10/19/09

Richard Dawkins’ Positive Atheism

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

20 comments:

  1. mmcelhaneyOctober 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM

    They really need to find another champion...oh wait, the position is indefensible. Atheism is truly dead...now we need to bury it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 19, 2009 at 1:31 PM

    Amen!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousOctober 20, 2009 at 2:40 AM

    So what if Dawkins can't put a percentage on his belief in the non-existence of God? And so what if he agreed with 99 percent then said it could be 97? His position (not particularly here, but generally) is that belief in something that is difficult to quantify. Can anyone be 100 percent certain of anything? The insides of my hand could be made of cheese but I'm pretty certain it's flesh in there. Am I certain: no. How can anyone ever be 100 percent certain of anything? Could I put a percentage on how certain I am? Possible 99, 95, 97 percent, but it's a ridiculous thing to try and do. Even if I opened my hand up and saw flesh inside I couldn't be certain as my eyes could be lying to me. Richard Dawkins states in the interview he isn't comfortable putting a percentage figure on his belief in the non-existence of God. I don't see how he is contradicting himself when he says he could be 97 or 99 percent sure - it's a difficult thing to quantify, as he states. That's his point. He says he "GUESSES 99 percent". He certainly isn't committing himself to that answer.

    "I must state that there is nothing more refreshing than when an atheists gets tired of defining atheism as a “lack of belief in god(s)” and just comes right out and affirms their positive affirmation of God’s non-existence (the fact that when challenged they scurry back into the lack of fold notwithstanding)."

    Surely a lack of belief in gods is virtually the same as not believing in gods (linguistic opportunism maybe. Or very relativist)? Also you should lose the "an".

    As for whether Francis Collins is smart - minds can change.

    And apologies for any spelling and grammar mistakes in this post.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousOctober 21, 2009 at 2:02 AM

    This kind of browbeating over a percentage is ridiculous and proves nothing at all. How certain are you that an egg will break if you drop it a few feet onto a hard floor? The evidence is pretty convincing, to the point of near certainty, but it is just possible that the egg will survive.

    Extending this analogy, an atheist says he does not believe the egg will survive: previous observations are against it, but it might. A theist says the egg will bounce. Not that he believes it might bounce, but that it will definitely bounce.

    An atheist does not believe that gods exist, but concedes they might be wrong. The likelihood that they are wrong appears to someone like Dawkins as extremely remote, almost to the point of certainty. I agree with him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. MarkOctober 22, 2009 at 8:36 AM

    Dawkins isn't even willing to debate the surety of his arguments with any respectable theologian/philosopher. He's so sure and the chances are SO REMOTE that he should have no serious issues dealing with theism's best arguments. Yet he doesn't do that. His book is an embarrassment to atheists who actually have decent arguments and actually understand the arguments of their opponents. How one can be so sure and proclaim it so loudly yet cower and hide behind weak excuses for actually publicly debating his ideas speaks volumes to me. New atheism is pathetic and the fact that its become popular among many is not a testament to the intellectual prowess of its proponents but more to the condition of much of society's ignorance of the arguments for God's existence and theology in general.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lou GojiraOctober 25, 2009 at 7:42 AM

    Mark wrote: "New atheism is pathetic and the fact that its become popular among many is not a testament to the intellectual prowess of its proponents but more to the condition of much of society's ignorance of the arguments for God's existence and theology in general."

    I agree, but more than anything I think the timing of the New Atheism shtick is what has helped fan the flames of its popularity. I mean, consider that George Bush Jr. was one of the most hated presidents America has ever had, and he claimed to be a Christian...and in my opinion Bush Jr. has put a bigger black eye into Christianity than somebody like Richard Dawkins could ever hope to accomplish.

    Plus, take into account the whole Y2K scare back in the late 90's...a whole lot of people just "knew" that society was going to collapse and that was when Christ was going to return. Well, neither of those happened, and I can recall a conversation I had with a pastor friend sometime back then. Paraphrasing, he said: "A lot of people are going to get really religious right before the year 2000...and then when nothing happens there's going to be a huge upswing in atheism." I haven't talked to that guy in years, but I have to wonder if he realizes now how right he was.

