if you haven't heard of these prominent atheists then youtube them, sit back and enjoy =)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=christopher+hitchens
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=richard+dawkins

As my testimony crumbled, I watched everything I could from them, and now I'm reading everything I can from them.

God Delusion is great. The Greatest Show on Earth was an amazing book, and I am currently going through Ancestor's Tale.

Hitchens has some great stuff too.

LOL, I too love both Dawkins and Hitchens. I get misty eyed when I think about Christophers current condition. I miss him already and he's still hanging on.

That being said there are forum members that will not be amused by what Hitchens, or Dawkins have to say. Hitchens is militant, and Dawkins is smug. I don't recommend either of them to those who are religious.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2010 03:37PM by rj.

Well, at least they're militant and smug AND smart.

How could you not have heard of them? The fawning media love them, as they love all things that trash the baby Jesus. They are EVERYWHERE. That they are virulent, hyperventilating partisans seems not to be considered by those who adulate them.

Just equated his godhood with that of Thor, or Zues.

raptorjesus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just equated his godhood with that of Thor, or
> Zues.


Honestly, placing your faith/trust/identification/affirmation in those two pop culture goof balls makes about as much sense as believing that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were prophets of God. Dumb, really dumb.

Hitchens & Dawkins can sometimes be overly inflammatory.
And um...
Ya, I'll just say that.

Badger John Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> raptorjesus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just equated his godhood with that of Thor, or
> > Zues.
>
>
> Honestly, placing your
> faith/trust/identification/affirmation in those
> two pop culture goof balls makes about as much
> sense as believing that Joseph Smith and Brigham
> Young were prophets of God. Dumb, really dumb.

badger john are you talking about thor and zeus?

One. They are not "pop culture goofballs." Both of them are highly educated and very articulate. Dawkins grasp of evolution is incredibly thorough. He knows what he's talking about, and if he isn't quite sure, he'll be the first to admit that he isn't an expert in a particular area.

Two. Liking people's writing and recommending it in NO WAY is the same as placing faith/trust/identification/affirmation in them. Completely different and absurd to suggest that. In fact it's dumb, really dumb.

I don't always agree with Dawkins and Hitchens. I love their writing, and it is thought provoking. But I read a lot of things that come from various viewpoints simply because they are interesting and at least thought provoking. However, what I really like about Dawkins and Hitchens is that they supply mounds of evidence. You may disagree with the conclusions that they've come to, but at least there is a lot of evidence.

Interesting though that you go right on the offensive when someone mentions another person that you hate.

I guess I should just agree with your viewpoint because you are so quick to call names?

I was having a laugh with a regular poster--far more versed in evolutionary science than I--over a post by this fantasy writer. Here's what BJ had to say on a now-closed ID thread...

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,18746,19487#msg-19487

>Evolution as theory is being questioned more and more by all scientists, except the die hard atheists, who are more die hard than ever. It is not a coincidence that the highest proportion of scientists that believe in intelligent design are microbiologists and astronomers, those that appreciate the complexity of our world and universe, as it is part of what they study every day.

>Time is on the side of those that intelligently reject the foundations of mormonism, as well as those that accept intelligent design as an explanation for the creation of our universe.

Back to the remedial science class for him (I'll see if I can find one of the microbiologists on the board to serve as a tutor, although they get real grumpy whenever that calling is issued). I do suppose you could probably find quite a few at the BYU Religion Department who would agree with him.

BJ's syntax (an area I do have some credentials) is even wobbly. He uses the word "theory" when he really means "hypothesis." And really, the distinction between the "hard sciences" and the "soft sciences" is discernible in their use of this one. In the soft sciences, a theory is either "useful or non-useful." In the hard sciences, a theory is something accepted for which no evidence disproving it has found consensus among the scientific community.

Intelligent Design as a hypothesis requires the "evidence of nothingness" as a proof, and evaporates accordingly.

Now if you want to, BJ, you can start parroting those talking points; it will afford you an educational opportunity to discover just how sharp and knowledgeable some people here really are. Seriously...

Because they strike a nerve with me because my undergrad degree is partly in Physics. And I also volunteered at a dinosaur museum one summer and got this kind of crap all the time.

"Evolution as a theory is being questioned more and more."

Non existent god, no it's not. Every day more and more evidence reaffirms the Theory of Evolution. In fact most physicists lament that if they knew as much about gravity as biologists know about evolution, they'd probably found and agreed upon the "grand unified theory" a long time ago.

"The highest portion of (whatever) scientists believe in intelligent design more and more."

