by cedars 16 Replies latest jw friends
I obviously don't agree with everything that's said (especially when Gervais talks about Agnostics!), but it's an intriguing discussion between two clever people, and some mostly good reasoning on display.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd92qy2ZmV0
Cedars
Dawkins is intelligent, clever and an excellent writer.
He is also dishonest and has little or no respect for others as to contrary opinion. "Free for me but not for thee", sums it up, I think.
To the extent that such influences his work, each must judge for himself. I do not disagree with many of his conclusions about God or evolution.
metatron
Marking to watch later thanks.
Metatron I'm very surprised to see you call Dawkins dishonest. Why do you say that?
Some interesting points. Curious they chose a church for this discussion. Dawkins was pretty much a prop as Gervais did most of the talking.
I didn't sense it from Dawkins in this piece, but Garvais generally demonstrated an underlying lack of respect for those that differ from his point of view. Although he did make an important distinction between spirituality and religion.
Certainly, it goes without saying that many--maybe even the majority--of theists are disrespectful of atheists.
I'm wondering why there is so much animosity between these two philosophical belief systems. The answer to that question probably reveals some fundamental truths about human nature.
Perhaps it's more of a reflection of where I am on my personal journey of discovery concerning this issue, but I'm done with people that are dismissive and intolerant of others that are trying to figure it out. That being said, I certainly make the important distinction between those that are trying to come to some understanding and those that think they got it all down.
I do enjoy discussing things with people that are seeking. It's those that are sure they've found it that are usually intolerable. Oddly, it doesn't seem to matter WHAT it is that they think they've found, it's more the arrogant attitude that seems to come with that particular type of territory no matter in what area of belief-land it happens to be located.
00DAD
There was a debate last night. D'Souza, Shermer, Hutchson and Krauss. An atheist family member texted me as it was starting and I caught much of the live stream. The subject was "Does Science Refute God?" The debate was all over the map, on too many subjects rather than the principle one. It wasn't very good for that reason. However, everyone was decent and respectful towards one another, which is excellent.
Dawkins looks like he has 5 pounds of makeup on his face.
I'm wondering why there is so much animosity between these two philosophical belief systems. . . . 00DAD
I believe Gervais answered that from the Atheist perspective early in the discussion (the comment on killing homosexuals). When you focus on the damaging features of religion in general . . . it's easy to become passionately disgusted with a lot of it on moral grounds. The animosity is entirely understandable, because the existence of one threatens the other . . . but for entirely different reasons. It's those differing reasons which are most telling IMO.
Incidentally, they are not "two philosophical belief systems" . . . a false dichotomy. One is a philosophical belief system(s), the other is a rejection of it. There is no "belief system" attached to Atheism, only what is known and what isn't . . . and there's plenty of both.
It sounds like the same old, same old to me. I don't mean to be confrontational or anything, but it did occur to me when watching.
'our way is the right way', 'they can't enjoy or appreciate life or art as much as we can', 'if they thought about it some more, they might come to know what we know,' etc.
I am happy that they both are happy in their lives, and that they can appreciate life and all it has to offer. Gervais does look and sound like a really enthusiastic guy, lol.
But no one can say that another person does not appreciate something as much as they can, simply because of their belief (or non-belief)
Peace,
tammy
Oh, but I do have to say that i agree with Gervais on the free will issue. If we didn't have it, there would be nothing we could do about it, lol.
But nowhere in society would people say that means we aren't responsible and should not be held accountable for what we do. As far as we know, we have free will, and our choices are our own.
Peace,
tammy
Metatron, you said Dawkins is dishonest. I've heard him being accused of many things but dishonesty? That's a new one to me. Can you give instances?
