Slashdot Mirror
New Documentary Chronicles Road Tripping Scientists Promoting Reason
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Dennis Overbye reports in the NY Times that two years ago Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss set off on a barnstorming tour to save the world from religion and promote science. Their adventure is now the subject of The Unbelievers, a new documentary. 'If you think a road trip with a pair of intellectuals wielding laptops is likely to lack drama, you haven't been keeping up with the culture wars,' writes Overbye. The scientists are mobbed at glamorous sites like the Sydney Opera House. Inside, they sometimes encounter clueless moderators; outside, demonstrators condemning them to hellfire. At one event, a group of male Muslim protesters are confronted by counterprotesters chanting, 'Where are your women?' 'Travelogue shots, perky editing and some popular rock music, as well as interview bits with such supportive celebrities as Woody Allen, Cameron Diaz, Sarah Silverman and Ricky Gervais, shrewdly enliven the brainy — but accessible — discourse,' writes Gary Goldstein in the LA Times, 'but mostly the movie is an enjoyably high-minded love fest between two deeply committed intellectuals and the scads of atheists, secularists, free-thinkers, skeptics and activists who make up their rock star-like fan base.' The movie ends at the Reason Rally in Washington, billed as the largest convention of atheists in history. Dawkins looks out at the crowd standing in a light rain and pronounces it 'the most incredible sight I can remember ever seeing' and declares that too many people have been cowed out of coming out as atheists, secularists or agnostics. 'We are far more numerous than anybody realizes.'"
You can be religious and be a secularist, that was a position of the Baptist Church in the New World since the beginning.
They believe, but you want them to understand. It's not going to work.
Where is it available? Or it has not been finalized yet?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
What's to fear? I cheerily inform folks that I do not believe in their particular sky faery. Should I expect violence? Condemnation? Whatever.
If you're afraid to publicly affirm what you believe, you probably don't deserve your beliefs.
IMHO, Dawkins has become as bad as Rush Limbaugh.
He insults everyone who believes in any possible supernatural entity by pigeonholing them into one group and using the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church's dogma as if it represents anyone who is not a hard atheist.
Science hasn't "disproven" the existence of *any* supernatural being, just as it hasn't "proven" the existence either.
Science cannot prove or disprove something that by its definition is *beyond* science...be it Yahweh, God, Buddah, Flying Spagetti Monster, Cthulu, Allah, Xenu, etc...
Science tests hypothesis that can lead to theories that explain our observations of the universe.
Now, Dawkins has an infinitely replentishable resource: Religious extremists who do not understand science.
He's taking that group, stoking them with rhetoric, then commercializing on how we **all** can't stand their ignorance. He's also not a reliable commentator on human rights/philosophy...I don't want to get tawdry but he's made comments that indicate he has a *strongly* Social Darwinistic view of "consent" and human choice.
I see the 'barnstorming roadtrip' in TFA as simply an advert for Dawkin's speaking
Thank you Dave Raggett
Why don't they take their tour into the Middle East, maybe to countries such as Yemen or Saudi Arabia or Egypt ?
I'll like to see how successful they are in convincing the Muslims.
Stop telling the non-Muslims how defective religion is - most Christians and Buddhists that I know understand the role of religion (and when to NOT use religion).
Not so for the Muslims.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
http://thepiratebay.ac/torrent/8495137/Rise_of_the_New_Atheists_(_Unbelievers_Movie_2013)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100920/03361311077/richard-dawkins-points-fan-to-the-pirate-bay-to-see-his-latest-documentary.shtml
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
most Christians and Buddhists that I know understand the role of religion (and when to NOT use religion).
Not so for the Muslims.
And how many Muslims do you know? Most Muslims also know when NOT to use religion. There are more than a billion of them - if half a billion of them did not know when to use it, I think we might have a tad bigger problem that we currently do.
Remember, the kooks you see on TV are like the kooks you see for other religions as well - they are the minority. Hell, the way faith is involved in politics in the US and informs policy decision (veiled as some other excuse) has done far more harm to the LGBT community than most other religions.
Science doesn't disprove anything.
Adults who believe in imaginary friends are stupid, or suffering from disease. In either case, they need help.
Sounds like an anti-religion religion. I assume the goal was to get a lot of converts to atheism. Do they encourage their followers to read about science every day and share with others?
It all sounds so eerily familiar. Apparently the techniques of mass persuasion are pretty much universal.
Science hasn't "disproven" the existence of *any* supernatural being, just as it hasn't "proven" the existence either.
Science doesn't have to disprove their existence. The basic idea behind science is pretty simple: prove it or it isn't real. As soon as your system of though allows any claim to be made with out verification, sanity goes out the window. In science, were I to claim that PI = 3, I would be laughed at as a quack and an idiot, and yet people can claim that there is an ancient jewish zombie and an invisible sky bully that rule the universe and nobody will call them out for being bald faced liars.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Stop telling the non-Muslims how defective religion is - most Christians and Buddhists that I know understand the role of religion (and when to NOT use religion).
Not so for the Muslims.
I think Dawkins would say the role of religion is not to exist. That he would say that theism works against our interests more than it helps, so he would say no Christians understand the proper role of religion.
As for the spirit of your statements, there are so many extreme Christians in the United States, quiverful, southern baptists, LDS, etc. and so many middle-class average Christians who toy with theocratic ideas, that there seems to be a very real reason to proselytize atheism, if that would be your political desire, as it is for Dawkins. I can see an argument being made that its more important to advance the quality, culturally and intellectually, of the first world countries than to focus on improving other countries.
There may also be more people who are susceptible to ideological conversion and more people who could be affected by their message generally in the "Western" world.
There are language and cultural barriers that would make it less useful to tour the middle east.
And how many Muslims do you know? Most Muslims also know when NOT to use religion.
The statistics from Britain, where something like 30% Muslims want the UK to become a SA-like theocracy, speak a little different. Or are you suggesting that the majority of Muslims in other countries is less extreme than those living in the relatively liberal UK?
Ezekiel 23:20
"two years ago Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss set off on a barnstorming tour to save the world from religion and promote science."
That is exactly the wrong way to do things. I'm not going to argue whether it is reasonable or not to believe in both science or religion, because regardless of that if you frame an argument as A is wrong and B is right then everyone who already believes in A is going to get defensive and angry and be even _less_ likely to accept B.
If that's not actually a misrepresentation and he's actually approaching the perceived problem by trying to bludgeon the opposing side into adopting his beliefs then he's doomed to failure, and the whole things is really just a "feel good" tour for atheists to feel superior about their "enlightened" beliefs.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Scenario one) You've only had five twenty-minute cigarette breaks this morning and feel that there's imminent danger of actually having to work for your wages. Religion to the rescue!!! It's prayer time again. Off for a long hour.
Scenario two) You need to enroll an army of willing halfwits to kill themselves to further your own personal political agenda; Religion the the rescue!!! Fire up the hell-and-brimstone speech to arouse hatred of The Unbelievers and pack your new army off to the airport with exploding jackets beneath robes.
Scenario three) Anyone?...
First thing one should focus on to learn reason is logical fallacies, and the False Dichotomy, for example, "Reason versus religion", is right up toward the top.
What Dawkins et al are selling isn't reason, it's Logical Positivism, which has rather thoroughly run aground as of about 30 years ago. Not all questions are resolvable by empiricism and scientific method. Epistemology is far wider than that. Is rock music good? Prove it.
I'll get into the Reification Fallacy, that "not-X" is not something, it is nothing, regardless of what "X" is--including theism--another day.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Don't these sociopaths realize that people cling to their guns and religion? What happens when you take away their religion? Hmm?
But I jest. From an atheist viewpoint, religion serves a valuable purpose: to keep the real sociopaths in line. The only reason they don't run rampant is because they believe in Heaven/Hell, and God's omniscience. Atheists like Marx believe that religion is the opiate of the masses, but they're fools to tell anyone that!
Back in the middle ages, governments used the church to justify their corrupt dealings. If they bribed the church enough the leaders of the church would tell the people that their king was doing the "right thing". The church also accepted donations for sin. You commit adultry, pay the church a set fee and you were instantly forgiven. Martin Luther translated the bible to English to end a lot of this corruption of the church.
Today, goverments use scientists to justify their corrupt dealings. They need to control the people and take more of their belongings via taxes, lets pay a scientist to make stuff up that says what the goverment wants to do is the "right thing". They are not promoting basic physical science, they are promoting AWG and other proven junk sciene as a way to massivly increase taxes on the middle class and keep them down. You do somehting evil, like drive an SUV or fly privately? Now you can pay for your sins with carbon offset cards. Just like before we don't remove the sin, we just sell a way to feel bad about it.
Many of the "modern sciences" have become political and not scientific. The joke is on them, they are providing the SAME service to goverments as religion did hundreds of years ago. If they wanted to help they would produce actual reproducable sciene, not deleting data for AWG in fear that sceptics "might" find fault in their findings. You want science to grow? Remove the politics, right now your are just a blatent biased wing for a political party helping them to justify policies to keep people poor and dependent on goverment.
And how many Muslims do you know?
In the thousands ?
And I am not kidding.
Of the people that I know many of them are Muslims.
Many of them are very bright, except for one thing - you just can NOT discuss religion (or faith) thing with them.
Unlike the Buddhists or Christians or Jews where you can have civil discussion, or even debates on matter pertaining to whether if there is a "God" or matter such as "If the different religion worship the same God" or the very act of suicide bombing killing the innocent can be call "a service to God" ... you just can't have such discussion with the Muslims.
My background being from a Communist country (during the time I left China it was VERY ANTI-RELIGION) I can see the point from *both* the anti-religion standpoint and from the "God is my savior" standpoint.