Again no, and there are plenty of surveys to prove the opposite. That doesn't necessarily make atheism "correct." It just means that the majority of scientists just don't believe in any kind of god because they haven't found the evidence to do so.

The only thing intelligent design has done "correctly" is spotlight the current areas of research that need more time and study.

And I use the term "correctly" loosely because they don't understand the field of abiogenesis at all, and they have the hardest time conceeding when they've shined a light on a "gap" and then science fills it in with something testable.

I, too, wish to profess my love and tolerance for "believers"; I love them and am optimistic they may someday discover the light of science and reason and that it will fill their being and they can shed their silly notions... Of course some of them then resort to accusations of materialism, while the "showmen" among them are secretly counting their millions...

This view of mine is sort of a reverse of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" notion that the fundies slap us with...

Yeah, both are equally passive agressive...

Cue up Dylan.... "How does it feel?"

I wish the ID crowd did provide illumination on the "gaps" in evolutionary theory, but too often they only convict themselves of their own ignorance, and I'm not a skilled enough wordsmith to frame stuff like that in a recipe they find palatable.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

"The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more."

"Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse."

"Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you."

What's your definition of goofball?

"Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."

this is just brilliant! =)

I'm more a fan of Hitch than Dawkins.

I understand that they both get up the nose of current believers, because.... well, logic does tend to do that.

when someone writes "They are EVERYWHERE. That they are virulent, hyperventilating partisans seems not to be considered by those who adulate them." then you know they must be doing something right.

Personally, I cant recall the last time I saw either of them on TV [so much for "They are EVERYWHERE"]. Hitch isn't very well at the moment - he has cancer - so, he's certainly not doing anything major, currently.

I think badger john must stil have some major hangups from TSCC.... if anyone disagrees with you they must be "virulent, hyperventilating partisans".... whatever you do, dont for one gosh darned minute consider they are right

Onceanelder, that is really a low blow. Insinuating that I am a closet believer in the Morg is about as low one can go in my book!

That the goofballs are everywhere is easily established by the fact that they are virtually (but not quite) household names. Think about it. They are the "go to guys" for the media whenever they want to insult the intelligence of Christian believers. The thing is, they say the same things over and over and...

They are popular and repetitive and therefore... what exactly?

Anyways Badger John, I know a lot of people that can't stand them either.

There isn't any reason why everyone needs to like them or even listen to what they have to say. It also seems wrong to assert anything negative about those who like them.

Neither Dawkins, nor Hitchens are Mormons or ex-Mormons so their viewpoints aren't entirely relevant to this board anyway.

Talking in absolutes makes me uncomfortable. I often wonder why we as humans sometimes feel the need to type cast others using such frivolous criteria.

Also I'm not sure these 2 men are enough alike that grouping them together and dumping them into one bucket is a terrific idea.

He has a brother who is a prominent, outspoken fundamentalist Christian. So he has to deal with that, just like a lot of us have to deal with "righteous" TBM relatives.

Aside from that, he's eloquent and entertaining.

metatron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He has a brother who is a prominent, outspoken
> fundamentalist Christian. So he has to deal with
> that, just like a lot of us have to deal with
> "righteous" TBM relatives.
>
> Aside from that, he's eloquent and entertaining.

If you mean Peter Hitchens, he is almost certainly not a "prominent, outspoken fundamentalist Christian."

He is a prominent and outspoken journalist and a member of the Church of England. Which doesn't have many fundamentalists, to be honest.

matt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> metatron Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He has a brother who is a prominent, outspoken
> > fundamentalist Christian. So he has to deal
> with
> > that, just like a lot of us have to deal with
> > "righteous" TBM relatives.
> >
> > Aside from that, he's eloquent and
> entertaining.
>
> If you mean Peter Hitchens, he is almost certainly
> not a "prominent, outspoken fundamentalist
> Christian."
>
> He is a prominent and outspoken journalist and a
> member of the Church of England. Which doesn't
> have many fundamentalists, to be honest.

Very true. In the US, they are Episcopalians and you can't get much more liberal and still be a Christian. Not Fundie at all.

I am not a believer and I find that they are often guilty of simplistic thinking, misrepresentation and bigotry. I can live without them although I do agree with some of what they say.

Badger John....I don't say you're a closet Morg, just that you've swapped one kind of ignorance for another.

Dawkins is generally called on when the creationist-evolution-deniers start getting vocal.

