Jump to content

The Religion/Spirituality Thread


Ace Nova

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Perhaps my response is more to do with what I’ve heard from him disciples online than anything thats been said in this thread.

So you are questioning whether a professor in evolutionary theory could be brilliant based on what his fans say about religion? Gotcha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The God Delusion is basically Atheism for Dummies, it is an introduction to the many well-known arguments for why gods don't exist. There is nothing new in it, nothing innovative, just a rehash if thoughts atheists have shared for thousands of years. But explained by Dawkins very clearly. 

So no, that book doesn't make him brilliant. The Selfish Gene, though. 

it's so funny that a scientist can investigate wether god can not exist, and be called brilliant, but if a scientist investigates if god does exist, he's a moron.

how lame. what a fraud. he makes me think about those market salesmen who sell a plastic cooking set for 100 euros, calling it "german build quality".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, EvanG said:

I owned that car toy thingy on the top shelf too as a kid. It looked cool because it looked like a computer, but it was kinda lame... don't think I played with it more than a few times.

it was awesome playing in the dark.

also, this guy is a boss

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Brilliant though, is he brilliant?  I’ve read that God Delusion thing and seen a million interview bits and pieces here and there, and I agree with a lot of it but I wouldn’t say any of it was especially like...original or groundbreaking or made me think a different way about anything so unless he made some amazing contribution to the world of science (which he might have for all I know) I’ve not really seen a lot out of him that I could reasonably justify him being a brilliant man.

Most of his actual arguments are recycled Hume basically, updated in accordance with Darwin, although Dawkins' forms part of this larger topical argument he seems to be having with various transatlantic critics of a (using his language) theistic disposition. Reading this book at times is rather like walking into someone else's argument midway. It feels like you need to be primed on a multitude of American Evangelists, theologians and moderate ''intelligent design'' scientists whom he is having this argument with

Few other remarks, 

- He is obsessed with the Americans. He even writes in ''American English'' which is rather strange for a posh Oxford don! Thomas Jefferson is clearly his hero, whilst American Evangelists/theologians: the enemy. The whole debate is filtered through the prism of America, e.g., American Surveys are produced to show how religious people are stupid etc etc. He doesn't seem very interested in Christianity in places like Africa or Asia, which leads me onto the following remark...

- He has literally written a book attacking the entirety of religion (by attacking patriarchal godheads) whilst solely using one religion (Christianity) as a case example! Sans a few remarks about Islamic fundamentalism chucked in, this is certainly the case! His excuse for this: it is the religion ''he and his readership know best''! What utter arrogance! What hubris! What chauvinism!

- His attack on theologians is utterly mean spirited; there are simply no excuses for this type of academic antagonism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Most of his actual arguments are recycled Hume basically, updated in accordance with Darwin, although Dawkins' forms part of this larger topical argument he seems to be having with various transatlantic critics of a (using his language) theistic disposition. Reading this book at times is rather like walking into someone else's argument midway. It feels like you need to be primed on a multitude of American Evangelists, theologians and moderate ''intelligent design'' scientists whom he is having this argument with

Few other remarks, 

- He is obsessed with the Americans. He even writes in ''American English'' which is rather strange for a posh Oxford don! Thomas Jefferson is clearly his hero, whilst American Evangelists/theologians: the enemy. The whole debate is filtered through the prism of America, e.g., American Surveys are produced to show how religious people are stupid etc etc. He doesn't seem very interested in Christianity in places like Africa or Asia, which leads me onto the following remark...

- He has literally written a book attacking the entirety of religion (by attacking patriarchal godheads) whilst solely using one religion (Christianity) as a case example! Sans a few remarks about Islamic fundamentalism chucked in, this is certainly the case! His excuse for this: it is the religion ''he and his readership know best''! What utter arrogance! What hubris! What chauvinism!

- His attack on theologians is utterly mean spirited; there are simply no excuses for this type of academic antagonism. 

if you're holding an exposé about religion being stupid, and only attack christianity while being sneaky about islam, you lose my attention. Could you be a more obvious hypocrite / troll?

And having a big function on a university means fuck all. It only means you're good buddies with the other professors, and preferrably are of woke / left signature. Dawkins checks all the boxes, he's a grey mouse without integrity. I've seen it all before, I dont need to be told about the merits of a professor of 20 years. you deviate a little off the left path, you're out.

