Who is your favourite atheist intellectual?

5uspect

Christopher Hitchens

Tim Robbins wrote:

I disagree. I read his "End of Faith". In one chapter he berates Islam and gives a list of several Islam countries but deliberatley leaves out the more progressive ones.
For me, this is the same as Creationists deliberately leaving out facts such as why there are "gaps" in the fossil record.

I seem to remember him having a go at moderate Islam too citing many examples, a Egyptian Newspaper's antisemitic views were quoted for example. Can you give us an example?

bubonicus

Idol Worshipping in the Atheist forum.

Zillah

Christopher Hitchens

Tim Robbins wrote:

I did make a point. He commits an "act of ommission". I presume you read the book?

Quite some time ago. What was this list? You're making a very vague reference.

aidan24326

BTW Tim, who is Colin McGinn? not familiar with him.

aidan24326

bubonicus wrote:

Idol Worshipping in the Atheist forum.

Absolutely. We kneel and face Oxford every day, pray to his holyness Pope Dawkins

bubonicus

aidan24326 wrote:

Absolutely. We kneel and face Oxford every day, pray to God Dawkins

lol, you lot are becoming more crazy than those christian types.:p

lostexpectation

me

aidan24326

bubonicus wrote:

lol, you lot are becoming more crazy than those christian types.:p

That was fast bubonicus. I changed god to his holyness, seemed more appropriate. I loved the South Park episode where they had him portrayed as a future god of atheism. It was a great p1sstake. He mentioned in his god delusion book that he didn't see the point of it, but to me the point they were making was pretty obvious. Perhaps that's the problem with Dawkins, he has difficulty in seeing things from other people's perspective.

lostexpectation

bubonicus wrote:

Idol Worshipping in the Atheist forum.

dawkins has turned into a golden statue? knew he was stiff

bubonicus

aidan24326 wrote:

That was fast bubonicus. I changed god to his holyness, seemed more appropriate. I loved the South Park episode where they had him portrayed as a future god of atheism. It was a great p1sstake. He mentioned in his god delusion book that he didn't see the point of it, but to me the point they were making was pretty obvious. Perhaps that's the problem with Dawkins, he has difficulty in seeing things from other people's perspective.

Good answer. people some times just use it as a replacement.:p

Dades

aidan24326 wrote:

Absolutely. We kneel and face Oxford every day, pray to his holyness Pope Dawkins

Only currently about 33% of you, it seems.

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

That was fast bubonicus. I changed god to his holyness, seemed more appropriate. I loved the South Park episode where they had him portrayed as a future god of atheism. It was a great p1sstake. He mentioned in his god delusion book that he didn't see the point of it, but to me the point they were making was pretty obvious. Perhaps that's the problem with Dawkins, he has difficulty in seeing things from other people's perspective.

Well, that's a very godly stance, of course. After all, what is the point of seeing things from the wrong perspective?

have you been born again in Dawkins?
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

A.N. other (please name)

I voted for myself.
Damn, I should have voted for Dawkins and said that.

I don't know why people would have a favourite atheist because they are an outspoken atheist etc, I would probably say Einstein, or an author of my favoured books, if it was just my favourite person that happened to be an atheist.

Tim Robbins

Sam Harris

Zillah wrote:

Quite some time ago. What was this list? You're making a very vague reference.

"Vague reference" - I named the flipping book. I am referring to his analysis of Islam which he denotes an entire chapter to. Come on! You are making senseless accusations
1. Me not making a point.
2. "Vague reference"

Tim Robbins

Sam Harris

aidan24326 wrote:

BTW Tim, who is Colin McGinn? not familiar with him.

Enjoy:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7853929164413117774&q=colin+mcginn&total=20&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/portraits_mcginn.html

Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I voted for myself.
Damn, I should have voted for Dawkins and said that.

I don't know why people would have a favourite atheist because they are an outspoken atheist etc, I would probably say Einstein, or an author of my favoured books, if it was just my favourite person that happened to be an atheist.

Hence Ursula Le Guin.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

A.N. other (please name)

Scofflaw wrote:

Hence Ursula Le Guin.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wasn't she the one who wrote earthsea?

Asiaprod

All the regular posters here, and Arther C Clarke, Carl Sagan and Robert Heinlen.

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

Wasn't she the one who wrote earthsea?

That's her.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

A.N. other (please name)

Scofflaw wrote:

That's her.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Last of my OT posts I promise -

Did you see the film? It's anime, in the cinema.

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

Last of my OT posts I promise -

Did you see the film? It's anime, in the cinema.

