Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitchens
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I dunno about any of that, I just know they write good books.
|
I actually haven't read any Hitchens. I read the god delusion, liked some of it but am turned off by his certainty and attempt to redefine words. Speaking of:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagatob
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Also don't worry too much about lables, when Dawkins admitted to being agnostic it was when he was cornered in a debate, you can be an atheist and still acknowledge the possibility that some sort of greater force could exist as long as you are denouncing the gods of the mainstream religions of man. Something Dawkins certainly does. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] |
Bolded is a false statement. I do not cotton to the "strong," "weak," and "agnostic" type atheists. I think Dawkins here tries to relabel agnostics in an attempt to make a mass movement against religion "seem" to have a harder stance, making it more accessible to reactionaries. While I applaud his efforts to undermine religion, I think the methods are suspect. If you are "not certain" or "without knowledge" on the question of whether or not there is a higher power, you are by definition an agnostic on the topic, regardless of any unsubstantiated view or opinion you may have. People who are certain one way or the other are theists and atheists, and in my view equally dogmatic / stupid.