In my book, a creationist evolution denier is as bad as any morg belief.

there are christians and there are dumb christians

dumb christians are equally as bad whether they are morg or Baptist or Lutheran, or Presbyterian, or [repeat for all the other 34,000 denominations of Christianity]

Agreed that the goofballs (Hitchens and Dawkins) are not entirely relevant here, but you have to admit that there is a heavy undercurrent of atheism at this site. Either that or the atheists are just more outspoken than the Christians. A bit odd, actually, when you consider that the Christians are the ones that are caricatured as the loud mouths, and the atheists are just "rational" thinkers/materialists. Ha!

In any event, no one has to agree with me. But when I see a slavish devotion to atheism, as if it is the only thing that can possibly explain our existence, in the same way that TBM's are slaves to Joseph Smith (the one "true" con man), I take notice.

Badger John Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agreed that the goofballs (Hitchens and Dawkins)
> are not entirely relevant here, but you have to
> admit that there is a heavy undercurrent of
> atheism at this site. Either that or the atheists
> are just more outspoken than the Christians. A
> bit odd, actually, when you consider that the
> Christians are the ones that are caricatured as
> the loud mouths, and the atheists are just
> "rational" thinkers/materialists. Ha!
>
> In any event, no one has to agree with me. But
> when I see a slavish devotion to atheism, as if it
> is the only thing that can possibly explain our
> existence, in the same way that TBM's are slaves
> to Joseph Smith (the one "true" con man), I take
> notice.

I find that the radical atheists have a lot of personality traits in common with Fundamentalists ie, they are always right and are constantly telling us so, they cannot see any other point of view, they are intolerant and the are not above misrepresenting facts when it suits their purposes.They don't have the same beliefs but they do have a lot in common personality wise.

(In response to Badger)

LOL, well perhaps I should link a youtube video in which both of these individuals discuss Mormonism and perhaps you'd like them more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Etownp_Rmw

As an atheist let me just say that I too find blind dogmatic adherence to any position to be a little disturbing. I sometimes hear the phrase "you'll never convince me" and that's troubling.

May I suggest that you be careful when utilizing generalizations in your conversation. A-Theism, which literally means Not Theist is not an affirmative statement that explains anything, especially our existence. Hitchens has stated that he is an "anti-theist" which is a much different thing. I suspect you are grouping the 2 things together.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2010 05:30PM by rj.

rj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL, well perhaps I should link a youtube video in
> which both of these individuals discuss Mormonism
> and perhaps you'd like them more.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Etownp_Rmw
>
> As an atheist let me just say that I too find
> blind dogmatic adherence to any position to be a
> little disturbing. I sometimes hear the phrase
> "you'll never convince me" and that's troubling.
>
> May I suggest that you be careful when utilizing
> generalizations in your conversation. A-Theism,
> which literally means Not Theist is not an
> affirmative statement that explains anything,
> especially our existence. Hitchens has stated that
> he is an "anti-theist" which is a much different
> thing. I suspect you are grouping the 2 things
> together.

If that was meant for me, I know what he says and I stand by what I said. He is right about some things, but I don't like his bigotry or his simplistic views of religion or history.It seems to me that he is a part of the problem. I see the problem as intolerance, not religion per se. Religion can be intolerant and so can Dawkins etc regardless of what they choose to call themselves.Intolerance is bad regardless of who is being intolerant.Sorry, I just saw that this was for Badger, not me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2010 05:33PM by bona dea.

Intolerance certainly is NOT bad in every situation. We should all agree it's okay, and in fact morally preferable, to be intolerant of slavery, of child rape, of murder, of patriarchy, and so on. We should be intolerant of those who promulgate such atrocities. Atheists simply believe that theist religions and religionists have much to answer for regarding ALL of those abhorrent things and more, and that religion has therefore worn out its claim for us to tolerate it. Some things are simply intolerable.

Of course, we certainly should demand respect and dignity in discourse, but that's not the same thing as tolerating what we see as a prominent social ill.

Res Ipsa Loquitur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Intolerance certainly is NOT bad in every
> situation. We should all agree it's okay, and in
> fact morally preferable, to be intolerant of
> slavery, of child rape, of murder, of patriarchy,
> and so on. We should be intolerant of those who
> promulgate such atrocities. Atheists simply
> believe that theist religions and religionists
> have much to answer for regarding ALL of those
> abhorrent things and more, and that religion has
> therefore worn out its claim for us to tolerate
> it. Some things are simply intolerable.
>
> Of course, we certainly should demand respect and
> dignity in discourse, but that's not the same
> thing as tolerating what we see as a prominent

> social ill.