I can have civil discussion with the Jews, with the Buddhists, with the Hindus, and with the Christians, in matters that I outlined above, but so far, the Muslims just can't discuss it civilly.
For them, anything that "threaten" and/or "weaken" their "belief in Allah" is "blasphemous" --- and in the discussion, I certainly never even have the thought of "weaken their faith" at all, but the Muslims just don't take it kindly if anyone DARE to question their religion.
That is why I say, if those two scientists are REALLY SO CONCERN of the negative effect religion might do to human civilization, they should stop proselytizing in the street of Los Angeles or Sydney.
They should go to Saudi Arabia, or Yemen or Egypt or Tunisia or Iran, and try to make their point across to the Muslims.
Anything short of that they are preaching to the choir.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
START THE FLAME WARS!!!
People seem to think that not believing in a christianity, judaism or islam means that they have no beliefs. The belief in nothing is a belief. Religion is a collection of beliefs. Therefore atheism and agnosticism is a religion.
It could be argued that religion of atheism and agnostism has done more damage than any other.
If they are SO REALLY CONCERN about religion ... Why don't they take their tour into the Middle East, maybe to countries such as Yemen or Saudi Arabia or Egypt ?
Maybe because atheism doesn't require martyrs? How is this +1Insightful?
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
yes "by definition"
Yes, if you're talking about some teaching that is in dispute (existence of a 'god') then you have to look first to **those who believe in the thing** to define what it is they believe.
This is one of Dawkin's *biggest* shills...he pigeonholes anyone who isnt a hard atheist as believing in what Roman Catholics say. He makes *one* religious sect's views representative.
Classic straw man/red herring combo
But to definitions...it's a fools game to try to disprove a definition that is personal to every unique system yet uses the same term...'god'...some Jews teach that Yahweh or Hashim is a conscious entity that interacts with the world. Ex: The Burning Bush.
Some believe that it was an actual shrub that was on fire but did not get consumed, as the literal reading states...that is against science...
which would lead one to think that the literal account of a 'burning bush' was not true!
however, the believer can just put the whole quesiton into a bag, so to speak, and put a "supernatural miracle" label on it
it was a supernatural miracle by a supernatural being that functions beyond the laws of the universe as they see it
they can always that level of abstraction one step up the chain and say, "It was a miracle"
So just don't bother with the whole mess and ignore religious people who believe in God.
Now politics, say teaching Young-Earth creationism...that's **definitely** something we should all speak out against...but not b/c of 'atheism' but instead rally around science & the scientific method. Science and religion are separate things & one should not determine text teaching of the other in any combination!
It's a better argument b/c it avoids the false dictomies used by the opposition.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Most people are lazy and when it comes to actually thinking about something as opposed to having psuedoscience wrapped in religiousd claptrap as being ordained from on high or some other equally bullshit reason, the average meatsack out there will take the second option.
you need a hobby. Other than /.
Rush may be worse...but IMHO it's closer than at first glance
Peel Rush's language away and he's a pure opportunist out to hustle for money/fame/power/recognition. Rush doesn't believe what he spouts.
Now, to Dawkins. He isn't a pure shill, he's an academic with a consistent approach. He's reasonable in conversation.
However, I'd argue that *both* are equally offensive in how they misrepresent **the other viewpoint** not just to make a rhetorical point, but it is foundational to their philosophical orientation.
If science can't prove *or* disprove a supernatural god then what point does Dawkins have? Why would anyone read his books?
He's not saying anything that hasn't been said for centuries...he's just doing it *now* and with University titles, degrees, positions, etc that make his opinion sell to the layman.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Or I could shoot myself in the head.
Of the two, the shooting choice is the far less annoying and insufferable.
My bad.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The statistics from Britain, where something like 30% Muslims want the UK to become a SA-like theocracy, speak a little different. Or are you suggesting that the majority of Muslims in other countries is less extreme than those living in the relatively liberal UK?
That sounds like crap to me. Is there a credible, robust, citation to that?
soylentnews.org
Atheist trolls are just as bad as religious trolls. Non-productive, proving nothing except pats on one's own back are awesome.
Well, that and the fact that LGBT is gross.
If atheism is such a positive, why hide it? Why wasn't this article titled "Road-tripping atheists promoting atheism"?
Depends on who's asking and who's reading it. Polls are notoriously unreliable. Social science has a long way to go.
So why don't they take their road show to Iran or Saudi Arabia?
Conservative, mod down for violating
Hope this helps. Here is some more. Think we can find similar numbers for any other religion?
Yep. I call the ones that need to convert others to their "non-belief" proselytizing Atheists. Capitalization intentional.
If someone says "all trees are hollow inside," you can disprove that by opening up a few trees and showing that they are solid through and through.
Or if someone says "sound travels faster than light," this can easily be disproven by experiment.
do your own research. lazy OR stupid. not both.
"Depends on who's asking and who's reading it. Polls are notoriously unreliable. Social science has a long way to go."
I agree with the guy who replied just above you. These polls (no matter their results) are pretty much always garbage.
I think this is a lot more simple. What complicates it are people's egos that demand they aggressively defend a position, and that's incredibly frustrating when it's a position derived from faith. No wonder they get so upset. The ego can't lose, yet it has nothing to defend itself with at all, and that's an animal backed into a corner. Reason solves that problem, but requires maturity at several levels to implement.
Even positions derived from science and reason can be fanatically defended by scientists that don't want to listen to any arguments that may just force them to reevaluate their position. Scientists can have huge egos in that regard, and I think we see quite a bit of problems evidenced by all the articles about publishing and reproducibility problems. They are not perfect either, and subject to the same periods when they lack reason as well.
Faith is actually a very simple thing to deal with once you remove ego from the equation. Easier said than done, I know.
I personally believe such and such to be true, despite the complete lack of evidence supporting it. I know there is nothing to support the position, therefore I don't attempt to hold anyone else to the code of conduct that the position demands. It's my faith. Go get your own.
I'm not atheist. I believe in many, many, concepts and abstract ideas derived from decades of ontological excursions into my inner self, and attempting to use that knowledge to explain the world.
Quite often I don't feel included in Dawkins movement against reason having been replaced with religion. That's a shame, because they're is not all that much we disagree on at all. I do feel that reason must be used in our governance and construction of our "base" reality, and faith can be a personal thing not regulated or subject to governance.
It's not required that I reject everything not solely based upon reason to participate in such a movement, yet I experience quite the opposite. Even around here.
Those that make the fanatical demand to only adhere to reason are just as much a problem as the religious fanatics IMHO.
Richard Dawkins is just another evangelist, evangelising his own beliefs and making a good buck out of it. There's no difference between Richard Dawkins and any other religious leader, they're all just peddling their own ideas about the nature of things, when in actual fact they have nothing but faith and belief that they are right, without any empirical evidence support their claims.
How would Richard Dawkins know if there is a god or not? How would he know if spirituality is a real tangible force in this universe or not? He should know better (and probably does).
Those that make the fanatical demand to only adhere to reason are just as much a problem as the religious fanatics IMHO.
In a way, you're as fanatical, as is everyone. Everyone thinks that morality is something. I'm a relativist, so the only point I'm fanatical about is that morality is different for everyone, and we should keep that in mind when constructing social contracts and trying to be good to each other. Yet, I'm absolutely fanatical about this point, because I live by it, and think other's should, too. Whatever it is, you have an actionable belief that you think is the proper one, which you have clearly indicated by suggesting that Dawkins is just as fanatical as "religious fanatics".
What does fanatic mean? Here's my definition, your reason for acting the way you are acting is absurd. It is a personal judgement. So I avoid the word. The problem is you don't agree, 100%, with Dawkins method, and you don't think he should be trying to convert people to his method. Also, I bet Dawkins is more flexible in his appreciation of slightly differing philosophies than many religions.
I did a quick search and found this saying 40%:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
Many of [the Muslims I know] are very bright, except for one thing - you just can NOT discuss religion (or faith) thing with them.
To be fair, that's not exclusive to religious people. I've found strong narrow-mindedness in ivory towers as well.
As a personal anecdote, I chatted up a researcher from the VLA last August about his dark matter research. Big mistake. He could entertain no notions that weren't scientific dogma, but at the same time he couldn't cite experiments to refute anything in conflict with it. I was astonished at his certainty of belief - enough to remember the incident among a week's memories of Burning Man.
If you want your own anecdote, log on to the #statistics chatroom and ask any question that tugs at the foundation of why some things are the way they are. For example, ask why regression minimizes the squared error and not some other measure. The historical reason might surprise you, but check out the tone of the responses you get!
If you have been keeping track, many religious zealots post to slashdot. Ask economists to explain why "a little" inflation is good and what the optimum value should be without glaring flaws in the assumptions or "proof by opinion" or "proof by telling a story". Read any [scientific] article about obesity and survey the responses - many schools of thought are argued with rabid certainty, and no consensus.
Taking a completely evidence-based stand is really hard. Is free access to guns good for a society? The evidence-based answer is particularly well hidden because of framing, misused statistics, and emotional appeal.
I don't think anyone makes completely rational choices, myself included. It's mostly "strength of belief", that you get from listening to others, who themselves don't make rational choices.
I have no qualms against atheists nor people who believe in the supernatural. It doesn't bother me that either group of people exists. I do have an issue with those in these groups that ascribe to a system of hate and exclusion in order to identify the who's with them and who's against them. Ironically, the most extreme members of these particular types of folks so often fail to see they are what they hate. They operate in the same ways - they identify themselves as part of an enlightened, exclusive group that is superior to the other and engages in spreading that belief to others.
