Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Best Living Spokesman for Atheism
December 18, 2015 at 4:58 pm
(This post was last modified: December 18, 2015 at 5:03 pm by robvalue.)
The thing is, there is nothing to say specifically about atheism past defining it. Everything further is potential reasons behind atheism, not atheism itself. And there isn't even one definition everyone agrees on, so that's a job for the start of almost every conversation with a new person on the subject.
Speaking about scepticism, which obviously leads to atheism, is a far more important and substantial subject. I think several people do a good job of this, I personally like Matt D a lot in this regard. Tons of other people too, I could probably list many.
Also, I'm back I'll write more tomorrow and some pictures of my holiday, which was awesome. Missed you guys!
But no one does, nor ever should, "speak for atheists". It just doesn't make any sense. However, clearing up the rampant misconceptions is an important job anyone can do.
Posts: 761
Threads: 18
Joined: November 24, 2015
Reputation:
4
RE: Best Living Spokesman for Atheism
December 19, 2015 at 7:34 pm
(December 15, 2015 at 7:45 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: (December 15, 2015 at 11:45 am)athrock Wrote: Rocket-
I have mentioned Dawkins here and here.
Would you be so kind as to explain how you have construed from these posts that I have asserted that you or anyone else here "followed Dawkins"?
Thanks.
You said,
And as best I can tell, there are apologists on both sides of the divide...cranking out books to try to persuade people that their view is correct. Are Hitchens and Dawkins any different than Craig or McDowell? Haven't they banked a fair bit of money over the past few years? Are they simply "fooling" a different target market into handing over that cash?
This strongly implies that we would follow the beliefs of Hitchens or Dawkins, as churches formulate their creeds and use apologists to explain why that's the right way, effectively shaping doctrines for the church. It's how the Billy Grahams of the world get to the positions they attain, in their Christian fame. Except we have no such organization. I might find it interesting to go see Dawkins speak, as I respect him as a science-writer, but I'm not going to take anything he says as part of my doctrine with any more weight than I assign to any other source. We have no "pastors" telling us what to think.
You forget that many of us were former die-hard Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals, myself included. If you expect to slip implications of that nature into the conversations, do not expect us to miss them. I'm certain you'll cry foul now, and say that no such implication was intended, but I'm afraid I won't believe you. I spoke the language of the shibboleth, and I recognize it and its direction of tone, now.
Take your umbrage elsewhere.
By happy coincidence, I did come across this interesting article which discusses the "followers" of Dawkins:
The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins
It’s like a church without the good bits. Membership starts from $85 a month
Andrew Brown
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/08/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/
In the article, Brown writes:
Quote:At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here is a religion without the good bits.
Last year he tweeted a recommendation of comments collected by one of his followers at a book signing in the US. Among them were: ‘You’ve changed the very way I understand reality. Thank you Professor’; ‘You’ve changed my life and my entire world. I cannot thank you enough’; ‘I owe you life. I am so grateful. Your books have helped me so much. Thank you’; ‘I am unbelievably grateful for all you’ve done for me. You helped me out of delusion’; ‘Thank you thank you thank you thank you Professor Dawkins. You saved my life’; and, bathetically, ‘I came all the way from Canada to see you tonight.’ With this kind of incense blown at him, it’s no wonder he is bewildered by criticism.
So, while I want to be clear that I did not claim that you or anyone else "follow" Dawkins, it seems that such atheists do exist. In which case one might ask: Are they still technically freethinkers?
Posts: 1715
Threads: 9
Joined: September 20, 2015
Reputation:
18
RE: Best Living Spokesman for Atheism
December 19, 2015 at 7:45 pm
Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
If The Flintstones have taught us anything, it's that pelicans can be used to mix cement.
-Homer Simpson
Posts: 3101
Threads: 10
Joined: September 7, 2015
Reputation:
49
RE: Best Living Spokesman for Atheism
December 19, 2015 at 8:46 pm
(December 19, 2015 at 7:34 pm)athrock Wrote: (December 15, 2015 at 7:45 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: You said,
And as best I can tell, there are apologists on both sides of the divide...cranking out books to try to persuade people that their view is correct. Are Hitchens and Dawkins any different than Craig or McDowell? Haven't they banked a fair bit of money over the past few years? Are they simply "fooling" a different target market into handing over that cash?
This strongly implies that we would follow the beliefs of Hitchens or Dawkins, as churches formulate their creeds and use apologists to explain why that's the right way, effectively shaping doctrines for the church. It's how the Billy Grahams of the world get to the positions they attain, in their Christian fame. Except we have no such organization. I might find it interesting to go see Dawkins speak, as I respect him as a science-writer, but I'm not going to take anything he says as part of my doctrine with any more weight than I assign to any other source. We have no "pastors" telling us what to think.
You forget that many of us were former die-hard Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals, myself included. If you expect to slip implications of that nature into the conversations, do not expect us to miss them. I'm certain you'll cry foul now, and say that no such implication was intended, but I'm afraid I won't believe you. I spoke the language of the shibboleth, and I recognize it and its direction of tone, now.
Take your umbrage elsewhere.
By happy coincidence, I did come across this interesting article which discusses the "followers" of Dawkins:
The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins
It’s like a church without the good bits. Membership starts from $85 a month
Andrew Brown
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/08/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/
In the article, Brown writes:
Quote:At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here is a religion without the good bits.
Last year he tweeted a recommendation of comments collected by one of his followers at a book signing in the US. Among them were: ‘You’ve changed the very way I understand reality. Thank you Professor’; ‘You’ve changed my life and my entire world. I cannot thank you enough’; ‘I owe you life. I am so grateful. Your books have helped me so much. Thank you’; ‘I am unbelievably grateful for all you’ve done for me. You helped me out of delusion’; ‘Thank you thank you thank you thank you Professor Dawkins. You saved my life’; and, bathetically, ‘I came all the way from Canada to see you tonight.’ With this kind of incense blown at him, it’s no wonder he is bewildered by criticism.
So, while I want to be clear that I did not claim that you or anyone else "follow" Dawkins, it seems that such atheists do exist. In which case one might ask: Are they still technically freethinkers?
You know that Brown is a religion writer, right? That what he does, professionally, is advocate on behalf of Christianity and against "weird" religions, in an attempt to sell copy for The Spectator, right? He was also former Religion Section Editor for The Guardian.
Regardless of how he has (or hasn't) skewed his coverage of that event and the weirdos/fanboys who attended it, you're still missing the fucking point. Still! So let me spell it out for you one last time, and then I'm done with you:
I. Don't. Give. A. Flying. FUCK. What. Richard. Dawkins. Says. Or. Does. Neither do most of us.
So is that the best you can do? Pointing out that Dr. Dawkins (the author) has some fanboys is hardly surprising. How many times a week do you think JK Rowling hears the phrase "Your books changed my life!" from some eager fanboy/girl?
But by comparison, right-quick, why don't you look to see what similar authors charge, for speeches and for being able to be around them, without being called "cults" or cult-leaders or any of the other things that Religion Writer Brown wants to attach to Dr. Dawkins because of his hatred for atheists?
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Best Living Spokesman for Atheism
December 19, 2015 at 9:05 pm
Richard Dawkins is a cult leader?
Yeah... your credibility went thataway.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 1314
Threads: 14
Joined: December 1, 2015
Reputation:
9
RE: Best Living Spokesman for Atheism
December 19, 2015 at 9:24 pm
(This post was last modified: December 19, 2015 at 9:46 pm by God of Mr. Hanky.)
(December 19, 2015 at 7:34 pm)athrock Wrote: (December 15, 2015 at 7:45 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: You said,
And as best I can tell, there are apologists on both sides of the divide...cranking out books to try to persuade people that their view is correct. Are Hitchens and Dawkins any different than Craig or McDowell? Haven't they banked a fair bit of money over the past few years? Are they simply "fooling" a different target market into handing over that cash?
This strongly implies that we would follow the beliefs of Hitchens or Dawkins, as churches formulate their creeds and use apologists to explain why that's the right way, effectively shaping doctrines for the church. It's how the Billy Grahams of the world get to the positions they attain, in their Christian fame. Except we have no such organization. I might find it interesting to go see Dawkins speak, as I respect him as a science-writer, but I'm not going to take anything he says as part of my doctrine with any more weight than I assign to any other source. We have no "pastors" telling us what to think.