    And then consider too that the masses just seemingly need somebody or something to hate or to blame for things going wrong in society to save themselves time from doing any sort of research. Blaming things like race mixing, homosexuality, police brutality, or even the government itself is all sort of passe'...it's no longer "fashionable" or "cool" to harbor resentment toward those subjects...so what's left? Well, right now it's religion (in particular Christianity, even though Muslim extremists are blamed for the WTC tragedy...yeah, I don't understand the logic either but that's how the chips have fallen). One has to wonder what the next "fashionable hatred" will be, because like every other fad New Atheism will eat itself and play out eventually.

    Don't get me wrong...I know some atheists and even have some atheists in my own family...I like them and consider them good people...but unlike the New Atheists that smack of bandwagon-riding and arguments from emotion or misunderstanding, the atheists I'm talking about actually make some thought-provoking arguments and want gain better insights. But more importantly than all of that, they tend to be more tolerant than New Atheists...and really, that's all we can hope for whenever opposing viewpoints collide. Agreeing to disagree never hurt anybody.

    "How one can be so sure and proclaim it so loudly yet cower and hide behind weak excuses for actually publicly debating his ideas speaks volumes to me."

    Amen, but truthfully, Dawkins is a great figurehead for New Atheism exactly because of his cowardice...all he's doing is making his opposition look better whether he wants to face that aspect or not. And when New Atheism eventually goes the way of things like Break Dancing, tight-rolled jeans, and shag carpeting, Dawkins will go back to being some old man that only a few people actually know or care about...and we're going to have a whole lot of former New Atheists looking back on all of this with shame and embarrassment.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cedric KatesbyOctober 26, 2009 at 7:04 AM

    ...and we're going to have a whole lot of former New Atheists looking back on all of this with shame and embarrassment.

    Then, about a week later, just after tea-time, the Second Coming of Jesus will occur.
    Just you wait.
    Then those New Atheists will REALLY look foolish.
    Any time now.
    Very soon.
    Just wait.
    It'll be really good.
    We're very close to it.
    Seriously, any time now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lou GojiraOctober 26, 2009 at 3:44 PM

    Cedric wrote: "Then, about a week later, just after tea-time, the Second Coming of Jesus will occur.
    Just you wait.
    Then those New Atheists will REALLY look foolish."

    It's not about anybody being made to look foolish. Rather, it'll simply be a matter of people growing out of a particular fashion and abandoning it by their own conviction(s). That's not to say that the majority of these New Atheists will probably become theists (sure it'd be great if they did, but each person is a different case), but instead see that a lot of the bile they've spewed for what it is; straight-up bigotry, which, at the time, seemed to make sense because so many other people were doing it and it was seemingly condoned by people like Dawkins or Harris.

    For a small example, just ask Brian "Sapient" Cutler how his mission to end religion is going. How many dues paying members does he still have for his Rational Response Squad? How well would he be received if he were to start making more YouTube videos now? He overplayed what little hand he was dealt, and the atheists that once backed him saw him and his tree house cult for what it is. Odds are these people are still atheists, but they're not so fanatical or pushy with it now.

    That's all I was saying...whenever anything is new, "cutting edge", and seems to have all the answers, the newest adherents get on fire with it and want to remake the world in their own image. But over time the flames tend to die down and the people realize that maybe things weren't as simple as they once thought.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cedric KatesbyOctober 26, 2009 at 11:23 PM

    Lou, I'm sure you are convinced that your predictions will come true.
    That's fine as far as it goes.
    It just that your predictions are too vague to be meaningful.
    Especially since your predictions seem to be wide open to subjective interpretation after the fact.
    You've left yourself a lot of wiggle room so that your predictions will "come true" at least to your own satisfaction.

    It would sound a lot less fuzzy if you set up a way to genuinely test your predictions.
    Some kind of concrete deadline with actual statistically verifiable results.
    What milestone would be achieved for you to count your prediction as a success?

    For example: By 2015, new book publications classified by Amazon in the "New Atheism" catagory will drop by 20% from 2009 levels.
    Or
    This is a list of the top ten New Atheists.
    Three of these will be charged and convicted of mass murder before 2030.

