tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post680724219241467740..comments2024-03-09T19:23:22.482-03:00Comments on The RPGPundit: UnCracked Monday: Against Who??RPGPundithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-74352572817293110592014-05-15T01:00:27.144-04:002014-05-15T01:00:27.144-04:00You guys are hilarious. Keep it coming.You guys are hilarious. Keep it coming.Doc Savagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08783244633195233970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-76294129168279022222014-04-29T19:25:33.851-04:002014-04-29T19:25:33.851-04:00But New Atheism also needs profound thinkers from ...But New Atheism also needs profound thinkers from OUTSIDE the sciences/engineering/computers if it stands a chance of being a truly intellectually-serious endeavour.RPGPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-26580196964804928552014-04-29T19:24:52.490-04:002014-04-29T19:24:52.490-04:00I agree, which is why I find the title ironic. At...I agree, which is why I find the title ironic. Atheism needs more Tysons and less Dawkinses. <br /><br />RPGPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-691504547840164232014-04-29T12:31:46.479-04:002014-04-29T12:31:46.479-04:00Yes, I think some atheists do indeed reduce us too...Yes, I think some atheists do indeed reduce us too far down into an "animal" state, where we're no better than the biblical "beasts of the field." The uber-atheists have become as exclusionary as people who claim they're the chosen of a god. They can maybe get off of their ivory tower in order to make their ideas more accessible, instead of seeming like elitists. I think the great Neil DeGrasse Tyson has done that with skill, savvy, charisma, and aplomb.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-85376925833795533652014-04-29T09:42:06.539-04:002014-04-29T09:42:06.539-04:00True,
Pundit, let me recommend an article. It co...True,<br /><br />Pundit, let me recommend an article. It comes from an atheist who no longer defines himself as a skeptic, and in it he recognizes the same issues--that science only exists in its current form because of cultural viewpoints, especially the Science always has a political dimension part<br /><br />http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html<br /><br />JRThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06028363896728357260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-27525029980323288472014-04-29T06:06:52.401-04:002014-04-29T06:06:52.401-04:00Yup.Yup.RPGPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-48955531480012245612014-04-29T03:39:42.524-04:002014-04-29T03:39:42.524-04:00Science is actually a VERY radical (even anarchist...Science is actually a VERY radical (even anarchistic) paradigm: it is based on questioning everything, asking for concrete proof for things, and being fully willing to change everything is new evidence contradicts your theory. You can apply this to humanities as well. Treating science as religious dogma is a perversion.<br /><br />Say what you want about Marx (and Engels), Freud, or Nietzsche and their theories, but all three were VERY well-versed and well-read in a WIDE variety of subjects, from humanities to social sciences to "hard" science. The Dawkins kind of atheists usually go too far down the lane of mechanical-materialist reductionism that they end up with very narrow social-Darwinist explanations of social and human phenomena (i.e. the selfish gene theory).Omer Golan-Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09242085820257230639noreply@blogger.com