Intolerance of views that are not harming you is bad and that is what I meant. I have no problem with being intolerant of people who want to teach creationism in public schools or bomb buildings for instance, but many religious people do not want to do either, but our atheists friends are still intolerant of them.They tend to paint all religion with the same brush and I find that annoying and stupid.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2010 08:18PM by bona dea.

rj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (In response to Badger)
>
> LOL, well perhaps I should link a youtube video in
> which both of these individuals discuss Mormonism
> and perhaps you'd like them more.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Etownp_Rmw
>
> As an atheist let me just say that I too find
> blind dogmatic adherence to any position to be a
> little disturbing. I sometimes hear the phrase
> "you'll never convince me" and that's troubling.
>
> May I suggest that you be careful when utilizing
> generalizations in your conversation. A-Theism,
> which literally means Not Theist is not an
> affirmative statement that explains anything,
> especially our existence. Hitchens has stated that
> he is an "anti-theist" which is a much different
> thing. I suspect you are grouping the 2 things
> together.


Quack.
Waddle.
Duck Stink.

Yeah, it's a duck, even if that is a generalization!

Hitchens has very cogent things to say about mormonism -- and about religion, cults,"isms" and human nature. Therefore, he is certainly relevant to this board.

Even if he had not written specifically about mormonism, he would be relevant because anyone with that much experience in describing and visiting totalitarian regimes can provide some much-needed perspective to those recovering from mormonism.

Excerpts from an article by Hitchens:
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—hereafter known as the Mormons—was founded by a gifted opportunist who, despite couching his text in openly plagiarized Christian terms, announced that "I shall be to this generation a new Muhammad" and adopted as his fighting slogan the words, which he thought he had learned from Islam, "Either the Al-Koran or the sword." He was too ignorant to know that if you use the word al you do not need another definite article, but then he did resemble Muhammad in being able only to make a borrowing out of other people's bibles.

"In March 1826 a court in Bainbridge, New York, convicted a twenty-one-year-old man of being "a disorderly person and an impostor." That ought to have been all we ever heard of Joseph Smith, who at trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad gold-digging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers. However, within four years he was back in the local newspapers (all of which one may still read) as the discoverer of the "Book of Mormon." He had two huge local advantages which most mountebanks and charlatans do not possess. First, he was operating in the same hectically pious district that gave us the Shakers and several other self-proclaimed American prophets. So notorious did this local tendency become that the region became known as the "Burned-Over District," in honor of the way in which it had surrendered to one religious craze after another. Second, he was operating in an area which, unlike large tracts of the newly opening North America, did possess the signs of an ancient history.

"A vanished and vanquished Indian civilization had bequeathed a considerable number of burial mounds, which when randomly and amateurishly desecrated were found to contain not merely bones but also quite advanced artifacts of stone, copper, and beaten silver. There were eight of these sites within twelve miles of the underperforming farm which the Smith family called home. There were two equally stupid schools or factions who took a fascinated interest in such matters: the first were the gold-diggers and treasure-diviners who brought their magic sticks and crystals and stuffed toads to bear in the search for lucre, and the second those who hoped to find the resting place of a lost tribe of Israel. Smith's cleverness was to be a member of both groups, and to unite cupidity with half-baked anthropology.

"The actual story of the imposture is almost embarrassing to read, and almost embarrassingly easy to uncover...."

Link to complete text of this article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/

I don't agree with everything Hitchens writes. I certainly don't worship him as either a man, an icon, or a representative of any supposed "movement" or "pop culture."

I don't find Dawkins to be smug. I think he is unfailingly polite, even in difficult circumstances. People who expect him to agree with them when they spout nonsense may find him dogged in his responses.

OK, Once More. Valid Point. He's relevant.
Also excellent quotes, thanks for providing those.

In stead of claiming that he's smug I guess I could have said that he's rather sure of himself and sometimes uses words such as "ridiculous" to describe religious belief.

I was merely trying to express understanding about why that might be off-putting in my responses to Badger.

As I said before I love Dawkins. My favorite book of his is "The Greatest Show on Earth"
Very easy to understand for a not so scientific mind such as the one I own.

In reponse to OnceMore, apparently seeking to point out (as a redeeming quality) the fact that Mr. Hitchens sees thorough the mormon facade:

We all know that stuff about mormonism. My dog knows that stuff. My next door neighbor's dog knows that stuff. It is EASY to mock and belittle mormonism because it is so patently absurd. IF we wanted to, we could all write books about the inanity of mormonism.

But Hitchens mocks and belittles the fundamental tenants of Christianity, and with that, I disagree. He is too simplistic, too willing to paint with a broad brush, too willing to just obnoxiously dismiss that with which he disagrees. My view if it is not apparent: Moromonism is just one more of a litany of imposter "Christian" religions that detract people from the fact that Jesus was and is who he claimed to be, God Incarnate.

