Dave makes lots of Nonsense Noises

[shiftyboyd]

I'm beginning to notice that I love every single Third Eye Blind song I hear. Well, at least, on their "Out of the Vein" album. First, I got hooked on "Blinded", which was a single some time ago. Then, after I bought the album, I started listening to "Faster." These are the first two tracks on the album

Comments

[shiftyboyd]

Oh, I definitely saw the hypocrisy. I don't believe in necessarily shooting down what people believe, as Dawkins seems (more than seems) to. Do I agree that religion is a destructive force? Yes. In some cases. I think some people take their religion to far. But, like in the case of my mother, her faith isn't hurting anyone. I highly respect religious individuals who have found their faith on their own, instead of taking what they are fed and running with it.

The only religious people I have a problem with are the people who, as Dawkins phrases it, think they have a God-given right to spread their 'hate' and act upon their faith without consequence.
That's the only type of religion I can't stand.

I'm all for people having faith and something to believe in, if that's what they need. For me, I think, my agnosticism was a way for me to ignore atheism. Do I 'know' that there isn't a god? No. Nobody can say that. So, I guess, in a way, all atheists are a form of agnostics; the only difference, I think, is that we actually search for an answer. Agnostics don't. I left agnosticism when I stopped not caring. I've spent the last year or so searching for an answer, searching for a god or lack thereof.

I'm sure, at some point in my life, I will revisit agnosticism and not give a shit either way. I've always felt that absence, I simply ignored it, for fear of what it meant to me (specifically, my father's death). I was afraid to acknowledge the fact that I truly believe there is nothing beyond death. Do I 'know' that? No. But I feel that I can safely assume so, until I am proven wrong. And I told my mother: If I die, and you are waiting for me in 'heaven' or whatever, you can say 'I told you so.' In reply, she said, quite cleverly: 'Well, if you're right, you won't have the opportunity to say "I told you so".' And I laughed and said: 'I don't care to say 'i told you so.''

I think Dawkins is...a harsh case of atheism. People who take atheism and run with it, which is quite hypocritical; however, I do commend him for his bravery. The book, I think, is good for someone who hasn't completely 'embraced' atheism. Or, in my case, hasn't had the connections among ideas..the thread that holds it all together. I love the book for its clever and witty nature (and crass, as well), and for Dawkins's diction and compilation of ideas.

And you're right. It is 'high school senior caliber religious ranting disguised as scientific/sociological analysis.' Maybe that's why I like it. Because I'm still...uneducated, I'm quite hesitant to admit. I've been educated in Astronomy and other sciences, though I don't know much about Darwinian theory, and I'd like to become more educated in other religions.

"It's beyond anyone's comprehension, and that's really the best way to look at the big picture." You hit the nail on the head. I completely agree. If I had the time to sit and explain my views to someone I would. I would probably fall somewhere in between agnosticism and atheism, in that I don't proclaim to KNOW anything. I think that's what irritates me about people with strong faith. They claim to "know". I laughed out loud when my mom says she's seen evidence and proof, just because it's all a matter of perception. I look at her evidence and see coincidence. Or that she saw what she wanted to see. And that's what I think it is. If you search and search for something, you're going to find it. If you search for evidence and proof, and that's what you want more than anything, you will convince yourself that you've seen it. Know what I mean? I think that's what irritates me the most. I appreciate people who simply say: "I look it out into the world and I see God. I see the work of God. Where you see physics and cosmology and geology, I see God." At least that person is acknowledging perception.

[shiftyboyd]

As I was reading the book, I saw the hypocrisy, but, naturally, I'm going to laugh at the hypocrisy because it adheres to my belief. The only thing I thought was head-on right was "The Mother of all Burkas." He, more or less, seemed to ignore the whole God idea and just concentrated on how science operates. I think we need people like him to open up the eyes of other people; he compensates for us atheists who keep their mouths shut in a room full of Christians (in my case, because of where I live.) Do I think it was missing true anthropological and sociological evidence? Yes. I might not have overlooked that in the way that I did if he were, in fact, an anthropologist or a sociologist. But I kept in mind his field of study. Though, I do wonder, being a scientist, does he have a right to write a book like that if he does not practice Anthropology or Sociology? I guess the answer is, yes, he does have a right, but I'm not going to take his methods seriously when he explores those arenas. I do take his scientific word/ideas seriously, because he is a scientist. I'd be interested to see a true anthropological/sociological view on the subject. And I do plan to read his other books.

I think he's a great writer who has impassioned ideas and wants to get the word out. The thing is, when I go to the book store (corporate book stores) I see entire shelving units devoted to the Christian faith, more than a few shelves devoted to Judaism, Islam, and other world faiths, and four books on the shelf devoted to atheism or agnosticism.

As Dawkins pointed out, people in America would rather have a homosexual president than an atheist one. That is why I commend him for his work. Because he is speaking out against hegemony. Beyond the normalcy in this world. There are more religious people in this world, I think, than non-religious. True atheists, like Dawkins, are hard to come by. So I'm glad he wrote the book and made a shit ton of money off of it. Somebody has to get the word out, because Micah knows I'm not. :)

Was it manipulative? Absolutely. I don't disagree with you there. It was missing a lot, but I still think it's a good book. Because it was good for me. It was what I needed to move on and become more educated. A segue, if you will.

[lizardscum]

I see, koo koo.

I can't recall all of them, but some stronger books on the subject include: On The Nature and Existence of God/ The Wisdom to Doubt/ The Cosmological Argument/ How We Believe/ The Demon-Haunted World

All good stuff to read while chomping on some corn in between debate sessions with four eleven.

[shiftyboyd]

I'm going to write those down. Let me know if you think of any more; I'm quite interested in continuing my self-education.

Thanks for reply to the entry. It, for once, didn't illicit an emotional response ;)

PAWPCORN