief system without morality. He thinks altruistic genes have been selected through evolution, and we're naturally empathy...which is spoken like someone that's spent way too much time in the ivory tower. He's has been very active in the Ape's Right's Movement and I'll give him credit for that.

That being said, I read part of The God Delusion at Borders (and some old lady kept coming up to me and tellng me he was evil, but that's another story). He goes on about how religion always subverts science, creates fanatcism, causes discrmination, blah, blah, blah. I might agree with him - if the entire world was populated by Landover Baptist. I have lots of religious friends and colleagues that do not meet his descriptions. Most intelligent people learn that stereotypes are bad when they're fairly young ( ... )

Re: "Oh my Science!" staggeronward July 20 2007, 15:56:44 UTC

yeah I should have mentioned that I'm only familiar with him through random news clips and that interview, and that interview was just completely focused on how stupid and backward religious people are, and how religion and science are mutually exclusive (which is utter poppycock). He was snide with callers and just generally unpleasent. His behavior gave me the notion that he believed morality and science were mutually exclusive as well.

Re: "Oh my Science!" greatgreybeast July 20 2007, 20:43:19 UTC

Dawkins has been around for a long time, and I've always respected him as a scientist and progressive thinker in general. He is, after all, the creator of the concept of memetics, which is revolutionizing a number of fields. Recently he's become a lot more visible as he's ramped up this fight against religion, and I think he's kind of overextended himself. He seems kind of awkward in the encounters I've seen him in, as if he's become overly defensive under the limelight. Perhaps he should leave the politicking to somebody else. Perhaps it doesn't need to be done at all. But, frankly, I agree with most of his conclusions. I believe there is compelling positive evidence that God isn't real, at least not in any form that Christians would claim as their own. And even if it is impossible to prove God doesn't exist, it is certainly possible to prove that a number of other religious beliefs aren't true. I wouldn't go so far as to call anybody who believes the world is 6,000 years old 'stupid,' because the social pressures behind ( ... )

Thread 10