Ch'i

Sorry Charlatan. For some reason I though you were saying "God does not exist", and I had a temporary aneurysm when I said "Atheism is a belief."

Kalnaur

Atheism might be a lack of faith, but not a lack of belief. An Atheist believes that there is no god, never was never will be. A Theist believes in the existence of one or more deities. Even if the "burden of proof" lies on those who "believe", a person who believes is about as likely to convince a non-believer that there is a god as a believer is to convert to non-belief; this is because those who believe have faith in what they cannot see, an irrational thing to do that those who are rational cannot accept.

You can even believe in something without having faith in it. I can believe that you can win the lottery, but not put my faith in it.

__________________
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.

Val_1

I wouldn't call this evidence of a god. It's is merely evidence that most all cultures do have a concept of the supernatural (and I believe this is indeed the case). However, the cause of the belief is to be debated.

According to studies performed on human test subjects, it does appear that the brain is actually wired to believe in the supernatural. When electrical stimulus is applied to specific areas of the brain it makes test subjects feel a supernatural presence around them. Some interpret it as God, others ... space aliens (or whatever else that person interprets as "other worldly"). Why are we wired this way? It could be that God, knowing we needed to believe in him, designed us this way. Or, it could just be an evolutionary quirk. Something that helped us to survive for whatever reason.

So, did God create man? Or did man create God?

__________________

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

Willravel

Wrong. We recognize that god may exist, but since no evidence exists to suggest that, belief that god does exist is illogical and thus frowned upon.

There might, at this very moment, be a pot of tea revolving around the sun in space. No evidence exists to suggest that it is out there, and it runs coutner to reason, but it's possible.
An irrational thing for someone who believes in any of the rules of science. I'm sure you believe in gravity. I'm sure you probably believe that the earth isn't a few thousand years old.
I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding of the word faith. Beliving in something without proof or evidence is faith, therefore your believing I would win the lottery, despite no evidence or proof, would be faith.

Slims

I really like Richard Dawkins, however, I think Douglas Adams is more casually eloquent...

http://www.americanatheist.org/win98...silverman.html

And Kalnaur: I would say that the principle element an atheist lacks is faith...

I am (as stolen from Douglas Adams in the above article) convinced there is no god, but my convictions are not predicated through blind faith...an unwillingness to consider that I may be wrong.

In my opinion, in order for someones beliefs/personal convictions to turn the corner towards religion they must have that element of faith...they will continue to hold their beliefs no matter what circumstances or evidence support a contrary opinion. I think everyone who espouses faith has this and some atheists possess it as well, though it isn't characteristic of the non-theist movement or those who simply don't think the existence of a god is indicated by what we observe around us.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

filtherton

I can't help but think that atheists are merely people who didn't realize that they were nihilists until after they found a reason to live.

I think that dawkins misses the point. His whole point seems to be that religious folk are irrational. I'm a bit nonplussed. So what? I don't see the problem with abandoning the concrete standards of science on things for which science has nothing useful to say. Dawkins worships at the church of rationality, which is fine. It's just that i imagine that dawkins idealizes vulcans, and I think that it's a tad myopic.

I think that rationality isn't that important for a lot of things. It can be useful for a lot of things, but it can also be completely useless for a lot of things and even be detrimental for a lot of things. The ability to think rationally is useless without information and time to process that information. There are a whole lot of situations where there either isn't enough information or there isn't enough time to process that information. Anyone who thinks that they are a completely rational person isn't paying attention.

As far as i'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with a particular ideology provided it doesn't persist in the face of contradictory information. Now, i'm not a particularly religious person, and i find that there are many religious folk whose activities in the context of their religious beliefs are disgusting. That said, i do know that there are religious folk who have no problem integrating the discoveries of science into their world views.

I could never be an atheist though, at least not because of a commitment to logic and reason. I get too much benefit from being irrational. There are too many instances in my life of me benefiting from purposefully doing things that have no basis in rational thought.

Willravel

Just because you don't think that there is a big white guy with a beard that made everything doesn't mean that you think life doesn't have meaning. I think that meaning is in your mind, and it's that which you should strive for. That's humanism, not nhilism.

filtherton

It depends on how you define meaning. I would suspect that a person committed to the scientific method would eschew any considerations of meaning. Meaning lacks any objective means of verification. There is only the data, and the conclusions that can be drawn from the data.

