Christopher Hitchens

[keltoi]

Actually, many former religious people have cited his and Dawkins' books as being the source for losing their faith. So you are wrong.

 

how does that make me wrong?

[Guest wake]

Actually, many former religious people have cited his and Dawkins' books as being the source for losing their faith. So you are wrong.

 

how does that make me wrong?

 

but it's pointless to try and persuade someone that their beliefs are wrong... which makes my whole stance on this moot. lol.

 

Their books were written to persuade people that their beliefs are wrong and they were successful in doing so, therefore you are wrong.

[Guest jim]

Odd, those books do nothing but state the glaringly obvious except when they actually wrongly attribute certain political conflicts to religious differences (I'm referring specifically to Northern Ireland's "Troubles" here as it's the situation I know the most about).

[keltoi]

Actually, many former religious people have cited his and Dawkins' books as being the source for losing their faith. So you are wrong.

 

how does that make me wrong?

 

but it's pointless to try and persuade someone that their beliefs are wrong... which makes my whole stance on this moot. lol.

 

Their books were written to persuade people that their beliefs are wrong and they were successful in doing so, therefore you are wrong.

 

but it's pointless to try and persuade someone that their beliefs are wrong, unless of course, you are a preachy zealot.

[SR4]

I hate when people have convictions.

 

it's alright to have convictions, but getting all preachy about them is annoying.

He's got the intellect, charisma, and eloquence to articulate and back up his convictions. If I were half as intelligent, I'd probably be twice as pompous.

 

to be honest, as much as I am for respecting religious views to a certain extent, its nice to see someone straight up go "stop fucking talking, you are making shit up and you are stupid for doing so."

 

 

When Dawkins talked to that one creationist lady I was about to tear my hair out.

 

but it's pointless to try and persuade someone that their beliefs are wrong... which makes my whole stance on this moot. lol.

 

not exactly.

 

if im surrounded by people that enforce their belief system upon me 24/7, its practically institutionalized. people can bullshit all they want about how strong their belief systems are, but if you live in an area where belief is homogenized and any detraction from it is criticized nonstop, it begins to wear thin.

 

 

hence, why sometimes its nice to have someone like dawkins and hitchens around.

[luke viia]

I think the distinction here is that there is less of a point in writing books about how other people are stupid and wrong than there is in telling people that you have a new way of thinking about things and they would be wise to listen up for a minute.

[SR4]

I think the distinction here is that there is less of a point in writing books about how other people are stupid and wrong than there is in telling people that you have a new way of thinking about things and they would be wise to listen up for a minute.

 

 

wont they interpret the message as one and the same?

 

 

have we ever considered that perhaps hitchens had taken that approach for quite some time?

[luke viia]

Well to be honest I've never read any Hitchens. I was just making a general comment (possibly way off the mark). But I do think there's a great difference in the two ways of presenting an idea that I described. In the case of Dawkins, using language like "The God Delusion" is a pretty poor way to get religious people to read your book and understand where you're coming from.

[Guest jim]

I think the distinction here is that there is less of a point in writing books about how other people are stupid and wrong than there is in telling people that you have a new way of thinking about things and they would be wise to listen up for a minute.

 

 

wont they interpret the message as one and the same?

 

 

have we ever considered that perhaps hitchens had taken that approach for quite some time?

 

No, that thought never crossed my mind. Anyway there's nothing new in Hitchens' thinking.

[SR4]

Well to be honest I've never read any Hitchens. I was just making a general comment (possibly way off the mark). But I do think there's a great difference in the two ways of presenting an idea that I described. In the case of Dawkins, using language like "The God Delusion" is a pretty poor way to get religious people to read your book and understand where you're coming from.

 

 

Freud used a lot of harsh language to diagnose what we saw as an increasingly sick society (ie. Fin-de-siecle Vienna)

 

Nietzsche too...a few others

 

 

these men are held up as some of the greatest thinkers of all time...it takes time for some things to settle in

 

 

(dont get me wrong, im not saying hitchens or dawkins are on that level, but just offering an alternative viewpoint on this)

[luke viia]

That's true, harsh language has its place - but I think my point about using gentler language to convert people still holds true. Would you read a critically acclaimed book called The Science Delusion?

