|
|
|
|
|
Kruelaid's page
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion, Planet Stories Subscriber. 9,297 posts (14,252 including aliases). 5 reviews. Aliases: Vote for Pett or be eaten, Anonymous User 69, Ad Hominem, The Crowd, Mrs. Bell, Vikramendra Rajanigandha, Ha 442, Coca Cola, Tobus Meth, Erik Moaner, Eir Haakonen, Dead Horse, Johnny-R-OTN, Aso, Tenser, Grimnebulin, The Reaper, Stigwold Mæch'Hæmmær, Modius Larci, Captain Kid Rime, The Mapper, Pharasma, Wetsands, Colonel Sanders, Horton-TPK, Plieone, Morning Wood, Clint Eastwood, Thoguth, The Jerk, Karlis Lejnieks, Christopher Marlowe, Wod, Jesus Christ, Karlis Lejnieks 995.
Profile
|
Recent Posts
|
Recent Reviews
|
 Recent posts by
Kruelaid:
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Holy terribleness!
Much love, sympathy and empathy for my Paizo brethren.
...
Except Shiny: he can weep, weep, weep himself to sleep in his cold empty bed: "MEEEE! I miss my hot girlfriend.... MEEEE!"
j/k Shiny. Been there, bro... except she finally dumped me and made me cry like a schoolgirl with her name on the boy's room wall.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Keegan wrote:
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
James Keegan wrote:
I made a vegan chocolate and orange Cthulu cake for Halloween yesterday. It was delicious.
And maddening. But in a tasty way.
Do you have a pic?
I have one on my blog here along with my super creepy Walken mask.
Too bad we can't see your tumors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zombieneighbours wrote:
...
I think the last book I read from Dawkins was Unweaving the Rainbow and I walked away from it a little disappointed and didn't read anything that followed. There is something about reading something from someone with one world view when they write about your own world view that doesn't sit right I guess. I hear The God Delusion is quite a romp for those with religious world views.
Again, the guy is a genius, I'll give him that. And dedicated, I'll give it to him double.
As for memes, I don't think the idea has taken off in sociology, psychology, and cultural criticism because it's just not possible to talk about memes in the reductive manner that we use to discuss genes--and this is pretty well covered ground in cultural studies--it's not my opinion. Yet there is no arguing that the term itself was a brilliant breakthrough and that it is extremely useful in broad cultural discourse--that I get and I certainly have no problem when people use the word in that kind of context.
As for my "brush them off my dinner jacket" attitude to literalist Christians: they are not threatening my way of life, they're not hijacking my government, and I've never had any troubles with them that weren't instantly solved by walking the other direction. This I have in common with Canadian atheists. It's just not necessary for us to have a trench warfare mentality about the religion debate up there in America's hat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kruelaid wrote:
I wonder. If Dawkins didn't feel it necessary to constantly defend evolution from religion by attacking religion then is it possible that a few more people might actually read his arguments?
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Can i ask you this. Why should the fact that he has said something against religion, mean that you should not read his arguments?
PS. It isn't funny, i can't actually bring myself to go back to 'Has "balance" ruined D&D flavor?'. Since when did 'hey, look we clearly have different styles of play and different oppinions about whats important in a game, but thats okay. Now please try to alter a game i like, despite the fact you have a game you much prefer.' become such a lynching worth offence?
SHORT ANSWER (wrote this after all the blah blah below):
If his book is about religion, then arguing against religion is fine. If his book is about evolution, then arguing against religion is bad writing.
Here's the LONG VERBOSE ANSWER that came out first:
First off, it sure didn't stop me from reading. But I can think of a few people who might benefit from a guy selling evolution without making side trips into attacking religious belief. With religion, for me, we are talking about issues of sociology, psychology, and consciousness, and in this area I don't really consider Dawkins to be a useful voice. I think he just likes to get the press. There are better critics of religion out there.
Now it's well established on this thread that because creationism is offered as a competing explanation that it is therefore due for some good knocks by explanations of evolution, but as a person with a usually scientific mind I don't even even see creationism as being worth it.
If I may possibly disagree with myself the fact of the matter is that evolution is pretty reductive if boiled down to the empirically observable hard-wired structure of organisms, and with intelligent creatures we therefore also need to talk about culture and ideas... meaning the meme stuff, The Selfish Gene and all that. But from my side, although memes were a great idea, I don't think Dawkins is very good at the actual study of culture because quantifying it and reducing it does not work well at all... so back to point 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Moff Rimmer wrote:
Dawkins? I don't find him terribly "reasonable" at all.
Out of curiosity, have you read any of his books? He comes across a lot differently in person than on paper, and neither type of appearance very closely resembles his reputation.
That said, his logic in places has holes big enough to drive trucks through...
I didn't make any margin notes. nor did I observe more than a few assumptions and leaps(although there is this one big frickin' huge generalization about believers)--more than anything I find that his distraction by the need to constantly attack religious belief is rather off-putting.
More than more than anything though, I find that it is his followers who annoy me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
