Dawkins might be a bright man who supports a good cause, but he's about as humble as a poo-flinging monkey.
His usual attitude is something most atheists grew out of after their teen years with damn good reason, all it fucking does is ruin your credibility and piss people off. People are a lot more likely to listen to your opinion if you make it clear that you want to reason with them to help, not to make them feel stupid.
[QUOTE=Simski;42343452]Dawkins might be a bright man who supports a good cause, but he's about as humble as a poo-flinging monkey.
His usual attitude is something most atheists grew out of after their teen years with damn good reason, all it fucking does is ruin your credibility and piss people off. People are a lot more likely to listen to your opinion if you make it clear that you want to reason with them to help, not to make them feel stupid.[/QUOTE]
Whenever I see anything with Richard Dawkins, he always seem so calm.
The interview with Wendy Wright for example.
What I want to know is why any new related to Dawkins gets an avalanche of "dumb" ratings. Why? These forums seems to be OVERWHELMINGLY secular, and I don't see what he's ever said that singles him out more than anyone else.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;42343895]What I want to know is why any new related to Dawkins gets an avalanche of "dumb" ratings. Why? These forums seems to be OVERWHELMINGLY secular, and I don't see what he's ever said that singles him out more than anyone else.[/QUOTE]
Good question. He just appears to be rubbing his opinion into everyones faces. I don't really know, but in my opinion I think it's a stupid thing to do. Who actually has the time to express his ideas on how much something does not exist or isn't good or anything like that?
[QUOTE=KILLTHIS;42343930]Good question. He just appears to be rubbing his opinion into everyones faces. I don't really know, but in my opinion I think it's a stupid thing to do. Who actually has the time to express his ideas on how much something does not exist or isn't good or anything like that?[/QUOTE]
I don't find that he's rubbing his opinion in peaples faces, if anything he is preaching to the choir.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;42343895]What I want to know is why any new related to Dawkins gets an avalanche of "dumb" ratings. Why? These forums seems to be OVERWHELMINGLY secular, and I don't see what he's ever said that singles him out more than anyone else.[/QUOTE]
You can say something everyone agrees with, but if you say it like a cunt nobody is going to appreciate it. Dawkins comes across as the kind of atheist that rubs his atheism in everyone's face and thinks he's better than everyone that dares to believe any form of god exists, whether he thinks that or not. He goes out of his way to publicly mock religion and it comes across as incredibly douchey.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;42343953]You can say something everyone agrees with, but if you say it like a cunt nobody is going to appreciate it. Dawkins comes across as the kind of atheist that rubs his atheism in everyone's face and thinks he's better than everyone that dares to believe any form of god exists, whether he thinks that or not. He goes out of his way to publicly mock religion and it comes across as incredibly douchey.[/QUOTE]
He doesn't go out of his way to mock religion. He is just vocal in expressing his opinions on religion (and he doesn't hate religion) and its influence on decision making around the world. He isn't a bible-burner or anything like that.
And it actually takes some balls to do what he does. You'd be very surprised at the amount of death threats he receives.
[QUOTE=Simski;42343452]Dawkins might be a bright man who supports a good cause, but he's about as humble as a poo-flinging monkey.
His usual attitude is something most atheists grew out of after their teen years with damn good reason, all it fucking does is ruin your credibility and piss people off. People are a lot more likely to listen to your opinion if you make it clear that you want to reason with them to help, not to make them feel stupid.[/QUOTE]
Again, the major difference between Dawkins and your average teen Athiest, is that Dawkins is actually well read, he knows the religions he dislikes and argues against. He actually debates fairly enough, and composes good arguments.
The average teen angst? "lol religeonsss sucx u all fgts!".
Stop comparing Dawkins to morons.
[editline]29th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=KILLTHIS;42343930]Good question. He just appears to be rubbing his opinion into everyones faces. I don't really know, but in my opinion I think it's a stupid thing to do. Who actually has the time to express his ideas on how much something does not exist or isn't good or anything like that?[/QUOTE]
Uhhh...the discussion on whether or not a god or gods actually exist is a pretty big thing philosophically, people have time to do it because that is their field of expertise, it's what they studied and what they intend to teach.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42343119]People need to understand the difference between knowing how to do good things and having a compelling reason to do good things.