Willravel

Meaning can mean philosophical validation, and philosophy does have a place in science. Science is about exploring our universe, and philosophy is a great way to do that.

filtherton

Why would someone concerned with only that which is scientifically verifiable worry about philosophy? Is it something to think about while you're waiting for your simulations to finish running? What's the scientific consensus on nietzsche? Was he right about whatever it is he thought about whatever it is he thought about?

Willravel

Ethics and knowledge are paramount to being human.

filtherton

Is this belief something you derived from an experiment or mathematical proof? Humans were humans long before we developed enough knowledge to conjure the notion of ethics from thin air.

Look, the point is that the conclusions you draw from the world around you are based on the assumptions that underly your perspective. There is no objectively rational way to make these assumptions. The decision to make a commitment to rational thought isn't necessarily a rational one. The world isn't a reasonable place, and always being a reasonable person isn't necessarily ideal.

Willravel

Jeez, calm down. Because we live in a world with more than one person, society was developed naturally in order to deal with intrapersonal and intratribal relations. When I stop to help someone who's car needs a jump, I don't do so because god teaches us to be good samaritans, I do so because it helps the tribe. Ethics existed long before consciousness.

Science is about how the world becomes more rational the more we understand. It becomes less rational, as Dawkins would say, when we allow irrationality to win over progress. I don't have anything against theists, but I do recognize that belief in the supernatural and the unwillingness to queestion the existence of a figure that is supported by no proof represents why humankind isn't evolving as fast as we should be. It's like we have the car in second fear, but the emergency brake is in. We might be going forward, but it's slow and it smells funny.

KnifeMissile

I'm not sure if you realize this but your sentence here, literally, implies that atheists have a reason to live. I suspect that's not what you wanted to say...

I doubt that Dawkins idealizes Vulcans. As a side point, Vulcans aren't particularly logical, mostly because their actions are written by writers who are not, themselves, very logical or are forced into literary corners by modern plot standards.

I don't think Dawkins' point is simply that religion is irrational. That view is rather myopic of you! For instance, Halloween isn't very rational yet he doesn't speak out against that! There are many things in life that we do that aren't particularly "rational" and I'm certain he doesn't condemn them. Therefore, this can't be his point.

I think Dawkins' point is that religion is irrational and so we shouldn't use it to prescribe a way of life...

I used to think of religion as a "harmless white lie." I understand that life is hard so if some fairy tale makes you feel better about it then more power to you! However, when you take that fairy tale and use it to enact policy to dictate how I may live then, suddenly and reasonably, I'm going to object to your policies and the fairy tales from which they were born! That's the part that angers me and I suspect that's what angers Dawkins. That's what makes your "harmless white lie" into a detrimental delusion.

You are not alone in this regard. If I had to guess from casual observation, I'd say that most people need religion. Personally, I think it's a sad statement on life if a fairy tale is the only thing that can make you happy or give you "meaning."

Willravel

Battlestar Galactica is the only thing that gives my life meaning (besides family, work, music and TFP).

filtherton

I am calm.

How do you know it would help the tribe? What if the person's car broke down while they were on their way to kill somebody? There are many situations where doing the obvious thing to help someone out could turn out to be the wrong thing to do as far as the tribe is concerned.

How you can make that claim about the existence of ethics without using any sort of faith?

And as far as consciousness goes, intuition is all we have; scientists can't even define what consciousness is.

The enemy of progress isn't theism, it's intellectual laziness. Science and theism can co-exist; all it requires is an open mind. Like i said, i know of theists who allow their faith to change in light of scientific discovery. The idea that theists are holding us back completely ignores the facts that descartes(father of modern mathematics), leibniz(co-inventor of calculus) and newton(father of modern mechanics) were all super religious.

You suspect wrong.

Pretend that i meant the idealized notion of the vulcan.

By all means, show me a perfectly rational way to prescribe a way of life.

Well, i think the not so harmless white lie that you and dawkins seem to want to peddle is the idea that all theists want control how you live.

I'm not religious in much of any sense. I just find a blind commitment to rationality to be a bit irrational.

