The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => The Lounge => Topic started by: James on December 19, 2006, 08:51:36 AM

Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: James on December 19, 2006, 08:51:36 AM
I was wondering if any UK posters caught the Channel 4 documentary on radical atheism last night, and its parallels with religion. I would have thought this would be especially interesting to such posters as Ubuntu, and possibly a good stimulus for discussion.

The presenter, Rod Little, claimed that inflexible atheism was at least as misguided as inflexible religious faith, interviewing eminent atheists and theists alike.

I was surprised he didn't bring up the "Brights organization" (essentially a church of atheism) which I think Ubuntu referred us to a while ago.
Title: Re: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 19, 2006, 09:12:08 AM
No, but it sounds interesting. I've made the same claim on these boards several times.

I don't suppose there's any way to access the documentary online, for those outside of the UK?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: HiveLord on December 19, 2006, 10:24:50 AM
I don't think any dogs believe in God.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: James on December 19, 2006, 12:54:23 PM
I'm not sure there's an actual online copy of the program itself, but http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/index.html is the blurb describing it and the discussion surrounding it.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on December 19, 2006, 02:04:57 PM
Definitely and clearly false.

Atheism revolves around the idea of looking at all the evidence and drawing a conclusion.  With today's science, we can explain virtually everything about religion.  We know that it happens in the temporal lobes.  We know that it usually is caused in early childhood.  We have a number of strong theories as to why it happens relating to our survival advantage in believing what we're told at a young age and our instinct to see purpose or intent in everything including inanimate objects.  We also know that supernatural experiences are usually caused by stimulating the temporal lobes and we know that we can simulate religious experience by stimulating the temporal lobes.  We know that prayer has no effect on the people you're praying for and that the claims made by religion are false.  We know how life could have come from no life and how it could have evolved from such simple forms to the life we see today.  We know how all this could happen without direction or purpose.

If we accept science, which is the pursuit of knowledge and of the fundamental truths of the world that are not effected by our perceptions then we can say that with all probability, no supernatural beings of any description exist.  We can't rule that out 100%, but we can rule it out 99.99%.  If we accept there is a possibility that supernatural beings exist, we need to accept that there is a possibility that we have giant fridge sized diamonds in our back yards and that there are invisible pink unicorns running around.  If we dismiss those beliefs as ludicrous, we must dismiss all the ludicrous beliefs.

On the other hand, a religious person - fanatical or not - ultimate has, by definition, a belief in something which does not have evidence or infallible reason to back it up.  It's not a probability or a likelihood.  It's a delusion.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Erasmus on December 19, 2006, 07:40:39 PM
Quote from: "beast"
Definitely and clearly false.

...

On the other hand, a religious person - fanatical or not - ultimate has, by definition, a belief in something which does not have evidence or infallible reason to back it up.  It's not a probability or a likelihood.  It's a delusion.


While I may disagree with some of beasts supporting points, mostly on minor, semantic issues, I have to agree overall.  Religion demands faith without reason -- if you have reasons, even if you also have faith, it's not the same thing as religion.

p.s. Oh, and, atheism doesn't involve worshipping anything as far as I can tell; I believe this to be an essential feature of religion.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 19, 2006, 08:06:21 PM
Beast, much of what you say is true, but entirely besides the point. The point is that religion has a long history, a vast following, and immense importance to those who believe in it, and their beliefs are not ludicrous because 1) it doesn't include easily disproved beliefs, and 2) the things it does believe are made mainstream and acceptable by the aforementioned long history and vast following. Furthermore, many of the things they do believe are quite good and right, such as "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "thou shalt not kill". So calling them deluded and their beliefs ludicrous is an entirely unjustified personal attack, which is every bit as vicious as the claims made by other religious against nonbelievers. It is irrelevant whether you can use science to explain the things religious people believe. This is indeed a good argument in favor of accepting atheism, but it is not an argument for intolerance of religious people.

Do you not agree that people have a right to believe what they want, and teach their kids what they want? It is irrelevant whether the things they believe are correct or even damaging - as long as they are not comitting actual crimes, they have the right to believe whatever they want to. And you have to admit that the vast majority of religious people do not commit crimes in the name of religion, and most religions actively discourage their followers from doing evil.

To me, even if someone's beliefs were provably false, that doesn't provide a justification for attacking that person, unless they are actually comitting crimes, or encouraging others to do so. And in this case, the beliefs aren't even provably false, just very unlikely to be true (in our opinion, which is backed up by some evidence, but not proof).

P.S. Let's not quibble about whether atheism is or is not a religion. Ultimately it's not a question about the nature of atheism, but of how you define the term "religion". The point is whether radical atheism is comitting the same sin as radical religious belief by preaching intolerance. I believe it is, and I think being tolerant, kind, and accepting of others' differences is far more important than whether you do or do not believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on December 19, 2006, 08:16:51 PM
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Do you not agree that people have a right to believe what they want, and teach their kids what they want? It is irrelevant whether the things they believe are correct or even damaging - as long as they are not comitting actual crimes, they have the right to believe whatever they want to.


I agree with most else that you said, but this is unsettling.  I don't believe that it is morally right for society to let parents teach their kids hate and intolerance.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Erasmus on December 19, 2006, 08:24:46 PM
This should be fun:

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
I believe it is, and I think being tolerant, kind, and accepting of others' differences is far more important than whether you do or do not believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


Why?

Why do you believe it's important to be accepting of others' differences?  I agree that "tolerance" in the political sense of not hanging people or preventing them from holding public office because of their religion is probably the right way to go.  But "accepting" sounds like saying, "Yeah, it's okay with me that you believe that," which, as a person that admits to having often tried to change what people believe, is not a response I can honestly make to religious views in all circumstances.

Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
I don't believe that it is morally right for society to let parents teach their kids hate and intolerance.


Why?

What authority do you think we have to tell anybody what to teach their children?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on December 19, 2006, 08:29:09 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
I don't believe that it is morally right for society to let parents teach their kids hate and intolerance.


Why?

What authority do you think we have to tell anybody what to teach their children?


Seems reasonable enough to argue that not allowing such intolerance to be taught will undoubtedly prevent future crimes based on that hate and intolerance.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: dysfunction on December 19, 2006, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
I don't believe that it is morally right for society to let parents teach their kids hate and intolerance.


Why?

What authority do you think we have to tell anybody what to teach their children?


Seems reasonable enough to argue that not allowing such intolerance to be taught will undoubtedly prevent future crimes based on that hate and intolerance.


But there's freedom of speech. To offset parents' influence, we need to have stronger education on such things in schools.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on December 19, 2006, 08:33:11 PM
Hopefully by then it'll actually work.  I think most damage is done in the 5 years before kids get to school :-\
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 19, 2006, 08:36:27 PM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
I don't believe that it is morally right for society to let parents teach their kids hate and intolerance.

