Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope! The OP notes that she viewed R. Dawkins as "a pompous idiot".
I was not talking to the OP. I was talking to you. And I was pointing out how your stream of bile against the man did not actually reference, rebut, refer to, or include a single thing the man actually said. Which I think speaks volumes.
Especially when the best you can do is cite other people doing the same thing with full on intellectual statements of the level of "Dawkins is the biggest tool that has ever lived!!". Really engaging and intelligent stuff that from people who would better off check a mirror when looking for someone to call rude and pompous. Take the hate elsewhere, we do not need it here.
There's no such thing as a "religious expert" in my opinion. Religion, especially Christianity, was not designed to be unfathomable without advanced degrees and long years of academic study.
Even preachers are not necessarily experts - especially since religion is open to all kinds of various interpretations. Religion is not like science and mathematics which actually have right and wrong answers thus requiring a lot of education. Anyone can pick up a Bible and interpret it in any way he/she sees fit and would not necessarily be wrong. Which is why there are some 30,000 different Christian denominations.
There's no real reason to hold one religious "expert" in any higher regard than any other religious "expert" other than because you happen to like one "expert's" specific interpretation. Now, sure, you can have experts in Biblical history but that isn't the same thing as being a religious expert.
Therefore, to claim that Dawkins' arguments are invalid because he's a biologist is essentially saying that no one can argue against the claims of religion except people with degrees in religion - and THAT essentially means you have to believe in God to argue against a belief in God which obviously doesn't make any sense. (I doubt many atheists get degrees in theology, etc.).
I totally agree with you. I should have said that he is no Biblical history expert and I think some people see him as one. People take his opinions on certain subjects he might not know too much about as facts. This is what I don't agree with.
I never claimed to be "Mr. Nice Guy". Where did you ever get that?
I didn't. Just clarifying. You appeared to be applying the words 'rude and acerbic' to Dawkins as though a criticism earlier, but now you seem to be applying them as a compliment.
Rude and acerbic can be viewed on a sort of sliding scale then I guess? Fair enough. Personally on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being rudest, I'd put Dawkins at around 1, but that's because I agree with most things he says.
People who don't like their beliefs being questioned see this as rudeness, clearly, and put him higher up the scale.
Quote:
Believe me...I know full well what most people think of someone that has led the life I have. But...it's the horse I chose to ride...so I can't really complain about it.
I actually LIKE snarky, wiseguy, retorts. I've declared that dozens of times. I lament the closing of threads that have gotten heated with the participants ripping and tearing at each other.
You just gotta know how to put it in the proper perspective to see it as entertaining...like the insulting comedian.
Dawkins cracks me up! I dig him for that. Don Rickles has nothing on him!
I have no idea what kind of life you have led so I couldn't comment on that.
I was not talking to the OP. I was talking to you. And I was pointing out how your stream of bile against the man did not actually reference, rebut, refer to, or include a single thing the man actually said. Which I think speaks volumes.
Especially when the best you can do is cite other people doing the same thing with full on intellectual statements of the level of "Dawkins is the biggest tool that has ever lived!!". Really engaging and intelligent stuff that from people who would better off check a mirror when looking for someone to call rude and pompous. Take the hate elsewhere, we do not need it here.
You need to read my post again.
I said that I felt the abrasive, condescending, vibe that Dawkins puts forth was his "charm"....and that I "loved" him for it.
You just see hate in what I said because that is how your mind works, since it is obvious you are saturated in it....hateful of those that hold a opposite worldview to yours. You have to stop working off your own frame of reference.
For example...In all the time I have been on this board I have NEVER reported a post, no matter what was said to me or about me. I just don't have that hateful negative feeling in me to be bothered by what is said. As opposed to those get so mentally irregular toward those that post something they didn't like that they are compelled to entreat the authorities to come to their "aid" and "smite" what some stranger wrote. And then make note that it was done. Only hate motivates that....because the worst "harm" it could ever cause is that it "bothers" them...it couldn't ever REALLY hurt them. But to them...it DOES "hurt" them...because they can't control their feelings of hate toward those that disagree with them...and that hate rips them up inside.
No thanks, I read enough bile for one day. No need to read it again. Your posts are just hateful bile, with citations of other people spewing hateful bile, and not one of you appears to actually be quoting the man or referring directly to actual examples of things he has actually said. Which as I said: Speaks volumes.
You need to read my post again. I said that I felt the abrasive, condescending, vibe that Dawkins puts forth was his "charm"....and that I "loved" him for it.
You just see hate in what I said because that is how your mind works, since it is obvious you are saturated in it....hateful of those that hold a opposite worldview to yours. You have to stop working off your own frame of reference.
...snip...
Err no you didn't, that's entirely out of context with what you actually said.
You said Dawkins 'charm' was being "the KING of Fundie Atheist pompous idiots".
And you 'loved' him (and 'fundies') for being 'fools that don't know they are fools'.
That is hateful which ever way you dress it up. You can't have it all ways Gldnrule.
One minute you are expressing the greatest of pride in how you relish snarkiness on the forum, and how you love it when people rip and tear away at each other, then in the next making out that Nozz "only sees hate" in your comments because that's how his mind works. Come on.
You can't own the hate one minute and disown it the next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
But that's his charm ashley...that he's the KING of Fundie Atheist pompous idiots. His blowhole spew is some of the best ever...and throw in the Brit accent and it adds to the richness of it! Certainly a cut above the rest of the crowd.
