What do you think about Dawkins?

What do you think about Richard Dawkins?


  • Total voters
    132
Care to provide some proof as to why that might be the case - otherwise I'm inclined to agree with a published expert in the field.

He said that you could call religious belief a 'basic belief', but the evidence he gave for it (it's natural, and it's 50/50) is no good. First it's not natural to believe in God, and if we areto believe everything we can't disprove the situation becomes stupid.
 
Survival of the species is a meaning of life. Sure, it's not very romantic, but being romantic is not a requirement.

But it's not a compelling reason. Why should I care? I'm sure you live for other things besides just the survival of species. Insinuating that it's somehow the only reason why everyone is living is ridiculous.

Ziggy Stardust said:
Does there have to be a meaning of life? Why? Because otherwise we'd have to give meaning to our own lives?

Does science help give meaning to everyone's lives? Or lead us to find one (we don't just choose a meaning out of the blue, y'know)? Religion seeks to. Of course it's not perfectly successful.

Ziggy Stardust said:
That has been puzzling me. We as humans are the only animals which have the ability to ponder the meaning of life, so there has to be one. We can also imagine Marsians, but they do not exist. What if there is no universal meaning of life? That would mean we must define it ourselves. And you know, I think that's exactly what we have been doing the last 5.000 years. And some of those were written down and touted as: this is it folks! As it is now, I think there are more than 6 billion meanings of life. I don't think THE meaning of life does exist.

The fact that you're thinking about this already says something. It's not a question (or meta-question) scientists are in the business of pondering, yes?

As I said, I'm pretty sure you live for something. And I don't in the least believe that the reason is the survival of the species. Maybe you don't devote a lot of time thinking about it, or maybe you're a good Absurd man. But in any case there is something compelling enough for you to not simply be indifferent about life or death. Whether you choose to identify it or not, you derived it from somewhere.

Ziggy Stardust said:
And social and psychological sciences have a thing or two to say about the meaning we give to our lives.

Sure, but I'm sure you know that science studies the meaning we give to our lives, not help us come up with it or come to terms with living.
 
Look, whether or not believing in religion enriches lives and gives purpose is irrelevant. It should be judged on whether it is true, not whether or not it would be nice if it were true
 
Look, whether or not believing in religion enriches lives and gives purpose is irrelevant. It should be judged on whether it is true, not whether or not it would be nice if it were true

Why irrelevant?

I agree that many religions are based on premises that are probably false, and that is a good reason why one does not believe in them. But to simply judge religion by how much scientific truth it contains is pretty idiotic because that's not the point at all.

But it's probably useless to try and make everyone see some reason here, ironically.
 
But religions don't deserve any respect, just as a stupid political ideology doesn't deserve it. Do you say you'd respect someone who says "Jews need to be exterminated to the last toddler"? No, of course you wouldn't. Would you respect someone who believes in an Invisible Pink Unicorn who guards him and protects him? Could you keep a straight face if such a guy started chanting "Oh Unicorn, my lord guardian, deliver me from evil and blah blah blah"? I very much doubt you would.
Winner, your problem is very simple: you're a religious fanatic. You're really not a whole lot different from the people the Islamic or Christian fanatics that you so loathe.

You see, the mark of a fanatic is not belief in any particular deity or doctrine - you may be a fanatical follower of Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, or the Dark Side of the Force. The mark of a true fanatic is certainty matched with arrogance; such rock solid certainty that he is correct that he comes to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with him must either be insane, or simply stupid. The fanatic cannot tolerate the idea that reasonable people might just disagree, not out of mental illness, but because different personalities, experiences, and ways of thinking cause them to have different opinions on various issues. The cause or ideal that the fanatic fights for, and his methods, change over time - fanatics may ban books, chop off heads, or simply scream at people for being delusional on the internet, all for the sake of God, or a doctrine, or even just some sort of tradition - but the essence of the fanatic remains the same. The sad thing is, Winner, is that you can't distinguish the fanatics from the religious, and so you paint them all with the lunatic brush. And all the while, all you're doing is making yourself their equal, in thought, if not necessarily in violent deed.

I'll debate with people of other religions, or of no religions like yourself, but I don't personally lose respect for them - because I learned a long time ago that sometimes people just think differently. That doesn't mean we're all equally right - but that does mean that a lot of us are just sincerely, honestly, and sanely wrong. That's something my father told me when I was about 5 years old, and it took me over a decade to really and truly understand it. It's unfortunate that you still don't.

So who the heck are you to tell me that I need to respect delusions of other people? All believers are atheists - you don't belive in most Gods invented by other cultures, probably for the same reason I don't believe in your God, but somehow I should respect him?

Please :rolleyes:
Atheism is the belief that no god, or gods, exist. Disbelieving in any one particular god, does not make one an atheist.

I am not a fan of the fashionable modern realtivistic thinking, you know that spineless attitude that all opinions are equal, that everybody's "truth" is as good as any other etc. No, absolutely not - either you can argue for your position in a reasonable way, or you can't and in that case your position is worthless and it deserves exactly 0% respect.

WHICH DOESN'T MEAN (read this carefuly) that I attack my opponent in a personal way. If he wants to take offense just because I inform him of the fact that his cherished opinion is a piece of crap, the it's HIS problem. It's not arrogance, it's reason.
And you think I am? I often make people very angry, because I insist that there is an absolute truth out there. I'm not a relativist when it comes to morality or almost anything else. But I have respect for intelligent people, who happen to disagree with myself - other Christians, Muslims, atheists, whatever - because they're sincere, smart people, and they deserve it. I'm not suggesting that all their opinions are equally correct, or even equally respectable (Worshiping an idol you made out of a tree in your backyard is less respectable than belonging to a sophisticated, thought out religion, for instance) And I think you need to understand, Winner, that saying that someone is delusional is a personal attack. You aren't saying they're beliefs are wrong - you're saying they are too deluded to come to the right beliefs. Perhaps it is your lack of grasp of English, but I doubt it, seeing as how your English is quite good.

You believers are so easily offended because you know that your faith is unreasonable, that you don't have anything to back it up except some sort of gut feeling. This is why you scorn, loathe, insult and suppress opinions which might erode your faith.
Why don't you ask the people here with religious beliefs that differ from my own on how I respond to them? Ask Eran and Downtown if I "scorn, loathe, insult and suppress" their opinions on why Mormon theology is more correct than my own. Ask El Mac and Fifty and Bill if I "scorn, loathe, insult and suppress" their opinions on atheism. I'm even talking with you, and without trying to "scorn, loathe, insult and suppress" your opinions, even though you're a lot more annoying in your fanatical beliefs than they are in their reasoned ones. The only one here heaping scorn and loathing on his opponents is you.

There's a youtube clip asking where Neil Tyson asks Dawkins why he's such a jerk. It cannot be linked, because of language.
Could you PM me that link? And maybe to Winner too, while you're at it? ;)
 
Why irrelevant?

I agree that many religions are based on premises that are probably false, and that is a good reason why one does not believe in them. But to simply judge religion by how much scientific truth it contains is pretty idiotic because that's not the point at all.

But it's probably useless to try and make everyone see some reason here, ironically.

I think that is the point. It would be like believing your office has burnt down so you don't have to go to work
 
I think that is the point. It would be like believing your office has burnt down so you don't have to go to work

The difference is there is a way to verify whether your office burned down or not. There's often no way to verify whether the reason why we're living is true or not. Besides, living is a question of life-and-death, literally, and has to be perennially answered. Whether you go to work or not is pretty trivial and has no comparable consequence.

You might have gathered that I'm not interested in things posited by religion that are scientifically proven false or very improbable.
 
So you would say that you can't tell whether God exists, but it would be nice if he did, so you should believe in him?
 
So you would say that you can't tell whether God exists, but it would be nice if he did, so you should believe in him?

I don't think you should believe in him, but some people have that reason, yes - and I don't think it's stupid. Most importantly, they just need to work on the details, especially in translating their faith into practical living.
 
But it's not a compelling reason. Why should I care? I'm sure you live for other things besides just the survival of species. Insinuating that it's somehow the only reason why everyone is living is ridiculous.
Might be I misunderstood you when you said, the meaning of life. As in: the one true universal meaning. After your post all signs point to: no.

If you were talking about why we are searching for a meaning of life, we get into social/psychology territory and since there are bears and tigers and lions, I dare not wonder there.
 
Might be I misunderstood you when you said, the meaning of life. As in: the one true universal meaning. After your post all signs point to: no.

If you were talking about why we are searching for a meaning of life, we get into social/psychology territory and since there are bears and tigers and lions, I dare not wonder there.

I thought "the meaning of life" is just one of those phrases.

But, anyway, I'm not talking about why we are searching for a meaning in life. I'm talking about why we live. There probably isn't a single reason, but whatever it is in a particular case, it's something that a person does have a need for. And finding it isn't what science is really concerned about, even though science might study it ex post facto or study why we have a need for it.
 
Well, a tad late to this thread, but here are my two cents on richard dawkins:

sure, some may call him offensive or a jerk. frankly i haven't seen any evidence for either. he has spoken his mind, and done so in an entirely scientific fashion. he has only said what he knows to be true, which is more than can be said for the millions of religious preachers who tell us atheists that we will burn in hell for eternity. he seems to be very likable, amiable and he is just the sort of person that atheists need. he is a very good role model for atheists, someone who is not afraid to give his views on a certainly controversial subject and is no longer prepared to put up with all the religious crap that still permeates society.

an to the people who say that he should stick to biology, well i don't see why. he speaks in the kind of fashion which enables him to be understood by everyone, something that philosophy has lacked for a long time. his views are simpler and plainer than most philosophers' have been for the past 2000 years.
 
Of course Colbert is using satire yet even so made a valid point (even if it's not his personal position) which is why posted it.
 
Back
Top Bottom