When I first saw in a video Richard Dawkins giving a talk in a university in the USA (that was the one that had students from Liberty University who together with their lecturers disgraced themselves and were taunted for being stupid) - I think the university had "Randolph" to its name, I was shocked that Dawkins was so incredibly rude. He called GOd infanticidal, genocidal and a whole string of terrible descriptions. I saw the video with another altar boy and some friends in the choir (I was still in the Evensong choir) and we were all thunderstruck. How could a grown up and a respectable Oxford fellow be so rude and unethical?

I was very young then and I didn't have a good impression of Dawkins. Much later, I met Dawkins with my dad and I found him a very agreeable person. He was very interested in my knowledge of science and he thought I was well-read and he was particularly impressed that I had read Jerry Coyne's book and his book. He laughed good-naturedly when, in reply to his query, I said Coyne's book was better. He very humbly agreed with me!

He was very concerned that I was both an altar boy and a choir boy and he looked at my dad in horror, like he had done something terribly wrong. He was very comforted to learn that I was a cultural Christian and he complimented my dad for bringing me up well. He said it was far better to have one boy like me with my knowledge of religion and the improbability for God to exist than to have a thousand boys not brought up in the Christian tradition and not knowing a thing about the God concept and why it's wrong since they can always fall prey one day to the deception of religion at a later age.

So I used to think Dawkins was rude and disagreeable. It was only when I had grown older that I knew the more important question is was he right in the disagreeable things he said? The truth of the content of his speech is MORE important than the way in which he said it. But we need maturity to see this. Many old people still dismiss Dawkins for his "rudeness". I would have imagined old people should by their age have learnt to put away childish things but apparently not all of them can do that, especially the old women in church. For them, form is always more important than substance.

(September 18, 2012 at 9:58 pm)greneknight Wrote: When I first saw in a video Richard Dawkins giving a talk in a university in the USA (that was the one that had students from Liberty University who together with their lecturers disgraced themselves and were taunted for being stupid) - I think the university had "Randolph" to its name, I was shocked that Dawkins was so incredibly rude. He called GOd infanticidal, genocidal and a whole string of terrible descriptions. I saw the video with another altar boy and some friends in the choir (I was still in the Evensong choir) and we were all thunderstruck. How could a grown up and a respectable Oxford fellow be so rude and unethical?

I was very young then and I didn't have a good impression of Dawkins. Much later, I met Dawkins with my dad and I found him a very agreeable person. He was very interested in my knowledge of science and he thought I was well-read and he was particularly impressed that I had read Jerry Coyne's book and his book. He laughed good-naturedly when, in reply to his query, I said Coyne's book was better. He very humbly agreed with me!

He was very concerned that I was both an altar boy and a choir boy and he looked at my dad in horror, like he had done something terribly wrong. He was very comforted to learn that I was a cultural Christian and he complimented my dad for bringing me up well. He said it was far better to have one boy like me with my knowledge of religion and the improbability for God to exist than to have a thousand boys not brought up in the Christian tradition and not knowing a thing about the God concept and why it's wrong since they can always fall prey one day to the deception of religion at a later age.

So I used to think Dawkins was rude and disagreeable. It was only when I had grown older that I knew the more important question is was he right in the disagreeable things he said? The truth of the content of his speech is MORE important than the way in which he said it. But we need maturity to see this. Many old people still dismiss Dawkins for his "rudeness". I would have imagined old people should by their age have learnt to put away childish things but apparently not all of them can do that, especially the old women in church. For them, form is always more important than substance.

That reminds me of a story of when i met Ving Rames. I was flying back from NY (Jet Blue) and was settling in my seat and heard marcellous wallace ask the flight attendant for something. I casually looked over and I was sat cattycornered to him. I was going to say something to him but he was making an effort not to be noticed. (baggy overshit/yankees Jersey and hat pulled down low even though he was sweating like a pig from all of the extra clothing) He noticed me noticing him and gave me a nod and I nodded back. I looked around the plane to see if anyone else noticed him and no one seemed the wiser, except this asian girl who was about to explode (gitty) she looked at me because she couldn't see him exactly and and kinda motioned is that him gesture and I nodded to her. To which she hopped in her seat and clapped her hands. then I looked back to Ving for a second and he seemed to like being recognized, but not swamped with people wanting him to do stuff for their amusement. Or to 'proove' himself by signing our crap. I think for him It was just enough to be acknowedged, but privacy respected.

Why did i tell this story? Because cause it seems like we are sharing pointless stories about meeting people with some noterity. Don't get me wrong I thought it was awesome to share a common space withsome like that for a few hours, but in the end what i think about a man who others hold in any regaurd is pointless. because in the end people like that can only touch our lives as we allow them to. I like pulp fiction as much as the next guy, but I do not plan to live my life by how others have lived (or pretended to live) theirs on screen or in a book.

