Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumDAWKINS!!!11!!1!!!! vs the right honorable Russell Brand
Such a hard choice!
from "over there" (does you-know-who spend his entire waking moments looking for this stuff on line????)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=160947
But seriously folks....
Why should we care about the supernatural?
Is rejecting it "tyranny"?
Personally, since I rejected anything supernatural as real, many a burden has been lifted.... and I'm fine, not "sad" or "bitter" or missing anything. I can enjoy a good ghost story (a real rarity!) or myth without thinking it might remotely be true.
and of course here is my reply to this tripe:
Russell Brand vs Richard Dawkins on the nature of things
It's such a hard choice......
Dawkins' 1st paragraph in his Wiki blurb:
Clinton Richard Dawkins /ˈdɔːkɨnz/, DSc, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is an ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and writer. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.
Brand's 1st paragraph in his Wiki blurb:
Russell Edward Brand (born 4 June 1975) is an English comedian, actor, radio host, author, and activist.
Hmmmm.... should I go with the guy who won "Outstanding contribution to comedy" from the British Comedy Awards?
or the guy who's 1st paragraph under "Awards and Recognition" reads: Dawkins was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University, the University of Hull, the University of Antwerp, and the University of Oslo, and honorary doctorates from the University of Aberdeen, Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and the University of Valencia. He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University (HonLittD, 1996), and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001. He is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society.
No...no it isn't such a hard choice after all.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Someone must wake up in a cold sweat wondering if something was written on the Internet even tangentially related to atheism!
Impotent rage. Glad I don't have to see so many flamebait threads.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Good old Ignore, though.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I read the God Delusion not too long ago. I read it because Hitchens is dead and no longer putting out new product, obviously.
I really enjoyed The God Delusion. One of my degrees is in biology so he feels like somewhat of a kindred spirit to me, although I have never had a job in the biological sciences.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)He's not especially smart. This so-called worldview he's adopted is basically a half-digested regurgitation of 1960's-era counterculture. Since it worked so well fifty years ago, I guess we're going to give it another shot? Brilliant.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)He's been cropping up for years over here spouting infantile drivel and trying to persuade people he's an intellectual. Heroin-addict, sex-addict, publicity-addict, awful 'comedian', terrible writer - is there no beginning to his talents?
I thought he'd found his rightful level as Mr Katy Perry but it seems that he couldn't even handle that one. Now he's urging Guardian readers to not vote and start a revolution. Dickhead.
Warpy
(110,913 posts)and I've never found his comedy particularly funny. I certainly find his political advice juvenile and utterly worthless.
I suppose if he's married to some pop star, he's riding her petticoat into fame and fortune. Maybe she'll dump him sooner rather than later and he'll fade away into well deserved obscurity.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)that you-know-who does look for anything related to bashing atheism. I haven't seen so many articles on atheism show up here in A&A as I see from one poster in the other group. Apparently, it is all about trying to stir the pot with us. Bashing us must be more fun than defending his own faith.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)you have to keep putting the spotlight somewhere else. In the hope, I imagine, that the nasty atheists will stop laughing at you, break down and surrender. Or something.
Hey, but how about that Pope eh? Is he a brave revolutionary, or what? Dragging the RCC kicking and screaming into the 12th Century!
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)I will admit that he is better (by degrees) from the last one, but that isn't saying much. But he will have to do a lot more to convince me that he or the RCC is new and improved. Agreeing to perform gay marriages would be a start. Women allowed to be priests would another step in the right direction. Accepting that women (and men) have the right to use birth control and getting off the anti-abortion train would make me happy. Admitting to the child abuse and how they covered it up, and making restitution, and criminally punishing the perpetrators would almost make me think that they meant it. I see no movement in these directions.
RussBLib
(8,985 posts)I guess Russell is an equal opportunity offender, but I'm not sure I get the gist of Brand's criticism of Dawkins.
Is it something like, "shame on you, Sir Richard, for trying to take people's comforting delusions away from them"?
Dawkins is just being a big meanie!
Oh, boo hoo. Boo hoo.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)The trouble with Brand is that he has a head full of leftover whackjobbery from the last century. Cod-Spirituality, hippy leftovers, pseudo-intellectual drivel, half-remembered ideas from a chapter of George Orwell he once read by accident when he was stoned. He mistakes arrogance (of which he has an abundance) for fierce intellect, and being a loud-mouth for being the fearless Voice of the People.
The sad fact for poor Russell is that nobody loves poor Russell half as much as Russell does.
Oh, and he confuses gullibility with spirituality.
Actually, I can think of a Group not far from here where he'd fit right in.
Rob H.
(5,340 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Here's the kum-ba-ya post from an atheist (by the way) we all knew would show up sooner or later.
There are no "credentials" when it comes to believing in a deity or not. None.
I am an atheist, by the way.
Brand is just as qualified to expound on his beliefs as Dawkins is.
What neither one can do is expound on what anybody ELSE should believe. Or not believe.
I think they both are, at times, boneheads, and I would take guidance from neither one when it comes to atheism or theism. That, to me, would be ridiculous.
It is always a personal choice, and neither stance can be proven.
***************
no credentials...huh? "Just as qualified"????
Dawkins has been studying deeply the "non-supernatural" his entire adult life.
Has Brand been studying the supernatural his entire adult life?....or ever?
And as to studying the supernatural.... it's a joke. Real science is "robust"...it moves, it builds upon past discoveries, it changes over time and is applicable. The "study" of the supernatural is in the same place it was in the 17th century (and earlier) no matter how many devices (devised from real science) and cameras they use.
This "fear" of insulting the religious is embarrassing!
mr blur
(7,753 posts)He's not stupid but he's an idiot.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I didn't think a self declared atheist would mind being quoted in this forum... even if I was chiding him for being an apologist and afraid of religious people.
Anyway....I posted my post here over there so as to be transparent ....so as not to appear sneaky.
The usual holier than thou suspects were not satisfied.... that had something to say about it but I'm not sure what as I'm done with this ridiculous subject and haven't read their, judging from the subject lines, nitpicky replies.
But....y'know.... obviously just do and post as you please. These folks LOVE to feel oppressed. They live for it!