atheist fundamentalism

[Miss Shelby]

'Ignorance is No Crime' by Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net

if this guy was arguing for christianity, he'd certainly be labled a fundie nut case.

 

[DeathMagus]

'Ignorance is No Crime' by Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net

if this guy was arguing for christianity, he'd certainly be labled a fundie nut case.

Interesting article. Is there a particular part of it you'd like to discuss/dispute?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'd be curious as to how the OP is defining fundamentalism.

 

[IzzyPop]

'Ignorance is No Crime' by Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net

if this guy was arguing for christianity, he'd certainly be labled a fundie nut case.

How so?

 

[TomTomHatesCats]

While I am a great admirer of Richard Dawkins, having been one long before "The God Delusion," I do find his recent grammar a little too biting at times. I'm not against this level of criticism, in principle, but someone of Dawkins' position might be better received seeking a higher road because his primary job, it seems to me, is to educate.

That said, it's too bad that deniers of evolution focus on the vitriol and don't bother with the meat of his work (that is, his many explanations of natural selection), which can be quite delicious. On the one hand, I can fully understand the human emotion to shut the eyes/ears off after reading/hearing harsh segments/soundbites which attack a deeply held, possibly never before questioned, belief. On the other, it may be too much to ask the offended to put aside their emotions and listen to what the man has to say regarding, strictly, the evidence for evolution.

-Tom

 

[DeathMagus]

While I am a great admirer of Richard Dawkins, having been one long before "The God Delusion," I do find his recent grammar a little too biting at times. I'm not against this level of criticism, in principle, but someone of Dawkins' position might be better received seeking a higher road because his primary job, it seems to me, is to educate.

I'm not sure at all why the article is full of vitriol. Clearly if he feels that evolution is well-established and overwhelmingly credible, then he would also feel that those who don't agree are (at best) ignorant.

If you believe that reality exists objectively, and you believe that you know a truth about reality, then by definition you believe that those who disagree with you do not know as much about reality as you do on that topic - and are thus ignorant.

What's offensive about that?

 

[Miss Shelby]

I'd be curious as to how the OP is defining fundamentalism.

A fundamentalist is one who defends his/her beliefs w/ a strong fervor and passion but not without stating them as absolute truth. And that those who don’t agree, while they’re not ultimately held responsible for their ignorance in most cases, are most certainly errant.

And as far as I am concerned this is the way one should defend their beliefs. I state that as an absolute truth.

 

[TomTomHatesCats]

I'm not sure at all why the article is full of vitriol. Clearly if he feels that evolution is well-established and overwhelmingly credible, then he would also feel that those who don't agree are (at best) ignorant.

If you believe that reality exists objectively, and you believe that you know a truth about reality, then by definition you believe that those who disagree with you do not know as much about reality as you do on that topic - and are thus ignorant.

What's offensive about that?

Not a thing.

Perhaps I should have specified that I wasn't merely referring to that article, which I've read a few times over the years and, for the most part, agree with. I'm happy, even, listening to other iconoclasts who truly pull no punches, something I've been guilty of myself many times.

It was once asked by Neil deGrasse Tyson whether Richard Dawkins, having been appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, might not hold himself to a higher standard. What Dr. Tyson meant to say, according to his clarification, was that, while there is room for hard truth, even perceived name-calling, Dawkins' position demands a more strategic use of language. If I didn't agree at the time, I couldn't disagree either and, now, I think he might have been right.

So, it did disappoint me slightly that in his latest book, "The Greatest Show on Earth," which Dawkins touted as being his first book purely covering the evidence for evolution, he couldn't resist taking a number of provocative jabs at creationists, as well as religionists in general. Should I preempt a response now by admitting I nonetheless agreed with everything he wrote? Still, I had hoped the book would steer clear enough of ridicule that I could pass it on to some of my more pious family members, but it was not to be.

-Tom

 

[TomTomHatesCats]

A fundamentalist is one who defends his/her beliefs w/ a strong fervor and passion but not without stating them as absolute truth. And that those who don’t agree, while they’re not ultimately held responsible for their ignorance in most cases, are most certainly errant.

And as far as I am concerned this is the way one should defend their beliefs. I state that as an absolute truth.

I may have mistaken the meaning of your initial post. Do you agree, then, with Dawkins?

It seems as if you first accuse him of defending his "beliefs with a strong fervor and passion but not without (did you mean the double negative?) stating them as absolute truth" and then give your approval of the tactic.

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting you.

-Tom

 

[Miss Shelby]

I may have mistaken the meaning of your initial post. Do you agree, then, with Dawkins?

Not at all. But when it comes to my own religious beliefs, I believe them to be the absolute truth. IOW, I don't believe someone can contradict those believes with their opinion and have it count as being valid.

And dude, this is a messagebord for hacks. I am not interested in being graded on my English and grammar. Leave that nonsense out of our discussion unless it's okay w/ you if I start thinking of you as an arrogant snob.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And dude, this is a messagebord for hacks. I am not interested in being graded on my English and grammar. Leave that nonsense out of our discussion unless it's okay w/ you if I start thinking of you as an arrogant snob.

Why the defensiveness?

It seems to me that the question about the double-negative was valid. As is, I think your sentence is validly constructed ... but as it is unusual the question as to your intended meaning is valid.

I really don't understand your vitriolic response. Did you really not read this:

I may have mistaken the meaning of your initial post. Do you agree, then, with Dawkins?