Willravel

My mistake.
As an alpha male (yes, I recognize that I am, in most situations, an or the alpha male. It's not ego, it's simply reality), I feel an inate responsibility to help others and make sure that my community and even society as a whole runs more smoothly. It's part of why I, ironically, habe a bit of a christ complex. The idea is that when a member of the pack needs help, it is ultimately the responsibility of the pack to help them. I've studied wolves, and a prime example is when a member of a pack is injured. Instead of leaving the wolf to die, which only happens when it's clear that the animal is mortally wounded and even that is rare, they assist the wolf, licking clean wounds and slowing the pace of the entire pack so that the single wounded member can keep up. The old adage of a team being only as strong as it's weakest link is proven. The pack functions better as a whole, and in maintaining that cohesive social structure and the efficiency of the pack, one improves the survivability of the pack.
Ethics predate faith. That in and of itself is proof, but I'll do you one better. I'm an atheist and I'm ethical. I see it as perfectly logical to practice the golden rule and to protect the pack.
Neither can religion. That's why we have philosophy.
Theism is intellectual laziness. The unwillingness to recognize that faith is an intelectual cop out is the fundamnetal flaw of theism. 2000 years ago a carpenter's son walked on water and turned water into wine instantly simply doesn't work, whether it supports a system of values or not. The real problem is that religion has spread so far. If Christianity were a small cult in the US, or if Islam were a small cult in the Middle East, no one would care because it wouldn't really hurt anyone. Also, people can be intellectually lazy in one way and not in another. Descartes, Leibniz, and Newton were all religious, and all brilliant. The thing is, they were brilliant not because of but in spite of religion.

As I recall, Descartes was working at the same time as another great figure in science: Galileo. Galileo was, of course, condemned by the Catholic Church. Did you know that because of that condemnation, Descartes abandoned his plans to release "Treatise on the World", a book about matter and mathematics, because he was afraid that the church would burn all his books as they did Galileo? The church prevented one of the earliest works of what would eventually become atomism, which was revolutionary. Here you have provided me with proof that the church stands in the way of progress.

filtherton

We're not wolves. Our social interactions are booty-loads more complex than the social interactions of wolves. How do you know in a particular instance that helping an individual helps the pack?

Unfounded assertions are not truth. On what basis can you claim that ethics, in any meaningful sense, predate faith? Nature isn't ethical.

How is faith an intellectual cop out? You underestimate the amount of thought that can go into religious belief.

As far as descartes, leibniz and newton go, i think that if you asked them, they might have said that they were brilliant because of god, not despite their god. Regardless, their ability to reason was, i would assume, much greater than that of you or i. Whether you think them lazy or not, they're still absolute proof that theism doesn't necessarily hinder progress. How do you think dawkins feels that the work of any one of these three theists is more relevant now than he might ever be?

Is it intellectually lazy to repeatedly confuse the sins of a church with the character of all theists?

Bill O'Rights

No...this is not correct. As an atheist, I don't believe that there "is no" god. I don't believe that there is a god. Two entirely different things.

__________________
"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.

KnifeMissile

Okay, I just wanted to be clear...

While I don't have the hubris to claim "perfection," I'll describe a more rational prescription for life. How about things the way they are without religion. For example, life as we know it without Christianity being the motivation behind:

• banning stem cell research
• creationism in science class
• reducing homosexual rights

People base their opinion on these matters on nothing more than a fairy tale. What the hell is that?

Many posters on this board would object to this as well. Obviously not all theists want to control how I live. Many people on this board will testify that they are religious but won't support the listed agenda, above. However, it seems as if the important theists of the US do support them and this is what atheists object to. I find it hard to believe that you don't already know this and this is just a cheap attempt at specious rhetoric...

I'm trying to understand what you mean here but I just don't get it. "Blind commitment to rationality?" The imagery I get from this is of you sayinig "Oh, stop it. That makes too much sense. Will you just stop making sense, already!"

Willravel

The idea is that we came from packs not disimilar to wolves, so they work quite well to illustrate a relatable instance of how man was before theism and before the inteligence that gives birth to conscousness.

How do I know? Because the car started. It's that simple. I've helped someone, and that's good enough for me. That's atheist morality. Helping people without the threat of hell or divine retribution of some kind is the only real altruism.
Did you miss the wolves thing? Yeesh.
There is no evidence that god exists, yet people are able to look past that and believe that he exists none the less. That's illogical. It's philosophical dependance on fiction. If I told you that Zeus exists and my proof was that I believe in him, would you convert?
I woulnd't be atheist had I been born 100 years earlier than I was. We are a product of our environment. If you are never allowed to question god, then how can you expect to break free? I was allowed to question god, and becuse of that I was eventually able to reason that god is as likely to be real as zeus.
The church, and thus religion, hinders development. The proof was in one of the men you claimed as your champion. I'll bet you $5 that if Descartes were born today, he'd be at least agnostic, if not atheist. Great mathematicians like John Horton Conway, G.H. Hardy, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Bertrand Russell, and Piergiorgio Odifreddi are all atheists.

filtherton

As an atheist you might prefer communism as a means of not doing some of these things; how well did the reason of atheists work out following the russian revolution?

There are plenty of christians who are okay with gay marriage and plenty of secular justifications offered for its denial. Atheism isn't necessarily the rational alternative. People do fucked up things, regardless of their over-arching belief system.

Well, the problem is that you seem to speak of theists as one cohesive group. If you stop speaking about all theists as if they all share an identical belief system i'll stop pointing out that you're wrong about it.

Have you ever done something which at the time didn't make any sense to do, but having done so the situation actually turned out better than it would have if you had done what the prototypical rational person would have done? That's why sometimes acting rational isn't always your best option.

The world is an irrational, unreasonable place, and treating everything as if it makes sense doesn't actually make sense.

I know why you would defer to the wisdom of wolves, i just think that as far as sociological models go, it's overly simplistic in the context of human societies.

You're missing the bigger picture. If you help someone who is detrimental to the pack you are actually not helping the pack. For an extreme example, think of the hypothetical good samaritan helping timothy mcveigh change the tire on his truck just outside of oklahoma city.

Helping someone because you think a wolf would isn't "real" altruism.

No, it just doesn't make sense to me. How is the behavior of wolves an example of ethics?

It's illogical, so what? Most of the things that most people to most of the time involve an implicit absence of logic. Illogical doesn't equate to cop out. If you examine the underlying assumptions on which you base all your beliefs, at some point you will find something that is illogical.

If you told me zeus exists, i wouldn't convert, but i wouldn't automatically presume you to be intellectually lazy. It would depend on how open minded you were.

What if you had personal experiences which to you reinforced the notion that there is a god? There are plenty of people who have been allowed to question god and still manage to retain their faith.

Let me correct that for you. The church, and thus religion, sometimes hinder development. Sometimes they are a catalyst for development, and sometimes they don't to much either way.

ASU2003

Wasn't atheism implemented in communist countries because the government didn't want any groups competing against them? There wouldn't be a christian group, a lutheran group, a jewish group and a muslim group. There would just be one nation of similar countrymen that have just a few differences between them.

What do you call a person who doesn't care if there is a God or not? Life will go on. And how I live my life right now is more important than worrying about religion and God.

Lizra

You can be a communist....I'm a happy atheist!

__________________
Happy atheist

filtherton

I have no problem with that. Just please don't try to dismiss theism because of the behavior of certain theists when certain atheists also engage in the same behavior.

I'm happy you moved past the chip-on-your-shoulder stage of atheism.

Willravel

Again, I was using it to explain how humaity was before religion. That was thousands of years ago. It may have even been before homo sapiens. It's possible that it hasn't been since cro magnons that we've been free of religion. Before we were agrarian, we were hunter/gatherers, which leads to pack-like interactions.
Just because someone is in need means they are detrimental to the pack? You'd expect me to kill someone with a flat tire? No, the whole of the pack benifits from each individual's contribution. When a contribution ceases, the pack becomes weaker. Thus, in order to remain a strong pack, the whole must not only be concerned with the well being of the whole pack, but also the individual.
No the real altruism is in that while my kindness comes from an inate place, I make a conscious decision to stop and actually do it. I recognize that it probably won't help me in any way other than to make me feel good about myself, but it's the right thing to do. I can explain where right and wrong come from, but an ability we have is to choose to do right or wrong. I try to choose right. Not because of fear of hell, but because I answer to myself.
"Ethics" is a system of moral princeples, no? Would you say that a pack stopping to help a wounded pack member is moral? Would you say that allowing each pack member to eat the food that was only brought in by one pack member is moral?
Just because people do illeogical things doesn't mean it's right. The cop out is not doing the intellectual work to figure out how thing really work. T
Would you think I was off my rocker? Seriously, please think about this. If I tried to be a "fisher of men" and was a diciple of Zeus, wouldn't you think there was something wrong with me? Greek mythos has been dead for hundreds of years. Try, for a second, to disregard the detrimental effect an honest answer would have on your argument and really ask yourself.
What kind of personal experience? Like a delusion about seeing an angel? Or maybe something coincedental happens and I think it's a mericle? Or do you just mean that I am able to choose faith over reason?
So when was the church a catalyst for development? I'm trying to think of a time, but I'm coming up with a blank.

