Richard Dawkins Answers The Simplest Question
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Oct
14
2007
14
2007
This is me.
No, really.
I am a writer, poet, spoken word performer, actor, singer, improviser, content creation and idea machine, freelance iconoclast, and the internet's janitor that dispenses pop culture wisdom to the protagonist of your choice. I have seen too many movies, read too many comic books, and when the zombies finally come, I'm the one you want to call. I sure as hell won't answer the phone, but it's the thought that counts. I advise people on the net, websites and technology, because I know these things instead of having a life or sleeping.
If you like something I've done, donate to the Widge Wants to Kill His Day Job Fund. Or if you'd like to hire me for a job, my rates are terribly reasonable. We thank you.
Powered by WordPress. Theme: TheBuckmaker's Aerodrome.
Er, did he actually answer the question?
Jones: I would argue yes, in the same way that some mathematical problems simply don't have answers. A null set, I guess is what it's called. I dunno, I only had one math class in my life where I had a teacher who could teach. Asking an atheist what if they're wrong is sort of pointless, because you're asking what if you're wrong about MY (my being the speaker) belief system? I think Dawkins' point is, there's no difference in his mind between "being wrong" about Jehovah then there is "being wrong" about Wotan. And if he can be wrong about Jehovah, then she can certainly be wrong about Wotan. Or any other God that's ever been invented. I believe he was trying to get the questioner to think about where she was in even asking the question in the first place. Regardless, if he's wrong, then I guess the Answer Answer is he'll be subject to whatever punishment is laid out for non-believers of whatever faith he's wrong about. In this case, for Jehovah, I believe that means he'll go to hell, and I'll be glad to buy him drinks for a good portion of eternity. Because I'll be there with him, Leary and Scorsese.
See, that's, I'm not sure about that. Traditionally, I suppose arguing against God might not go down well with the traditionalists, but what have they done for us, ever? But if there is an afterlife, and it is, I dunno, a 'worthy' one, then as a person who's essentially calling for mankind to wake up, take more responsibility for it's actions and use solid common sense in it's decision making, I'd think Richard would be fine with the 'big guy upstairs'. I'm not sure if his book also argues against spiritualism, nor am I sure if that was the point of the question (maybe the question was about religion holding civilisation together) but anyway, as long as he's not promoting hate, I'd think he'd be ok. But he seems so quick to dismiss the possible heart of the question in order to stay on the offensive about religious people being wrong.
Jones: That assumes one believes in a "big guy upstairs" who actually wants mankind to "wake up, take more responsibility for its actions and use solid common sense in its decision making." I would advise reading his book and Christopher Hitchens', as they lay out that while a lot of people might believe in a God that wants that, that's not really the same God that the Bible lays out. Sadly, most people haven't read the very book they believe in.
And no, he's not promoting hate in the least. I wouldn't be posting videos of somebody like that. He might be accused of hating, but I haven't seen anything to support that.
I agree, I don't think he's hating on people at all, it seems he and Hitchens are trying to get people to stop destructively focusing on their differences and start focusing on their shared interests, like survival. Which is a great message, and if the religious are truly religious then logically they should be solidly behind it.