Slashdot Mirror

So yes we are technically agnostics, but that may confuse us with those who actually give some credibility to these superstitions.
Almost all atheists, are saying "There is no (credible reason to believe there is a) God"

Remember, Atheism is "Free of Theism", not "God does not exist"

That's because it's only an important distinction when talking about God. Because some people really do believe that it's impossible for a god to exist and they operate under that assumption. Some people (like Dawkins) don't accept that and call themselves agnostic, but it's just intellectual and they're really atheists.. their world would be shattered completely if they learned that they were wrong. Agnosticism isn't just some technicality, it's a completely different way of thinking.

By the way I'm not promoting agnosticism; I think that you have to make a leap of faith somewhere, and on this issue the options seem to me theism and strong atheism.

But he's only famous/infamous for his atheism, and he knows it. He certainly wouldn't be invited to be on "Dr. Who" if he wasn't an Atheist.
Ironically, atheism may have work out financially for him, but he sends the wrong evolutionary message by promoting it for society. Theists do better in society, so that's what he should remind people of, "survival of the fittest". Dawkins should promote theism, as those who embrace God are the fittest to survive in our society, due to social stigmatism on atheists..

It's kinda like atheism vs. theism. I know, what has this bumbling AC gotten himself into this time? Theists believe there is a god, but don't deliver a falsifiable way to prove/disprove god. Atheist believe there isn't a god, and provides evidence that it is likely so by pointing to stuff that indicates this. Both ultimately rely on belief, as atheists cannot disprove god with absolute certainty since the theists does not provide them with a way to do so.

Which is why I'm an agnostic, don't allow yourself to believe when it comes to important matters, verifiable truth above all is the golden chalice one should strive for. To know > to believe.

Hence I retain my right to objectively criticize theists and mac-users, and expect any rabid response to be nothing but irrational belief. If you wish to be heard, strike out the rhetoric, the passioned love for your inclination, and the boiling hatred of any who'd oppose this.

Bumbling AC over and out.

My main point was that Christians have direct experience which confirms (to them) the truth of Christianity, whereas they frequently do not have direct experience of the truth of evolution.

And what is this direct experience?

You can imagine that if someone came to me with some implausible-sounding theory, and then said that because of this theory I should give up solving problems or that I'd be much better off if I left my wife and went back to living the single life, I'd think they were nuts. And if they started trying to teach my children that because of this implausible-sounding theory, engineering was valueless and that marriage was a waste of time, I'd be pretty upset, and would be doing something to fight back.

What implausible-sounding theory? Evolution? Has it occurred to you that theism may be even less plausible?

The main reward I get from Christianity is having a relationship with God. God knows me, cares about me, values me, and loves me. I also love God -- I love serving him, I love seeing the cool things that he's made, I love talking to him and learning from him. God guides me: I am where I am right now because God has led me here, and although I don't know exactly where I'll be living or doing in one year from now, I know he has a plan and trust him to let me know when I need to know. God protects me and provides for me.

And if there is no God with whom to have a relationship?

No, that's a parody of a particular Christian doctrine, held by a segment of American Protestants. I'm not sure whether you mean to assert that your parody is "theism", or the actual doctrine is theism, but I'm quite sure that neither one is theism.

Theism is simply the belief in god(s). If the GP believes that Elvis is God and will return to rule the world, how is that not theistic?

Besides, everyone knows it's Jim Morrison, not Elvis who's going to rule the world.

What happens to Ray Manzarek, Robbie Krieger, and John Densmore?

Could you give an example of one these "lame" attacks? He seems to be quite capable of explaining exactly what the problems with theism are, and why theists are incorrect about certain matters. He doesn't just shout "HURR RELIGION IS DUMB! HURF DURF!".

At one speech I heard him give, he said that religion doesn't actually change people's behaviors. That people will do whatever they do regardless of religion.

And yes, this is about as dumb a statement as they get, in my opinion. Not even looking at the huge number of cases where religion made a real difference in a person's decision making process, the very fact we're having this discussion is that scientists are complaining that certain denominations of theists are less receptive to science than other groups.

That, and if you listen to his hackneyed view of Christian theology, it's pretty clear he really doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to religion.

Do you even know what Theism is, and how it differs, from, say Deism?

I don't know whether Superman could defeat the Incredible Hulk, either. Is that a bad thing?

Do you even know what Theism is, and how it differs, from, say Deism?

Do you know what Frotzianism is, and how it differs from, say, Ozmology?

That question is just as relevant to our daily lives. My made-up "isms" are just as valid as yours.

Could you give an example of one these "lame" attacks? He seems to be quite capable of explaining exactly what the problems with theism are, and why theists are incorrect about certain matters. He doesn't just shout "HURR RELIGION IS DUMB! HURF DURF!".