You forget that many of us were former die-hard Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals, myself included. If you expect to slip implications of that nature into the conversations, do not expect us to miss them. I'm certain you'll cry foul now, and say that no such implication was intended, but I'm afraid I won't believe you. I spoke the language of the shibboleth, and I recognize it and its direction of tone, now.
Take your umbrage elsewhere.
By happy coincidence, I did come across this interesting article which discusses the "followers" of Dawkins:
The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins
It’s like a church without the good bits. Membership starts from $85 a month
Andrew Brown
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/08/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/
In the article, Brown writes:
Quote:At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here is a religion without the good bits.
Last year he tweeted a recommendation of comments collected by one of his followers at a book signing in the US. Among them were: ‘You’ve changed the very way I understand reality. Thank you Professor’; ‘You’ve changed my life and my entire world. I cannot thank you enough’; ‘I owe you life. I am so grateful. Your books have helped me so much. Thank you’; ‘I am unbelievably grateful for all you’ve done for me. You helped me out of delusion’; ‘Thank you thank you thank you thank you Professor Dawkins. You saved my life’; and, bathetically, ‘I came all the way from Canada to see you tonight.’ With this kind of incense blown at him, it’s no wonder he is bewildered by criticism.
So, while I want to be clear that I did not claim that you or anyone else "follow" Dawkins, it seems that such atheists do exist. In which case one might ask: Are they still technically freethinkers?
To begin with, your little poll is insultingly trollish - that you want to establish credibility to your devious fallacy that atheists are religious followers couldn't be more obvious!
On the other hand, every single social movement in human culture has its leaders, religious or not. I won't pretend otherwise, nor will I deny that I happen to have very high respect for Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, and others who are not on your list because your prior research is so pitifully weak. No religious proposition here.
It does so happen that I particularly respect Dawkins and Dennett because they were the first to point out to me the best reasons why I no longer concern myself with religious ideas.
Dawkins in particular has been the most public in confronting theists with what they fear the most in vocal atheism, which is why their hatred (your hatred, and don't think you can fool us on that) has been so visceral. Because he's been so good at this, others under the umbrella of atheism (not pure atheism, but associated ideologies which are loosely associated) envy him, and they hunt him too. I said he's as good as I've seen, or maybe he's just more active at it than most, but hardly the best that I can imagine. If the median-level guys in the Xtian apologist talent pool came over to the atheists side, then Dawkins would have respectable competition - not that we really want quick-witted rhetoric over ethically-observed facts.
Therefore it's no surprise at all to see those who get paid for writing the sort of porn which Christians masturbate to are promoting rumors and outright lies on one of the most dangerous public figures which Xtianity has ever been confronted by.
Doesn't it just burn your ass real good to know that Dawkins himself is just a man, and that not even atheists like me find him infallible in everything he's ever said? Wouldn't it be so much easier for you if you could convince the whole world that he really is the anti-christ, who will rule the entire world and force everyone to wear his (Christard-imagined) 666! Don't you just wish that if you keep on adding more insult to insult, that we would all just melt like ether into the thin air, like the witch before Dorothy in the Wizard of Id Oz?
Too bad for you, Christian Troll! What a sad waste of a life it is to spend it all waiting for that "POOF" which never happens!
Mr. Hanky loves you!
Posts: 13901
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Best Living Spokesman for Atheism
December 20, 2015 at 5:18 am
Another thread trying to drag us down to their level is all I see here.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 761
Threads: 18
Joined: November 24, 2015
Reputation:
4
RE: Best Living Spokesman for Atheism
December 20, 2015 at 7:22 pm
(This post was last modified: December 20, 2015 at 7:33 pm by athrock.)
(December 19, 2015 at 8:46 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: (December 19, 2015 at 7:34 pm)athrock Wrote: By happy coincidence, I did come across this interesting article which discusses the "followers" of Dawkins:
The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins
It’s like a church without the good bits. Membership starts from $85 a month
Andrew Brown
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/08/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/
In the article, Brown writes:
So, while I want to be clear that I did not claim that you or anyone else "follow" Dawkins, it seems that such atheists do exist. In which case one might ask: Are they still technically freethinkers?
