Slashdot Mirror

Then why you have the need to convince me?

Because there's a smoking hole in Manhattan that testifies to the human cost of faith. Seriously. If you religionists had given any sort of indication that you were willing to leave people like me the hell alone, the conflict wouldn't exist. But you theistic moral busybodies take it upon yourself to meddle and murder; thus, I don't have the luxury of allowing any of you to persist in your delusion unchallenged.

I don't expect you to be convinced by anything I've written here. But like almost every theist you bear critically mistaken impressions of atheism and atheists, and it's my hope that I can educate you in some small way.

Then why is hard for you to tolerate people that is not atheist?

Historically the problem of toleration comes from your side - the Inquisition, Hitler, Stalin, etc. It's only very recently that theism has experienced any significant challenge, and it's all been rhetorical. Personally, I'd suggest you grow a thicker skin if you find being disagreed with on the Internet to be the height of intolerance.

Why would the burden of proof be with the guy who refuses to believe the religious crap?

The burden of proof is with whoever makes claims either way. If you claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, prove it; if you claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, prove it. If you can't, then don't make claims; or if you absolutely have to make them, don't be surprised if people won't abandon their beliefs in favor of yours.

Then again, if people took that advice, we'd miss out on the wonderful atheism vs. theism -flamefests with the wonderful "everyone who disagrees with me is evil or stupid" -arguments together with random references to bodily waste thrown in for good measure. This one already shows promise - and was clearly predicted by the warm weather todays here in Finland ;).

Why the non sequitur? There are 6.5 billion people on the planet, show me an idea and I'll show you the idiot that believes in it. That some atheists may have a problem with the theistic implications of this or that says nothing about atheists in general, so why even bring it up? If you actually meant all atheists, stop being silly.

Big Bang cosmology fits in nicely with theism. And as an evangelical, I agree with your view that "day" refers to a long period of time in that context.

I would also say that the Big Bang theory was resisted by atheists who saw its theistic implications.

What experiment can you construct that proves or disproves that something came from nothing ?

If something is, then something has always been. It's either materialism or some form
of theism. Take your pick.

Choosing some form of theism however, does not deny that material changes with time.

I choose theism since life exists.

What experiment can the materialist construct that proves/disproves life comes from non-life ?

1. God was made up by an ancient people.
2. Ancient peoples were never right about anything, ever.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

Or, alternatively:

1. The only people who believe in God are theists.
2. Every concrete prediction made by theists arguing from theism is wrong.
3. Correct theories lead to correct predictions.
4. Therefore, God does not exist.

In all seriousness, though, read the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and think about it, hard. Why is it that the only ridiculous claim people which people require proof against is the existence of God? God's nonexistence is not an extraordinary claim, and does not require proof. God's existence (the God claimed by most mainstream churches, mind you - don't reduce their claims to a hazy indescribable force like many do) _is_ an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary proof. There is no such proof - there's not even a weak suggestion. Belief in God is a lie and a waste of time.

In the original language Genesis is written in a style halfway between poetry and prose...kind of like the Odyssey.

Tell that to the biblical literalists.

A lot of scholars believe that Genesis doesn't really make many extremely bold claims about the origins of life beyond the fact that God created the world and that there is an order in which he did it moving from the simple to the complex.

Well that's all well and good, but why don't you jump down off your high horse for a second and realize that, odds are, the OP wasn't referring to people like you who, clearly, have some deeper understanding of theology than what their evangelical pastor told them in sunday school.

The OP is correctly pointing out that *evangelical literalists*, you know, those jackoffs who believe the world is 6,000 years old, are clearly delusional if they choose to hold to their beliefs in the face of overwhelming fact. And, unfortunately, a) there are, inexplicably, a *lot* of these people, particularly in the US, and b) it is these very people that are the driving force behind the attempt to equate evolution with theism, and to inject theism into school curriculae.

From your account, he seems to believe that people have religious beliefs because they're taught to have them. Society is to blame. This is the sort of idea some bloody sociologist would have. A better account I have seen is that humans are particularly good at understanding human motivation behind actions (we have evolved to be like this, because we are a social species). We therefore tend to use this ability even when it doesn't correspond to reality, so behind the action of the weather, for instance, we "find" (i.e. invent) the intentions of a quasi-human, aka The Weather God. It's like finding faces in the fire, or pictures of the Virgin in a piece of toast.

That seems like a good idea to me, but as it stands it's an evolutionary Just So Story. I was kind of hoping that Dawkins might be writing as a scientist, producing evidence for or against such speculation, and similar ones, and perhaps considering different kinds of religious belief (like, for instance, developed forms of Judaism, or Buddhism as an example of a perhaps-religious attitude to the world that isn't necessarily theistic). That perhaps he would consider why a lot of people, including some who are at least as clever as himself, believe in some kind of theism. Like, show them where they're wrong, without telling them they're stupid and wicked.

But no. Like some slashdotter, he writes as though there are only two categories -- polemical atheism that doesn't need to think of any serious alternatives to its view of the world, or benighted US fundamentalism. Perhaps Dawkins has forgotten that there is a world outside the US, where the mindset of 19th century rural revivalism isn't a dominant influence. Instead, he seems to prefer to wrestle with pigs and get covered in mud.

This is a pity, because in _The Blind Watchmaker_ he shows how evolution can work by the ordinary action of compound interest. A 1% reproductive advantage, over enough generations, really mounts up. This is a really useful point, because evolutionary accounts of human behaviour are also unpopular with leftist humanities people (i.e. the humanities establishment). They, of course, aren't religious, but they confuse evolutionary theory with Social Darwinism, and therefore believe that if you try to understand human behaviour from an evolutionary perspective, you are therefore in favour of laissez faire and are located somewhere to the right of Ronald Reagan (or alongside Mrs Thatcher). Dawkins' account is really useful in countering this prejudice, in so far as it is more capable of being argued with than the prejudices of the fundies, or of those who believe that to criticise Dawkins is to be soft on evolution. But I guess there's more money in writing controversial books, and polemic takes less work than science.

The "belief system" of science only assumes a few common-sense notions, it isn't build to prop up any other type of belief - that's why there are scientists that believe in almost every religion imaginable. The results and specific techniques of science change to reflect new knowledge, which is exactly what you'd expect from a search for knowledge.

For the truth see http://youtube.com/users/VenomFangX

I actually watched one of those (Proving the Existence of the Eternal God), please get that guy to a freshman philosophy class ASAP. He restates the cosmological argument, adding nothing new, and doesn't seem to realize that it's been around for a very long time and isn't that convincing. He skips past the part where, even if one was persuaded by his argument, he has to show that the first cause must be sentient, and all the other characteristics we assume a god would have - his argument supports a non-intelligent creator just as easily as an intelligent one.

Then, the fact that we're moral must mean that god is moral, not that we're social beings that need social bonds to survive (but the fact that we're sinful doesn't imply that god is sinful, and the fact that we're finite doesn't imply that god is finite). He then adds that if god is moral, it must be the Christian god - which is quite an assertion given the amount of killing that goes on in the Bible. And then he caps it off by implying that the only alternative to his view is "randomness" and "cosmic burps" (skipping past nearly every other religion in the process), and then states that even "I don't know" takes more faith than his beliefs do.

Overall I give it a C - charismatically presented, easily followed starting arguments, but nothing new, massive gaps when he jumps from theism to Christianity, and nothing that ends up being that convincing to us non-Christians.

...economic prosperity and theism are inversely related...

This is false. The United States is one of the most religious countries, yet it seems to be doing pretty well for itself economically.

The existence of a single country that is both highly religious and economically successful does not necessarily mean that the inverse relationship does not hold overall. It could be an outlier.

economic prosperity and theism are inversely related

Absolute bullshit and neoconservative propaganda.
Most of the major trading networks of the past 200 years have been run by "theists." Having them run by people who do simply care more for money than anything else is a fairly recent invention, historically.

Theism != religeous

...economic prosperity and theism are inversely related...

This is false. The United States is one of the most religious countries, yet it seems to be doing pretty well for itself economically.

economic prosperity and theism are inversely related

Yes it will take time to achieve any results, but economic prosperity and theism are inversely related, and theism in places like Pakistan is really fucked up and needs to be eliminated or at least marginalized.

Yeah, because we all know that making money is the only thing that matters in life.

L

We really need to bring these people up to speed with the 21st century. What's the best way to do it? Just start trading with them like anyone else, it's not their fault that they are a bunch of ignorant, gullible sheep (cue the "omg its like teh USA!!!1" comments).

Yes it will take time to achieve any results, but economic prosperity and theism are inversely related, and theism in places like Pakistan is really fucked up and needs to be eliminated or at least marginalized.

No it's not, it's a lack of theism. Many religious people seem to find it really difficult to get their head around. Religion and gods have absolutely nothing to do with our lives. We don't sit down every morning and pray to the void. We simply accept reality for what it is and don't see anything in our every day lives that needs a special explanation.