I was recently at our local high school football game and an older couple was passing out Richard Dawkins DVDs to the crowd. How is that any different than a holy roller passing out Bible tracts at a football game? How is Richard Dawkins going off on a barnstorming tour to save the world from religion different than Billy Graham going on a world tour to save the souls of the lost?
Science tells me that its understand of the laws of physics stops at a black hole's singularity? Does that mean I disbelieve the singularity exists because science has no way of describing the singularity? Superstring theory tells me that 10 dimensions of spacetime exist and bosonic string theory 26. Is it then possible that, if true, we can't (yet? ever?) comprehend events or life that takes place beyond our 3 dimensions of existence or that events from these dimensions can affect the reality of ours? Why is it when we speak of entangled quantum particles separated by billions of miles affecting each other instantaneously as a valid theory yet the very real experiences a significant amount of humanity have had and can only explain that it was God (does it matter that they call that experience Buddha, Jesus, Marduk, or Zeus?) as ignorant ramblings? That is, why exactly hasn't religion gone away after all this time?
I guess all I'm saying is, ignoring the veracity of the content of Dawkin's beliefs, simply recognize Dawkin's actions for what it is: I'm better than those folks over there and if you're smart you'd join my side and liberate yourself from your current misguided life. Personally, I choose to keep a more open mind to possible explanations of reality than Dawkins and (insert religious fundamentalist figurehead here) choose to.
I firmly and passionately believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Anyone who doesn't will be damned to eternally eating badly cooked pasta.
OK. Don't buy that one, eh?
I'll go along with W.C. Fields, "Everyone should believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink."
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
And how many Muslims do you know?
In the thousands ?
And I am not kidding.
Of the people that I know many of them are Muslims.
Many of them are very bright, except for one thing - you just can NOT discuss religion (or faith) thing with them.
Unlike the Buddhists or Christians or Jews where you can have civil discussion, or even debates on matter pertaining to whether if there is a "God" or matter such as "If the different religion worship the same God" or the very act of suicide bombing killing the innocent can be call "a service to God" ... you just can't have such discussion with the Muslims.
Fair enough. I do not have this experience (as I rarely discuss religion with anyone - people tend to treat agnostics as easier to convert than atheists). However, I wonder how much that has to do with the questions. Suicide bombings (while vile) tend to put people on the defensive - I certainly know people get touchy when you take the worst examples of their history and hold it up for criticism, especially if you do not show in depth knowledge of their religion (especially Muslims in US might be more sensitive, because of a perceived bias against them)
When you said they don't know when to "use" religion, I didn't know how to interpret it (and I still don't) - most religious people I meet never "use" their religion in any way, apart from going to a temple/church/mosque, and observing a few traditions - and that isn't really a "use", more like a habit. As a result, I took (from the tone of your post) the term "use" to mean justification of an action, especially unpleasant ones.
OTOH, I totally feel Dawkins has gone overboard (as has Bill Maher, etc). Look, we get it - they don't like religious people (and maybe with good reason). But have they really converted anyone who was a practicing religious person? Not in the sense of "Meh, I go to church once in a while" type of person, but a devout believer? What are they trying to prove by bashing religions and getting people defensive? Any time they want to work on practical stuff (overturning bad legislation, for example), I'll support them. But forgive me if I don't just want to get into a religious person's face and try to make them feel live morons.
Now given a few links, do you still think it sounds like crap?
> he would say that theism works against our interests more than it helps ...
Dawkins especially believes that Christians have no business working in science. The oft-quoted example is how years ago, geological strata were described as "pre flood" (or ante-diluvian, to use the right term) and "post flood." This is used as an example of how science was deliberately hampered by religious people who insisted that there was a flood, complete with a boat filled with animals and a guy named Noah.
He's right about that example, but the fact is, there have been cases where anti-theism has done just as much harm to the cause of science. I cover two (of many) examples at my homepage (look for the Introduction to The Case For A Creator, if you're interested).
John Maddox, long-time editor of Nature magazine, is one example. Same as Dawkins, he was convinced that there was no God and that belief in same was actually harmful. During his tenure at Nature, you would NOT see an article favorable to the Big Bang theory (especially after the Catholic Church endorsed it), because Maddox didn't want to give any aid to the "religious nuts." (His term, not mine.) The Big Bang implied a beginning and he hated the very idea.
Hated it with a passion. He allowed his hatred for that theory to affect the objectivity of an otherwise very well-respected journal.
I remember it well. When the COBE results were announced in the 1990's, people whose primary source of scientific information was Nature mag suddenly found themselves a bit behind the curve. :)
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
Yep.
Because they don't want to. Being westerns they are probable more interested in the west, also its probable illegal in some of those countries. What a stupid question.
In a way, you're as fanatical, as is everyone. Everyone thinks that morality is something. I'm a relativist, so the only point I'm fanatical about is that morality is different for everyone, and we should keep that in mind when constructing social contracts and trying to be good to each other. Yet, I'm absolutely fanatical about this point, because I live by it, and think other's should, too. Whatever it is, you have an actionable belief that you think is the proper one, which you have clearly indicated by suggesting that Dawkins is just as fanatical as "religious fanatics".
I don't think you need to be fanatical at all. The truth does not require cheerleaders. I believe that there is a level of maturity such that a reasoned person is making the decisions, and will choose based up on reason.
That happens when you remove ego, and emotions, from the decision. I think the truly great leaders of our time acted exactly like that at least some of the time.
So I agree with you about what you want to be fanatical about. That's kind of the ideal world anyways. One in which people employ such reasoned decisions the majority of the time. That would be awesome.
Once again, you don't need to be fanatical at all. Embrace the fact that faith exists. Champion the good effects that come from it. Accept it for what it is. After that, just be passionate about explaining to people how they balance their faith in their decision making process.
Even atheism is faith. Oh yes it is. You can't prove or disprove the existence of deities and the various frameworks created around them. It isn't falsifiable. An atheist is not inherently correct even when you only apply well reasoned logic to it. It's the choice to only make decisions upon that which is falsifiable . That is a matter of faith that nothing else is operating that can affect your conclusion.
You might think that is a stretch. I'm only championing neutrality here. True neutral defaults to only that which we can work with in a tangible sense. When you employ that in your reasoning process, I think many things become self evident in nature.
The problem is you don't agree, 100%, with Dawkins method, and you don't think he should be trying to convert people to his method.
Not at all.
I think converting people over to the "method" is fine. It's not really belonging in a group of people anyways. What you are teaching is logic itself. Just teach the concepts of logic in its various disciplines. Can you imagine having that as 2 hours a day required for all children while in school? Yeah, holy shit. You would have some very smart people out there.
Applying logic can create a person that is beyond atheism. They just recognize what they know, and what they don't know. Everything else is logic. Even faith in a sense.
What I disagree with, is that Dawkins thinks he has to convert me in the first place. He doesn't. We are on the same team so to speak already.
I feel this way because quite often I get that reaction any time I discuss my faith (being asked) with so-called intellectuals that become a little bit condescending once you step outside of falsifiable territory. It's hypocritical to me.
Sorry, that is not the "Same as Dawkins", because Dawkins has repeatedly stated that deities could exist, but it's not worth making arguments about them. Dawkins is properly agnostic, not an Atheist. If he were to assert the negative existence of all deities, he would be an Atheist, but again, he has repeatedly refuted this claim.
I think Dawkins would say the role of religion is not to exist. That he would say that theism works against our interests more than it helps, so he would say no Christians understand the proper role of religion.
I'm not sure he would go that far. Remember that Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and to him, there is always an explanation for why some feature or trait persists in a species. I think Dawkins would more likely qualify your statement with "now that we have science, we no longer need religion." I've read some of his books and there's a sense that you can justify the existence of religion as a socio-evolutionary trait of humans. Our early society demanded something, an idea both simple and powerful, to germinate around. Something that promoted beneficial traits, like a strong sense of community, and not to ask too many questions, all while "explaining" the natural world. This was religion's role. Something which would promote the survival of one tribe over another, so that the most devout tribe was likely one of the strongest. But, now that we have science, logic, and rational thought, we no longer need religion as the very core of our societies. The social nature of humans is both well established and self-sustaining (barring global catastrophe, of course), and I believe his opinion would be that we're long overdue to jettison the booster-rocket of religion, and rely solely on science and logic to be our main engines from here on out. Pardon the rocket metaphor.
That's my take on him, anyways.
Some parts of them sound nice; other bits, not so much; others still are out and out intolerance for different perspectives. I guess what I am trying to say is, based on Dawkins's own words, if Someone wanted to "promote reason (or, more accurately, atheism)", far Promoters with what One might call "greater p.r. effectiveness" exist. Dawkins does atheism and Atheists no favors.
what matters is if you're a voting block. Secularists aren't. It's hard to form a voting block around not believing something....
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Depends on who's asking and who's reading it. Polls are notoriously unreliable. Social science has a long way to go."
I agree with the guy who replied just above you. These polls (no matter their results) are pretty much always garbage.
Yet, surprisingly, polls in the US can be used to predict the presidential election results quite well. Polls are garbage if you expect a 95%+ confidence interval. For a general trend of the way people feel? They're usually pretty good. Polls aren't scientific, but they don't need to be.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Great point. It pains the self appointed intellectual megaminds of slashdot to acknowledge the cringe worthy cowardice of this 'pair of intellectuals' who stay safely in the land of Christendom where no harm is likely to befall them on their childish adventure.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
Then I stand corrected on that technical point. (Seriously.) I try to respect the difference between atheist, agnostic and free-thinker.
He probably ought to watch what t-shirts he wears at some of these events. Just sayin' ... :)
I know, I know. He mostly attacks *religion* and not specifically the existence of God. For that matter, I attack organized religion myself. Have very little use for it.
