[Aleksandrov]

Caladan, he does mention other religions in The God Delusion, but he mainly attacks BOTH the Abrahamic ones and Creationism. The only thing I tend to disagree with him is that he doesn't represent or argue against minor religions. Sort of like a neo-colonialist supremacy. He doesn't attack Hindu-ism that much for example.

I fully support the idea of this advertising campaign. Now a lot of people will say "we can think for ourselves and make our minds up." The point is that it isn't so simple. A lot of people are strongly influenced by outside marketing campaigns which pretty much make our thinking up for us. That's why marketing execs and such are very important jobs. The advertising sublimely changes our minds, whether we know it or not. It makes black/white to become grey. Just see Proposition 8 for example. The Churches had their covents donate vast sums of money into broadcasting and the media before the vote it barely passed. In one of the most liberal states in the US.

I disagree on the copycat issue. Not it isn't true but it's whether relevant to a conversation. Everything in life is copied. Picasso said that "Good artists copy, great artists steal". The point is that Dawkins uses solid arguments from his predecessors, this is good as it shows he himself "believes" in the other's theories. You can't just make an original argument each time. What makes Dawkins arguments so precise and factual is that he utilises all past theories on his subjects, i.e. Nietszche's Ubermench.

I also disagree on the making money issue from his books. He already has a good job as a lecturers which pays a lot. And he supports torrenting to an extent of his documentaries, some can be found on his website I believe, knowledge is power afterall. The only thing I see for him to promote his books is to promote his debates in general and such that it is to broadcast to the general public.

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

The world doesn't need to be saved from religion. The Ubermensch is not meant to be marketed to the masses if you've ever even read Zaratustra. It's meant for the few who are already strong enough to have developed a distrust for the media as well as other necessary qualities. And please don't include me in your generalizations about what brainwashes who.*

I'm also not American so I'm not entitled from birth to believe in a black/white world. You'll find that in a lot of non-americans and the faster you come to terms with it the better. I'd say that the world for me is about 20 percent white which includes everything I naively believe to be pure and unjaded such as artistic expression, 10 percent black which to some extent includes mass murderers rapists druggies etc. etc. althought that is certainly debatable or as Raoul Duke once said "Many fine books have been written in prison".

Everything else is shades of grey which doesn't in the least bit bother me. It doesn't get in the way of identifying right or wrong simply because I don't believe in that kind of limiting duality. While there are shades of grey within my reality there are shades of grey in the criteria I apply to it. It makes the world more interesting for me personally.

*BTW I just remembered that I once listened to about an hour of American radio - like California I think. With that in mind I fully sympathise with you as far as ads. telling you how to raise your kids etc. etc. go. I'll assure you that it's not nearly as bad in Europe. It's still bad but not that bad. Certainly not a government funded organization telling people that they need to spend more time with their children. Here that's concidered a blatant invasion of private life. And if you're not spending time with your children the radio certainly won't help you.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 04 December 2008 - 09:59 PM

[caladanbrood]

Aleksandrov, on Dec 4 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

Caladan, he does mention other religions in The God Delusion, but he mainly attacks BOTH the Abrahamic ones and Creationism. The only thing I tend to disagree with him is that he doesn't represent or argue against minor religions. Sort of like a neo-colonialist supremacy. He doesn't attack Hindu-ism that much for example.

You're contradicting yourself here. Creationism is a tiny (minor), just very vocal, US sect of christianity. Yet he lays into it every other sentance.

[Aleksandrov]

Caladan: Nope, most religions have roots in Creationism.
I believe what you are talking about as "Creationism" is the one "widely" recognised in the world. As in God starting a form of sentient life. (Not necessarily sentient). I'm talking about how nearly every religion has some sort of roots in "Creationism". As in God as the start of the world for example, or God creating the universe and the rest of us developing along. As I said, he would target the Judaism/Christianity/Islam AND he would target Creationism, but not the other "facts" about other religions.

Vicodin: I have no mention of one side brainwashing another. I'm saying that one would be naive to think that we make our own minds up when the who world with the media and the advertisements sublimely changing what we think so it's impossible to know what we are thinking is our own "original" thoughts.
I strongly disagree with your thoughts on Nietzche's works. I agree that perhaps when he wrote it, he thought he could target a niche audience, but I disagree with it. All works should be distributed to all people. Everyone should at least read two sides of the argument so one can "make" one's own mind up. The distrustful for media and outside propaganda, that fact Nietzche is aware himself it was a paradox when he published a line of works condemning how others influence our works. I'm under the influence he was quite amused when he wrote Zarathustra and the like. He wanted the world to know how he thought and of course he would try and "influence" you, or at least show you what he meant. Otherwise, it would be a waste of text.

And I'm not an American.

EDIT: Sp33ling.

This post has been edited by Aleksandrov: 04 December 2008 - 10:25 PM

[caladanbrood]

The creationism that Dawkins is talking about is that which directly opposes Evolution. That's not exactly what you're saying.

[Aleksandrov]

You get the gist of what I'm saying.
Dawkins Creationism is anything that is not Evolution pretty much.

[caladanbrood]

Indeed. And yet, I'm christian, yet am fully convinced by evolution, and think creationism, as "creationists" talks about it, is a giant pile of bovine residue.




Ooooooh.

This post has been edited by caladanbrood: 04 December 2008 - 10:53 PM

[Cause]

Brood he has far more arguments than just that alone. Also as I have already stated your deluding yourself if you think you mock creationism but accept or possibly accept, the resurection of the dead, holy communion, heaven, virginal birth. All oppose science and natural reason. They are all miracles. They all have equal evidence.

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Quote

Vicodin: I have no mention of one side brainwashing another. I'm saying that one would be naive to think that we make our own minds up when the who world with the media and the advertisements sublimely changing what we think so it's impossible to know what we are thinking is our own "original" thoughts.

Then ultimately this argument is lost to both me and you since there's no room for orriginal thoughts between us by your definition - we're all jaded by society and the media even though I don't watch television or read newspapers for that matter. But I'll agree that there is indeed no room for orriginal thoughts to a person living in a black/white world who's always striving towards one extreme opinion or another at any time.

Quote

I strongly disagree with your thoughts on Nietzche's works. I agree that perhaps when he wrote it, he thought he could target a niche audience, but I disagree with it. All works should be distributed to all people.

That's very cute but totally irrelevant since I never said that people shouldn't read his books, I just said that most people wouldn't understand it and if you look at the history they didn't. Nietzsche himself didn't want to publish Zaratustra because he believed it's way ahead of it's time, so the book was only published after his death.

Quote

Everyone should at least read two sides of the argument so one can "make" one's own mind up. The distrustful for media and outside propaganda, that fact Nietzche is aware himself it was a paradox when he published a line of works condemning how others influence our works. I'm under the influence he was quite amused when he wrote Zarathustra and the like. He wanted the world to know how he thought and of course he would try and "influence" you, or at least show you what he meant. Otherwise, it would be a waste of text.

I'm influencing you right now by simply talking to you. Again in a black and white world there would be no quantitive criteria for influence. You reach to a conclusion that everybody influences everybody and AHA - that's a whole new theory there that there can be no objective opinion or any novelty or ingenuity left in the world.

Of course Nietzsche wanted everyone to read his book. But he also understood that very few will actually appreciate it. After all you could scream your lungs out reciting plutonium ore extraction protocol in the streets and that'll hardly raise the number of warheads on the planet.

Of course he wanted his book to have an influence - that's the first step to distributing any knowledge. After all you can't give somebody else knowledge - he has to actively take it from you. And I'll agree here that for the part of making a book presentable that's influencing the reader. But see it's definitely not the worst case of propaganda in history if Nietzsche preferred to talk about the sun and dawn and eve and snakes and eagles in his book. It just makes the radical ideas presented in Zaratustra more digestable to the new reader.

So once again you strongly need a quantative factor to your claims in order for your ideas to sound at least remotely plausible. Nietzsche I'm afraid cannot be placed on the same level as Daily Mail just by analogy and your will for maximalism.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 05 December 2008 - 01:48 PM

[Lost Marine]

Why is it that when the other side of the argument does something like this it's a terrible thing that brainwashes people, but when your side does it it's just opening people's eyes to the possibilities?

If you want to put ads about being an atheist on a bus or pretend to believe in a giant spaghetti monster to point out just how stupid I am then have fun, but don't think it makes you better then anyone else. Both sides of this little spat have ignorant people who will go out of their way to belittle folks on the other side and it's just as shameful coming out of the mouth of a Christian as it is an atheist. (Before anyone jumps in and points out the many degrees that alot of these folks have, you can be a brilliant person and still be ignorant.)

Both sides have their points, while religion involves a leap of faith that some people aren't inclined to take and has been used to perpetuate some atrocious acts throughout history, in its pure form without the influences of human nature it is a nice set of guidelines on how to treat your fellow man in a respectable manner. Of course nothing good in this world can go for too long without being jacked up by selfish and greedy people.

Atheism can encourage people to engage in free thinking and all that jazz, which is a great thing also. The absence of religion in politics is also something that should be worked for. Of course when you start lumping all religious people into the trying to convert you camp and go on the attack then you are just as bad as the folks who are trying to convert. Which is by no means all of us or even most of us, cause frankly the majority of us have enough problems without worrying about what you do or do not believe.

[teholbeddict]

Lost Marine, on Dec 5 2008, 10:20 AM, said:

Why is it that when the other side of the argument does something like this it's a terrible thing that brainwashes people, but when your side does it it's just opening people's eyes to the possibilities?

If you want to put ads about being an atheist on a bus or pretend to believe in a giant spaghetti monster to point out just how stupid I am then have fun, but don't think it makes you better then anyone else. Both sides of this little spat have ignorant people who will go out of their way to belittle folks on the other side and it's just as shameful coming out of the mouth of a Christian as it is an atheist. (Before anyone jumps in and points out the many degrees that alot of these folks have, you can be a brilliant person and still be ignorant.)

Both sides have their points, while religion involves a leap of faith that some people aren't inclined to take and has been used to perpetuate some atrocious acts throughout history, in its pure form without the influences of human nature it is a nice set of guidelines on how to treat your fellow man in a respectable manner. Of course nothing good in this world can go for too long without being jacked up by selfish and greedy people.

Atheism can encourage people to engage in free thinking and all that jazz, which is a great thing also. The absence of religion in politics is also something that should be worked for. Of course when you start lumping all religious people into the trying to convert you camp and go on the attack then you are just as bad as the folks who are trying to convert. Which is by no means all of us or even most of us, cause frankly the majority of us have enough problems without worrying about what you do or do not believe.

Well said Lost Marine! You've pinpointed my thoughts exactly, I just couldn't figure out how to express them without brining a bucket load of wrath down on my head!

[Gimli's love child]

Sorry l have to disagree with that sentiment.

Certianly atheists have a tendancy to condesend when they explain thier thoughts but this bus campaign is not one of these moments.

Surely the sentiments you express stem from something larger than a simple advert?

I mean the fact that people automaitcally see a negative in this reveals alot about how much religion has been instilled into many of us at such a personal level.

This post has been edited by Gimli's love child: 05 December 2008 - 09:53 PM

[caladanbrood]

I think it speaks more of how irritated everyone gets at Dawkins. Thiests and Athiests alike.

[teholbeddict]

I think of it along the lines of people being condescending, agressive or rude when discusding this type of topic from the religious side or the atheist. It just bugs me that the conversation always seems to veer into the nasty/mean side of things pretty quickly. It's just a shame is all, but I guess people are passionate so it brings about strong feelings. Although I do lean more towards the atheist side of things I wouldn't put myself in either category, so I was thinking of it like all of us as a whole.

[Lost Marine]

Gimli's love child, on Dec 5 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

Sorry l have to disagree with that sentiment.

Certianly atheists have a tendancy to condesend when they explain thier thoughts but this bus campaign is not one of these moments.

Surely the sentiments you express stem from something larger than a simple advert?

I mean the fact that people automaitcally see a negative in this reveals alot about how much religion has been instilled into many of us at such a personal level.

I find it just as offensive having someone put there is no god on the side of a bus as I do when a Catholic tells me that their church is the only to heaven.

Of course the sentiments I express stem from something larger then a simple bus advert. When people run around bitching and moaning that someone is trying to influence their beliefs and then applaud one of their own for doing the very thing they were complaining about, well that's just hypocrisy. Hypocrisy will always rub me the wrong way.

Edit: I should probably take the rough edges off this, but it's late and sums up the core of my beliefs on this matter. Understand that it is not a personal attack on anyone here.

This post has been edited by Lost Marine: 06 December 2008 - 04:26 AM

[Shinrei]

I think what rankles me is the seeming frequent assumption that religious people are not free thinking. I am a free thinker who has decided that faith has a place in my life.

I know I'm not the first to say this on this forum, but I"ll repeat it. Being a scientist and being religious need not be (and frequently is not) mutually exclusive. I was just thinking about this today while I was reading an article about the crew of Apollo 8 (the ones who took the famous Earthrise photo). As astronauts, they are hardly ignorant mountain hicks, yet they were all men of faith (even reading bible passages during their broadcasts).

[RodeoRanch]

I agree with most of Dawkin's ideas. I've read most of his books.

But he's still a cock.


But one doesn't need to be an atheist or religious to be a cock. It's a standard human condition.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Criticising these debates as "nasty" or "rude" is pointless. The very nature of this issue involves challenging people's worldviews, which are deeply held and have a real impact on lives. This will always generate strong feelings and ill will on all sides. If you want a polite civil discussion, you need a different topic.

[Terez]

Ah, my favorite antagonist is back!

[Shinrei]

Me? <blushes>

If not me. <frowns>