Dawkins and Determinism

[justin]

you can not be serious in thinking this. why would people not be able to comprehend what he refers to as atheism and evolution? he didn`t make up some special definitions for it and it is complex concept to understand as a matter of fact it is probably the easiest concept to understand. same thing with evolution except it is actually more complex but what is wrong with teaching evidence based theories?

The same way how you can't comprehend how to use quote tags, or basic spelling and grammar such as the difference between "their", "there", and "they're". I didn't judge you for it and still took on board what you were saying as another human being because you have clearly had a different experience to me.[/quote]

You comprehened the content of what i was saying not because of the different experiances we had in typing it but because you recognize the bad grammar and basic spelling errors and make mental corrections as you go that are based off of high probability assumptions to fill in the insenseable gaps that are scattered through out my response. That of which i recgonize myself and accept the ridicule not as offensive but as an unbiased truth that may help me make corrections to the problem by pointing out the flaws so as to avoid future repetition of said ridicule.

if someone is a theist and goes to school is the teachers efforts pointless to teach evolution?

[/quote]
No, and I said Dawkins' focus should solely be on teaching evolution as opposed to teaching "atheism", if he wants more people to appreciate atheism. He came to his atheistic conclusions from evolution, so it makes sense to always teach the former experience to his audience before the latter.

If his audience do not understand evolution, he is talking to a brick wall with regards to his views on atheism. In the same way I doubt that you could understand everyone's religious experience. There are 7 billion different perceptions on this and many misconceptions. We need to define the variables each time before we delve into the arguments.[/quote]

While i can agree that it does make sense to teach from his experiance i wouldn`t think it would be necessary or efficient. he has addressed his experiances throughout his book which is the more efficient way to such task. another thing is while evolution may give answers it doesn`t mean that you need evolution for atheism. atheism is just the lack of belief in a god. it isn`t dependant on anything other than the lack of the evidence for the propersition of the god being made. he wouldn`t be talking to bricks walls about atheism just because he didn`t relay his experiance of how he came to evolution or the explaination of evolution because they are not needed in order to ridicule the irrational beliefs of theism, thought they do help.

theists are not for the most part mentally ill or drug addicts. your analogy sucks. you just saying he is being mean. he isn`t taunting any one. he is holding them accountable for their beliefs and choices and saying that it is destructive to truth to accept these huge claims on faith and then make the choices that are influenced from THEIR faith. choices that affect other people.

[/quote]Someone believing in an imaginary friend is, for the most part, cognitive dissidence. A lot of people either have more faith, or have more drugs in order to satisfy that part of the brain and cope with daily functions. Some of the people he encounters he unnecessarily distresses.

Why would he hold them accountable for their beliefs if they evolved to have those beliefs? Challenging someone on this very rarely results in the opposing person suddenly obtaining the beliefs of the challenging person. In many cases both parties walk away with stronger convictions in their own ideas because neither has empathised with each-other's experience.[/quote]

he holds them accountable because they have a choice in the matter to change their way of thinking. evolution does not have goals or does what is best for the species, the species must adapt of suffer. in this cause changing the way religion is held in order to adapt to a more pregressive time ultimatly.

So what? It's called rational thought and anyone can start using it at anytime. Shouldn't that be even more reason to discuss these things so as to educate the people who haven't grown up in a
Free inquiry environment? So as they can break free from the oppression that their religion have inflicted on their mind?


i`m starting to think you think theists are the same as mentally retarted. theists CAN do long multiplication questions among other amazing things. just the religion is the irrational beliefs that influnces them. it doesn`t make them actually handicap just distorts the truth which leads to distorted actions.

[/quote]I would start to think you are mentally retarded if I didn't understand you don't like my analogies.[/quote]

They do not suck because i do not favor them, though i do not favor them because they do suck is true. They suck because of poor entailments.

[/quote]
The point is you teach people to count and add first. You need to teach a religious person your definitions of key terms first before you use them.

If I wrote a book, I would not expect everyone to read it and get it no matter how good it was, and neither should Dawkins.[/quote]

he does address his definitions quite often. he spent alot of time on his definitions in his books as well.

do you have no hope for humanity?

[/quote]
Hope is a synonym for faith my friend. I do not have faith that over 7 billion people will understand my experience of atheism, no. But please think about that next time you debate someone with faith.

Indeed, when one truly considers the vastness of the universe, the insignificance of humanity is overwhelming.[/quote]

yes, but we have more reason to have hope for humanity than we do in stone age myths because of historical moments of changing for the better. oh and humanity exists. seems pretty reasonable to have hope in humanity though it is difficult sometimes.

name one thing that religion doesn`t put it`s dirty little hand into?

[/quote]
Religion is a part of our evolution as a species. There are varying degrees of it. Jainism is possibly the most harmless practice I have ever heard about. A lot of people see theism as a personal thing, beyond organised religion, but still have faith in that which they cannot comprehend. Very often when one disrespects a personal "god", it could be a synonym for "nature" or the "universe".

Organised religions are corrupt, there is no doubt about that. But so is any governmental organisation, even if it is secular. People and systems do not mix well. It is individualism and exploring space that unites us. Not trying to spread one belief or disbelief for all.

The USA is a highly oppressive establishment but it could be a less oppressive place for a woman to live than Saudi Arabia. Protestantism could be less oppressive to a choir boy than Catholicism, Buddhism could be less oppressive to a scientist than Islam.[/quote]

i`m not saying that without religion there would be no problems i am just saying there would be less without it.

what has he done that is so uncompassionate?

[/quote]
Not accepted that numinous experiences are powerful enough to make superstition seem wiser than logical thought. I honestly believe some people can obtain more euphoria through faith in a higher power than a Class A drug.[/quote]

what seems to be true and what are true are two different things. besides he is just merely pointing out that while more people may believe in superstition it does not ACTUALLY make it wiser or true. it is just false perceptions.

so when people ridiculed slavery and the fundamentalist who supported it di that not help in any significant way?

[/quote]
So in America people ridiculed slavery. Slavery ended by a civil war. People in America still thank the war for ending slavery. But it did not need a war.[/quote]

no we thank the fact that the fundamentalist lost the war that was originally trying to be avoided. they thank the actions and ridicule by historical figures for ending slavery. no it did not. but you cannot control the actions ridiculees all you can do is adapt and do what is needed in order change for the better. fear for the lashing out of the fundamentalist should not keep you from ridiculing them.

[/quote]
Slavery ended the U.K. without civil war and it was just as prominent in the slave triangle.

There are many ways of approaching things and ridicule more often than not leads to more separations and ultimately bloodshed. Anyone who has studied human history and evolution for a significant period of time should recognise this.
[/quote]

so should the slave stay a slave for the fear or the possibility that he may have to fight his master for freedom? p.s. i obviously am having touble getting this quote tag thing down. i don`t know what i am doing wrong. excuse my naivity.