    These examples are falsifiable. Either they will happen in a given time frame with verifiable results or they won't.
    If somebody predicts this and it doesn't happen, they they are clearly and objectively wrong.
    However, if they are right, then that would be solid win.

    Dawkins will go back to being some old man that only a few people actually know or care about...

    How old? He's already over 60.
    A few people? How few is "a few"?
    Care about? You mean, as in book sales?

    ...but instead see that a lot of the bile they've spewed for what it is; straight-up bigotry...

    When will this happen? Who gets to say when they have "seen their bile"? Them? You?
    Your prediction is too vague to be useful.
    You have worded it so that you can at any time declare victory or perhaps protest that it hasn't happened yet but it will "soon".

    But over time the flames tend to die down and the people realize that maybe things weren't as simple as they once thought.

    Once again, what qualifies as "the flames dying down"? Who are "these people" you refer too? When is this supposed to happen?

    As it stands, you have carefully left yourself multiple escape hatches and committed to nothing.

    If some cyber-detective 20 years from now reads you "predictions" and then knocks on your front door to question you about them, you are totally safe from being proved wrong.
    Heads you win, tails you don't lose.

    That's the reason why I was sorely tempted to tease you in the first place.
    Predictions come, predictions go.
    Go ahead and make predictions.
    Just please make them a tad more substantial.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lou GojiraOctober 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM

    Well, thanks for the lengthy reply Cedric. As for what's seemingly bugging you so much about my "predictions", all I'm doing is stating something that should be pretty obvious. I never claimed to be a prophet or anything...heck, it's like a person saying "It's going to get cold this winter." Should said person give the meticulous qualifications you seem to want?

    New Atheism is here to stay...there's no denying that...but to what degree? And for that matter you've still got people who like to consider themselves hippies...but compare the numbers of actual commune living hippies willing to march on Washington and "fight the man" to what it was, oh, about 30 years ago or so. As time passed a former commune-living hippie might've turned moderate liberal and gotten content to stay in the suburbs, shopping for his groceries at Wal-Mart instead of growing his own garden, and to paraphrase George Carlin "trading in cocaine for Rogaine".

    Again, all I was saying is that this New Atheism thing, being the fashionable rebellion that it is for the time being (just browse some videos on YouTube), cannot and will not hold up the momentum over time. Every "movement" spikes and dips. How much time will it take? I don't know and never claimed to know it.

    I may be wrong, but I can't help but think that I touched a nerve with you in typing the things I have in earlier posts. If so I apologize...I'm not out to "win" anything, least of all some resemblance of a debate on the internet. Atheism has been around as long as religion, and it will continue to be around as long as religion...but will atheism be the "cool" form of rebellion, say, 20 years from now? Anybody in their right mind will say no, simply because NO forms of fashionable rebellion stay "cool" forever. And once again, all I'm saying is that a lot of these self-proclaimed New Atheists will mellow out just like a lot of the hippies did back in their day. I'm just stating something as predictable as day turning into night, it wasn't some declaration of prophecy or anything.

    As low as my opinion is of Dawkins, I will grant him this: he was smart enough to cash in now, striking while the iron was hot.

    Sorry if this wasn't substantial enough for you, but quite frankly I'm surprised you seemed to take the biased typings of some faceless guy on the internet (that is, me) to heart so badly in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  11. kh123October 28, 2009 at 4:08 AM

    "How old? He's already over 60.
    A few people? How few is "a few"?
    Care about? You mean, as in book sales?"

    I'm sure Adolf could boast in that accolade too - his operatic Darwinian diatribe against JudaeoChristianity ("Mein Kampf") hit record numbers at one point in time as well. What great company to keep, that lovable Dawkins.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cedric KatesbyOctober 31, 2009 at 8:18 AM

    ...it's like a person saying "It's going to get cold this winter."

    Bad analogy. You are making a prediction on something that happens every year. Something which has nothing to do with fashion and everything to do with physics.

    Anybody in their right mind will say no, simply because NO forms of fashionable rebellion stay "cool" forever.

    You have failed to demonstrate that "New Atheists" are actually merely a form of fashionable rebellion.
    For all you know, "New Atheists" may very well continue to grow in strength and number.
    I understand that you would like "New Atheists" to be just a passing phase.
    It's OK for you to want that. No problem.

