Yuku free message boards

I really enjoyed the responses, to me this is a very interesting discussion we are having.

Mak, but at the same time, werent you raised in "the troof"? I think there might have been confounding factors... perhaps not. Do you really feel it was the anti-intellectualism that convinced you, and how did it convince you? Please elaborate as much as you can. I am very fascinated to hear this because this would give me much insight into how others might see it. I am not asking you because I dont believe you, if you after sincere reflection feel this way, I would love to hear details. I am sure there are many that feel similarly, and when I said that statement I didnt intend it to be a strict rule (as almost absolutely nothing in society is a rule in such a sense). I phrased it rather poorly on second thought in my original post, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I read PZ myers blog http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ daily so I am familiar... and a bit surprised by peoples takes on him. He, in my opinion, is much more confrontational than Dawkins. He is veeeeery blunt and I could see why theists wouldnt like him. Of course he makes very valid points but he is very confrontational. (btw, he is coming out with a book next year called "dancing on the graves of gods" or something like that)

It is often forgotten, as was already mentioned, that these people get asked the same questions day in and day out and sometimes get tired of answering it the same way over and over again. It of course isnt a great excuse because we must remember we are dealing with individuals (and I know many fault me with the same, and I dont blame them as it is something I can def work on). That being so, if you look at the documentaries that Dawkins makes, he is very fair to theists imo, much more so than debates (much like how I answer questions when I feel someone is sincere in their questions... perhaps I must better access sincerity or assume it altogether). Debates, by nature, tend to be "your wrong and this is why." So Dawkins, or anyone really in a debate, can seem arrogant... but if you hear him speak about what he loves when he is lecturing or explaining something, he explains it so beautifully. Confrontational or not, NONE of these people are hateful imo. They all want what is best for the world, just like most theists do (where we disagree is, what is "best")


This made me reflect a bit... when I fully believed, i HATED people like Dawkins, Hitchens and ESPECIALLY Bill Maher when they talked about religion. What is interesting however is when someone I respected and loved talked about religion disparagingly, such as the comedian George Carlin. When Carlin spoke of religion, I of course didnt agree but I couldnt help feel he was still funny. Satire and redicule is a very good way to make a point, and can possibly open people up to differing views but it must be done tactfully. When Maher discussed religion in a similiar comedic way he often called religious people IDIOTS and resorted to ad hominems. This was never productive, but Carlin pointing out the silliness in religion got you thinking, even if only for a moment.