Fine. What should society do about it then? There are people now who teach their children to be white supremacists, which is pretty universally accepted to be an intolerant, hateful, and evil thing to teach. But what can society do about it, other than hope that the children are intelligent, independent, and freethinking enough to rise above their upbringing? We can't take the children away from their parents, or jail the parents, as this is worse than simply allowing the parents to teach their kids. We could (and do) teach tolerance in public schools, but this may not be able to stop the parents from getting their message across to their kids, and nothing stops the white supremacists from homeschooling or sending their kids to private schools which don't teach the same things as the public schools. We could make public schooling mandatory, but it still won't teach anything contradicting what most of the population believes, and still won't carry the same weight as what the parents teach their children.

I agree that teaching hate and intolerance is a terrible wrong that parents inflict on their children and on society as a whole, but what can society do to stop it that isn't worse than the problem itself? With apologies to Benjamin Franklin, people who are willing to give up freedom in the name of stamping out intolerance, deserve neither freedom nor tolerance. I hope that religion will eventually die out as scientific knowledge and education grows, but I expect that this process will take centuries if not millenia, and I don't see any way of speeding it up without resorting to the same sort of pogroms and religious persecution that have been caused by religions in the past. I think the atheists have the chance to let people come 'round the right way, by calmly and rationally explaining our views and reasons for them when asked, attacking nobody because of their beliefs, and accepting whatever choice of belief other people may make.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: dysfunction on December 19, 2006, 08:36:27 PM
Unfortunately yes. We can't dictate good parenting. Parents have freedom of speech.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 19, 2006, 08:45:29 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
What authority do you think we have to tell anybody what to teach their children?

Well said.

Quote
This should be fun:

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
I believe it is, and I think being tolerant, kind, and accepting of others' differences is far more important than whether you do or do not believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


Why?

Why do you believe it's important to be accepting of others' differences?  I agree that "tolerance" in the political sense of not hanging people or preventing them from holding public office because of their religion is probably the right way to go.  But "accepting" sounds like saying, "Yeah, it's okay with me that you believe that," which, as a person that admits to having often tried to change what people believe, is not a response I can honestly make to religious views in all circumstances.

Yes, I guess I am saying "yeah, it's okay with me that you believe that" when it comes to others religious beliefs in a lot of cases. I don't feel this way when people's religious beliefs tell them to blow themselves up as long as they take as many infidels as possible with them, but I do feel this way when it comes to people who believe in a god who wants them to be nice to their fellow human being. If they draw strength and comfort from this belief, and it doesn't hurt anyone, why shouldn't I be okay with it? When it comes to the more objectionable beliefs (like the first example) then certainly those who commit crimes - or who urge others to commit crimes - should be punished for those actions, but I defend the rights of my fellow men and women to believe that homosexuality is an abomination, that Jews should leave the Middle East, and that I'm going to hell, no matter how much I disagree with those beliefs, and deplore the use of violence in the name of those - or any - beliefs.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 19, 2006, 08:52:46 PM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Seems reasonable enough to argue that not allowing such intolerance to be taught will undoubtedly prevent future crimes based on that hate and intolerance.

Perhaps it will. It seems reasonable to me as well that if we were to place a monitoring device on every individual to determine their location at all times, and immediately execute anyone who was within 1 block of a serious crime, it would undoubtedly prevent future crimes. That doesn't mean we should do it. Simply teaching your kids is not telling them to commit crimes, so it is an untenable breach of parental freedom to treat it as if it were. A human rights violation for a good cause is still a human rights violation, and every parent has a right to raise their own children as they think is right.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on December 20, 2006, 12:08:57 AM
I don't really have time to answer the specific posts, but to answer Skeptic's general theme.

I have never heard of any serious atheist seriously state that we should force people not to have religion and I have certainly never stated that.  People should be free to believe whatever they want.  I'm not so sure if they should be able to teach their kids whatever they want.  A friend of mine's Dad was a Nazi and brought his son up to be a nazi as well.  I think that's pretty wrong and I'm glad that my friend has actually met people from different races and changed his political views, but I imagine that there are a lot of kids in jail for hate crimes because of what their parents taught them.  I don't know if the solution is to issues like that, but certainly I think it's morally wrong to teach your child to follow a particular religion or ideology.  I will give my children as much evidence as I can and let them make up their own minds.  Presumably I'll be biased towards atheism but if they decide to be Christians, Mormons or Wiccan's I'll love them just the same (but not if they're emo - obviously).  But obviously there are significant ethical issues with not letting people teach their children whatever they want either and at this stage, like with religious belief, I would be happy to go with strong arguments rather than actual law changes.


So to sum up.  I know of no atheists, including myself, who believe that we should in any way force atheism on to people.  We should simply argue and verbally attack religion in a mature and responsible manner at every opportunity.  I do not advocate anything beyond this, and I've never heard the atheists who I read advocate anything else.  I simply think it is a false and misleading claim to suggest otherwise.

I have no doubt that you can find some off the cuff remark made by an atheist about killing all religious people, just as you can find a million remarks by religious people suggesting we kill all atheists, but those a certainly very rare and probably said in jest, rather than a serious intent.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 20, 2006, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: "beast"
A friend of mine's Dad was a Nazi and brought his son up to be a nazi as well.  I think that's pretty wrong and I'm glad that my friend has actually met people from different races and changed his political views, but I imagine that there are a lot of kids in jail for hate crimes because of what their parents taught them.  I don't know if the solution is to issues like that, but certainly I think it's morally wrong to teach your child to follow a particular religion or ideology.

I, too, am glad that your friend managed to get past the intolerant and unenlightened beliefs he was taught by his father, and think that anything we can do to spread tolerance is a good thing. But I still stand up for the right of parents to teach their children what they believe is right, as long as they aren't telling their children that they should commit crimes. I wish they would be more tolerant, but I also think that society should not interfere with parents raising their children.

Quote
I will give my children as much evidence as I can and let them make up their own minds.  Presumably I'll be biased towards atheism but if they decide to be Christians, Mormons or Wiccan's I'll love them just the same.

This is what I intend to do as well (depending, obviously, on the views of their mother, but probably we would be like-minded).

Quote
(but not if they're emo - obviously)

Yet more evidence that you are a horribly terrible and rotten person who would stop loving his own children if they listen to the wrong music. :P

Quote
But obviously there are significant ethical issues with not letting people teach their children whatever they want either and at this stage, like with religious belief, I would be happy to go with strong arguments rather than actual law changes.

I'm glad we agree on this.

Quote
So to sum up.  I know of no atheists, including myself, who believe that we should in any way force atheism on to people.  We should simply argue and verbally attack religion in a mature and responsible manner at every opportunity.  I do not advocate anything beyond this, and I've never heard the atheists who I read advocate anything else.  I simply think it is a false and misleading claim to suggest otherwise.

