Reason Rally 2012

He is so fully committed to his views that he refuses to accept even the possibility of alternative viewpoints. In person, he is arrogant and lacks social niceties.
 
ShahJahanII said:
The largest secularist gathering in human history, the Reason Rally aims to celebrate atheist/agnostic pride.
Speakers include Richard Dawkins (Author of The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, The God Delusion, The Greatest Show on Earth, and more; Founder of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.), Tim Minchin (Musician, composer, songwriter, actor, comedian, writer, and director of this film http://www.stormmovie.net/), Adam Savage (Co-host of Mythbusters.).
Being a "weak atheist" (although I prefer the phrase "teapot agnostic") this is an especially important event to me personally (although I will not be attending).
Comments?

Related secular links & videos:
Richard Dawkins: An atheist's call to arms
Dawkins in Lynchburg VA (part 1) The God Delusion
Dawkins in Lynchburg VA (part 2) The God Delusion
Julia Sweeney: "Letting Go of God" (an excerpt)
Click to expand...

Bet the parties are pretty lame.
 
BvBPL said:
He is so fully committed to his views that he refuses to accept even the possibility of alternative viewpoints. In person, he is arrogant and lacks social niceties.
Click to expand...

I don't know about in person, but he has acknowledged a 1/70 chance (in his own beliefs) that there is a God.
 
ShahJahanII said:
"Parties"?
However lame it is I think it will serve it's purpose.
Just as the Gay Pride Parade has been doing for some time now.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the queers know how to throw a party. Not so sure these guys do.
 
ShahJahanII said:
I don't think it is intended to be a party. "Party"=/= "celebration".
Click to expand...

Even so, I probably partake in better atheist gatherings down the pub on a Friday night.
 
ShahJahanII said:
I don't know about in person, but he has acknowledged a 1/70 chance (in his own beliefs) that there is a God.
Click to expand...

While I recognize that his behavior in person isn't necessarily a sufficient reason to discount his theories, it is sufficient reason for me to specifically avoid other events in which he is a presenter.

Also, his selfish gene theory is just complete bull. Again, this doesn't necessarily disprove his other theories, but still.
 
ShahJahanII said:
It is in D.C. for a reason.
to make the secular voice heard.
To let politicians know that we matter in a vote.
Click to expand...
I guarantee that neither of those things is going to happen.
 
_random_ said:
Care to expound on this? I've always thought he was one of the crappier atheist writers, but I've enjoyed his science stuff.
Click to expand...

The selfish gene theory is crap. In this sociobiological theory, Dawkins provides a theory that attempts to describe the development of human society. Let's take a specific example, that of gender roles, mate selection, and relationships. Dawkins hypotheses that human males value marital fidelity because it enables them to shield their mates from competing males. This fidelity enables a better environment for raising children. Dawkins suggests that this is a fundamentally biological drive that effects social values.

The problem here is that this doesn't describe human development; it doesn't provide an universal explanation for gender roles. It only describes the gender roles of contemporary, monogamous, Western society, NOT how we know early humans lived nor does it describes any number of alternative societies that do not value fidelity (like the Samoans) or assign a different value to fidelity. If it was actually a fundamentally biological drive then it should be universal.

Another problem with this theory is that it seeks to explain how we got to our present condition rather than how we became social. Dawkins's sociobiological selfish gene theory is an inductive theory that starts from the current gender roles in Western society and seeks to work backward to explain how we arrived at this situation. The problem here is that this means of developing a theory of human social development ends at contemporary Western society. It seems to me that a superior means to research early human social development would be to work from what we know about Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic societies, rather than contemporary civilization. Those early human societies are closer to our hominid ancestors that first came together in groups, and they would be a better starting point for research into human social development.

(Please keep in mind that the above was a very brief run down of one element of one of Dawkins's theories. It is not meant as a universal retort. This just a "quick and dirty" response.)
 
CELTICEMPIRE said:
I don't see the point of this, could someone explain?
Click to expand...

The same reason religious people go to church.

To show support for others like them, meet women, and grasp desperately at anything that resembles community in the face of their impending whisper of a death.
 
Mr. Dictator said:
The same reason religious people go to church.

To show support for others like them, meet women, and grasp desperately at anything that resembles community in the face of their impending whisper of a death.
Click to expand...

I actually go to church to worship, not the other stuff. What do you mean by "impending whisper of death"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Why I am agnostic rather than atheist.
8 9 10
Replies
190
Views
13K
Souron
Souron
RedRalph
Dawkins to arrest the Pope
14 15 16
Replies
313
Views
17K
Traitorfish
Traitorfish
Snorrius
Atheists and hardcore skeptics struggle against evolution
2 3
Replies
45
Views
3K
Eran of Arcadia
Eran of Arcadia
V
The Great Dawkins running from debate with a theist?
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
5K
Andrei_V
A
aneeshm
The square root of (-1) is......... the penis?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
9K
DNK
DNK
Back
Top Bottom