Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten
You seem to have difficulty appreciating the points of my arguments, and you don't you see the flaws in your own. You keep repeating things I've responded to like I haven't addressed them. I point out that Dawkins' book is a good read, and you astonish me by revealing that you don't even have a passing familiarity with him or is work, because he's probably an asshole. If you were in my shoes, would you continue this discussion?
|
I find the points of your arguments less than compelling, because they don't really seem like points. As far as I can tell, your "points" consist of not much more than expressions of incredulity.
Did you know:
Atheism existed before Richard Dawkins wrote a book about it?
Many people don't need a book to tell them why atheism is right for them?
The reasons that Richard Dawkins is an atheist do not comprise the entire set of reasons that people are atheists?
It seems to me like you're treating "The God Delusion" like some sort of bible, which is dumb. That's the thing that's nice about not believing in god, you don't need a bible.
Quote:
|
I don't know, I'm trying here, but you just get angrier and angrier. That you don't even see all the straw men you dressed up means to me that there isn't much point in continuing to be at the receiving end of uninformed dismissiveness. I have better things to do with my time. I'd rather talk about this with people who know the material.
|
You know, I asked you to point out my strawmen, so until you can, perhaps you should refrain from mentioning them. And this isn't a discussion of "The God Delusion". I don't care about the "The God Delusion"-- atheism exists without Richard Dawkins. If you can't formulate positions and arguments on your own, then perhaps you should stop talking to me. If you want to talk more, then leave your atheist bible out of it.
For the record, I'm not angry, maybe just annoyed.
Quote:
|
Edit: Just so we're clear here -- because I know you're going to respond with something along the lines of "Why should I have to read some book to have a discussion on this?" -- these books are the most influential written on the subject. Not having a familiarity with them is like trying to have a discussion about great films without having seen Citizen Kane or The Godfather. It just doesn't work.
|
Sounds like a cop out. Dawkins influential? All the atheists I know were atheists before Dawkins cashed in on the apparently large number of atheists who require some sort of intellectual handholding to justify their atheism. If Dawkins convinced you to be an atheist, that's fine, but you're being just a tad foolish if you think that Dawkins is the reason that most atheists are atheists. He is probably the reason that most people think atheists are assholes, though.