Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Atheism
Log In to post a reply
141 messages
View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Atheism

hito wrote:
Mars Rover wrote:
hito wrote:
Mars Rover wrote:

whats wrong with being strident?


Mars Rover wrote:
william lloyd garrison was pretty fucking strident. martin luther king was pretty fucking strident. rachel carson was pretty fucking strident. need i go on?


Your own subsequent post answered your question. It was unpleasant, aggressive and unlikely to persuade anyone to share your point of view. Swearing, using rhetorical questions, dismissing other beliefs and more are all tactics but they are not constructive. Being forthright can be useful but being strident is a step too far.

Mars Rover wrote:

he doesn't claim to be agnostic. he has a whole chapter about that in god delusion.



From your own link
"The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did."

You have perhaps proved the point that few people read to the end of a news article.


jeebus man, do you ever go to sleep?

i didn't really feel i needed to read that interview, i've heard him speak hundreds of times and read his books. he has a complex view on agnosticism, i know that. sheesh.


Mars Rover wrote:
ugh...well i'm gonna leave it here because i don't have the patience to keep responding to you. i don't care if anything i wrote "empowers theism and disempowers your [my] argument" (i dont think i did, but...)..this is a stereolab forum afterall. meh...like i said, people can believe whatever they want.


I know from the number of posts you have made that the claim that "this is a stereolab forum" (presumably where non-Stereolab topics are not discussed) is disingenuous beyond belief.

It is interesting that - after having spent time discussing this issue - you respond with feigned indifference. It is perhaps no coincidence that this comes after a number of your logical inconsistencies have been laid bare. I am happy to agree to disagree but don't get into 10 pages of discussion then act like an apathetic teenager having to put up with a lecture from a parent.


oops, what can i say? you got me.

by saying "this is a stereolab forum" i meant THIS IS NOT FUCKING HOMEWORK or that serious. (i think you're reading into stuff too much.) excuse my "inconsistencies," but to explain dawkin's complete view on this would take a long time and work. its more complex that just "he's an atheist." he says so. or "he's an agnostic" he said that too. its complex. its best described here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100139447/richard-dawkins-is-an-agnostic-but-we-knew-that-already/

"By any sensible measure, Dawkins is an atheist; he is also an agnostic. So this is not a partial Damascene conversion by the unbeliever's unbeliever; it's a restatement of his long-established and philosophically sound views."

by naming something "POVERTY of agnosticism" what do you think he thinks of it?

this is what i was thinking of -



PAP. TAP. SPECTRUM OF PROBABILITY.

"i am agnostic only to the extent that i am agnostic to fairies at the bottom of the garden."

Jun 29, 2012, 04:18



________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Topic Outline: