User Tag List

First 1422232425 Last

Results 231 to 240 of 244

  1. #231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    I hadn't even considered it from that angle. I was coming at it more from the angle that it is extremely absurd to propose that people should only engage in activities that reflect an empirically verifiable reality.


    1. We don't always have all the facts in life.
    2. Facts can sometimes be changed.
    3. Creativity and imagination can be an intense source of pleasure, and I don't see why that should be denied to people for the sake of molding them to some bullshit political agenda.


    Regardless of what Dawkins was actually saying, this quote is another reason why, despite my atheistic leanings, I prefer apatheism and secularism to Dawkin's antitheism.
    There's atheism and atheism, I'd recommend you consider Erich Fromm, he doesnt like the atheist label much from what I can tell though, prefering non-theist, and I'm not actually clear as to what he thinks about belief systems which posit after lives or reincarnation but dont believe in eternity or Gods, he definitely doesnt believe in the later. He has said that for those who believe in an afterlife that it must be so different from this life as to provide compelling reasons that this life and questions about it, ie ethics, sociology, psychology, be prioritised while living it.

    I have never heard of this apatheism, is that a typo or a real thing? Were you going to right pantheism or something like that? Or was it a reference to apathy?

    One of the things which I find mildly amusing is the fact that I heard AC Grayling recently say, in relation to Einstein, that naturalism, pantheism, all sorts of seperate creedos were all fine so long as they werent theism, I was sort of amused by how it didnt appear how mistaken you were so long as you werent mistaken about the existence of a deity.

  2. #232
    your resident asshole
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleda View Post
    That's disappointing.
    Not really. If you read the article, he doesn't actually say he disproves of anti-scientific literature. Rather, he is simply wondering how it affects people. They are putting words in his mouth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I have never heard of this apatheism, is that a typo or a real thing? Were you going to right pantheism or something like that? Or was it a reference to apathy?
    An apatheist simply doesn't care whether or not a deity exists.

  3. #233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyGeek View Post
    Not really. If you read the article, he doesn't actually say he disproves of anti-scientific literature. Rather, he is simply wondering how it affects people. They are putting words in his mouth.


    An apatheist simply doesn't care whether or not a deity exists.
    Yeah, I figured, I think this is likely the oldest religion there is and God is probably used to it by now.

  4. #234
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,037

    Default

    That description of apatheism is spot on.

    I look at apatheism as an umbrella term. An apatheist could also be a pantheist (like me) or an atheist or a theist.

    Mostly, the term apatheist is relevant in opposition to an antitheist. An antitheist is someone who is against religion in every instance, and believes the world would be a better place if religion didn't exist. This is someone like Dawkins or Hitchens (who are atheists, but also antitheists).

    Apatheism says, "Woah guys, maybe religion didn't cause every problem humanity is facing right now, and maybe there are some issues that might be more important than metaphysics."

    I am not an antitheist, because I think if you got rid of religion, you wouldn't be getting rid of fundamentalism (and not all religious people are fundamentalists, anyway). There would just be another kind of fundamentalism to replace religious fundamentalism, like Marxist fundamentlism or Dawkiniist fundamentalism.

    Perhaps it's possible to create a society free from fundamentalist, but you're going to need to get there through an understanding of human psycholgy.

    And, unfortunately, by and large, antitheists seem uninterested in human psychology, and seem to have given little thought as to what religion is going to be replaced with. Ask an antitheist why people believe in religion, and they will almost never go any deeper than "it's a delusion for fools."

    That answer isn't good enough for me. All that tells me is that the speaker believes themselves more intelligent than people that believe in religion, and I'd prefer some other measure of intelligence other than self-assessment. Obviously, religion is attractive to a lot of people, or it wouldn't still be around. It seems to me that it might be beneficial for opponents of religious fundamentalism to investigate that, but all I get from the antitheists is: "It's a mental illness."
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  5. #235
    Rainy Day Woman MDP2525's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    One similarity I've noticed in both sides is that they tend to be almost Puritanical about how they treat specific goods. Hardcore Fundies also advise against Harry Potter or any form of media that could possibly be interpreted as an affront against their worldview. Both tend to dismiss psychology as a means of explaining the abuse of certain things like Harry Potter because it's either not a hard enough science or because it's not explicitly mentioned in the Bible or the Q'ran.
    Yeah. I've always rolled my eyes at the "witchcraft" comments from churches and now I'm doing the same with the Dawkins supporters.

    Very telling.
    ~luck favors the ready~


    Shameless Self-Promotion:MDP2525's Den and the Start of Motorcycle Maintenance

  6. #236
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    that guy is a retard.

    and about this quote; "Looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious effect on rationality, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's something for research.".

    personally i think this sort of stories are very important to people, this exact story teaches people that looks arent what really matters and that often its the not so pretty people who more often are the "princes" and thus its not good to judge potential mates just purely on their looks. but ofc that idiot doesent understand metaphors and the importance of telling this sort of metaphors to children when their brains are still developing. ofc he sees a possibility of this effecting kids, but since the guy is obviously afraid of the world(thus tries to over rationalize it), he can only see the possibility that if this sort of stories has effects on kids, it has to be a negative effect.

    imo someone should go shoot that idiot so that he would stop talking this sort of shit
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  7. #237
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkgraffiti View Post
    From an evolutionary biologist's point of view, I find Richard Dawkins too close minded, not only regarding religion, but also on the other side, regarding other evolutionists. His 'selfish gene' theory is interesting and true in a way, but he won't open up to the other 'side', ie the theory of cooperation and symbiosis proposed by Margulis. He's also stuck in a tree-like pattern for the evolution of life on earth, and doesn't accept, consider or even begin to understand the newer vision (which has been around since at least 1995) that there isn't a tree but a web of life. He's just a sad old fart in my eyes.
    From a sociologist's point of view, I'm fed up with memetics, troubled by some of the evolutionary psychology positions he takes, and a bit irritated by his flat refusal to consider group selection.

    There have been other things he has said here and there, like saying philosophers were essentially not useful, that tend to make me think that his mind is like a blunt instrument.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #238
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Well Richard Dawkins is a Te douche, who's like, "lolol you iz gotz none imperical evadensez yous aint scientifical!"

  9. #239
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    3,090

    Default

    I am one to beleive that people who think reason alone is the only path to progress hold retrograde viewpoints.

  10. #240
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    The "sorcery" of today will be the science of tomorrow!

Similar Threads

  1. Type Mike Using Any System based off of Quote and Picture
    By Mal12345 in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-11-2017, 10:35 PM
  2. "Root of All Evil?" doco by Richard Dawkins
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-29-2015, 08:39 AM
  3. Who else disapproves of Uberfuhrer's previous new avatar?
    By Athenian200 in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 10-11-2007, 11:52 AM
  4. The Enemies of Reason by Richard Dawkins
    By Sahara in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-20-2007, 12:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO