Crack

http://smashingtelly.com/2007/01/19/...t-of-all-evil/

Pretty interesting stuff here.

Part 2 here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...08690443739173

Edit: I hardly ever hear or see this side of a belief. I live in middle America, there are more churches here than gas stations. Seriously. I wouldn't see this on the television, not even on cable. :-P I can watch someone's head get blown off with a high caliber handgun on NBC, but when someone wants to tell me about how science fact basically refutes religion, and it has been religion that has effectively caused the most bloodshed and atrocities in human history... it wouldn't even play at 3:00am on channel 2354!

That's why I find it interesting.

Edit2: Plus it's an hour and a half of a free, very well done documentary.

__________________
Crack, you and I are long overdue for a vicious bout of mansex.

~Halx

filtherton

Not to be a douche, but what is it that you find to be interesting?

Bill O'Rights

Welll...yeah...I mean, why not.
It may not belong on Found On The Net, but I see lots of potential for some descent discussion.

I'll begin.
I...am an atheist.
Do I see the lack of Crack's access to atheistic "information" to be some form of cenorship? No..I do not. I see it more as a market catering to it's audience. What's going to sell the most advertising time? It's dollars and demographics.

Dawkins? He's another story. He's...well...let's just say over the top. He's not exactly a prime example of your average atheist, anymore than Fred Phelps is a prime example of your average Christian. Most of us atheists live our lives in relatively quiet solitude. We keep quiet, for the most part, because we don't care to deal with the inevitable backlash.

*edit* Tossed into the General Discussion pool to see if anyone nibbles.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

SecretMethod70

Dawkins has some interesting things to say, but I find Carl Sagan has (had ) a much more reasonable attitude toward the whole science/religion thing. A book was recently published comprised of a series of lectures he gave on the subject (in 1985, so there are a fair amount of references to nuclear warheads). It's very good, and better than Dawkins' thoughts on the issue in just about every way.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Jinn

I own the God Delusion, and he really brings up a lot of psychologically valid arguments about the need for a God in some, and why religion can be necessary. Contrary to a lot of his speeches, I don't think he hates religion inasmuch the blind followers of it.

And likewise, Secret.. I've always loved Carl Sagan.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

stevie667

Richard Dawkins, great scientist, amazing author, slight anti-religion nut job.

Just take it in your stride and don't pay too much attention is how i get through his ramblings in some of his books, but i do that with most religious stuff.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

Strange Famous

to be honest, he's always struck me as as much of a zealot.

there was a pretty good debate with him and Tony Benn on BBC TV about a month ago though, when Benn made Dawkins admit that he wished that there was a God.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Charlatan

I am glad that Dawkin's is opening this debate. Some are calling him a nut jub but I think he is offering a public service.

We would all be better off without religion.

Regardless of where this debate goes, I think it is terribly important that the world has this debate.

As for not being able to access this sort of information, I agree with Bill. Cater to your market. That said, Dawkins was also the guy that defined the word "meme" and he is now helping to solidify an important one. Give it time and this debate could be much more mainstream. At that point it will be on all your TVs.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Strange Famous

Im not sure what you guys mean by saying he is opening a debate, or breaking new ground... he has been carrying on with this stuff for years.

Unfortunately, he makes a lot of logic mistakes in my opinion. He condemns religious texts and the worst excesses of organised religion (ie - the Spanish Inquisition, the Taleban etc) - and then claims to relate it to a God at the same time as claiming that there is no possible knowledge of God and therefore no connection between mankind.

To say for certain there is no diety is as much of a leap of faith as to say there is one... as I said before, Ive seen an interview when Dawkin's withdraws under pressure to saying there is no evidence for God and God is essentially unknowable, that he doesnt believe in God, but he would be happier to find himself wrong when he died.

To say that a lot of churches have done a lot of fucked up things and that the fear of death is universal is a pretty weak statement in terms of solid belief, but I think its all anyone can be left with who wants to be an athiest. Active disbelief in the unknown isnt much different to belief, otherwise.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Charlatan

Clearly this debate has been going on for some time. Arguably centuries. However, Dawkins and others, are doing their best to bring the discussion to the mainstream. So not new, but new to many.