    However, I'm asking you to TEST the strength of your convictions.
    Go a little further.
    Test them by making a prediction that's falsifiable.

    "This winter, there will be snow."

    Falsifiable. Either it will or it won't. Easily checkable via the weather guide.

    ...compare the numbers of actual commune living hippies willing to march on Washington and "fight the man" to what it was, oh, about 30 years ago or so.

    There were hippies 30 years ago? In 1979?
    Really? Why don't people tell me these things?
    :)
    But seriously folks...

    Dawkins will go back to being some old man that only a few people actually know or care about...

    If you genuinely believe this, if it's as sure as snow in winter, then I invite you to make a verifiable prediction.

    For example, I would make a prediction thusly: Dawkin's books will still be selling on Amazon.com twenty years from now.

    Specifically:
    Twenty years from now, 2029 sales from "The Greatest Show on Earth" will STILL outstrip 2009 sales of Dembski's just released "End of Christianity".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lou GojiraNovember 1, 2009 at 4:41 AM

    Cedric wrote: "You have failed to demonstrate that "New Atheists" are actually merely a form of fashionable rebellion.
    For all you know, "New Atheists" may very well continue to grow in strength and number.
    I understand that you would like "New Atheists" to be just a passing phase.
    It's OK for you to want that. No problem."

    And it's okay for you to hope that you've bought into something that "may very well continue to grow in strength and number". I'm sure you don't want to look back on any times in your life without a twinge of embarrassment...of course probably very few of us could actually make that claim, but still the hope could exist.

    I even granted a post ago that odds are New Atheism, in some form or another is here to stay (for that matter ideas of a Flat Earth and Geo centrism are still around, absurd as they are). All I'm saying is that it cannot keep the momentum it has currently. Remember when I told you to browse some videos at YouTube to see how fashionable New Atheism is at the moment? Well, were you watching YouTube when The Blasphemy Challenge was the big stir? A great number of those self-ordained New Atheists that started their YouTube channels in the wake of it have given up the ghost (Xild, OneLessGod, and Judelicious instnatly come to mind, though there are more). The Rational Response Squad is a joke and a waste of everyone's time...Atheist Scum United never got off the ground...The Trolls of Terror are waiting to be put out of their misery... And after you get tired of looking around there, head over to rantsnraves.org and read for yourself how even other atheists are poking fun at the New Atheism zealots (particularly the netdrama section). Lastly, head over to encyclopediadramatica.com and look up atheism, and be sure to follow some of the links for even more laughs. Atheists themselves are already getting sick and tired of New Atheism and the fundamentalist groupthink mindset it seems to entail. The signs are already there...whether you choose to pay attention to them or not is up to you.

    Again, since you didn't seem to catch the inference the first few times, let me state again: I hereby claim that New Atheism is here to stay, but it will not be as big as it is right now later on down the road. And if you ask me for some specific numbers or something all I'm going to do is wonder once again why you're taking this so seriously in the first place. Maybe you're linking New Atheism to simple atheism itself, but I'd advise against it...that would be as foolish as linking Westboro Baptist Church to simple Christianity. Both sides of the fence have nutjobs that take it too far and who embarrass us, but unlike you, I'm not putting stock in the fundies on my side.

    But you're right about one thing... there probably weren't many commune-living hippies in 1979 as there probably were in 1969...when you get old like me it gets harder to grab numbers on the fly when you want to illustrate a point in conversation. I'm guessing by your optimism over New Atheism that you're probably at least a generation or so younger than me. Perhaps you probably haven't seen very many fashions come and go. Well, take some advice from this 36 year old man; don't put all of your eggs in one basket, especially if that basket is called New Atheism. You'll be a whole lot less embarrassed years from now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cedric KatesbyNovember 1, 2009 at 12:10 PM

    Perhaps you probably haven't seen very many fashions come and go.

    You have yet to demonstrate that "New Atheism" is just a passing fashion.
    (shrug)
    I understand that you want it to be just a fashion. Yet that does not mean that it is a fashion. It could very well be just wishful thinking on your part.

    And if you ask me for some specific numbers or something all I'm going to do is wonder once again why you're taking this so seriously in the first place.