He hangs with any of the Fundie Religious in his ability to spew forth with some really great stuff. He is soooooo biased and prejudice it is amusing in its pureness as a brilliant fools rant. All the top Fundies on either side are like that...they are such fools, they don't even know they are fools. I love 'em for that! They crack me up!
I didn't. Just clarifying. You appeared to be applying the words 'rude and acerbic' to Dawkins as though a criticism earlier, but now you seem to be applying them as a compliment.
Rude and acerbic can be viewed on a sort of sliding scale then I guess? Fair enough. Personally on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being rudest, I'd put Dawkins at around 1, but that's because I agree with most things he says.
People who don't like their beliefs being questioned see this as rudeness, clearly, and put him higher up the scale.
I have no idea what kind of life you have led so I couldn't comment on that.
And we both dig Dawkins! Cool!
Dawkins was a lot better in the past IMO. It seems he has lightened up with age...very unfortunate.
Maybe since Hitchens passed he feels he doesn't need to "keep up" in that regard.
Most of those guys put forth the same main points...it is the "delivery" that makes it a cut above...to me, anyway.
Gldnrule, you mention the term 'fundie atheist' a lot and I was wondering, what is your definition of a 'fundie atheist'?
I was wondering if you consider me a 'fundie atheist' since you seem to consider Dawkins a fundie atheist - and as I agree with most of what Dawkins says whether you lump me into the same category?
People see Richard Dawkins as objectionable because he questions people's belief systems and questions everything they hold dear who they are as a person. People translate that as rude because of course nobody wants to have their belief system questioned. And then people take it personally just as Deepak Chopra did initially.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,525,496 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Dawkins was a lot better in the past IMO. It seems he has lightened up with age...very unfortunate.
Maybe since Hitchens passed he feels he doesn't need to "keep up" in that regard.
Most of those guys put forth the same main points...it is the "delivery" that makes it a cut above...to me, anyway.
I think there are a couple of things going on.
1. With the passing of Hitchens. I think it took a bit of the (aggressive) energy Dawkins fed off. Hitchens in my mind was definitely the most aggressive...but...at the same time was able to be incredibly witty...and on occasion charming. Basically the guy has charisma/energy to spare. And I think Dawkins was hearted by Hitchens to stand up and try to go toe to toe with people in the debating world. I know Richard had debated before he met Hitchens(which there are some youtube vids out there you can see). But the energy was just not there.
I think without Hitch he somewhat reverted back to the his quieter ways. And honestly Sam Harris and Dan Dennett are/were always much more chill than Dawkins..so..no energy to feed off there.
Also Richard has stated he rather just have a "discussion" (ex. with Lawrence Krauss, and the arch bishop of Canterbury) now-a-days. I think he is a little tired in general with the toe to toe battles. I really can't blame him. Most people doing most things in life end up losing a bit of the "fiery" passion that drives them after doing something/anything for while.
P.S. for all though that think Richard Dawkins is a complete pompous a$$ that tries to suck the air out of the room on every occasion. Please what his discussion with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Richard was extremely quiet and honestly I though he was somewhat intimidated by Tyson. Basically Tyson Ran over him like a tank. Granted Tyson is.......AWESOME!!!!!!!!!
2. I do think age is a factor. Richard is 73 years old. And it not like he really in retirement. In fact he's probably busier than ever. So I think he has only so much energy to devote to "entertaining" and motivating people directly.
3. I think (and you guys can disagree) that one of the more immediate driving forces (in the U.S. perhaps the western world) for the "militant" brand of atheism has evaporated. That would be the Bush Administration. I think...with the Bush administration out of office of fervor against religion has dialed back back a bit. Not saying it the energy is gone....I saying it's a little quieter now. I look back on the "hey day" of the debates about religion and when they were happening....and perhaps it was just coincidence....but it seems a lot of the "big" debates happened during the Bush administration terms in office. I do think that a lot atheists and some other groups felt a threat, real or imagined, from Bush's and his administrations (real and perceived) religiosity. And this in turn caused a aggressive backlash from the militants in the atheist movement.
Gldnrule, you mention the term 'fundie atheist' a lot and I was wondering, what is your definition of a 'fundie atheist'?
I was wondering if you consider me a 'fundie atheist' since you seem to consider Dawkins a fundie atheist - and as I agree with most of what Dawkins says whether you lump me into the same category?
People see Richard Dawkins as objectionable because he questions people's belief systems and questions everything they hold dear who they are as a person. People translate that as rude because of course nobody wants to have their belief system questioned. And then people take it personally just as Deepak Chopra did initially.
I don't think I can get too into it. As I had noted before, my posts are being reported and axed. As you noticed, they (and by extension, any referencing them) are now not there. SMH, oh well.
By a "Fundie"...I mean someone that is so entrenched and "closed minded"...that if you were to ask them, "Are those that don't agree with your view, people that you consider to also have a fully acceptable perspective, or are they simply 'wrong'?"...would never say the differing perspective is cool and acceptable, but insist that it's 'wrong'. They hold that their perspective, and only their perspective, is "correct"...and will fervently argue against any opposing.
I'm not at all religious...never have been. I used to be Atheist...for all my adult life until a few years ago. I now embrace the concept of the Universe as "God". I feel that it has the attributes that would qualify it to be titled as such.
But I don't take any exception what-so-ever to any belief or nonbelief anyone else chooses...that is their own individual perception. Each perception is unique anyway...no two are exactly alike...so we all hold a perception that is one-of-a-kind, no matter what it is.
As long as it doesn't cause harm (being "bothered" is not harm)...I'm cool with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
