Richard Dawkins is an atheist. Hardcore atheist.
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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....

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.

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...

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

Heh...pissed off atheist....

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.

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

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. :thumbsup:

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

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.

Ahhhh! :) I feel better already! :rose: :rose: :)

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.

Animal hopes and fears led toward god...

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

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.

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.

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

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

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"

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.

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?"

:orly: ........

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

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.

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!"

. . . . . . . . . .

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

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.

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...

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. :)

...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...

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Ethics and knowledge are paramount to being human.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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

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

Imaginary beneficence never hurt anybody.

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...

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.

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.

Are you saying that atheism didn't exist over 100 years ago? Not sure about that one.

If I were born in the US or Europe 100 years ago, odds are I would not have been exposed to atheism at all. While it has existed for a long time, it has not been prevelant until recently.

I'm curious: why do you think one wouldn't have been exposed to atheism in, say, 1901?

Are we talking in absolutes here ("there was no atheism in the early 20th century) or are we talking in relativity? ("atheism wasn't as prevalent in the early 20th century as it was in other times before and after.")

The second one. :thumbsup:

Right...atheism is thousands of years old of course. Perhaps you're referring to an atypically forceful period of theologial indoctrination that just so happened to be occurring in the 1980's and 90's.

I disagree with your characterization of theism as intellectual laziness and a copout. Theism doesn't necessarily mean Zeus riding his white horse across the sky hurling thunderbolts, or some old fart with a cane raising up the ocean. It can also mean, dare I say, a certain form of quiet introspection. It could mean a form of spiritual comfort and solace based on the realization that 'the way things are' has nothing to do with the behavior of human beings, but the way of something 'greater' or something 'universal' such as mathematics and physics. It could be something for the self-proclaimed 'most modest person ever' to allow even himself to consider.

If memory serves, isn't you're father a pastor? Could atheism, for you, be a form of rebellion from a direct and painful exposure to certain forms of religious piety and/or punishment? For example, my father was an accountant, and to this day I have an aversion to order, methodology, numbers, etc.

Yes, my father is a pastor, so leave us say I am somewhat familiar with the interworkings of spirituality. At first it was a reality, as real as the sky or the smile on my face. It was simple and I was unquestioning. Then it moved into a more cerebral area, where I contemplated the meaning of the teachings of Jesus, and eventually I moved on to the teachings of other spiritual leaders like Muhammed and Buddha. I was in search of the whole of truth, because it felt like that was the direction I was supposed to be headed in. I kept hitting snags, though. Some theological teachings are pure and joyus, teaching peace, understanding, and hope. Others, though, teach hatred, intolerance, and the fear of an eternal punishment after death for those who resisted the faith. Even the most enlightened of my friends, a muslim, was clear on how those who did not believe are less than human and will be damned. Had this been a simple interpretation of the Qu'ran, I would have been cool, but it's written clearly. Similar passages appear in the Torah and New Testimant. They are clear: if you don't believe, you will be severly punished. The peace and unerstanding are suddenly replaced by vengence and hatred. It is in this message that I finally understood the true meaning of god: control. It's clear to me that mythos has different meanings for different people, for some it is a staple of understanding others, for some it helps them understand themselves, for some it is a tool of control, and for others still it is a tool to be used for control. Ultimately, it controls the believer. It acts as a prison from which one can see the world, but is limited. While that prison can offer some things, such as safety and a sense of belonging with the other prisoners, it is a prison none the less.

The funny thing is, I thought I was happy being a Christian. I was somewhat torn when I was learning about evolution (and I have to make an apology to my first bio teacher, I was wrong to bring a bible to class, and you were right). I was somewhat torn when I learned of viable theories of the beginning of our unvierse like the big bang. Part of me resisted even learning them. All along, though, I was happily ignorant. I was in the worst kind of prison: a prison that you cannot touch, see, or taste. I imagine there is a Matrix metephore for it, but I'll leave that for Tilted Entertainment. This prison was able to disable my reasoning abilities enough to convince me that there exists a supreme being that actually cares about me, what a wonderful idea. My escape only came from a fundamental paradigm shift in my own mind. That shift was from unhealthy dependancy to self sufficience and peace.

Atheism doesn't require being exposed to it. OMG, what is that guy in the trenchcoat doing? Thinking persons have tended this direction, IMO.

While it is fine if he is only making these speeches for people who are atheist already, it doesn't help when you are trying to convince people that their faith is wrong. And the alternative atheist lifestyle isn't always attractive, even if these people don't really believe.

