Atheist attitudes.

Even supposing it does, what of it?Some people survive some catastrophe and look at the laws of physics to ascertain a reason why they survived. Some times in instances the answer defies physics, like how parachutists have survived falls from well beyond a point that would cause death. Some people attribute it to miracles from God.It doesn't really matter to me what the person believes. Why are you so concerned with it?Why not argue the specifics, instead of trying to crush "God" altogether?See, I am not religious. If a person brings up a bible verse, for instance, that contradicts with another one, I let them know, and we'll debate that. You on other hand seem personally slighted if someone believes in God.With Dawkins, and possibly yourself, he seems to view it as his civic duty to tell people there is no God. Inversely the religious man feels that it is his civic duty to tell you about God's saving grace.Either way both ingratiate themselves and are very zealous for their beliefs. What then is the difference between the two, other than they believe in the opposite? It is also the SAME irrationality that lead to Lenin and Stalin murdering anyone who was of religious faith. People use all sorts of reasons to justify atrocity, but does not mean that one necessitates the other, otherwise ALL religious people would have done the same thing. Blaming religion or atheism as the sole factor is slanderous character assassination. "Love your neighbor as yourself" doesn't give people a mindset to kill. Atheism on the other hand has specific tenet that can call upon, other than the ruthlessness of survival of the fittest and clearing away the competition. Even then, one can't assume that it be a reason, justification or mindset for murder. So are a lot of social things, like the glorifaction of all the things you listed in movies, music, and television. That obviously does not explain why he has such an aversion towards religion, otherwise his own crusade would encompass much more than religion.For the ills he speaks about religion, there are incalculable acts of philanthropy associated with it. It therefore is presumptuous and unfair to only look at the negative aspects while denying the positive ones. If Dawkin's really wanted to help humanity, he could go out and feed the poor. That he hides his intentions behind the false pretense of wanting to rid religion for the benefit of "humanity" is just as pathetic as the televangelist doing the same thing.

---

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

... and let's not forget all the wonderful books on biology and evolution that he has written over the years. He is an ethologist and evolutionary biologist first and foremost, as well as an ardent defender of proper science education.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

No, that's just his main focus. I'm sure he has other extra-curricular activities as well, like everyone else. That really is all I'm saying. By coming across as hating religion, who by that tactic would want to turn? It's the same principle as the bible-thumping, fire and brimstone teacher. No one would respond to that kind of preaching well. Why don't they understand that?It's almost like this is all a big game to them.

