Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
I would honestly rate Eco and Chomksy over Dawkins and Hitchens anyday.
EDIT: Not in being overrated, but in my appreciation. I guess I should put it that I consider Dawkins and Hitchens far more overrated.
|
dawkins and hitchens belong more in the morally repugnant category. dawkins with his whole "i'm a guilty materialist trying to existentialise god so he can not exist and i can be the daddy i want so desperately to exist. and, obviously, since i'm a rich celebrity intellectual i must have the
right genes.
dawkins the twat doesn't realise that BY DEFINITION god can't be concieved existentially. he makes his cash out of the disparity between the "real" relegion of crude materialistic selfish individual capitalism and what said individuals feel immense guilt about replacing their parents with - i.e money and stuff. if i just get rid of that bad father figure from the bible i can do and have whatever i want! if only i could get rid of my parents i could get whatever i want! it's their fault for saying no! dawkins is the same as some fundamentalist preacher. he is just another version for another fundamentally christian lifestyle. by conceiving of god as an existential black hole in the universe he can fill it with himself or whatever individual or conception of self he chooses.
comfort food for the guilt of idiots.
and then you read his books.
fuck.
now i'm sure he's prob contributed something to the categorising and research of animal biology.
but as for his theology. (and it is a theology altho he would never admit it). its a fucking joke. it comes down to believing in the fairies at the bottom of the garden because it's more "magical". this is exactly what he advocates at the end of the god delusion. a book which is so full of blatant shit that none of its arguments couldn't be turned around instantly as a point in favour of the existance of god.
the fact that he feels he is being profound by providing arguments against the bible being literally true just proves how much his first instinct was to believe it and take it as such!
his main task seems to be to try to convince us that self interested existential individualism (ie. the relegion of capitalism as it has been for the past couple of hundred years) is somehow immovably encoded into us, in our very "materialism" (another illusion). i find what he is preaching to be so utterly morally repugnant i feel like some schizophrenic christian who'se actually afraid that dawkins is the antichrist haha.
he has his documentaries series on channel four, where he is used to sell advertising space. and he actually suggests that the redeeming feature of humanity are our soup kitchens - that "somehow" despite it being impossible for us to conceive of anything but our own lonely selfish material gain (and thus death) there "exists" an altruism that involves people volunteering to give shelter and a hot meal to the homeless in london! he walks around it talking to the homeless (or at least being videoed talking to them while his own voiceover plays) and expects us not to REALISE that this place contains the very social domination that keeps these men begging and just serves as a cosmetic at best.
he makes his cash as the ringleader of the endless pointless circular debate between the athiest and non athiest sects of christianity. it would be funny if it wasn't sad imagining the genuinely lost/curious people get hooked in by his schtick