I didn't mean to suggest that any atheists were presently suggesting the use of violence or coercion, but I would also point out that christian evangelists were not originally suggesting it either, and then the inquisition happened. If atheist organizations teach that religious people are "deluded", religions are "ludicrous" and that religious belief causes people to hate and commit violence, it's not such a big step once atheism becomes a majority viewpoint to use coercive measures to stamp out religion "for the protection of society" or "for their own protection". On the other hand, if you believe as I do that religious belief is (in my opinion) probably false, but a perfectly understandable and acceptable world-view, as long as they are tolerant of other people not believing what they do, then this type of step becomes much harder.

It's not the actions that you are recommending that concern me, beast, as you strike me as someone who wouldn't ever try to force atheism on others. What concerns me is the attitude that you say we should all take towards people with religious beliefs, and what I see that leading to in a future when atheism becomes the norm, and many less enlightened atheists have been taught to think of religious belief as a dangerous delusion.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on December 20, 2006, 03:59:17 PM
Lets worry about what is currently happening, not what could theoretically happen one day when the planets align.  There have been atheist movements for thousands of years and none of them have resorted to violence.  It's hard to imagine it starting now.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Oliwoli on December 20, 2006, 04:05:11 PM
Communist Russia and China have both persecuted religion.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: dysfunction on December 20, 2006, 09:22:43 PM
Quote from: "Oliwoli"
Communist Russia and China have both persecuted religion.


So has every theocracy the world has ever known. Your point?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 20, 2006, 09:34:11 PM
Quote from: "beast"
Lets worry about what is currently happening, not what could theoretically happen one day when the planets align.

What is wrong with thinking about the future? I am worried about what is currently happening - I'm worried about the attitude that is spreading among atheists and which is being actively promoted by some atheists, and what that attitude could lead to.

Quote
There have been atheist movements for thousands of years and none of them have resorted to violence.

As has been mentioned, this is not true - communist regimes are a very good example of state-mandated atheism and it's repressive practice, including violence and human rights violations.

Quote
It's hard to imagine it starting now.

I don't find it at all hard to imagine. People behave very differently when they are in the majority from when they are a small community in the midst of a much larger one which believes differently than they do. People don't need religion to single out others as "different", and in every age there are people who have committed violence against those they perceive as "other". What do you think the type of people who in the past have thrown rocks and bottles at gay teenagers will do in a time when atheism is the norm and strongly religious people are a small minority? Do you think violence and mistreatment of religious people is more likely if you think that it's fine to believe whatever you want - as I do - or if you think of religion as a "delusion" and a "disease" whose "impact on society is negative and destructive" as you are telling us to?

It is never too soon to preach tolerance and acceptance of differences. People should be free to believe whatever, and when you start saying that the majority of people on this planet are deluded and diseased you are not part of the solution - you are contributing to the problem.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: joffenz on December 21, 2006, 09:35:16 AM
If I may respond for beast here...

Quote
People should be free to believe whatever, and when you start saying that the majority of people on this planet are deluded and diseased you are not part of the solution - you are contributing to the problem.


Does "freedom to believe whatever" include freedom to believe the majority of people on the planet are deluded?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 21, 2006, 10:46:49 AM
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Does "freedom to believe whatever" include freedom to believe the majority of people on the planet are deluded?

Yes it does. I don't mind if beast wants to hold the belief - what worries me is that he's trying to persuade as many people as he can to join him in that attitude, and doesn't have any concern at all that the attitude may later lead to persecution in the name of atheism very like the persecution in the name of religion we've seen in the past. He doesn't seem to think atheists will treat others badly because they are different, and claims that no atheist government has persecuted religion in the past, completely ignoring the evidence from communist countries. This strikes me as a dangerously naive attitude, and I will try to dissuade him if I can.

Also, I would like to point out another difference between my view and beast's - he is lumping all religion in to one basket and labelling it 'bad', without any consideration about what the religion actually believes and teaches, while I am specifically saying that it is bad to promote intolerant attitudes.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Erasmus on December 21, 2006, 11:11:56 AM
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
what worries me is that he's trying to persuade as many people as he can to join him in that attitude,


Interestingly, I am concerned when people try to persuade others to join them in ignorant and irrational attitudes -- which is the habit of religion.  So, the response that you are making towards beast's intolerance of religion is the response that I make towards religion itself... and, I suspect, that beast is making as well.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 21, 2006, 11:22:34 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
what worries me is that he's trying to persuade as many people as he can to join him in that attitude,


Interestingly, I am concerned when people try to persuade others to join them in ignorant and irrational attitudes -- which is the habit of religion.  So, the response that you are making towards beast's intolerance of religion is the response that I make towards religion itself... and, I suspect, that beast is making as well.

Yes, and I too am concerned about specific practicers of some religions who try to persuade them in ignorant and irrational attitudes. I am no fan of radical islam, and I think that many of the practices of conservative Christianity in the United States are problematic, and I would be fully in support of any attempt to persuade people to be more tolerant. The point is that I'm not making a blanket statement that religion is a problem - I am highlighting specific teachings of some religions as being the ones which promote intolerance, and saying they are the problem - there is no problem with a great many religions, and broadly attacking all religious belief because of some teachings of some religions strikes me as intolerant and prejudicial.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Erasmus on December 21, 2006, 11:32:37 AM
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
I am no fan of radical islam, and I think that many of the practices of conservative Christianity in the United States are problematic, and I would be fully in support of any attempt to persuade people to be more tolerant. The point is that I'm not making a blanket statement that religion is a problem


Okay, so you're focusing on some religions' intolerance of other religions.  But I (and I think beast) am concerned with the religion itself -- it, by definition, is telling people to believe things for no rational reason, to act on faith.  They are brought up with a certain notion of epistemology.  Then they go and vote in elections or run for office.  I think this is problematic.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 21, 2006, 11:49:17 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Okay, so you're focusing on some religions' intolerance of other religions.  But I (and I think beast) am concerned with the religion itself -- it, by definition, is telling people to believe things for no rational reason, to act on faith.  They are brought up with a certain notion of epistemology.  Then they go and vote in elections or run for office.  I think this is problematic.

I don't see how it is inherently problematic - it highlights the need for a good scientific education, but most religious people with scientific educations understand that some things are in the realm of religion, and others are in the realm of science, and understand things accordingly. I have no problem with such people voting. Now it does concern me when senators and other powerful elected people are biblical literalists (http://xkcd.com/c154.html), but again I would say the problem is not religion in general, as it is perfectly possible to have faith in god and still have a good understanding of science - the problem is certain teachings and certain beliefs, and indicting religion as a whole is overgeneralizing to an absurd degree.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on December 21, 2006, 04:14:35 PM
As for the title of this thread, the very premise is ridiculous. I sincerely doubt there are really any (or many) dogmatic atheists. Who is teaching this dogma? You might as well say "dogmatic logic" or "dogmatic mathematics;" all of these things are tautological.