---

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

Hyroglyphx, This doesn't even make sense. Either I made a blanket statement or I didn't. I ask again, please show where you garnered the opinion of my "all-encompassing condemnation" of all things religious. Be specific or please be prepared to say you were wrong. No I don't. I never said indoctrination was a prerequisite for religion. Nor is your opinion on indoctrination relevant to me losing objectivity. Non-sequitur. You were asked to show where I lost objectivity. Either do it or admit your "opinion" is wrong.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Do you not agree that abandoning rationality has negative effects and should be discouraged? Some people are also idiots who cannot distinguish "improbable" from "impossible," and apply the empty explanation of their choice to any situation they are not personally able to explain. A rational "I don't know" becomes an irrational "Goddidit." For the most part I'm not. Don't mistake my participation in an online debate forum for my real-world behavior - I don't counter-evangelize or mock religious people I come across in my everyday life. In general, I don't talk about religion at all outside of this and one or two other forums, and the occasional Jehovah's Witness or other evangelist who approaches me on the subject.I hold the opinion, backed with what appears to me to be sound logic, that religion in general is "bad" for society because it embraces irrational thinking. I consider some specific religions to be particularly "bad" because of their history, the specific instructions set down in their religious texts that encourage barbaric behavior (even if not all denominations of the same religion obey those instructions), and the authoritarian ethics system that I find morally abhorrent.I also bear some resentment towards Christianity in particular because of my experience in breaking away from it, and the way the teachings of that particular religion cause stress in my familial life.But in no way do I support taking any sort of overt action to penalize religion. The extent of my "concern" is to respond with my honest opinion when asked,a nd to participate in some light debate online. That doesn't strike me as very significant concern over other people's beliefs, Hyro. Who's trying to crush god(s)? Not I. I argue against irrationality in very specific outlets; god(s) are simply one example, and one that comes up most frequently here. You seem to be able to psychically determine my emotional reaction.I don't feel "slighted." I occasionally become frustrated when debating, but since debate is simply a formalized system of argument (and there's very little formality here), that's to be expected. Your analysis of my emotional state is lacking. Percy believes in God - I don't feel "slighted" by him. RAZD believes in God - I don't feel "slighted" by him despite the heated arguments we've had on the subject. In fact, I consider both to be among the most intelligent people I've spoken to.My frustrations stem from miscommunication, repeatedly refuted statements, falsehoods, ethical issues, etc. Simply believing in god(s) or arguing for their existence doesn't "slight" me in the least. Dawkins simply doesn't feel an obligation to remain silent on his own opinions, since others are not required to remain silent on their own. Why are you so offended by a person expressing his opinion? It's not even what he talks aboutmost of the time, it's simply what he's most famous for because of the outrage it causes among many religious people when their beliefs are accused of being irrational. ...the fact that one uses evidence and logic, while the other does not? The fact that one is widely hated and reviled, while the other is not? The fact that one says nothing more than "that's absurd, and probably harmful," while the other says "you deserve eternal torment?"Your mindless-middle equation of religious proselytizing with the rejection of religion is absurd.Is the person who speaks out against racism "just as bad" as the racist?There isn't always a middle ground, Hyro. Compromise is not always the most accurate solution. Sometimes, one side is right, and the other is wrong. Making factual and logically supported statements about religion is not in any way the same as condemning a person to Hell because...because I don't like you and my book says so. Bullshit. Stalin tried to stomp out religion for completely rational (and also completely unethical) reasons: he didn't want a competing power structure.He didn't decide that Christianity was bad because a magic toilet goblin told him so. He didn't decide that all Christians were aliens and burn them at the stake when they floated. He didn't even decide that religion was "evil."He did it to centralize all power into the state.Stalin was a monster, but it's really quite tiring to hear the same old argument that he was the same as religiously-motivated genocidal maniacs. It's quite simply factually incorrect. This isn't about justification, its about motivation. Specifically, it's about embracing irrationality as a valid means of determining reality. It's about confidence in the unverifiable. It's an argumetn compeltely separate from your silly red herring regarding Stalin. No, but "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" sure does. You seem to have had some difficulty in sentence structure there.Atheism has no ethical component to it; it can't. Atheism is the simple lack of belief in god(s). It says absolutely nothing whatsoever regarding morality or motivation; the closest it can get is saying that neither morality nor motivation can come from god(s) since they don't exist. "Survival of the fittest" is not an ethical mandate of atheism; "survival of the weakest" follows from "god(s) do not appear to exist" just as well, in that neither are specified or implied by a lack of belief in deities. Perhaps because nothing has had such a massive social impact as religion? Perhaps because even now decisions at the national level are influenced by an irrational belief system, and not in fact by last night's episode of Friends or The Dark Knight? Your argument would be better without so many red herrings. And the truth is "somewhere in the middle," right?Your Golden Mean bullshit is tiring.Simple, yes/no, binary questions:Is the acceptance of irrationality as a valid means of describing reality a positive or negative effect on society?Is it good that people believe in things without evidence, or even in opposition to evidence? Or is it bad?Is it better for people to base their opinions and beliefs on objective evidence, or subjective "feelings?"The "positive effects" of religion seem to be readily duplicated withotu religion. Philanthropy happens regardless of religious belief. It's yet another one of those red herrings you;re so fond of.The relevant question is whether irrationality is praiseworthy or should be discouraged. Are you so certain that he doesn't donate to charities? Is helping a class of citizens often reviled by their neighbors to find acceptance and validation not helping humanity? Is encouraging adherence to the scientific method over traditionalist bullshit not helping humanity?Is being a professor, passing on knowledge to future generations, not helping humanity?Your bullshit is thick, Hyro.

Is that a fact that it is his main focus, or is it just your perception of him? But he doesn't come across as 'hating religion' to everyone. There are several people who some people think 'hate religion', despite them explicitly saying otherwise. Except for the fact that some people do respond to that kind of preaching well. I'm not convinced that Dawkins' style of rhetoric is analagous to a fire and brimstone preacher - what properties do you refer to specifically? It seems clear that sitting around and pretending that there are no social problems surrounding religion hasn't worked since special interest groups keep plugging away and engaging in political pressure etc. Some atheist groups are more 'accomodationist', and others are more confrontational. Each has its place in discourse - do you have any evidence that one is more 'successful' than the other?If so, may I invite you to The war of atheism for your input?