The normal argument isn't that an atheist doesn't know how to or can't do good things, but that an atheistic system has no compelling argument to make in favor of doing good things.
There's a reason philosophy classes teach many different types of ethics... because there is no objective compelling system without some sort of supernatural.[/QUOTE]
1. The knowledge of right and wrong morally is a compulsion in and of itself.
2. Societal backlash.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42345436]Again, the major difference between Dawkins and your average teen Athiest, is that Dawkins is actually well read, he knows the religions he dislikes and argues against. He actually debates fairly enough, and composes good arguments.
The average teen angst? "lol religeonsss sucx u all fgts!".
Stop comparing Dawkins to morons.[/QUOTE]
Didn't he also say that he wanted to spread science and truth, and if that was atheism he supported it.
[QUOTE=KILLTHIS;42343930]Good question. He just appears to be rubbing his opinion into everyones faces. I don't really know, but in my opinion I think it's a stupid thing to do. Who actually has the time to express his ideas on how much something does not exist or isn't good or anything like that?[/QUOTE]
Gee who has the time to do anything but play video games and be apathetic huh?
[QUOTE=J-Dude;42343895]What I want to know is why any new related to Dawkins gets an avalanche of "dumb" ratings. Why? These forums seems to be OVERWHELMINGLY secular, and I don't see what he's ever said that singles him out more than anyone else.[/QUOTE]
never try to understand rating bandwagons. try to ignore ratings altogether, really. they're terrible.
[QUOTE=HammerBrute;42347067]never try to understand rating bandwagons. try to ignore ratings altogether, really. they're terrible.[/QUOTE]
You can save yourself some pain and just disable them entirely in the user settings panel.
Though I do find they are great for spotting bigots and such.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42342638]actually that's exactly what the bible is for.
it's a book to live your life by. that's what it is for.
whether you agree is not important. That's what it was for.
if you must cut out part of the book to believe in it, then why use the book at all if it is indeed flawed
[/QUOTE]
I see people occasionally mentioning the bible. It's true that Christianity takes verses from it, but those type of churches often omit the violent, non-humanistic ones. I haven't explicitly heard or read a "OWN SLAVES, FUCK HOMOSEXUALITY, RAPE PEOPLE" verse from the churches I've attended.
The violent verses are never discussed in Christian churches. Therefore, it's rare for anyone to follow follow them unless if they willingly immerse themselves inside of it. It appears that the Protestant and Pentecostal churches delve further into the text, integrating political beliefs as well.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42345731]1. The knowledge of right and wrong morally is a compulsion in and of itself.[/QUOTE]
Knowledge is never a reason in itself. For example, I know eating 10,000 calories a day will make me fat, but the fatness, in itself, isn't the reason I don't eat 10,000 calories a day. I must make a value judgment about WHY I don't want to be fat.
In the same way knowing right and wrong isn't the same thing as knowing WHY something is right and wrong.
[QUOTE]2. Societal backlash.[/QUOTE]
This comes down to any right and wrong decision being completely selfish, which is fine, but it isn't really good/bad then because it assumes doing "bad" is fine if society doesn't find out.
It can be used as a moral compass if you know to use it as a moral compass, not a tool for manipulation
Sadly, most people can't tell the difference
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;42348128]I see people occasionally mentioning the bible. It's true that Christianity takes verses from it, but those type of churches often omit the violent, non-humanistic ones. I haven't explicitly heard or read a "OWN SLAVES, FUCK HOMOSEXUALITY, RAPE PEOPLE" verse from the churches I've attended.
The violent verses are never discussed in Christian churches. Therefore, it's rare for anyone to follow follow them unless if they willingly immerse themselves inside of it. It appears that the Protestant and Pentecostal churches delve further into the text, integrating political beliefs as well.[/QUOTE]
How do you know which verses to pick and which to ignore?
[QUOTE=sgman91;42343119]People need to understand the difference between knowing how to do good things and having a compelling reason to do good things.
The normal argument isn't that an atheist doesn't know how to or can't do good things, but that an atheistic system has no compelling argument to make in favor of doing good things.