As for his position. I have seen him speak and what he is saying is that as a scientist he isn't willing to be an absolutist without absolute proof. As such he is willing to concede that there is a minute chance that God exists but that it is such a slim margin that it should be clear there is no God. To me, that's a reasonable argument.

As for him suggesting that he would be happier if there was a God waiting when he dies, he is suggesting that in his point of view when he dies there is nothing else. He doesn't seek comfort for this inevitability by creating a myth to make himself feel better. He faces that fact that there will be nothing with equanimity. However, he does say that if the myth is true and there is a God, that's great. Who wouldn't want to go on to eternal life? He follows that with the point that we also would like to believe in Santa Claus but the truth is there is no Fat man in a suit dropping presents off.

I don't see it as leap of faith at all to suggest there is no Deity. There is no faith required in non-belief. The onus of provability is on the religion.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

KnifeMissile

This is patently false. In a sense, most things that you can think of cannot be proven. Is it reasonable to believe them all? Surely not...

The claim that there is a god is a proactive one. If you believe that He exists then shouldn't you have a good reason to do so? I believe in invisible pixie faries and there's nothing you can do to disprove that. However, there are few people, even among the religious ones, who would think that that belief was reasonable...

Again, this is false. Active disbelief in the unknown is the only reasonable course of action, especially considering how much is unknown.

Now, you must put this into context since, taken literally and universally, what I just said isn't exactly true. I was hoping to save this for its own thread but I'll discuss a little bit of it, here. Someone comes into town saying that an army is marching towards us. I have no way of immediately proving or disproving this claim. Do I automatically disbelieve it? Well, unlike God, there's really nothing amazing about there being an army. However, which army would this be? Is it so amazing that one would come marching towards my town? What do I think of the person making the claim?

The claim that there is a god is fantastic. The stories in the Bible are ludicrous and not believable. There is no reason to believe in God so it is perfectly reasonable to not do so. Richard Dawkins is a raving zealot but his claims are sound...

Val_1

Dawkins is a brilliant scientist, but a bit over zealous with the atheism (this is coming from an atheist). I believe he's just trying to be extreme to get people talking, but, considering a recent poll showed that atheists are the most mistrusted group there is, I think calm, level headedness, and understanding would be a better tactic. After all, it's not religion itself that's bad. It's zealotry.

__________________

I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day.

-Frank Sinatra

Ourcrazymodern?

Atheism is another fantasy if there is no god.
Dawkins has produced...
It seems to me that the atheists share the back seat with the homosexuals,
meaning only that (one) can't (tastefully) make fun of too many other groups these days....

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

snowy

Val, I really liked your post, and I'd like to second something you said: it's not religion itself that's bad--it's zealotry. I am just as scared of an atheist zealot as I am of an Muslim one or a evangelical Christian one or even a zealot Episcopalian (I don't see this latter one happening though). Extremism is dangerous--wherever it happens.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

KnifeMissile

Zealotry isn't something to encourage but it just seems so much worse when it's religious. Richard Dawkins is about the most militant athiest I have ever heard of yet he's never killed a doctor or flew a plane into a building...

Anecdotally speaking, I've never heard of a religious figure who has gotten death threats from athiests. Yet, Penn & Teller routinely get death threats from religious zealots who feel that they threaten the American way of life.

There just seems to be something much more sinister about religion than the lack, thereof...

Lizra

I'm to the point where I just hate talking about god.....
I'm glad there is someone else willing to do it.
I'd rather talk about science, or art, or even dried up cat puke ..... I agree with Knifemissle.

Heh...pissed off atheist....

__________________
Happy atheist

Willravel

I'm Dawkins without being a dick (except to IL in the atheism thread). I believe that he's right, but in doing things like this special, he becomes an atheist televangelist and is partially guilty of that which he condemns theism for.

If someone asks me, I'll answer them honestly. I won't go knocking on doors or passing out flyers for atheism. Atheism, after all, isn't a religion.

HeAtHeN

Well said... Dawkins and Sam Harris are "fighting back" against the religious right and other crackpots and I for one commend them.