What I especially object to are Dawkin's famous statements such as, "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." That completely ignores that all through history there have been those who were intensely curious about nature BECAUSE they believed in a Supreme Being. They wanted to see how He did it. :)
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
(1) Simply because science has no definitive means to describe a particular phenomenon does not disprove the whole of science, or any particular theory or hypothesis, nor represent evidence for a deity or set of deities. Nor does it mean science will forever not have a way to.
(2) The older couple passing out DVDs are not trying to tell you what legally consenting adult you can or can't fuck, or that you should remain indoors on a particular day, or that you should devote any amount of time to praying in a particular direction every day, or whether or not you can eat meat on a particular day, or that the members of the other gender are less than you, etc. What they might push is a stay in school mentality. The horror.
(3) Of course there are bad apples among atheists as with any group, but no soldier has ever killed a man, woman or child in the name of atheism. Aside from greed, God is the only other cause of war.
(4) For all the intellectualism you would no doubt like ascribed to your post, from the undeserved rating to the overt "I'm above even he" mentality, you are owed none of it. For one thing, the nonsensical "atheists are just as bad" view you've adopted / espouse is the common neckbeard position on forums and imageboards the world over. For another, whoever originally came up with the view was clearly not aware of Dawkins' actual views or work. He freely admits his errors. He freely points to where science has gotten things wrong.
Have a lovely day.
You might think that is a stretch. I'm only championing neutrality here. True neutral defaults to only that which we can work with in a tangible sense. When you employ that in your reasoning process, I think many things become self evident in nature.
I don't think it is a stretch, I think its irrelevant. I think calling it a faith when the word is used to describe methods clearly exclusive to empiricism is a malapropism, but nonetheless, I do believe empiricism is the only correct way to seek "truth".
I feel this way because quite often I get that reaction any time I discuss my faith (being asked) with so-called intellectuals that become a little bit condescending once you step outside of falsifiable territory. It's hypocritical to me.
Over the course of what you've written, I suspect you've met people being militant about "atheism". Do you think people are condescending if they think you're wrong? I think you used non-empirical methods to believe something, and I think that line of thinking can be more dangerous than straight empiricism. As I understand it, that is Dawkin's grand point. If you feel emotionally invested in your method, I can empathize with that.
I don't need to be condescending or think about it as us vs them. I don't care what words are used, atheist, agnostic, whatever. It's not about believing in God or not believing in god. It's about the empirical method I used to start and maintain a belief and my continual willingness to examine and synthesize new beliefs with the method. I also believe that I, and everyone else, would be better off if most people agreed with me. I'm not sure I believe that Dawkins should be doing what he's doing, but I suppose he could be a net positive force.
interesting
How many countries where Muslims are in the majority have such a theocracy?
What people say they may want and what people so when they have the power to do so can be very different things. Consider Turkey, Indonesia and a pile of other places - they don't want their equivalents of Priests having full control of the legal system or the state in general.
Having Church and State in one neat package is a way to have a nightmare for anyone the leaders do not currently see as perfect or even see as more perfect than themselves and thus a threat. Each are supposed to keep the other from excess.
Have you read some of the things creationists wrote about him just for being a biologist, let alone after he wrote his books? That's the sort of thing he is addressing.
look, thanks, genuinely for your comment. I appreciate your thoughts.
however, I see sentence after sentence of false distinctions and old legacy dichotomies from philosophy books from centuries ago...
Look, this isn't about how *you* choose what you believe or what Dawkins thinks is the best way...it's about the boundaries of the entire conversation.
Here is a boundary: Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural god
another boundary: Personal perception is a factor in all human interaction
no one can prove that their way of deciding the things that are **beyond science** is better than another's....
re-read that last statement b/c that directly contradicts your post...if it is a question beyond science, then you can still use **logic** but at some point it becomes **simple opinion** about which unprovable premise is more logical
Thank you Dave Raggett
Your faith despite contrary evidence is admirable :/
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I recently went on a tour of Costa Rica with a group of 12 strangers. One was a Muslim couple from Denver. He is a doctor, she is a nurse. We had many civil, wonderfully productive discussions about world religions including Islam. Having not grown up in a Muslim family, it was great to get new insights into their world views, personal beliefs, and general humanity.
We have since become friends, and my girlfriend and I plan on visiting them next time we're in Denver.
I don't think it is a stretch, I think its irrelevant. I think calling it a faith when the word is used to describe methods clearly exclusive to empiricism is a malapropism, but nonetheless, I do believe empiricism is the only correct way to seek "truth".
Ouch.
I still think its relevant. If you exclusively limit yourself to empiricism, you negate an entire domain based upon non falsifiable statements. Logic precludes you from operating entirely upon empiricism without possessing some qualities and properties of faith.
To think otherwise is just as dismissive as those adhering to dogmatic belief systems dismissing our shared belief in empiricism being the foundation to cooperating with another.
Do you think people are condescending if they think you're wrong?
No, I think they are condescending when they instantly refute my statements without actually refuting them at all. The moment any aspect of non empiricism comes into discussion they can effectively Godwin the discussion.
That's frustrating. It makes any kind of lively discussions of an ontological nature difficult to have, and any kind of socio-political statements to be instantly without worth.
Yes, perhaps those are the militant people. I've got to be honest though, they are about as prevalent as the Tits-or-GTFO crowd. The level of arrogance present with strict empiricism is above average at least.
I'm not directing that at you specifically either.
It's about the empirical method I used to start and maintain a belief and my continual willingness to examine and synthesize new beliefs with the method. I also believe that I, and everyone else, would be better off if most people agreed with me.
I do agree with you. I just also believe that it doesn't preclude faith. You really can have your cake and eat it too.
Dawkins is of course going to be a net positive. That's a given. I just think that the movement would be far more efficient if it put more effort into the formal sciences around logic. They would reach more people, and find that they have allies they've been dismissing unfairly.
They've had experiences that they are unable to explain. Fine. The adjective "religious" is where the fantasy begins.
So you are advocating they go to a place where they would surely be imprisoned or killed.....
so thanks again for your response...I acknowledge that you chose your words carefully and did not make hasty generalizations...
but you did say this:
You did, at the end say this
So you're not trying to say too much, but you are saying ***something*** about science that is important to the discussion.
I think you're right in that we are talking past each other with our definitions 'prove' and 'science' and 'scientific' and 'logical'
Beyond that, IDK...I'd like to hear your thoughts...I do understand what you are saying but I still think we may have more to discuss.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I'd say that "fanaticism" would be a better word there instead of "religion" althought it doesn't quite cover all of it. Jesuits don't have a problem with Dawkins and he doesn't appear to have a problem with them. Most Catholics do not see evolutionary biologists as the spawn of Satan. The long established Protestant Churches don't seem to either. IMHO the bunch that do have a problem with Dawkins would probably be called "the Merchants in the Temple" by Jesus.
The climate change "debate" has shown it does. The WMD hoax in Iraq has shown it does. The results of the North Korean propaganda machine have shown very graphicly what happens when you kill off any "cheerleaders for truth" that speak out against lies.
Currently there are a lot of people that oppose the very fabric of modern society for political ends and seem to want to go back to a "might makes right" system instead of something where reason and justice have influence. Sitting quietly while they corrupt easily swayed children is a worse choice than being a "cheerleader".
*posts link to philosopher's wind-bag attempt to logically "prove" god cant exist via teapot anaology*
BAM!
*wins /.*
Look, you didn't just PWN me by pasting a link and claiming victory without any context, discussion of my points, or any discussion.
That link goes to the wikipedia article on Russell's Teapot, which is some analogy that also involves some notion that b/c god is outside of science then those claiming god exists have the burden of proof.
1st. linking to an analogy that attempts to prove god doesn't exist doesn't prove or disprove my point that science/logic *cannot* prove or disprove it either way. You have to actually engage the topic and show why this teapot analogy is absolutely 100% perfectly proving that science is capable and indeed has proven all gods of all notions all over the world have not and will not ever exist
2nd I AGREE that if I was trying to convince you that Flying Spagetti Monster existed, then YES **I WOULD HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF**
But not every person who thinks a supernatural being exists is even religious or is trying to convince you to agree with them.
No one really gives a shit what *you personally* think in this case.
This is about boundaries, limits and **claims that have been made**
Dawkins made some very outlandish claims that have made him rich and famous...they do not withstand scrutiny and make us all worse off and dumber for having heard them.
Thank you Dave Raggett
To be fair, they are probably sick of public drunkenness, drug use, casual violence, hooliganism, slutty dress, and general chaviness. Sharia would almost certainly be an improvement over the current situation of the barely-working/benefits class. /cheek
I think the story is that three out of the four that debunked the great flood idea in geology were ordained Preists in the Anglican Church. The very devout Mendel was the founder of the field Dawkins is in.
There's a big difference between them and the creationist nuts willing to hide evidence that Dawkins means. He means extremists and not a big chunk of the global population.
I think what you mean and Dawkins means are very different things. I suspect you've picked up somebody else's strawman of Dawkins and been conned instead of building your own. It gets confusing because Dawkins has been "trolled" by creationists for decades and we get to see his responses to such things outside of the context.
Hey seriously that was a nice read. Thanks for commenting.
I take solace in the fact that Dawkins' notions are in fact not representative of the scientific community.
In my graduate program, I knew a few 'outspoken' atheists who loved to talk Dawkins stuff and we never, not once, got into any unsavory business when having philosophical discussions. They were cool as long as they saw I was cool. Very respectful if obstinate.
