What is Your Worldview?

Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," published in Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85This message has been edited by MrHambre, 08-30-2004 01:07 PM

Phatboy,I assume you were joking about the "verbal jousts" ‘twixt me and the Windy City’s favorite son Dan Carroll. I admit our repartee has all the tense drama and scathing wit of an Amish rake fight. Now that his preferred sparring partner Mike the Wiz is back, I’m off the hook.Okay, so the warm and fuzzy Dawkins quote leaves a little to be desired in the originality department. Allow me to elucidate. It’s a superficial parlor game to pay lip service to spiritual and supernatural ‘realities’ that exist only in the Disneyfied corners of our pampered imaginations. It’s downright insulting to be told (as per your OP) that we can only reach our potential by embracing the believer’s delusions.By looking at this world in a realistic, rational way, and admitting the cruelty and purposelessness of it, I’m trying to emphasize the responsibility we share in improving the things we can. I deplore the seemingly inexhaustible appeal of the I’ll-pay-you-back-after-you-die scam, which never fails to make people want to suffer and make others suffer through this brief time we have on our admittedly wondrous world. If you think my worldview is bleak, just look at your own.Regards,
Esteban Hambre

Hangdawg opines:

quote:

---

We live in a ruthless world. But somehow, the harsh nature of the physical universe ends, and the kingdom of heaven begins in the hearts and minds of those who are open to God's Spirit in all its goodness.

---

Since 9/11/01, my patience with this sort of touchy-feely nonsense has evaporated. I'd have to say that religious belief only perpetuates and reinforces the cynicism and cruelty of this ruthless world. An avowed faith in God's Spirit merely allows the believer to rationalize the suffering of others as a product of divine will; to play it safe until the big payoff on Judgment Day; and to ridicule non-believers as the deluded ones.You're the one who has taken it upon himself to tell atheists that our lives are devoid of meaning and purpose. For someone who considers this life just a rehearsal for the afterlife, you've got balls.regards,
Esteban Hambre

buz,How could you forget Lazarus rising from the dead?Do you take all that literally? According to Schraf's Paradox, The Bible is the literal word of God, because it says in the Bible that the Bible is the literal word of God. In other words, you have an autoconfirming construct for a worldview.If the aim of religion is to make the believer accept things that he would otherwise reject through basic rational discernment, what does that say about the God who is the focus of this belief?regards,
Esteban Hambre

Ifen,You misunderstood what I meant about 9-11. Before then, I had the same sort of irritated tolerance for fundie belief that I have for smokers. However, the fact of the matter is that irrational religious belief was the major motivation for those maniacal hijackers, and religious leaders have since been scrambling to distance themselves from that sort of belief to no avail. Our own Hangdawg here accompanies his bizarre philosophical rantings with an avatar whose theme of an airborne religious threat is eerily reminiscent of the heinous 9-11 terrorism. It's no surprise that he has taken it upon himself to condemn people like me for atheist, anti-militarist, pro-choice views. He warns us that we'll all get what we deserve from his vengeful God. So what's the difference?regards,
Esteban Hambre

Hangdawg alleges:

quote:

---

I'm just stating what I believe the truth to be. More than anything else, I am interested in the truth.

---

However, most people realize that they have to use reason to arrive at the truth. In contrast, you and Phatboy just make it up as you go along, and warn anyone who doesn't agree that there's a price to pay for doubt. What sort of truth-seeking is that?The problem with your comparison of belief in God's Spirit and belief in freedom, women's rights, or hard work is that there's no objective way to define or quantify God's Spirit, is there? Even if freedom or rights are abstract concepts, at least we can come to a consensus about them. With God's Spirit we just have to take your word for it. This is truth?Don't make it sound like you've never talked about the pie-in-the-sky deal you've got coming, or the utter meaninglessness of the lives of atheists. I'm sorry I'm not, uh, receptive enough to the slew of nonsense with which you filled post #31, but I'm past the age where I judge everything emotionally. If you believe that there's life after death or spiritual and soul realities, fine for you, but don't try to accuse us of being closed-minded for pointing out that there doesn't exist a shred of evidence that supports your view. You obviously have a reason for believing it, but rationally you don't have a leg to stand on.My viewpoint is that, since they have the potential for great violence as well, we should find plenty of inspiration in the real capability of humans to be kind, generous, artistic, and heroic. People have the right to expect more out of life instead of waiting for a big payoff after they die. And our imaginations are better used trying to fathom how our universe works and how to improve it, rather than concocting stories to make our ignorance easier to bear.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

Wow, I have a particular paradox named after me now?

---

If we could enforce the payment of royalties every time a fundie invoked your paradox, you could afford a summer cottage in the Tetons. Until then, console yourself with online immortality.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 09-08-2004 12:11 AM

contracycle,

quote:

---

I advocate a system that is NON GOVERNMENT, but instead freedom and independance.

---

That's the same thing that libertarians and free-market hypercapitalists say, but that doesn't make it any less pie-in-the-sky just because you claim Marxism is a more valid philosophy than laissez-faire. Marxism is pseudoscientific, as evidenced by its inability to formulate testable predictions as well as the post-hoc rationalizations of its adherents in the face of its demonstrable shortcomings. If we can't claim that, for example, the old Soviet Union testifies to problems with Marxism (since you claim that state communism isn't a valid demonstration of true communism), then you can't claim that America is an example of capitalism's woes. The capitalists could merely repeat your claim that state capitalism is not true capitalism, and why would we have any more reason to accept their word than yours?Let's recall that Marx's translation of Hegel's dialectics did indeed call for a dictatorship of the proletariat, the final post-revolution synthesis of political and economic power. In the absence of class struggle, this dictatorship was supposed to wither away as the society reorganized according to principles of egalitarianism and cooperation. It's not surprising that no communist society has made it to this Promised Land, since governments (let alone dictatorships) never operate for any other aim than self-perpetuation.Revolution is the opium of the dogmatist. We're supposed to forget that the American Revolution led to the megacorporate capitalism that needs to conquer the world for garbage dumps, slave labor and rubes to whom it can shill its wares. We're not supposed to recall that the French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror and produced that paragon of egalitarianism, Napoleon. And we can't even mention the Russian Revolution, which led to a disastrous economic program that starved millions and a maniacal tyranny that crushed dissent mercilessly. You say you want a revolution? Count me out.regards,
Esteban Hambre