Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 GotB,No not a prophet by any definition. But he is someone "New-Atheists" frequently refer to when they attack people who disagree with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 New Atheists as a label for anyone not-Dawkins/Harris/Dennett is just...yeah. Not to mention that it's pretty (EDIT: redundant) here, unless you were being extremely broad in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Castel, GotB,Care to elaborate on what portions of Dawkin's Thesis in "the God Delusion" you disagree with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Castel, GotB,Care to elaborate on what portions of Dawkin's Thesis in "the God Delusion" you disagree with?Care to elaborate why that is relevant to what I said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Castel,Do you agree with Dawkins thesis in The God Deluison? (That's what I should have asked directly the first time) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Castel,Do you agree with Dawkins thesis in The God Deluison? (That's what I should have asked directly the first time)And I'm asking you why that's relevant to what I said. If this is going where I think it's going we might as well just skip this bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It's relevant because some, if not many, among the anti-theists seem to refer to Dawkins as authoritative on these issues. You in this post:New Atheists as a label for anyone not-Dawkins/Harris/Dennett is just...yeah.Not to mention that it's pretty (EDIT: redundant) here, unless you were being extremely broad in the first place.Seem to be disclaming Dawkins. I'm curious to see where you disagree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It's relevant because some, if not many, among the anti-theists seem to refer to Dawkins as authoritative on these issues. You in this post:Seem to be disclaming Dawkins. I'm curious to see where you disagree with him.I'm was not disclaiming Dawkins. I'm just pointing out my discomfort with the New Atheists title being applied liberally, since it is just as useful for slamming cliche strident atheists by making Atheist Pope a lightning rod as it is for arguing about a very specific position (notice the sort of criticism it gets in the articles posted here). It doesn't matter if you agree with his basic arguments for skepticism (even if you disagree with his existentialism) that doesn't make you one of his "people" And, like I said, it's redundant. If you're arguing with someone who already identifies as a Dawkinite (Or Dawkinian? never got the rules for that...) we wouldn't need this explanation for him as atheist pope. It's only when you broaden "New Atheist" that you need to set up Dawkins as some authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Castel,Aren't those who are offering Dawkins as authoritative the ones who are setting up Dawkins, to use your words, as the "New-Atheist Pope"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 No. Dawkins is indeed authoritative on the issue. He's not always right. And neither is he the only authoritative figure for atheism. In these regards the attempt to call Dawkins the new atheist pope falls apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 TP,Obviously, I'm speaking, again to use Castel's term, metaphorically of Dawkins as the "New-Artheist Pope". That said I do see your point. Dawkins is no more the spokesperon for all of the Anti-theists of the world than the Pope is for all Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Castel,Aren't those who are offering Dawkins as authoritative the ones who are setting up Dawkins, to use your words, as the "New-Atheist Pope"?Like I said: if someone offers Dawkins as their authority and not a resource then they fall within his camp. This is why I said it's redundant; if they clearly identify as Dawkinites they are Dawkinians. But when Gears mentions that he's not a Dawkinist and the response is that,well, he'll have to deal with it because Dawkins is Atheist Pope to a lot of people out there, somewhere then there's an issue. What I fear is this entire interwebs atheism being thrown into the New Atheists box, which allows people to use Dawkins as a lightning rod to bash them. It sets up an easy category for political purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Castel,I'm well aware that most people who are Atheist are not advocating for Athiesm in any strident sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Castel,I'm well aware that most people who are Atheist are not advocating for Athiesm in any strident sense.I'm wasn't implying that you weren't. But you see what happens when Dawkins becomes Atheist Pope right? Not just does everyone talk like Dawkins now, they are his acolytes. Unless we get the #965 "Why I am not a New Atheist" article from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Castel,I'm well aware that most people who are Atheist are not advocating for Athiesm in any strident sense.And I have recommended/encouraged some people to take up a religion because I thought it might be helpful to them. Granted, it's none of the Judeo-Christian ones, but I think it still counts :-p. Just because I am not a vegan it doesn't mean I don't see the benefits of it or that I can't see how it can help others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 And I have recommended/encouraged some people to take up a religion because I thought it might be helpful to them. Granted, it's none of the Judeo-Christian ones, but I think it still counts :-p.Just because I am not a vegan it doesn't mean I don't see the benefits of it or that I can't see how it can help others. Precisely. And like I said on your FB dicsussion about this, Scott, religion and faith wouldn't be a problem if they weren't being used to formulate laws for EVERYONE (speaking of the US here) under the government. Why is it that religion insists on impsing itself among EVERYONE that has to live under what should be a secular based legal system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Bale,Not everyone who is religious takes that position. Heck, some people who are religious even actively oppose positions that their faith dictates that they should support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Precisely. And like I said on your FB dicsussion about this, Scott, religion and faith wouldn't be a problem if they weren't being used to formulate laws for EVERYONE (speaking of the US here) under the government. Why is it that religion insists on impsing itself among EVERYONE that has to live under what should be a secular based legal system? I get your point by the question I have is:why not?. It's pretty strange to ask why an ideology dictates that all other beliefs should be subject to it while simultaneously asking why people can't see that religion should lie below secularism. I'm never sure why this happens when everyone clearly sees the problem. Or was it not really a question? But I'm not sure that religion and faith wouldn't be a problem even if they completely abandoned their attempts to try to change the world through the government. I think it's telling how TP says that he doesn't introduce his friends to the Judeo-Christian religions. I'm sure you can find stuff that is disagreeable in many religions even if it's just a matter of beliefs that private citizens have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Don't know why that link won't work for me. :( I guess my ideology is that laws be based on a secular/non-religious system and that people who follow a more strict faith/religion impose their own morals on themselves and leave the rest of us alone. Scot, I agree. I just wish that those members of the religious majority had more sway within their ranks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 As is the case in medicine, physics, law, engineering, biology, geology, etc etc. ... As above, belief is not proof. Being able to persuade someone to believe something does not make it true. Well, it seems that's the way it is in law. Convince 12 random people of something and it's "true" enough to determine whether a man lives or dies, or is free or imprisoned. It's all about persuasion, not some sort of objective proof about reality. And persuasion is really just... marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.