__________________

Bill O'Rights

I disagree.
I also do not beleive in Faeries, gnomes, unicorns, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the viability of a fair tax. I do not feel that the onus is upon me to disprove these things. They're just...not there.

Oh...and it's good to see you around Strange.

One debate at a time, Will. One debate at a time.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Charlatan

I don't see where Dawkins is being a dick.

He isn't doing anything worse than a local minister. The only difference is the media has given him airtime.

His position is a simple one. There is no God. Stop fooling yourselves to make yourselves feel better. Just face the fact that there is no God and get on with enjoying *this* life, because it's all you've got.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Lizra

Ahhhh! I feel better already!

__________________
Happy atheist

Yakk

What do you trust more -- people or things? What is more likely to be telling the truth -- a rock, or someone telling you about the rock -- and which should you trust?

If you trust people more, religion makes a hell of a lot of sense. Many people who seem to be at the top of social heiarchies (from your parents, to the president, to your priest, to the heads of various churches) tell you that the world works via religion. It explains, in a social way, why things happen -- they happen because something that acts vaguely like a person made things happen that way.

This god-person is something you can talk to and communicate with. It seems like standard social interaction skills work, except this god-person is very perceptive and very powerful -- so just exagerrate how you socially interact with perceptive and powerful people in your life.

Given this approach to reality, not believing in god is stupid. Unless, of course, your social exemplars and parents where athiests.

Now, if you trust things more than people, you end up going the other way.

When some authority figure tells you about the person-god, you look around for evidence, and you don't see it (outside of social heiarchies, which aren't things, and hence less trustworthy). It seems as if the things of the world can be explained (via science) to a pretty damn high degree of reasonableness.

Religion is, as far as I can tell, the application of our highly specialized inter-personal-skill brain to the unhuman world. If your first instinct is to deal with and explain problems socially, then explaining lightning as the javalins of a god makes perfect sense. And for most of human history, humanity didn't know enough to have decent other explainations for most of your day to day experience.

Trusting things more than people was occasionally a good strategy -- it helps one make a new spear head, for example. On the other hand, if you noticed that a completely different diet than everyone else was tasty and didn't cause immediate harm, you (or your kids) probably still end up dieing of malnutrition if you kept it up. The extremely limited knowledge of "things" meant that almost all of your actions should be guilded by "people" knowledge rather than "things" knowledge.

What seems to be happening is that humanity is learning a heck of a huge amount about "things". There are still huge areas of human experience where we don't know enough about "things" to solve problems (how to raise children, as an example) with good enough success rates -- but the demarcation line is moving.

But we are still the same people as we where 10,000 years ago, with a huge bias towards explaining anything and everything by "people" rules rather than "thing" rules.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Ourcrazymodern?

Animal hopes and fears led toward god...

Dawkins understands enough "thing" rules to refute "people" rules, and so he does.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Strange Famous

I found a youtube of the debate between Tony Benn and Richard Dawkins.

I dont know if it is permitted to post links here, but if you were to go to youtube and search on "Benn" "Dawkins" - you would find the same thing... quite interesting I found.

But I guess everyone believes what he (or she) believes.

I can only say to Bill of Rights, and several others:

to say "I have no proof that this thing is true so I do not believe in it"

is entirely different to say "I have no proff that this is true, therefore I know with absolute certainty that it cannot be true"

In fact, there is much logical AND testimonial evidence to the existence of supernatural powers... people will always ignore what they do not want to see. Atheism is a religion, and I have to say a rather depressing one at that. For all the ills caused by religion in the world, one also should admit that the concept of law comes from religion also and that many people draw great comfort from the belief in God also.

Anyone who claims to KNOW that God does not exist is deluding themselves, and following blind faith in an ideal.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Charlatan

Here is the You Tube piece that SF is talking about.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Ty3SV26Y4M"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Ty3SV26Y4M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

As for your contention that Atheism is a religion. There is just no arguing with that. You are 100% wrong in your position. Based on *any* definition of religion I know, being an Atheist has nothing to do with religion and it has little to do with faith.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Ourcrazymodern?

...some of the others said that the lack of a faith comprises a faith.

