|
workingclassbum (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
You've misunderstood my comment. I didn't say Athiesm is a myth I know it isn't because I am one! The point I was making was the idea of a new radical athiest uprising is myth as athiests have been around for decades now. It's just they are getting more attention as are all religious issues due to 9/11 and Bush's "crusade" to bring God to the whitehouse.
glitchesandglitter (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
i did a quick search of francis collins and cross searched his name with genesis. he actually wrote about his belief on the subject in his book entitled "the language of god." Here's one of the things that he had to say, Unquestionably the language is poetic. the site i actually discovered the information on was a christian site that was critisizing collin's book. for it's bias against creationists and pro evolution ideas. bill must have been ill informed or just being facetious.
brokennarcissist (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Call a foul? Its irrational to try to make sense of faith for reason. Read Kirkegaard. Faith in God is an existential choice. Biology is incapable of denying that reality.So the rallies, fylers put up around town, 'debates', etc... aren't evidence of a movement? I don't take issue with atheism (being one myself) however the new atheist movement is a disturbing for many reasons. Your making an assumption about my prior comment. I could care less who reads a particular text qua books.
sem1conscious (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
You confuse me when you express atheism to be a myth when you've expressed religion to be irrational.Are you religious? If so, do you acknowledge that religion is irrational therefore increasing your own faith to that degree by believing in the unbelievable?
workingclassbum (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
As you just said faith is not described as rational. You can't throw your arms in the air and call foul when someone points it out!Frankly this whole atheist movement is a myth. Atheists have been around for years its just with the growth of the internet and other forms of communication they've just become far more vocal. Your comment makes the assumption its only athiests who would want to read Dawkins. You don't need to be a nazi to read Mein Kamf or a Christian to read the bible.
brokennarcissist (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Science produces and evaluates its own objects. God isn't one of those objects. Dawkins misrepresents faith when he pronounces religious followers as irrational. No one claims that faith is rational. Perhaps I'm overstating the point by calling the book itself inflammatory, however Dawkins has become an idol of the new atheist movement which does constantly engage contrived conflict to troll religious vocabularies.
workingclassbum (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
I repsect your views on Dawkins in terms of his knowledge of religion and philsophy and would tend to agree with you. But frankly the examples he tackles in the book can only be described as swallow.He makes it quite cler that he attacks the existance of God from a scientific stand point. Of which his opinon I tend to respect."It attacks religious identity and hence inflammatory."For someone who would seems to be a well read individual you must see the flawed logic in so that.
brokennarcissist (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
I respect Dawkins as a biologist. In the field of philosphy and/or religious studies he's irrelevant. The God delusion is a work for popular culture because the arguments in the book are rather shallow. They would not be taken seriously under the scrutinty of academic rigor. I understand that he is an accomplished biologist however God isn't an object of science. Only a fundamentalist would treat God as one. The appeal of the book is that it attacks religious identity and hence inflammatory.
workingclassbum (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Have you even read it? It's really not inflammatory in fact it is a well reasoned argument backed up with evidence. You do know he's a professor of biology at Oxford right? It's acually impossible to be a professor without being published in an academic journal. He was a popular biologist long before his books on religion were written.
SprattyD (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
im actually reading that book at the moment, very interesting read |