I have been on a Hitchens and Dawkins kick lately. I downloaded a bunch of podcasts from FORA of their debates and speeches.

Sam Harris is another good one. While incredible smart and articulate, he is a little more housebroken than Hitch and Dawkins. And, he does appreciate the unexplainable, mystical parts of life. He believes in meditation and the pursuit of "spiritual" (for lack of a better word) self-improvement.

AND, Harris is American, which means he does not have the accent of Hitch and Dawkins. I love the English accent, but others find it condescending.

Speaking as the person who "hijacked" that thread......[does two comments out of 19 count as a Hijack?]


SusieP was asking about churches to attend... she is a vacillating christian - a recovering fundie - who seems to want to go to some church out of a need to be 'in a denomination'...... but, you know, there is another option.... you can be a person in your own right without going to some god-botherer assembly and putting your trust in *yet another* guy in a suit.
It is like everyone is saying to her 'don't join this MLM scheme' (the mormons)....... 'but this one looks OK, try them'


like I stated in my comment on that thread.... Mormonism made me an atheist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2010 06:52PM by onceanelder.

I thought there was a more diplomatic way to go about it. You may not have meant anything by it, but she was looking specifically for a Christian church.

Some people still like church after Mormonism, and as an atheist who rarely gets support for my views by the rest of everyone else, I feel like it's important to give respect where it's due.

As long as no one is coming after my views, I'll be more than happy to support a faith that isn't a trap (even though I disagree with the beliefs).

I thought it sounded harsher than what she was asking for.

onceanelder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking as the person who "hijacked" that
> thread......
>
>
> SusieP was asking about churches to attend... she
> is a vacillating christian - a recovering fundie -
> who seems to want to go to some church out of a
> need to be 'in a denomination'...... but, you
> know, there is another option.... you can be a
> person in your own right without going to some
> god-botherer assembly and putting your trust in
> *yet another* guy in a suit.
> It is like everyone is saying to her 'don't join
> this MLM scheme' (the mormons)....... 'but this
> one looks OK, try them'
>
>
> like I stated in my comment on that thread....
> Mormonism made me an atheist.

You also went into what was wrong with religion which smacks of proselytizing. The OP asked for some suggestions for churches, not for a lecture on what is wrong with religion. If you started a thread on atheism, would you like Christians coming on telling you that you need to come to Jesus? I'm betting you wouldn't.It works both ways. Just saying.

I just looked at another thread that was meant to provide suggestions to a Christian for other good churches to attend beside the LDS church.

Anyways, an atheist decided to hijack it and start a diatribe about why religion is silly.

Dick move in my opinion.

I think this is the kind of thing that sets off people like badger John.

Hopefully I wont be lumped in with this type of unbeliever as I think tolerance and understanding is what's called for, not emphasis on differences.

rj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just looked at another thread that was meant to
> provide suggestions to a Christian for other good
> churches to attend beside the LDS church.
>
> Anyways, an atheist decided to hijack it and start
> a diatribe about why religion is silly.
>
> Dick move in my opinion.
>
> I think this is the kind of thing that sets off
> people like badger John.
>
> Hopefully I wont be lumped in with this type of
> unbeliever as I think tolerance and understanding
> is what's called for, not emphasis on differences.

Agreed. I hate that. I hope my not liking the Four Horseman of Atheism isn't taken as hijacking this thread. It wasn't meant that way.

No Bona dea. I didn't think that at all. I've enjoyed your comments.

Other than how much we like the aforementioned writers/atheists I think we see eye to eye on this.

rj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No Bona dea. I didn't think that at all. I've
> enjoyed your comments.
>
> Other than how much we like the aforementioned
> writers/atheists I think we see eye to eye on
> this.

Good, since I have had a lot to say about the atheists who hijack Christian threads. I wouldn't want to be guilty of doing the same thing. I do like some of the things Dawkins et al have to say, but when they start misrepresenting history or giving one sided views, it gets my dander up since history is my field.Dawkins is a brilliant scinetist, but his grasp of history and religion is weak in my estimation.

Ya Bona Dea, I've heard that criticism of Dawkins several times before.

He is after all a retired biology professor and not a historian.

One of the things I liked from Dawkins came from a speech he gave at UC Berkley some time ago. Basically said something along the lines of "Isn't it interesting that children most often have the same religion as their parents and it just always happens to be the 'right' religion."