    You claim with great certainty that Atheism is a passing phase.
    Yet you are uncomfortable with making a verifiable prediction.
    That's odd.

    Before you said...

    ...like every other fad New Atheism will eat itself and play out eventually.

    Yet when gently pressed you now choose your words much more cautiously.

    I hereby claim that New Atheism is here to stay, but it will not be as big as it is right now later on down the road.

    Not that much of a prediction, really.
    But what the heck, let it stand.

    Dawkins will go back to being some old man that only a few people actually know or care about...

    Here's a counter-prediction for you.

    Dawkins, already an old man, will get older.
    Even at your sixtieth birthday, his books will be still be in print and selling respectably well for aging best-sellers (according to Amazon.com).
    When he dies, you'll know about it very soon because his obituary will be broadcast by major news networks.
    Within 5 years of his death, the BBC will have organised a documentary film tribute covering his life and times. Or perhaps the Americans will beat them to it.

    ...don't put all of your eggs in one basket.

    Unlike yourself? You mean, you reject monotheism? Hmm, interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lou GojiraNovember 1, 2009 at 4:19 PM

    Cedric wrote: "You have yet to demonstrate that "New Atheism" is just a passing fashion.
    (shrug)
    I understand that you want it to be just a fashion. Yet that does not mean that it is a fashion. It could very well be just wishful thinking on your part."

    It could very well be. How many times do I have to say that I've never claimed to be a prophet? You even said yourself that if somebody were to dig these posts up 30 years from now (why anybody would is beyond me, but who knows) that it'd wind up being a matter of heads I win, tails I don't lose because of the vagueness. Vagueness, in this case, suits me just fine because all I was stating was opinion anyway. You're the one, for whatever reason, wanting to over-analyze my biased ramblings in a comments section. I've been wrong before and I'm sure I'll be wrong again many times over before I die. Oh, wait...those were two more "predictions" in the same sentence...time for you to start grilling me some more I guess.

    But just for fun, how about this: since you seem to champion specifics so much, why not illustrate to me that New Atheism will continue to gain momentum over the years. You seem to think that we're going to achieve a higher evolution of humanity or whatever by embracing this train of thought, so please...I invite you to make specified predictions as to where New Atheism will be, say, 10 years from now. Show me how wrong I am in my opinion that New Atheism will lose some steam over time.

    "You claim with great certainty that Atheism is a passing phase.
    Yet you are uncomfortable with making a verifiable prediction.
    That's odd.

    Before you said...

    ...like every other fad New Atheism will eat itself and play out eventually.

    Yet when gently pressed you now choose your words much more cautiously."

    You're right...I chose my words more cautiously because you seemed to take such exception to what I wrote. Again, I'm not out to "win" some internet debate...and as a matter of fact I was originally typing what I did in response to what Mark had written about how Dawkins runs from debates.

    But if you want to talk about word choices, how about the way you sneakily implied that I was talking about atheism itself? (see italics above) I've made it abundantly clear from the start that I've been talking about New Atheism...why the line between New Atheism and plain atheism itself seems to blur for you whenever it's convenient is beyond me, but you may want to look into it.

    "Dawkins, already an old man, will get older.
    Even at your sixtieth birthday, his books will be still be in print and selling respectably well for aging best-sellers (according to Amazon.com).
    When he dies, you'll know about it very soon because his obituary will be broadcast by major news networks.
    Within 5 years of his death, the BBC will have organised a documentary film tribute covering his life and times. Or perhaps the Americans will beat them to it."

    You may be right...and your point is? Will that mean I've been "pwned" or something because I was wrong? Big deal.

    "Unlike yourself? You mean, you reject monotheism? Hmm, interesting."

    No, I meant leaving a door open in case you're wrong. I fully understand and realize that I may be wrong in a lot of the things I think, say, or believe...but the beauty in making mistakes is learning from them. Can you claim the same thing? That you just may be wrong, and in which case you'd be willing to learn from your mistakes? That's all I was saying...be an atheist if you see no absolute need to believe in anything spiritual...just don't hitch your wagon to the New Atheist train because it's already being made fun of by other atheists (and I gave some examples of that, which you conveniently ignore). Of course if you don't mind gambling a little integrity and don't mind having an embarrassing spot in your life after the fact, then go full steam ahead. Makes no difference to me, you're the one who would have to live with it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cedric KatesbyNovember 1, 2009 at 9:58 PM

    How about the way you sneakily implied that I was talking about atheism itself?

