Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

exploratory committee for political progress: Dawkins

Expand Messages
  • star
    ... must ... I m not entirely sure that I trust Dawkins agenda. He seems to aggressively campaign for atheism in the same way that he accuses certain
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > <Speaking of his new book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins' makes the
      > point that none of our elected federal officials openly admit to being
      > atheist. He says that is statistically impossible, and that someone
      must
      > be lying. I do agree that an atheist candidate has no chance of being
      > elected. Perhaps, for the good of the country and possibly the world,
      > it's their turn. Other minority candidates have run and won. What could
      > it hurt? Mary>
      >
      > it might hurt the cynics who don't believe anyone has any interest in
      > truth (inasmuch they can sense and access it). :)
      >
      > aija
      >

      I'm not entirely sure that I trust Dawkins' agenda. He seems to
      aggressively campaign for atheism in the same way that he accuses
      certain Christians of pushing Christianity. Certainly both points of
      view should be out in the realm of discourse, but I think that he is
      somewhat of a hypocrite.
    • Aija Veldre Beldavs
      star:
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        star:
        <I'm not entirely sure that I trust Dawkins' agenda. He seems to
        aggressively campaign for atheism in the same way that he accuses
        certain Christians of pushing Christianity. Certainly both points of
        view should be out in the realm of discourse, but I think that he is
        somewhat of a hypocrite. >

        so what? i assume you have critical judgment which is better used for
        mining for whatever is useful in Dawkins as in anyone, instead of
        wasting a lot of time judging someone whose conscious or unconscious
        motivations are only partially interesting and "uncoverable" even to the
        person himself. i at least am more interested in what i can come up
        with, or if a facilitator, how i can facilitate someone else's
        independent critical development as opposed to engaging in what i think
        is largely thankless and irrelevant for the purpose. (this is not to
        deny your right to pursue what you are interested in.) my attitude
        comes out of a philosophy compatible with existentialism that i am first
        of all responsible for myself.

        aija
        ps my first contact with existentialism was late gradeschool
        childrens' literature (obscure, not in english)
      • star
        ... the ... first ... Very well said. I suppose that my concern is that there are many people who don t believe that they are responsible for themselves or
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 5, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > star:
          > <I'm not entirely sure that I trust Dawkins' agenda. He seems to
          > aggressively campaign for atheism in the same way that he accuses
          > certain Christians of pushing Christianity. Certainly both points of
          > view should be out in the realm of discourse, but I think that he is
          > somewhat of a hypocrite. >
          >
          > so what? i assume you have critical judgment which is better used for
          > mining for whatever is useful in Dawkins as in anyone, instead of
          > wasting a lot of time judging someone whose conscious or unconscious
          > motivations are only partially interesting and "uncoverable" even to
          the
          > person himself. i at least am more interested in what i can come up
          > with, or if a facilitator, how i can facilitate someone else's
          > independent critical development as opposed to engaging in what i think
          > is largely thankless and irrelevant for the purpose. (this is not to
          > deny your right to pursue what you are interested in.) my attitude
          > comes out of a philosophy compatible with existentialism that i am
          first
          > of all responsible for myself.
          >
          > aija
          > ps my first contact with existentialism was late gradeschool
          > childrens' literature (obscure, not in english)
          >


          Very well said. I suppose that my concern is that there are many
          people who don't believe that they are responsible for themselves or
          who may not even know to question the source of their beliefs, to
          develop themselves. While it is such a generality to categorize most
          of us into one homogeneous group, mainstream beliefs or attitudes in
          our cultures seem to come from those who are the loudest or who have
          the strongest rhetoric. Some people just believe things because they
          hear them; this can be very dangerous for society, or at the very
          least could provide an impediment to the development of our society.
          But to what degree can we actually influence mainstream thought?
          Would we even want to? If we're going to care about hunger, disease,
          and poverty in the world, would we not care about ignorance?
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.