It is precisely because there are so many well thought out notions that don't fit into spirituality OR Dawkins' dogma that I compared him to Rush Limbaugh in the first place. He should know better.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Oh no! Heaven forbid we see some titties. /cheek
Funny thing is a Kingdom is a bit different to a Theocracy and the same can be said with Tribal councils. Try harder.
That's what I mean about taking reality into consideration and who is actually running things instead of what people say they would like.
...They wanted to see how He did it. :)
A bit of a tangent, but that reminded me of a physics teacher I had who told us something like (more jokingly than seriously) "You know why I hope there's a god? Because the afterlife could be like a physics seminar, we'd all be sitting at tables, God would be up at the chalkboard, and we could ask him questions; "Hey, that thing about information lost in a black hole - how'd you do that?" (And God picks up the chalk...)
"Polls are garbage if you expect a 95%+ confidence interval."
What? Every political poll ever created is reported at exactly the 95% confidence interval.
For example, from the report linked by GGP post: "After taking into account the complex sample design, the average margin of sampling error on the 1,050 completed interviews with Muslims is +/-5 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence." (p. 57)
More generally, when reporting inferences from sample data you can always pick ANY confidence level you wish, and if it increases then the margin of error just gets bigger. Perhaps you meant to use some other phrase or idea in place of "95%+ confidence interval".
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
I may be getting old, but isn't it hard to promote science while you're tripping [out] on the road?
I do believe empiricism is the only correct way to seek "truth"
And thus from your perspective, truth does not exist, because you can not gather empirical data about the nature of empiricism and its role in providing truth.
"Saving the world from religion" is not really what they intend or want. They want to promote science, and thus save the world from the worst aspects of religion as practiced by a majority, but certainly not all, religions. Certainly they would actually want to promote the best aspects of religion - community, healing, ministry, social activism that is science based, of course, and so on. All of these things can, and do, occur outside of religious practice, but this does not mean that religion is irrelevant. As scientists they are aware that they cannot prove a negative. As self-aware human beings, I would hope that they can appreciate that, although they might not share the sentiment, belief in something beyond the self is not inheherntly a bad thing. Thus I say stick to promoting science, my friends, and let religion sort itself out thanks to your efforts.
i was a practicing christian until i read God is Dead. i was scepticle and found the tone of the book unnecessarily vitriolic. as i continued to read, i began to put serious thought into /why/ i was doing those things, and it just wasnt making sense to me any longer (like it ever really did).
i ended up re-read the first three chapters that i had initially read with such scepticism.
agreed though that at some point these guys go too far. a book to me is far less annoying and 'in your face' than maher's video presentations, let alone a road show. it just seems too mean-spirited to me "in person" than in a book to be of much use in enlightening believers. mocking sarcasm isnt going to change anyone's mind.
Dawkins isn't primarily trying to convert believers into atheists; he's trying to level the playing field so that it is as acceptable to criticise or even mock a religious or otherwise superstitious belief as it is to criticise or mock a political belief or any other kind. He is also trying to raise opposition to the institutional legislative advantages religion, particularly the Church of England, has in government, such as the seats in the House of Lords which are automatically assigned to CoE bishops, and to end the practice of governmental support of faith schools.
He's also made it quite plain that he doesn't dislike "religious people" in general - he is in fact close personal friends with many, including prominent bishops and other clerics.
You misunderstand what I meant about cheerleading for truth.
Being passionate about the truth, and vocal about it, is perfectly fine. You've taken me so far out of context that you are conflating my position with censorship almost.
I'm saying you don't need to push it to the point of fanaticism and degrade people doing it. It's virtues stand on its own quite nicely.
safely in the land of Christendom where no harm is likely to befall them on their childish adventure.
Says the guy who still believes in fairy tales and magic.
Hope this helps. Here is some more. Think we can find similar numbers for any other religion?
You've got two US sources for a British social issue.
Sorry, but the only sources that cite Muslims want a Sharia state are factless media beat ups in Newscorp/Daily Mail or propaganda from the EDL and BNP.
The reality is quite different. Most Muslims want the opposite and would like Newscorp/Daily Mail to stop printing such nonsense.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
thanks for chiming in w/ an explanation of the teapot thing...I still think its a complete waste of time to consider but thnx just the same
"teapot" is in the eye of the beholder...
what i mean is, "a teapot orbiting the earth" is pure poppycock (said with English accent and foppish hair)
the analogy is that believing in some 'god' is just as patently ludicrous (more English fopping) as believing in a teapot or whatever
it's just like the Flying Spagetti Monster analogy
It's all just opinion too...it's your **opinion** that the proper analogy to believing in 'god' is [insert something ludicrous and nonsensical]
take **any belief system** hell even theistic Satanism...they all will tell you that their belief is logical or 'makes sense' given some precepts or inherent 'truths'
analogies don't prove anything...they are **opinions** of correlation meant to make a falsifiable point & aid understanding
Thank you Dave Raggett
what is difference bw science and religion? this is close topics!
-- nd welsh dec 13
there's no MIDDLE EAST, it's AMERICANISM. There's Far Easy, dude..... Far far far far East. House of Rising Sun.
American Wikipedia indeed does not concur.....
American Wikipedia indeed does not concur..... indeed does not concur..... indeed does not concur.....
IMHO not even remotely capable of being compared. Faith asks a question that atheism ignores. That's a similar trap as those who pretend science is a religion, not understanding that they are separate things and it's as silly a statement as insisting that tea is a kind of coffee. Mendel could embrace both science and religion. Darwin could embrace science and religion, he just had trouble with some extrapolated dogma that was really sitting on top of the religion. Dawkins embraces science and probably didn't care about religion either way until some Jim Jones types decided he was the antichrist just for doing the type of science he did.
Somebody has to point out the Jim Jones types while they are mixing up the Kool-aid. You seem to forget that Dawkins has not just been insulted but even subjected to death threats.
LLC: "Everyone will think like this!"
weilaway: "This is how I think. Other people generally won't"
LLC: "Oh, so you're the one genius who knows what everyone thinks, huh? That's why you're wrong!"
And your cognition of the events are reversed in many cases: you change the causality from what your PERCEPTIONS are, to what the known causality chain is.
So your "out of body experience" isn't proof of religion since these visions can be produced artificially in people who never died at all.
Religion doesn't give any reason for things to be the way they are. It doesn't answer "why morality" or even define it. Morality has changed where the religious texts have not. So it doesn't define it in the least.
And if mythology is merely "give us something to think about the world around us" science does that too. Religion doesn't do any different than that, but does it badly.
Religion doesn't do anything other than make people into easily identifiable tribes and easily identifiable "others".
Or, more accurately, you understand it no better than if you'd claimed the EXACT SAME THING about Christianity.
Apostasy in the Quran is a death sentence. But not being a Muslim and not believing in Mohammed is fine: they will still help you despite that if you need it. That is the meaning of the word "Juhad": the struggle to do good works for the glory of Mohammed.
But, just like Christianities' "Love thy Neighbour as thyself", it's usually forgotten about except when defending the religion from valid criticism.
Theism concerns faith (in gods) and gnosticism concerns knowledge.
A- means "lack" or "non".
A-Theist has no faith in gods.
A-Gnostic has know knowledge of gods.
So someone who says "I don't know if god exists, but I have faith" they are an agnostic.
Your interlocutor is 100% correct and you are 100% wrong.
That, sir, is the best comment in this whole thread. It's so rare to find a real True Neutral alignment this days...
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
I think you are using the word "faith" wrong. Faith does not have anything do to with logic or philosophic arguments. Faith is the believe without any evidence, and in philosophy you are trying to prove your believes with arguments. Also logic is not faith. Logic is an invented system that is just played by their rules to their natural conclusion. You don't have to have faith in logic or believe in logic, you just have to accept the rules.
I personally find it very difficult to find anything worthwhile in ontological philosophy. Nature does not follow our primate instincts and even if you can show that something "must" exist (i.e. it is logical that is must exist) it does not follow that it really does exist. Maybe there is some law of nature that prevents that object to physically exist. So without empirical evidence an ontological argument is useless.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
You can't argue with people who don't think things through or listen to reason. Christian fundies are one such class of people, aggressive atheists like Dawkins are another. When slanging matches start, it's a little like watching Jeremy Kyle or Jerry Springer...
John_Chalisque
In a level playing field, you'd be able to have faith and non-faith schools both with support and see which is the better. Groups like the BHA seem to be campaigning for schools to be exclusively non-faith, based only on idealism without paying any attention to whether or not faith plays a functional role in learning and living (regardless of objective truth, which may seem like heresy to some, but it is an angle that needs serious consideration, since many things in everyday life and modern science are known to work, and work well, but for reasons that nobody understands).
There is a dire need to understand how faith functions in a persons life.
John_Chalisque
That's why we recently appointed Abu Quatada as our Jihad Tsar, whose job (amongst other things) is to implement sharia law in the UK.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/abu-qatada-appointed-uks-jihad-tsar-201202074865
On a more realistic note, the poll you mention was carried out by a notoriously right-wing paper (the Sunday Torygraph) and tubthumped by the notoriously xenophobic ones (the Daily Heil). Back in 2006. Nothing has so far apparently happened about this supposed groundswell of angry muslims eager to start stoning unbelievers and I still haven't been stoned to death my a single one of my friends or cow-orkers.
Please compare this article from the spectator (also right-wing) on a similar thrust that was made in 2008:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/825601/our-survey-shows-british-muslims-dont-want-sharia/
There seems to be an awful lot of (presumably american?) people on slashdot that seem convinced that the UK is somehow populated by trillions of militant muslims hell-bent on dragging the country, and later the world, back to the dark ages. Perhaps it's just the rarefied circles I've moved in but I don't think even 1% of the muslims I know or have met are even remotely interested in anything approaching muslim or any other theocracy, in fact most would find the very idea of such abhorrent as they were quite happy to escape from one. And much like most christians or people of any other religion, they're eternally irritated by people thinking that the fundamentalist blowhards represent them.
A quick guide to how much NaCl you should include with anything you get from the UK newspapers:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BritishNewspapers
Islamophobia is also a fun read:
http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/
This guy is a personal hero of mine. He's one of those people "out there" you hope somehow never dies but just is always there, like a star.
For people interested in giving your kids an experience which will ground them as rational, free thinking individuals he runs a summer camp which teaches self reliance, and a respect for science and facts.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/next_article?article=5214&category=&videos=
Yet another example of how empiricism misses the forest for the trees. Faith has everything to do with logic and philosophic arguments; those are the reasons why one believes what one believes. Faith is simply a conclusion one reaches about things which are beyond empirical proof. Because you can't see them and put them into a test tube and observe them, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
"You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding. "
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I still don't agree that you are using the correct word. Faith is the believe in something or someone without evidence or sometimes contrary to evidence. As such poetry, love, romance and other non empirical (although those examples are all empirical) constructs, and philosophy and logic are not faith based.
From your quote: poetry, love, romance does not require faith because it is empirical. But the conclusion of the "picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond" does require faith because there is no evidence of a picture of the supernal beauty or glory beyond.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
> Faith is simply a conclusion one reaches about things which are beyond empirical proof. Because you can't see them and put them into a test tube and observe them, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
I wish it would be as simple as that. But what you call people who have faith in the biblical flood, or in Adam&Eve and genesis? That are things that are certainly not beyond empirical proof. In fact, cosmology and evolution have shown that those myths are not factual. There was never a global flood that killed all animals and humans and we are not descendants of just two animals and Noah's family. Also the earth and sun was not poofed out of nothing by god but was formed through natural laws (gravity and atomic fusion). Also humankind was not poofed out of nothing by god and we are not descendants of just two individuals.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
More than 50% of UK Muslims are inbred - by first-cousin marriage, often over many generations. Its 75% in Bradford.
Given that, if 30% want some sort of religious law, I'm not surprised.
As far as I can tell Sharia explicitly demands casual violence. I'd rather wear the slutty dress and keep some semblance of equality and rationality about our law thanks.
Polls are shit statistics because the sample population is self selecting. /.
Sir, do you have time to answer a short survey?
No, I'm busy posting on
We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.
Dude, your pants are on fire to such an extent that it's visible from space. I see four Islamophobes gave you uprates, though.
I have to say, that hasn't been my experience with the Muslims I've known. Admittedly my sample size is only about (quick inventory here) 8 or so. But still, I know one guy in particular who used to have long conversations about the Koran and the Bible with another Christian friend of mine. Even convinced him to try fasting for Ramadan (incidentally convinced me to try a traditional Lenten fast too).
The only topics I've found that can be really touchy with my Muslim friends are Jews and Muslims of the opposite sect (Shiia for Sunnis and Sunnis for Shiia). They can have some really nasty ideas about them, very reminiscent of the kind of stuff you hear a lot of Christians say about Muslims, and can be impervious to reason on the subject. Even that isn't universal though. One of my friends was raised Shiia in Iraq, but is proudly atheist and loves having long conversations with a Jewish (Israeli) friend about it. Those are fun.
Although I can't remember specifically which Middle Eastern country it was, one of in Richard Dawkins documentaries he did go and speak to some people. I think it was either Palestine or Israel.
Prof Dawkins may not serve God, but Mamon on the other hand...
The statistics from Britain, where something like 30% Muslims want the UK to become a SA-like theocracy, speak a little different.
Apparently, you have a different definition of "most" if the 70% that don't agree don't qualify.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Hope this helps. Here is some more. Think we can find similar numbers for any other religion?
You've got two US sources for a British social issue. Sorry, but the only sources that cite Muslims want a Sharia state are factless media beat ups in Newscorp/Daily Mail or propaganda from the EDL and BNP. The reality is quite different. Most Muslims want the opposite and would like Newscorp/Daily Mail to stop printing such nonsense.
Well, he provided sources. Where are yours?
I hope, for Dawkins' sake, if God speaks to him, he'll be prepared to listen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_nontheism
While I find your comment interesting, I would like to propose a different view. Religion, in itself, is one of the things that is trying to win the "survival of the fittest" contest. It is essentially a parasite living within the human race. It has survived through evolution (of ideas) and is fighting against atheism for survival. That's why it proseltyzes (for reproduction).
The recognition of events, even of an image of yourself separately from "a human face" can be discovered by NMR scans.
It can be seen to exist at varying levels of complexity all the way through the animal systems.
yeah, b/c young-earth creationists *never* thought of that objection...
"created with apparent age" is how they explain that...done...**dusts off hands**
*no matter what logic you use* they can just draw a circle around it and label it a "miracle"
just stop the whole line of thinking...stop trying to disprove something with logic that is personal opinion....
it does no good to argue with a pig: you both get dirty and the pig likes it!
Thank you Dave Raggett
The fact that everything cannot be empirical and we have to "settle for" taking a few things on faith is not "religion" or doctrine -- it's society. Surviving within my social norms requires I trust people -- I cannot verify everything myself, so I listen to experts say that "light switches use electricity." IN fact, I've taken a science course and proven that bit -- but not everyone has. And there are a whole slew of things I take for granted until such a time that I have enough knowledge and inspiration to test it out myself.
We cannot breathe 100% oxygen -- for practical and health reasons. But the fact that we have pollution in the air doesn't give a value to the pollution.
We cannot prove every detail yet, but you sound like you are promoting the devil between the details rather than any admirable deity or way of life.
But I'll agree -- there is a lot of arrogance of empirical people -- and in my opinion, that's mostly because they don't recognize where they've taken things on faith and that they don't have all the answers. But being on shaky ground is empirically better than prancing around on nothing but thin air. ;-)
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
TL;DNR
the Above post makes sense to people who don't subject their beliefs to rational scrutiny. Hence, people of faith will say; "Wow, you beat them soundly in that debate." And of course they think some atheists are arrogant -- just as anyone today might grin a bit at someone carrying on about Zeus. The personality clashes are independent of the value of any system of logic.
Is there any ultimate arbiter of a "winning argument?" Yes, but you've got to adhere to scientific principles and theories that can be disproved, otherwise it's just a bunch of theologians arguing doctrines based on evidence of God's opinion.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
the existence of god, to people who believe, is not a "hypothesis" that they are testing and have some statistical margin for error
the whole point of the concept of 'faith' is that you make a 'leap of faith'....
people who believe say they believe something unprovable via hypothesis b/c of personal experience and faith
i just proved you wrong...so what...your 'logic' is just your opinion of what would be the most 'logical' approach
all I have really proven is that you cannot PROVE or DISPROVE the existence of a supernatural god, buddah, Xenu or whatever with logic or scientific inquiry
you can't prove or disprove it
Thank you Dave Raggett
I haven't read Dawkins but I read a book by Susan Blackmore years ago that sticks in my brain still - "The Meme-Machine" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Meme_Machine Ahh the forward is by Dawkins :-)
Anyway, the idea is that the evolution of humanity is now primarily driven by survival of the fittest memes.
I think the collection of Science memes would be gaining on the Religion memes if it weren't for the fact that humans who have been infected with the Religion meme seem more likely to reproduce.
So ideas are only worth spreading if you spread them to people who will execute you on the spot for them? I'd be happy to teach calculus to people, but I don't think I'd be willing to get shot for it. Pretty sure that has no bearing on whether calculus is good or whether teaching it is a useful pursuit.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
There does tend to be an effect where immigrants, concerned about losing their ethnic identity, become even more attached to the beliefs of their home country than the people living there are.
It's not as implausible as it sounds...
Dawkins is concerned only with enriching himself, hence his assholery.
You don't convince people that you're right by being an asshole.
You can prompt people to question their beliefs by asking the right questions.
Be friendly, be personable, don't be an asshole.
Be Penn Gillette, don't be Dawkins.
Evangelical Atheists are just as annoying as Jehovah's witnesses.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
oh
ok
i guess this whole fucking conversation is over then!
c'mon man...you just threw more abstractions into the mix which makes for more possible vertices of misunderstanding in the giant graph that is this conversation...
ok...it is your opinion that 'supernatural' means 'magical' in this context...if you asked people who are believers, many might say 'supernatural' means something that is wholly bigger than in the 'meta' sense of all nature...or they might say something that inherently defines the laws of physics continuiously...
I just wanted you to know that you haven't proven shit, or contributed one thing to this conversation with your point about "magic"
Thank you Dave Raggett
no...he's not insulting them!
why, he's just saying they're deluuusional and full of poppycock!
calling someone "delusional" is insulting
also, adding a layer of abstraction..."he's not insulting all believers, just any believer that claims to be sane and not delusional" is bullshit....everyone sees throught it
either/or....stop equivicating and at least own what you believe
Thank you Dave Raggett
...yeah, I guess the subject says it all. :)
Because public discourse is strictly verboten (by death in some cases) in these countries.
By no coincidence, so is belief in religion.
So, mod up parent. Someday the author's of the documentary are going to miss the days of free thought. They'll be sure to learn the difference between theism and totalitarian government.
"I'd rather wear the slutty dress and keep some semblance of equality and rationality about our law thanks."
From your id I hope you mean a kilt rather than a "slutty dress". Don't you have some pride? Or better yet sensitivity to the eyesight/sanity of others?
Quite often I hear/read that it makes no sense that atheist voice their opinions on religion. To stay void on the subject. How in the hell is that even possible? With so much religious nonsense infiltrating into our schools, government, courts, neighborhoods, homes... As well as shunning known knowledge in favor of faith based agendas. Damn right we are going to speak out. From known religious history (2400 BCE) there is absolutely (null) evidence for any god or supernatural process that is overseeing our species. There is absolutely no good reason to believe in any god ever imagined. All religious myths which have holy books that attempt to explain how the stars, planets etc. came into existence have it terribly wrong. To that end, why would I sit idly by and allow ignorance and those whom prefer faith over caring what is true or not to prevail? Religion Sucks!!!
"They should go to Saudi Arabia, or Yemen or Egypt or Tunisia or Iran, and try to make their point across to the Muslims."
They also wish to stay alive. You said it yourself that this religious group responds with violence to any kind of religiously viewed challenge. In Egypt and Syria, they're wiping out christian minorities in towns. Tolerance seems to have little meaning especially under any kind of perceived challenge or need for revenge.
Because you can't see them and put them into a test tube and observe them, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
So if something has no empirical content, how on earth can you claim to know it exists? What reason can you provide to suppose it exists?
You must have missed their parade, and the recent shitshow in London. Cameras have agendas too you think?
I would find it funny if he turned out to be one of them.
You are simply unfamiliar with what Islam really is.
They are quite trained to lie to non-believers. The doctorine of taqiyya.
I don't want to argue with you over what Dawkins said or didn't say...
His book is called "The God Delusion"...you can say "I am not insulting X" while you are *in fact* insulting X, just because you say you aren't doesn't mean that you aren't...
But I have made that point twice, and I think you get it...
Where do we go from here? Do we disagree or have we hammered it out?
Thank you Dave Raggett
Empiricism is the best way we have of finding out about reality. Truth in this instance is measured on how close the model comes to reality itself. This can indeed be investigated, and in fact the history of scientific investigation is evidence for the success of this methodology.
Off is a channel, bald is a hair-style. Gochya.
"a book to me is far less annoying and 'in your face' than maher's video presentations, let alone a road show."
As opposed to christian evangelists, missionaries, and traveling prayer meetings. Give me a break, nothing they are doing hasn't been done by religion before and maybe it's time for some balance.
"it just seems too mean-spirited to me "in person" than in a book to be of much use in enlightening believers. mocking sarcasm isnt going to change anyone's mind."
Your response is proof that even in this country we have problems with religious dogma programmed into us from birth.
"He is also trying to raise opposition to the institutional legislative advantages religion, particularly the Church of England, has in government"
We have that same problem here in the US.
most Christians and Buddhists that I know understand the role of religion (and when to NOT use religion).
Not so for the Muslims.
And how many Muslims do you know? Most Muslims also know when NOT to use religion. There are more than a billion of them - if half a billion of them did not know when to use it, I think we might have a tad bigger problem that we currently do.
Remember, the kooks you see on TV are like the kooks you see for other religions as well - they are the minority. Hell, the way faith is involved in politics in the US and informs policy decision (veiled as some other excuse) has done far more harm to the LGBT community than most other religions.
Unlike most Islamic states, the Christian USA doesn't persecute gays. At worst, there is debate over recognition of same-sex marriages. Gays are publicly stoned or jailed in large portions of the Islamic world.
The Gospel according to lolcat
There are language and cultural barriers that would make it less useful to tour the middle east.
You could hire a translator. The main problem is there's still that whole "you would be hanged for blasphemy" thing.
The Gospel according to lolcat
Losing a wee bit of personal pride is better than accepting theocratic rule, which would demean everybody.
"You might think that is a stretch. I'm only championing neutrality here. True neutral defaults to only that which we can work with in a tangible sense. When you employ that in your reasoning process, I think many things become self evident in nature.
Filthy Neutrals... you never know where they stand!
In fact, cosmology and evolution have shown that those myths are not factual. There was never a global flood that killed all animals and humans and we are not descendants of just two animals and Noah's family. Also the earth and sun was not poofed out of nothing by god but was formed through natural laws (gravity and atomic fusion). Also humankind was not poofed out of nothing by god and we are not descendants of just two individuals.
" In fact, cosmology and evolution have shown that those myths are not factual."
dna geneology can trace human origins to a central "cradle of life"?
"There was never a global flood that killed all animals and humans and we are not descendants of just two animals and Noah's family. "
where does it say global? if anything it was regional but large enough to cover a huge area...
" Also the earth and sun was not poofed out of nothing by god"
the earth and sun we're not created in a big bang that arose out of nothing?
" Also humankind was not poofed out of nothing by god and we are not descendants of just two individuals."
actually it says god made two people from the minerals found on earth (dirt) which molecularly is 100% true, and the bible doesn't say all mankind evolved from those two, maybe you should read it again without the atheistic blinders on....
where i wrote:
the earth and sun we're not created in a big bang that arose out of nothing?
i meant were* not we're, sorry
You seem to misunderstand Dawkins goal. Dawkins admits himself that he is not a true atheist, because he admits he cannot definitively prove there is no God. However, he says he is as certain about God not existing as most people are that the tooth fairy doesn't exist - which is to say there is no evidence that either one does. He isn't trying to convert people to atheism - he's trying to convert people away from superstition and belief without evidence (faith).
so when someone wrongs you, you wrong them right back?
got it, dawkins is quite the leader there...
I'm in the UK and will happily help towards costs for plane tickets.
Mammon on the other hand he doesn't serve either. He could make a lot more money than he does, but he often waives speaking fees and he donates to charities. Simply making a good living, even a very good living, is not the same as worshipping money.
Our problems are traditional and societal, not legislative and institutional. The CofE gets to appoint Lords; imagine if the Baptist Church got to directly appoint a number of Senators! Faith schools are also directly supported by tax monies in the UK.
Personal experience, as well as what's reported in the news everyday, disagrees with what you are saying. Not the part about Muslims being more touchy about religion overall - they very well may be; I must admit I don't know many if any Muslims personally - but that trying to spread reason and science among other religions, especially (IMO) Christians, is "preaching to the choir". There are a lot of Christians in this country (the US, that is) that genuinely believe in creation mythology, who think the world is six thousand years old, who reject evolution, who think the myths of the New Testament (raising the dead, feeding the multitude, etc.) are real, etc. and who certainly would not engage in any serious discussion about the existence vs. non-existence of God. I still recall that girl in 8th grade who told me she'd pray for me 'cause I was going to Hell - and that was in New York, less than 100 miles from NYC - I can't imagine what it must be like growing up in certain other parts of the US, even today. Dawkins et al still have plenty of work to do, right here in the US.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Not quite what I wrote. Try again.
I'm merely pointing out HOW he became an aggressive atheist.
Religion grew out of the need to control the population in ancient times. When humans were hunter/gatherers grouped by family the matriarch or patriarch controlled the actions of the group and kept the piece. As the group grew in size to several extended family groups, then we got chiefs. And when society got too large for the chief to personally keep people in line, we invented priests and kings to take over the role. Religion served a purpose by controlling people through its rules. Thou shall not kill (murdering your neighbors doesn't make a peaceful prosperous society), don't eat these foods, dress like this, and so on. It helped to explain nature and give people guidance even when the leader couldn't be there in person to make sure everyone followed the rules.
No rules? No society. No society? No one pays taxes and it's hard for the king to raise an army to protect the borders from the next nation/state across the mountains who has a different religion with different rules. If the next nation/state over the hill can keep their act together and collect those taxes while you can't, then they'll conquer you and prosper.
Does this mean that deities are real? Well, for some people they don't care where and why their came into being. From where I sit though it just looks like a construct of Man.
> dna genealogy can trace human origins to a central "cradle of life"?
DNA shows that all living things are related. We can even exchange DNA and still retain the same function. This is very strong evidence that life arose on earth once and evolved to all currently and past living species. The fossil record shows a continuously progression from simple to complex species, we can trace our ancestors back to 500 million years ego in Pikaia gracilens*. So the answer is yes.
> where does it say global? if anything it was regional but large enough to cover a huge area. ..
All the creationist and literal bible believers.
> the earth and sun were not created in a big bang that arose out of nothing?
No. The big bang theory is that space and time was compressed in plank space and plank time. So space (matter and energy) and time was already there, just compressed. Then came the "bang" with was the inflation of space and time. Theory of relativity shows that space and time are not separated and quantum theory shows that at very small space gravity and all the other forces should be one. Supersymmetry and quantum gravitation. Still work in progress.
> actually it says god made two people from the minerals found on earth (dirt) which molecularly is 100% true, and the bible doesnt say all mankind evolved from those two, maybe you should read it again without the atheistic blinders on. .
Dirt, mud, ashes, earth, dust, whatever. We all star dust. I do remember that Adam and Eve were the first humans.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikaia
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Even atheism is faith. Oh yes it is. You can't prove or disprove the existence of deities and the various frameworks created around them. It isn't falsifiable. An atheist is not inherently correct even when you only apply well reasoned logic to it. It's the choice to only make decisions upon that which is falsifiable . That is a matter of faith that nothing else is operating that can affect your conclusion.
Atheism is falsifiable, a God merely needs to present him/herself (Or a significantly witnessed old school miracle or magic).
Theism is not practicably falsifiable, an omnipotent all powerful but shy super being that you meet (and are judged by) only after death is not a measurable thing
dont get me wrong, im on your side, and thats a good point about the balance.
youre right, the nature of religion (i think everywhere, not necessarily in this country particularly) is to be programmed. its difficult to purge one's system of that. probably why i was unconciously holding holding the anti-theists to a higher standard.
