#PrayForDawkins

[GearSolidMetal]

Is he dead yet?

 

[Loiosh]

Is he dead yet?

No.

There was prayer and he's getting better.

So I guess he was wrong.

(science)

 

[klimt]

I'm not a Hitchens expert, just seen things here and there. But Hitchens struck me as a little more well-behaved. He attacks the religion, but seems to hold back a bit regarding the individual religious person. Dawkins on the other hand seems to just attack everything. "Darwin's pitbull" indeed.

Since you bring up Dennett, he may actually be the best in terms of being calm and acting like a normal human being.

Watch more. Hitchens absolutely got personal- and crude/insulting as well. He was fantastically well spoken, and I admire him a great deal, but his charm and charisma did not prevent him from insulting people he disliked.

In terms of the 'Four Horsemen' Dennet was by far the most 'philosophical' in his approach. I could not imagine him calling someone a "wicked, delusional idiot" for example.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

No.

There was prayer and he's getting better.

So I guess he was wrong.

(science)

 

[Clippys Mom]

This is actually almost the opposite of the truth. Their arguments tended to be amatuerish relative to other historical atheists (when they weren't stripped from those writers directly), their defining feature was being obnoxious and using science as their primary weapon against believers.

Opposite from truth is way to obscure for me to even form a response, as far as amateurish, that has me at a loss as well.
As far as drawing on science, I see them actually as the proclaim to be, Hitchens drawing from great literature, historical, intellectual materials, and was a first rate orator.
Dawkins the evolutionary biologist, and Harris from a political philosophy and neuroscience position. And, yes the cross over material all the time. Things they have in common is critical thinking, scientific method, etc...

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

I wish him a speedy death, so can finally find out what most of us have known all along...that God is the realist.
Well he is still alive...must be part of a bigger plan.
I'm still curious as to who will apologies to who, Dawkins for not believing, or God for inventing an unbelieving man. Doesn't matter, Dawkins is going to hell for committing science.

Solid attempt. I like the effort I'm seeing here.

 

[Clippys Mom]

Not sure how I feel about Dawkins.

I support his position wholeheartedly but I don't love his delivery. He is abrasive and condescending because it strengthens his brand, and I don't really enjoy his exchanges.

I think his message is pretty important, but who is it for? The people who already feel the way he feels don't need to be convinced but people who don't aren't going to listen to him because he's so obnoxious. He could have been an incredibly important voice but at the end of the day, he's just an entertainer.

Look at Trump, Connor, Dana, etc...they understand the "memeing of life".
Divisive trolls get press.

They tapped into the zeitgeist and ran with it. So now its time for the argument to evolve.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

In terms of the 'Four Horsemen' Dennet was by far the most 'philosophical' in his approach. I could not imagine him calling someone a "wicked, delusional idiot" for example.

Dennett's sarcasm is biting though. He's kind of an awkward guy, I think.

One of my favourite Dennett moments is in his debate with Dinesh D'Souza when he gives his introductory remarks by basically saying religion should be studied in schools as a historical artifact, only to have D'Souza rush the stage afterwards and exclaim (essentially) "this condescending asshole's assuming all my claims are false!"

Dennett's face when he gets back up for the rebuttal is priceless - he's like *umm... wut*

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

the prayer bunch should pray that he gets a bugatti and a big breasted blonde; that way if he does, you know prayers work

otherwise, you thumpers are just piggybacking on medicine

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

Coining him as Darwin's Rottweiler was so fitting. Interesting that such a rage filled man is only having his first stroke at 74.

Who calls him that?

Thomas Huxley was called Darwin's bulldog for wrecking Wilberforce

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Opposite from truth is way to obscure for me to even form a response, as far as amateurish, that has me at a loss as well.

That's because you're understanding of atheism probably comes from one or two books written by a couple of those four.

As far as drawing on science, I see them actually as the proclaim to be, Hitchens drawing from great literature, historical, intellectual materials, and was a first rate orator.
Dawkins the evolutionary biologist, and Harris from a political philosophy and neuroscience position. And, yes the cross over material all the time. Things they have in common is critical thinking, scientific method, etc...

Dawkins is an evolutionist, Harris a neuroscientist, Dennett a cognitive scientist, and Hitchens just sort of repeats the evolutionary science and cosmology he's aware of through the others. Coyne and Myers are also evolutionists, while Stenger and Krauss are physicists. This group makes up the bulk of the New Atheists and it's pretty well established that they made their mark by employing their respective sciences (rather than the usual philosophy) and being especially loud-mouthed and abrasive while doing so.

