Quality of text vrs Live

[Sententia]

I'm currently watching a dawkins video... Richard Dawkins on Have your say | trevisfamous.com

Some hmmm priest... reverend... some dude in a black suit with a white collar is speaking and suprisingly he is reaching out to dawkins. (Seems like dawkins has to correct his errant logic briefly.)

But this guy is excited and animated and pursuasive. I mean hes obviously educated but it seems he is purposely skewwing facts to prove atheism as evil.

Still... perhaps we need some video forums and video replies... Are there such things? Should we make them?

Bear in mind atheists... Some of the theists you argue with are under the spell of powerful speakers who can move a room and with uncanny precision cause the congreation to rise to their feet or to break out in cheering at any moment.

All you have.... is text. And no matter what color... its just text.

 

[Mister Emu]

Bear in mind atheists... Some of the theists you argue with are under the spell of powerful speakers who can move a room and with uncanny precision cause the congreation to rise to their feet or to break out in cheering at any moment.

You act like there are no great orators in the atheist community...

I prefer text debates because it is more about the content of your arguement than the method of delivery...

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You act like there are no great orators in the atheist community...

How can there be? The power of any idea lies, not in its certainty or truth, but rather in the vividness of its human appeal. Ain't much "human appeal" in atheism.

 

[Mister Emu]

Being a good orator has nothing to do with your subject matter, and everything to do with how you present it.

 

[Random]

Stuffy, opinionated Oxford professors often know more than they say. Or do they? I wasn't impressed by The God Delusion, but I appreciate that a man as intelligent as Dickie D. @ least deigns to tackle the debate in a civilised manner. But he is still of the Machine, whether he knows it or not...

 

[Halcyon]

How can there be? The power of any idea lies, not in its certainty or truth, but rather in the vividness of its human appeal. Ain't much "human appeal" in atheism.

Of course there is! Much more than in theism I would say, with theism its "all about God" with atheism its "all about man."

 

[Tau]

I prefer speech to communicate, text is extremely hindering and often open to misinterpretation.
Plus of course text communication is less effective for you if you are less literate than whom you are communing with, it (text) is therefore exclusive in some senses.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Of course there is! Much more than in theism I would say, with theism its "all about God" with atheism its "all about man."

That's my point.

 

[Fluffy]

I was really impressed with the Catholic priest. Any theist who offers me a hand of friendship without judging me for being an atheist or suggesting that I might be better off if I believed what they believed is doing an amazing thing.

 

[Sententia]

Of course there is! Much more than in theism I would say, with theism its "all about God" with atheism its "all about man."

Imagine if people used the reverance they reserve for god in every day life with every day people.

 

[Yerda]

Imagine if people used the reverance they reserve for god in every day life with every day people.

Some do. Don't you think?

 

[Runt]

I heard Dawkins speak on campus a few weeks ago. Personally, I liked him better in person than in text, although I find "The God Delusion" to be simultaneously amusing, interesting and problematic. My main criticism of him---in person or in text---is that he focuses too much upon whether or not God can be proved and not enough attention (hardly any at all, in fact) upon how people relate to God and how (according to theists) God relates back. I think there is MUCH more of interest to say on that latter subject, but Dawkins makes the mistake of thinking that religious people are religious for epistemological reasons, rather than axiological. That's understandable, however; Dawkins is a scientist, not an anthropologist, sociologist or religious studies scholar.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Dawkins makes the mistake of thinking that religious people are religious for epistemological reasons, rather than axiological.

Seriously, how can someone who is as brilliant as he is supposed to be, be so ignorant of the thing he criticizes? Paul's definition of faith should clue him in.

 

[Runt]

Seriously, how can someone who is as brilliant as he is supposed to be, be so ignorant of the thing he criticizes? Paul's definition of faith should clue him in.

He actually does something that's unfortunately fairly common in the academic study of religion: attempts to view it through the lens of other academic disciplines. He's a biologist and he looks at religion like a biologist looks at a virus. The problem is, cultures do not operate in the same way organisms do...