No one is suggesting that we violently attack or legally prosecute religion. But we definitely cannot continue treating it with the same amount of respect and tolerance as we do now. Religious arguments should be totally absent from politics and legal battles. Children should be taught logic and critical thinking, as well as philosophy and world religions in school. Kansas should stop teaching Intelligent Design. Stem cell research should be legalized in all states. Gay marriage should be legalized. People should stop wasting money on churches. People should stop praying and start doing. Christian humanitarians should stop trying to spread "the good news of Christ" and spend 100% of their time healing the sick.  Condom use ought to be encouraged by all people, including the pope. Ideas need to be justified using logic and evident, not faith. Kids should stop being taught it's okay, or even good, to belief something just because they want to.

All these things ought to happen, but religious tolerance is in the way. If these beliefs have any value, religious people should be able to rationally defend them.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
If atheist organizations teach that religious people are "deluded", religions are "ludicrous" and that religious belief causes people to hate and commit violence...


All of these things are true. God is demonstratively a delusion. Religions are truly ludicrous and unfounded beliefs. And evil, violence, and hatred caused by religious doctrine it is glaringly present.

Is the truth forbidden for the sake of irrational and devoted respect to religions?

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
...most religious people with scientific educations understand that some things are in the realm of religion, and others are in the realm of science...


Skept, what realm would the Kwakiutl belief that lunar eclipses are caused by a sky monster swallowing the moon be in?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on December 21, 2006, 04:45:30 PM
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"

I don't see how it is inherently problematic - it highlights the need for a good scientific education, but most religious people with scientific educations understand that some things are in the realm of religion, and others are in the realm of science, and understand things accordingly. I have no problem with such people voting. Now it does concern me when senators and other powerful elected people are biblical literalists (http://xkcd.com/c154.html), but again I would say the problem is not religion in general, as it is perfectly possible to have faith in god and still have a good understanding of science - the problem is certain teachings and certain beliefs, and indicting religion as a whole is overgeneralizing to an absurd degree.


For sure.  The reason to oppose religion and to fight against it is because of the disproportionate power over the world that it carries.  The fact that there is a debate about evolution vs intelligent design being taught in schools is reason enough to oppose it, let alone all the atrocities and lies that are perpetrated in the name of religion.  If we moved into a society where religious belief played no part in education or politics then I wouldn't care how many people personally believed in God.  It is the influence religion has on society that I think is a bad thing.  Maybe once it was a good thing, and maybe there are good points to it (although I deny both these points, that's irrelevant) but I think a clear fact is that today we have no need for religion and it harms our society in many ways.  When I look at all my atheist heros, from Mark Twain to Bertrand Russell to Richard Dawkins to Douglas Adams, it is clear that they all have such strong and positive moral views and I think that's the world I want to live in, a world where morals are decided by thought and reason, not what is taught in a book.  

How many atheists do you know who are in your government?  I mean people who have clearly stood up and said "I'm an atheist?"  Yet how many religious politicians do you know?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on December 21, 2006, 04:59:12 PM
Beast, if a large number of individuals believed in God, it would inevitably affect education and politics a great deal.

I personally would like individuals to be intelligent not only for the sake of society, but because I want people to be able to enjoy personal enlightenment. I do care how many individuals believe in God a) because it will always have an effect on our civilization and b) because people ought to be educated and know the truth.

If people resist education and knowledge, then I'll leave them alone of course. Intellectual charity, not intellectual assertion.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on December 21, 2006, 05:14:03 PM
Yeah I agree - we can't achieve a goal of a logical and reasoned society without decreasing the myths of religion, but I see that as means, rather than an end.  It's not the fact that they believe whatever they believe that is the problem, it's the fact that those believes effect society.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on December 21, 2006, 05:35:42 PM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Kansas should stop teaching Intelligent Design


Thought you'd enjoy this.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 21, 2006, 08:31:31 PM
Quote from: "beast"
For sure.  The reason to oppose religion and to fight against it is because of the disproportionate power over the world that it carries.  The fact that there is a debate about evolution vs intelligent design being taught in schools is reason enough to oppose it, let alone all the atrocities and lies that are perpetrated in the name of religion.  If we moved into a society where religious belief played no part in education or politics then I wouldn't care how many people personally believed in God. It is the influence religion has on society that I think is a bad thing.

I agree with almost all of what you say here. Religion should have no influence in national politics, let alone the vast influence it carries now, expecially in the United States. I sincerely wish that there were more atheists in government, and I am simply apalled by the recent (1999) gallup poll that showed that at least 90% of the American population would vote for a qualified presidential candidate who was black, female, Jewish, or Mormon, but only 59% would vote for a gay candidate, and less than half would vote for an atheist - in the view of more than half of Americans,  being an atheist somehow makes you unqualified to hold political power. The only point on which I differ is that I would say we need to fight against the influence religion has over politics, and not against religion itself.

Quote
When I look at all my atheist heros, from Mark Twain to Bertrand Russell to Richard Dawkins to Douglas Adams, it is clear that they all have such strong and positive moral views and I think that's the world I want to live in, a world where morals are decided by thought and reason, not what is taught in a book.

I completely agree. And someone should really write a book titled Who Is This God Person Anyways? (if they haven't already).

On the topic of the aforementioned poll, I wonder how much of the difference between the responses to "would you vote for a Jew" and "would you vote for an atheist" is due to people being more willing to vote for Jews than for atheists, and how much is due to people being more willing to admit to a pollster that they wouldn't vote for an atheist. Anti-semitism, racism, and sexism have long been viewed as unacceptable by the general public, and the campaigns to get rid of them (or at least get them to be seen as problems) are much older than the campaign to make atheism be acceptable. This is one of the good things about the Brights Movement - it seeks to make atheism more mainstream, and cause prejudice against atheism to be as dimly viewed as are other prejudices.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on December 21, 2006, 08:40:19 PM
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
[The only point on which I differ is that I would say we need to fight against the influence religion has over politics, and not against religion itself.


How can we separate those two things out?  How can we move to a society where religious view plays on impact in the decisions that made for society?  Surely as long as people hold religious belief, they will vote for people who share that belief over those who don't.  It will only be when we have significantly lowed the amount of religious people in the world that we will be able to achieve a genuinely secular world.

I just wanted to clarify that when I say that we need to significantly lower the amount of religious people in the world - I absolutely do not mean that we should go around killing religious people or anything like that.  We should simply argue the case against religion and build up support for the argument that religion is wrong until our view is genuinely the mainstream view.  I am vocal about my beliefs, not violent.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 21, 2006, 08:41:11 PM
Quote from: "beast"
Yeah I agree - we can't achieve a goal of a logical and reasoned society without decreasing the myths of religion, but I see that as means, rather than an end.  It's not the fact that they believe whatever they believe that is the problem, it's the fact that those believes effect society.