Not trying to judge their methods this way or that, I'm just saying once the world has moved on that's how New Atheism will be remembered, for better or for worse.

 

[Guestx]

Figure of speech really.

I just found that being "against" anything just retarded my intellectual growth, and results in ineffective actions. I'm aware that I am still a contradiction and regress to being a hypocrite, so its a work in progress. Welcome to Human. Sherdog has been my dirt valve for along time, but I really have been enjoying the vibe and comradery in the Mayberry, so I am slowing down on trolling hard.

To answer your question, I don't believe in Gods. And its time for our species to move on from this idea. Its served, and will continue to serve its purpose, but ultimately I see it taking a place in the historical record as a necessary stage in our evolution.

This is a can of worms topic, and I really have been feeling ill all week, so you will have to forgive me if I don't have the energy to fill the thread with uppercuts, I'm only at 70%, and have the flu. (really)

Ah, gotcha. Well that's an interesting arc you've had.

I was raised Christian myself and now consider myself agnostic. I do not hold ill will toward Christianity, as many ex-Christians seem to, and in fact I find myself somewhat protective because I get where they're coming from.

I still think there could be something out there--something supernatural--but what that is I do not know.

 

[Satanical Eve]

He will be making a near full if not full recovery from this minor stroke and he himself is having a hearty laugh at what the Church of England said

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

Watch more. Hitchens absolutely got personal- and crude/insulting as well. He was fantastically well spoken, and I admire him a great deal, but his charm and charisma did not prevent him from insulting people he disliked.

In terms of the 'Four Horsemen' Dennet was by far the most 'philosophical' in his approach. I could not imagine him calling someone a "wicked, delusional idiot" for example.

I like that hitchens was frank and if he didn't like something he would let them know. Refreshing not to hear someone trying to keep people happy.

 

[Satanical Eve]

I like that hitchens was frank and if he didn't like something he would let them know. Refreshing not to hear someone trying to keep people happy.

This all the way is why I love Hitchens because he was frank and didn't beat around the bush.

 

[dc007]

is that the guy who used to host family feud?

 

[Genki Sudo II]

Fuck Richard Dawkins. That guy's an asshole.

Wha?..

 

[Clippys Mom]

That's because you're understanding of atheism probably comes from one or two books written by a couple of those four.

How in samhill did you deduce that! That's reaching.
Not trying to defend myself with legitimacy through authority, but I have paper and audio of almost all of their work. And most of the material has been gone through three times. This material is not at the forefront of my mind by any means, but it wouldn't take much to dust it off. Just preparing our definitions is a monumental task. So I will be moving on.


Dawkins is an evolutionist, Harris a neuroscientist, Dennett a cognitive scientist, and Hitchens just sort of repeats the evolutionary science and cosmology he's aware of through the others. Coyne and Myers are also evolutionists, while Stenger and Krauss are physicists. This group makes up the bulk of the New Atheists and it's pretty well established that they made their mark by employing their respective sciences (rather than the usual philosophy) and being especially loud-mouthed and abrasive while doing so.

Hair splitting, on what is just a light convo. This topic is a black hole. I've beat this horse into star stuff.

Not trying to judge their methods this way or that, I'm just saying once the world has moved on that's how New Atheism will be remembered, for better or for worse.

It will be remembered in all ways.
As far as a dominant perspective is concerned, we can only make educated guesses.

Not trying to dodge on parting shots, but I really want to check out the pets thread for the feels.

 

[fbgn]

Solid attempt. I like the effort I'm seeing here.

yea, he's like me talking about sick pets

The Church of England has defended a tweet it sent praying for secularist Richard Dawkins after he had a stroke.

The Church tweeted on Friday "Prayers for Prof Dawkins and his family" after the author fell ill on 5 February.

It was retweeted more than 1,000 times and led some to question if it was mocking the British atheist's position.

But the Church's communications director defended the comment, saying it was a "genuine tweet offering prayer for a public person who was unwell".​

The Church of England sent out a tweet asking people to pray for him. So the question is: were they being sincere, or assholes? Probably assholes.

One could hope sincere, since that's actually in line with their supposed beliefs

naw, we're (the british) cold-hearted sarcastic cunts. just imagine bisping in priest robes

 

[klimt]

edit