    Ah, that was a typo on my part.
    Just insert the word "New" in there.

    So (to recap) we have me saying..."You claim with great certainty that 'New Atheism' is a passing phase."

    Then we have your two opposing statements of

    ...like every other fad New Atheism will eat itself and play out eventually.

    Yet when gently pressed you now choose your words much more cautiously.

    I hereby claim that New Atheism is here to stay, but it will not be as big as it is right now later on down the road.

    You're right...I chose my words more cautiously because you seemed to take such exception to what I wrote.

    Indeed you did. Thank you.

    You may be right...and your point is? Will that mean I've been "pwned" or something because I was wrong? Big deal.

    Well, that's one way to retreat from a position after making a few cheap shots at Dawkins. Not a very nice way but...each to their own.

    How many times do I have to say that I've never claimed to be a prophet?

    Fine, you never claimed to be a prophet.
    Yet you made a claim.
    More than one, in fact.
    Claims that slagged people that held different viewpoints from your own.
    Claims that you don't seem willing to defend.

    Vagueness, in this case, suits me just fine because all I was stating was opinion anyway. You're the one, for whatever reason, wanting to over-analyze my biased ramblings...

    So your comments about Dawkins and New Atheism were just vague opinions. Nothing more that biased ramblings? Hmm, ok.
    That sounds like a good way to describe your comments.

    Can you claim the same thing? That you just may be wrong, and in which case you'd be willing to learn from your mistakes? That's all I was saying...

    That's all you were saying?
    Re-read your own comments.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Lou GojiraNovember 2, 2009 at 2:55 AM

    Cedric wrote: "Ah, that was a typo on my part.
    Just insert the word "New" in there."

    Okay...not sure if I believe you because you haven't made many (if any) "typo's" thus far, but if this is your way of backpedaling then so be it. As you say, what the heck, it can stand.

    "Then we have your two opposing statements of

    ...like every other fad New Atheism will eat itself and play out eventually.

    Yet when gently pressed you now choose your words much more cautiously.

    I hereby claim that New Atheism is here to stay, but it will not be as big as it is right now later on down the road.

    You're right...I chose my words more cautiously because you seemed to take such exception to what I wrote.

    Indeed you did. Thank you."

    I'm not sure why you say those are two opposing viewpoints...both statements say the same thing, just worded differently because I apparently stepped on your toes the first time out, and I've said repeatedly that I'm not out to win some internet debate (or for that matter stir up some internet warrior looking for a to defend his hero(es) online). The only reason I'm hanging in with this, uh, well, I guess you could call it a debate, is because it hasn't gotten dull quite yet...not to mention that I can't help but find it pretty darn funny that an apparent Dawkins supporter seems to wear his feelings on his sleeve. Here you have Dawkins, a man that doesn't pull many punches in stating his bias, and yet he has a supporter like you that seems to think that nobody else could or should be allowed the same courtesy. Practice hypocrisy very much?

    "Fine, you never claimed to be a prophet.
    Yet you made a claim.
    More than one, in fact.
    Claims that slagged people that held different viewpoints from your own.
    Claims that you don't seem willing to defend."

    And yet you so easily overlook how I defended other atheists, while they most certainly hold viewpoints different than my own as well. The only reason I come down on New Atheists is for the same reason I mentioned Westboro Baptist Church as an illustration...it's their intolerance that makes them hard to, well, tolerate.

    As far as defending, again, what is there to defend? I gave you reasons and examples as to what brought me to my conclusions. All a person can do is look at evidence and draw personal opinions and/or conclusions. If you see the evidence pointing a way opposite of the direction I see it then that's fine...you're entitled to your own biased opinion as well. Haven't I said already that all we can hope for is to politely agree to disagree when opposing viewpoints collide? I suspect that maybe you're projecting your own levels of intolerance onto me.

    continued

    ReplyDelete
  18. Lou GojiraNovember 2, 2009 at 2:56 AM

    Cedric wrote: "So your comments about Dawkins and New Atheism were just vague opinions. Nothing more that biased ramblings? Hmm, ok.
    That sounds like a good way to describe your comments."