I completely agree with you stated goals - however, I see the means you recommend as having the side effect of increasing intolerance, and while I hope that atheism will in the future become the norm, I am concerned about how society will treat those who cling to religious beliefs when that occurs. I also think that in such a society, people will be atheists for the wrong reasons - because they are told that there is no such thing as a god, and simply believe what they are told - and not the right reasons. Certainly public acceptance of atheism and the push for a more logical and well reasoned - and tolerant - society are laudable goals, but we need to take care not to do so in a manner which may contribute to the same problems which religions have contributed to in the past.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 21, 2006, 08:50:56 PM
Quote from: "beast"
How can we separate those two things out?

Why would this be a problem? One can hold religious beliefs without letting those beliefs influence your political decisionmaking.

Quote
How can we move to a society where religious view plays on impact in the decisions that made for society?  Surely as long as people hold religious belief, they will vote for people who share that belief over those who don't.

People have been perfectly capable of voting for those who don't share their religious beliefs in the past - Protestants have voted for Catholics (who were running against Protestant candidates), Christians have voted for Jews, and I imagine people of other faiths have been elected to office as well. Holding religious faith doesn't render one incapable of voting in a sensible manner, and people have consistently judged the political views of the candidates to be much more important than their religious views when voting. Of course, this is not true of everyone - but it could be true of everyone in a world where everyone was educated to be logical, free-thinking, tolerant, and also religious. I still say that religion is not the problem - the problem is certain practices of some followers of some religions.

Quote
It will only be when we have significantly lowed the amount of religious people in the world that we will be able to achieve a genuinely secular world.

I don't see why this must be true. To me, the most important attributes that a better society would have are tolerance and logic - not atheism.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on December 21, 2006, 08:52:21 PM
A very well made point.  I guess we need a little faith that moving in that direction is better than where we are at the moment.

Definitely your point about people believing things because they're told to, not because they know why they are true is a very strong point and one that is very obvious through this forum.  However surely it is better that people believe in things that actually are true, then if they believe things that are not true?  Even if in the future, for many people, atheism is a belief and not a knowledge, wouldn't that be better than religious belief?  Not everybody cares about the reasons why things are.  For example I have very little solid understanding of how a car works (beyond the basics).  I could definitely not make or fix a car if it broke down, but I'm happy in the knowledge that they do work.

I don't know, you raise some good questions, but I think I trust the atheist movement to be a rational one, which should mean a tolerant one.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on December 21, 2006, 08:53:18 PM
I guess I would rather attempt to make the world a better place then stand by and see what happens - even if my influence is insignificant, I would find it more comforting to know that I tried.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 21, 2006, 10:32:12 PM
Quote from: "beast"
However surely it is better that people believe in things that actually are true, then if they believe things that are not true?  Even if in the future, for many people, atheism is a belief and not a knowledge, wouldn't that be better than religious belief?

Yes, I suppose it is. But if you were to ask, "How much better?" I would have to answer, "Not much," if their correct belief is not accompanied by the things we should really be aiming for - tolerance, reason, and understanding. Is it better to correctly believe that the Earth is round because that's what you were told growing up, and call anyone who questions that belief a 'retarded idot', or is it better to mistakenly think that the Earth is flat, but be willing to reexamine your beliefs and think critically about the question? I'll take a society of critically-thinking, scientifically-minded theists over a society of unthinking atheists any day.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on December 22, 2006, 04:39:10 PM
Skept, you are arguing a strawman. The problem with theism is that it is unthinking; the virtue that atheism has is when it involves critical thinking (or at the least the absence of nonthinking).

Quote from: "Skept"
To me, the most important attributes that a better society would have are tolerance and logic - not atheism.


This is really what the goal is, but to achieve racial tolerannce, you have to obtain intolerance of racists.

Quote from: "Skept"
Why would this be a problem? One can hold religious beliefs without letting those beliefs influence your political decisionmaking.


Hardly. These people hold totally irrational views. How is believing in a religion not going to affect views on political issues?

Quote from: "Skept"
...in a world where everyone was educated to be logical, free-thinking, tolerant, and also religious.


Religious people would only be logical in a world where religion was true or probable. This is not the case.






If people hold an irrational view, and act on these irrational views, do not we have a duty of discourse?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on December 22, 2006, 08:19:09 PM
I found a great related quotation:

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities" -- Voltaire (1694-1778)
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on December 22, 2006, 10:03:10 PM
Speaking of dogmatic atheism, there are some Evangelists that come and preach at my local market every week.  I have much debate with them.  Today I smashed them.  The trick to arguing religion is this, every time they make any kind of claim or statement, respond with.  "What objective evidence do you have to back that up?"  Which follows by imitating their umming and aarghing and then repeating the questions over and over as they try to change the subject.  Eventually the guy admitted that the only evidence he had was his own personal evidence.

I also owned him on the actual bible too.  I brought up the subject of Luke and how the census Luke talks about, which was the reason for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem was false.  I demonstrated clearly the illogical nature of running a census where people have to return to their ancestral birth place of 1000 years ago and then I brought up the point that the census was 6 years after Jesus' death.  He denied this of course, and said that Emperor Augustus was around from Jesus' birth.  I responded with well that might be the case buy that governor Quirinus of Syria was definitely a lot later than the birth of Jesus.  He said that it wasn't Quirinus who did the census, and brought out his bible to prove it.  Although he knew the exact verse we were talking about, he didn't know what it said. :D  When an atheist knows more about the bible than a fundamental evangelist, I think that's demonstrates a good point.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 23, 2006, 12:52:03 AM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Skept, you are arguing a strawman.

I'm certainly not doing it intentionally - if I'm misrepresenting something, it's because I'm not entirely clear on what exactly the Brights movement believes. I still haven't read The God Delusion, although I intend to. In the meantime, let me know what you feel I'm misrepresenting, and how what you and/or beast and/or the Brights believe differs.

Quote
The problem with theism is that it is unthinking; the virtue that atheism has is when it involves critical thinking (or at the least the absence of nonthinking).

Saying that theism is unthinking is a gross overgeneralization - there is a huge amount of thinking that goes on about religion, and a lot of philosophy of religion, and intelligent theists often question their faith, and question their belief. And while critical thinking about your belief is of course a good thing, the only reason that atheism today often involves critical thinking is that a lot of atheists weren't raised as atheists, but came upon it by thinking for themselves - if more people were raised to be atheists, it wouldn't necessarily involve any thinking at all.

Quote
Quote from: "Skept"
To me, the most important attributes that a better society would have are tolerance and logic - not atheism.

This is really what the goal is, but to achieve racial tolerannce, you have to obtain intolerance of racists.

True, but I do not believe that to achieve tolerance of atheism you have to  obtain intolerance of religion, which is what you seem to be suggesting here.

Quote
Quote from: "Skept"
Why would this be a problem? One can hold religious beliefs without letting those beliefs influence your political decisionmaking.

Hardly. These people hold totally irrational views. How is believing in a religion not going to affect views on political issues?