Lizra

Oh geez....It's a struggle sometimes....but usually I'm ok..... I just have to ignore a lot of stuff......and be happy!

__________________
Happy atheist

filtherton

Is this whole wolf thing just a way for you to say that you think that ethics don't necessarily need to be based on religious belief? If that's what you think, i agree with you. That being said, behaving ethically implies a certain amount of awareness on behalf of the actor, right? Or do you think plants are ethical too?

That's not what i was saying at all. What i was trying to point out by way of the timothy mcveigh example is that you aren't always in a position to know what will help the pack. It is overly naive to think that helping an individual inevitably helps the pack.

And this makes you different from someone who is religious how(try not to generalize, it's unbecoming of one so committed to scientific accuracy)?

Do you think that eating defenseless farm animals is moral? I don't know, i've not had firsthand knowledge of the thought processes of wolves. Neither have you, for that matter. I bet the dog whisperer could tell us.

Right, because you hold advanced degrees and solid understandings of all of the different scientific theories which you embrace. I don't know if you're a man of scientific training, but let me tell you that there is a whole neighborhood in the ghetto of intellectual laziness for people who sing the praises of science they don't understand.

I suppose the implication in what you said is that you haven't copped out because you've done the intellectual work to figure out how things really work. If that's really what you mean than you're just as lazy as those whom you criticize.

But you're right, just because everybody is guilty of the same crime, being illogical, doesn't mean that being illogical is okay. It does, however, mean that the act of singling out criticism for a specific group based on the fact that said group is illogical is a tad bit hypocritical.

I would think you odd, yes. But i think libertarians are odd, too. That doesn't mean i go on talk shows and write books and come up with overly broad contrivances as to why all libertarians are dumb.

Faith and reason aren't mutually exclusive.

http://www.google.com/search?q=churc...ient=firefox-a

Ourcrazymodern?

a-, mono-, poly-, pan-...
It appears there's too much to argue about once poeple start believing different things about god. Reiterating a stupid question, why doe lie appear in the middle of believe?

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

roachboy

huh...interesting thread. lots of category blurring tho. so much that it is hard to (a) figure out where and how to start playing here and more (b) how to balance this against my desire to go for a bikeride.

1. i am not sure about the category atheist sometimes. there seems to be several types of atheists, and dawkins is a good example of one of them: the type that seems to operate via an inverted version of the rationality that he is trying to oppose.

while i imagine that dawkins sees in this a way to have a political fight that he thinks worth having, for myself i dont find it terribly interesting.

for example, i dont see where dawkins is in a position to claim that IN GENERAL religion is less rational than "science" IN GENERAL--first because neither category designates a single entity (like filtherton said above--to spin it a different way---within christianity, say, a cathlic theologian and a fundamentalist protestant do not share the same kind of approach to questions of religious belief, just as someone working within biological science out of a complex dynamic systems model is not operating with the same data, conceptual or argumentative frame as someone who works in mechanics--or even within biology on the basis of more traditional ways of modelling biological systems)--second: if you grant that the nouns dawkins is using refer to something, both are at one level or another built around deductive relations to the world....so at the level of logical procedures, someone working from either position could generate proofs that are equally correct. so a debate between the two positions is not really about which is more rational than the other, since rational can simply mean the ability to generate results within a given framework that do not violate the rules that make that frame operate. "true" results are those which follow from the data and rules for derivation without violation of those rules. a conflict between the two would really be about premises or axioms--which cannot be proven from within proofs that they shape in any event.

so the problem dawkins is getting at is not about one view being rational and the other not being rational--it is a conflict over axioms.

if that is accurate, then it seems stupid to cast it as if there was a conflict over who gets to call themselves more rational.


it looks to me like the debate between will and filtherton above is repeats this question of conflict over axioms: both can assimilate the same kind of information into their respective positions without internal contradiction. so both are generating arguments that are true from within their respective frames. the problem with it is--again, like with dawkins--that the real argument is not about the applications of their respective frames, but about the axioms that shape them.