If I tried to tell you that Elvis Presley was going to return next week and rule the Earth for a thousand years, you'd laugh at me and call me crazy.
Well, that's "theism," and it's semantically indistinguishable from any other religious point of view.

No, that's a parody of a particular Christian doctrine, held by a segment of American Protestants. I'm not sure whether you mean to assert that your parody is "theism", or the actual doctrine is theism, but I'm quite sure that neither one is theism. Your assertion that whatever you are talking about is "semantically indistinguishable from any other religious point of view" is, I'm afraid, completely unintelligible. Do you you even know what Theism is, and how it differs, from, say Deism? Perhaps you'd find that "thought processes" (religious or not) will hurt less if you get some practice.

Besides, everyone knows it's Jim Morrison, not Elvis who's going to rule the world.

Nonsense, Dawkins is exceedingly smart. What he doesn't have is extensive training in the philosophy of religion, which causes him to make statements that sometimes woefully misrepresent the religious perspective. What Dawkins is, however, is an evolutionary biologist, so you can somewhat understand his ardor in fighting against anti-evolutionary religious zealotry.

Sorry, but if you start spouting off more nonsense than sense, you don't deserve the appelation "smart". If Dawkins had restricted himself to defending evolution, that would be fine. Unfortunately, most of his time now is dedicated to lame attacks against theism in general.

Unfortunately, most of his time now is dedicated to lame attacks against theism in general.

If I tried to tell you that Elvis Presley was going to return next week and rule the Earth for a thousand years, you'd laugh at me and call me crazy.

Well, that's "theism," and it's semantically indistinguishable from any other religious point of view. By mocking me, you would have just done exactly what you accuse Dawkins of doing. What would make you right, and him wrong?

It's 2008, and religious thought processes are hurting us badly, as a civilization. Isn't it time to call bullshit for what it is?

Lame attacks huh? How many bestselling books have you written? Theism mocks itself. You're just upset that materialists are tired of bending over backwards to keep from shattering your narrow world view. Anyone that thinks humans or life in general has a special place in the universe is mistaken and in for some depressing realizations. You can only keep running from it for so long. As you retreat your doctrines further into the spiritual realm (read: imaginary) they become even more irrelevant and disconnected from reality. I respect your right to believe anything you wish but don't think you can attempt to justify those beliefs without people like myself speaking up and saying: ahem, you are full of shit. The problem is, you don't like hearing that your beliefs are irrational. You want faith AND you want to justify it. That's where the problem lies. Faith by definition cannot be justified. I'll leave you to mull this over but pissing and moaning about people stepping on toes and hurting feelings changes nothing. Everyone is competent to have a view about religion. Trying to discredit Dawkins because he doesn't have formal training is nothing more than an appeal to authority and a fallacious ad hominem.

Nonsense, Dawkins is exceedingly smart. What he doesn't have is extensive training in the philosophy of religion, which causes him to make statements that sometimes woefully misrepresent the religious perspective. What Dawkins is, however, is an evolutionary biologist, so you can somewhat understand his ardor in fighting against anti-evolutionary religious zealotry.

Sorry, but if you start spouting off more nonsense than sense, you don't deserve the appelation "smart". If Dawkins had restricted himself to defending evolution, that would be fine. Unfortunately, most of his time now is dedicated to lame attacks against theism in general.

The problem is that it would be a mistake to compare the average atheist and the average believer and assume that it gives you a reliable indication of the validity of those belief systems. `Dumb' people might be more easily convinced, but it is hardly newsworthy. What needs to be done is a comparasion between the best case that can be made in favor of theism (think Craig or Swinburne), and the best case in favor of atheism.

In Western Europe, 90% of people are atheists. Not because they are somehow smarter, but because they have been exposed to nothing but atheism. Every time I meet a professed atheist, I am appalled at the lack of sophistication of their arguments. This is also a factor that must be taken into account: high IQ does not mean being knowledgeable about religion or philosophy. If your rejection of theism is based on God not being able to create a stone too heavy for Him to lift, it doesn't matter if you have high IQ, it's still a dumb objection.

And atheists have dogma too.

No, they don't. In fact, it makes no sense to talk about atheists as a coherent whole; your statement makes about as much sense as saying "And people who like eggs and bacon for breakfast have dogma, too".

That's not to say individual atheists can't be dogmatic - far from it. FWIW, you may also find individual groups that are (in particular, keep in mind that atheism does not mean you can't be religious; it merely makes a statement about where you fall on the atheism-polytheism-deism-theism scale), but atheists as such are not dogmatic, nor could they be. They're not organised in any way; they're merely a set (in the mathematical sense) of entirely unrelated people who just happen to share a common trait.

I should add that an important distinction is that it is possible to be agnostic (think the answers are unkowable) and theist (still believe--an agnostic theist), while even weak atheism takes a stance that eliminates theism as an option.