I don't see why religion necessarily has to effect your views on political issues. I was raised in a Jewish tradition, which is quite clear that their are certain laws that all good people are supposed to follow, and other laws that Jews are supposed to follow, but that there's nothing wrong with non-Jews not obeying - for example, Jews are required by commandment not to work on the Sabbath, but there is no implication that non-Jews who work on the Sabbath are somehow committing a sin, and in fact it is an age-old custom for Jews in certain situations to essentially hire gentiles to do things that they are prohibited from doing. So I am quite used to religious people who understand that people of different beliefs can do things that they cannot, and don't feel a need to impose their beliefs on others. In my experience, the practice of inflicting your religion on others is a mainly Christian phenomenon (which is not to say that all Christians do it, but most people who do it seem to be Christian).

If I were a Catholic, for example, I might refuse to use birth control, but not stop others from using birth control - simply because my god commanded me to do something doesn't mean that I would necessarily expect people of other faiths to do the same thing, and I'm sure that there are many religious people who feel the same way. I don't see how you can say that it is impossible to vote in an impartial manner if you are religious, and I certainly haven't seen any evidence to back that view up. There are homosexuals who have voted against legalizing gay marriage, women who oppose the Equal Rights Amendment, and minorities who have voted against affirmative action - why shouldn't there be religious people who vote in a manner which is unaffected by their religion?

Quote
Quote from: "Skept"
...in a world where everyone was educated to be logical, free-thinking, tolerant, and also religious.


Religious people would only be logical in a world where religion was true or probable. This is not the case.

You can't prove that the existence of god is impossible, which means it is not illogical to believe in a good, only to insist that there must be a god, and you cannot possibly be wrong. So to that extent at least, it's possible to be logical and still have faith in a god. In any case, I didn't mean that everyone was logical in every single way all the time, since I don't think anyone can claim that type of logical perfection. I simply meant that people tried to apply logic to the best of their ability most of the time, and understood the scientific method and how to make logical deductions.

Quote
If people hold an irrational view, and act on these irrational views, do not we have a duty of discourse?

When their irrational views have a long history backing them up, provide comfort and structure to their lives, are an important part of their culture and community, and don't have any negative effects on society (which I think is true of some, but not all, religious belief), and when discourse is going to feel like confronting them and criticizing their deeply held beliefs, I don't see why it is in any way a duty, and I don't know if it's even necessarily a good thing.

I once had a conversation with a very good friend of mine, who is also one of the smartest people I know. She had a 4.0 in college (which was a very good school), phi beta kappa, and graduated summa cum laude before attending graduate school at Harvard. She also struck me as a very secular person - I never once saw her attend church or make any religious observance of any type. The conversation was about religious belief, and I simply tried to explain why I was an atheist, without trying to persuade her (or anyone else in the room) and without hinting in any way that there was anything wrong with holding religious belief - since I don't think there is - and the conversation ended up with her in tears.

I bring this up as it is a perfect example of a situation where trying to explain why atheism is right and religion is wrong would have nothing but negative consequences. Religion is a highly emotional subject, which means that thinking logically about it is not always possible, and telling someone that their belief is illogical is a very personal attack, let alone calling it a 'delusion' or 'disease'. And when - as was the case with my friend - the personal belief does not have a negative impact on anyone else, there is absolutely nothing that could possibly be gained, and a great deal of damage which can be done.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on December 23, 2006, 01:02:06 PM
Quote from: "Skept"
You can't prove that the existence of god is impossible, which means it is not illogical to believe in a good, only to insist that there must be a god, and you cannot possibly be wrong. So to that extent at least, it's possible to be logical and still have faith in a god.


Alright, Skept, this is where I must bring the hammer down. "You can't disprove it, so it makes sense to believe in it." You should already know the answer to this. Believing in something without any, or in spite of, evidence and logical proof, this is faith. Believing something without proper reason. Believing in and worshiping a celestial teapot cannot be logically defended when we have no evidence to suggest one exists. Acting and deciding based on the perceived will of the teapot is reprehensible lunacy.

The words "logic" and "faith" are direct opposites. It is contradictory to say that one can be logical and have faith, unless you are using "faith" in some sort of obscure manner. A person could be logical, say, in their career, or be a good mathematician, but in no way can faith be logically defended.

At any point where there is significant evidence to support the existence of a godly entity, believing in said entity would not be faith. As it stands, we can logically and empirically deduce that there almost certainly is no god.

People who believe in God are almost all times either a) not properly informed or educated about the matter or b) are believing for emotion reasons (which are in direct opposition to reasonable ones).


Quote from: "Skept"
When their irrational views have a long history backing them up, provide comfort and structure to their lives, are an important part of their culture and community, and don't have any negative effects on society (which I think is true of some, but not all, religious belief), and when discourse is going to feel like confronting them and criticizing their deeply held beliefs, I don't see why it is in any way a duty, and I don't know if it's even necessarily a good thing.


Ah, when we arrive transported to a universe where irrational views are the backbone of a comfortable and structured society, where art and culture is dependent on biblical fables, and religion is indeed not the root of a sickening amount of evil, we can discuss that matter then.

This is not the case in ours. If you think believing lies really is the source of ethical and happy lives, maybe I can persuade you to see the unspeakable, destructive, and nauseating evil propagated from ancient superstition. Take for example, if a woman in El Salvador (pretty much a Catholic theocracy) is raped by her brother and has an abortion, she will serve up to 30 years in prison. No exceptions.

The time for building a wall around religious superstition is over. The wall of respect we have made up for irrational absurdities dwarfs the Great Wall tenfold.

Irrationality has a long history, but this history does not back it up. The fact that fallacies have been around a long time does not make them any less false. We all used to believe, before Pythagoras' time, that the Earth was flat. This belief is positively ancient. Does that make it any more true? Absolutely not! (The beliefs are Judaism are no more valid than those of Pastafarianism!)

Not only is religion untrue (to the point of 99.999999999% certainty), it also happens to be dangerous, divisive, and have a tremendous negative impact on society overall. Richard Dawkins makes the point splendidly. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6169720917221820689&q=the+god+delusion) In the same way I see a duty for people of the world to fight crises in the third world and to protect the environment and slow (or even, through some cool proposed methods involving robotic satellites, prevent) global warming, I see that we must do something about this problem called "religion."


Quote from: "Skept"
The conversation was about religious belief, and I simply tried to explain why I was an atheist, without trying to persuade her (or anyone else in the room) and without hinting in any way that there was anything wrong with holding religious belief - since I don't think there is - and the conversation ended up with her in tears.


One thing I see that we should do for the sake of ourselves and our children, is have more and deeper discussion of religion and philosophy in education and in society. If at, a young age, your friend had gotten use to having open discussion of her beliefs, she may have been more open to your differing ideas. Almost all of the discussion I've had about religion among friends (ranging widely from devoutly Catholic to staunchly atheist) has been extremely enjoyable; in a class 2 years ago for a long period for about an hour everyday some good friends and I (of deeply varying opinions) would sit around and discuss politics, political theory, and very often religious belief. We disagreed, we assented. It was great.  No one cried.


