It has nothing to do with Happy or Dawkins--I am an atheist and a woman-------I know who Hawkins is but not who the other three are much less read their work. I became an atheist at the age of 4 when I started to read books (I started school early.) The children's version of Adam and Eve was enough to convince me that 1) the Bible is a Fable based off the Talking snake bit and 2) that this god creature is fucking evil as he attacks people for just gaining knowledge. More importantly, I learned that adults with their christian beliefs must be insane not to grasp either of these two facts.Last week I skewered Richard Dawkins for saying life was a “happy chemical accident” on National Public Radio. A reader of my blog (a smart, well educatedevo2.org
Not only has Dawkins ruined science, he’s ruined atheism too.
20 years ago, an atheist was an intellectual with whom one could have a reasonable dialogue.
Today, most people experience atheists as bellicose angry males who commonly suffer from depression, who post anonymous tirades all over the internet so they can share their misery with everyone else.
We have the New Atheists to thank for this. And their four horsemen. Dawkins – Dennett – Harris – Hitchens.
Wanna have an intelligent discussion about atheism? Read Voltaire, Nietzche or Bertrand Russell.
Agree or disagree, they will force you to think.
Wanna have a pointless shouting match with a bunch of mannerless name-callers who make up just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes and think they’re doing science? Sit down with guys who read Krauss, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Walk into a roomful of Dawkins fans.
They will force you to emote.
So, dear atheist, why are you sitting here defending any of these proselytizers?
Dawkins was molested by a homosexual as a child, so naturally he's screwed up.
So you can define how science can prove 'Happy', according to Dawkins? I read the books as literature, philosophy, a little history, a lot of sociology. I pay no attention to how assorted freaks and psychos distort the works to their own ends; that isn't the fault of the books or a blot on the theology, any more than a Nazi school book that teaches 2 +2 = 4 means we have to condemn arithmetic.
Rational conclusion---Talking snake (animals) always mean a fable. Animals don't talk.
Evil creature attacking people for knowledge always means EVIL--and to avoid.
I have always read the books as Evil fables not accurate in anything.
It wasn't till I got older and realized that druggies often have delusions especially where it relates to their gods. People tripping on drugs make up all sorts of shit and have delusions of their greatness and place in the world. Lots of crazy drugged up people in the bible belt of texas and then las vegas claiming that they were or are the son/daughter of god or jesus or a reincarnation of jesus. Then I realized, that the writers of the bible-------were likely just druggies trying to justify their greatness back then as they do today. Once you realize that these are primative people tripping on drugs---all of their writings and claims make sense.
I did learn something later in life about the Bible though that I never knew when I was a Christian in my teenage years. There is another way of reading it symbolically and not literally. A whole new story emerges when you look at the symbols.
In other words an amalgamation of ancient myths and occult archetypes. The Bible's characters, situations, parables, and lessons, just like the Tarot or Ching, are meant to be universal teachings, signposts to potentialities of human consciousness and experiences applicable to everyone at different times in their life. When read Gnostically, using our intuition and imagination, identifying and relating the various occult symbols, numbers, names, and stories, the Bible becomes an interesting, subtle, and infinitely varied metaphysical treatise.
Disagree on the Gnostic stuff, and most of the mythology is completely original and much more sophisticated than the occult stuff, but generally a good description. If you want a good examination of why the original orthodox version of Christianity is the right one, see if you can get a copy of Darrell Bock's The Missing Gospels; it is meant for laymen and makes a very clear and definitive case against the later 'Gnostic' revisionism, and does so without requiring personal belief, just the historical record and textual analysis. One reason I respect the NT is its total lack of any anachronisms, it matches its time and place perfectly, which would be impossible for anyone to do if it were faked hundreds of years later or who by anybody who had never lived in the region at the times it is supposed to be taking place.