NationStates Jolt Archive

On several occasions I have heard/read things that seem to indicate people think of Richard Dawkins as some kind of extremist. As far as I know his only 'extremeness' is making a clear unambiguous statement of what he believes is true and what isn't, without any sugar-coating.

Considering what theists say about atheists without being considered extreme, I can only assume that there is a double standard.

He's only considered extreme because of the fact that he has the balls to boldly state his positions. There is of course a double standard but the more pious/zealous religionists will refuse to admit it.

Dawking comes across as a total git. Anyone who believes in anything is, in his mind, deluded.

That's why so many people (including myself) dislike him, it's got nothing to do with what he believes or doesn't believe, it's to do with how he says it.

I can only assume that there is a double standard.

Yes.

Many people feel that direct criticism of others' religious views is rude and/or disrespectful. Dawkins has the temerity to point out that A) most religious follow that prohibition primarily in the breach anyway and B) religion should be treated like any other aspect of human existence.

Plus, of course, he is an outspoken atheist, and a lot of people thereby find his very existence confronting.

Considering what theists say about atheists without being considered extreme, I can only assume that there is a double standard.

Indeed. Until someone like Dawkins says that all religious people will be tortured horrifically for eternity, religious extremism will remain far, far worse than so-called "militant atheism."

it's to do with how he says it.

That's what I meant by the "without any sugar-coating" bit. Lack of timidity.

That's what I meant by the "without any sugar-coating" bit. Lack of timidity.

That's what more zealous religionists define militant atheism as; saying that one thinks god is a load of crock without sugar-coating it.

Dawkins always struck me as something of a dick...

...I'm not certain why though.

Any suggestions as to why would be appreciated.

Dawking comes across as a total git. Anyone who believes in anything is, in his mind, deluded.

That's why so many people (including myself) dislike him, it's got nothing to do with what he believes or doesn't believe, it's to do with how he says it.
Whereas theists believe atheists to be evil. Or at least, are supposed to. Or at least, 'fools'.

Dawking comes across as a total git. Anyone who believes in anything is, in his mind, deluded.One doesn't need Dawking to know that the followers of the abrahamic religions are deluded. That's something everyone with open eyes could understand.

You're absolutely right. It's a double standard, and a very annoying one at that. I even once asked the question on this forum about why the double standard exists: for a theist to be "extremist" he has to be like Phelps or something: actively calling for the deaths of people who don't live up to their religious standards. But for an atheist to get the same label, he simply has to say, "I disagree with your belief; I view it as irrational, and here's why I think that."

Dawkins is the atheist version of a very persistent evangelist. He gets in your face and demands you agree with him. And regardless of what you actually believe, that's just fucking annoying.

Dawkins has every right to present evidence for why he feels a higher being doesn't exist. I personally have no problem with atheism.

But insulting people who believe, simply because they believe, makes him no better than a B-grade televangelist.

Richard Dawkins is rather sensible.

Dawkins has every right to present evidence for why he feels a higher being doesn't exist. I personally have no problem with atheism.

But insulting people who believe, simply because they believe, makes him no better than a B-grade televangelist.

Have you ever seen him in an interview/discussion with a theist? I find he's rather polite, usually far more so than the theist.

Dawking comes across as a total git. Anyone who believes in anything is, in his mind, deluded.

you can justly believe all sorts of things. you just need evidence and reasons. which is exactly what dawkins says. this is a trivially obvious point.

That's why so many people (including myself) dislike him, it's got nothing to do with what he believes or doesn't believe, it's to do with how he says it.

wait, so it isn't that he points out the silliness of belief without evidence, but rather that he doesn't say "no offense intended" afterwards? really?

Dawkins has every right to present evidence for why he feels a higher being doesn't exist. I personally have no problem with atheism.

But insulting people who believe, simply because they believe, makes him no better than a B-grade televangelist.
Can you give examples of this?

What I've seen Dawkins do is talk candidly about his opinion of religiosity and religious beliefs. But I've heard him say, explicitly, that there are plenty of well-meaning, good, intelligent people who believe in religion.

It's absolutely possible for a smart person to believe something stupid, and that's what I've seen Dawkins talk about. Yes, he believes superstition is bunk. Yes, he says so. But no, this does not automatically count as an insult against religious PEOPLE. Just like saying that racism is bunk doesn't mean you're personally insulting all people who have racist beliefs.

Dawkins is the atheist version of a very persistent evangelist. He gets in your face and demands you agree with him.
Really? I haven't seen that. Can you link to an interview or something which shows him doing that?

http://www.bartcop.com/anti-christianBigotry.gif

Dawking comes across as a total git.

Which does not, by any stretch of the imagination, make him wrong.

Really? I haven't seen that. Can you link to an interview or something which shows him doing that?I'm pretty sure he never demanded anyone agree with him. However, it's no secret his life's mission is to educate the peoples of the world out of their superstitious beliefs, so in that sense, there's a certain similarity.

Then again, it's useless to argue about the persons. Argue the ideas instead. Otherwise we'll just end up debating the overwhelming similarities of Ifreann, myself and Pol Pot who, being human all, are indeed very similar.

Indeed. Until someone like Dawkins says that all religious people will be tortured horrifically for eternity, religious extremism will remain far, far worse than so-called "militant atheism."

How is he a militant atheist? Does he believe that atheist terror squads should bomb churches, mosques and synagogues while pulling together an army pledged to overthrow all religious governments?

Because unless he's doing something in that vein (not necessarily on that par), he isn't militant.

Because most of what he says (when regarding his amateur philosophy) is extremely unoriginal and dated, although dressed up in fancy condescending rhetoric to make it sound like what he is saying is new and revolutionary. In truth his points are old and already milked, with his only original work linked to that subject area being his theories on memes (which is highly speculative).

Because most of what he says (when regarding his amateur philosophy) is extremely unoriginal and dated, although dressed up in fancy condescending rhetoric to make it sound like what he is saying is new and revolutionary. In truth his points are old and already milked, with his only original work linked to that subject area being his theories on memes (which is highly speculative).

Accepting that for the sake of argument...

what does that have to do with making him extremist? The arguments used by theists are often even more outdated and generally ridiculous (Pascal's Wager, the Ontological Proof, the Argument from Design, etc.). You can say he uses poor arguments, but how does that make him at all militant/extremist, when a theist must demand the death penalty for homosexuals (or something equally crazy) to be extremist?

I'm pretty sure he never demanded anyone agree with him. However, it's no secret his life's mission is to educate the peoples of the world out of their superstitious beliefs, so in that sense, there's a certain similarity.

That's such a broad comparison that I find it hard to imagine any activist who wouldn't fit with it.


Then again, it's useless to argue about the persons. Argue the ideas instead. Otherwise we'll just end up debating the overwhelming similarities of Ifreann, myself and Pol Pot who, being human all, are indeed very similar.
Yeah, that's why I don't much get people's criticism of Dawkins as a person. I'd rather people address the merit of what he says, instead of complaining that he's not nice enough.

That's how I approach missionaries, after all. Polite or not, they're peddling bunk, and that's what I talk about. I appreciate if their courteous in their behavior, but that doesn't magically make their superstition more valid.

How is he a militant atheist? Does he believe that atheist terror squads should bomb churches, mosques and synagogues while pulling together an army pledged to overthrow all religious governments?

Because unless he's doing something in that vein (not necessarily on that par), he isn't militant.

a militant atheist is an atheist who speaks up instead of the normal "I don't believe in god but I don't care" atheist.

Accepting that for the sake of argument...

what does that have to do with making him extremist? The arguments used by theists are often even more outdated and generally ridiculous (Pascal's Wager, the Ontological Proof, the Argument from Design, etc.). You can say he uses poor arguments, but how does that make him at all militant/extremist, when a theist must demand the death penalty for homosexuals (or something equally crazy) to be extremist?

Because he frequently generalises theists or similar types as being stupid, ignorant, weak minded etc... As well as often being generally rude and condescending the whole time. Obviously he's a fucking pussy compared to theistic extremists, but he's extreme none the less.

I like Dawkins, and I have a lot of respect for the way that he has chosen to use his academic authority to make some very public statements about all sorts of things that cannot be reconciled with a scientific world view. Whether that be religion or any other form of superstitious belief he doesn't pull punches and has a knack for putting his views across eloquently even if, as someone noted above, slightly condescendingly.

His main target audience seems to the silent majority of most Western countries -- the people who will answer on a census form that they are Christian because that's what their parents would have answered -- who still attend church once in a blue moon because it's expected of them. His stated aim is simply to get those people to think about what it is that they validate with their blind obedience, and to attempt to bring an end to the simpering respect that we (in my country, at least) seem to still pay towards religions, as if they were some kind of untouchable entity that we should never dare publicly question.

Do I agree with everything he says? No, not even close.

Can I understand why so many people dislike him? Yes, absolutely.

Do I think that it's long past time that someone like him (i.e. a qualified academic with an impeccable scientific record) found themselves in the type of position that he holds -- one of his titles is "Professor for the Public Understanding of Science", a truly priceless job title if I have ever seen one -- and started forcing people to ask questions? Damned right I do.

In truth his points are old and already milked

indeed, it has been well known that religious nonsense is nonsense for centuries. now if only we could get people to try following the evidence for a change...

Dawkins is the atheist version of a very persistent evangelist. He gets in your face and demands you agree with him. And regardless of what you actually believe, that's just fucking annoying.

I can't remember the last time Dawkins went street preaching, so the only way that he could get in your face is if you choose to read one of his books or watch one of his television programmes.

What I've seen Dawkins do is talk candidly about his opinion of religiosity and religious beliefs. But I've heard him say, explicitly, that there are plenty of well-meaning, good, intelligent people who believe in religion.
Like here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyqvy52Kerg&NR=1

When a state-funded Christian school says "if your child isn't baptisted then they can't use the school bus and they'll have to walk" that's fine and dandy, when a state-funded Muslim school says that all girls will have to wear the headscarf then that's fine and when one of Peter Vardy's state-funded academies admit that they're more more interested in converting the children than in getting them to pass their exams then that's fine too. Apparently it's also fine for state-funded schools to discriminate against the children of atheists and the government are currently fighting a court case to defend the 'right' of a state-school to fire a maths teacher for being an atheist.

Contrast this to the reaction to a headmaster who recently declared his intention to make the school he ran secular, only to be told that this was illegal and that the House of Lords (and especially the unelected bishops) would block any attempts to change the law.

Given the systematic discrimination that atheists face in the education system, is it any wonder we're 'angry'? The phrase 'millitant atheist' is being thrown around in the same way that 'uppity negro' was used a few generations back.

Because he frequently generalises theists or similar types as being stupid, ignorant, weak minded etc... As well as often being generally rude and condescending the whole time.
Again. Have you ever actually seen his interviews and discussions with theists, or are you just judging on hearsay? Because I find him to be rather polite-- he just doesn't put on the kiddie gloves when dealing with religion, nor should he. Nor should anybody. When debating any subject, we shouldn't put on the kiddie gloves and side step around the issues. Indeed, I'd be offended if somebody did pull their punches debating an idea of mine, because that implies that they think I'm too weak/stupid to defend myself properly.
The only thing that annoys people is that he doesn't give religion special treatment in this regard, but, honestly, I think it's completely irrational and quite frankly very strange to insist that we must. The only reason that you accept the idea that we must is that you've grown up being taught this, and accepted it without question.

Obviously he's a fucking pussy compared to theistic extremists, but he's extreme none the less.
Are you trying to imply that he would do the suicide bombing, calling for the death penalty for theists and such, given the chance, but he's afraid too? Now you're just being ridiculous.

When a state-funded Christian school says "if your child isn't baptisted then they can't use the school bus and they'll have to walk" that's fine and dandy, when a state-funded Muslim school says that all girls will have to wear the headscarf then that's fine and when one of Peter Vardy's state-funded academies admit that they're more more interested in converting the children than in getting them to pass their exams then that's fine too. Apparently it's also fine for state-funded schools to discriminate against the children of atheists and the government are currently fighting a court case to defend the 'right' of a state-school to fire a maths teacher for being an atheist.

Contrast this to the reaction to a headmaster who recently declared his intention to make the school he ran secular, only to be told that this was illegal and that the House of Lords (and especially the unelected bishops) would block any attempts to change the law.

Given the systematic discrimination that atheists face in the education system, is it any wonder we're 'angry'? The phrase 'millitant atheist' is being thrown around in the same way that 'uppity negro' was used a few generations back.
*applauds* Glad to see people like you say it as it is.

Another thing which annoys me (yes I know I'm ranting tonight :p) is the way that people disparage Dawkins' book for being overly simplistic and not addressing the finer details of theology. NEWS FLASH! This isn't a book targetted solely at intellectuals, it's targeted at the average person in the street, and he's done more to encourage public interest in Atheism than anyone alive. A couple of weeks ago I walked into my local branch of Waterstones and was amazed to find David Hume's classic Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion on the bestsellers shelf along with several other atheist texts; I can't imagine this having happened without Dawkins.

*applauds* Glad to see people like you say it as it is.

*strokes ego* :)

Given the systematic discrimination that atheists face in the education system, is it any wonder we're 'angry'? The phrase 'millitant atheist' is being thrown around in the same way that 'uppity negro' was used a few generations back.

Quality.

That's what I meant by the "without any sugar-coating" bit. Lack of timidity.

No, its the fact he comes across as an arrogant, spiteful little prick who is unwilling to debate things at the theological level. He would rather scream, "you're all stupid!" than come down and debate the merits. He is as stupid as those Christians who try to make out that atheists lack morals by pointing to Hitler and Stalin.

I have my beliefs, and I debate with other people who have different beliefs but I don't consider them deficient by virtue of them having different beliefs than I.

When a state-funded Christian school says "if your child isn't baptisted then they can't use the school bus and they'll have to walk" that's fine and dandy, when a state-funded Muslim school says that all girls will have to wear the headscarf then that's fine and when one of Peter Vardy's state-funded academies admit that they're more more interested in converting the children than in getting them to pass their exams then that's fine too. Apparently it's also fine for state-funded schools to discriminate against the children of atheists and the government are currently fighting a court case to defend the 'right' of a state-school to fire a maths teacher for being an atheist.

Contrast this to the reaction to a headmaster who recently declared his intention to make the school he ran secular, only to be told that this was illegal and that the House of Lords (and especially the unelected bishops) would block any attempts to change the law.

Given the systematic discrimination that atheists face in the education system, is it any wonder we're 'angry'? The phrase 'millitant atheist' is being thrown around in the same way that 'uppity negro' was used a few generations back.

Excuse me, but look at the bullshit law suites bought by the ACLU over nativity scene's on public property! perish the fucking thought of having baby jesus, three wise men, mary and joe.

Dear god, I'm not even Christian, but I don't exactly go around picking fights with authorities for no good bloody reason. If people want to say "marry fucking Christmas' then i say, let them. It is the 'militant atheists' turning a damn mole hill into a mountain because they've made their life so fucking devoid of any fun that they must drag everyone else down with them.

unwilling to debate things at the theological level.

'the theological level'? what the fuck are you talking about?

Again. Have you ever actually seen his interviews and discussions with theists, or are you just judging on hearsay?

I have seen many of his interviews, read many of his books, and am currently studying him in college as part of a general philosophy and ethics a level. So no, i'm not judging this on hearsay.


Because I find him to be rather polite-- he just doesn't put on the kiddie gloves when dealing with religion, nor should he. Nor should anybody. When debating any subject, we shouldn't put on the kiddie gloves and side step around the issues. Indeed, I'd be offended if somebody did pull their punches debating an idea of mine, because that implies that they think I'm too weak/stupid to defend myself properly.

But thats pretty much all he does. He spends very little time trying to explain why God doesn't exist, and then continues the debate or his writings with the idea that he doesn't exist as a given (which is an extreme position to take, it's different from merely saying I believe he doesn't or there is no evidence for him), spending more time attacking theists. This quote is a typical arguement from Dawkins:

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

It's just making us atheists look bad, nobody would read that and say: "well he's just generalised me and everyone of my kind as ignorent, stupid or isane, wow thats totally convinced me to be an evelotutionist!"

The only reason that you accept the idea that we must is that you've grown up being taught this, and accepted it without question.


Woah there, what the fuck are you talking about? What the fuck gives you the right to make up bullshit about my upbringing?


Are you trying to imply that he would do the suicide bombing, calling for the death penalty for theists and such, given the chance, but he's afraid too? Now you're just being ridiculous.

No, of course not, and am extremely confused how you could deduce such a thing.

Excuse me, but look at the bullshit law suites bought by the ACLU over nativity scene's on public property! perish the fucking thought of having baby jesus, three wise men, mary and joe.

Dear god, I'm not even Christian, but I don't exactly go around picking fights with authorities for no good bloody reason. If people want to say "marry fucking Christmas' then i say, let them. It is the 'militant atheists' turning a damn mole hill into a mountain because they've made their life so fucking devoid of any fun that they must drag everyone else down with them.

Waaaaahhhh!!! (http://www.glumbert.com/media/priceofatheism)
EDIT:
http://nynerd.com/attention-lunatic-athiests/
More (http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/05/04/investigator_finds_reasonable_grounds_for_claim_of_atheism_firing/)
Let me give a sniffle about a nativity...[/edit]

The 'Merry Christmas' thing is a made up controversy, the nativity is a separation of Church and State issue, not an attack on the nativity itself...

No, its the fact he comes across as an arrogant, spiteful little prick who is unwilling to debate things at the theological level. He would rather scream, "you're all stupid!" than come down and debate the merits. He is as stupid as those Christians who try to make out that atheists lack morals by pointing to Hitler and Stalin.

I have my beliefs, and I debate with other people who have different beliefs but I don't consider them deficient by virtue of them having different beliefs than I.
You can debate your beliefs all you like, but at some stage any debate about Christianity** reaches the point where the Christian's postulate is that we (the atheists/strong agnostics/call is what you will, I don't much care for labels) are all going to Hell (a fictitious place made up by their side) for not believing the same fairy tales that they do... a sort of "we're right, you're wrong, we have the Truth!" situation. I'd be tempted to scream "you're all stupid" at that stage of the debate, too.

As for this idea of there being some kind of 'theological level', I'm not altogether sure what you mean. Dawkins' position and world-view allows for no deity in any meaningful way, so there can be no theological debate.


** I selected Christianity here simply because it's the flavour that I have most experience with. I'm sure analogous comments could be made about most of the others.

He's an evangelical atheist.

As far as I see there's nothing wrong with that, it balances the world out.

Because The Selfish Gene did not present a testable hypothesis, yet attempted to masquerade as science.

Contrast this to the reaction to a headmaster who recently declared his intention to make the school he ran secular, only to be told that this was illegal and that the House of Lords (and especially the unelected bishops) would block any attempts to change the law.


Source (and it was probably against the wishes of most of the parents and general school community anyway, so meh)


Given the systematic discrimination that atheists face in the education system, is it any wonder we're 'angry'? The phrase 'millitant atheist' is being thrown around in the same way that 'uppity negro' was used a few generations back.

lol

Excuse me, but look at the bullshit law suites bought by the ACLU over nativity scene's on public property! perish the fucking thought of having baby jesus, three wise men, mary and joe.

Dear god, I'm not even Christian, but I don't exactly go around picking fights with authorities for no good bloody reason. If people want to say "marry fucking Christmas' then i say, let them. It is the 'militant atheists' turning a damn mole hill into a mountain because they've made their life so fucking devoid of any fun that they must drag everyone else down with them.

Firstly, not every thread has to be US-centric: this thread was started by an Englishman/woman, it concerns an English professor and all of the examples which you're replying to occurred in England (with the exception of one which was in Scotland). How is the ACLU even slightly relevant to the subject at hand?

Secondly, even if I was to grant that suing against state-sponsored nativities is 'frivolous', do you really think that not having state endorsement for your own personal celebration even comes close to being denied a place at your local school because your parents are atheists, being singled out in class for being an atheist (this happened to me in my first week of secondary school), or having bronze-age myth taught as factual science? What about being an adolescent, already struggling to come to terms with your homosexuality in a generation where 'fag' and 'gay' and commonly used synonyms for 'crap', and having to cope with the additional burden of school sanctioned bullying because the Catholic authorities running the school are dragging their feet over the implementation of an 'anti-homophobic bullying policy'?

Thirdly, allowing minor examples of state-sponsored religion is the start of a slippery slope; I'll indulge you by using American examples: having 'in God we trust' on the currency and references to 'one nation under God' in the pledge of allegiance are relatively harmless in themselves, but they serve as a precedent which only encourages the theocrats who want religion based laws. Surely you've seen fundies arguing against church state separation on the grounds that 'this is a Christian country' and citing the currency and pledge in support of that'? Just as cracking down on minor crime like littering and petty vandalism is a good long-term strategy for cutting down on major crime, so targeting minor breaches of church-state separation is a good long-term strategy for fighting theocracy.

Source (and it was probably against the wishes of most of the parents and general school community anyway, so meh)


Wrong.

A headteacher who tried to reduce the influence of religion inside the classroom by creating the country's first secular state school had his plans blocked by senior government officials who called it a 'political impossibility'.

Dr Paul Kelley, head of Monkseaton High School in Tyneside - the first to join the government's flagship 'trust school' scheme - wanted to challenge the legal requirement in all state schools for pupils to take part in a daily act of worship of a broadly Christian nature. There are only a handful of exceptions at faith schools where the daily worship can be based on a different religion.

He also wanted to change the way that religious education was taught, introducing tuition about a number of world views, some that involved faith and some that did not. He intended to follow a 'third way' that neither banished religion from the classroom completely nor had children attending daily worship.

'We wanted a fundamental change in the relationship with the school and the established religion of the country,' said Kelley, talking about the proposals he put forward towards the end of Tony Blair's premiership. 'They accepted it would be popular but said it was politically impossible.'

The Guardian: Education (http://education.guardian.co.uk/faithschools/story/0,,2175879,00.html)

lol

An eloquent and insightful rebuttal to the numerous examples I presented; you truly are a towering intellect to rival Plato, Hume, and Einstein.

the problem with the vast evangelical movement is that these are people who not only get up with their silly robes and funny hats every sunday and loudly denounce us as evil evil people who are bound for unending uyielding agonizing torment forever, who try to define america as a "christian nation" with a prayer in every school and the 10 commandments on every courthouse. Who spew angry vitrol on private companies who dare to say "happy holidays" or, indeed, nothing at all come the winter season and then, when those companies relent and include specific christmas messages in their stores, whine and bitch about the "commercialization" of christmas. Who look at the crop of republican candidates and bemoan the fact that they may not be willing to restrict the rights of minorities, women, and homosexuals enough. Who make it a constant effort to remove the right of bodily autonomy from women.

And yet dawkins who tries to restrict the rights of nobody, condemns nobody to hell, does not try to force his belief on anybody but merely gets up and loudly proclaims his belief, and that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong...well he's just gone too far.

Fuck that shit.

Excuse me, but look at the bullshit law suites bought by the ACLU over nativity scene's on public property!

I've bolded the important part for you.

This quote is a typical arguement from Dawkins:

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."


That is an accurate statement, although 'ignorant' is a bit pejorative. I'd have gone with 'ill-informed'.

the problem with the vast evangelical movement is that these are people who not only get up with their silly robes and funny hats every sunday and loudly denounce us as evil evil people who are bound for unending uyielding agonizing torment forever, who try to define america as a "christian nation" with a prayer in every school and the 10 commandments on every courthouse. Who spew angry vitrol on private companies who dare to say "happy holidays" or, indeed, nothing at all come the winter season and then, when those companies relent and include specific christmas messages in their stores, whine and bitch about the "commercialization" of christmas. Who look at the crop of republican candidates and bemoan the fact that they may not be willing to restrict the rights of minorities, women, and homosexuals enough. Who make it a constant effort to remove the right of bodily autonomy from women.

And yet dawkins who tries to restrict the rights of nobody, condemns nobody to hell, does not try to force his belief on anybody but merely gets up and loudly proclaims his belief, and that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong...well he's just gone too far.

Fuck that shit.
Also quality.

adding-

Why atheists care (http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/51635/detail/)

An eloquent and insightful rebuttal to the numerous examples I presented; you truly are a towering intellect to rival Plato, Hume, and Einstein.

One example. And it means nothing, traditional political inadequacies =/= discrimination. I can safely say that if any group is discriminated at all, atheists and agnostics are by far the least discriminated in Britain, especially in the media and among the general population. I've never been made fun of for being an atheist, ever. I've never had my beliefs ridiculed in the media, ever. It's just stupid to think that atheists are discriminated against in Britain, though I accept that they are to an extent in the USA.

I have seen many of his interviews, read many of his books, and am currently studying him in college as part of a general philosophy and ethics a level. So no, i'm not judging this on hearsay.

I don't really see how, watching any interview or discussion he's in with a theist, you could call him rude. He acts exactly as one would expect a person debating any other idea to behave. Why should religion be any different in this regard?


But thats pretty much all he does. He spends very little time trying to explain why God doesn't exist, and then continues the debate or his writings with the idea that he doesn't exist as a given (which is an extreme position to take, it's different from merely saying I believe he doesn't or there is no evidence for him), spending more time attacking theists. This quote is a typical arguement from Dawkins:

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

Anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is one of those three things, usually ignorant. With the massive amounts of evidence in favor, for an intelligent, sane person to not believe in it, he'd have to be ignorant of the evidence.


It's just making us atheists look bad, nobody would read that and say: "well he's just generalised me and everyone of my kind as ignorent, stupid or isane, wow thats totally convinced me to be an evelotutionist!"

If somebody, when presented with the evidence, refuses to believe it because the person presenting it didn't put on the kiddie gloves, that's their own damn fault.


Woah there, what the fuck are you talking about? What the fuck gives you the right to make up bullshit about my upbringing?

If you were brought up in modern society, you were almost certainly brought up with the idea that we should treat religion differently regarding debate. If you are a rare exception, then I apologize.


No, of course not, and am extremely confused how you could deduce such a thing.

You said "Obviously he's a fucking pussy compared to theistic extremists, but he's extreme none the less."
So,
Theists have to do certain things to be extreme, such as bombings, calling for the death penalty of certain sinners, etc.
Dawkins doesn't do these things, but you claim that he's still extreme, just "a fucking pussy" implying that the reason he doesn't do these things is he's too much of a pussy to do them-- not because he doesn't want to.

How is he a militant atheist?

"So-called", I said.

No, its the fact he comes across as an arrogant, spiteful little prick who is unwilling to debate things at the theological level. He would rather scream, "you're all stupid!" than come down and debate the merits.

To the contrary, that's exactly what he's done, repeatedly.

Most of the Christian responses, of course, have merely amounted to whining about how mean he is... perhaps because, on the merits, he has a pretty solid case.

This quote is a typical arguement from Dawkins:

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

It's just making us atheists look bad, nobody would read that and say: "well he's just generalised me and everyone of my kind as ignorent, stupid or isane, wow thats totally convinced me to be an evelotutionist!"

yes, because that is the sum total of dawkins' argument in favor of evolution, and is in fact meant to be used as a means of convincing people. oh, wait, no it isn't. perhaps it would help if you read more than soundbites?

Most of the Christian responses, of course, have merely amounted to whining about how mean he is... perhaps because, on the merits, he has a pretty solid case.

nah, couldn't be

One example.

Would you like some help counting? There were six examples of anti-atheist discrimination in my first post alone, and I added several more in my response to Bottomboys. I'm afraid I don't own an abacus, and even if I did I couldn't send it to you because of the postal strike, so I'll count them up for you here:

When a state-funded Christian school says "if your child isn't baptisted then they can't use the school bus and they'll have to walk" (1) that's fine and dandy, when a state-funded Muslim school says that all girls will have to wear the headscarf (2) then that's fine and when one of Peter Vardy's state-funded academies admit that they're more more interested in converting the children than in getting them to pass their exams (3) then that's fine too. Apparently it's also fine for state-funded schools to discriminate against the children of atheists (4) and the government are currently fighting a court case to defend the 'right' of a state-school to fire a maths teacher for being an atheist (5).

Contrast this to the reaction to a headmaster who recently declared his intention to make the school he ran secular, only to be told that this was illegal and that the House of Lords (and especially the unelected bishops) would block any attempts to change the law. (6)

Given the systematic discrimination that atheists face in the education system, is it any wonder we're 'angry'? The phrase 'millitant atheist' is being thrown around in the same way that 'uppity negro' was used a few generations back.

That makes six, no?

And it means nothing, traditional political inadequacies =/= discrimination.

So discrimination isn't really discrimination as long as it's traditional? I like you, you're funny. :)

I can safely say that if any group is discriminated at all, atheists and agnostics are by far the least discriminated in Britain, especially in the media and among the general population. I've never been made fun of for being an atheist, ever. I've never had my beliefs ridiculed in the media, ever. It's just stupid to think that atheists are discriminated against in Britain, though I accept that they are to an extent in the USA.

...more empty rhetoric, still failing to address the multiple examples of blatant discrimination which I presented. I'm considering training as a teacher after I've got my degree, but at present one third of state-schools in the country are legally entitled to bar me from teaching because I don't believe in their particular magic sky teacher, and the number is increasing. I want to teach maths for heaven's sake, how would my non-belief detract from my ability to teach children to add up and think analytically? Would you be so casual if a teacher was rejected for being Black?

I don't really see how, watching any interview or discussion he's in with a theist, you could call him rude. He acts exactly as one would expect a person debating any other idea to behave. Why should religion be any different in this regard?


I admit that he has massively toned it down heavily on live tv recently in light of huge controversy. Though i'm not really fussed about his short pointless interviews on tv, i'm more concerned with his writings and general attitude to theists.


Anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is one of those three things, usually ignorant. With the massive amounts of evidence in favor, for an intelligent, sane person to not believe in it, he'd have to be ignorant of the evidence.


But you wouldn't just repeat that over and over again in different ways in an attempt to make an argument would you? Maybe evolution was a bad example, but he's said the same sort of thing to many other people who's beliefs can not be shown true or false using science.


If somebody, when presented with the evidence, refuses to believe it because the person presenting it didn't put on the kiddie gloves, that's their own damn fault.


Well if Dawkins were to spend time actually presenting evidence that there is no God in his books (which he doesn't, and it's very difficult to show that God doesn't exist if even possible, so i'm not sure what gives him authority to say for certain "God doesn't exist") and spent less time milking boring outdated philosophical problems and using that to justify his insulting to people of faith, then I wouldn't have a problem with him.


If you were brought up in modern society, you were almost certainly brought up with the idea that we should treat religion differently regarding debate. If you are a rare exception, then I apologize.


Ok, sorry I got confused as to what you were saying. I thought you were implying that I was raised as some sort of fundamentalist christian.


You said "Obviously he's a fucking pussy compared to theistic extremists, but he's extreme none the less."
So,
Theists have to do certain things to be extreme, such as bombings, calling for the death penalty of certain sinners, etc.
Dawkins doesn't do these things, but you claim that he's still extreme, just "a fucking pussy" implying that the reason he doesn't do these things is he's too much of a pussy to do them-- not because he doesn't want to.

I'm saying that there are different levels of extreme, and person A can be much more extreme then person B, but that doesn't stop person B being extreme in his own right. I didn't mean that Dawkins was to scared too bomb people by saying he was a fucking pussy and now I understand why you thought that. I use the term fucking pussy a lot, kind of in reaction to when people keep calling me that because i'm not atheist enough of libertarian enough or whatever.

yes, because that is the sum total of dawkins' argument in favor of evolution, and is in fact meant to be used as a means of convincing people. oh, wait, no it isn't. perhaps it would help if you read more than soundbites?

It's worth noting that Dawkins retracted that argument after meeting Michael Behe: he now admits that sheer intellectual laziness is also a viable explanation.

Well if Dawkins were to spend time actually presenting evidence that there is no God in his books (which he doesn't, and it's very difficult to show that God doesn't exist if even possible, so i'm not sure what gives him authority to say for certain "God doesn't exist") and spent less time milking boring outdated philosophical problems and using that to justify his insulting to people of faith, then I wouldn't have a problem with him.

You've never actually read The God Delusion have you?

I don't know. I read "The Selfish Gene" a while back and thought it a good read. Made good points. Well-written.

And that's pretty much all I know of him and I have no problem with dawkins.

I find it funny when fundamentalist Christians who believe they're made in the image of God call him arrogant.

Would you like some help counting? There were six examples of anti-atheist discrimination in my first post alone, and I added several more in my response to Bottomboys. I'm afraid I don't own an abacus, and even if I did I couldn't send it to you because of the postal strike, so I'll count them up for you here:



That makes six, no?


It's all the same sort of thing thing, I thought you meant the general inadequate nature of the school systems link to the church of England was your example. Not the different affects of this.


So discrimination isn't really discrimination as long as it's traditional? I like you, you're funny. :)


If it was because the government thought that Atheism was wrong and was actively trying to limit its influence then it is discrimination. But if it is annoying laws that the government is bound to, limiting their authority over states schools, then its not really the same.


...more empty rhetoric, still failing to address the multiple examples of blatant discrimination which I presented.

It's not empty rhetoric. If you can show me that mainstream media actually makes fun of atheists a lot and Christians hardly ever, then I shall retract my comment.


I'm considering training as a teacher after I've got my degree, but at present one third of state-schools in the country are legally entitled to bar me from teaching because I don't believe in their particular magic sky teacher, and the number is increasing. I want to teach maths for heaven's sake, how would my non-belief detract from my ability to teach children to add up and think analytically? Would you be so casual if a teacher was rejected for being Black?

Now you're just being paranoid. You are still legally able to do a lot of abhorrent things due to silly old laws that haven't been removed (wasn't there one where you can still shoot a Scotsman if he is in your territory or something?). The chances of a state school actually acting on this law is extremely slim. I am of course against this, but I don't think really think it's enough "discrimination" to make any average atheist angry, perhaps the very small numbers of teachers who were barred, but not someone like Dawkins.

He's incredibly arrogant, bigoted, and so hateful towards religion that he refuses to acknowledge that atheism has a track record no better than any organized religion?

It really seems like evolutionary theory and natural selection have become his religion and God.

I read his book, The God Delusion, I found it interesting, insightful and even funny at times. I am more secure in my atheism than I have ever been because of that book.

You've never actually read The God Delusion have you?

Yes, and i've read some of his better books. The God Delusion is probably his worst. You may have actually had an ounce of merit if you mentioned some of his other books about God,

He's incredibly arrogant, bigoted, and so hateful towards religion that he refuses to acknowledge that atheism has a track record no better than any organized religion?

It really seems like evolutionary theory and natural selection have become his religion and God.

I'm sorry but comparing religion to atheism is not very accurate. Its like comparing fruity pebbles w/ marshmallows to an empty cereal bowl. I mean, Atheism is not just another belief system, it is the absence of dogma and religion.

Yes, and i've read some of his better books. The God Delusion is probably his worst. You may have actually had an ounce of merit if you mentioned some of his other books about God,
Ah no, seriously? The Punk Rock Cred Defense? Really? Really?

I'm sorry but comparing religion to atheism is not very accurate. Its like comparing fruity pebbles w/ marshmallows to an empty cereal bowl. I mean, Atheism is not just another belief system, it is the absence of dogma and religion.

Well, he does it, and justifies one as superior to another by trying to weigh them against each other...and the atheists that committed acts of evil simply replaced one dogma with a new one and used it for the exact same purpose. Both have shown their ability to be used by evil people to commit evil acts.

It's possible you could also easily argue secular humanism is a religious form of atheism.

He's pushed atheism and rational thought into the public sphere which, I think, is a good thing. He sometimes tries to come across as more of a theologian than he really is, but I support his commitment to being open and honest. When I saw his speak at the Cambridge union he was polite throughout, despite some of the threatening questions he had directed towards him.

Ah no, seriously? The Punk Rock Cred Defense? Really? Really?

It's really not that good. His arguments were mostly rehashes of the same tired ones used in the atheist-theist debate for the past 200 years. Not to mention it was embarrassingly lacking in covering the Eastern religious traditions, which of course didn't fit in to the picture he wanted to paint and so he left them more or less out of it.

Ah no, seriously? The Punk Rock Cred Defense? Really? Really?

I'm sorry, is there suppost to be an argument here? Can we get back on topic?

He's incredibly arrogant, bigoted, and so hateful towards religion that he refuses to acknowledge that atheism has a track record no better than any organized religion?


....

Are you serious? When was it that atheism led a crusade and killed countless people in the name of notGod? When was the Atheist Inquisition? When did an Atheist group crash airplanes into skyscrapers? True, individual atheists have done horrible things, but not in the name of atheism, but in the name of some other ideology, such as Nazism or Stalinism or Maoism. But crusades and inquisitions were certainly in the name of God, jihads are in the name of Allah.


It really seems like evolutionary theory and natural selection have become his religion and God.
How so? Evolutionary theory and natural selection are science, and he believes them because of evidence. He's passionate, but would, presumably, change his mind if evidence countered them.

It's really not that good. His arguments were mostly rehashes of the same tired ones used in the atheist-theist debate for the past 200 years.
Well, when the counter argument of "Cause I said so" hasn't changed in thousands of years, it's hard to come up with new material...

I'm sorry, is there suppost to be an argument here? Can we get back on topic?
That was kinda my question, really...

Well, when the counter argument of "Cause I said so" hasn't changed in thousands of years, it's hard to come up with new material...

Then where does he even remotely get the grounds to call his book "The God Delusion"? It sounds more like an attempt to troll IRL than anything else considering he doesn't actually make a case that is even remotely within range of classifying religion as a delusion. It does show a little of the quasi-religious role science and rationalism play in his life, but other than that nothing.

Well, he does it, and justifies one as superior to another by trying to weigh them against each other...and the atheists that committed acts of evil simply replaced one dogma with a new one and used it for the exact same purpose. Both have shown their ability to be used by evil people to commit evil acts.

It's possible you could also easily argue secular humanism is a religious form of atheism.

Sure, atheists can do evil things, but, to quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Sure, atheists can do evil things, but, to quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Or politics. Or money. Or desperation. Or any one of a hundred different reasons. To claim that only religion can do that is, quite frankly, insipid.

Well, when the counter argument of "Cause I said so" hasn't changed in thousands of years, it's hard to come up with new material...


But it isn't, so he should be able to come up with new material. And some people have.

And yes, my counter argument just then was a "cause I said so" type one, but I feel it is justified in reply to your groundless assertion.


That was kinda my question, really...

Well it was RLI who started this crap.

Sure, atheists can do evil things, but, to quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

There were plenty of good people in the Soviet Union who committed evil things because they sincerely believed they were doing the right thing for Stalin, for the Revolution, and for the Party, and many of them didn't believe in God. Some of it was simply out of fear for their lives and those of their families. The same is true of the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution, the Khemer Rouge, and the other atheist regimes that replaced spirituality with revolutionary fervor.

Any ideology or belief, if abused, can make good people do evil things.

There were plenty of good people in the Soviet Union who committed evil things because they sincerely believed they were doing the right thing for Stalin, for the Revolution, and for the Party, and many of them didn't believe in God. Some of it was simply out of fear for their lives and those of their families. The same is true of the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution, the Khemer Rouge, and the other atheist regimes that replaced spirituality with revolutionary fervor.

Any ideology or belief, if abused, can make good people do evil things.

Yep, and it's been shown time and time again that the evil religion argument is not valid. The fact that Dawkins STILL peddles this crap just further discredits him.

Yep, and it's been shown time and time again that the evil religion argument is not valid. The fact that Dawkins STILL peddles this crap just further discredits him.

This misrepresents his argument as 'Without religion there would be no strife.' He even dismisses that in the interview linked earlier. Creating a false conclusion from what he says does not discredit him.

But it isn't, so he should be able to come up with new material. And some people have.

And yes, my counter argument just then was a "cause I said so" type one, but I feel it is justified in reply to your groundless assertion.
What?



Well it was RLI who started this crap.

Your mom ever buy that one?

Dawking comes across as a total git. Anyone who believes in anything is, in his mind, deluded.

That's why so many people (including myself) dislike him, it's got nothing to do with what he believes or doesn't believe, it's to do with how he says it.

Indeed. I generally agree with him, but hes a smug little shit.

This misrepresents his argument as 'Without religion there would be no strife.' He even dismisses that in the interview linked earlier. Creating a false conclusion from what he says does not discredit him.

He didn't dismiss it, he just said he doesn't focus on it as much as his other arguments. But he still peddles it as if it were a valid argument, have you seen his TV show? (not sure if you get it in the states)

This misrepresents his argument as 'Without religion there would be no strife.' He even dismisses that in the interview linked earlier. Creating a false conclusion from what he says does not discredit him.

Again, I seriously doubt there would be less strife. The 20th century was one of the bloodiest in history both in terms of absolute deaths and the depravity of the killing, and yet it also had the biggest decline in belief in organized religion of any time in the past.

What?


What about that was so hard to understand?


Your mom ever buy that one?

What?

It's all the same sort of thing thing, I thought you meant the general inadequate nature of the school systems link to the church of England was your example. Not the different affects of this.

Isn't having one-third of state-schools run by religions bad enough?

If it was because the government thought that Atheism was wrong and was actively trying to limit its influence then it is discrimination. But if it is annoying laws that the government is bound to, limiting their authority over states schools, then its not really the same.

This just gets funnier: now it's not discrimination as long as it isn't motivated by hatred. "Sorry sir, your son can't come here, this school is only for white children. It's not that we've got anything against blacks you understand, it's just tradition."

The government made these laws. It could change them any time it liked.

It's not empty rhetoric. If you can show me that mainstream media actually makes fun of atheists a lot and Christians hardly ever, then I shall retract my comment.

So in your world, having your children denied a place at the local school comes second to being made fun of by a newspaper at by a newspaper? Are you out of your mind? It's not as if the papers are staunchly secular either: the Telegraph is strongly Christian with Catholic leanings and the Mail and most of the tabloid press tend to rant against any kind of secularism because they see it as part of 'political correctness'. The only paper I can think of which is actually pro-secularism is the Guardian, and they host plenty of opposing voices.

Now you're just being paranoid. You are still legally able to do a lot of abhorrent things due to silly old laws that haven't been removed (wasn't there one where you can still shoot a Scotsman if he is in your territory or something?). The chances of a state school actually acting on this law is extremely slim. I am of course against this, but I don't think really think it's enough "discrimination" to make any average atheist angry, perhaps the very small numbers of teachers who were barred, but not someone like Dawkins.

Paranoid? It's happening for fucks sake. We're not talking about silly laws left over from past generations, we're talking about laws which were introduced by the Blair government, are currently being defended by the Brown government, and which are being used to discriminate against atheists now. There are children who are being denied places at their local schools because their parents don't believe in god and are too honest to lie about their beliefs. There are teachers being denied jobs and promotions. Our schools are becoming more segregated by the day and the government is pushing yet more 'faith' schools through. Google 'Emmanuel Schools Foundation' and educate yourself on the kind of schools which are being encouraged by the present government.

Do you have any idea what's it's like to be singled out in class at the age of eleven for being an atheist? I do because I was: in my first ever RS lesson the teacher asked if anyone present wasn't a Christian, and then tried to convert me. This was at a supposedly non-religious school, how much worse do you think the new 'academies' are? Haven't you heard about the gay children who are being bullied at Catholic and Muslim schools with the complicity of teachers?

He's incredibly arrogant, bigoted, and so hateful towards religion that he refuses to acknowledge that atheism has a track record no better than any organized religion?

Hateful towards religion? I know he thinks society would be better without it, but that seems an extreme perspective of his criticism.
Some examples of the track record would be interesting.

Any ideology or belief, if abused, can make good people do evil things.

QFT

Again, I seriously doubt there would be less strife. The 20th century was one of the bloodiest in history both in terms of absolute deaths and the depravity of the killing, and yet it also had the biggest decline in belief in organized religion of any time in the past.

Are you suggesting the decline in organised religion is the cause of all the fighting?

There were plenty of good people in the Soviet Union who committed evil things because they sincerely believed they were doing the right thing for Stalin, for the Revolution, and for the Party, and many of them didn't believe in God. Some of it was simply out of fear for their lives and those of their families. The same is true of the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution, the Khemer Rouge, and the other atheist regimes that replaced spirituality with revolutionary fervor.

Any ideology or belief, if abused, can make good people do evil things.

Granted, other ideologies can be abused to get people. And I should have been clearer, I do think that the quote oversimplifies it, but it makes a somewhat valid point. Yes, Stalinism drives people to do evil things. But Stalinism has a distinctly religious type of thought about it. You accept-- on faith-- that the leader of the party is always right, and is perfect. You accept whatever the party says as true, without evidence.

But, ultimately, my point was to address your claim that Atheism is as likely to lead to violence as religion-- and that's demonstrably not true. Atheists who commit atrocities generally do it in the name of another ideology-- Stalinism or Nazism. But it is quite often that religious atrocities are done specifically in the name of the religion, and not another ideology.

He's less extremist than the man in black in our neighborhood church.

Then where does he even remotely get the grounds to call his book "The God Delusion"? It sounds more like an attempt to troll IRL than anything else considering he doesn't actually make a case that is even remotely within range of classifying religion as a delusion.

This is the point he's trying to make: religion is used to an immunity from criticism. Nobody would blink twice if he'd written a book called "The Socialist Delusion" or "The Conservative Delusion" but because he's dared to attack religion he's immediately described as a troll. The Road to Serfdom is a far more provocative title than The God Delusion but I've never heard anyone complaining about that. There is a clear double standard in society, whereby religionists demand that their beliefs should influence government policy but at the same time should be immune to criticism or rational inspection.

The government made these laws. It could change them any time it liked.


This is the crux of the issue. As I understand it, it's not possible to do this without first disbanding the state church (a move that I would support, but would be a very difficult act to pass through).