That's original, say something ridiculous and then accuse someone else of saying it. Anyhow, why 'ideas' are these cowards spreading anyway?
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
No, the point was not that they don't like religious people. The point was that they don't like religion, and the undue influence of religious leaders.
I have noticed that there are a thousand Richard Dawkins on the internet, and all but one of them are made of straw. You have just made that a thousand and one. Slate has an article by someone who claims that Christopher Hitchens was wrong when he thought that banning religion would fix the world. Except that Hitchens never called for a ban on religion, and he certainly never thought that eliminating religion would solve all the world's problems. The number of people misrepresenting Hitchens has skyrocketed, because no one would dare do it while he was alive. And that makes me suspect that they know they are lying.
If you are going to criticize someone, could you please exert the slightest rudimentary effort to understand what they did in fact say. I'm quite certain that 99.9% of the disputes on the internet would vanish if people could just learn to listen.
And before you say that we don't understand religious people, please be informed that most of the atheists I know were devoutly religious for most of their lives before becoming atheists, and we not only understand it, we were there, which is more than I can say for most of the people slinging this nonsense. The deepest theological conversations I have ever had took place in atheist meetups, between former believers who understood theology very well--in fact, it was theology that made them atheists. And yes, this includes Muslims.
Please take the time to become likewise informed.
The term "atheist" is embedded in a language framework that considers theism normative and thus "a"theism as aberrant. (Theism: noun: belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.)
I reject this entire language framework, and its framing of theism (belief in god) as normative.
I would prefer to think of myself as someone aspiring to be a rational, appropriately skeptical realist.
While I agree with a right to freedom of thought, I take a dim view of the prevailing "irrational supernaturalist" (theist) mindset.
Followers in organized "irrational supernaturalist" religions should wake up and realize that the top leaders in their hierarchies don't actually believe in god. They believe that maintaining the pretense is a great way to maintain inordinate amounts of social and economic power. These leaders, if intelligent, are clearly manipulative cynics of the highest order.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
1. The balance of probabilities suggest that atheist are right. But there is no certainty so - in essence - Dawkins et. al. are simply promoting another belief system.
2. Science operates outside of belief systems (or it is intended to). There are lots of scientists who a religious; there are lots of scientifically illiterate people (think Michael Moore) who are atheists. There is no formal linkage.
3. Dawkins completely misses the role religion plays in humans affairs when there is a crisis. This is my most serious objection to his stridency. Try telling a simple family the reason their child is dying of cancer is due to possibly random DNA copying errors in a meaningless universe.
4. As the old cliche goes: there are no atheists in foxholes.
5. As Karl Popper points out the idea is to set up a hypothesis or theory and then research - empirical and theoretical attempt to refute the theory.
6. Politics and science are unhappy partners. GW is a case in point where the hypothesis that CO2 is, through the greenhouse effect, is warming the planet. Problem is many scientists are more keen to promote rather than refute the hypothesis. ( Their zeal borders on stridency that borders on a religion.)
7. Dawkins and other argue that religion foments wars. True sometimes, but equally true is that many wars and deaths have been caused by atheists. Hitler, Stalin and Mao spring to mind.
8. As a modern citizens one should be highly suspicious of anyone, from Dawkins, to Obama to the Pope who tells one what to think since, in the final analysis, nobody really - I mean really, really - knows what is true in the deepest sense. Science provides us with models and paradigms to understand and manipulate the world. It does not answer questions as to why there is a world in the first place.
most Christians and Buddhists that I know understand the role of religion (and when to NOT use religion).
Not so for the Muslims.
And how many Muslims do you know? Most Muslims also know when NOT to use religion. There are more than a billion of them - if half a billion of them did not know when to use it, I think we might have a tad bigger problem that we currently do.
Remember, the kooks you see on TV are like the kooks you see for other religions as well - they are the minority. Hell, the way faith is involved in politics in the US and informs policy decision (veiled as some other excuse) has done far more harm to the LGBT community than most other religions.
For me, religion is a social need, that brings peoples who think alike together. For example, change cities because of job and want to make friends, go to your friendly church (or bar). Need to really meet people that share your values, join their club.
As for religion, in times of stress, there is nothing better. I happen to be a doubter, but when I am stressed, I join my community for a while. Do I believe in all the ritual and fairy tails, and the "he said" that was documented 400 years after the fact? You have one guess.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Richard Dawkins is intentionally being offensive, or provocative, in order to make money. It's a disgrace to call him a scientist.
you're being dishonest...you made a logical leap w/ no foundation very casually...
I put where you're being manipulative in bold.
See, it's ***YOUR OPINION**** than anything not 'supernatural' is by definition then definitely 'magical'
but that's your opinion, based on a definition of magic
You could define 'magic' by Arthur C. Clarke's Three Laws.
One of which states:
Your definition is bullshit, because your argument is bullshit, based on a false dichotomy. Arthur C. Clark would disagree with your concept of magic, that you can't credibly deny.
Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of an 'god' and any logic that claims to have a better way to decide the question is just an opinion.
Arthur C. Clark would disagree with your concept of magic, that you can't credibly deny.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I hadn't heard...
I wish that study had defined "Sharia law" clearly. There is a huge range of interpretations of Sharia Law. Without a specific definition, you might as well say "40% of Muslims would like laws that more closely match their particular morality, which is often governed by their religion".
Even atheism is faith. Oh yes it is. ...... It's the choice to only make decisions upon that which is falsifiable . That is a matter of faith that nothing else is operating that can affect your conclusion.
The choice to make decisions based on that which is falsifiable (or derived by the scientific method in general) also implies a fundamental thing: it means you choose to believe that that which can be observed and reproduced is real.
To do otherwise is what leads people like 'Young Earth Creationists' to disregard all the dinosaur bones and their geological dating. A wave of the hand and a bunch of evidence is no longer real.
A very careful person of faith, who deeply considers the boundaries and limits of religion, can, with practice, keep faith out of areas where it does not belong. However, that is rare. Faith based thinking inevitable leads to contradictions in reasoning.
tl;dr = your (and Dawkins) notions of the science and 'god' are base opinions carrying the relevance of your opinion on, say, the best Pizza Toppings
You interpreted Dawkin's comments thusly:
so that means anyone who believes in anything 'supernatural' is childish
by definition...it's a blanket statement that covers **anyone** who doesn't believe in hard atheism
you defend and support this statement...and in doing so make a logical error that undercuts your whole premise (and Dawkins as well)
**that's what we're talking about**
you are trying to Red Herring this discussion by doing definition gymnastics but the *core* is that you and Dawkins think that anyone who isn't a hard atheist is "childish"
its condescending bullshit...
there are all kinds of New Age concepts of a 'universal consciousness' that try to be based in science...several leading scientists have written about these topics informally, including Robert Oppenheimer & others who worked at the Eselen Institute in California.
you and Dawkins claim people are "childish" based on **your opinion** of the best way to answer questions beyond scientific inquiry
ITS YOUR OPINION...that's all it is...it's notion you can prove or ever hold a person accountable to in any way...
it has the level of relevance as you opinion as to the best Pizza Toppings
Thank you Dave Raggett
ha!
thnx for posting that, and you could've slammed me b/c I honestly didn't know Naturalism had become a "thing" in the whole disgusting "evoution/creation" god debate...I mean if you saw the same wiki I did the Naturalism (philosophy) really only became a thing in the last 30 years. That's fine but just sayin...
I had already read it, after I posted my comment of course...
As you might guess I think it's kind of bullshit, but so are alot of the arguments against it...I don't like any of it b/c to me it's just rhetoric.
Rhetoric is fine for a picnic on a Sunday afternoon or around the watercooler but its the how Dawkins tries to claim that **science** has proven **scientifically** that anyone who isn't a 'naturalist' aka atheist is Deluuusional
for fucks sake!
I want to keep real actual science separate from all of this...I used to do research and it's hard enough to navigate either office politics or university politics and keep your project focused on science and not marketing horseshit...
then this all gets into the conversation...I hate it
Thank you Dave Raggett
Here's the link directly to the 'naturalism' that is attributed to Dawkins, etc. The counter-arguments by people like Popper and especially Alvin Plantinga's critique are honestly equally as odious as Dawkins to me. Seriously Plantiga's notions of an 'evolutionary argument against naturalism' take just as many scandalous liberties with the concept of 'science' as Dawkins and I hate it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
On the disambiguation page it's listed as Methodological Naturalism.
Seriously, do you see why Dawkins sticks out among Rush Limbaugh types to me? Not saying you have to agree or not be condescending but maybe your everyday life would go smoother (and all of us too) if we don't go down that road.
I'm totally fine with you being condescending to anyone for any reason...knock yourself out...let's just keep from using science where it doesn't belong
Thank you Dave Raggett
well this has been fun! thnx man
see this is where we differ...I guess just to put a bookend on things I'll elaborate
I think your notion, that:
'natural & skeptical thinking' will always arrive at atheism & any other conclusion is 'unreasonable'
is an opinion not provable formally (such as by syllogism or other language based logic)
Maybe you're right, but it's not formally provable...to get philosophical it is not formally provable because of the 'social construction' of reality via language limits human certainty to things that are communicatable and somhow formally repeatable. This is discussed alot in 2nd Order Cybernetics
I know I'm just repeating my last argument only substituting 'formally provable' with 'science' but I wanted you to see that my perspective is constant.
Any statement about the supernatural is opinion, not science or logic.
It's when you cross that border, into asserting ***CERTAINTY*** where you have none that causes me to raise objections.
As I said before I support you being an atheist, condescending to whomever you see fit, but to our greater discussion it's all about crossing that line of certainty.
Thank you Dave Raggett