Dawkins doing an interview about his latest book about evolution. The interviewer asks him about atheism and he says:

quote:

---

...I get a bit fed up of being wheeled out as 'the atheist'...

---

(about 3:55 in) He was given a platform to discuss his atheism and he expresses that he is getting tired of the media constantly asking him about it even when he is there to talk about something else.Bloody militant zealot! He even goes on to deny that it is important to destroy religion.

I'm losing interest in this debate, so I will sign off with this one last thing. Let us utilize Ockham's Razor here: What is more reasonable? That mass droves of people, some who even find his position on religion favorable, see his message as being too extreme and therefore counterproductive to his own goals, or that all those people, including myself, are just crazy and misunderstand him?In many of his interviews, the interviewers often ask the inevitable question to him. This is pretty common knowledge that we're dealing with. So what better serves Ockham's Razor? Are we all just crazy or is it possible that Dawkin's has done this to himself?That is all. What a monster

---

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

I think the more reasonable position is that this is a false dichotomy. Whenever this topic comes up, I find it very difficult to find out exactly what and why people feel the way they do about Dawkins, and they have difficulty in explaining it.The question as to whether Dawkins' tactic is productive or otherwise is an emprical one (though difficult). I think it has served a valuable function in 'shaking things up' and getting it talked about and giving some people, in some cases, the support they needed to 'come out'. His stated aims included 'to raise consciousness about these issues and to challenge the social taboo surrounding criticising religious ideas - especially those that impact politics' (not a quote, incidentally), which I think he has done rather excellently.However, this is a different question as to whether Dawkins is an extremist, a fundamentalist, as bad as fire and brimstone preachers, militant or seeding/promoting hatred. And this is the position where people start finding it difficult to support and explain.I think that at least some people come to the conclusion that Dawkins is a firebreathing extremist as above, and use that (mis)impression of him to conclude that his methods are counterproductive.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hyro's just piling on the fallacies. Mentioning Occam's Razor is just another red herring to distract us from the fact that he's appealing to popularity.Labels like "militant" and "extremist" are being applied inconsistently, which tends to be what happens when dealing with subjective judgment calls on matters that people will strongly agree or disagree with. The defensive reaction I feel when a preacher tells me I'm going to Hell is likely the same reaction a religious person feels when Dawkins suggests that religious thought is harmful and irrational. I think that emotional reaction has far more to do with the labels than any objective reasoning. It's really just a way of saying "you've offended me."

It is not a red herring if you consider the fact that what we are dealing with is subjective. Would you agree that this all boils down to subjective claims and opinions about Dawkins? We're not really getting anywhere, nor will we because we're dealing with opinions. You trying to convince me that he's not abrasive is like trying to "prove" to me that strawberry ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream.That being said, consider this, since you think I made a logical fallacy. When dealing with subjective claims, consensus often becomes a valuable tool and here is why:For the purposes of a social experiment let's say we have 100 people in a room who have never met before, but have been mingling for several hours getting to know one another. At the end of the night, 1 of those individuals claim that the other 99 are mean to him. The 99 claim that they all get along fine except for the 1, and really it is the 1 individual who is mean, stand-offish, combative, and appears to be delusional with a persecution complex.Who is the common denominator in all the conflict? The 1 individual, right? Unless there is a massive conspiracy having all the people who never knew each before are now somehow colluding with one another, the answer reasonably lies with the common denominator, as in Ockham's Razor.Likewise if enough people are rubbed the wrong way about Dawkins, including people who generally agree with him, and even HE agrees!, then maybe, just maybe Rrhavin, what I'm saying might have some foundation.It still boils to opinion, sure, but there is a large consensus that one cannot be glib about.You think he's the bee's knee's. Great! I really don't care enough about it to be arguing over it. I disagree and I said what I wanted to say. Since we aren't dealing with objective claims, it's just going to go around in meaningless circles which is why I am wanting to disengage and focus on other topics. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

True, but there is a key difference: At least Dawkins has the courtesy of explaining why he feels that religious ideas are harmful while also conceding that he might wrong. The preacher is less likely to make tentative statements, and is almost certainly not going to explain the rationale behind hell and your condemnation to it beyond the dogma of the church as based on the selected writings of anonymous Greek authors.But yes, the emotional reaction is likely to be a big part of a lot of criticism people like Dawkins (and even more so the gentle and pleasant Dennett!) face.

