Although I believe that what Professor Dawkins ‘says’ is good and true to me, isn’t it also true that people pay more attention because of his erudite mastery of his topic, but also because of his upper-class accent and near-perfect diction and clarity of speech?
@@emmanuelsibug8405 I personally doubt this. I think that the masses - or the educated- do tend to positively regard manner of speaking, not only content of speech. But there are a lot of things that could be read into manner of speaking.
By their fruits you shall know them. I’d like to see atheists caring personally for the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the aliens and strangers. It’s not enough just to vote or even write a check.
In Freud's paper, "Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices"(1907) he noted being struck by the resemblance between what are called obsessive actions in sufferers from nervous afflictions and the observances by means of which believers give expression to their piety. He hoped to gain insight into the origin of "neurotic ceremonial" and the psychological processes of religious life. Freud went on to say that, just as many patients were unaware of the unconscious reasons for carrying out their obsessional actions, many religious people were unaware of the motives that impelled them to religious practices. He drew a further parallel in saying that, "both obsessional neurotics and the pious are motivated by an unconscious sense of guilt, and this sense of guilt has its source in certain early mental events …." "The Age of Atheists: How We Have Sought to Live Since the Death of God" (2014) by Peter Watson
... I honestly didn't need a Richard Dawkins or a Sam Harris to tell me this. It's obvious ...
Although I believe that what Professor Dawkins ‘says’ is good and true to me, isn’t it also true that people pay more attention because of his erudite mastery of his topic, but also because of his upper-class accent and near-perfect diction and clarity of speech?
I think the people are smart enough not to.
For example you, you would have had to have a “not only, but also” in your two later clauses.
@@emmanuelsibug8405 Fair enough point. I’ll fix it at some stage
@@emmanuelsibug8405 I personally doubt this. I think that the masses - or the educated- do tend to positively regard manner of speaking, not only content of speech. But there are a lot of things that could be read into manner of speaking.
By their fruits you shall know them. I’d like to see atheists caring personally for the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the aliens and strangers. It’s not enough just to vote or even write a check.
@@catherinelincoln9830 You don't have to be religious to be moral.
More waffle again, what he get paid for this? We do not know and humans are not intelligent enough to under stand creation. I remain agnostic!
In Freud's paper, "Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices"(1907) he noted being struck by the resemblance between what are called obsessive actions in sufferers from nervous afflictions and the observances by means of which believers give expression to their piety. He hoped to gain insight into the origin of "neurotic ceremonial" and the psychological processes of religious life.
Freud went on to say that, just as many patients were unaware of the unconscious reasons for carrying out their obsessional actions, many religious people were unaware of the motives that impelled them to religious practices. He drew a further parallel in saying that, "both obsessional neurotics and the pious are motivated by an unconscious sense of guilt, and this sense of guilt has its source in certain early mental events …."
"The Age of Atheists: How We Have Sought to Live Since the Death of God" (2014) by Peter Watson
Great points by Freud. Religion is a cult.
In my opinion religion with its rituals is collective obessive-compulsive neurosis.