So in your world, having your children denied a place at the local school comes second to being made fun of by a newspaper at by a newspaper?

I don't deny that some atheists will have trouble applying to faith schools (well duh), but this really isn't enough to justify Dawkins anger.


Paranoid? It's happening for fucks sake. We're not talking about silly laws left over from past generations, we're talking about laws which were introduced by the Blair government, are currently being defended by the Brown government, and which are being used to discriminate against atheists now. There are children who are being denied places at their local schools because their parents don't believe in god and are too honest to lie about their beliefs. There are teachers being denied jobs and promotions. Our schools are becoming more segregated by the day and the government is pushing yet more 'faith' schools through. Google 'Emmanuel Schools Foundation' and educate yourself on the kind of schools which are being encouraged by the present government.

But how many faith schools are there compared to secular?


Do you have any idea what's it's like to be singled out in class at the age of eleven for being an atheist? I do because I was: in my first ever RS lesson the teacher asked if anyone present wasn't a Christian, and then tried to convert me. This was at a supposedly non-religious school, how much worse do you think the new 'academies' are? Haven't you heard about the gay children who are being bullied at Catholic and Muslim schools with the complicity of teachers?

I went to a catholic school, and the Christians were the ones made fun of. We were taught evolution as correct and there was no teacher trying to convert people. But this means nothing, simply pointing out individual cases does not show institutionalised discrimination throughout the country.

Hateful towards religion? I know he thinks society would be better without it, but that seems an extreme perspective of his criticism.

Some examples of the track record would be interesting.

A classic:

"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."

There are more, but I'd have to do some more rooting around.

"I take astrology very seriously indeed: I think it's deeply pernicious because it undermines rationality, and I should like to see campaigns against it."

This one's a classic...just switch a few things around and it sounds exactly something a Medieval bishop would say before ordering an Inquisition or a book burning. Mind you, it's about astrology, but it's more the principle behind it than anything else.

"I take astrology very seriously indeed: I think it's deeply pernicious because it undermines rationality, and I should like to see campaigns against it."

This one's a classic...just switch a few things around and it sounds exactly something a Medieval bishop would say before ordering an Inquisition or a book burning.

Dude, I can "just switch a few things around" with any context and make it look like something a Bishop might say. But Dawkins isn't a bishop, he's not in a position of extreme social, economic and political authority and power, and his opinion doesn't make him meaningfully comparable with a medieval bishop.

Mind you, it's about astrology, but it's more the principle behind it than anything else.

What principle? Having an opinion?

Are you suggesting the decline in organised religion is the cause of all the fighting?

No. Correlation doesn't imply causation. The same is true of the argument that less religion would somehow reduce strife.

Yes, and i've read some of his better books. The God Delusion is probably his worst. You may have actually had an ounce of merit if you mentioned some of his other books about God,

I find that hard to believe given that you apparently missed the chapter entitled 'Why There Almost Certainly Is No God' which included, wait for it, "presenting evidence that there is no God". He does the same in The Blind Watchmaker.

Dude, I can "just switch a few things around" with any context and make it look like something a Bishop might say. But Dawkins isn't a bishop, he's not in a position of extreme social, economic and political authority and power, and his opinion doesn't make him meaningfully comparable with a medieval bishop.

The thought processes are the same.

This is the point he's trying to make: religion is used to an immunity from criticism. Nobody would blink twice if he'd written a book called "The Socialist Delusion" or "The Conservative Delusion" but because he's dared to attack religion he's immediately described as a troll. The Road to Serfdom is a far more provocative title than The God Delusion but I've never heard anyone complaining about that.

Yes, books about religion cause more controversy then books about politics. Yet this is totally irrelevant, just like how many political books are complete crap, many books about God and religion are also crap, the God Delusion happens to be one of these. Though I'll admit it is entertaining.

There is a clear double standard in society, whereby religionists demand that their beliefs should influence government policy but at the same time should be immune to criticism or rational inspection.

This is flawed. Not that many religionists believe that their religion should dictate government, and hardly any believe that their beliefs should be immune from criticism and scrutiny, in fact it has already happened with Christianity heavily during the enlightenment and has driven out most of the evangelicals to the USA.

No. Correlation doesn't imply causation. The same is true of the argument that less religion would somehow reduce strife.

Good, I feared you were making a grave mistake.

What principle? Having an opinion?

Well, no. It's hypocrisy more than anything. He criticizes religion for intolerance and attempting to interfere in the lives of others, and then wants to campaign against astrology because it undermines his beliefs in rationalism.

(And don't forget the first one...that's way, way worse than the second one)

I find that hard to believe given that you apparently missed the chapter entitled 'Why There Almost Certainly Is No God' which included, wait for it, "presenting evidence that there is no God". He does the same in The Blind Watchmaker.

And the original quote you quoted was not referring to just The Dawkins Delusion, but all of his writings. I never dismissed that he did try to argue that there is no God, but when he did it was usually the same old rehashed unoriginal points and dressed up fancy rhetoric which I've already talked about.

The thought processes are the same.

Nonsense. The medieval bishop is thinking about how many altar boys he'll get to touch today, and about how to increase his political power by scapegoating. Dawkins was, at that exact moment, thinking about what his lunch was and whether he should have ordered a different kind of sandwich. Luckily I'm telepathic and understand both their thought processes in their entireties, otherwise I might have been tricked into believing your line here.

This is the crux of the issue. As I understand it, it's not possible to do this without first disbanding the state church (a move that I would support, but would be a very difficult act to pass through).

Your understanding is lacking. Many of the 'single faith' schools have only been introduced since Blair's dreadful City Academy scheme began. It would be child's play to secularise every state school in the country.

I don't deny that some atheists will have trouble applying to faith schools (well duh), but this really isn't enough to justify Dawkins anger.

"I don't deny that some blacks will have trouble applying to all-white schools (well duh), but this really isn't enough to justify Martin Luther King's anger."

Fixed. Kindly stop dodging and answer the question: would you be so relaxed if schools were discriminating based on race?

What am I angry about? I'm angry that my taxes are being used to fund schools which I'm forbidden to teach at and that any children I might have will be forbidden to attend. I'm angry that children are being forced to spend large portions of their day travelling because the local school won't let any dirty atheists in. I'm angry that a large proportion of the population are being suffering institutional discrimination.

But how many faith schools are there compared to secular?

There are no Secular schools, as I've already pointed out they're illegal. One third of schools are controlled by specific churches/religious groups and the rest are obliged to teach generic Christianity.

I went to a catholic school, and the Christians were the ones made fun of. We were taught evolution as correct and there was no teacher trying to convert people. But this means nothing, simply pointing out individual cases does not show institutionalised discrimination throughout the country.

'Institutional' means 'by the institution'; the clue's in the name. The fact that schools (i.e. 'institutions') are forced to promote religion, and that one third of them can 'discriminate' against atheists means that atheists are suffering 'institutional discrimination'. Is this really so difficult?

I rather agree with Shermer. (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=423C1809-E7F2-99DF-384721C9252B924A)

Furtermore, if one seeks to convince another that they are wrong, it is not prudent (nor is it good form, for that matter) to call them delusional. You'll just alienate them by doing so. Rather, show the points of your argument, and seek to win them over by rational discussion. Furthermore, if atheism seeks to overcome the failures of religion, it must NOT become like religion has been, so much of the time. It must not become doctrinaire, overly argumentative or dogmatic (in other words: There must never be an atheist pope, caliph or whatnot). It must not seek to hold down opposing views, merely to let them die out on their own.

Well, no. It's hypocrisy more than anything. He criticizes religion for intolerance and attempting to interfere in the lives of others, and then wants to campaign against astrology because it undermines his beliefs in rationalism.

(And don't forget the first one...that's way, way worse than the second one)

But it's totally different: he simply wants to educate people on the evidence, but let them live their lives as they will. Religionists actually want to use the law to force people to agree with them, but I've never seen Dawkins suggest that religion should be against the law. I have, however, seen him specifically say that if someone, after being presented the evidence, wants to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old or that clumps of rock and nuclear fireballs have an impact on their lives, then they should feel free.

And the original quote you quoted was not referring to just The Dawkins Delusion, but all of his writings. I never dismissed that he did try to argue that there is no God, but when he did it was usually the same old rehashed unoriginal points and dressed up fancy rhetoric which I've already talked about.

Here's your original post:

Well if Dawkins were to spend time actually presenting evidence that there is no God in his books (which he doesn't, and it's very difficult to show that God doesn't exist if even possible, so i'm not sure what gives him authority to say for certain "God doesn't exist") and spent less time milking boring outdated philosophical problems and using that to justify his insulting to people of faith, then I wouldn't have a problem with him.

He presented evidence against the existence of god in The God Delusion and also in The Blind Watchmaker. You were wrong.

-snip-

RLI can we stop this. We both agree mostly. I agree that faith schools should be gotten rid of, and that the state church should be disbanded. The only thing we are really arguing about is the semantic notion of what is and isn't discrimination, and it's not really going to get anywhere is it so lets just agree to disagree mkay?

Here's your original post:



He presented evidence against the existence of god in The God Delusion and also in The Blind Watchmaker. You were wrong.

What i meant was that the evidence does not show that there is no God, not that he doesn't present evidence.

It must not become doctrinaire, overly argumentative or dogmatic (in other words: There must never be an atheist pope, caliph or whatnot).

That's a shame, because I was totally up for that job. Especially if there was a big fancy hat involved.

And a harem...

But it's totally different: he simply wants to educate people on the evidence, but let them live their lives as they will. Religionists actually want to use the law to force people to agree with them, but I've never seen Dawkins suggest that religion should be against the law. I have, however, seen him specifically say that if someone, after being presented the evidence, wants to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old or that clumps of rock and nuclear fireballs have an impact on their lives, then they should feel free.

And so do most religious people. Dawkins is no different than the vast majority of other people out there who have opinions and beliefs and who use those positions to make decisions.

And so do most religious people. Dawkins is no different than the vast majority of other people out there who have opinions and beliefs and who use those positions to make decisions.

The crucial difference is that he does not want to enshrine his beliefs into law, as do extremist theists. Therefore, he should not be considered extremist, or we have a double standard, no?

The crucial difference is that he does not want to enshrine his beliefs into law, as do extremist theists. Therefore, he should not be considered extremist, or we have a double standard, no?

Doesn't he? Does Dawkins disregard his beliefs when voting on moral issues or issues regarding the role of religion in government? Does anybody do that?

Everybody wants their beliefs put in to law. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be involved in politics to begin with.

The crucial difference is that he does not want to enshrine his beliefs into law, as do extremist theists. Therefore, he should not be considered extremist, or we have a double standard, no?

Again, it depends on how you define extremist. I believe an extremist is relative to your belief, Dawkins is extreme compared to most other atheists, so we could call him a radical atheist. Yet he is nothing compared to extremist theists.

Doesn't he? Does Dawkins disregard his beliefs when voting on moral issues or issues regarding the role of religion in government? Does anybody do that?

Everybody wants their beliefs put in to law. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be involved in politics to begin with.

Okay, he doesn't want to enshrine his religious beliefs into law. He doesn't say, "you must not be religious and you must act within the confines of atheism." Whereas religionists want to create theocracies where you must be their religion and you must follow their religion's practices.

Again, it depends on how you define extremist. I believe an extremist is relative to your belief, Dawkins is extreme compared to most other atheists, so we could call him a radical atheist. Yet he is nothing compared to extremist theists.

Well, my view is that there are simply fewer extremist atheists, not that it should take less for one to be extremist. We should hold both sides to the same standard.

Whereas religionists want to create theocracies where you must be their religion and you must follow their religion's practices.

Again, hardly any. Although more in America.

Again, hardly any. Although more in America.

The amount isn't the point. The point is, that's what one has to do to be an "extremist" theist. But to be an extremist atheist, you simply have to make your belief public and say that you think that religion is irrational and we'd probably be better without it.

The amount isn't the point. The point is, that's what one has to do to be an "extremist" theist. But to be an extremist atheist, you simply have to make your belief public and say that you think that religion is irrational and we'd probably be better without it.

Obviously its more then simply that, or any atheist would be an extremist.

*scoots up to podium*

...

*taps mic*

Erm, yes. I'd like to know people need to go around trying to validate their beliefs and opinions by lambasting the opinions and beliefs of others...

...

I just want to know why...

...

I mean to me this just sounds like they don't have enough faith in their own beliefs, so they need to target others' in order to make themselves feel stronger...

...that's not to say that either the atheist or the theist is neccessarily right 100% of the time in any given situation...

It also sounds a whole lot like the high-horse, "I'm right your wrong, regardless", chauvanistic nonsense that has kept humanity from achieving peace...

...

I'll leave now...

*scoots away: audience is silent*

Obviously its more then simply that, or any atheist would be an extremist.

Nah, plenty of atheists don't say "we'd be better off without religion," they say "but I respect your belief as equally valid and rational as mine" or some such bullshit.

Nah, plenty of atheists don't say "we'd be better off without religion," they say "but I respect your belief as equally valid and rational as mine" or some such bullshit.

I would say we'd be better off without petty bullshit...

...

Okay this time I'll leave for real...

*leaves, for real*

I've bolded the important part for you.

* quickly looks in vain for constitutional authority which restricts first-amendment rights to only private property.... Does not find it....

Dawkin's is an intelligent man, there I a massive double standard in society over the meaning of "extremist", it's not difficult to see why somebody would believe that religion is harmful to society there are 1000s of years of history that back up his argument.

* audience is silent*
Dude, who you kidding...

Both have shown their ability to be used by evil people to commit evil acts.

No--by your own phrasing the atheists who have done horrible things have done so through replacing one dogma for another. The dogma they have undertaken is not atheism--it is Stalinism, or Maoism, or something of that sort.

You would have an argument against Dawkins only if, to replace religion, he argued that we should all follow the teachings of Chairman Mao. Of course, he argues nothing of the sort. Indeed, he argues that we should apply exactly the same sort of critical thinking we apply to Maoism to religion as well... and just as it leads us to reject Maoism, it also leads us to reject religion.

The only thing you have demonstrated is that there are atheist "religions" that have also wreaked harm--a point that, if anything, only enhances the anti-religious argument.

Dude, who you kidding...

The audience is silent because they are concentrating on aiming the sniper rifles accurately.

Nah, plenty of atheists don't say "we'd be better off without religion," they say "but I respect your belief as equally valid and rational as mine" or some such bullshit.Do atheists generally express support of religion and/or claim superstitions are rational?

.. Can't say I've ever seen that.

Dude, who you kidding...

Not that I have said anything "profound", only because they are thinking "WTF was that?! Was that a brain fart or was it some kind of code?!"

The audience is silent because they are concentrating on aiming the sniper rifles accurately.

That's terrible! Who would want to kill me...besides Vlademir Putin...?

His arguments were mostly rehashes of the same tired ones used in the atheist-theist debate for the past 200 years.

of course, the atheist arguments utterly dominated and actually forced the theists to retreat into absolute vacuous nonsense in order to even hold out hope of not-losing (winning no longer being an option). the only god they were left with is not the god that they started out with, and has nothing at all to do with what the masses believe. but note that the masses still believe in the old stupid shit, which those 'tired rehashes' are devastatingly effective against.

That's terrible! Who would want to kill me...besides Vlademir Putin...?

According to some NSGers, the majority of the religious population.
Because we are all uptight, creepy, violent, chanting, pseudo-sane, baby-sacrificing, God-worshipping zealots.

That is an utter lie.

Only most of us are. :p

there I a massive double standard in society over the meaning of "extremist".

No, there really isn't.

It's just that "extremism" is always relative, and in our society the "center" is so mindlessly pro-religious that Christians ranting about how non-believers (generally more than half of humanity) are doomed to eternal horrific torture are more "moderate" than atheists strongly and publicly launching challenges against the foundations of religion.

Richard Dawkins comes across as honest, forthright, doesn't accept that followers of supersticious nonsense should have any more right to be respected than any other ludicrous or spurious notions that people may profess.

he puts forward a proper scientific approach in his statements, something the supersticious fail to do.

He is the one who deserves respect for his efforts in debunking supersticious nonsense.

I have read most of his books and I have gained greater insights into evolution. I have also been made more aware of the great damage the followers of supersticious nonsense have caused over the centuries.

of course, the atheist arguments utterly dominated and actually forced the theists to retreat into absolute vacuous nonsense in order to even hold out hope of not-losing (winning no longer being an option).

What's there to win? What's there no lose? There's nothing in either case. One's not going to lose their beliefs or suddenly convert if they don't "win".

It's pointless. What are people, theist or atheist, trying to do then? Is it to save the minds and souls of others? Or is it just for the sake of feeling superior?

We still cling to this age old "anything you can do I can do better" and "I'm right you're wrong" bullshit.

Seriously, I say this too often, but I really want to know...

Why not live and let live?

...

It's because people are too arrogant to do so. They HAVE to bring others down to make themselves feel bigger.

*sigh*

Ah, fuck it...

*Halo 3*

We are all searching for the truth; some bet on opposing notions of truth, some just sit and watch. The problem is when people put their mouth where their money is. Over and over.

Do atheists generally express support of religion and/or claim superstitions are rational?

.. Can't say I've ever seen that.

I can't speak as much for outside where I live, because my experience there is somewhat less than my experience here (having spent most of my time in the region I've been living, strangely enough. I know, crazy!:eek::D), but here, in the US, many atheists go out of their way to kiss religion's collective ass. Many "suck up" to religion, for fear of being labeled the same way that Dawkins is. And I can't say I blame them, because they probable would be. To point to my sig, they take the first option.

His arguments were mostly rehashes of the same tired ones used in the atheist-theist debate for the past 200 years.

Yeah, which only means that after two hundred years, the theists are still not listening.

No one has yet come close to explaining how omnibenevolence and omnipotence can coexist in a world full of suffering and evil, for example... at least not without distorting one concept or the other beyond recognition.

Nor has anyone managed to explain why, if faith in God is so reasonable, we would all laugh at the absurdity of anyone who maintained faith in an eternal teapot orbiting the Earth, and would never (to use my favorite example) take seriously the claim of a friend to be God--not even to the point of neutrality on the subject.

Not to mention the number of theists who still take seriously the notion that morality is necessarily founded in religion, despite the fact that the weakness of that argument has been exposed since Plato.

According to some NSGers, the majority of the religious population.
Because we are all uptight, creepy, violent, chanting, pseudo-sane, baby-sacrificing, God-worshipping zealots.

That is an utter lie.

Only most of us are. :p

No. Most of the religious on NSG are reasonable people, as far as I have seen. Likewise most of the atheists on NSG are reasonable people, as far as I've seen.

But there are always people who feel the need to bring up this old debate...which more often than not leads to problems.

You might ask..."If you don't like debating, then what are you doing here?" Well I am debating. For the record, I am a theist...who doesn't give two shits about the "God debate", and am as such arguing my point.

Confusing? Damn straight! Welcome to my world!

*downs a bottle of maple syrup*

What's there to win?What's there no lose? There's nothing in either case. One's not going to lose their beliefs or suddenly convert if they don't "win".

yeah! in fact, what is the point of arguing about anything at all ever? if there ain't trophies involved, why bother?

come on man, you aren't stupid.

What's there to win? What's there no lose? There's nothing in either case. One's not going to lose their beliefs or suddenly convert if they don't "win".

It's pointless. What are people, theist or atheist, trying to do then? Is it to save the minds and souls of others? Or is it just for the sake of feeling superior?

We still cling to this age old "anything you can do I can do better" and "I'm right you're wrong" bullshit.

Seriously, I say this too often, but I really want to know...

Why not live and let live?

...

It's because people are too arrogant to do so. They HAVE to bring others down to make themselves feel bigger.

*sigh*

Ah, fuck it...

*Halo 3*

^ What he said, dudes.

What's there to win?

A world where sexists, homophobes, and general defenders of bigotry and oppression can't hide behind the "reason" of what their holy book happens to say, and maybe can be brought to recognize the wrongness of their thinking.

^ What he said, dudes.

i say the sky is plaid, you say the sky is blue. you have an argument based on evidence and reason demonstrating your position, all i've got are some easily demolished and occasionally fallacious arguments. oh well, live and let live, right? nothing to be won or lost here at all. why should anyone even care about truth in the first place, i ask you?

he puts forward a proper scientific approach in his statements
Which is what he's doing wrong. He's attempting to use something that deals solely with the natural (science) to deal with something that, by definition, is not natural. In doing so, he undermines science by attempting to use it to do something that it is not designed to do.

yeah! in fact, what is the point of arguing about anything at all ever? if there ain't trophies involved, why bother?

come on man, you aren't stupid.

...

I'm not? :confused:

Anyway, no I'm not contending that there should be something to "win", just that the God debate seems somewhat pointless.

...

But please, correct me if I am wrong. Why is the God debate relevant, in your opinion.

One doesn't need Dawking to know that the followers of the abrahamic religions are deluded. That's something everyone with open eyes could understand.
There's the reason. Dawkins did not write a book on how it would be great if everyone became atheist, he wrote a book called The God Delusion, that is, how awful it is to be a theist. It actually makes sense to call him and others "militant atheists" because they are attacking faiths they disagree with, being offensive. I would respect Dawkins more (and I already respect a good deal) if he were more defensive, explaining why atheism is good. Michael Shermer wrote a column in Scientific American a few months ago, saying basically the same thing: if atheists want to truly be recognized, they have to do more than just respond to existing beliefs, they must better define their own.
I'm not saying religions are not offensive (in the sense they attack other beliefs), but they are usually concerned with what people should believe, not what they shouldn't. They are positive, not negative.

i say the sky is plaid, you say the sky is blue. you have an argument based on evidence and reason demonstrating your position, all i've got are some easily demolished and occasionally fallacious arguments. oh well, live and let live, right? nothing to be won or lost here at all. why should anyone even care about truth in the first place, i ask you?

Why should I care that you think the sky is plaid? Does it harm anyone?

I can't speak as much for outside where I live, because my experience there is somewhat less than my experience here (having spent most of my time in the region I've been living, strangely enough. I know, crazy!:eek::D), but here, in the US, many atheists go out of their way to kiss religion's collective ass. Many "suck up" to religion, for fear of being labeled the same way that Dawkins is. And I can't say I blame them, because they probable would be. To point to my sig, they take the first option.

I also live in the US, and have not experienced this at all (if anything, the opposite). I don't think you're wrong that many atheists are afraid they will be persecuted for their beliefs, but I do think it is wrong to characterize it as an American thing.

Why should I care that you think the sky is plaid? Does it harm anyone?

truth is valuable for its own sake. and yes, allowing falsity to pass unremarked harms us all, as a society and as individuals.

What's there to win? What's there no lose? There's nothing in either case. One's not going to lose their beliefs or suddenly convert if they don't "win".

It's pointless. What are people, theist or atheist, trying to do then? Is it to save the minds and souls of others? Or is it just for the sake of feeling superior?

We still cling to this age old "anything you can do I can do better" and "I'm right you're wrong" bullshit.

Seriously, I say this too often, but I really want to know...

Why not live and let live?

...

It's because people are too arrogant to do so. They HAVE to bring others down to make themselves feel bigger.

*sigh*

Ah, fuck it...

*Halo 3*
Here's just a primer on why. (http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/51635/detail/)

It actually makes sense to call him and others "militant atheists" because they are attacking faiths they disagree with,

Um, everyone does this regarding everything but religion. Why on Earth should we apply a different standard to it?

being offensive.

Lots of truths are "offensive" to some people. So? Oftentimes that just means they ought to be shouted louder.

I would respect Dawkins more (and I already respect a good deal) if he were more defensive, explaining why atheism is good.

So your problem is that he doesn't cower meekly and explain why denying the existence of God does not, in fact, make him a disgusting abomination?

Fuck that.

truth is valuable for its own sake. and yes, allowing falsity to pass unremarked harms us all, as a society and as individuals.
Do you have any basis for that statement?

Which is what he's doing wrong. He's attempting to use something that deals solely with the natural (science) to deal with something that, by definition, is not natural. In doing so, he undermines science by attempting to use it to do something that it is not designed to do.

it does it just fine, thank you very much. me thinks your definition of science is too narrow. the only way god moves beyond the pale is if god has never had any interaction with the universe at all in any sense.

truth is valuable for its own sake. and yes, allowing falsity to pass unremarked harms us all, as a society and as individuals.

1. How so?
2. Since when is it being passed unremarked? In that example, I demonstrate that the sky is blue*. That is a remark on it.

*It's not actually blue.

A world where sexists, homophobes, and general defenders of bigotry and oppression can't hide behind the "reason" of what their holy book happens to say, and maybe can be brought to recognize the wrongness of their thinking.

Fighting the good fight. For truth and reason.

Who is to say that a holy book is the only "defense" to these actions.

And what of the people who don't use their faith to opress and discriminate? Are you going to atempt convert them too, because their faith supposedly creates such bigotry and repression?

i say the sky is plaid, you say the sky is blue. you have an argument based on evidence and reason demonstrating your position, all i've got are some easily demolished and occasionally fallacious arguments. oh well, live and let live, right? nothing to be won or lost here at all. why should anyone even care about truth in the first place, i ask you?

Forgive me sir, but that's the kind of, no irony intended, "holier than thou" stuff that drives me insane.

And what of the truth?

Do you have any basis for that statement?

sure. reality is the ultimate test of belief. in so far as we allow false belief to fester in society, more and more often we will encounter situations where our false beliefs fail the test of reality in various ways, ranging from minor inconveniences to outright planet-wide disasters. better, therefore, to foster practices and institutions that are more reliable at producing correspondence between our heads and the world and to fight against beliefs and practices that run counter to that goal, no matter how minor.

Um, everyone does this regarding everything but religion. Why on Earth should we apply a different standard to it?
Please read the entire post. I don't think there is anything wrong with explaining why you think a certain belief is wrong. What is wrong is if you attack a belief and don't provide an alternative.



Lots of truths are "offensive" to some people. So? Oftentimes that just means they ought to be shouted louder.
You misinterpreted me. I didn't mean offensive in the way language can be offensive, I mean offensive in the way a football team is offensive, the opposite of being defensive.



So your problem is that he doesn't cower meekly and explain why denying the existence of God does not, in fact, make him a disgusting abomination?

Fuck that.
Again, read the entire post. If Dawkins wants people to know why he doesn't believe in God, that's super. But if he genuinely wants people to agree with him, and not just go off on a rant, he has to explain why atheism is preferrable.

sure. reality is the ultimate test of belief. in so far as we allow false belief to fester in society, more and more often we will encounter situations where our false beliefs fail the test of reality in various ways, ranging from minor inconveniences to outright planet-wide disasters. better, therefore, to foster practices and institutions that are more reliable at producing correspondence between our heads and the world and to fight against beliefs and practices that run counter to that goal, no matter how minor.
Good explanation. I agree, although I would also counter that most people who follow a religion are not as concerned with the "real" world as they are with the "religious" one, like the afterlife.

Forgive me sir, but that's the kind of, no irony intended, "holier than thou" stuff that drives me insane.

if one had anything else, they would present it (unless they are just stupid or crazy). they don't. draw your own conclusion.

And what of the truth?

truth is to be found on the side with evidence and reason. or, at the very least, they are the only side we have any reason to believe can get us there except by accident.

Who is to say that a holy book is the only "defense" to these actions.

All the others collapse under the slightest intellectual scrutiny.

That is not to say that religion is the only source of those forms of bigotry... but it is far and away the best defense in the minds of bigots. Otherwise they have precious little in the way of self-justification.

And what of the people who don't use their faith to opress and discriminate?

I'll argue with them when the opportunity comes up, because I think they're wrong, but I have no interest in converting them beyond the mere satisfaction in the victory of reason.

Are you going to atempt convert them too, because their faith supposedly creates such bigotry and repression?

A good argument could be made advising that course of action, but I'm not sure I'd make it.

Forgive me sir, but that's the kind of, no irony intended, "holier than thou" stuff that drives me insane.

That does not make it any less true.

Sometimes some people are right, and others are wrong. That's the way the world is.

I consider Dawkins to be an atheist version of a fundamentalist Christian evangelist. He decries religion as backward and ignorant, just as Christian evangelists condemn the unfaithful to hell. I don't think he's anything like Phelps. He's a hardcore atheist, and he doesn't pull any punches when he attacks religion, but he isn't suggesting that people bomb churches or mosques in the name of atheism.

Frankly, even as a person of faith, I prefer Dawkins to some of the evangelists. At least he has done good in this world (as a scientist), and trying to convince people to think is always a good thing. I wouldn't call him an extremist. He's an evangelical atheist.

Regarding the debate over atheism killing people, here is my opinion: Ideologies can be used for killing. Religions are ideologies. So are political philosophies like Communism and Nazism. Not all ideologies have been used to justify the deaths of others (I don't think that anyone has killed in the name of pacifism). But just because an ideology has been used to kill, that doesn't make it wrong. The ideology of freedom has been used to kill - take the medieval peasant revolts, or the American Revolution. The concept of universal morality was used to kill during the Nuremburg Trials, when Nazi war criminals were executed. These are ideologies we hold dear, and we have killed in the name of them.

Here's just a primer on why. (http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/51635/detail/)

Those are excellent points sir, and I would like to give you a cookie.

*cookie*

I would contend that so long as the "rules" are obeyed (by rules I mean the Separation of Church and State), there should be no problem. So long as no laws are written that support (or discriminate against, for that matter) specific belief systems, atheists and theists should have no issues with one and other.

But I do also contend that the issue with the Boy Scout's funding, Blue Laws, and other matters, are not problems because of religion, but because of the people in the government who happen to practice that religion. Hence, it is the government that is the issue, not religion.

...

Am I making any sense, becuase I'm not sure I am. :p

Please read the entire post. I don't think there is anything wrong with explaining why you think a certain belief is wrong. What is wrong is if you attack a belief and don't provide an alternative.

Theism is a positive belief about the world: God exists.

Show that such a claim is implausible, and you have effectively provided an alternative: "God does not exist," or at the very least 'I have no good reason to believe God exists."

But if he genuinely wants people to agree with him, and not just go off on a rant, he has to explain why atheism is preferrable.

Um, if Dawkins successfully demolishes religion, he has in the process of doing that explained how non-religion is preferable.

Similarly, if I show that 2 is not equal to 3, in so doing I have established that not believing that 2 = 3 is preferable to believing that 2 = 3... because we have strong reasons to reject the latter claim.