He later went on to criticize the forced indoctrination of children in which the youth of religious parents are forced to accept the beliefs of their parents.

I really liked his viewpoint on that because it directly related to me, how I was raised, and why I spent 2 years on an LDS mission, gave thousands of dollars in tithing, and basically wasted hundreds of precious hours in church callings that would have been better spent with my wife and kids.

Well, there is no way of preventing parents from passing their beliefs and values down to their kids. That is what parents do although some carry it too far. I don't know what Dawkins plans to do about it and I'm betting he is teaching his atheist views to his kids.There is nothing wrong with discussing the problem but calling it child abuse is a bit ridiculous in most cases, IMHO.

As far as him not being an historian or theologian, then maybe he had better stick to what he knows or do some homework.I'm no scientist, but unlike them, I don't expect people to accept my half baked opinions on science, nor do I write on the subject.I do nnow history and religion and his views are simplistic as are the other three. Many writers and reviewers such as Karen Armstrong have pointed it out.

Quote "I'm betting [Dawkins] is teaching his atheist views to his kids"

Kids are Born as Atheist. Some one else has to teach them about Santa, The Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Jesus, Allah or Unicorns

[edited for spelling]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2010 05:42AM by onceanelder.

onceanelder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quote "I'm betting is teaching his atheist views
> to his kids"
>
> Kids are Born as Atheist. Some one else has to
> teach them about Santa, The Tooth Fairy,
> Leprechauns, Jesus, Allah or Unicorns

Kids are born without dogma but there is evidence that we are hardwired for belief. At any rate, I'm betting Dawkins' kid is quite familiar with his views on religion. I don't see a difference here.


>
>

> Kids are born without dogma but there is evidence
> that we are hardwired for belief.

Kids are wired to believe what their parents or other adults tell them. This is a survival mechanism. Paying attention to, "Don't go near the cave bears, and stay out of the mountain lion's den while you're at it" is useful. The kid doesn't need direct experience to learn to stay away from cave bears.

This survival mechanism is highjacked when kids also believe in Santa Claus because a trusted adult told them Santa was real.

Michael Shermer makes the point that a commonly shared belief also promotes tribal coherence or solidarity -- and that could also contribute to survival.
Here's a relevant article: http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/2010/04/16/why-we-are-hardwired-for-belief-in-god/

Here's a comment made by Sam Harris on October 17th this year:
"I question whether faith-based religion per se has any strong evolutionary roots. There are many other variables that are not in principle religious that are often included with religion, like wanting to build strong communities, the usefulness of ritual, and the imperative of forming beliefs about the way the world works. We notice causal patterns in the word, and we tell ourselves stories about these patterns. We do this in science and in religion. Religion just amounts to bad science, in the end. It’s our most primitive effort to describe our origins and the reasons for why things happen. When you don’t understand the weather, when you don’t understand why crops fail, when you don’t understand the origins of disease, you make up explanations. And this is religion. When you develop a methodology by which these thins can be understood, you rely on honest observation and clear reasoning, and this is science."

Source for Harris interview: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/10/17/sam_harris_interview

Those who want to discuss good or better Christian religions (as opposed to mormonism) will also find some interesting comments Sam Harris in that article. Excerpt:
"I do criticize all religion, but I point out that "religion" is just a word, like "sports." There are many different types of sports, and they don’t necessarily have anything in common. And this same spectrum can be seen among religions. There are religions that are intrinsically peaceful."

OnceMore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Kids are born without dogma but there is
> evidence
> > that we are hardwired for belief.
>
> Kids are wired to believe what their parents or
> other adults tell them. This is a survival
> mechanism. Paying attention to, "Don't go near the
> cave bears, and stay out of the mountain lion's
> den while you're at it" is useful. The kid doesn't
> need direct experience to learn to stay away from
> cave bears.
>
> This survival mechanism is highjacked when kids
> also believe in Santa Claus because a trusted
> adult told them Santa was real.
>
> Michael Shermer makes the point that a commonly
> shared belief also promotes tribal coherence or
> solidarity -- and that could also contribute to
> survival.
> Here's a relevant article:
> http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/2010/04/16/why
> -we-are-hardwired-for-belief-in-god/
>
> Here's a comment made by Sam Harris on October
> 17th this year:
> "I question whether faith-based religion per se
> has any strong evolutionary roots. There are many
> other variables that are not in principle
> religious that are often included with religion,
> like wanting to build strong communities, the
> usefulness of ritual, and the imperative of
> forming beliefs about the way the world works. We
> notice causal patterns in the word, and we tell
> ourselves stories about these patterns. We do this
> in science and in religion. Religion just amounts
> to bad science, in the end. It’s our most
> primitive effort to describe our origins and the
> reasons for why things happen. When you don’t
> understand the weather, when you don’t
> understand why crops fail, when you don’t
> understand the origins of disease, you make up
> explanations. And this is religion. When you
> develop a methodology by which these thins can be
> understood, you rely on honest observation and
> clear reasoning, and this is science."
>
> Source for Harris interview:
> http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/10/17/sam_
> harris_interview
>
> Those who want to discuss good or better Christian
> religions (as opposed to mormonism) will also find
> some interesting comments Sam Harris in that
> article. Excerpt:
> "I do criticize all religion, but I point out that
> "religion" is just a word, like "sports." There
> are many different types of sports, and they
> don’t necessarily have anything in common. And
> this same spectrum can be seen among religions.
> There are religions that are intrinsically
> peaceful."

You might want to read "The God Gene" written by a scientist on the inborn need humans have to believe in some sort of higher power.If people were truly born atheist, why is there so much religion?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2010 01:38PM by bona dea.

I've already stated that I love Hitchens and Dawkins, but you are right about the Hijacking. It shouldn't have happened. I don't think giving a statement about disliking some writers is inappropriate. But it is inappropriate to start flaming people because they do have some views and opinions that are similar to a few writers.

raptorjesus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've already stated that I love Hitchens and
> Dawkins, but you are right about the Hijacking.
> It shouldn't have happened. I don't think giving
> a statement about disliking some writers is
> inappropriate. But it is inappropriate to start
> flaming people because they do have some views and
> opinions that are similar to a few writers.

Agreed and I hope nobody thinks I am doing that. I have no problem with others liking Hitchens and Dawkins. I just hope readers will check their sources and not take everything they say as the ultimate truth. We need to get out our BS detectors when reading them just as we do when reading those we like. Some posters do that and some seem to take everything they say as true.It sounds as if the people in this thread are not accepting every word they write as gospel, but posters in the past have done that-or so it seems.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2010 06:17PM by bona dea.

Geez, talk about the post calling the kettle black.

Bye , MJ. Not going to get into it with you.

And not adult enough to own up to your own bad behavior?

Geez, bona, hijacking a thread to bitch about others hijacking a thread, could your behavior be any more pathetic?

As for "Not going to get into it with you." Of course not, you KNOW you are behaving as bad as the Atheists you are bitching about. At leas you SHOULD know.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2010 08:56PM by MJ.

Dawkins is a weak lover of strawmen.

Hitchens, on the other hand, is pleasantly hyper-literate. There aren't many of them left, alas.

I enjoy both of them to no end. Throw in Harris, Dennett, and PZ Meyers and I am in heaven.

It is sad to see how Hitchens is fading with his cancer.

And yeah “rj”, I teared up when I heard Hitch was sick. Not because he’s sacred in any way but a friend in the “thinking for oneself without deception” business.

I appreciate “bona dea” speaking on this thread. It’s no fun to get no other perspective than what one gets from the choir. I also agree that there is a time for an atheist to interject intelligently on Christian oriented posts but not just to make jabs. Not cool and unnecessary.

So why am I such a fan of the BIG atheists? Because they tell it straight, make me question, show me previously unperceived points of view and don’t ask me to believe just “because I should”. I never got that in Sunday school.

Yeah Hitch and sometimes Hawkins can be right in your face but even when they get up your nostrils they are still telling the truth without demanding or threatening me with supernatural beliefs.

Never have I seen any debate with these guys lose on any point while debating religious apologists, never. All the religionists have are Gods, Demons and Angels and too much gets blamed on these supposed beings.
Atheism is reality first and only supernatural if and when supernatural can be consistently proven. God and his workings should be “self evident”. Since it isn’t then God if real, can’t blame any human for not believing.

I don’t worship them as much as I hyper appreciate them as fellow humans for informing me about the other side of the rock that I was told by religion not to look at. All my life I was told not to look at the other side of the rock because it was “scary green” and if I saw it I would slide down into darkness via demonic or Satanic deceptions.

Well the other side of the rock is every color of the rainbow, and there are no supernatural beings with any agendas. Nothing here but us humans and billions of other forms of life on this planet. I will continue to side with humans that don’t try to tell me in supposed loving yet insidious ways, that supernatural beings of any kind are real and I need to watch out for, pay heed to, or worship them.

I do like some of the Ancient Hindu tales - always found them vastly superior to anything that started out in the Holy Land

Mormonism cured me of believing in Christianity or any other Abrahamic religion. It got me to thinking critically about the validity of the Bible itself (who wrote it, who decided the books to be in it?).

