Fundamentalist Atheists

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well personally I read apologetics and counter apologetics because I find them interesting. Debate is all about attacking arguments (as opposed to attacking the person) something that you can not do unless you understand what those arguments are.

As I say, I've heard all the arguments, repeatedly, just by participating in forums like this one.

 

[Bunyip]

As I say, I've heard all the arguments, repeatedly, just by participating in forums like this one.

I'm sure you have, but why is it so difficult for you to consider that others may be interested in reading books on subjects that they find interesting?

Or that others, also having heard those arguments would like to study them in greater detail.

 

[Breathe]

Source?

His attitude.

Cause that sounds like an opinion to me.

As is his defence.

you can't read minds so you don't know what his intent is.

I have no reason to think otherwise, do I?

He seems to understand conservative Christian apologetics pretty well from what excerpts I've seen of his arguments.

No, he knows strawman and an extremely small number of people's interpretation.

Why? Not why are you unimpressed, but why have you read his books?

To see what all the hubub was.

If you want to defend your religious beliefs, you've come to the perfect place.

I'm not here to 'defend my religious beliefs'. Not as if I've ever seen a decent criticism against them, anyway, but still. I'm here for learning, and giving my opinion, not ******* contests.

Why read what someone else has to say about other beliefs? A guy you can't talk back to.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you okay?

and you speak as if he had never addressed the issues you raised. That just isn't true. He addressed them in The God Delusion, and I've seen him do it elsewhere.

I don't think he has.

We can debate his motives, but neither of us knows what they are. My impression of him is that he is not any more malicious than most folks who debate religion, you and me included.

I disagree; I think he is more malicious than most. I at least try to see where other people are coming from and, so long as the other side is willing to be polite, do the same back. I've not been that good at it recently due to the meds I'm on, but generally I try.

We have a completely different impression on that.

I've never known an Anglican who has thought the way he portrays, so I have no reason to believe he actually knows what he is talking about. Not even an ad hom.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Or even considering that not every person has the same experience as you and may be less informed about the arguments and is reading to educate themselves on the subject.

 

[TheGunShoj]

I have no reason to think otherwise, do I?

Sure you do. The previous poster gave a perfectly good example of another reason he may have. I believe it was to provoke critical thinking and discussion. Makes sense.

You're just assuming the worst because you are biased towards him.

 

[Breathe]

Sure you do. The previous poster gave a perfectly good example of another reason he may have. I believe it was to provoke critical thinking and discussion. Makes sense.

You're welcome to your belief, but I see it as naïve as I do creationism. I'd love to be as optimistic as you are, but I'm a cynical old bugger.

You're just assuming the worst because you are biased towards him.

It's quite rude to think that simply because I'm not a Dawkins fanboy that I'm "biased towards him". I'm not biased towards him, I'm pretty apathetic with a tinge of disappointment. He should've stuck to biology and stayed away from what are clearly poor grasps of theology and poor debating skills, or improved them first.

 

[Bunyip]

You're welcome to your belief, but I see it as naïve as I do creationism. I'd love to be as optimistic as you are, but I'm a cynical old bugger.


It's quite rude to think that simply because I'm not a Dawkins fanboy that I'm "biased towards him". I'm not biased towards him, I'm pretty apathetic with a tinge of disappointment. He should've stuck to biology and stayed away from what are clearly poor grasps of theology and poor debating skills, or improved them first.

Not as rude as calling people 'fanboy's' just because they read a book by a guy you dislike. You just proved the point being made about your bias. Dawkin's books on religion were best sellers, won ,any awards and clearly millions of people did not share your disappointment.

 

[Breathe]

Not as rude as calling people 'fanboy's' just because they read a book by a guy you dislike.

I wasn't talking about the member in question.
And I've read plenty of his books, too. Stop grasping at straws.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You're welcome to your belief, but I see it as naïve as I do creationism. I'd love to be as optimistic as you are, but I'm a cynical old bugger.


It's quite rude to think that simply because I'm not a Dawkins fanboy that I'm "biased towards him". I'm not biased towards him, I'm pretty apathetic with a tinge of disappointment. He should've stuck to biology and stayed away from what are clearly poor grasps of theology and poor debating skills, or improved them first.

I think that many of the Dawkin's Otaku have just settle for mediocrity and called it greatness.

 

[TheGunShoj]

But this is not for stimulating critical argument. It's done purely out of malicious intent.

And you're entitled to your opinion too. But this doesn't sound like an opinion. It sounds pretty matter of fact. As if you know exactly what his intent is, which you don't. Phrasing.

You're welcome to your belief, but I see it as naïve as I do creationism. I'd love to be as optimistic as you are, but I'm a cynical old bugger.


It's quite rude to think that simply because I'm not a Dawkins fanboy that I'm "biased towards him". I'm not biased towards him, I'm pretty apathetic with a tinge of disappointment. He should've stuck to biology and stayed away from what are clearly poor grasps of theology and poor debating skills, or improved them first.

You're right. Maybe I was wrong to assume and I apologize. But I will also say, what's a better way to improve than to get out there and do it?

 

[Bunyip]

I wasn't talking about the member in question.
And I've read plenty of his books, too. Stop grasping at straws.

What straws? The point is that attacking Dawkin's arguments would be far more useful and worthy than are all of the ad hominem attacks against him, anyone who has enjoyed his work or his contribution to the subject.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm sure you have, but why is it so difficult for you to consider that others may be interested in reading books on subjects that they find interesting?

I'm sorry but I can't explain why I believe something which I don't believe.

What a bizarre outlook you try to give me.

Or that others, also having heard those arguments would like to study them in greater detail.

You know, it's possible to talk to another poster -- and even to disagree with that poster -- without assuming that he holds all sorts of weird views.

Why not just listen and ask questions about what I believe?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Or even considering that not every person has the same experience as you and may be less informed about the arguments and is reading to educate themselves on the subject.

If you're talking to me, you'll need to signify that somehow in your messages.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm sorry but I can't explain why I believe something which I don't believe.

What a bizarre outlook you try to give me.



You know, it's possible to talk to another poster -- and even to disagree with that poster -- without assuming that he holds all sorts of weird views.

Why not just listen and ask questions about what I believe?

I didn't assume any kind of wierd view on your part, I was in fact just listening and asking questions as you suggest.

 

[Breathe]

I think that many of the Dawkin's Otaku have just settle for mediocrity and called it greatness.

It's a shame, really, especially when people try to emulate him.
I'll give him one thing, though, at least he doesn't really lose his cool.

And you're entitled to your opinion too. But this doesn't sound like an opinion. It sounds pretty matter of fact. As if you know exactly what his intent is, which you don't. Phrasing.

People always say that about me. I don't really get it. Naturally, I can only really speak from my opinion on a third party, right? The way I see it: if it's something like this, then it's probably opinion.

You're right. Maybe I was wrong to assume and I apologize.

Apology accepted, no hard feelings.

But I will also say, what's a better way to improve than to get out there and do it?

Good question; I have no problems with doing it, but I think focusing on a small population is counter-productive as it gives them limelight and will make people tar all with the same brush. It can often seem like 'religious people versus Dawkins', whereas I would prefer 'religious and non-religious people versus fundamentalism and creationism working for social causes'.

What straws? The point is that attacking Dawkin's arguments would be far more useful and worthy than are all of the ad hominem attacks against him, anyone who has enjoyed his work or his contribution to the subject.

If there was a specific argument being raised at the moment, I'd have no problem discussing it (supposing I don't lose the reply, which occasionally happens and then I forget to respond. Short attention span. ).
Until it focuses on something specific, though, if I were to focus on a random or single point, wouldn't it look as though I was diverting attention to a point to discuss that one, ignoring others? Right?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I didn't assume any kind of wierd view on your part....

Of course you did. You asked me "why is it so difficult for you to consider that others may be interested in reading books on subjects that they find interesting?"

That's like asking me why it's difficult for me to believe that the moon is round.

It presumes that I believe the moon is non-round.

Your question presumes that I find it difficult to consider that others are interested in reading certain books.

A bizarre assumption about my view of things. It's just a weird belief which you've concocted and are trying to saddle me with. Odd behavior, I think.

 

[Copernicus]

I disagree; I think he is more malicious than most. I at least try to see where other people are coming from and, so long as the other side is willing to be polite, do the same back. I've not been that good at it recently due to the meds I'm on, but generally I try.

I'm glad that you make the effort. We certainly have very different opinions about Dawkins' demeanor and attitude. Like everyone, he crosses the line from time to time, but he has put himself in a position where he will be heavily demonized. Frankly, I think he has a lot of courage, although I don't always agree with the way he puts things. I am very impressed with his intellectual honesty.

I've never known an Anglican who has thought the way he portrays, so I have no reason to believe he actually knows what he is talking about. Not even an ad hom.

Dawkins was raised an Anglican. He has written extensively about it, and he very definitely knows what he is talking about. Here is his debate with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop, at least, did not spend a lot of time trying to win the debate by demonizing him.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It's a shame, really, especially when people try to emulate him.
I'll give him one thing, though, at least he doesn't really lose his cool.

Have you ever seen that debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams? He became absolutely passive as if he knew he couldn't play childish games with Williams, so it didn't look to me that he was trying to keep his cool but was afraid of being absolutely crushed.

 

[Bunyip]

Of course you did. You asked me "why is it so difficult for you to consider that others may be interested in reading books on subjects that they find interesting?"

That's like asking me why it's difficult for me to believe that the moon is round.

It presumes that I believe the moon is non-round.

Your question presumes that I find it difficult to consider that others are interested in reading certain books..

It was in response to your comment that you found people's interest in such things to be curious.

 

[Breathe]

I'm glad that you make the effort. We certainly have very different opinions about Dawkins' demeanor and attitude. Like everyone, he crosses the line from time to time, but he has put himself in a position where he will be heavily demonized.

Thank you, and true.

Frankly, I think he has a lot of courage, although I don't always agree with the way he puts things. I am very impressed with his intellectual honesty.

I don't know why you believe he has "a lot of courage"?

Dawkins was raised an Anglican. He has written extensively about it, and he very definitely knows what he is talking about.

Not necessarily true; one can be raised something but still not have a real understanding of the details or finer points.

Here is his debate with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop, at least, did not spend a lot of time trying to win the debate by demonizing him.

Good on the Archbishop. That's just how Anglicans roll, though, generally. Easy-going bunch. Thank you for the link; I'll try and watch it when I have time. Promise.

Have you ever seen that debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams? He became absolutely passive as if he knew he couldn't play childish games with Williams, so it didn't look to me that he was trying to keep his cool but was afraid of being absolutely crushed.

I've never seen the debate, actually. I only heard it was incredibly disappointing so I never bothered, and then forgot about it until it was brought up a few moments ago.

As Copernicus has kindly linked it, I've bookmarked it to watch (when I finish watching a few programmes. I'm currently watching the 'Human Weapon' series. I have no idea how I ended up watching them, though).