[keltoi]

I think the distinction here is that there is less of a point in writing books about how other people are stupid and wrong than there is in telling people that you have a new way of thinking about things and they would be wise to listen up for a minute.

 

yeah, more eloquently put than my...

 

but it's pointless to try and persuade someone that their beliefs are wrong, unless of course, you are a preachy zealot.

 

if he wasn't a preachy zealot he wouldn't see the point in trying to 'educate' everyone. blind faith is alright for some people, you know?

 

anyway don't mind me, i'm just pulling wake's plonker, haha. i am well aware that religious extremism isn't that common where i am, but you lot are working on it.

 

RIP (when it comes).

[SR4]

That's true, harsh language has its place - but I think my point about using gentler language to convert people still holds true. Would you read a critically acclaimed book called The Science Delusion?

 

 

possibly. Actually, I think I definitely would..though not immediately.

 

It rings bells akin to Heidegger or later Continental critiques

 

Plus the use of "critically acclaimed" implies that its not just anti-science reviewers lauding its thesis and analysis thereof.

[luke viia]

What if The Science Delusion was written by a fundamental Christian?

 

[SR4]

What if The Science Delusion was written by a fundamental Christian?

 

 

 

thats a harder one, because there are probably hundreds, maybe thousands of books with the same premise, in that sense, the market is overridden with self-righteousness on behalf of religion.

 

 

I think its safe for me to say that the literary realm involving scientific criticism of God is very limited, and it has only expanded due to the success of Dawkins and Hitchen's writings...which suggests some success in making people listen to their arguments.

 

Also, Dawkins is well known evolutionary biologist, and Hitchens has been a journalist since the 70s..so its not as if they don't have some sort of background in what they are doing.

 

Compare that to how many "God is real" books there are, although I will certainly yield to the fact that there are probably more theologians and priests writing such books, there are certainly many many more authors that have no background in it whatsoever, save for a slight family upbringing and a Sunday School class every now and then.

 

also, this gives me an opportunity to plug some of my favorite religious criticisms:

 

 

Thomas Paine-Age of Reason

 

and

 

The Jefferson Bible

 

 

Both need more exposure, especially in America...a nation where the most reactionary "patriots" uphold Paine as a martyr to big government, when in fact if they had read anything other than two lines of Common Sense, they would find he is practically a proto-socialist.

[keltoi]

the science delusion

 

[luke viia]

Good point. The only full book I've read on a scientific rebuttal to religion is Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not A Christian," which I greatly enjoyed.

 

However, just because a book has the premise "God is real" (of which, you are right, there are thousands) does not really imply that the subject of the book is then "...and science is full of shit."

 

I think healthy debate about the nature of religious and scientific schools of thought is great; it just seems counterproductive to me for either side to take an agressive stance against the other, much like partisan politics. That tactic serves to strengthen the will of the opposing camp, who will shore up their view and come back with yet another attack. I do not think that either Science or Religion can satisfactorily explain the human condition on their own, but many people think that one or the other can indeed do that... and the battle goes on.

 

the science delusion

 

 

lol, most interesting

 

:idm-beardstroke:

[Guest jim]

I just don't understand why they have this desire to preach to the unconverted. Nietzsche announced the death of God well over a century ago. Most intelligent people are capable of coming to these conclusions by themselves. The idea of teaching religion as fact in schools really seems to get their goat. Why? I went to Catholic schools and was taught all the bullshit you might expect. I never believed a word of it.

[Guest wake]

That's true, harsh language has its place - but I think my point about using gentler language to convert people still holds true. Would you read a critically acclaimed book called The Science Delusion?

There are plenty of people writing books about the same subject using a gentler, more polite tone...but you've never heard of them, because they don't get the press and the popularity that Dawkins and Hitchens get, specifically because of their harsh, often derisive tone. I welcome the rock-the-boat method that has been brought on by these two, because it's helped speed up the conversation of religion in America, at the very least, and hopefully the rest of the world.

 

I just don't understand why they have this desire to preach to the unconverted. Nietzsche announced the death of God well over a century ago. Most intelligent people are capable of coming to these conclusions by themselves. The idea of teaching religion as fact in schools really seems to get their goat. Why? I went to Catholic schools and was taught all the bullshit you might expect. I never believed a word of it.