2. what i have never understood from within christianity at least is how it is that folk who believe manage on the one hand to maintain that god would be infinite while human understanding is finite while at the same time maintaining that they can know anything about this god--which they dont and, according to their own theology, cant--what they know about is what they imagine the word "god" refers to.

these relations are fundamentally different from each other.

in this, contemporary protestant--particularly of the fundy variety--is about the least sophisticated, least interesting imaginable variant of christianity. the logic of even this finite understanding/infinite god thing would seem to me to lead you to a state of unknowing--to negative theology or nominalism. according to the axiom that structures this religious game, you cannot KNOW.

the problem with this is that it wont function if you create a church and want that church to perform social regulation functions.
so the problem, really, seems to be that there are churches which perform social regulation functions, because it is in the creation of churches as institutions which exercize social control that the trade-off between conceptions of this god character happen.

so, christian types, let's be internally consistent and disband all churches.

another way: nietzsche is right about this issue....you know, in the "god is dead--and you have killed him" thing.

time for a bike ride.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

You hit the nail on the head. It depends on the axioms, i've been trying to get there but i got sidetracked. Something about wolves.

Well, such things depend on the particular church in question. Some fit the description outlined by you above and some don't.

Willravel

I was explaining the differnce between ethics and altruism. Altruism is based in an intelectual decision without outside influence to do the right thing. I think that ethics can exist outside of what we would call intelligence.
It's what tens of thousands of years has put into our DNA. We havn't evolved inate stuff to deal with overpopulation yet. Once we have, then heping others altruistically may be phased out. Also, what percentage of the population is like the Oklahoma City bomber? less than .00001%, I'd guess. That would make it safe to help people without reasonably being concerned that he or she was going to go blow up a building.
My motivation isn't fear. My motivation is living up to a social standard I've set for myself, and has no reprocussions if I don't do it besides being dissapointed in myself. I'd say being dissapointed in myself is much different than the threat of eternal damnation.
Animal social studies are a bit more advanced that you appear to be aware, but for the sake of the conversation let's move away from wolves. Eating to survive is necessary, therefore we do so. Slaughtering the animal in a way that is cruel to the animal is still considered wrong (and it's why I refuse to eat a lot of stuff like McDonalds). Most hunting animals kill as quikcly as possible. In our own hunter gatherer days, we would do the same. Spear to the throat, head or heart.
I don't require a degree in theology to know what's real and what isn't. My degree is in psychology, but I am also well trained in biology and political science. Tell you what, pick apart my arguments and then call me intelectually lazy. Don't do it beforehand.
What? Stop contradicting yourself. You just said people who don't do the intelectual legwork are intelectually lazy, and now you're aying that even though I have done the learning I'm still lazy? Make up your mind.
I wouldn't care if it wasn't detrimental to the evolution of the species. I will readily admit that I'm not perfect. I make mistakes like everyone else, but I do try to fix my mistakes once I've realized them. I don't critisize people for pointing out my mistakes. I'd rather be proven wrong than think I'm right and be wrong.
If you think that they are detrimental to society, then it's your responsibility to try and reason with them. If you don't think they're detrimental to society, then the comparison isn't apt.
In my mind they are and that's the whole idea.

Most of the websites listed under your google search are for churches or religious organzations. Can you actually find anything in particular?

BTW, I still respect the shit out of you. A disagreement about the nature of religion isn't going to change that. I just hope that's clear.

Ourcrazymodern?

The comforting god-thought goes places it would not wish to...
The species must think harder!!!!!

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

KnifeMissile

I've noticed that your arguments are becoming increasingly more outrageous. Are you seeing this as one of your "better to be irrational" instances of your life? If so then we can simply desist our conversation right now...

If atheism dictated a doctorine then this might be a point. However, you don't have to be a communist to be an atheist. You can be a communist and a christian and, thus, object to the list of the previous post. Your argument makes no sense. Again, what's with the empty rhetoric? Have you run out of meaningful things to say?

Atheism isn't the only thing that will change these attitudes but it certainly is a reasonable one. People will always do fucked up things but the hope is that reasonable people won't be fooled into doing fucked up things by their religion and, thus, less people will be doing fucked up things...