I also demur. Withoutgodbelief does not equal beliefin(whatever)!

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Strange Famous

saying you dont believe in God is a judgment

saying you know there is no God is a leap of faith - because you are saying you know something that cannot be proved.

since Dawkins makes so much of his claim to be a scientist, people that support him should have a little respect of the scientific method... science can only prove that things are true, not really that things cannot be true - unless every circumstance can be controlled.

If you observe a pond and see 100 white swans, then you can say you have proved that a swan can be white, but it isnt so easy to say that it is impossible for there ever to be a black swan.

If you want evidence for God... try naming a single known society, modern or ancient, that had no concept of the supernatural? If you cannot, then for what reasons is this belief so universal? If you want to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE that God created the universe, then what evidence will you provide that matter was CREATED FROM NOTHING through another method? Or if you would prefer to explain the concept of eternity within our present knowledge of time, that would also be fine.

I hope you will not be offended if I say that "you are 100% wrong, and I do not need to even argue with you because my position is correct" is a statement that souns quite characteristic of faith, or even "religion"

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Ch'i

I may be mistaken, but SF's assertion of Atheism being a religion seemed to be directed more towards its following and less towards its actual definition. Atheism, indeed, does not act as most religious bodies do, or even resembles a religion for that matter. There is, however, a risk of it becoming "religious." Spokespersons for Atheism must tread lightly upon the method in which they spread their message. It would be very easy for any one of those representatives to start preaching Atheism, or eventually even forcing it upon others.

Atheist are most certainly a persecuted minority in most countries. It is this intollerance most religions pass down through their teachings, intentionally or unintentionally, that I cannot stand. It certainly justifies the disputable connotation of anger tied to Atheism. Hopefully fortitude against such things become tied to Atheism as well, because the last thing this world needs is another intollerant religion.


Huh? Redundance aside, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about scientific process of elimination?

We don't know if there even is a swan; we don't even know if there is a pond; we don't know if we are capable of ever even observing the swan or its environment. We can hardly speculate on assumptions. Scientific method is only applicable when a theory has some basis of plausible relevance in reality. In the case of Atheism and religion, neither can logically refute the other. Though, as far as we know, Atheism is more correct than religion, from a logical point of view.

KnifeMissile

Why are you so afraid of links? I happen to know that you've seen a link on this forum...

I can't quite tell whether you're being deliberately obstinate or if you really don't understand the stance of athiests. In as much as anyone can know anything, an athiest understands that there is no god as much as there is no invisible pixie fairy. It's something for which there is no evidence and can never be disproven...

I've said this before on another thread but, apparently, you didn't read that one so I'll restate it, here. If atheism is a religion then baldness is a hair colour and barefeet is a brand of shoe...

I disagree with your claim that there is much evidence. There is much anecdotal testimony to the existence of supernatural powers but none of it has been substantive. A good question is raised by the site Why Won't God Heal Amputees.com. The point, of course, is that being an amputee is hard to fake so it's hard to fake healing it...

The concept of the supernatural is born out of a need to explain things you don't understand. For whatever reason, most people cannot be satisfied with a shrug and a sarcastic "who knows?" and would rather believe in fiction than to admit that they don't know.

On a more personal note (although, really, it's not so personal), I never understood (if you've been reading my posts, lately, you'll see that there's very little about human behaviour that I understand) why people feel that everything must have "begun" and must "end." I can only suppose it comes from the fact that, in a sense, we begin at our birth and we and at our death and we must model all things after ourselves. However, the matter that makes us didn't begin and end with us. They existed before our birth and they will exist after our death. Why is it so hard to believe that the universe was always here? If you can believe in an eternal god why can't you believe in an eternal universe? Why must it be "created from nothing?"

Ch'i

........

Kalnaur

So are most of the forumers here Atheistic? If so, I won't even toss in my two cents.

__________________
PC: Can you help me out here HK?
HK-47: I'm 98% percent sure this miniature organic meatbag wants you to help find his fellow miniature organic meatbags.
PC: And the other 2 percent?
HK-47: The other 2 percent is that he is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted, but that might be wishful thinking on my part.