Yes, but you're not the majority. Most people who go to catholic school do believe it, and a lot of them go through a lot of shit because of it. The guilt that is forced upon people to not be themselves or think for themselves in most religions is fucked up.

[keltoi]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[SR4]

the science delusion

 

 

 

lol

 

called me out.

 

I didn't see any reviews of it, so I looked up some information on the guy, and lo and behold, hes a philosopher and it seems a psychologist.....i guarantee the philosophy background and the fact that he is championed by some group called "New Gnosis" means his take on God will be radically different from the common Christian perception.

 

i am interested in his idea of Depression as a healing process

[SR4]

I just don't understand why they have this desire to preach to the unconverted. Nietzsche announced the death of God well over a century ago. Most intelligent people are capable of coming to these conclusions by themselves. The idea of teaching religion as fact in schools really seems to get their goat. Why? I went to Catholic schools and was taught all the bullshit you might expect. I never believed a word of it.

 

 

If I had a child, wouldn't I want to make sure that, if he is by law required to go to receive a public education (or I pay far more for the child to be home schooled), I would want to make sure that they are educated in things based upon empirical evidence?

 

The child can make his/her own beliefs. I don't want someone hovering around them 8 hours a day telling them about God.

 

(talking about elementary and middle school education btw)

 

also, just so you know where I am coming from...I think this is the closest I come to a "religious outlook"

 

Ignosticism

 

That's true, harsh language has its place - but I think my point about using gentler language to convert people still holds true. Would you read a critically acclaimed book called The Science Delusion?

There are plenty of people writing books about the same subject using a gentler, more polite tone...but you've never heard of them, because they don't get the press and the popularity that Dawkins and Hitchens get, specifically because of their harsh, often derisive tone. I welcome the rock-the-boat method that has been brought on by these two, because it's helped speed up the conversation of religion in America, at the very least, and hopefully the rest of the world.

 

I just don't understand why they have this desire to preach to the unconverted. Nietzsche announced the death of God well over a century ago. Most intelligent people are capable of coming to these conclusions by themselves. The idea of teaching religion as fact in schools really seems to get their goat. Why? I went to Catholic schools and was taught all the bullshit you might expect. I never believed a word of it.

Yes, but you're not the majority. Most people who go to catholic school do believe it, and a lot of them go through a lot of shit because of it. The guilt that is forced upon people to not be themselves or think for themselves in most religions is fucked up.

 

exactly.

[Guest wake]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Made up shit is made up shit.

 

 

Wordplay is not evidence that a statement is true.

 

[SR4]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Made up shit is made up shit.

 

 

Wordplay is not evidence that a statement is true.

 

 

 

This Im not as sure about,

 

but

 

 

in the context of what my child is being taught in schools, Id rather they be taught what our human senses have discovered to be true, rather than what may be true because of a book that was written two thousand years ago.

[luke viia]

That's true, harsh language has its place - but I think my point about using gentler language to convert people still holds true. Would you read a critically acclaimed book called The Science Delusion?

There are plenty of people writing books about the same subject using a gentler, more polite tone...but you've never heard of them, because they don't get the press and the popularity that Dawkins and Hitchens get, specifically because of their harsh, often derisive tone. I welcome the rock-the-boat method that has been brought on by these two, because it's helped speed up the conversation of religion in America, at the very least, and hopefully the rest of the world.

 

Press and popularity among who? Among literalist religious folks - the very people that would benefit most from the ideas - or among people who already doubt religion and are interested in solidifying their beliefs that they're right and that religions are wrong?

 

Either camp is fine to appeal to, but the question can't really be ignored. Even among my friends who are fans of Dawkins, there is no attempt to understand any value that religion has held for humans over the past 5000 years. They dismiss it altogether, and I think that dismissing any school of thought entirely is a bad idea. IMO it is better to attempt to understand the things you oppose than it is to rail against them.

 

Like jim, I was raised in a religious environment and I lost my faith before 4th grade. It wasn't until I was 20 that I even began to see religious experience as something that could be useful at all, to anyone, anywhere, but my mind has changed. In the likely off-key words of Dam Funk, "toeachizown"