You know that Brown is a religion writer, right? That what he does, professionally, is advocate on behalf of Christianity and against "weird" religions, in an attempt to sell copy for The Spectator, right? He was also former Religion Section Editor for The Guardian.
Yes. I did know that. So what? Are you going to commit a fallacy by ignoring the truth of what Brown has to say because he plays for the other side?
The point of this is that while YOU may not be a fanboy of Dawkins (again, which I never claimed), clearly a LOT of folks are.
Rocket, you are a piece of work.
Quote:Regardless of how he has (or hasn't) skewed his coverage of that event and the weirdos/fanboys who attended it, you're still missing the fucking point. Still! So let me spell it out for you one last time, and then I'm done with you:
I. Don't. Give. A. Flying. FUCK. What. Richard. Dawkins. Says. Or. Does. Neither do most of us.
So is that the best you can do? Pointing out that Dr. Dawkins (the author) has some fanboys is hardly surprising. How many times a week do you think JK Rowling hears the phrase "Your books changed my life!" from some eager fanboy/girl?
But by comparison, right-quick, why don't you look to see what similar authors charge, for speeches and for being able to be around them, without being called "cults" or cult-leaders or any of the other things that Religion Writer Brown wants to attach to Dr. Dawkins because of his hatred for atheists?
I should have posted this before. From the article:
(December 19, 2015 at 9:24 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: To begin with, your little poll is insultingly trollish - that you want to establish credibility to your devious fallacy that atheists are religious followers couldn't be more obvious!
On the other hand, every single social movement in human culture has its leaders, religious or not. I won't pretend otherwise, nor will I deny that I happen to have very high respect for Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, and others who are not on your list because your prior research is so pitifully weak. No religious proposition here.
It does so happen that I particularly respect Dawkins and Dennett because they were the first to point out to me the best reasons why I no longer concern myself with religious ideas.
Dawkins in particular has been the most public in confronting theists with what they fear the most in vocal atheism, which is why their hatred (your hatred, and don't think you can fool us on that) has been so visceral. Because he's been so good at this, others under the umbrella of atheism (not pure atheism, but associated ideologies which are loosely associated) envy him, and they hunt him too. I said he's as good as I've seen, or maybe he's just more active at it than most, but hardly the best that I can imagine. If the median-level guys in the Xtian apologist talent pool came over to the atheists side, then Dawkins would have respectable competition - not that we really want quick-witted rhetoric over ethically-observed facts.
Therefore it's no surprise at all to see those who get paid for writing the sort of porn which Christians masturbate to are promoting rumors and outright lies on one of the most dangerous public figures which Xtianity has ever been confronted by.
Doesn't it just burn your ass real good to know that Dawkins himself is just a man, and that not even atheists like me find him infallible in everything he's ever said? Wouldn't it be so much easier for you if you could convince the whole world that he really is the anti-christ, who will rule the entire world and force everyone to wear his (Christard-imagined) 666! Don't you just wish that if you keep on adding more insult to insult, that we would all just melt like ether into the thin air, like the witch before Dorothy in the Wizard of Id Oz?
Too bad for you, Christian Troll! What a sad waste of a life it is to spend it all waiting for that "POOF" which never happens!
(December 20, 2015 at 5:18 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Another thread trying to drag us down to their level is all I see here.
Wow.
I was simply curious as to who the gang here considered to be the best...you know...if you had to put one person up against William Lane Craig or some other apologists.
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn as to the outcome of the poll.
Posts: 1314
Threads: 14
Joined: December 1, 2015
Reputation:
9
RE: Best Living Spokesman for Atheism
December 20, 2015 at 7:37 pm
(December 20, 2015 at 7:22 pm)athrock Wrote:
Ignorance is strength.
George Orwell
Mr. Hanky loves you!
Posts: 761
Threads: 18
Joined: November 24, 2015
Reputation:
4
RE: Best Living Spokesman for Atheism
December 20, 2015 at 7:37 pm
(December 19, 2015 at 9:05 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Richard Dawkins is a cult leader?
Yeah... your credibility went thataway.
As you probably know, the word "cult" has the following meaning:
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
So, does that apply to the relationship between Dawkins and some of his followers?
I'll let you be the judge.
|