Hyroglyphx responds to me:

quote:

---

Clearly you're not understanding the point of the exercise.

---

On the contrary. I understand it perfectly. That's why I'm pointing out that it's nonsense. You're trying to play a semantic game, hoping that we won't notice that your substitution won't play out. That is, you're using emotionally charged terms in an attempt to invoke guilt in those who advocated the original argument. In short, you're trying to change the subject. Suddenly, we're talking about racism rather than the original topic. Since it is next to impossible to defend against a charge of racism, you get to claim victory.There are so many logical errors in your tactics that it's hard to know where to begin. Changing the subject, certainly, followed by poisoning the well and some combination of red herring and guilt by association.Race and dogma are not interchangeable. Therefore, your substitution of the former into a discussion of the latter fails on the most casual of inspections.

quote:

---

I'm illustrating how if someone attacks religion it is socially acceptable, but is taboo for most anything else.

---

Incorrect. You are confusing a mental trait with a physical one. By your logic, we should be concerned that we can "attack" any cognitive structure such as the idea that we should drive on the right side of the road as opposed to the left while doing so for other subjects is "taboo."Religion is an idea.Race is not.

quote:

---

I'm not saying that Dawkins doesn't reserve the right to say it, I'm just pointing out that his methodology is a bit severe.

---

And we're just saying that no, it isn't. The issue is that people are deeply emotionally invested in their religious philosophy and thus to hear anybody contradict it on a fundamental level can be a very personal matter and will be declared an "attack."

quote:

---

Well, if you look at something like what Jesus taught I doubt many people can reasonably find fault in it.

---

Violence, arrogance, holier-than-thou attitude...there's plenty to find fault in. The man cursed a fig tree to wither and die for having the audacity to not be bearing fruit out of season.

quote:

---

So, no, I don't think someone belonging to a certain religion necessarily has to behave like a "bad apple" because it is inherently flawed.

---

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? As the very book Christians claim to follow says, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." I fully understand that people are not perfect, but there is a difference between being fallible, understanding that imperfection, and being sorry (on the one hand) and being unrepentant.

quote:

---

but not so much that I wear a blindfold so that I can't see that some very positive things come from it.

---

And Dawkins respects that, too. However, such positive things can and do come from other methods without all the other baggage that comes along. There were throngs of people rallying in support of Gotti, but any good he did doesn't mitigate the evil.

quote:

---

It's a good thing you're nothing like those hate mongering and sanctimonious Christians, Rrhain.

---

Nice try, but physician, heal thyself. I have never put myself forward as a nice person. But to run to genocide as the best analogy for your argument shows not only that you don't understand the Holocaust but even more importantly, you don't understand your own argument.

quote:

---

Clearly religion makes them behave that way, and as we ALL can see, your irreligion has served you so well in not behaving like them.

---

Who said I didn't believe in god? I know I certainly haven't. I take great pains not to mention my opinions regarding the existence or not of supernatural beings precisely for this reason: I don't want people reacting to their preconceived notions of how someone who believes/doesn't believe thinks and acts.Do you have a response based upon what I actually said and not what the voices in your head have whispered?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

Race and dogma are not interchangeable. Therefore, your substitution of the former into a discussion of the latter fails on the most casual of inspections.

---

True, race and religion are not equivalent. But race and religion are both protected against discrimination in US federal law (e.g. employment, housing, etc.). So in a discussion of predjudice, discrimination, tolerance, etc, shouldn't there be an interchangeability between the two?

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

So in a discussion of predjudice, discrimination, tolerance, etc, shouldn't there be an interchangeability between the two?

---

Not really, no. The fact that final status is the same doesn't mean the way you got there and the justifications are the same.It's called "false equivalency." It's also incorrectly reversing the implication arrows. That is, discrimination affects many things and the reasons why discrimination is bad flows out to those. However, why certain things are discriminated against are not the same and don't flow back in the same way.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.