Why do you think you need dawkins approval to think as you do? does it some how lend crediance to your own conclusions? Does your compliance to his thoughts somehow validate your own? Why not simply stand or fall on what you believe? why do you need a 'greater' man to support the thoughts you have adopted?

..And 'we' are called brain washed..

Quote: He called GOd infanticidal, genocidal

If you know what those words mean then you know that "god" is guilty as charged....or would be if any of that stupid shit had happened.

Some good points there Drich. I think there's nothing wrong with being inspired though, especially atheists who don't have the belief that something external keeps them in line with what happens in reality.

(September 18, 2012 at 10:48 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Some good points there Drich. I think there's nothing wrong with being inspired though, especially atheists who don't have the belief that something external keeps them in line with what happens in reality.

You are right! There is Absolutely nothing wrong with being inspired, but there is a difference between inperation and selling your will over to thoughts of another man, and then champion your 'shared thoughts' as if somehow the combination of the two like minds validate each other, or worse yet that your compliance in the thoughts of another validates your own. How is it, that people like this often times can point out this behaivor in others (who believe in God) but miss it when they themselves do it on a much smaller scale? To me this would be much easier to identify on a smaller scale..

(September 18, 2012 at 10:56 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 18, 2012 at 10:48 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Some good points there Drich. I think there's nothing wrong with being inspired though, especially atheists who don't have the belief that something external keeps them in line with what happens in reality.

You are right! There is Absolutely nothing wrong with being inspired, but there is a difference between inperation and selling your will over to thoughts of another man, and then champion your 'shared thoughts' as if somehow the combination of the two like minds validate each other, or worse yet that your compliance in the thoughts of another validates your own. How is it, that people like this often times can point out this behaivor in others (who believe in God) but miss it when they themselves do it on a much smaller scale? To me this would be much easier to identify on a smaller scale..

Agreed. There's a few fallacies involved in having that mentality. We're all prone to thinking like that at times I suppose.. Maybe because inspiration is somewhat attached to emotion and emotion makes us irrational.

(September 18, 2012 at 9:58 pm)greneknight Wrote: When I first saw in a video Richard Dawkins giving a talk[...]
I was very young then and I didn't have a good impression of Dawkins. Much later, I met Dawkins with my dad

You're relating passages in time here that seem strange to me... "much later" you met Dawkins? Not "Last year" or "a couple of years ago"? Is anyone else struggling to believe that these are the words of a 13yr old?

(September 18, 2012 at 10:34 pm)Drich Wrote: Why do you think you need dawkins approval to think as you do? does it some how lend crediance to your own conclusions? Does your compliance to his thoughts somehow validate your own? Why not simply stand or fall on what you believe? why do you need a 'greater' man to support the thoughts you have adopted?

..And 'we' are called brain washed..

You just don't fucking get it, do you? WE don't need Dawkin's for credibility. Our credibility is as good as yours, both standing on the facts of existence. You base your existence on multi-generational accounts of revelation. WE base our existence on discernible facts of existence. You say your knowledge is complete, WE recognize and admit what we don't know while all the time endeavoring to discover.

You and your ilk deny science, but enjoy science's output everyday of your life. Your god couldn't even get ethics right, let alone cosmology or natural history. Really? What the fuck good is your god? I can make up a better list of ten rules than that cocksucker did. We all can. Our ten rules may be different; however, it's hard for me to believe that adults in the 21st century can't come up with just 'ten' special rules that are inferior to the wants of bronze age desert goat herders. Tithe, mother fucker, tithe. Sorry, that was rude. It's not really tithing anymore, it's a 'love gift'.

(September 18, 2012 at 11:18 pm)Red Celt Wrote:

(September 18, 2012 at 9:58 pm)greneknight Wrote: When I first saw in a video Richard Dawkins giving a talk[...]
I was very young then and I didn't have a good impression of Dawkins. Much later, I met Dawkins with my dad

You're relating passages in time here that seem strange to me... "much later" you met Dawkins? Not "Last year" or "a couple of years ago"? Is anyone else struggling to believe that these are the words of a 13yr old?

Yeah, I got the impression fairly early on that he's adopted a persona. Either way, an intelligent poster.

(September 18, 2012 at 11:18 pm)Red Celt Wrote:

(September 18, 2012 at 9:58 pm)greneknight Wrote: When I first saw in a video Richard Dawkins giving a talk[...]
I was very young then and I didn't have a good impression of Dawkins. Much later, I met Dawkins with my dad

You're relating passages in time here that seem strange to me... "much later" you met Dawkins? Not "Last year" or "a couple of years ago"? Is anyone else struggling to believe that these are the words of a 13yr old?

I first saw the video something like 5 years ago? I met him at a literary conference which my dad attended in summer 2010. I was very young (even in my thoughts) 5 years ago. 3 years later may not be "much later" to you but it feels that way to me.