2007-05-19 03:03:50 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
it won't last for long!
2007-05-19 03:06:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't give too much credit to Dawkins and Harris. After all, the beauty of atheism is discovering the truth for yourself. If you simply accept the arguments of these two men at face value, you aren't really grasping atheism -- you're just being won over by two charismatic people who are able to offer compelling arguments.
And its exactly what I've described above that I'm against. I can list the reasons that there couldn't possibly be a god all day long, but I don't want anyone to just take my word for it. Part of becoming an atheist for me was breaking away from being spoonfed and thinking for myself -- if someone claims atheism as a result of reading the words of these two men, they'll just be swayed away when someone else with an even more compelling argument comes along.
EDIT: For me, reality is the most compelling argument. However, there ARE people out there who simply go along with anyone who is able to express themselves convincingly enough. Christianity is proof enough of that. Reality, because of what it is, is often harsh and not easily accepted. For some, its much easier to grasp on to a "prettier" idea, one that has a happy ending. The point I was trying to make was that its important for people to come to the truth on their own, instead of going along with it because they have been CONVINCED to do so by some well-worded arguments.
2007-05-19 03:37:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes and no.
Yes, because talking sense is a good thing, always and everywhere.
No, because psychos -- by definition -- don't listen to sensible talk.
Dawkins and Harris are both upfront about it: They're not actually talking to the "faith-heads," but rather to the fence-sitters, the ones who haven't previously chosen to take a stand on the question of religion and its influence on society, but who may be persuaded to do so once they've heard the arguments.
Good for them. It's about damn time someone had the stones to say it.
2007-05-19 03:29:20 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
some human beings are a contradiction in words for they answer that which HAS no answer and assume positions of "intelligence" at the same time as they have NONE. As a psychologist myself, purely "psychotic" personalities imagine they're better. would not propose they're...............it truly is named being "delusional..."
2016-11-04 10:44:11 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i usually hate to just dismiss someone's religious beliefs etc. but for once i like something jimmy carr the comedian said - he read richard dawkin the god delusion and said "it's about the fact that there's no god. grow up!"
that comment made me laugh even if it's overly simplistic
2007-05-19 03:08:45 · answer #5 · answered by PookyBoo 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, Dawkins rocks.
2007-05-19 03:06:22 · answer #6 · answered by Ginger Ninja 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The fact is that these people are disillusioned specimens of humanity, who cannot bring anything positive to the lives of people, they can only bring their pathetic brand of negativity.
2007-05-19 03:19:39 · answer #7 · answered by Sentinel 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Quite honestly, I don't think they have. These psychos just can't think logically.
2007-05-19 03:08:20 · answer #8 · answered by Bipolar Bear 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Which psychos are you talking about, exactly? -- The religious ones who never read the books or the Atheists who read them both?
2007-05-19 03:07:17 · answer #9 · answered by raven7night 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You shouldn't call all those audience members who went to see them "psychos".
That's just un-PC if ever there was an instance of it.
2007-05-19 03:10:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They still need Lithium and Electroshock treatments to come around.
2007-05-19 03:05:48 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