Atheist activism of 2006 compared to today

[Edwardo Piet]

As do I. But for different reasons. I went to my first concert in 2006. I was 18.

[Alex K]

As do I. But for different reasons. I went to my first concert in 2006. I was 18.

I went to my first rock concert the day I turned 16. I wish that was in 2006

[Edwardo Piet]

But that would make you two years younger than me!

[Amarok]

Funny enough I never really liked God Delusion nor did I follow any of the 4 horse men . (Might be my age ) . I was never had to be convinced religion was nonsense . It just never made sense . So by 2006 I was already as atheistic as I was going to get . But I will say it was nice to find groups of other non believers not a common thing when I was younger. I think it's far from dead books are still being written . Just look at secular outposts book list. My only real concern is how divided and frankly hostile it's all becoming .

[brewer]

Clinton and Obama lulled us into complacency.

Oh shit, not politics! Never mind. 

(leftist scum)

[Brian37]

As do I. But for different reasons. I went to my first concert in 2006. I was 18.

I went to my first rock concert the day I turned 16. I wish that was in 2006

I graduated HS in 1985.

---

Funny enough I never really liked God Delusion nor did I follow any of the 4 horse men . (Might be my age ) . I was never had to be convinced religion was nonsense . It just never made sense . So by 2006 I was already as atheistic as I was going to get . But I will say it was nice to find groups of other non believers not a common thing when I was younger. I think it's far from dead books are still being written . Just look at secular outposts book list. My only real concern is how divided and frankly hostile it's all becoming .

It isn't a matter of liking the God Delusion, Dawkins is pointing to where god belief is really coming from from an evolutionary standpoint. The book is basically telling the reader that humans evolved from prior life, and just like other life life does not always have time to slow down and assess and test what it is perceiving. "The God of the gaps" literally stems from evolutionary pattern seeking. Problem is that our perceptions of reality are notoriously flawed. So our brains evolved to gap fill. It is why if you tell a kid in a dark kitchen during a Halloween party that the bowl of olives are eyeballs, they might believe you because they have no critical thinking skills at that age. 

The way he put it in the book is "a moth mistaking a light bulb for the natural moonlight it guides itself by". The other analogy is the African antelope seeing tall grass sway and not being able to tell if it is mere wind or a lion stalking it. Even today babies grow up with empty brains and buy what their parents sell them. No different than when a dog or cat mistakes it's reflection in the mirror for a separate rival. God belief is merely a projection of ourselves. 

Point being he is right, like it or not. 

Hitchens was right too, not so much on how to handle dictators, he was too much a bit of a warhawk for me. But he was right about how religion poisons national and global diplomacy. 

Harris, well the only thing I don't like about him is his Buddhism fetish. 

Dennett, to be honest, I haven't read anything of his yet, although I did meet him at the convention at a bus stop.

[Amarok]

It isn't a matter of liking the God Delusion,

I'm not in any way saying I didn't like the argument or that he was not right . I'm saying I didn't like the way he explained it a lot of the time. Please don't confuse one for the other .

[Edwardo Piet]

I graduated HS in 1985.

Hmmm. So when I was about -3 then.

---

Harris, well the only thing I don't like about him is his Buddhism fetish. 

Meh. His Buddhism is secular so that doesn't bother me.

It's the approving of transphobic right-winged idiots that bothers me.

Dennett, to be honest, I haven't read anything of his yet, although I did meet him at the convention at a bus stop.

Well, let's put it this way. He likes to ignore subjects by redefining them completely and then pretend he's addressed them. He does it with both consciousness and free will. He thinks he purifies those subjects... but all he does is use a different definition to everyone else (with consciousness. With free will he uses the definition that the compatabilists use.... and they're subject dodgers too. He likes to apply that subject dodging approach to all subjects). Which by definition means he didn't even address the original definition. Which would be fine if he didn't think that the other side is wrong and that there's actually something to debate if he's not even addressing the same thing.