Skeptical Scientist, I implore you not only to read The God Delusion as you have already planned, but also to read Letter to a Christian Nation (http://www.amazon.com/Letter-Christian-Nation-Sam-Harris/dp/0307265773) by Sam Harris (only 96 pages). It was the first emotionally stirring book I've read in years and it conveys the ideas I am trying to represent in their best expressed form.

The very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.

-Sam Harris
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 24, 2006, 01:30:01 AM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Alright, Skept, this is where I must bring the hammer down. "You can't disprove it, so it makes sense to believe in it." You should already know the answer to this. Believing in something without any, or in spite of, evidence and logical proof, this is faith. Believing something without proper reason. Believing in and worshiping a celestial teapot cannot be logically defended when we have no evidence to suggest one exists. Acting and deciding based on the perceived will of the teapot is reprehensible lunacy.

There are some questions that science has not yet answered, and in such cases, reasonable and logical people can disagree, and still call their positions logical. A tremendous amount of physicists are spending a tremendous amount of time studying a theory which at its most basic level says that all particles in the universe are, in fact, microscopic pieces of vibrating string. There is not one iota of evidence to back this up, but I don't see you calling them delusional.

When science hasn't answered a question, it is perfectly logical to think that different alternatives are more or less likely for various reasons, and one of these reasons is aesthetics - a lot of scientists think that theories are more likely to be true if they are more elegant, yet where's the evidence for that? When science has not yet found an answer, reasonable people can an often do disagree about which possibilities are more likely, so I don't see how it is possible to say that atheism is logical but deism is not - either way you are taking a position on which of two unknown possibilities is true. I take the position that I don't think there is a god, and so I am an atheist, but I don't see the huge difference between that and someone who sees the facts the same way I do but takes the opposite position.

Of course, if a religious person believes thing which are provably false (for example, that the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution is a fabrication by satanic people trying to send you to hell) then it is fair to call those beliefs a delusion, and to try to educate people as to why those beliefs are wrong. But as long as you can't prove to a deist that god does not exist, you have no right to call him delusional for thinking she does.

Quote
Ah, when we arrive transported to a universe where irrational views are the backbone of a comfortable and structured society, where art and culture is dependent on biblical fables, and religion is indeed not the root of a sickening amount of evil, we can discuss that matter then.

If your goal is a world with a comfortable and well-structured society, with beautiful and insightful art and interesting culture, and less evil, I think the important steps to take are increasing tolerance and awareness, and improving education - especially when it comes to teaching science. I don't think teaching people atheism will help. If the whole world were atheist, they would just find things other than religion to fight over, or the atheists would persecute the agnostics, or the atheists who believed in the secular word of Ramadamadingdong as laid forth in his holey book Meditations on a Lump of Swiss Cheese I Found in my Attic would go to war with the splinter faction who hold that Ramadamadingdong's works were really written by a computer simulation of an infinite number of monkeys, and Ramadamadingdong was simply a brilliant and talented computer programmer. Being atheist does not automatically make someone logical, tolerant, moral, and good.

Quote
Take for example, if a woman in El Salvador (pretty much a Catholic theocracy) is raped by her brother and has an abortion, she will serve up to 30 years in prison. No exceptions.

This is an entirely seperate issue from religion. If you think that abortion is murder (which is a question of when you think a human life begins, and what a mother's rights should be, and there are non-religious arguments in favor of many different positions on this subject), then it is entirely reasonable to convict the woman and send her to prison. It would be good if the judge had some lattitude to impose a less harsh punishment given the extenuating circumstances. But if you believe that life begins at conception, having an abortion because the child was a product of incest is no better than giving birth and then throwing your baby in a trash can because the child was a product of incest, and should be treated the same way. This is not my point of view, but I understand it and am willing to say that it is perfectly logical. In any case, if you want to choose as an example a wholly unjust and illogical law which has no basis other than religion, then I would say that the problem is the law, and the specific religious belief which caused it, and not religion in general.

Quote
The time for building a wall around religious superstition is over. The wall of respect we have made up for irrational absurdities dwarfs the Great Wall tenfold.

I don't know about you, but I don't see a great amount of respect in this world for people who think the earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so. I don't see a whole lot of respect for people who think that slavery is okay, or that women are inferior to men, even if their religion supports such beliefs. I don't see a great amount of respect for people who have any irrational beliefs at all which science has proved false. People only have respect for those religions which make claims which are outside the realm of scientific knowledge, because while those beliefs are not backed up by science, they are also not contradicted by it. And as long as such beliefs do not involve the teaching of hate or intolerance, or other evil practices, I don't see why they should be treated with any less respect than any other cultural practices people may have.

Quote
Irrationality has a long history, but this history does not back it up. The fact that fallacies have been around a long time does not make them any less false. We all used to believe, before Pythagoras' time, that the Earth was flat. This belief is positively ancient. Does that make it any more true? Absolutely not! (The beliefs are Judaism are no more valid than those of Pastafarianism!)

However, a long history does make certain practices much more important from a cultural standpoint. And I have to say that what you say about religion is troubling. If religion should be given no respect at all, does that mean you would have no trouble at all if someone were fired because they refused to work on Yom Kippur? Is religious descrimination in hiring practices or college admissions entirely acceptable?

Quote
Not only is religion untrue (to the point of 99.999999999% certainty)

You may be 99.999999999% certain, but does science back you up on that figure? What experiment did you conduct that produced that figure, and how certain are you of the error tolerances involved?

Quote
it also happens to be dangerous, divisive, and have a tremendous negative impact on society overall.

What would you say is the danger in deism? In what ways has quakerism negatively impacted society? What justification do you have for blaming all religion for the wrongdoing committed by some followers of a some religions.

Quote
One thing I see that we should do for the sake of ourselves and our children, is have more and deeper discussion of religion and philosophy in education and in society. If at, a young age, your friend had gotten use to having open discussion of her beliefs, she may have been more open to your differing ideas.

You are probably right about this, and open discussion and increased education is always a good thing.

Quote
Skeptical Scientist, I implore you not only to read The God Delusion as you have already planned, but also to read Letter to a Christian Nation (http://www.amazon.com/Letter-Christian-Nation-Sam-Harris/dp/0307265773) by Sam Harris (only 96 pages). It was the first emotionally stirring book I've read in years and it conveys the ideas I am trying to represent in their best expressed form.

I have gotten and started to read The God Delusion. I'll read the other book if it's at my college library - I don't really want to go out and buy it.

Quote
The very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.

I'm sorry, but no. Just- no.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: dysfunction on December 24, 2006, 10:45:13 AM
Quote
The very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.


