Dawkins on piss



So how about making known your personal viewpoint? A cutsie collage and a quote from Dawkins is meaningless. If you don’t like what he says, then say so, and say why. Give people something to work with besides inane BS. You’re the one taking the piss.


Fourthed. Wait, oh damn.

Thirded. (just for the sake of having all the numbers here)
I don’t know that much about Dawkins except that I think he’s an atheist right? I usually judge a philosopher based on the actions of his fans. Most Dawkins fans that I’ve encountered I haven’t been impressed by. That’s not to say that there aren’t some impressive ones out there. I don’t know what I’m even saying. Yeah…

Chuck out the memes, and the atheism, and Dawkins ideas are the best of the last century. Er, well, mmm - in the philosophic sphere anyway.

I’ve been reading this guy named David Lewis who’s one of those extremley picky metaphysics types. I think he was around in the last century. To me most religious philosophy seems more like social commentary or propaganda. That’s just my opinion though. Chances are if I were to read Dawkins I’d finish knowing what his opinion is. But when I finsih reading Lewis I have to start reconciling my contradictions immediatley just so I can get ready to read some more. That’s what I like. Something that’s actually thought provoking. Too bad there isn’t a mass appeal for that kind of stuff because most people are just looking to justify their angst or validate their emotions these days.

I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of atheists aren’t atheists because they reasoned their way to that conclusion. They’re probably just pissed at their parents, or they feel like they’ve been done wrong by society. Don’t they know they’d be better off with better books?

note: To all the true, devout atheists out there, i apologize for my generalizations. If that’s not you, then I’m not talking about you.

Sorry Scott, but what has the Selfish Gene and evolution in general, got to do with God, or religion…? It’s not so much they intersect or contradict, but that they walk by eachother without even doffing thier caps.

What is this…?

Dawkins is an atheist - ergo - he’s an asshole - ergo - his ideas are wrong…?

Turing was a homo, were his ideas about AI fucked because of this…?

I presume you mean (googling ferociously)

I mean, okay, he’s prolly velly clever but what has he done for me lately…? I mean jeeze, they use evolutionary principles to optimize search-engine software these days… Can David come over and fix my TV…?

Perhaps you should, then perhaps you’d also notice he doesn’t have, or indeed, need one.

I am not too convinced Dawkins has contributed or argued anything well, merely politicized his viewpoint. His idea of memes is flawed and his arguments for atheism are either uncompelling or have a poor basis to begin with.

I accept atheist arguments, indeed some people (Mackie for example) posit very critical judgements of theism in general (and usually Christianity in specific). But for what Dawkins argues he doesn’t do it very well.

All I know about him is that people who like him also like Ayn Rand. And she’s not even a philosopher. Just a rhetoritician. I guess I don’t like him for the same reason that I don’t like the band Phish. Because the fans are just too far gone to communicate with. The whole atheism/theism debate can be for the most part set aside as a content descrepancy between two equally opposed logical forms. Once you do that, it’s boring and doesn’t even resemble philosophy at all anymore. Just rhetoric. Mental masturbation.

Seems they aren’t the ony ones, I’m certainly having trouble communicating with you. Sorry, am I interrupting your generalizations or something…? I do apologise.

Tell me then how atheists differ from theists then in a content neutral sense. If there’s a real distinction aside from the rhetorical one, I’d love to know all about it.



Smears replies -

Although I’ve already said:


Prior. :astonished:

Er. Duh.

And I agree, there is no abstract difference, sans God, between theism, and atheisim. Both are matters of belief. But shit, everyone knows that.

Wow. I didn’t know Lewis was “widely considered the leading figure in analytic philosophy”. I just thought we were having to read him because he knew my professor!! CRAZY!!!

In the field of analytic philosophy I daresay the definition of “widely considered” means “more than two people think so”.

Back to the meta-discussion. :evilfun:


Can you see the futility of discussing the positions taken by someone you haven’t read? It isn’t that you can’t have an opinion, this is afterall, Mundane Babble, but there is much more to Dawkins than what has been discussed here, and very little of it has to do with theist-atheist arguments.

That was my bitch. An OP dissing Dawkins without the first clue. Taking a statement out of context is too easy. Even in Mundane, there ought to be enough responsibility taken to at least share your own thoughts and why you think what you think. But heaven forbid, that might invite people to disagree with you, and no one wants that! :unamused:


Do we need a Dawkins thread started in a suitable forum? There have been a few, but it seems to me that a basic grounding in Dawkins work is needed to keep people from talking past each other.

Which only leaves about 10 or 12 analytic philosophers alive :p.

And tentative, please create that thread. We need to give Dawkins a clear looking at.

B C,

Another thread on Dawkins… I’ll leave that to Tab. He is much better versed than I am on Mr. Dawkins. Actually, I hate Dawkins, not because he is wrong, but because I think he is probably right. As it stands now, the jury is still out, because there is too much we don’t know, but for anyone who ever thought that science has any credibilty, Dawkins presents a compelling perspective, and the continued research he and others are engaged in says that eventually…


Are you up for a Reader’s Digest version of Dawkins? I’ll help, but we need some firm grounding before asking for comments, and you know how shaky my swamp is… :wink: