well okay, granted. what would be a better term to equate the similarities between Dawkins and the way right wing fundies state their beliefs?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
atheist fundamentalism
- Thread starter Miss Shelby
- Start date
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Actually, I would agree that Dawkins is an "athiest fundamentalist", but not because of the conviction with which he makes his case.
Richard is, politely, rather dismissive of anyone who doesn't believe the exact same thing as him. He has a set of beliefs, and science darn it, thats what he BELIEVES! and I doubt very much that anything you, or I or anyone else could tell him is likely to make him change his mind. Thats pretty much what I think a "fundamentalism" means, dogmatic adherence to a set of beliefs to the exclusion of the considertion of any other POV.
He's a heck of a scientist, but not exactly open to the possibility that he is wrong, or that other people's beliefs are as valid as his.
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 59
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I'm not all that familiar with Richard Dawkins, so please help me out here. How do you know that he isn't open to the possibility of being wrong?
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
I've read several of his books, heard him interviewed, seen his TV series about religion, and seen him in debates with others. He point blank refuses to even consider the option that he may be mistaken in his beliefs.
At least he's polite about it, I guess.
Upvote
0
Odd. I've read 2 of his books and seen "Root of All Evil" (title?) and seen numerous interviews -- but, I come to a different conclusion.
I think when one is confronted by the same objections/ideas/whatever that didn't make sense the last time someone presented it, one becomes dismissive.
As many conversations as I've had over the years (on both sides of the issue), I become depressed at how poor the arguments are and how little improvement or novelty develops.
I remember reading a book review of D'Souza in Christianity Today (or it might have been an aritcle by him) and getting angry. I was still a Christian. Here this guy was--supposedly a bright light on the intellectual scene--and all his arguments were the tired worn out ones that people see everyday on the internet.
So if Dawkins dismisses some idea, I think there's a very good chance he's heard it already and argued against it already.
That he dismisses a tired worn-out cliche (however novel the presenter thinks it is) is not an indication that he'd dismiss out-of-hand a truly new idea.
I think when one is confronted by the same objections/ideas/whatever that didn't make sense the last time someone presented it, one becomes dismissive.
As many conversations as I've had over the years (on both sides of the issue), I become depressed at how poor the arguments are and how little improvement or novelty develops.
I remember reading a book review of D'Souza in Christianity Today (or it might have been an aritcle by him) and getting angry. I was still a Christian. Here this guy was--supposedly a bright light on the intellectual scene--and all his arguments were the tired worn out ones that people see everyday on the internet.
So if Dawkins dismisses some idea, I think there's a very good chance he's heard it already and argued against it already.
That he dismisses a tired worn-out cliche (however novel the presenter thinks it is) is not an indication that he'd dismiss out-of-hand a truly new idea.
Upvote
0
As a teachers aid?
It said what I said it said and that's all that it said. It was Popeye the sailor... Wait.
Which pointed out the part of the argument that I'm making.
Which is?
Oh but you don't answer pointed questions. Sadly, that wasn't one and neither was anything else I've asked you.
Apparently it's going to take some work by you.
Can you show me where I am so revealing?
Because basically, you've made nothing but assumptions about me from the first response you've made to me. Which is annoying to say the least.
This is a debate board. I'm not doing anything but trying to debate. Someone didn't agree with a video I linked so I left another video that said what I said it said and nothing more.
But then, you're not debating. You're telling me what kind of person you think I am and then from that you some how believe you have the right to tell me what to say. Instead of just debating what I said to begin with.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
SithDoughnut
The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
In the God Delusion Dawkins specifically states that he is an agnostic atheist. He is almost convinced that God does not exist but he will not dismiss it as impossible - he knows that it hasn't been proven to be true.
I can't remember what his actual words were but I believe he said that if you scaled atheist belief from 1 - 7, with one being agnosticism and 7 being total fundamentalist atheism, he puts himself at a 6. He has repeated him acceptance of the possibility of God over and over again.
Upvote
0
As I recall, Chapter 4 is titled "Why there almost certainly is no God".
The scale, though, that he uses is 1 means absolute certainty that there is a god, 7 is absolute certainty that there is no god, leaving 4 to be total agnosticism. (IIRC.)
HTH
Upvote
0
TomTomHatesCats
One of many
This, in a nutshell, underscores the difference between skeptics of science and skeptics of religion.
The very word "believe" is given way too much inappropriate lip service by religionists when they describe scientists or proponents of science and reason over faith. By that, I mean it skews the word unfairly in their favor.
Clearly, there is more than one way to arrive at a "belief." One way is through faith. Another way is through the scientific method.
Holding a belief that is arrived at through faith may or may not mean the belief is unshakeable, depending on the strength of that faith. From my personal experience alone, that strength may come from a combination of indoctrination, societal pressure, parental reinforcement, ignorance, fear of death, and so on.
Holding a belief that is arrived at through the scientific method can be unshakeable as well, but for a different reason. That reason is called evidence. The better the evidence, the more unshakeable the faith, scientifically speaking. If, at this point, some minds begin to turn off, I genuinely regret any perceived offense. However...
Evidence is not a personal revelation or untestable conjecture. Evidence, again, scientifically speaking, comes in the form of data collected from peer reviewed experiments based on testable hypotheses and from a track record of proven predictions made from existing theories which, although they may continue to be refined, have not yet been disproved even though they are falsifiable.
So, use the word "belief" if you like, but I hope it's clear how fatuous the application is in the context of the above quote.
As to the matter of changing Dawkins' "beliefs," you may be right that that might never happen, but surely you can't fault him for sticking to a viewpoint that is supported by a mountain of scientific data. That is, let me point out, precisely the reason you should trust him.
And, since you brought it up, I happen to not think all beliefs about the natural world are equally valid. Do you?
-Tom
Upvote
0
SithDoughnut
The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
That might have been what I was talking about, I haven't read the book for a while.
Upvote
0
There is no correlation between atheist thinking and fundamentalism.
There is only one fundamental in atheism, and that is that the person lacks a belief in God.
The fervor with which someone is convinced they are correct or the willingness to express that has no bearing on it.
Upvote
0
Well, the operational term introduced for discussion per the OP was "fundie nut case", though.
Upvote
0
Actually, I retract my previous statements.
The article you quoted was about anti-evolutionary thinkers being ignorant, stupid, or insane, so you do not need to even be an atheist to agree with Dawkins entirely.
It can not be an example of an atheist fundimental if you aren't required to be an atheist in order to think it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