    Yes! FINALLY something sinks in with you...so yes, try lightening up a little and stop taking comments and opinions made over the internet so seriously. W.W.D.D.; What Would Dawkins Do? Huh? Right? Kinda' has a certain ring to it...Do you think your hero would over-analyze these things the way you've done so far? He probably has bigger fish to fry...so try to learn from his example young Dawkinite. Make the man proud.

    "That's all you were saying?
    Re-read your own comments."

    I think it's you who should re-read the comments, exercising a little better reading comprehension since you're the one who seems to have felt slighted somewhere down the line. And while you're at it, be sure to look into the examples I've cited (none of which you've made any mention of or acknowledged in any way) and see if they might make you think the same things that I do...that New Atheism is the en vogue rebellion at the moment, and it's already showing signs of wear and tear. If the examples don't make you see the same things I do, cool, you're entitled to your opinion and bias as much as I'm entitled to mine.

    But don't forget to show me this overwhelming proof that New Atheism is here to stay, sure to keep growing in number over the years. I'm actually looking forward to that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cedric KatesbyNovember 3, 2009 at 7:07 AM

    be sure to look into the examples I've cited (none of which you've made any mention of or acknowledged in any way)

    Why should anybody bother? To quote yourself, they are probably just vague opinions and biased ramblings.

    so yes, try lightening up a little and stop taking comments and opinions made over the internet so seriously

    Look it's really simple.

    You said some thoughtless stuff on the Internet.
    I called you on it and you hastily abandoned your position.
    You did it with ill grace in a "Hey, I was just sayin'" sort of way but you backed down.

    Let it go.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lou GojiraNovember 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM

    Cedric wrote: "Why should anybody bother? To quote yourself, they are probably just vague opinions and biased ramblings."

    Once again you seem to demonstrate your selective skills at reading comprehension. I stated that the things I "predicted", but more like speculated or based opinions upon (biased and vague as they are, but we're all entitled to opinions and speculations are we not?) were based to a good degree on X amount of said examples. I never claimed that the examples were such. If you want to bury your head in the sand and not follow through after you've gotten so obsessive compulsive over some posts that I typed (that I've had no problem admitting were biased ramblings in the first place), after "calling me on it" no less, that's fine. Just try to cop out with a little more finesse next time.

    "Look it's really simple.

    You said some thoughtless stuff on the Internet."

    "Thoughtless" because it's not something you want to hear? "Thoughtless" because it's not along the same lines as your own opinions and/or wishful thinking? I can't help but think that if I had gotten on here and typed something along the lines of: "Dawkins is a great guy and whether you like it or not New Atheism is only going to keep getting bigger and better." you wouldn't have gotten so ridiculously over-analytical.

    "I called you on it and you hastily abandoned your position."

    *sigh* Please re-read the posts...never once did I abandon my "position"...I simply spelled it out for you because you seemed to need it so badly. And now that I've had to make it almost painfully clear that what I wrote wasn't a declaration of prophecy, but rather some "biased ramblings" based in some part on a given set of examples, you try to claim some sort of victory...without even looking into the examples...without giving any counter examples of your own (I'm still waiting for you to show me something as to why New Atheism will keep getting bigger and better) and possibly showing me how wrong I am to think the things that I do. Oh yes, you have "pwned" me alright! Whatever shall I do now? Oh boo hoo... (in case you need this part spelled out for you as well, this is what is typically called sarcasm...and just because the words "boo" and "hoo" were typed by me does not mean that I am literally emotional at the time of typing)

    "You did it with ill grace in a "Hey, I was just sayin'" sort of way but you backed down.

    Let it go."

    This is rich...it's time to let it go now that the things you type are getting ran under a microscope, right? Cedric, if nothing else you've certainly got hypocrisy down pat. But okay, fine Mr. Internet Warrior...trot off thinking you've won something somewhere in this if it adds validation to your life somehow. I'm sure if Dawkins see's how you so "valiantly" defended his honor you might earn a pat or two on the head from him.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)