if i pay nevermore out of my own pocket will they play a show in san diego?
- Thread starter Pitiless Wanderer
- Start date
derek
Grey Eminence
Brooks
Eyes Wide Open
hey brooks have you read athiest texts like the god delusion, god is not great, breaking the spell, god: the failed hypothesis, etc...? maybe you recognize the quote under my username...?
derek
Grey Eminence
why, because he makes religious fanatics feel uncomfortable with his intellectual prowess and demonstrable examples of how a diety is highly unlikely?
if you're religious then yes, dont read dawkins.
if you're religious then yes, dont read dawkins.
derek
Grey Eminence
Nope, because he's a zealot. He may be an exceptionally clear thinker, but he's often as pompous and one directional as the people he criticises. Philosophically he's on firm ground at times, and into the realms of ignorance at others.
He enjoys the same leaps of faith as those he detests (it is indeed personal for him), only in reverse. The concept of God, Tao or any other such idea is not as easily rejected as he'd like. Whereas religious zealots make the leap from there to our God, he makes it in reverse to no God. The move is just as fallacious.
He has a clearly defined understanding of Science that is somewhat misleading. Philosophy of Science can demonstrate holes in the modern conception of science. In many ways it has become an altar to worship, just as deities have been. One of the great tasks we have in such a technologically and scientifically driven age is realising what science cannot do.
He also enjoys the fact that his ideas appeal naturally to people and thus they happily believe everything he has to say.
He enjoys the same leaps of faith as those he detests (it is indeed personal for him), only in reverse. The concept of God, Tao or any other such idea is not as easily rejected as he'd like. Whereas religious zealots make the leap from there to our God, he makes it in reverse to no God. The move is just as fallacious.
He has a clearly defined understanding of Science that is somewhat misleading. Philosophy of Science can demonstrate holes in the modern conception of science. In many ways it has become an altar to worship, just as deities have been. One of the great tasks we have in such a technologically and scientifically driven age is realising what science cannot do.
He also enjoys the fact that his ideas appeal naturally to people and thus they happily believe everything he has to say.
Anvil
Brain Bubbled
- Jun 2, 2004
- 8,381
- 37
- 48
but why should that constitute to one's dismissal of his work?
and just out of curiosity, where do you find him ignorant ie, what specific points he makes?
i do agree he can come off as very pompous at times.
derek
Grey Eminence
I updated my original post.
Also, I wouldn't dismiss his work off hand. My main concern is that people read him and believe him, because they have a natural predisposition to do so. That dynamic is almost exactly the same as believing the content of the Bible because you happen to be a Christian. Considering that he's the Chair for the public understanding of science at Oxford, he'd do well to realise that he's propagating his understanding of science more than anything.
Also, I wouldn't dismiss his work off hand. My main concern is that people read him and believe him, because they have a natural predisposition to do so. That dynamic is almost exactly the same as believing the content of the Bible because you happen to be a Christian. Considering that he's the Chair for the public understanding of science at Oxford, he'd do well to realise that he's propagating his understanding of science more than anything.
My friend, I am not a Dawkins apologist, but I think you should read (or re-read) his books and listen to some debates and lectures he has done, which can be found on youtube.
Not correct. He never actually has said that God doesn't exist (in the same way, as he puts it, that you cannot say unequivically that fairys don't exist). No one can be 100% sure. And his point of is simply that scientifically proven evidence drives his opinion that a supernatural dictator is highly unlikely. It is not faith. It you want to call it faith go ahead, but at the very least concede that it's "faith" driven by evidence, as opposed to the religious fanatics who say that God absolutely exists, evolution isn't real, and the bible is the word of God without any truly hard evidence. So, there is no fallacy because his claims are backed by raw evidence. After all, if there was any definitive proof of god, the term "faith" would not be needed.
Ok, so what is your point? I am sure he would agree with me in saying that just because there are things that science has yet to prove does not mean that it cannot or will not in the future, but more importantly does not give any reason to make that huge leap to a supernatural diety.
Are you joking? Over half of americans don't believe in evolution. His ideas are completely contrarian. You could easily make the case that religion appeals more naturally to our species than accepting evolution as a fact (as obvious as it may seem).
derek
Grey Eminence
I've read him to a fault. I've met him too. I really have little interest in going back to him.
As for his leap from the evidence to no God, it's a matter of definition. I believe he has a faith in science, you don't. There we are.
Even the idea that science can assuredly explain away everything is part of the problem.
Those half of Americans you speak of don't buy his book. Atheists do because he can articulate their beliefs in a more intelligible way than most of them can.
As for his leap from the evidence to no God, it's a matter of definition. I believe he has a faith in science, you don't. There we are.
Even the idea that science can assuredly explain away everything is part of the problem.
Those half of Americans you speak of don't buy his book. Atheists do because he can articulate their beliefs in a more intelligible way than most of them can.
yes, but you would be surprised by how many religious people have read Dawkins and still don't believe a word he has to say.
good discussion though.
thread back on track ...
good discussion though.
thread back on track ...
derek
Grey Eminence
Well he's an appeal to rationality over faith, but he knows he's preaching to the converted, I think.
Yep, back on track.
Thoughts on the thread topic: I have no idea. Bands in our genre tend to play for love of the music, but tours are often organised with economic considerations. If it was financially viable then I'm not sure you couldn't do it.
I couldn't even fathom the kinda money involved though.
Yep, back on track.
Thoughts on the thread topic: I have no idea. Bands in our genre tend to play for love of the music, but tours are often organised with economic considerations. If it was financially viable then I'm not sure you couldn't do it.
I couldn't even fathom the kinda money involved though.
slashvanyoung
Dopefish lives!
If it's well organized/promoted, financially tempting and not conflicting any schedules... why wouldn't they?
WhiteBeastofWotan
Apostitutes!
derek
Grey Eminence
See now I'm not sure them playing your wedding is the kind of thing a professional band would be interested in. Organising a show is different from having them play a function for you.
stefan86
invariably off-topic
EricT
Don't you ever get...
For a one off in the US? I'd probably say around 20k, probably higher. Not including venue expenses.
Similar threads
