Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
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.
|
Yes, its popularity began with Sartre around the turn of the century, before which it was fringey philosophy.
As for the rest of your comments, I can't really address them since they don't apply to this book. If you refuse to so much to skim the jacket copy, I refuse to discuss its content or character any further, except to say that you miss the mark, and your attempts to imply emotional connection to it are clumsy and unnecessary.
Quote:
|
You know, I asked you to point out my strawmen, so until you can, perhaps you should refrain from mentioning them.
|
They're obvious enough for me. I don't feel the need to prove them to you. It's enough for me that they enlighten my understanding of your manner of discussion. Besides, if I pointed them out, the discussion would spiral into what constitutes a straw man. I'd rather focus on other things.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Once again, you're attempting to attach things to my argument that I'm not saying, while also flatly denying probable claims. Again, I recommend you read some of the material, because there's really no need to make these dismissive speculations. You can simply read the material and decide for yourself.
What appears to be bothering you is that you don't know where I stand on the issue, so you don't know how to respond effectively. For you, a person's take on the subject seems to be incredibly relevant to the accuracy of their statements. I choose to separate the argument from my viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that faith is incompatible with reason. This viewpoint is informed by people like Dawkins. You are unfamiliar with his work, and apparently proudly so. That sounds like an impasse to me.