That was really fun.
Why is Metatron calling Dawkins dishonest? Where does that come from? I don't understand for free to me but not for thee thingy
An interesting chat between Dawkins and Gervais
by cedars 16 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
sizemik
I don't mean to be confrontational or anything . . . tec
I'm confronting you anyway LOL
'our way is the right way', 'they can't enjoy or appreciate life or art as much as we can', 'if they thought about it some more, they might come to know what we know,' etc. . . . tec
I didn't actually hear the 1st and 3rd quote, and I think the context of the 2nd quote is important, i.e.; in response to "some suggest the scientific view is bleak and cold"
Rather than a "we know better" claim. I saw the point being made as, that faith, or belief in god, puts in place a filter, through which everything else is strained and viewed. And that non-belief is simply a removing of that filter . . . would you not agree?
I thought Dawkins response to the question "What would you believe if you had been born pre-Darwinian?" i.e.; "I would probably believe in god" to be a fairly honest, and underscores the point. It's the proponderance of evidence, or lack thereof, that shapes the view . . . not a desire to feel superior. In my experience, that's a motivation more common to faith.
-
botchtowersociety
Rather than a "we know better" claim. I saw the point being made as, that faith, or belief in god, puts in place a filter, through which everything else is strained and viewed. And that non-belief is simply a removing of that filter . . . would you not agree?
Or the replacement of a filter with a different one. We've all got filters.
-
tec
I'm confronting you anyway LOL
I didn't actually hear the 1st and 3rd quote, and I think the context of the 2nd quote is important, i.e.; in response to "some suggest the scientific view is bleak and cold"
Rather than a "we know better" claim. I saw the point being made as, that faith, or belief in god, puts in place a filter, through which everything else is strained and viewed. And that non-belief is simply a removing of that filter . . . would you not agree?
The first 'quote' was just me, and what I summed from what they were saying. Sorry, bad grammar to make it seem as though they actually said that.
The second quote... i have to agree with BTS. Often, it is just a different filter that is being used. Now the video froze up on me a couple of times, so if Gervais said that in response to 'some suggest the scientific view is bleak and cold', then that changes things a bit. I only heard him lead with that quote (that no believer could appreciate art or life as much as he does)
Gervais said the third quote in response (if I remember correctly) to some who say that they believe in 'something' (some sort of creator), but not knowing much about it. So I thought that was cute, because believers say that about atheists a lot too.
I thought Dawkins response to the question "What would you believe if you had been born pre-Darwinian?" i.e.; "I would probably believe in god" to be a fairly honest, and underscores the point. It's the proponderance of evidence, or lack thereof, that shapes the view . . . not a desire to feel superior. In my experience, that's a motivation more common to faith.
I think the 'desire to feel superior' is probably equal across the board, percentage-wise anyway.
But I agree, that felt honest of him. Of course, that is also just based on the fundamentalist view... which is what Dawkins tends to argue/focus upon. Plenty of believers post-darwinian.
Peace,
tammy
-
sizemik
Or the replacement of a filter with a different one. We've all got filters. . . . bts
Can't disagree . . .
Only because it's one of those over-simplifications designed to make a sweeping generalisation in order to dismiss the specifics of the issue.
You win.
-
Chariklo
bookmarking
-
steve2
Tec, I did not hear either of these two men say anything like, 'our way is the right way' - in fact what comes through in their conversation is a willingness to be open to the evidence - something that some religious people find extremely difficult to achieve because the evidence appears to contradict their beliefs.
On another matter, Metatron's comment about Dawkin's being "dishonest" shows how easy it is to make negative assertions about another's character without producing a shred of evidence. I'm not saying Metatron is wrong - or that Dawkin's is either - I just think people need to give thought to what they say about other's characters unless of course they have evidence.
Interesting thread.