Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(November 9, 2013 at 11:11 pm)Zazzy Wrote: Out of curiosity, what's your beef with Sam? I have issues with him, too- primarily his absolute inflexibility and sweeping statements on nuanced issues of morality and religion, and some disappointing analysis of his own work in neurobiology. Also, he has a a really thin skin for such a rabble-rouser- his blog is intensely annoying for personal reasons.
I don't care for Harris's writing style, personally. He's hard to get into for me, so in that respect I'd much rather read Dawkins than Harris any day. I like Dawkins' writing style much more, but that's entirely a personal preference. I actually retain things I read in Dawkins' books, with Harris I can read three pages and not be able to summarize them because I'm just scanning words after a while, nothing makes it to my long-term memory with him. You know, scratch that: nothing makes it to my short term memory with him.
(November 9, 2013 at 11:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I have no problems with it.
It beats the fuck out of the bible.
I, too, have no big beef with it but then again.... --v
(November 9, 2013 at 11:42 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: But then, I don't really think the books are aimed at people like us.
... I agree that it's not necessarily aimed at atheists, though many atheists will read it.
(November 10, 2013 at 1:21 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Haven't read it (or any of Dawkins' other books), and given what I've heard about it, I doubt I will.
I'd recommend The Greatest Show on Earth as a really great read; there's nothing "new" in it but its a great review of the evidence for evolution and if you have an interest in biology it's a good and very enjoyable read that's maybe at a 9th grade reading/science level. A very easy read.
(November 10, 2013 at 3:23 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I face-palmed when I read his critique of deism. It seems like he just looked up deism in the dictionary and then did a quick dismissal of that straw man as "watered-down theism".
An atheist should know better than to go by what the dictionary says, given how many dictionaries to this day define atheism as "the belief that there is no god" or something along those lines. It would be like a Christian dismissing atheism on the grounds that "atheists can't provide any evidence that atheism is accurate and correct." Oh wait, one actually did take that approach and wondered why he got laughed at.
I get greatly annoyed by atheists who fight with other atheists about what "atheism" really means, especially ones who point to the etymological roots of the word and then bitch about people who don't use exactly that definition. But maybe that's a topic for another thread...
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
November 10, 2013 at 3:47 pm (This post was last modified: November 10, 2013 at 3:50 pm by The Reality Salesman01.)
(November 10, 2013 at 2:33 pm)Zazzy Wrote:
(November 10, 2013 at 1:17 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: I enjoyed "Letter to a Christian Nation" I like how Sam Harris singles out the "Moderate Christian" and puts the screws to them using The Bible.
One if my issues with Harris is that he tends to go for the low-hanging fruit- and the stereotypical Christian in this book doesn't resemble most of the Christians I know at all (although it does seem to resemble some of the ones here). It seemed like taking easy potshots just to piss people off, which is fine, but it isn't adding anything to any useful dialogue.
I'm not sure which Christians you are talking about, but if you mean the ones that don't think about it much, and just consider God a nice idea that makes them happy, then I would say that Harris made more effort to address them specifically. Those are the "Moderates".
This is the first page of the book, I think he makes his point quite clear when he narrows his sights on the thing that needs to be discussed.
Of course, there are Christians who do not agree with either of us. There are Christians who consider other faiths to be equally valid paths to salvation. There are Christians who have no fear of hell and who do not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus. These Christians often describe themselves as "religious liberals" or "religious moderates." From their point of view, you and I have both misunderstood what it means to be a person of faith. There is, we are assured, a vast and beautiful terrain between atheism and religious fundamentalism that generations of thoughtful Christians have quietly explored. According to liberals and moderates, faith is about mystery, and meaning, and community, and love. People make religion out of the full fabric of their lives, not out of mere beliefs.
I have written elsewhere about the problems I see with religious liberalism and religious moderation. Here, we need only observe that the issue is both simpler and more urgent than liberals and moderates generally admit. Either the Bible is just an ordinary book, written by mortals, or it isn't. Either Christ was divine, or he was not. If the Bible is an ordinary book, and Christ an ordinary man, the basic doctrine of Christianity is false. If the Bible is an ordinary book, and Christ an ordinary man, the history of Christian theology is the story of bookish men parsing a collective delusion. If the basic tenets of Christianity are true, then there are some very grim surprises in store for nonbelievers like myself. You understand this. At least half of the American population understands this. So let us be honest with ourselves: in the fullness of time, one side is really going to win this argument, and the other side is really going to lose.
What I think he was trying to do was get those people to realize what lot they were throwing in with when they claimed to be Christian by pointing to blatant absurdities that most people would see as something they would not at all like to be associated with. He was writing about fundies out of hopes that the moderates, that don't think about what the Christian title is actually affiliated with, will realize how absurd it is, and that by ignoring it, the moderates are helping the fundies perpetuate the religion their crazy book has created!
He used examples of how religion has very real effects on our government and well-being, and drew attention to the fact that religion is not at all as harmless as people like to pretend it is.
I'm not sure what cheap pot-shots you're talking about, but I'm sure its possible I didn't recognize them. To me, all objections raised to religion seem like cheap pot-shots.
Something Harris did in his book, which I think is particularly useful in raising doubt, is pointing out the parts of religious books that make their respective gods incompatible. Drawing attention to the millions of people that claim exclusive relationships with incompatible Gods should make somebody a bit skeptical about the one they think they have.
