(March 19, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Delicate Wrote: Not many, thank goodness.

Uh, hi. Could you explain what you mean by that?


Also, why don't stop by the intro forum and say hi, let us know more about you.

(March 19, 2015 at 4:09 pm)Norman Humann Wrote:

(March 19, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Delicate Wrote: Not many, thank goodness.

Uh, hi. Could you explain what you mean by that?

Also, why don't stop by the intro forum and say hi, let us know more about you.

I mean most of them are more interested in selling books and making names for themselves rather than pushing the truth.

Care to give an example?

(March 19, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(March 19, 2015 at 4:09 pm)Norman Humann Wrote: Uh, hi. Could you explain what you mean by that?

Also, why don't stop by the intro forum and say hi, let us know more about you.

I mean most of them are more interested in selling books and making names for themselves rather than pushing the truth.

You don't think that they portray what they view as the truth in the books they sell?

(March 19, 2015 at 4:18 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Care to give an example?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9286...d-dawkins/

What about Dawkins makes you think he isn't interested in "Pushing the truth", whatever that means.

(March 19, 2015 at 4:18 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 19, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Delicate Wrote: I mean most of them are more interested in selling books and making names for themselves rather than pushing the truth.

You don't think that they portray what they view as the truth in the books they sell?

No, because their books are written to entertain, not to teach. As such they are entertainers and moneymakers, much like Christian televangelists.

Meh I don't disagree completely, I strongly dislike the idea of having "representatives" of atheists like Dawkins or Hitchens - You see, we can say that atheists only share their lack of belief in god as a common denominator, but regardless atheist celebrities push interests in the name of skeptics, atheists, and free thinkers. I like Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris, but I don't put them on a pedestal, all of them are imperfect to an extent - And I think many atheists don't fully feel represented by them. I would go one step further and say that most atheists worldwide are probably middle class people who are interested in living life peacefully without religious people bothering them, anti-theists like Dawkins and Harris don't represent accurately what most atheists think.

Sam Harris may be a good skeptic and scientist, but he loses everything when he argues that we should racially profile Muslims, just like Dawkins tweets questionable arguments like "rape X is worse than rape Y and if you disagree you are emotional and not logical"

(March 19, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(March 19, 2015 at 4:18 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You don't think that they portray what they view as the truth in the books they sell?

No, because their books are written to entertain, not to teach. As such they are entertainers and moneymakers, much like Christian televangelists.

And you think one can't entertain with the truth? From where I'm standing, that's flatly false; many of the books from atheist authors present what I consider to be the truth in an entertaining way.

Teaching and entertaining can easily exist in the same space... That being said, I don't see anything about Dawkin's books that put 'entertainment' over information. Can you elucidate on exactly what you mean?