Comment on People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

• Pinetten@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Yep. It’s especially cringe when people ignore centuries of philosophical discussion. Often smugly.

  Great example is when people refer to Richard Dawkins’ books as proof that there is no god. Nothing like a Reddit atheist to make me embarrassed to not believe in god.

  source

  • BurgerBaron@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I’ve never witnessed an atheist making such an argument. Usually it’s the theists getting hung up on him because they are used to appealing to authority figures and project.

    source

    • Pinetten@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Lucky you?

      source

      • BurgerBaron@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I don’t think it’s luck.

        source
  • SenK@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I unironically think the braindead atheism online greatly contributed to the rise of Christian nationalism we’ve been seeing in the past decade…

    source
  • Limerance@piefed.social ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    There are also many definitions of god, and Dawkins engages with all of them. Dawkins is much more strongly opposed do theism, than deism for example. He engages with philosophical ideas about god.

    Dawkins argues that we don’t need god to explain the universe, life, or anything else. He further goes on to argue that religious belief in god trains people to be irrational fanatics, which damages society, progress, science. In the end Dawkins says, there’s no proof for the existence of god, and that we would all be better off without religion. However IIRC Dawkins recognizes that religious belief can have positive psychological effects.

    The new atheists have become their own subculture with its own values. The online new atheist scene also attracts people who love to argue, provoke, and pick fights. Contrarians and skeptics are not the same, but can overlap.

    There‘s also a pipeline that goes like this: new atheism > anti religion > anti islam > white nationalism

    The issue here is that the left has abandoned its opposition to religion, especially regarding Islam, in the name of anti-racism and intersectional identity politics. So these people are rejected by the left and driven to the right.

    source

    • BladeFederation@piefed.social ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I don’t think “the left” needs to abandon religion. I have the left in quotes because most of the time we’re actually talking about progressives. And you can’t be progressive while dictating the beliefs of others. Leftism, however, benefits greatly from being united in belief. Unity is what it’s all about. But they don’t, because leftists are usually more progressives than anything else. Even when it happens, the Jove mind mentality is what makes extreme leftism easy to fall apart and easy to slip into dictatorships at high population levels. And yet, we are approaching a post scarcity, post career having society, which demands socialism to some extent.

      I don’t have an ultimate point in this I guess. I don’t know the solution, but it’s not stamping out religion and it’s not reactionary fascism that America is a part of now.

      source
  • BobbleBubble@retrolemmy.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Isn’t it? I mean I haven’t read his stuff or otherwise cared that much but I thought that was the point.

    I really don’t know.

    In general I don’t quite understand the point of OP. How do you learn without learning?

    source

    • SenK@lemmy.ca ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Good on you for asking! Dawkins doesn’t prove there’s no God; he argues the idea isn’t necessary to explain reality. The burden of proof isn’t on him to disprove an unfalsifiable claim, it’s on those making the claim to provide testable evidence. That’s how critical thinking works.

      youtu.be/Qf03U04rqGQ?t=301

      As for “How do you learn without learning?” you don’t. But a lot of people confuse rote repetition (parroting Dawkins or the Bible) with understanding (grappling with the arguments themselves). One’s memorization; the other’s understanding.

      source
  • db2@lemmy.world ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Great example is when people refer to Richard Dawkins’ books as proof that there is no god

    As was said earlier by someone else, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    source