Either one faith is right, and everyone else in the world is lying and/or delusional, or they're all mistaken. The first one is quite a hefty claim.
(November 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: with Harris I can read three pages and not be able to summarize them because I'm just scanning words after a while, nothing makes it to my long-term memory with him. You know, scratch that: nothing makes it to my short term memory with him.
That's how I used to be with everything I read (ADHD)! But thanks to Adderall, I can even read The Bible!
(November 10, 2013 at 1:21 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Haven't read it (or any of Dawkins' other books), and given what I've heard about it, I doubt I will.
If you are interested in understanding evolution, you shouldn't avoid his books on evolution.
I got the feeling that the book is for "newbies". People who are not used to thinking about the problems that theists bring up with atheism... also about the problems that exist with most religions... mostly for the good old christianity.
And then he comes off as a dick for being way too aggressive at theists in general, when he should do so for extremists and the like...
(November 10, 2013 at 6:51 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I got the feeling that the book is for "newbies". People who are not used to thinking about the problems that theists bring up with atheism... also about the problems that exist with most religions... mostly for the good old christianity.
And then he comes off as a dick for being way too aggressive at theists in general, when he should do so for extremists and the like...
Mostly this dickishness was written during the W Bush administration and after 9/11. When moderate and liberal Christians wonder why atheism has become so "militant", especially during this recent era, they need to remember the Newtonian truism about "for every action..."
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
November 10, 2013 at 7:46 pm (This post was last modified: November 10, 2013 at 7:48 pm by justin.)
I enjoyed it. He vocalized points that I thought about for a while and it was nice to read his views. These days if I ever read a book dealing with refuting religion it is a hitchens book. I think it is relative to when and what was exposed to you at what time in your life. Some people have been atheists all of their life, but I have not. Diving into reflection about what I value and believe was a very important time in my life. Dawkins book was new to me and helped in some ways get my life together, though not just him. Losing my religion helped me become more responsible, moral, curious, and to some extent intelligent compared to back then. His book is still good and makes good points but I have heard them before and have found a lot more interesting points. I also have a passion for biology and for the most part always will. Because of this I can look up to him in more a scientific mind more than anything. His books turned me on to other authors like Ridley, shubin, hithcens, harris, etc. He jump started a lot for me so because of that I have a certain respect and thankful view of him, but I know others may not have had the same experience so they would not hold him to the same value.
(November 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: with Harris I can read three pages and not be able to summarize them because I'm just scanning words after a while, nothing makes it to my long-term memory with him. You know, scratch that: nothing makes it to my short term memory with him.
That's how I used to be with everything I read (ADHD)! But thanks to Adderall, I can even read The Bible!
I'm sorry to hear that. :p
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
(November 11, 2013 at 11:06 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:
(November 10, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: That's how I used to be with everything I read (ADHD)! But thanks to Adderall, I can even read The Bible!
(November 9, 2013 at 10:53 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: The infamous book by Dawkins has been brought up recently in other threads and I didn't want to derail them by asking this, but here goes.
Now obviously our resident theists will probably take issue with the book, but are there any other atheists who found it to be somewhat disappointing?
As I've said elsewhere, I've been an atheist for as long as I can remember - I literally have no recollection of ever believing in god. I did the whole anti-theist thing as a teenager and I grew out of it quite a while before I hit 20 - bar a few drunken quasi-intellectual discussions/debates with a very good friend who also happens to be a lifelong atheist (in which we'd generally alternate in playing devil's advocate, so to speak). We didn't have the advantage of youtube in those days (old git alert), neither did we have forums like this where we could ask questions and share ideas. All we had was our shared thoughts and experiences. Well, that and our mutual inability to concede an argument .
When the god delusion was published, it rekindled my interest in the subject somewhat and so I bought it. I just expected so much more from someone with Dawkin's reputation. Instead, I found the same, tired arguments that I'd grown bored of before I turned 16. It just struck me as being a puerile, unsophisticated waste of ink. The only part of the book I found remotely insightful was the section on morality, and even that contains nothing you couldn't find in a bargain basement section of a second-rate bookshop.
I found it almost inconceivable that this apparent 'champion of atheism' failed to raise a single point that I hadn't considered before my somewhat intellectually inferior self had left school.
This isn't merely an excuse to whinge about the book, I genuinely want to know if anyone else feels the same way about it I as do. I feel let down by Dawkins, embarrassed really.
He does have one saving grace though - he's not Sam Harris.
I personally think the trouble with this book is that Dawkins has an excellent reputation as a evolutionary biologist and for some reason this makes some people think he is an authority on atheism.
His popular science works are really excellent, The Selfish Gene is a splendid book, but as a philosopher Dawkins is woefully lacking in finesse.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
(November 9, 2013 at 11:11 pm)Zazzy Wrote: I really felt it was damned boring, repetitive, and not useful. Dawkins should stick to science.
Out of curiosity, what's your beef with Sam? I have issues with him, too- primarily his absolute inflexibility and sweeping statements on nuanced issues of morality and religion, and some disappointing analysis of his own work in neurobiology. Also, he has a a really thin skin for such a rabble-rouser- his blog is intensely annoying for personal reasons.
.
