Re: Bryan Appleyard vs. New Atheists « Reply #1 on Mar 4, 2012, 7:55pm »
Yes:
There have been threats of violence. De Botton has been told he will be beaten up and his guts taken out of him. One email simply said, "You have betrayed Atheism. Go over to the other side and die."
I think it was Gray who once described atheism as a late Christian cult.
Oddly enough, judging from the comments in response, whilst certain parties are the first to condemn what they claim to be ad hominem , such parties are the first to resort to that tactic when confronted by one who seems to share their core principle but not all their accompanying beliefs?
Though some of his words add up to some pretty stupid points: “Immediately he was out of control, he said, 'Oh, God!'" Warsi recalls, "so even the most self-confessed secular fundamentalist at this moment of need needed to turn to the Almighty. It kind of defeats his own argument that only people who go to church have a faith."
FFS - this is utterly asinine. I said "by Jove" the other day, so this must mean that in a moment of need I slipped and turned to Jupiter, Optimus et Maximus. I guess deep down I really believe in Jupiter after all.
The idea that Giles' silly gambit was some mighty victory is dumb enough but the petty gibbering above is simply beyond pathetic.
Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 183 Location: Glasgow Karma: 6
Re: Bryan Appleyard vs. New Atheists « Reply #5 on Mar 7, 2012, 11:20am »
It's an interesting display, to my mind, of the diversity that exists within atheism. I've seen it stated a few times that atheism is not a faith or a religion, and I would agree wholeheartedly with that. However, I think that the perception that atheism is not a religion would be strengthened if there wasn't a sizable group who seem hell-bent (metaphorically, you understand ) on making it rather like one - the ones who believe that you have to sign up to the following creed:
- metaphysical naturalism
- the evil of religion
- the stupidity of believers of any stripe
etc
That people could take exception to some of the stuff Appleyard or de Botton write does not surprise me: but the amount of bile that is directed at them is scarily reminiscent of some of the blood and thunder crap on fundamentalist sites.
Quote:
FFS - this is utterly asinine. I said "by Jove" the other day, so this must mean that in a moment of need I slipped and turned to Jupiter, Optimus et Maximus. I guess deep down I really believe in Jupiter after all.
Know what you mean - I said (in one of my more rash and excitable recent moments) "Holy sh*t!" - what that says about my unconscious beliefs, I really don't want to think...
Re: Bryan Appleyard vs. New Atheists « Reply #6 on Mar 7, 2012, 4:15pm »
For those interested, PZ Myers's reply.
Quote:
Appleyard: Neo-athiests think science provides the only road to truth.
PZ Meyers: “Wrong. Science provides evidence that all religions are wrong or vacuous. The charge of scientism is a common one, but it’s not right: show us a different, better path to knowledge and we’ll embrace it. But the apologists for religion never do that. You’ll also find that we recognize that there are obvious attractions to religion — most of them don’t require a gun to the head to get adherents — but that they get the facts of the universe fundamentally wrong, and building on error is a bad policy.”
Though some of his words add up to some pretty stupid points: “Immediately he was out of control, he said, 'Oh, God!'" Warsi recalls, "so even the most self-confessed secular fundamentalist at this moment of need needed to turn to the Almighty. It kind of defeats his own argument that only people who go to church have a faith."
FFS - this is utterly asinine. I said "by Jove" the other day, so this must mean that in a moment of need I slipped and turned to Jupiter, Optimus et Maximus. I guess deep down I really believe in Jupiter after all.
The idea that Giles' silly gambit was some mighty victory is dumb enough but the petty gibbering above is simply beyond pathetic.
Indeed, It's like when my wife insists I wash the car or take the rubbish out, The fact I respond with "Richard Dawkins" does not make me an atheist
Having said that, the fact some people are still going on about the Dawkins-Giles encounter might suggest it was a significant momemt in the anti-theist career of Professor Dawkins?
[quote author=timoneill board=general thread=1076 post=11316 time=1331105839] Having said that, the fact some people are still going on about the Dawkins-Giles encounter might suggest it was a significant momemt in the anti-theist career of Professor Dawkins?
Or it suggests a high level of pettiness with more than a whiff of desperation. If that is the worst you've got on him, you guys really are in trouble.
I said (in one of my more rash and excitable recent moments) "Holy sh*t!" - what that says about my unconscious beliefs, I really don't want to think...
[quote author=timoneill board=general thread=1076 post=11316 time=1331105839] Having said that, the fact some people are still going on about the Dawkins-Giles encounter might suggest it was a significant momemt in the anti-theist career of Professor Dawkins?
Or it suggests a high level of pettiness with more than a whiff of desperation. If that is the worst you've got on him, you guys really are in trouble.
Well, you are the one still going on about it? Dawkins did end up looking a fool as his own "methodology" was used against him. He comes over as a prig and regardless of one's attitude toward religion, I think many people enjoyed seeing him getting his comeuppance. He does, after all, go on about the supposed stupidity of the religious an awful lot?
[quote author=timoneill board=general thread=1076 post=11316 time=1331105839] Having said that, the fact some people are still going on about the Dawkins-Giles encounter might suggest it was a significant momemt in the anti-theist career of Professor Dawkins?
Or it suggests a high level of pettiness with more than a whiff of desperation. If that is the worst you've got on him, you guys really are in trouble.
I agree with you that thinking that Fraser's question was some enormous victory is at least silly, but I think there are two extremes here. It was certainly not a significant event in Dawkins's career, but I also wouldn't call Dawkins petty or desperate there. Imo "silly" and "amateurish" would do.
Or it suggests a high level of pettiness with more than a whiff of desperation. If that is the worst you've got on him, you guys really are in trouble.
Well, you are the one still going on about it?
Ummm, if you look at the discussion about it on this forum, I decided it was too trivial to bother to continue to point out how petty and stupid it was and left you guys to it.
Quote:
Dawkins did end up looking a fool as his own "methodology" was used against him.
I'm actually not much of a Dawkins fan, but that statement reeks of desperate wishful thinking. Giles came across as a petty clown trying to score a cheap point to distract from the fact that Dawkins' main point was valid - for orthodox Christian leaders to claim people who don't believe in the resurrection as part of their orthodox flock is ludicrous.
Or it suggests a high level of pettiness with more than a whiff of desperation. If that is the worst you've got on him, you guys really are in trouble.
I agree with you that thinking that Fraser's question was some enormous victory is at least silly, but I think there are two extremes here. It was certainly not a significant event in Dawkins's career, but I also wouldn't call Dawkins petty or desperate there. Imo "silly" and "amateurish" would do.
The pettiness and desperation I was referring to was on the part of those trumpeting Fraser's pathetic gotcha as a mighty victory over the Dawkins Bogeyman. If that's the best you guys can do, you're really in trouble.
Or it suggests a high level of pettiness with more than a whiff of desperation. If that is the worst you've got on him, you guys really are in trouble.
I agree with you that thinking that Fraser's question was some enormous victory is at least silly, but I think there are two extremes here. It was certainly not a significant event in Dawkins's career, but I also wouldn't call Dawkins petty or desperate there. Imo "silly" and "amateurish" would do.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://www.shmoop.com/media/covers/literature/lit00223.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged
![[avatar]](http://i41.tinypic.com/k9cg80.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.com/Pope3.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://images.proboards.com/avatars/linux.gif "[avatar]")
) on making it rather like one - the ones who believe that you have to sign up to the following creed:
![[avatar]](http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u504/unklee99/f075d7d4.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/ZY7Pk.png "[avatar]")