What has God done for you? (Christians only!)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
His books and statements help with that image. Step one of not seeming like a shock jockey with a college education: Get a competent PR machine (or someone that doesn't think you're the second coming) that can tell you not to title your new book "The God Delusion"

Meh, was the correct title for what he was trying to say in the book.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Mind-shrinking" That's about stupidity not not delusion.

I think it is about close mindedness. Which most philosophical institutions that claim ultimate truth do cause in many of their followers.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I seriously doubt he has anything to say that would interest me, change my opinion (which is essentially the same as his) or make me think he's less sickening.

Hahahaha, point in case.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Being intelligent and well versed doesn't make him any less hateful or more capable of expressing argument in opposition to his own ideals. I've looked at his books and put them down in disgust. I really don't care about his information, it isn't targeted at me, but that doesn't mean I don't think he's as disgusting as people who think homosexuality is a disease we need to cure.

True. Not being hateful makes him not hateful. Being intelligent and well-versed, is just another of his trait that I think focus should be put on. What did you find so disgusting? I can only assume that it was similar to the wrongful accusations so many theists have put forward, based on misunderstanding and PC knee jerk reactions.

Originally posted by inimalist
and ya, belief in everything you named is much more close minded than belief in methodological empiricism.

But belief in any of those has no effect on the person's overall intelligence. It's possible to be a creationist and still be brilliant, creation vs evolution is not the entire cornerstone of human reasoning capacity after all.

Originally posted by inimalist
still holding out for a 6000 year old earth?

Why is it so hard for atheists and fundamentalists to imagine a person who disagrees with them but doesn't agree with the other side? Is it really that hard to live in a world that isn't completely black and white? Of course I don't think the Earth is 6000 years old, that doesn't mean I'm going to attack people who do.

Originally posted by inimalist
A) Saying creationism is "a preposterous mind-shrinking falsehood" is hardly grounds to be called a bigot. I quite literally hate most things religion stands for, to extrapolate that I am bigoted against religious people for this reason is missing at least one step in logic.

If you make it very clear that you take pleasure in attacking theists and if phrases like that have a tendency to crop up and if you judge people first on their beliefs and then on their merits it's a pretty good bet you are a bigot.

Originally posted by inimalist
B) The father of memetics, the man who revolutionized the study of genetics and biology, who sits on some of the most respected scientific boards on the planet, doesn't know how to get attention? I think the better way of describing it might be that you don't know where to look.

Funny thing about getting attention, I shouldn't have to find out where to look. Self promotion is suppose to cut that step out, that's the whole point.

Originally posted by inimalist
C) Thats preposterous. One who is familiar with his work which isn't specifically about something one has a huge emotional investment in would be fairly aware that Dawkins stands as possibly the most poetic writer of science at this time. I defy you to read The Anscestor's Tale and say it isn't communicated effectively.

I haven't read anything by him that I had an emotional attachment towards. I just don't like smug bigotry that pretends to be based on reason any more than I like overt bigotry that pretends to be based on faith.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think it is about close mindedness. Which most philosophical institutions that claim ultimate truth do cause in many of their followers.

Yeah, could you imagine a system that says everyone who disagrees it delusional and that only be following that one system could you ever achieve understanding? It get's better, the next thing they say is that people should be open minded.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hahahaha, point in case.

That I don't want to hear my own side's propaganda? Okay . . .

Originally posted by Bardock42
What did you find so disgusting? I can only assume that it was similar to the wrongful accusations so many theists have put forward, based on misunderstanding and PC knee jerk reactions.

Things about how he enjoys coming up with questions that the average on the street theist can't answer and invites the reader to try it. The whole gist of what he says when addressing the opposition and not making arguments in support of his own side is negative and seems clearly meant as inflammatory.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, could you imagine a system that says everyone who disagrees it delusional and that only be following that one system could you ever achieve understanding? It get's better, the next thing they say is that people should be open minded.