I haven't, although I'm aware of it. I usually find films disappointing compared to books!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

dan719 wrote:

G.H Hardy followed by Bertrand Russell

Hardy, eh? A wonderful choice, he was a fantastic individual. A very open-minded man for his time. I assume you've read "A Mathematician's Apology".

stevejazzx

I will very unpopulary go for Hitchens, he's arrogant, pompous, vain egotistical and a little self delusional, a right proper intellectual then.
On a serious note though, when he's on form (either not too drunk or extremely drunk) he shatters religous notions presenting both argument and counter argument before the other side has a chance to retort. He was particulary good in the debate with Stephen Fry recently in which he neither loses nor wins, as Fry makes some excellent points about the excessive conviction of modern atheists being 'a little to close to the battle cry of the enemy'. Hitchens believes that reliogn has a place in society but should never hold any powerful office, like government for example and that the office of government should never favour or promote one type of religon over the next. Essentially reducing religon to something as banal as a lifestyle option, like Yoga or evening clasees in homoepathy.
Wicknight posted an excellent interview with Douglas Adams recently which I really enjoyed but having just read Life, the Universe and Everthing I couldn't vote for Adams, it was terrible.
Carl Sagan next I suppose and then the good old eminently quoteable Mr. Russel.....

Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so. Bertrand Russell
British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. Bertrand Russell
British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)

Scofflaw

I imagine a lot of this depends on what you get out of people's writing. I don't need any further anti-religion arguments, so as far as I like Dawkins, I like his scientific writing. Those in the list who are primarily "atheist apologists" I don't consider necessary, I suppose, in that their reasons for their position are not necessarily mine, and I don't require any further ones. Further, I don't particularly care for having scientific writing contaminated with religious thought, whether pro or anti.

Essentially, that's why I chose a fiction author and a philosopher, rather than any of the more recent authors from the "Culture Wars". In respect of them, I'm tempted to give the religious response of "either they repeat my position, or are they are superfluous to it...burn them all".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Sam Harris

Scofflaw wrote:

I imagine a lot of this depends on what you get out of people's writing. I don't need any further anti-religion arguments, so as far as I like Dawkins, I like his scientific writing. Those in the list who are primarily "atheist apologists" I don't consider necessary, I suppose, in that their reasons for their position are not necessarily mine, and I don't require any further ones. Further, I don't particularly care for having scientific writing contaminated with religious thought, whether pro or anti.

Essentially, that's why I chose a fiction author and a philosopher, rather than any of the more recent authors from the "Culture Wars". In respect of them, I'm tempted to give the religious response of "either they repeat my position, or are they are superfluous to it...burn them all".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw, what do you think of Colin Mc Ginn?

Dave!

I've been having a geez at some Sam Harris videos on YouTube and am developing alot of fondness for him He's very articulate, not as hot-headed as the other high-profile atheists, and he gets his points across. He's a gent!

Have a search on YouTube for 'sam harris' and there's about 4 or 5 worth looking at.

Zillah

Christopher Hitchens

The Idea City one is cool.

Tim Robbins

Sam Harris

Zillah wrote:

The Idea City one is cool.

Are you going to reply to my reply to you?

Zillah

Christopher Hitchens

Tim Robbins wrote:

Are you going to reply to my reply to you?

Ugh. Fine.

"Vague reference" - I named the flipping book. I am referring to his analysis of Islam which he denotes an entire chapter to. Come on! You are making senseless accusations
1. Me not making a point.
2. "Vague reference"

You complained about a list, without specifying what this list was composed of, what its purpose was or what arguements he based on it. Hence, vague: "Lacking specific detail". Those of us who have not read the book or read it some time ago have no idea what you're talking about aside from the fact that there is some sort of list relating to Islam that you're not happy with.

Tim Robbins

Sam Harris

Zillah wrote:

You complained about a list, without specifying what this list was composed of, what its purpose was or what arguements he based on it. Hence, vague: "Lacking specific detail". Those of us who have not read the book or read it some time ago have no idea what you're talking about aside from the fact that there is some sort of list relating to Islam that you're not happy with.

Incorrect.
I specified his list consisted a list of Islamic countries but he deliberately left out the more progressive ones. In logic this is called "act of omission" and it is pretty much a logical fallacy.

He devotes an entire chapter of his book to this. There are only 7 chapters in the entire book, so if you had read it, you should know what I was talking about.

So what's the problem, you want the exact chapter and list, even though you read the book. Ok, It's
Chapter 4. The list is Lebanon, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Jordan, Pakistan, Mali, Ghana, Uganda, Senegal, Indonesia, Turkey.

However he omitted a country who's main religion is Islam but is more progressive e.g. Malaysia or the UAE.
Now if he included these countries, it would have been more objective but it also would have resulted in a conclusion he didn't want.

Now do you favour a more objective analysis or do you just want to be told what you want to hear?