Edited by action
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Where did I mention the fans saying anything about religion?

Wasn't that what you referred to here?_

"Perhaps my response is more to do with what I’ve heard from him disciples online than anything thats been said in this thread."

What have his disciples been talking about then, which has informed your opinion on Dawkins, if not religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Wasn't that what you referred to here?_

"Perhaps my response is more to do with what I’ve heard from him disciples online than anything thats been said in this thread."

What have his disciples been talking about then, which has informed your opinion on Dawkins, if not religion?

His genius.  It hasn't always been specific as to what this genius is based on.  Not sure what part of my post refers to religion?  The term 'disciples' perhaps?  Just meant fervent fans/followers etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

His genius.  It hasn't always been specific as to what this genius is based on.  Not sure what part of my post refers to religion?  The term 'disciples' perhaps?  Just meant fervent fans/followers etc. 

Alright. I haven't really heard anyone refer to Dawkins as a genius (and I personally don't like the term because it refers to intelligence which I find a troublesome concept).  But he certainly is an accomplished academic who has advanced our understanding of evolutionary biology and who has been a fervent opponent to irrationality in all its forms.. I find him to be a brilliant mind. Mostly because of his work in evolutionary biology, but also for his skills when communicating popular science and rational thought.

Edited by SoulMonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Alright. I haven't really heard anyone refer to Dawkins as a genius (and I personally don't like the term because it refers to intelligence which I find a troublesome concept).  But he certainly is an accomplished academic who has advanced our understanding of evolutionary biology and who has been a fervent opponent to irrationality in all its forms.. I find him to be a brilliant mind. Mostly because of his work in evolutionary biology, but also for his skills when communicating popular science and rational thought.

Yeah, as I was saying, if he's done something, in the field of evolutionary biology, something new, discovered something or come up with a new theory or some shit, I'll happily retract my comment, that qualifies, to some degree, as a brilliant man to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Yeah, as I was saying, if he's done something, in the field of evolutionary biology, something new, discovered something or come up with a new theory or some shit, I'll happily retract my comment, that qualifies, to some degree, as a brilliant man to me. 

I am probably a bit more generous with the word "brilliant" than you. But yes, he has advanced the field of evolutionary discipline and is a well-published scientist. Still, I also think his efforts in popularizing science and fighting against irrationality (including his writings on the topic of theism, and then especially the book The Blind Watchmaker which is a much more thorough attack on theism and religious irrationality than The God Delusion) qualifies for being a brilliant man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems you're a genious when you're good at scribing footnotes to other people's findings. that's what the modern genius can do the best: talk eloquently about difficult texts and compile them into academic books.

I've encountered many a professor who made a "cursus" with 30 pages of bibliografy, referencing tons of authors, but having no respected opinion of themselves. "Footnote creators", these professors are. Hardly anything to get excited by.

The biggest minds didn't need to write books to be respected. their merits lay "on the field" so to speak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

His genius.  It hasn't always been specific as to what this genius is based on.  Not sure what part of my post refers to religion?  The term 'disciples' perhaps?  Just meant fervent fans/followers etc. 

This conversation reminds me of that quote about Stephen Fry, about him being a ''stupid person's idea of a smart person''. haha.

(Although that line has been applied to others: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/a-dumb-persons-idea-of-a-smart-person-whose-line-is-it/249932/).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

This conversation reminds me of that quote about Stephen Fry, about him being a ''stupid person's idea of a smart person''. haha.

(Although that line has been applied to others: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/a-dumb-persons-idea-of-a-smart-person-whose-line-is-it/249932/).

Yeah, Fry, for all his amazingness, I think he's a cool guy and its important to have cultural figures who are knowlegable about shit, there's a difference between what Marlon Brando called 'a gatherer of information'.  He was praising Stanley Kubrick at the time:

Quote

"Stanley is unusually perceptive, and delicately attuned to people. He has an adroit intellect, and is a creative thinker—not a repeater, not a fact-gatherer. He digests what he learns and brings to a new project an original point of view and a reserved passion"

Its an important distinction I think.  As a culture gets thicker though (which some would argue ours is) goalposts of clever or brilliant or genius get moved around a fair bit.  Then again, who am I to talk, some random joker on the internet passing judgement on fuckin' professors :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Yeah, Fry, for all his amazingness, I think he's a cool guy and its important to have cultural figures who are knowlegable about shit, there's a difference between what Marlon Brando called 'a gatherer of information'.  He was praising Stanley Kubrick at the time:

Yes, there is a difference between being knowledgeable and being intelligent. But having the capacity to obtain tremendous amounts of knowledge on a variety of fields, like the polymath Stephen Fry has done, requires intelligence in itself. Most people simply wouldn't be able to do that. And yes, you might argue that it still has nothing to do with intelligence, it is more akin to a parrot memorizing stuff and I would disagree, which I guess suggests that the concept of intelligence has somewhat fuzzy edges. I mean, it is defined as the application of knowledge, i.e. being able to retrieve knowledge that is relevant to situations and apply it for problem-solving, and although I have never had the opportunity to see Fry solve differential equations or IQ tests, from all I have seen and read of him, it is undeniable to me that he is a highly intelligent person.

Edited by SoulMonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

 As a culture gets thicker though (which some would argue ours is) goalposts of clever or brilliant or genius get moved around a fair bit.

Are they though? Have we ever had commonly shared definitions of what "clever" is? Or "brilliant"? Or "genius"? Isn't this discussion more an outcome of people simply having different thresholds for handing out such adjectives? Like, I reserve "genius" to people of astounding intelligence (which is in itself difficult to ascertain), but "brilliant" I use more generously to also describe people with other mental qualities than hard intelligence, like being compassionate or dedicated. And "clever" can just be someone with a knack for witticisms. 

Edited by SoulMonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I hate the term "genius" and rarely, if ever, use it. People have this idea of intelligence that if you are good at, say, calculus, it means you would be good at all other kinds of thinking and decision making, and I don't find that to be true. But when people hand out "genius" they rarely mean it with the caveat, like, "he is such a genius, solving the rubrics cube in 3 second! but he lost all his money on online gambling"...they mean it period. We simply put too much esteem on intelligence in our society and tend to forget that it is a highly complex thing that can take so many forms and shapes. It is an umbrella term for a plethora of cognitive processes and you could score high on some and low on others. So I hate "genius", people put too much into it. I hate "intelligent" too.

 

Edited by SoulMonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anything Dawkins doesn't see, or attempt to see, through Dawinism/Natural Selection? It is painful seeing him try and hypothesize a Dawin solution to the Big Bang Theory!

PS

He is now going on about marrying-out of one's religion. It is a rare event apparently, thus confirming religion's divisiveness. JUST ABOUT EVERY YANK YOU MEET IS: ''one quarter Jewish, one quarter Irish (Catholic), one quarter German (Lutheran), one quarter English (Anglican) - and similar mixtures!!!! Ask a Yank - any Yank - and they reel off these mixed ancestral backgrounds (and resulting religious potpourri).

The people of America were obviously shagging somebody of a different faith, almost as a national calling!!

And is he seriously saying that, anywhere outside Northern Ireland perhaps where other forces (republican v unionist) are active, Catholicism vis-a-vis Protestantism is a massive impediment to marriage?

What an utter knober Dawkins is. This book is literally the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read. 

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Here's an opinion: You are a moron.

yea yeah, that, I know.

you are the top poster in this thread, and the forum's biggest opiniator against religion. however I do not recall you taking on the subject of beheadings in the name of religion in the same manner. I don't want you to criticise these acts, we all do, no what I want you to explain is how can you go from a religion, to beheading people on the streets, and I want you to compare the issue with the major different religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, action said:

I don't want you to criticise these acts, we all do, no what I want you to explain is how can you go from a religion, to beheading people on the streets, and I want you to compare the issue with the major different religions.

Probably because the various holy books tell you too. :shrugs: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Probably because the various holy books tell you too. :shrugs: 

probably, probably.... it's not much use talking about probabilities. you, the man of facts, now speaks in terms of probabilities...

soulmonster is an autohority on religion, he's the top poster in this thread for a reason. He confidently criticises it, so we can expect him to have done his home work.

attacks on the streets, beheadings, are a topical issue, it is on the news as we speak, and nations all over the world are criticising this act. And again, of course it needs criticising, but I believe it needs a bit more "oomph" in the theorethical field, and this is where I believe soul comes in.

as for my part, I haven't seen any of the sort in the bible (the most criticised book in this thread) that justifies beheadings, but I don't know about the quran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...