Don't get it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That I don't want to hear my own side's propaganda? Okay . . .

Nah.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Things about how he enjoys coming up with questions that the average on the street theist can't answer and invites the reader to try it. The whole gist of what he says when addressing the opposition and not making arguments in support of his own side is negative and seems clearly meant as inflammatory.

Well, that's not my impression of the God Delusion and his other public statements I have seen at all. In fact he usually makes quite good points and just defends his position, I don't agree with him, but his reasonings are mostly sound, his conclusions are just a step too unskeptic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't get it.

The typical militant atheist behavior pattern.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah.

313

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that's not my impression of the God Delusion and his other public statements I have seen at all. In fact he usually makes quite good points and just defends his position, I don't agree with him, but his reasonings are mostly sound, his conclusions are just a step too unskeptic.

Then we disagree on the type of message he's sending out.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The typical militant atheist behavior pattern.

I guess, I didn't come across that many, at least not some that were quite so charismatic and intelligent.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then we disagree on the type of message he's sending out.

That was apparent from the beginning though, wasn't it?

Although, we might not really disagree on the message he is sending out as much as his intentions (i.e. you believing he intends to sent out the radical and hateful message, while I believe he has a more subtle and reasonable intention, but gets perceived as such)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But belief in any of those has no effect on the person's overall intelligence.

indeed, and I would disagree with Dawkins if he said that. He said mind-shrinking. To me, this is a statement of open mindedness, a shrunk mind being one that is closed and not interested in new information, the analogy works for me like that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why is it so hard for atheists and fundamentalists to imagine a person who disagrees with them but doesn't agree with the other side? Is it really that hard to live in a world that isn't completely black and white? Of course I don't think the Earth is 6000 years old, that doesn't mean I'm going to attack people who do.

lol, this was directly about Dawkins calling creationism a falsehood, you said it was probably false, and I questioned whether you were still holding out for a 6000 year old earth

ya, i get it, we both think its ridiculous, hence why I was busting your balls over your inability to call it such.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you make it very clear that you take pleasure in attacking theists and if phrases like that have a tendency to crop up and if you judge people first on their beliefs and then on their merits it's a pretty good bet you are a bigot.

so you can show me fairly irrefutable evidence that:

-Dawkins likes to attack theists (I'll even let you define attack)

-He judges people by religion first (there are numerous interviews where he is very cordial to religious figures)

or even explain how a phrase that speaks to the factuality of creationism is the same as an attack against it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Funny thing about getting attention, I shouldn't have to find out where to look. Self promotion is suppose to cut that step out, that's the whole point.

my point was that, for the vast majority of the work Dawkins is famous for and where his real strengths are, you are not the target audience and he is exceedingly famous.

Its hardly his fault that you aren't studying what he is most known for.

And ya, I'd generally agree that the opinions of a biologist on religion are worth as much as you would think they are, especially when he isn't really using biology for his strongest proofs. I'm personally much more supportive of work like God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger as a scientific piece of atheism (though Stenger may object to it being classified as such) or of Hitchens just for his amazing wit and way with words (and I'd say you could make a way better argument for Hitchens as a bigot based on quotes alone, but like Dawkins, that will fall apart when you look at behaviour, in my humble opinion of course)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I haven't read anything by him that I had an emotional attachment towards.

someone doesn't throw around the term "bigot" if they don't have some emotional investment

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The typical militant atheist behavior pattern.

you have a model for that?

Hitchens might not even deny being bigoted and hateful 😐

lol, indeed 🙂

I love that he is drinking unashamedly in every lecture/debate/interview I've ever seen him in

Originally posted by inimalist
someone doesn't throw around the term "bigot" if they don't have some emotional investment

And no rational person uses the phrase "preposterous mind-shrinking delusion" unless they're full of vitriolic rhetoric or don't actually intend to get understanding from the other side.