Theists are one cohesive group in that they all believe in fairy tales. They're not all a problem if that's what you mean. Dawkins isn't attacking religious people, he's attacking religion. Orthodox christianity is very clearly against homosexuality. Thus, it can be argued that self proclaimed "christians" that support homosexuality aren't really christians. Regardless, it is not these christians that Dawkins condemns or, indeed, any christian but the motivation behind their beliefs. The fairy tale that tells you what's wrong or right...

Okay, let me ask you something. If you did something stupid and it serendipitously turned out better than if you had tried to do something reasonable, would you then conclude that you should do more stupid things?

People can be irrational and unreasonable and you should know this when dealing with them. The rest of the world is perfectly rational and reasonable and it does make sense to treat it as if it makes sense...

shakran

Agreed. I heard an interview of him on NPR several months back where he said anyone who reads his book (The God Delusion) who was religious would finish the book an athiest, guaranteed.

Naturally I grabbed a copy, intending to read it and then give it to my very religious friends to test this claim. Got about 70 pages in and tossed it away. What rubbish. He has this attitude that only athiests are smart. If you're religious, you're a moron. If you're an agnostic, you're a moron who's also a chicken because you won't stake a claim one way or another. I know plenty of very religious people that are also quite intelligent - to paint all non-athiests as idiots is. . well. . idiotic. I don't have the time or the patience for this joker.

Willravel

Exactly. If Dawkins weren't such a dick, he'd do a lot more good.

Ourcrazymodern?

...but dicks are good things, just ask any non-rapist who has one.

Imaginary beneficence never hurt anybody.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

KnifeMissile

I disagree that it is simply a conflict about their axioms.

If I understand what you're saying, roachboy, you're assuming that a religious society and an atheistic one will produce the same predictions of reality and only their models differ. Is this the case? If not, can you clarify? I found the quoted text hard to understand. In particular, it was difficult to descern your argument and even your point...

Again, if my understanding is correct, because their models produce different predicitons, it's pefectly reasonable to debate them, including their axioms...

I disagree that it is simply a conflict over their axioms.

If I understand what you're saying, roachboy, you're assuming that a religious society and an atheistic one will produce the same predictions of reality and only their models differ. Is this the case? If not, can you clarify? I found the quoted text hard to understand. In particular, it was difficult to descern your argument and even your point...

Again, if my understanding is correct, because their models produce different predicitons, it's pefectly reasonable to debate them, including their axioms...

Willravel

He treats the people he says he is trying to help like shit, and there is no excuse for it. Instead of speaking to them as equals, he comes in and insults them and treats them like they are less than human. It's inexcusable.

roachboy

km: i was actually addressing the charge that theists are "less rational" than richard dawkins.
to do that, i reduced "rational" to the ability to follow certain procedures. both a theist and non-theist (whatever) could be able to follow these rules/procedures, and in that rational can be understood as a way of describing the ability to follow procedures, one party could not claim that the other was any more or less "rational"---so if you were going to run a proof with two parties, one of whom included a god term at the level of axoims and one of whom did not--both could follow the rules correctly, so in each respective proof the process would be "rational"--but obviously the results would vary, and pretty widely, because of different assumptions built into the axioms.

it is hard to have debates about axioms. you certainly can't do it from inside of demonstrations that are informed by them. (this is what i saw filtherton and will getting tangled up in, which is the other reason i posted in the way i did)
you have to make them into objects for demonstration.
typically, the best christian types can do on this is end up with circular arguments like the "ontological proof" in aquinas--which is "that god is is a tautology." because god contains the categories, and being is a category so qed.
it's not that i think the axiom sets are equivalent--i do not believe that god refers to anything, it doesn't name anything outside itself, it more creates a space that people fill up with projections---but i dont imagine that i'd have much luck convincing a believer that this was the case--and frankly the project wouldn't interest me. i also couldnt demonstrate that god absolutely did not exist. same problem. what i can say is that on christianity's own grounds, no=one can know either way.

personally, i have no problem with not knowing.

i also have no problem with not caring about the matter one way or another.
all the assumption means is that if i were to talk about some phenomenon in the world, i wouldn't use this empty category "god" to explain anything, and if i ran into a counter-argument that did, i would go after it on the grounds
that it (the name "god") doesn't and cannot explain anything.

but i wouldn't go out of my way to find such a counter-argument.

because i really dont care about it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite