Plan B Forum

Richard Dawkins has an interesting book called "The God Delusion", exploring aspects of religion. In it, he mentions that one "quip" he has, when talking to religious people is the following.

You, like I, don't believe in Thor or Wodin or Mithras. We are very similar - it is just that I believe in one god less than you do.

Acts 17:22-24 (King James)

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Just because...

Prof. Dawkins exists in his 2-dimensional world - - - - aka: The Matrix

Dawkins exists in a world far more subtle and beautiful than the pastiche of a world inhabited by most of his detractors.

I am finding out that being an atheist or and agnostic is not for wimps.

Dawkins is exactly what he claims to be against.

Really? He advocates indoctrinating defenseless young minds into ignorance and stupidity? I must have missed that memo.

I think it's more that he tries to use his beliefs to give him some sort of superior status among mankind, much as many religious folks do. He's more of a self-aggrandizing loudmouth than a serious commentator.

Most of what he has written in his books -- at least, the ones I have read; he is quite prolific, and I haven't read everything -- is very much serious commenting. That's exactly why he gives the "Because I believe it, that's why" crowd fits.

His biggest flaw is he doesn't take the time to learn the theology and addresses arguments against the Lowest Common Denominator. It's like attacking conservatism by deconstructing Sarah Palin.

Crackpot wrote:His biggest flaw is he doesn't take the time to learn the theology and addresses arguments against the Lowest Common Denominator. It's like attacking conservatism by deconstructing Sarah Palin.

Ziiinnnnnnnnnng!

I have to agree (at least based on what I've read); and it's this LCD crowd that has the fits. Personally, I think he's entitled to his opinion, but I just get sick and tired of hearing the same old BS rehashed over and over again. Maybe he has more serious commentary, but I haven't seen it.

LCD?

Lowest Common Denominator

Yes, but the meaningful difference is that the Palin worshippers are in apparent control of the Republican Party. A party that includes some nutjobs is no big deal (does a contrary example even exist?). But a party that is run by nutjobs is a different matter. A dangerously different matter.

Actually there is no meaningful difference . The problem relies in organizational hierarchy. In both politics and religion that organizational hierarchy relies on spreading their beliefs to the masses and therefore derives it's power from the same masses. Both systems at their core have a very complex and nuanced belief system that should be disseminated amongst the masses. And here is the problem, for any myriad of reasons: form being unclear on the concept themselves, fear that showing their masses critical thought would discourage their adherence, general laziness, apathy.... etc... etc... the messages become oversimplified, Jingoistic, based in half-truths and sometimes outright lies. And that's just to name a few.

What Dawkins does is revel in the muck of religious organizational Hierarchy and casting them down. Overlooking the fact that what he's railing against isn't the sole providence of religion. And more to the point he is flat out ignoring that in doing so he is engaging in the exact same behavior that he blames on religions.

Crackpot wrote:His biggest flaw is he doesn't take the time to learn the theology and addresses arguments against the Lowest Common Denominator.

But surely that would mean giving theology some credence as a rational system of thought?

Which would be a nonsense to any thinking atheist.

So you believe it's not as matter of faith then?

No, I'm taking it from the rationalist view that there is no such thing as supernaturalism, as it rejects science and rationality,.

I will accept any scientifically proven supernatural phenomena.

One doesn't have to reject Science to believe in a god or a creator.

I will accept any scientifically proven supernatural phenomena.

what do you do with supernatural phenomenon that hasn't been scientifically proven?