Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Richard Dawkin's remedy...
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Richard Dawkin's remedy...
    Posted: 25-Sep-2007 at 17:10
As Plato said, only the dead have seen the end of war. Humans cause ideologies which can contribute for our inherant barbarism, but it is still humanities' animalistic tendancies that ultimately keep war going.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Sep-2007 at 17:35
I've found a rather dissapointing review:
 
 
... and not the only one:
 
 
I haven't read that book. But is Dawkins so unfamiliar with philosophy and uses occasionally groundless and aggressive rhetoric? Because this is what these reviews seem to show.
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 25-Sep-2007 at 17:57
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Sep-2007 at 18:03

As an agnostic, I don't feel particular respect either for fanatic religious people or fanatic atheistics.

Atheistics are just the opposite than the follower of a religion. Atheistics "believe" God doesn't exist.... That's important, atheistics are convinced there is no God, and that that conviction is the "truth". With that fixed idea, they sometimes act with the same fanatism as the religious people, and they have resorted to violence as well, particularly in association of totalitarian regimes, like we saw in the Spanish Civil War, in the U.S.S.R. or China, to name a few.

As an agnostic, I don't want to be confussed with atheistics at all. Agnostic believe in the "limits of human knowledge" and it is, therefore, a modest position. We just believe "we don't know!".

Fanaticism is born when people "believe to know"....
 
In the case of religion, I love free-market of religions and ideas. Let people believe whatever they choose, but stop them from controlling the society and force those ideas upon others. And control fanatic atheistics as well.
 
Pinguin
 


Edited by pinguin - 25-Sep-2007 at 18:03
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 08:30
Originally posted by Chilbudios

I've found a rather dissapointing review:
 
 
... and not the only one:
 
 
I haven't read that book. But is Dawkins so unfamiliar with philosophy and uses occasionally groundless and aggressive rhetoric? Because this is what these reviews seem to show.
 


Dawkins is his own worst enemy. Unfortunately he's likely his own best friend too WinkLOL
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929 		  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 15:33
I've found a rather dissapointing review:
 
 
... and not the only one:
 
 
I haven't read that book. But is Dawkins so unfamiliar with philosophy and uses occasionally groundless and aggressive rhetoric? Because this is what these reviews seem to show.
 
Although I agree with these reviews, they are hardly very unbias - one is a Christian site!
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 17:07
However there's some agreement between the reviews (that the arguments for existence of God are poorly handled, that religion itself is poorly handled, that the style is provocative and rhetorical, that the part on evolutionary biology is indeed showing his brilliant scholarship in his field, etc., etc.) and NY times is not a Christian paper. Some particular claims from The Tablet's review can be verified quite easily (indeed, consequentialism is not the only valid secular theory on ethics; indeed Bernard Williams is a critique of consequentialism). I'm not saying about any of the reviews that is not biased, but that an accusation of bias must be targetted with some accuracy because there are lots of points where the lack of specific (Christian) bias can be showed with ease.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.098 seconds.