There's a reason philosophy classes teach many different types of ethics... because there is no objective compelling system without some sort of supernatural.[/QUOTE]
it's amazing you can just generalize everyone who lacks a god as an amoral fuckwit
but that's non sensical and wrong so good job fucking that up.
you having a religion at heart does not make you any more "moral" than I.
[editline]29th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;42348128]I see people occasionally mentioning the bible. It's true that Christianity takes verses from it, but those type of churches often omit the violent, non-humanistic ones. I haven't explicitly heard or read a "OWN SLAVES, FUCK HOMOSEXUALITY, RAPE PEOPLE" verse from the churches I've attended.
The violent verses are never discussed in Christian churches. Therefore, it's rare for anyone to follow follow them unless if they willingly immerse themselves inside of it. It appears that the Protestant and Pentecostal churches delve further into the text, integrating political beliefs as well.[/QUOTE]
but the religion still subscribes to a book with those horrible things in it.
if you're picking and choosing, why bother with a book in the first place.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42349725]it's amazing you can just generalize everyone who lacks a god as an amoral fuckwit
but that's non sensical and wrong so good job fucking that up.
you having a religion at heart does not make you any more "moral" than I.[/QUOTE]
Make serious argument > get mocked. Good job at proving my point?
I made an argument. If you disagree please give a counter point instead of plugging your ears and spouting profanity in some misdirected attempt to, ironically, gain the moral highground.
I've never heard a single atheist give a compelling reason to believe in an objective set of moral laws.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42351300]Make serious argument > get mocked. Good job at proving my point?
I made an argument. If you disagree please give a counter point instead of plugging your ears and spouting profanity in some misdirected attempt to, ironically, gain the moral highground.
I've never heard a single atheist give a compelling reason to believe in an objective set of moral laws.[/QUOTE]
I have already said this. It is an innate compulsion that helps us survive together. Someone posted a study about it a page or two back.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42351300]Make serious argument > get mocked. Good job at proving my point?
I made an argument. If you disagree please give a counter point instead of plugging your ears and spouting profanity in some misdirected attempt to, ironically, gain the moral highground.
I've never heard a single atheist give a compelling reason to believe in an objective set of moral laws.[/QUOTE]
We are social animals. We realized from an evolutionary perspective a long time ago that cooperation with one another increases survival and all around brings lots of benefits. Food, women, land etc. If we needed religion to survive we would have wiped ourselves out when we were cavemen.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42351300]Make serious argument > get mocked. Good job at proving my point?
I made an argument. If you disagree please give a counter point instead of plugging your ears and spouting profanity in some misdirected attempt to, ironically, gain the moral highground.
I've never heard a single atheist give a compelling reason to believe in an objective set of moral laws.[/QUOTE]
I don't, and I don't think a objective set of moral laws is right or possible.
I don't think you can get these said laws from a book, when you are picking and choosing what is just and what is not.
I don't think that it is an argument to suggest that you have one, and then not suppose in your argument as to why your system is correct.
I'm not gaining any moral highground, nor am I "plugging my ears".
However, you did generalize every athiest, and non thiest as incapable moral children. This is wrong, and this is not supported by anything. This is a statement coming from a high horse you do not possess. If I am to back up my statements that atheism or lack of theism does not cause a lack of morality, then you must forgoe your conclusion that you have reached an objective model of morality. Morality does not need an objective set of rules to come from in order to exist, function, or work. I believe that if you have a rigid, unmoving set of "moral" goals, you will be lost in change that inevitably happens and you will find your morals are not capable of solving problems in the modern world.
Where do you get your argument from? Back it up as you only made a statement, not an argument.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42351416]I have already said this. It is an innate compulsion that helps us survive together. Someone posted a study about it a page or two back.[/QUOTE]
It seems you are saying that personal survival, as a function of group survival, is the cause or moral actions. That would mean it all comes back to selfishness.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42351438]It seems you are saying that personal survival, as a function of group survival, is the cause or moral actions. That would mean it all comes back to selfishness.[/QUOTE]
So what is your point? If selfishness helped us achieve a society that causes us to work together, what does it matter?
Christianity is not based off of any form of altruism.
I would argue altruism doesn't exist.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42351437]I don't, and I don't think a objective set of moral laws is right or possible.
I don't think you can get these said laws from a book, when you are picking and choosing what is just and what is not.
I don't think that it is an argument to suggest that you have one, and then not suppose in your argument as to why your system is correct.
I'm not gaining any moral highground, nor am I "plugging my ears".
However, you did generalize every athiest, and non thiest as incapable moral children. This is wrong, and this is not supported by anything. This is a statement coming from a high horse you do not possess. If I am to back up my statements that atheism or lack of theism does not cause a lack of morality, then you must forgoe your conclusion that you have reached an objective model of morality. Morality does not need an objective set of rules to come from in order to exist, function, or work. I believe that if you have a rigid, unmoving set of "moral" goals, you will be lost in change that inevitably happens and you will find your morals are not capable of solving problems in the modern world.
Where do you get your argument from? Back it up as you only made a statement, not an argument.[/QUOTE]
Subjective morality is no morality at all, it's simply opinion. This means that 'good' actually means "I approve of" and 'bad' means "I disapprove of." Under this system of belief you have no way to convince other's to agree with your brand of morality any more than you can convince others to agree with your favorite color.
I am not arguing for any specific moral set of laws, but the impossibility of a compelling reason to be moral within a naturalistic worldview.
[editline]29th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42351441]So what is your point? If selfishness helped us achieve a society that causes us to work together, what does it matter?
Christianity is not based off of any form of altruism.
I would argue altruism doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
I'm not arguing for theistic morality, please stop bringing it up.
My entire point is that the only logical way to make moral decisions as an atheist is selfishness. So if selfishness by personal survival is the root cause than my argument is correct.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42351463]Subjective morality is no morality at all, it's simply opinion. This means that 'good' actually means "I approve of" and 'bad' means "I disapprove of." Under this system of belief you have no way to convince other's to agree with your brand of morality any more than you can convince others to agree with your favorite color.
I am not arguing for any specific moral set of laws, but the impossibility of a compelling reason to be moral within a naturalistic worldview.
[editline]29th September 2013[/editline]
I'm not arguing for theistic morality, please stop bringing it up.[/QUOTE]
You are arguing for objective morality. Something that cannot exist without a method of determination beyond what we have. So what are you suggesting then?
Subjective morality is morality. I don't see how it is not.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42351496]You are arguing for objective morality. Something that cannot exist without a method of determination beyond what we have. So what are you suggesting then?
Subjective morality is morality. I don't see how it is not.[/QUOTE]
Subjective morality is no more morality than a favorite color. It's a personal opinion that's unfounded on any scientific understanding and is impossible to argue for logically.
Within a worldview that is void of any objective moral standard saying "murder is wrong" is literally the same thing as saying "I don't like murder."
[QUOTE=sgman91;42351438]It seems you are saying that personal survival, as a function of group survival, is the cause or moral actions. That would mean it all comes back to selfishness.[/QUOTE]
The basis of innate morality are basic logical outcomes.
Religion has no bearing on this.
I already explained this earlier, not killing someone else because you will be socially outcast or killed in return is just as much of a legitimate reason to behave as is "magical man in sky will smite u and ur soul will burn in hell 4ever!!1!"
In what way is religion a necessity to morality?
[QUOTE=sgman91;42351511]Subjective morality is no more morality than a favorite color. It's a personal opinion that's unfounded on any scientific understanding and is impossible to argue for logically.[/QUOTE]
So what standard are you basing your supposed "objective" morality off of then?
Subjective morality is exactly that. A morality that is subjective. You view everything subjectively. So how are you supposing you are viewing something through an objective lens
[editline]29th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;42351511]
Within a worldview that is void of any objective moral standard saying "murder is wrong" is literally the same thing as saying "I don't like murder."[/QUOTE]
And yes, so? Murder to save a thousand people under an objective code where murder is always wrong will cause more loss of life, so what are you saying here? it's not convincing whatever it is
There is no possible way to be moral without being selfish by your definition. This includes religious morality.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