But when it comes right down to it I don't really care. That's pretty much the point where Dawkins and his ilk differ from me, I think people should be allowed to believe whatever they want to and have those beliefs challenged only in an a calm even handed way (if you think telling someone that their beliefs are a "preposterous mind-shrinking delusion" is somehow not insulting or meant as an attack you're wearing rose colored glasses). It's not a terribly realistic thing to hope for, though.

Originally posted by inimalist
you have a model for that?

Yes

It sounds like you are a slight bit full of yourself, mate.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And no rational person uses the phrase "preposterous mind-shrinking delusion" unless they're full of vitriolic rhetoric or don't actually intend to get understanding from the other side.

But when it comes right down to it I don't really care. That's pretty much the point where Dawkins and his ilk differ from me, I think people should be allowed to believe whatever they want to and have those beliefs challenged only in an a calm even handed way (if you think telling someone that their beliefs are a "preposterous mind-shrinking delusion" is somehow not insulting or meant as an attack you're wearing rose colored glasses). It's not a terribly realistic thing to hope for, though.

lol, no, I would agree. I wouldn't refer to religion or whatever as such in a debate expecting real dialog. I think Dawkins is preaching to his base as opposed to trying to convince you, but point taken.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes

didn't you once get after me for gross generalizations?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It sounds like you are a slight bit full of yourself, mate.

Based on a willingness to let people think what they want to?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Based on a willingness to let people think what they want to?

Nah, based on the assumption that specific others don't and how much better you are because you do.

As I said, it sounds like it, might just be my insecurity or some other psychological shortcoming, but that's how I read it.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, no, I would agree. I wouldn't refer to religion or whatever as such in a debate expecting real dialog. I think Dawkins is preaching to his base as opposed to trying to convince you, but point taken.

srug That was my main point. Maybe that got lost in the shuffle.

Originally posted by inimalist
didn't you once get after me for gross generalizations?

Yes, probably, almost certainly. I'm just saying that my basis for people jumping from "follow my beliefs or you're stupid" to "how can you demand someone believe what you want them to" comes from what I see happen here.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
srug That was my main point. Maybe that got lost in the shuffle.

cool, I was more interested in defending Dawkins as a biologist, as it is commonly forgotten that he was already an accomplished scientist and author before publishing anything really about God.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, probably, almost certainly. I'm just saying that my basis for people jumping from "follow my beliefs or you're stupid" to "how can you demand someone believe what you want them to" comes from what I see happen here.

lol, you will see that more places than here

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, based on the assumption that specific others don't and how much better you are because you do.

I didn't claim any sort of general superiority, I consider it common sense and it seems to be the way most people approach the world (no matter what beliefs they express most people don't go out of their way to enforce them on others). People like Dawkins, Hitchens, Robertson, Phelps and such have a problem that the rest of the world doesn't have.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As I said, it sounds like it, might just be my insecurity or some other psychological shortcoming, but that's how I read it.

And I think you have a tiny penis 😐

Game. Set. Match.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I didn't claim any sort of general superiority, I consider it common sense and it seems to be the way most people approach the world (no matter what beliefs they express most people don't go out of their way to enforce them on others). People like Dawkins, Hitchens, Robertson, Phelps and such have a problem that the rest of the world doesn't have.

I said it sounded like you felt a sort of general superiority.

And I agree with Robertson, Phelps and Hitchens having that problem. I just never felt it in Dawkins writing and speaking.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And I think you have a tiny penis 😐

Game. Set. Match.

You just got yourself a picture of my erect 14 inches penis in your PM inbox, mister.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I said it sounded like you felt a sort of general superiority.

Sound? In text? ha-son

Originally posted by Bardock42
And I agree with Robertson, Phelps and Hitchens having that problem. I just never felt it in Dawkins writing and speaking.

It's possible I got some of the Hitchens and Dawkins stuff mixed up, I've still seen several things from Dawkins that make it seem that he's trying to be inflammatory.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You just got yourself a picture of my erect 14 inches penis in your PM inbox, mister.

That's 12 . . . max 😬