I consider Dawkins to be an atheist version of a fundamentalist Christian evangelist.
I wouldn't go that far, but I have also found it interesting that many critical atheist beliefs about what it means to be Christian are the same as the fundamentalists. The difference, of course, is that the critical atheist usually considers these to be a reason not to be Christian, while the fundamentalist thinks the opposite. In between are Christians who have a much less radical beliefs, and they're often ignored.

sure. reality is the ultimate test of belief. in so far as we allow false belief to fester in society, more and more often we will encounter situations where our false beliefs fail the test of reality in various ways, ranging from minor inconveniences to outright planet-wide disasters. better, therefore, to foster practices and institutions that are more reliable at producing correspondence between our heads and the world and to fight against beliefs and practices that run counter to that goal, no matter how minor.

I'm curious about something. Hypothetical situation: a person has a series of mystical experiences, and she doesn't attach these experience to any religion, organised or otherwise, but treats them as empirical observations. Of course, it is not an observation that anyone else can share, and she realises this. Now, she has a belief in some sort of god based on these experiences, but these beliefs are also modified by other experiences and logic.

Is this a religious belief?

Is it false?

Is it incongruous with reality?

Theism is a positive belief about the world: God exists.

Show that such a claim is implausible, and you have effectively provided an alternative: "God does not exist," or at the very least 'I have no good reason to believe God exists."
Not really. William James, the pragmatist, said that belief in God was good if it was useful, or made the believers happy. If Dawkins truly showed such a belief is implausible (which I don't think he did), I still have no reason to stop going to church, praying five times a day, etc., if it is making me happy.



Um, if Dawkins successfully demolishes religion, he has in the process of doing that explained how non-religion is preferable.

Similarly, if I show that 2 is not equal to 3, in so doing I have established that not believing that 2 = 3 is preferable to believing that 2 = 3... because we have strong reasons to reject the latter claim.
Again, I question that Dawkins successfully demolished religion. It's continued existence seems to sugggest that he didn't. And "non-religion" is not the same as "atheism." I know plenty of people who are non-religious, but believe in a supernatural being like God.

All the others collapse under the slightest intellectual scrutiny.

This I will agree with you on. Religion as a basis for bigotry is, very unfortunately, the strongest defense.

I'll argue with them when the opportunity comes up, because I think they're wrong, but I have no interest in converting them beyond the mere satisfaction in the victory of reason.

So that's it? Just for the satisfactory of victory? A victory of your particular brand of reason? And who's to say that a religious man cannot be reasonable? I'd think I'm reasonable.

A good argument could be made advising that course of action, but I'm not sure I'd make it.

...I'm honestly not even certain how I can respond to this.

That does not make it any less true.

According to whom? You?

On several occasions I have heard/read things that seem to indicate people think of Richard Dawkins as some kind of extremist. As far as I know his only 'extremeness' is making a clear unambiguous statement of what he believes is true and what isn't, without any sugar-coating.

Considering what theists say about atheists without being considered extreme, I can only assume that there is a double standard.

He is a pseudo-philosopher whose ideas are little more than a redressing of the hyperbolic positivism and scientism that were popular in the latter half of the nineteenth century. In the post-modern condition that we all occupy, such views really are hopelessly outdated at best: at worst, they are dangerously dogmatic. In his writing and in his television programmes, he makes certain that the individuals he chooses to interview and the sects he chooses to discuss are of the most extreme nature: hardly an approach that lends itself to balanced writing.

I say all the above as an atheist. Dawkins truly believes, as a biologist, that he can apply scientific method to every aspect of human life (scientism). I find such an attitude to be ignorant in the extreme and wholly unsuited to the criticism of religion. Religion, God and belief are ideas, social structures, cultural components, philosophical theories. They require analysis on those grounds, not on the grounds of science. This has been known for a long time: Kierkegaard (a Danish thinker in the mid nineteenth century) demonstrated quite clearly that faith, by its very nature, cannot be understood in terms of objective study, either philosophical or scientific. It is purely subjective. At the end of his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins suggests a genetic basis for religion. As you can probably conclude from what I have said above, I pour scorn on such a notion. Religions come about for social and historical reasons, not because people are genetically inclined to them.

To summarise, I simply find his thinking lack-lustre, outdated and deterministic. He has every right to say what he says but really he is a scientist playing in a field of expertise of which he has no or little knowledge. He is out of his depth. Hence, the tendency towards a polemical style: polemics cover the lack of substance in his argument.

I wouldn't go that far...

I think you should. Anyone who's modus operandi is to "convert", may be labeled evangelical. Of course, both fundamentalists and atheists like Dawkins will deny this similarity fervently, I imagine.

...I have also found it interesting that many critical atheist beliefs about what it means to be Christian are the same as the fundamentalists. The difference, of course, is that the critical atheist usually considers these to be a reason not to be Christian, while the fundamentalist thinks the opposite. In between are Christians who have a much less radical beliefs, and they're often ignored.

This is odd, isn't it. And it is unfortunate that both sides seem to ignore the moderate beliefs, like the fact that the majority of people are moderate doesn't mean a damn thing.

...In between are Christians who have a much less radical beliefs, and they're often ignored.The grades of radicalism within a insubstantial belief are irrelevant. If a concept is crap, then it doesn't really matter how hard you believe in it, it will remain crap altogether. There is no reason to be a Christian, so why choose to be one?

I'm curious about something. Hypothetical situation: a person has a series of mystical experiences, and she doesn't attach these experience to any religion, organised or otherwise, but treats them as empirical observations. Of course, it is not an observation that anyone else can share, and she realises this. Now, she has a belief in some sort of god based on these experiences, but these beliefs are also modified by other experiences and logic.

Samuel Harris manages to have what he calls, for lack of a better term, spiritual experiences without assigning bullshit supernatural explanations to them.

The grades of radicalism within a insubstantial belief are irrelevant. If a concept is crap, then it doesn't really matter how hard you believe in it, it will remain crap altogether. There is no reason to be a Christian, so why choose to be one?

Well, because I happen to believe you are wrong-wrongitty-wrong. And I think it is a mistake to say fundamentalists simply believe "harder" than other Christians. They actually have different beliefs. Maybe "radical" isn't the best word choice then, but it connotations are what most people think of when they think of fundamentalist beliefs.

This is odd, isn't it. And it is unfortunate that both sides seem to ignore the moderate beliefs, like the fact that the majority of people are moderate doesn't mean a damn thing.

The reason is that the moderate religious person does not hold bigoted beliefs, so the militant atheist has little reason to argue with them. We are far more concerned with people who hold homophobic, racist and other discriminatory beliefs. It's all 'live and let live' in the end.

The grades of radicalism within a insubstantial belief are irrelevant. If a concept is crap, then it doesn't really matter how hard you believe in it, it will remain crap altogether. There is no reason to be a Christian, so why choose to be one?

- A set of guidelines to live by, should one desire such structure
- The idea that there is something beyond this life
- The feeling that there is a higher power watching over you
- An explanation of how the universe works (not everyone subscribes to scientific law)
- Agreement with the ideology (from the positive to the unsavory).
- Family history

Not suggesting that everyone who is religious subscribes to these reasons, but they are reasons nonetheless. I found faith helpful to me while I was recovering from surgery in the hospital, for instance...but I still think that the world was not formed in 7 days...kinda why I'm a non-religious theist.

And why are we singling out Christianity alone? These reasons could apply to any religion.

There is no reason to be a Christian, so why choose to be one?

Humans are not rational models. They do not operate along the (frequently abstract) models of reason that various thinkers invent. Rationality is only a quality of man, just as irrationality is a quality of man: the nature of individuals are not determined by either. People have the freedom to choose between such qualities and, in a world with no real objective standards, who are you to tell them that their choice is right or wrong? In the end, they are answerable only to themselves for the choices they make.

"What's so bad about Dawkins?"
Well, you gone and come to the right man I tell ya.
Not only is that Dawkshins an atheist, he's a dirty atheist.
Tha's right... He don' bathe.

Ne'er once. Nay even twice.

I'll link to the source once I fabri...contstruct a website that strongly supports my position. With photosh..photo proof.

I'm curious about something. Hypothetical situation: a person has a series of mystical experiences, and she doesn't attach these experience to any religion, organised or otherwise, but treats them as empirical observations. Of course, it is not an observation that anyone else can share, and she realises this. Now, she has a belief in some sort of god based on these experiences, but these beliefs are also modified by other experiences and logic.

Is this a religious belief?

Is it false?

Is it incongruous with reality?

Personally? It's whatever you want it to be, depending on how you define religious belief. I think the general definition requires some sort of...community aspect, a set of dogmatic beliefs shared by a group of people.
Devoid of that, I'd say you've had a spiritual experience, rather than a religious one.

The reason is that the moderate religious person does not hold bigoted beliefs, so the militant atheist has little reason to argue with them. We are far more concerned with people who hold homophobic, racist and other discriminatory beliefs. It's all 'live and let live' in the end.

It doesn't always sound like that to me. More often than not I hear the same old generalizations, using the few as a means of targeting the many. This is applied to any belief system.

...

And now I actually DO need to leave. I'll talk to you all later.

He's not really bad, just one of many people in this world that are assholes.

Humans are not rational models. They do not operate along the (frequently abstract) models of reason that various thinkers invent. Rationality is only a quality of man, just as irrationality is a quality of man: the nature of individuals are not determined by either. People have the freedom to choose between such qualities and, in a world with no real objective standards, who are you to tell them that their choice is right or wrong? In the end, they are answerable only to themselves for the choices they make.Does that mean that living in a delusional state is OK for those people, because those people are incapable of reason? And what objective standards are you referring to? I refer to facts and reality, in which there is no room for the biblical god. To be a Christian means to believe that Yeshua is the messiah (=christ) out of Jewish lore. Subsequently a Christian is someone who believes that Jewish lore is accurate and that the stories the bible tells do reflect the reality of ancient history, the circumstances of life in those times and the beliefs of the people in those times. However, the bible is lying about the beliefs of those times. Israelites and Hebrews, Amorites, and Sumerians where no monotheists and when they prayed or talked to someone called Yah it was the Ea/Enki out of very ancient times and not the Yhvh of the bible, which is basically a fabrication out of borrowed traditions. If Yeshua is the messiah or even the son of god, then which god's? Would a Christian accept Yeshua as a son of a Mesopotamian/Levantine god if he were to convey the same message? Is Christianity about the message or about Yeshua's, um, family?

i say the sky is plaid, you say the sky is blue. you have an argument based on evidence and reason demonstrating your position, all i've got are some easily demolished and occasionally fallacious arguments. oh well, live and let live, right? nothing to be won or lost here at all. why should anyone even care about truth in the first place, i ask you?

Good point, but this is a little more violent, ya know?

Which is what he's doing wrong. He's attempting to use something that deals solely with the natural (science) to deal with something that, by definition, is not natural. In doing so, he undermines science by attempting to use it to do something that it is not designed to do.

But even if God exists outside the natural universe (whatever that means...), his interactions with the world are testable, and God fails at every test, leaving only the Deist God, who does not interact with the world at all, as a possibility, but even then-- there is no evidence in favor, and therefore no reason to believe.

The idea that you can't apply science to an idea, just because it happens to be an important religious idea, is ridiculous.

But even if God exists outside the natural universe (whatever that means...), his interactions with the world are testable, and God fails at every test, leaving only the Deist God, who does not interact with the world at all, as a possibility, but even then-- there is no evidence in favor, and therefore no reason to believe.

The idea that you can't apply science to an idea, just because it happens to be an important religious idea, is ridiculous.QFT

Does that mean that living in a delusional state is OK for those people, because those people are incapable of reason?

Firstly, the term 'delusional' would imply that they are in fact objectively wrong in their stance. Which they are not. The choice they have made is an existential and subjective one which, in many cases, will be difficult if not impossible to assess by objective standards. To summarise, they are neither objectively right or objectively wrong because the objectivity is unsatisfactory for measuring their stance on this issue.

Secondly, the people are not incapable of reason and I did not say that they were incapable. All people are capable of reason: however, that does not mean that they are fundamentally rational beings. Rationality is but one quality of mankind which we are free to choose or to ignore as we will, when we will.

And what objective standards are you referring to? I refer to facts and reality, in which there is no room for the biblical god.

How do you define 'facts' and 'reality'? Here is where you will go off track. Any answer you give will be fundamentally subjective because you will give me your conception of facts, your conception of reality. In your reality, there is no room for God but who is to say that your reality is by any means the correct one, the orthodoxy to which we should all subscribe? You have no means of proving that.

I refer to objective standards quasi-rhetorically. I do not believe in objective standards, although I am aware others do.

to be a Christian means to believe that Yeshua is the messiah (=christ) out of Jewish lore. Subsequently a Christian is someone who believes that Jewish lore is accurate and that the stories the bible tells do reflect the reality of ancient history, the circumstances of life in those times and the beliefs of the people in those times. However, the bible is lying about the beliefs of those times. Israelites and Hebrews, Amorites, and Sumerians where no monotheists and when they prayed or talked to someone called Yah it was the Ea/Enki out of very ancient times and not the Yhvh of the bible, which is basically a fabrication out of borrowed traditions. If Yeshua is the messiah or even the son of god, then which god's? Would a Christian accept Yeshua as a son of a Mesopotamian/Levantine god if he were to convey the same message? Is Christianity about the message or about Yeshua's, um, family?

There is no such thing as historical objectivity either. One man's truth is another man's lie. Ultimately, we all look back into history and impose our own meaning, our own order and our own emphasis on the evidence which we perceive.

And of course, your presumption is that all Christians do believe in the historical veracity of the Bible. Which many do not. They are interested in the spiritual truths they can construct from the words of the Bible, not with forming water-tight arguments as to the precision of the Bible as a historical source.

- A set of guidelines to live by, should one desire such structure
- The idea that there is something beyond this life
- The feeling that there is a higher power watching over you
- An explanation of how the universe works (not everyone subscribes to scientific law)
- Agreement with the ideology (from the positive to the unsavory).
- Family history

Not suggesting that everyone who is religious subscribes to these reasons, but they are reasons nonetheless. I found faith helpful to me while I was recovering from surgery in the hospital, for instance...but I still think that the world was not formed in 7 days...kinda why I'm a non-religious theist.

And why are we singling out Christianity alone? These reasons could apply to any religion.

Yes, that's the problem. People subscribe to a religion, but their reasons for doing so could just as easily have led them to another one. So why choose to be, for example, a Christian rather than a Hindu?

Yes, that's the problem. People subscribe to a religion, but their reasons for doing so could just as easily have led them to another one. So why choose to be, for example, a Christian rather than a Hindu?

Different regions of the world, different culture, family upbringing?

i say the sky is plaid, you say the sky is blue. you have an argument based on evidence and reason demonstrating your position, all i've got are some easily demolished and occasionally fallacious arguments. oh well, live and let live, right? nothing to be won or lost here at all. why should anyone even care about truth in the first place, i ask you?
"Truthfully" the sky isn't blue, it only appears as such to us because of the way that light interacts with air moisture at certain times of the day. At other times, it may appear red, orange, black or even (hypothetically) plaid.
Human perception is often in error, what does it matter if someone gets their fallacies from a High School Chemistry book or a religious text?

But even if God exists outside the natural universe (whatever that means...), his interactions with the world are testable, and God fails at every test, leaving only the Deist God, who does not interact with the world at all, as a possibility, but even then-- there is no evidence in favor, and therefore no reason to believe.

The idea that you can't apply science to an idea, just because it happens to be an important religious idea, is ridiculous.