I do agree with him that I don't like the religious indoctrination that preys on kids either. I think it should be up to teens to look at the religions and understand why they want to be a member or not be a member. And they shouldn't be forced into the religion because of shame or fear.

For me, believing in god was never a matter of mind control or whatnot. I didn't come from an overly religious family, and religion was only ever observed in a friendly and social way, consisting of family getogethers, dinners, games, stories, watching tv, gossiping, farting, wrestling, shooting hoops, swimming, etc. We would say prayers and lightly observe the customs of the holidays of our religion (more for ceremony that anything else), but the actual messages of the bible were always far, far secondary to simply being together as a family.

It's obvious that much suffering has been carried out in the name of religion, but many times the reasons, to my mind, can just as well be pathological as religious, religion acting merely as a catalyst for aggression. In other words, people naturally have more aggressive tendencies than intellectual ones. Religion has been the match lighting the tinder, but it isn't the actual fire. Understanding this, for me, has cast religion in a different light than how it is used in certain social, religious and political contexts for example.

Another catch for me lies in the fact that we as humans think we are capable of comprehending god, as if he/she/it were to walk past us on the sidewalk. Just because visible light waves are the only electromagnetic waves we can see, doesn't mean they are the only lightwaves in existence. Same with frequency and sound waves.

I'm not saying that how you feel is wrong, but I would question the absolute objectivity of some of the things you posted in this thread. I would also take issue with Richard Dawkins characterization of faith as 'a process of non-thinking'. I've never been one to interpret the bible literally.

What drove me away from religion was an extreme discomfort with being controled.

What keeps you teathered to psuedo-faith (you obviously aren't devout) is the fact that in your mind family and faith in god are fundamentally linked. Had that been the case for me, I would have found it difficult to pull away.

Obviously. You words here bear that out quite clearly.
What I'm saying is that the experience of religion needn't be one of control.
In the same way that the experience of sex needn't be one of rape.
My earliest experiences with faith were symbolic, not religious.
My earliest experiences with religion were those of love and being loved by family.
While we partook of religion only ceremoniously, our faith wasn't in religion.
Family was our religion.

The thing is set up to control, though. Many Christians upon hearing that you only go to church on holidays and really only observe things like prayer before eating would say that you're going to hell for not being a real Christian. They are being controled.

Maybe I should clarify. Going back to the Matrix analogy, the devout are in the matrix, and the agnostics or those who really only do religon when it's convenient are like Sypher. You know the whole thing isn't right, but you go along anyway.
Wouldn't that make anyone who brings a child to church a pedophile?
So I say again, religion is fundamentally linked with your family. May I ask if you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins on the cross and was raised by god again, so that he would ascent into heaven? A yes or no answer would be fine.

That's their problem, not mine. Them telling me I'm going to hell for living how I do means nothing to me. I don't hold it against them for feeling compelled to pass such a judgement.
Could you elaborate?

Religion is linked with my family in the same way that golf is linked with my family. We are secular, but not non-religious.
I believe that a guy named Jesus was killed by some romans, and then was buried. End of story. Answer: no.

I have a question: Do you believe that god has a body, and concerns himself with humanity?

You're not Christian, then. Youre a secularist that follows the positive morality of the bible, something I have no problem with.
God may exist, but because I see no proof as such I am lead to believe his existence is extremely unlikely. If god does exist, then his nature is a mystery to me so I can't really answer your questions. If I had to guess, I'd say that god doesn't exist, but I can't say that with absolute certianty (just like I can't say with absolute certianty that taking a picture of someone doesn't steal their soul).

You describe the ancient dilemna of Faith.
Sooner or later, we all take the leap, this way or that.
Plus, you have an insurance policy in case of emergency: "Born Again"

Why does he (Dawkins), or anyone else for that matter, feel the inherant need to convince others that they are wrong for what they believe, or don't believe? It's simple, really...keep your faith out of my face, and I'll keep my lack of faith out of yours. Why is that so hard for some people? I'm secure enough, in my thinking, that I do not have this overwhelming drive to attract others to my views, as a form of self-validation. As an atheist, I see no compelling reason to "convert" the righteous, or the self-righteous, over to my way of thinking. In fact, the more God fearing, church going, Christians there are...the better tee times I can get at the golf course on Sunday morning.

The only way I'll be born again is if I am presentd with real evidence of the existence of god, which I don't really expect will happen.

The "evidence", for those willing to perceive it as such, is all around us and within us. I'm as much an atheist as you are, will, but I'm thinking less conflicted about it? Maybe "infinite grace" has its drawbacks, as ideas go...

As a debate, Atheism will always win over religion until tangible proof of God's existence is placed on the table.

That's Agnosticism.