91–100 of 145 posts
As an atheist, I am uncomfortable with Dawkins' brand of atheism. It can get too close to the Thought Police for my liking. See this article of his: http://boingboing.net/2011/01/24/should-employers-be.html If a scientist is producing good research that is getting published in peer reviewed journals and is generally acknowledged to be contributing to the advancement of the field, I don't care how weird his personal b…
Dawkins doesn't bother me any more than any other atheist I've read. The fact that he lives and is popular in my time makes him no more threatening to my faith than Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Lucretius, A.J. Ayer or Bertrand Russell. I know where my faith fits in the history of ideas, and I'm comfortable in the capacious intellectual house it affords me. Dawkins is amusing at best, annoying at worst. As a philosophical…
Every piece of technology you use was built on insights provided by reductionism. Nothing you do is benefitted by the reductionist-less grand metaphysical musings of Zeus worshippers. In every age of humanity, there have been reductionists slowly advancing the state of the species, and high-concept self-proclaimed thought leaders using intuition to make eventually-meaningless but feel-good declarations about things like beauty, love, and justice. Of course reductionism doesn't feel attractive - it requires the surrender of the ego in pursuit of fact. It makes sense that you wouldn't feel threatened by alien ideas if you allow yourself to disregard reason.
As an atheist, I am uncomfortable with Dawkins' brand of atheism. It can get too close to the Thought Police for my liking. See this article of his: http://boingboing.net/2011/01/24/should-employers-be.html If a scientist is producing good research that is getting published in peer reviewed journals and is generally acknowledged to be contributing to the advancement of the field, I don't care how weird his personal b…
As an atheist, I am uncomfortable with Dawkins' brand of atheism. It can get too close to the Thought Police for my liking. See this article of his: http://boingboing.net/2011/01/24/should-employers-be.html If a scientist is producing good research that is getting published in peer reviewed journals and is generally acknowledged to be contributing to the advancement of the field, I don't care how weird his personal b…
I think the concern Dawkins tries to show in that article is that it is very difficult to trust people with religious beliefs in certain fields because those beliefs necessarily introduce a bias.
Obviously sometimes people have a vested interest in the results of a study, but that's something different, and doesn't only apply to people of faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never once see an Atheist imply that Phelps and Lewis should be judged equally, just as I've never even conceived of someone dismissing someone's accomplishments purely because of their faith. Likewise, I'd like to thank you for reinforcing the notion that Atheists are angry. As one who feels persecuted, I often do feel angry about it. But to assume that I'm not versed in religious, theological, or philosophical…
From reading a couple of replies now, I'm thinking that I didn't express myself well. I respect atheists, especially ones that have taken the time to think about the world and their place in it and the nature of truth. Most atheists are engaged with the big questions and that's more than I can say for most. I probably have more in common with the average atheist, in terms of our desire to engage big questions and dra…
This isn't reddit, this isn't related to programming or even computers. Yes, I'm Christian and I find this guy annoying. As a programmer though, I couldn't care less about him.
Since we established this isn't reddit, your personal opinions on Dawkins shouldn't decide whether this article should or shouldn't be here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From reading a couple of replies now, I'm thinking that I didn't express myself well. I respect atheists, especially ones that have taken the time to think about the world and their place in it and the nature of truth. Most atheists are engaged with the big questions and that's more than I can say for most. I probably have more in common with the average atheist, in terms of our desire to engage big questions and dra…
A clarification then (the reply tree seems to halt, so I'm posting this higher up): I run into a lot of atheists these days who've read Dawkins, Dennett, Sam Harris, maybe even Stephen Pinker, heck maybe even the whole John Brockman crew of "Brights" and so forth. And that's all, and I don't understand that. I'm no exemplar of intellectual integrity, but I'm just too curious to not read contrary points of view. I tho…
We have a limited amount of time. I was a faithful, practicing Catholic who scoffed at atheist ideas because I didn't understand them. I remember the precise position I sat while reading the God Delusion when my brain was shocked into realizing "Wait a second, I'm agreeing with this." I took a few more months to verify the ideas were sensible, and what I got was much more; a worldview with more coherence and explanatory power than anything I'd yet seen. So for me, I don't spend my time on reading further theological / atheist philosophy for the same reason I am not proofchecking Deligne's demonstration of the Weil conjectures, even though I accept and use his result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not necessarily this article, but generally, and especially listening to him talk live (radio, conferences etc) Richard Dawkins is arrogant and pig headed. It's kind of ironic that by dedicating his life to setting them straight, Dawkins has become as much of a fundamentalist evangelist as the religious fundamentalists he spends his time mocking. Hardly. Dawkins can be very blunt, be he is hardly a fundamentalist.…
With compassion and respect. He is an evolutionary biologist, so he should make what he knows about evolutionary biology available. Tell people about it, write books, grant interviews, attend conferences and seminars and host talks about his ideas. But show some respect. At the end of the day, no matter how loopy or wacky a persons beliefs are, they deserve respect. There is just no need to go around calling people "…
Yet Atheists and Christians would do well to pay more attention to Christ's resurrection, did it happen in history? Are there primary and secondary sources? How many of these sources are independent of each other and to what degree are they coherent, neutral, biased or opposed? How soon after the event were they written? Have they survived intact?
As the apostles themselves declared:
"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead." - 1 Corinthians 15:14-15
Dawkins doesn't bother me any more than any other atheist I've read. The fact that he lives and is popular in my time makes him no more threatening to my faith than Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Lucretius, A.J. Ayer or Bertrand Russell. I know where my faith fits in the history of ideas, and I'm comfortable in the capacious intellectual house it affords me. Dawkins is amusing at best, annoying at worst. As a philosophical…
"Santa Clause analogy" "It's just flat strange and saddening to me" This is why the analogy is used. Not this: "would have been devastating to St. Augustine or Tolstoy or Tolkien." It's simplistic. And as an argument against specific dogma and teachings, it is quite effective. It's not meant to make a profound philosophical statement, it's meant to elicit exactly your response. Atheists are subjected to seemingly end…
I feel like I can hold my own in a serious discussion, but it really does get tiring making the same arguments over and over again, especially to people who tend to argue logic with non-logic.
Apologies to anyone who mistakenly saw a Q.E.D. at the end of my Santa Claus story.