Nevertheless, I am not an atheist but I can say I am an agnostic. I just don't know. It is not copout. I have had experiences that make me think that "there is something" but I don't know what it is. However, one cannot prove whether Jesus actually existed or whether the miracles performed did. I take my solace from reading Hitchens but also find comfort in gentle Buddhist teachings, even Sufi teachings. Philosophy does more for me than Christianity as it forces me to contemplate about the meaning of life.

However, if people want to believe in Jesus, or Thor or Ishtar, go for it. As long as no one is hurt in the process, each to his or her own.

Sam Harris, too.

Here is a little recent offering by Richard Dawkins. It's his "welcome" to Pope Benedict during the pontiff's recent visit to the UK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBHqGHxBJRs

It was nice to hear some people express views similar to mine, but since they were not saying much that I did not really know, I don't feel the need to read much of either.

Sam Harris is the one I have read the most.

Do I agree with everything they do and say? Absolutely not. That would be ridiculous and uneducated. But atheists are still so stigmatized and discriminated against. Men like these take the stances that people like me need. It gives me hope that "Good without God" will become more accepted.

I can already see a lot of changes in my generation, but it's taking time.

Personally, I have a soft spot for Hitchens. But I also love Dawkins and his immense knowledge and understanding of evolution. I wish I understood it as deeply as he did.

I'll admit it; I have nerd crushes on them =).

Dawkins is quite eloquent. Hitchens can be abrasive, but I love it. Harris is logical and reasonable. Dennet is my least favorite.

It is quite sad about Hitchen's cancer. I have loved his debates. He has quite the wit.

libby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dawkins is quite eloquent. Hitchens can be
> abrasive, but I love it. Harris is logical and
> reasonable. Dennet is my least favorite.
>
> It is quite sad about Hitchen's cancer. I have
> loved his debates. He has quite the wit.

I find Harris's anti Islamic comments pretty abrasive. He acts as though all Muslims are terrorists or at least supporters of terrorism.

My opinions of them change over time. Hitchens' book Hitch 22 enforces my view that he is one of the most elegant writers I have ever read- right up there with Gore Vidal. He can turn a phrase. I don't really think of him as a academic intellectual though, like I do Dawkins. Hitch was an idealist political journalist type. Reading about his life gives me an idea about why he feels as he does about current political situations (war, Islam, etc.). He should be read just for the pure joy of seeing someone use language. He's incredible. He has lived a fascinating life.

Dawkins is also eloquent but in a different way. This guy is an educator in biology. His Greatest Show on Earth is hands down one of the most important books for the layperson to read about evolution. If anyone can put that book down and not understand evolution I say it is out of sheer willful ignorance. He is extremely intelligent and learned. I respect him for not catering to the people who don't like the important confrontation and refutation he presents to people who hinder public education of biology.

Both Hitchens and Dawkins present their topics extremely well. People who complain about them should be grateful they would never have to compete in an arena of reason with either Hitchens or Dawkins.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My opinions of them change over time. Hitchens'
> book Hitch 22 enforces my view that he is one of
> the most elegant writers I have ever read- right
> up there with Gore Vidal. He can turn a phrase. I
> don't really think of him as a academic
> intellectual though, like I do Dawkins. Hitch was
> an idealist political journalist type. Reading
> about his life gives me an idea about why he feels
> as he does about current political situations
> (war, Islam, etc.). He should be read just for the
> pure joy of seeing someone use language. He's
> incredible. He has lived a fascinating life.
>
> Dawkins is also eloquent but in a different way.
> This guy is an educator in biology. His Greatest
> Show on Earth is hands down one of the most
> important books for the layperson to read about
> evolution. If anyone can put that book down and
> not understand evolution I say it is out of sheer
> willful ignorance. He is extremely intelligent and
> learned. I respect him for not catering to the
> people who don't like the important confrontation
> and refutation he presents to people who hinder
> public education of biology.
>
> Both Hitchens and Dawkins present their topics
> extremely well. People who complain about them
> should be grateful they would never have to
> compete in an arena of reason with either Hitchens
> or Dawkins.

It wouldn't be hard for an historian to refute some of their points. In fact, it has been done.

I've read a one book each for those two authors. I liked the books but don't think I'll bother reading any more. In my case both authors are singing to the choir so to speak.

I guess if I was a famous atheist I'd see the need to write books about it but since I'm not famous...Hell most people don't even know I'm an atheist. I'm just that guy who never goes to church.