Something which is explicitly beyond science cannot be tested by science. Surely that it is logical. Unless you believe that science can be applied to all things (scientism). Which is an inherently flawed belief.

The idea that we should not believe in God because he is physically absent is an absurd notion, even speaking logically. The syllogism you have constructed essentially amounts to:

"All things that exist are physically manifest. God is not physically manifest. Therefore God does not exist"

But that produces poor results. Did the continent of America not exist in the 12th Century simply because it was not physically manifest to 12th Century Europeans? Did I not exist before I became physically manifest before you in the form of this post?

The lack of physical evidence provides no logical grounds for disbelieving in God. If it did, I could very easily assert on the basis of the same logic that everything beyond my sensory field does not exist. Which is solipsism and a dead end, philosophically speaking.

And of course, you presume that your tests are absolutely certain. Which they are not. They are only the basis for scientific truths, which are not truths at all because they contradict the very meaning of the word 'truth'. A truth is an absolute: a scientific truth is not an absolute. Therefore, it is a contradition in terms. You may be correct in stating that it is a scientific truth that God doesn't exist. But you are incorrect in presuming that a scientific truth can be made into a universal truth.

Dawking comes across as a total git. Anyone who believes in anything is, in his mind, deluded.

That's why so many people (including myself) dislike him, it's got nothing to do with what he believes or doesn't believe, it's to do with how he says it.

Exactly.

He's rude and pretentious. It has nothing to do with what he says.

On several occasions I have heard/read things that seem to indicate people think of Richard Dawkins as some kind of extremist. As far as I know his only 'extremeness' is making a clear unambiguous statement of what he believes is true and what isn't, without any sugar-coating.

Considering what theists say about atheists without being considered extreme, I can only assume that there is a double standard.

Since there hasn't been that big of a media frenzy over him, he's not that bad.

Different regions of the world, different culture, family upbringing?

Absolutely. Because of social factors, not because the chosen religion is right or superior.

Absolutely. Because of social factors, not because the chosen religion is right or superior.

Si. If they are more right or superior, we won't know until it is too late, literally speaking.

Firstly, the term 'delusional' would imply that they are in fact objectively wrong in their stance. Which they are not.Oh yes, they are. Religious people in the abrahamic religions choose to ignore information that could ruin their belief by adjusting it to reality. They choose to base their world view on something insubstantial. I call that delusion.

Oh yes, they are.

Ooohh....burn...tssss.

Oh yes, they are.

That's news to me. I would like to see a conclusive, peer-reviewed scientific theory debunking the existence of God(s) based on an observable and reproducible series of experiments that have been verified by multiple independent observers.

Oh yes, they are. Religious people in the abrahamic religions choose to ignore information that could ruin their belief by adjusting it to reality. They choose to base their world view on something insubstantial. I call that delusion.

It was not so long ago that people did not believe in cells. They did not have the technology to view them, so were people who offered the theory that they existed "delusional"?

Oh yes, they are. Religious people in the abrahamic religions choose to ignore information that could ruin their belief by adjusting it to reality. They choose to base their world view on something insubstantial. I call that delusion.

'Reality' being your conception of reality. 'Insubstantial' being an intrinsically subjective value-judgement of your own conception. And we all choose to ignore information, usually because there is so much of it that we need to ignore some of it in order to form a coherent world view. No individual view is ever truly comprehensive: you have undoubtedly ignored information in order to create your own conception of how the world is. Ignoring things is part of being human: we cast nets in order to form conceptions and inevitably bits get left outside the nets.

Oh yes, they are. Religious people in the abrahamic religions choose to ignore information that could ruin their belief by adjusting it to reality. They choose to base their world view on something insubstantial. I call that delusion.

One could also call that their choice and none of your business, right?

Indeed. Until someone like Dawkins says that all religious people will be tortured horrifically for eternity, religious extremism will remain far, far worse than so-called "militant atheism."
Dawkins couldn't even if he wanted to. That is the only reason he says no such thing. But the Lord shall have His way with that black sheep.

That's news to me. I would like to see a conclusive, peer-reviewed scientific theory debunking the existence of God(s) based on an observable and reproducible series of experiments that have been verified by multiple independent observers.Oh, you can read every text fragment that was ever dug up anywhere in the Middle East prior to the Persian era and you will find no trace of the biblical God. But you will find superabundance of textual reference to the worship of non-biblical gods. Now, as in most cases, the simplest explanation is the most probable one: this God has been made up. You know pretty well that one cannot prove a negative. But one can indeed draw conclusions from all available information. Since folks cannot be Yhvh-ists and non-Yhvh-ists at the same time, the logical conclusion is that they were what there is evidence for, and that is that folks in the region and timeframe in question believed what everybody else in the Middle East believed and that Yhvh is a later fabrication.
One could also call that their choice and none of your business, right?Maybe, but then they should keep their business private and not misinform and thus harm others. No more churches, mosques, synagogues, forums.

One could also call that their choice and none of your business, right?
But he is a tolerant nonbeliever, don't you know? So tolerant that anyone who is religious ought to have the religion beaten out of them. Very tolerant, yes.

Dawkins couldn't even if he wanted to. That is the only reason he says no such thing. But the Lord shall have His way with that black sheep.

Bringing race into it now too, eh?

Tsk..tsk.

One could also call that their choice and none of your business, right?

United Beleriand is a dogmatist: he believes that there is only one truth and it is his truth. Every other truth is, by definition, a lie and people who believe in lies should be locked up in mental aslyums. In essence, United Beleriand is yet another boring fundamentalist.

Not really. William James, the pragmatist, said that belief in God was good if it was useful, or made the believers happy. If Dawkins truly showed such a belief is implausible (which I don't think he did), I still have no reason to stop going to church, praying five times a day, etc., if it is making me happy.

Except simple fidelity to reason. Reason recognizes that "it makes me happy" is no basis for truth. Truth doesn't have to be convenient.

If "it makes me happy" becomes the determining principle of what I believe, then I can do whatever I want. "What, murdering a guy I don't like is wrong? But that belief doesn't make me happy, so I'm going to believe that it's perfectly okay, and kill him."

Again, I question that Dawkins successfully demolished religion. It's continued existence seems to sugggest that he didn't.

Lots of people believe all kinds of absurd things. That in no way proves that the beliefs are any less absurd.

And "non-religion" is not the same as "atheism." I know plenty of people who are non-religious, but believe in a supernatural being like God.

That is irrelevant to my point.

So that's it? Just for the satisfactory of victory?

Of truth? Of reason? Yes.

A victory of your particular brand of reason?

No. Of reason.

If I am convinced that my view of reason's dictates is wrong, then that, too, is a victory for reason.

And who's to say that a religious man cannot be reasonable?

Both religious men and religious women can be reasonable. It does not follow that every one of their beliefs is reasonable.

...I'm honestly not even certain how I can respond to this.

Ideally you would seek to resolve my uncertainty and explain how liberal religious beliefs don't, in fact, in any way lend credibility to the religious defense of bigoted doctrines. But since I declined to advance an argument in that respect, I suppose it's fair for you to not do so.

According to whom? You?

Is this supposed to be some kind of argument?

While I do indeed believe what I said, my reason for believing it is not simply the fact that I believe it. I have other, better reasons. My point was simply that your comment about how much you hated attitudes like FS's was completely immaterial to whether or not his description was accurate.

United Beleriand is a dogmatist: he believes that there is only one truth and it is his truth. Every other truth is, by definition, a lie and people who believe in lies should be locked up in mental aslyums. In essence, United Beleriand is yet another boring fundamentalist.
A good belief, but false in his case, since he has chosen the wrong object of worship.

Dawkins couldn't even if he wanted to. That is the only reason he says no such thing.

Bullshit. Dawkins gives every indication of adhering to conventional, secular morality, and such morality finds eternal torment for what one believes about gods to be reprehensible.

It is only religious "morality" that can so pervert our moral instincts and moral reason to get us to tolerate such an incredible abomination against decency.

But the Lord shall have His way with that black sheep.

"Wah! They don't accept nonsensical arguments for my existence!"

Is He really that petty?

United Beleriand is a dogmatist: he believes that there is only one truth and it is his truth. Every other truth is, by definition, a lie and people who believe in lies should be locked up in mental aslyums. In essence, United Beleriand is yet another boring fundamentalist.The truth I follow is the truth that there is evidence and hints for. And the excludes anything focusing on the biblical God. The biblical God is a lie. That may sound like a fundamentalist position, but that's the nature of facts.

Maybe, but then they should keep their business private and not misinform and thus harm others. No more churches, mosques, synagogues, forums.

Interesting. Of course, going by that, shouldn't you stop posting? You are, after all, misinforming us by telling us things which are blatantly untrue.

United Beleriand is a dogmatist: he believes that there is only one truth and it is his truth. Every other truth is, by definition, a lie and people who believe in lies should be locked up in mental aslyums. In essence, United Beleriand is yet another boring fundamentalist.

You know, I think I've come to realize that. ;)

Bullshit. Dawkins gives every indication of adhering to conventional, secular morality, and such morality finds eternal torment for what one believes about gods to be reprehensible.
...hence my point that he could not do that (i.e. condemn others to eternal suffering) if he wanted to.

It is only religious "morality" that can so pervert our moral instincts and moral reason to get us to tolerate such an incredible abomination against decency.
Not an abomination at all - merely the Truth. :)

"Wah! They don't accept nonsensical arguments for my existence!"

Is He really that petty?
If you want to look at it that way, if it some how helps diminish the thought of the anguish that will come at the end of your heathen life, then yes.

It is only religious "morality" that can so pervert our moral instincts and moral reason to get us to tolerate such an incredible abomination against decency.


O Rly?

Interesting. Of course, going by that, shouldn't you stop posting? You are, after all, misinforming us by telling us things which are blatantly untrue.Just because you don't like facts? Or because you are a Jew, Christian, or Muslim? If you want to spread your faith, then why don't you provide any evidence for its veracity?

The truth I follow is the truth that there is evidence and hints for. And the excludes anything focusing on the biblical God. The biblical God is a lie. That may sound like a fundamentalist position, but that's the nature of facts.

I have already pointed out to you more than once that 'facts' are themselves subjective constructs. You have determined what facts are and, on the basis of your definition, you have declared somethings to be factual and others not to be factual. That is fair enough: we all do it. What is quite flawed is your belief that your conception of what is factual and what is not should govern the choices of other people. You have tried to declare that your facts are the only facts. That is what makes you a dogmatist.

The truth I follow is the truth that there is evidence and hints for. And the excludes anything focusing on the biblical God. The biblical God is a lie. That may sound like a fundamentalist position, but that's the nature of facts.
Curious: do you deny the existence of axiomatic truths that cannot be shown via evidential support, e.g. the very fact of your existence?

...hence my point that he could not do that (i.e. condemn others to eternal suffering) if he wanted to.

Because he recognizes it at immoral? Then you are merely reaffirming my own point.

Not an abomination at all - merely the Truth. :)

Then God is a vile, disgusting being who makes the evils of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao look insignificant by comparison.

If you want to look at it that way

Forget what I want. Is it or is it not true? If it is not true, explain why not.

O Rly?

On second thought, there probably are other bases... but in today's world, religion seems by far the most prominent one.

Just because you don't like facts?

Hold up there, partner! I don't actually know anything about your facts or not, but I do listen to facts. Unfortunately, there's a little think called "listening to yourself", where you sit and contemplate the world. And, believe me, whether or not the "facts" that you demonstrate point to anything, the "facts" that I have experienced point to something else entirely.

Or maybe I just hate facts because I disagree with you. Forget the "fact" that I'm hugely into science.

Or because you are a Jew, Christian, or Muslim?

I'm actually not, you know. I'm a Hindu. I'm also not biased.

If you want to spread your faith, then why don't you provide any evidence for its veracity?

Where did I say I wanted to do that? I'm just interested in how you seem to believe that your truth is the only "true" one, as opposed to all the other truths out there...

...kind of reminiscent of a religious preacher, no?

No. Of reason.

If I am convinced that my view of reason's dictates is wrong, then that, too, is a victory for reason.

Because your reasoning is the correct one? Are you the arbiter of reason in the world, or are you saying that "reason" is what you make of it? Because if that is the case then how is a religious viewpoint automatically wrong?

Ideally you would seek to resolve my uncertainty and explain how liberal religious beliefs don't, in fact, in any way lend credibility to the religious defense of bigoted doctrines. But since I declined to advance an argument in that respect, I suppose it's fair for you to not do so.

I've tried many times to explain to people of all beliefs that extremist and radical viewpoints are exactly that: extreme and radical, and should not be seen as representative of the whole. But more often than not I am ignored.

Is this supposed to be some kind of argument?

While I do indeed believe what I said, my reason for believing it is not simply the fact that I believe it. I have other, better reasons. My point was simply that your comment about how much you hated attitudes like FS's was completely immaterial to whether or not his description was accurate.

To answer your first question: this is something of a fault of mine, I sometimes post in the same way I would carry on a conversation. I was also somewhat confused as to why leaving religion would somehow be better because religion inherently creates bigotry, apparently.

I have already pointed out to you more than once that 'facts' are themselves subjective constructs. You have determined what facts are and, on the basis of your definition, you have declared somethings to be factual and others not to be factual. That is fair enough: we all do it. What is quite flawed is your belief that your conception of what is factual and what is not should govern the choices of other people.Facts are not subjective constructs. They are objective constructs. They are independent of perspective. Repeated observation and logical deduction leads to the postulation of facts. That's how a normal mind works. Believers, however, don't observe and the don't use logic or deduction. They just cling to dogma, that's all. Facts are based on the availability of information (external source), faith is based on fantasy (internal source).


Repeat:
Oh, you can read every text fragment that was ever dug up anywhere in the Middle East prior to the Persian era and you will find no trace of the biblical God. But you will find superabundance of textual reference to the worship of non-biblical gods. Now, as in most cases, the simplest explanation is the most probable one: this God has been made up. You know pretty well that one cannot prove a negative. But one can indeed draw conclusions from all available information. Since folks cannot be Yhvh-ists and non-Yhvh-ists at the same time, the logical conclusion is that they were what there is evidence for, and that is that folks in the region and timeframe in question believed what everybody else in the Middle East believed and that Yhvh is a later fabrication.

On second thought, there probably are other bases... but in today's world, religion seems by far the most prominent one.

That's all I wanted to hear.

Facts are not subjective constructs. They are objective constructs. They are independent of perspective. Repeated observation and logical deduction leads to the postulation of facts. That's how a normal mind works. Believers, however, don't observe and the don't use logic or deduction. They just cling to dogma, that's all. Facts are based on the availability of information (external source), faith is based on fantasy (internal source).


Repeat:
Oh, you can read every text fragment that was ever dug up anywhere in the Middle East prior to the Persian era and you will find no trace of the biblical God. But you will find superabundance of textual reference to the worship of non-biblical gods. Now, as in most cases, the simplest explanation is the most probable one: this God has been made up. You know pretty well that one cannot prove a negative. But one can indeed draw conclusions from all available information. Since folks cannot be Yhvh-ists and non-Yhvh-ists at the same time, the logical conclusion is that they were what there is evidence for, and that is that folks in the region and timeframe in question believed what everybody else in the Middle East believed and that Yhvh is a later fabrication.

Does this mean that other gods are real? I'm curious as to why you have such an enormous beef with the biblical God.

Curious: do you deny the existence of axiomatic truths that cannot be shown via evidential support, e.g. the very fact of your existence?Are you trying to imply that my body is no evidence for my existence?
And you seem to misunderstand what an axiom is.