Charlatan

Like Dawkins, I will not say with absolute certainty that there is no God. I will say that it is so highly improbably that the likelihood of his existence is as close to zero as you can get.

This is not a leap of faith, it is observable fact.

There is not scientific, observable, quantifiable evidence of the existence of a "supreme being" or "force". I see no need to ascribe nature to something like that.

Comparing the big bang theory to the creation theory is pointless. The big bang is only one of many scientific explanations we currently use to explain how life came about. None are accepted as purely factual. They are extrapolations based on measurable and quantifiable observations. Things that can be replicated under controlled circumstances. They are not faith-based and they are not hearsay.

It is very likely that as our tools and instruments get better that we will be able to discern something else that will completely change how we view the start of the Universe.

The point to take home from this is that know or not knowing this information is not paramount to my belief system. I am content in knowing that I don't know where life comes from.

The two main tenets of any religion is where did life come from and what happens when we die.

These are the big questions of life. Science doesn't pretend to know the answers and as such just keeps looking. Religion provides comfort in the face of the unknowable.

I say, I don't need that comfort thank you very much. I can live my life quite happily knowing that when I die I won't have all the answers and that when I am gone I will be gone. No after life. The only thing left will be some of my genetic code in my offspring and some of my mimetic code in their minds.

My point about you being 100% wrong is not directed at your belief in God, I covered that in the first paragraph of this post. It is directed at your assertion that atheism is a religion. it meets none of the criteria for religion. So you are wrong so say something that it is. 2 + 2 does not equal 5. It is a wrong answer. Am I being religious now?

Ch'i I get what you are saying but I don't see SF arguing this position. I could see this sort of thing happening if there was some sort leadership or atheist following but there isn't. That said, I never underestimate the ability of humanity to do harm to each other.

Finally, SF, you suggest that because many different cultures have had religion it proves that there is some sort of God. And I say, yet again there is no measurable, quantifiable proof that they were not just deluding themselves too.

It's all just hearsay until you can measure it.

Just because a million people believe something wrong doesn't make it true.

I would say that the Atheists are out numbered by a wide margin.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

KnifeMissile

Okay, so I was screwed by my own double negative. I've edited it, now. I've also slapped my forehead and said "D'oh!"

Ch'i

. . . . . . . . . .

KnifeMissile

Why not? I've never let anything stop me from posting (other than my own apathy or procrastination...)...

Ch'i

That is incorrect. There are no statistics on the probability of the existence of a godlike being. You seem to be asserting Atheism as based in fact, while religion is based on faith. Though the latter is true, the former is not.

KnifeMissile

It depends on what you mean. While it's literally true that I believe that I'm holding my TV remote control in my hand, in casual language, people wouldn't call that a "belief."

Atheism is based on the fact that there's no evidence for God. Is that faith? If you want to call my "belief" that there is no Santa Clause based on faith then I guess atheism is also based on faith. In that case, I guess I can only say that it doesn't take much faith...

Kalnaur

Those are actually my main motivators. That and my desire not to get in between those who believe in one god and those who believe in none. I'm somewhat of a rare find in this day and age, and I keep quite so people don't stare at me like I've grown another head.

__________________
PC: Can you help me out here HK?
HK-47: I'm 98% percent sure this miniature organic meatbag wants you to help find his fellow miniature organic meatbags.
PC: And the other 2 percent?
HK-47: The other 2 percent is that he is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted, but that might be wishful thinking on my part.

Ourcrazymodern?

...but someone once wrote a (short) book entitled "A Scientific Proof of the Existence of God"! In it, the #'s for god became billions or trillions to one. Google it. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief...

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Charlatan

The whole point of a board like this is to discuss and not feel like someone is going to "stare at you like you have another head".

I may not agree with SF's point of view but I am very interested to hear what he has to say. What you are reading here is not an argument, rather it is a discussion. Additional voices are always welcome and arguably necessary.

Post away.

I wasn't being statistical nor was he. The point was to say that he isn't being absolutist. He (and I) are leaving the door open to the possibility that God exists. I don't want to waste time counting angels on the head of a pin, so I am saying it is as close to impossible as you can get without being impossible.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke