What kind of people did Hitchens and Dawkins appeal to in the 2000's? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 03, 2024, 09:16:12 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  What kind of people did Hitchens and Dawkins appeal to in the 2000's? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What kind of people did Hitchens and Dawkins appeal to in the 2000's?  (Read 1215 times)
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« on: August 11, 2021, 04:39:03 PM »
« edited: August 11, 2021, 04:43:10 PM by Kingpoleon »

That is true as Islamophobia was a popular innuendo amongst both Harris and Hitchens (Harris more so and still evident)

The movement is long since dead, Hitchens is dead and it was subsumed into the culture wars / 'muh centrism.' If it had any effect however, particularly amongst millennials in the USA, the rise of the nones also saw the rise of a generally heavily Democratic and left leaning voting bloc. For all the strawmanning (mostly by mainsteam/progressive Christians to be honest) a decade ago, they are now generally part of the same side of the culture war/populism divide.
To pretend that someone needs to strawman people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, or P. Z. Myers is utterly ridiculous. Dawkins objects that the ontological argument seems a bit “too easy” to reach a proper conclusion, successfully misreads all of Aquinas’s Five Ways, and objects that he need not have any knowledge of philosophy of religion because his whole point is that it’s nonsense. Harris talks about how sad it is that we may one day wipe out Iran because they’re just too religious, and announces that any secular ideology which kills people ought to be defined as a religion.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2021, 07:17:09 PM »

I believe the exact story was that “the theologians” had to resort to Modal Collapse to explain why an ontological argument for flying pigs failed. Modal Collapse, he assures us in TGD, is philosophical nonsense.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 12 queries.