It seems as if you first accuse him of defending his "beliefs with a strong fervor and passion but not without (did you mean the double negative?) stating them as absolute truth" and then give your approval of the tactic.

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting you.

-Tom

{My Emphasis}

It seems to me that Tom was very polite in addressing your post.

 

[TomTomHatesCats]

Not at all. But when it comes to my own religious beliefs, I believe them to be the absolute truth. IOW, I don't believe someone can contradict those believes with their opinion and have it count as being valid.

And dude, this is a messagebord for hacks. I am not interested in being graded on my English and grammar. Leave that nonsense out of our discussion unless it's okay w/ you if I start thinking of you as an arrogant snob.

There are few things I care less about than grammar on a message board as long as I can catch the meaning of the poster. If you don't realize that an intentional or unintentional double negative completely changes the meaning of a sentence, well, what else can I say but that it does. I thought it was clear I wasn't being facetious by the very questions I posed to you. It wasn't, so I'll accept the blame.

And did you mean to threaten me with name calling? If it makes you feel better, by all means, but I don't mind pointing out the irony that while I'm advocating civility on the part of your opponent, you haven't graced me in kind.

Good, that's out of the way.

Let me, then, throw out the "grammar" of your reply to me and try to guess what you mean. You won't let your beliefs be contradicted by another person's beliefs. Will you let them be contradicted by facts? Or is that what you meant? Also, how do you justify calling something a belief and an absolute truth at the same time?

-Tom

 

[Miss Shelby]

There are few things I care less about than grammar on a message board as long as I can catch the meaning of the poster.

so is it safe to assume you understand me now?

If they're facts they will not contradict what I believe.

 

[Tenka]

if this guy was arguing for christianity, he'd certainly be labled a fundie nut case.

Rubbish.
For a start, Dawkins doesn't even attempt to promote atheism in your chosen link and I can't find a single statement there which is unreasonable.

If Dawkins was arguing for Christianity he would be almost unknown and hardly exceptional.

 

[The Nihilist]

so is it safe to assume you understand me now?

If they're facts they will not contradict what I believe.

Why do you so absolutely deny the possibility that you're wrong? I'm sure you're aware that the Catholic Church has absolutely no problem with evolution. Or did you mislabel yourself?
And why the hatred for Dawkins? While you may disagree with him, he's undeniably civil, and his harshest criticism is more or less that while some of his opponents are dishonest, they're no worse than others. What is your issue?

 

[Miss Shelby]

Why do you so absolutely deny the possibility that you're wrong? I'm sure you're aware that the Catholic Church has absolutely no problem with evolution. Or did you mislabel yourself?

I don't get your point?

And why the hatred for Dawkins? While you may disagree with him, he's undeniably civil, and his harshest criticism is more or less that while some of his opponents are dishonest, they're no worse than others. What is your issue?

hatred? who said I hated him? I admire his zeal. my point though, is when Christians have the same zeal, they get labeled nuts.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I admire his zeal. my point though, is when Christians have the same zeal, they get labeled nuts.

Not by me. I have never seen anything wrong with zeal. What I look for is a sign that someone is self-examining. IOWs, that there is some continual process of reflection on one's own beliefs and why one holds them. When a one's worldview is unexamined and becomes "fossilized", that's when I see a serious problem.

Dawkins strikes me as a self-examining person. Perhaps he needs to lighten up, and perhaps he needs to understand Christians better, but I don't get the impression that his worldview is frozen into place. OTOH, I do get that impression from fundamentalist Christians.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tenka]

my point though, is when Christians have the same zeal, they get labeled nuts.

A point based on what reasoning?

I think it's the exact opposite. And I'll tell you why.

How many "zealous" atheists do you know? Dawkins and Chris Hitchens, right? World famous because they've criticized popular religions and have been called everything from zealots to crackpots and even "militant atheists" the term militant being more commonly used in the context of terrorists.

How many religious people do nothing more than what Dawkins does yet achieve such notoriety (or infamy, to many)? none and none. We expect Religious people to get up in our face about their beliefs, they've been doing it for thousands of years, but society still isn't comfortable with atheists doing the same.

 

[truth_not_allowed]

Unfortunate from such a prolific mind that he lacked the understanding of the original author Thomas Gray
"Thought would destroy their paradise. No more; where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise."

If he understood the knowledge behind his misquote, he may have chosen not to showcase wisdom, indulging such folly; but simply offer information for the obtainment of knowledge.

In discussions I have heard the argument many times concerning disbelief that we could have evolved from monkeys. The unfortunate aspect is that it has never been claimed that we have evolved from monkeys. I would consider this misinformed, and only ignorant to the information alone.
I consider myself fortunate to have been exposed to many avenues of thought, I do realize in a small twist of fate I could have had all my knowledge diverted elsewhere through social influence and/or belief. Would I then look upon such a twist of fate and consider myself ignorant?
Tis folly to be wise..... it plays upon great conscience and requires a gentle nature. It is wisdom that brings about the knowledge that it could as easily be your own mind that you are attempting to free.
Duped into this progressive emotion of love through a superior mode of reason? If there is a God, this certainly is a demonstration of brilliance!

 

[Miss Shelby]

How many "zealous" atheists do you know? Dawkins and Chris Hitchens, right?

I am sure they're the only two in existance, right?

As far as notorious Christians w/ zeal--if you're referring to the kind that Jerry Falwell (et al) has earned himself amongst secular society, then you most certainly get my point.