Because he recognizes it at immoral? Then you are merely reaffirming my own point.
Being the Creator of all Existence, it is His decision that that which is immoral is such.

Then God is a vile, disgusting being who makes the evils of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao look insignificant by comparison.

Someone is touchy. He is merely an impartial Judge.

Forget what I want. Is it or is it not true? If it is not true, explain why not.
We are merely His pawns, to do with as He wills. We are no more than playthings. Any illusion to the contrary is futile.

Does this mean that other gods are real? I'm curious as to why you have such an enormous beef with the biblical God.

Clearly he has to justify his signature.

Are you trying to imply that my body is no evidence for my existence?
What I mean is that, how can you trust your own senses? How can you prove that what they show you is real? Heard of Berkeley?

And you seem to misunderstand what an axiom is.
Actually, I do not.

Does this mean that other gods are real? I'm curious as to why you have such an enormous beef with the biblical God.It means that while there is no way of knowing about any other god's existence it is evident that the biblical god is a fabrication. It's just a fictional character as is Eru in Tolkien's works. And why? Because he has no past.

Because your reasoning is the correct one?

Not necessarily. Because my beliefs becoming more rational is a victory for reason... just as anyone else's beliefs becoming more rational is.

Are you the arbiter of reason in the world, or are you saying that "reason" is what you make of it?

Neither.

I've tried many times to explain to people of all beliefs that extremist and radical viewpoints are exactly that: extreme and radical, and should not be seen as representative of the whole.

I agree.

The problem is that, even in today's world (and even more historically), the liberal, non-bigoted versions of organized religion are the "extreme and radical" branch.

because religion inherently creates bigotry

"Inherently" is too strong. We all can conceive of a non-bigoted religion. The problem is that it delegates moral authority to sources other than reason and our innate moral instincts: to holy texts and religious authorities, which so often, intertwined as they are with the status quo of power relations, get morality horrifically wrong.

Being the Creator of all Existence, it is His decision that that which is immoral is such.

No, it isn't. Morality is not a matter of anyone's whim. God cannot decide tomorrow to make torturing little children to death morally acceptable.

Someone is touchy.

I am merely honest.

He is merely an impartial Judge.

According to the law He apparently makes up on a whim.

Like all despots, the Despot of the Universe is fine with playing by the rules... as long as the rules are His.

We are merely His pawns, to do with as He wills.

Prove it. And He is still petty, if He wrecks His toys for not behaving exactly as He wants them to. Reminiscent of a toddler.

I generally like Dawkins except for his criticism of agnosticism. He uses Russell's teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot) to try and claim atheism is superior but fails IMO.

Samuel Harris manages to have what he calls, for lack of a better term, spiritual experiences without assigning bullshit supernatural explanations to them.

Whoa, hold on a second. The biggest reason for atheism is that the burden of proof lies with the theists, and so far they haven't come up with much. But there's a guy who has "spiritual experiences" and he continues to claim a belief is ridiculous? That takes at least as much denial as the theists he claims are wrong.

United Beleriand is a dogmatist: he believes that there is only one truth and it is his truth. Every other truth is, by definition, a lie and people who believe in lies should be locked up in mental aslyums. In essence, United Beleriand is yet another boring fundamentalist.

Well, in that there is a single truth about the question, he is right. Either there is a God/gods, or there is not a God/gods. One of those positions is factually correct and one of them is factually incorrect. Now, it might be hard in practice to find out which is which, but that doesn't mean that they are both "true in their own way." That's wishy-washy bullshit designed to be inoffensive rather than to find the truth.
Now, I happen to agree with him in the case that the truth is that the Abrahamic (and every other, in my case) God is false, but if the proper evidence were to be presented, I would convert, as would, I assume, Dawkins. I can't speak for UB, though.

No, it isn't. Morality is not a matter of anyone's whim. God cannot decide tomorrow to make torturing little children to death morally acceptable.
Yes, he can. That is part of being God, you get to make up stuff like that.

Prove it. And He is still petty, if He wrecks His toys for not behaving exactly as He wants them to. Reminiscent of a toddler.
That's impossible; if God exists, he cannot act that way. Why? Well, you accused him of being like that. If God were actually that petty, do you think he would allow an insignificant mortal such as yourself to say such things? No, he would use his infinite power to change your mind. Actually, it's doubtful you would ever think that in the first place, God would make it impossible to think that. The only logical conclusion is a) God exists, and is nothing like that or b) God does not exist, and is still nothing like that (because he doesn't exist). Either way, you're wrong.

Whoa, hold on a second. The biggest reason for atheism is that the burden of proof lies with the theists, and so far they haven't come up with much. But there's a guy who has "spiritual experiences" and he continues to claim a belief is ridiculous? That takes at least as much denial as the theists he claims are wrong.How so?

Do you think atheists are incapable of getting struck by a "magical" moment, or getting caught up in anthropomorphising reality? We aren't. Even the most stoic fuck can get temporarily addled by his emotions. Doesn't mean actual magic is involved though, just that humans are very much victims of our own biochemistry.

How so?

Do you think atheists are incapable of getting struck by a "magical" moment, or getting caught up in anthropomorphising reality? We aren't. Even the most stoic fuck can get temporarily addled by his emotions. Doesn't mean actual magic is involved though, just that humans are very much victims of our own biochemistry.

Then Sam Harris needs to find a better phrase. Calling something a spiritual experience when it so clearly is not is sloppy.

Waaaaahhhh!!! (http://www.glumbert.com/media/priceofatheism)
EDIT:
http://nynerd.com/attention-lunatic-athiests/
More (http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/05/04/investigator_finds_reasonable_grounds_for_claim_of_atheism_firing/)
Let me give a sniffle about a nativity...[/edit]

The 'Merry Christmas' thing is a made up controversy, the nativity is a separation of Church and State issue, not an attack on the nativity itself...

How is it an issue of 'seperation of church and state'? you know, shock fucking horror, politicians in New Zealand say Merry Christmas! they say a prayer at the beginning of each parliamentry session, asking for gods blessing over decision makers!

How is an element of spirituality impeding on your choice to be an atheist?

Like I said, as long as *I* the tax payer don't have to fund it, I'm happy. Look at the 10 commandments; it was a monument DONATED, it was going to cost the public NOTHING and yet, we have idiots who make a fuss over it.

Fuck, and you wonder why the right in the US have a field day with people like you in the US.

Yes, he can. That is part of being God, you get to make up stuff like that.

No, you don't.

God can claim all day that x is right and y is wrong. But you can never give me a reason to give a shit what he thinks, beyond mere coercion... and fear is never a moral reason.

Either way, you're wrong.

That is a poor argument, since I was working off a hypothetical.

If God tortures humans for eternity because they don't accept ludicrous arguments for His existence, then God is petty.

It may be that other evidence leads us to conclude that God, if He exists, is, in fact, not petty. But this hardly demonstrates that I am wrong, for the truth could simply be that God does not torture humans for eternity for not accepting ludicrous arguments for His existence.

Then Sam Harris needs to find a better phrase. Calling something a spiritual experience when it so clearly is not is sloppy.What's a better phrase then? I can't think of a concise way to convey such things.

Firstly, not every thread has to be US-centric: this thread was started by an Englishman/woman, it concerns an English professor and all of the examples which you're replying to occurred in England (with the exception of one which was in Scotland). How is the ACLU even slightly relevant to the subject at hand?

Secondly, even if I was to grant that suing against state-sponsored nativities is 'frivolous', do you really think that not having state endorsement for your own personal celebration even comes close to being denied a place at your local school because your parents are atheists, being singled out in class for being an atheist (this happened to me in my first week of secondary school), or having bronze-age myth taught as factual science? What about being an adolescent, already struggling to come to terms with your homosexuality in a generation where 'fag' and 'gay' and commonly used synonyms for 'crap', and having to cope with the additional burden of school sanctioned bullying because the Catholic authorities running the school are dragging their feet over the implementation of an 'anti-homophobic bullying policy'?

Thirdly, allowing minor examples of state-sponsored religion is the start of a slippery slope; I'll indulge you by using American examples: having 'in God we trust' on the currency and references to 'one nation under God' in the pledge of allegiance are relatively harmless in themselves, but they serve as a precedent which only encourages the theocrats who want religion based laws. Surely you've seen fundies arguing against church state separation on the grounds that 'this is a Christian country' and citing the currency and pledge in support of that'? Just as cracking down on minor crime like littering and petty vandalism is a good long-term strategy for cutting down on major crime, so targeting minor breaches of church-state separation is a good long-term strategy for fighting theocracy.

Interesting, and yet, you look through Europe where there are countries where there is no official separation between church and state - and yet, they treat gays a lot better than the US. Scandinavia for example allows same sex marriage, in New Zealand we have same sex civil unions and adoptions - and we have Maori spiritually intertwined in our public procedures.

The net result? the US have 30million hard core nuts who have the country by the balls, we (who have no separation) find that those people make up only 0.7% of the voting population.

I've bolded the important part for you.

Excuse me, but looking in New Zealand (where I live) we have blatantly open demonstrations of Maori and Pakeha religious icons - heck, the St Pauls in Wellington is partially funded by tax payers - and yet as a gay male, I am getting treated better here than I would be if I lived in the US!

No, you don't.

God can claim all day that x is right and y is wrong. But you can never give me a reason to give a shit what he thinks, beyond mere coercion... and fear is never a moral reason.
If God were simply a powerful wizard, you would be right. But he's not. As the Creator, he gets to make the rules. I'm guessing your morals are based on reason, maybe a utilitarian basis. If God willed that torturing children was moral, you would reason it was moral. Being part of God's creation, you cannot think for yourself unless he wants you to.




That is a poor argument, since I was working off a hypothetical.

If God tortures humans for eternity because they don't accept ludicrous arguments for His existence, then God is petty.

It may be that other evidence leads us to conclude that God, if He exists, is, in fact, not petty. But this hardly demonstrates that I am wrong, for the truth could simply be that God does not torture humans for eternity for not accepting ludicrous arguments for His existence.
Again, you are assuming that humans are somehow separate from God's creation, that we are independent of him. Because it is a hypothetical situation, I suppose you are justified in saying whatever you want. But if your hypothetical God is anything like the Abrahamic God you are denying, then you have to use that definition. As it is now, you are arguing against a God which I don't think anyway has claimed exists.

That is an accurate statement, although 'ignorant' is a bit pejorative. I'd have gone with 'ill-informed'.

Well, considering that Dawkins is making the 'leap of faith' that randomness results in what we have today - I tend to err on the side of Murphys Law. Its naive to assume that as a piddly and pathetic life form that we are, we could possibly understand the complexity of the university.

Quite frankly, science lost its way when it moved its aim to 'understand gods creation' to 'try and prove god doesn't exist' - look at the gold age of thinking and compare it today. Look at the net result when we've separated Philosophy, Religion, Science and various other subjects from each other - and turn them into separate islands of thinking.

Most of the Christian responses, of course, have merely amounted to whining about how mean he is... perhaps because, on the merits, he has a pretty solid case.

Maybe because rather than debating he simply makes one liners - anyone can make a one liner. When are we going to see Dawkins recognise the contributions of those who have a spiritual dimension in their life? all those great thinkers of today and thousands of years were just crack-pot nuts who contributed nothing to the betterment of society?

Quite frankly, science lost its way when it moved its aim to 'understand gods creation' to 'try and prove god doesn't exist' - look at the gold age of thinking and compare it today. Look at the net result when we've separated Philosophy, Religion, Science and various other subjects from each other - and turn them into separate islands of thinking.
What do you mean exactly?

What do you mean exactly?

Do you have comprehension problems - or are you just plain stupid?

Its pretty obvious; look at today and the animosity there are between the different academic faculties - science apparently on a crusade to be the 'subject' which replaces it all.

Do you have comprehension problems - or are you just plain stupid?
No, but unlike you, I do have manners. I was asking for a clarification. Is that too much to ask of thee?

Well, considering that Dawkins is making the 'leap of faith' that randomness results in what we have today - I tend to err on the side of Murphys Law. Its naive to assume that as a piddly and pathetic life form that we are, we could possibly understand the complexity of the university.

Oh, not this shit again.

How is suggesting that natural, observable physical processes made us what we are a leap of faith? You'd either have to call all scientific knowledge into question, rely on a flawed understanding of the definition of a scientific theory, or pull out some flawed argument on how "the universe is too complex to have gotten this way naturally." As if you thank god every time you get a full house when playing poker.

Quite frankly, science lost its way when it moved its aim to 'understand gods creation' to 'try and prove god doesn't exist' - look at the gold age of thinking and compare it today. Look at the net result when we've separated Philosophy, Religion, Science and various other subjects from each other - and turn them into separate islands of thinking.

And just what the fuck are you babbling about? Any physicist who, going into his paper, mentions their desire to "try and prove god doesn't exist" wouldn't make it into any respected, peer-reviewed journal.

We leave publishing bullshit up to Christians and their "Discovery Institute," and to other crackpots.

Edit: On top of that, they'd probably soon find themselves without a job, unless they'd managed to hide their idiocy and ineptitude long enough to get tenured.

Science doesn't give a shit about Jesus. The fact that Christians seem to think Jesus gives a shit about science is a little worrying.

Well, considering that Dawkins is making the 'leap of faith' that randomness results in what we have todayWhat exactly do you mean, and how is it a leap of faith?Its naive to assume that as a piddly and pathetic life form that we are, we could possibly understand the complexity of the university.What's your basis for making that assertion, and are you trying to use it to insinuate that we shouldn't try?Quite frankly, science lost its way when it moved its aim to 'understand gods creation' to 'try and prove god doesn't exist'If science attempted anything of the sort, you'd be right. Because it is something science cannot possibly do. However science isn't used to attempt falsification of divinity. At the most, the methodology can sometimes be used to falsify certain superstitious claims.look at the gold age of thinking and compare it today.When was this exactly? I can't think of any yardstick for gauging such an age, that wouldn't show this very day to be the height of that age. I'd be interested to know just what your criteria are?
Look at the net result when we've separated Philosophy, Religion, Science and various other subjects from each other - and turn them into separate islands of thinking.You say this as if it was a bad thing. If you mean that, would you mind elaborating on why?

Do you have comprehension problems - or are you just plain stupid?

Its pretty obvious; look at today and the animosity there are between the different academic faculties - science apparently on a crusade to be the 'subject' which replaces it all.

Yup, that's exactly right. It's a crusade. Clearly physicists armed with swords are bearing down upon innocent, unsuspecting, and god-fearing farmers all over the world, and planning for the capture of Jerusalem in the name of Athe, goddes of Atheism.

I'd laugh, but I worry you actually believe your own bullshit.

Yup, that's exactly right. It's a crusade. Clearly physicists armed with swords are bearing down upon innocent, unsuspecting, and god-fearing farmers all over the world, and planning for the capture of Jerusalem in the name of Athe, goddes of Atheism.

I'd laugh, but I worry you actually believe your own bullshit.

Well they are having this crusade in spirit...

Its pretty obvious; look at today and the animosity there are between the different academic faculties - science apparently on a crusade to be the 'subject' which replaces it all.
Although I believe that the Lord is Author of all Truth, your critique rings a little hollow. Disputes are bad? Since when is debate in the realm of knowledge bad? And depending on how you define it, science broadly covers all knowledge, hence it is the only subject there is already.