I'm going to assume that quote made more sense in context, but as it stands it is a dangerous idea. Hopefully Harris clarifies the difference between tolerance in the sense of tolerating religious views but openly disagreeing with them, and tolerance as in respecting religious views. I don't think we should have to respect irrational beliefs, but we DO have to tolerate them. We have the right to try and change someone's mind as much as possible by argument or education, but we have no right to force a belief or lack thereof on them.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on December 24, 2006, 12:06:50 PM
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
There are some questions that science has not yet answered, and in such cases, reasonable and logical people can disagree, and still call their positions logical.


Agreed, but the existence of a god and the truth of religion is not one of said questions.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
A tremendous amount of physicists are spending a tremendous amount of time studying a theory which at its most
basic level says that all particles in the universe are, in fact, microscopic pieces of vibrating string. There is not one iota of evidence to back this up, but I don't see you calling them delusional.


The secret lies in the fact that string theory is a proposed theory that is open to criticism as heavy as you'd like to hand it out. No one is teaching their children that they must believe in superstrings and in no way does acceptance of this theory (if anyone really accepts it) affect one's actions.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
A lot of scientists think that theories are more likely to be true if they are more elegant, yet where's the evidence for that?


And I remember those same scientists saying that elegance is dependent on truth (truth is beauty, beauty truth, that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know).

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
...so I don't see how it is possible to say that atheism is logical but deism is not - either way you are taking a position on which of two unknown possibilities is true.


Well first, the Earth being 6000 years old or being 4.5 billion years old are two possibilities, and you cannot possibly prove beyond doubt either one to be true, no matter how much evidence you have.

The problem lies not within deism, but within tradition theism, which accounts for upwards of 95% of the believers. As Alice from Wonderland said, "What good is a god who does no miracles and answers no prayers?"

In spite of deism not being the problem (straw man), it is still an illogical hypothesis. As an explanatory theory, it raises more problems and things to be explained than it solves. It leads to an infinite regress which it itself cannot terminate. The God Hypothesis creates a more complex entity than that which it seeks to explain -- the universe.

This combined with the glaring lack of any shred of evidence or necessity for a god, deist or otherwise, makes belief in a god as logical as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Celestial Teapot.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
But as long as you can't prove to a deist that god does not exist, you have no right to call him delusional for thinking she does.


Presumably this applies to a teapot with which I engage in telepathic sessions with to make decisions?

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
If your goal is a world with a comfortable and well-structured society, with beautiful and insightful art and interesting culture, and less evil, I think the important steps to take are increasing tolerance and awareness, and improving education - especially when it comes to teaching science.


You have described perfectly my goal and my means.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
I don't think teaching people atheism will help.


Teaching people atheism? I certainly don't wish to do that. I only want to show them that there are no gods.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Being atheist does not automatically make someone logical, tolerant, moral, and good.


Haven't I already said this?

"Without religion, you will good people doing good things and evil people doing good things, but for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."


Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
But if you believe that life begins at conception, having an abortion because the child was a product of incest is no better than giving birth and then throwing your baby in a trash can because the child was a product of incest, and should be treated the same way. This is not my point of view, but I understand it and am willing to say that it is perfectly logical.


What you say disturbs me. You seem like a Samurai helplessly devoted to notions of honour that lead to him living a bloody life. The fact that you would not see it unjust that women's lives are being destroyed for the sake of your desire to respect irrational beliefs makes me feel like your proclaimed "tolerance" is really genocidal apathy.

Believing life begins at conception is a position so illogical it can only be defended with the great cop-out of religion, at which point is automatically respected and no one in politics even bothers to question it. If someone believed that, for example, use of cannabis could cure their illness, or that it made them happier in general, their claims would probably be debated with a large possibility of them being dismissed. But a church in New Mexico has had a similar drug legalized because they claim it makes them closer to God.

The "life" at conception is the same as the "life" on your nose when you scratch it. Every time you get an itch you commit a Holocaust in the same magnitude as abortion. If a woman is raped, it is beneficial to everyone, if she does not want the pregnancy, that is be aborted. No one suffers.

Skept, you would be better of to realize two opposing positions cannot be both perfectly logical. Of course they can be formidable arguments, but only one can, by principle, be correct.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
People only have respect for those religions which make claims which are outside the realm of scientific knowledge, because while those beliefs are not backed up by science, they are also not contradicted by it.


Do you even believe this as you are saying it? People respect moderate Christianity profusely, which makes countless claims within scientific knowledge which are contradictory to it. The virgin birth, the resurrection, miracles that defy the laws of physics, the existence of consciousness not arising out of the brain...

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
However, a long history does make certain practices much more important from a cultural standpoint.


I don't think I'm attacking cultural traditions. I am criticizing irrational belief.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
And I have to say that what you say about religion is troubling. If religion should be given no respect at all, does that mean you would have no trouble at all if someone were fired because they refused to work on Yom Kippur? Is religious descrimination in hiring practices or college admissions entirely acceptable?


"We should only respect a man's religious beliefs as much as we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

It's not no respect for any religion; only lunatics are advocating that. But we should discontinue our respect of people using irrational superstitions to affect the world and make decisions. We should not indoctrinate our children into believing myths about Heaven and Hell, this is child abuse. It is a child's fundamental right to get the facts, and make his or her own decision. We can't control how people parent their children, but we can have [comparative] religious, scientific, and philosophical discussion and education in schools.

Cultural practices do still need to be respected and tolerated, none of this is particularly harmful. But I am saying that almost everything else religion does is harmful.

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities."

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
What would you say is the danger in deism?


Straw man. Deists are an infinitesimal minority. Deism isn't harmful, but it is illogical.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
What justification do you have for blaming all religion for the wrongdoing committed by some followers of a some religions.


Not only do the non-evil believers [unintentionally] support the protection of the tremendous wrongdoing of the minority evil, but the majority [which in America, if you believe the polls, is non-moderate believers] does a more subtle but still significant evil [e.g. stopping stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage]. Even the moderates [the minority] do a moderate amount of evil [although this is more negligible] by teaching their kids that there is a heaven and a hell and a whole lot of other silly beliefs that will affect the children's lives directly [in a negative way] for a long, long time.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on December 24, 2006, 12:18:20 PM
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote
The very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.


I'm going to assume that quote made more sense in context, but as it stands it is a dangerous idea.


What I suppose he means is that we shouldn't lean back in our chairs and let the voting majority believe God's will is the condemnation of homosexual acts / detonating a nail bomb on a bus.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 25, 2006, 01:26:21 AM
How is pointing at deism a straw man argument? You say repeatedly that all religion based on irrational beliefs is bad, so any counterexample is a valid counterexample. I never said that all practices of all religions were good and worth protecting; I merely said that to lump all religion into one basket and label it evil is simply ignorant and wrong. If you want some examples that are more popular than Deism, then take Quakerism, which I already mentioned, or reform or reconstructionist or conservative egalitarian Judaism, or probably several similarly liberal branches of protestantism, which I am less familiar with, but which undoubtedly exist.

On the subject of abortion, I agree that religious views should not be considered when making ethical judgements, since on what basis do religions claim that religious beliefs help make informed ethical judgements anyways? But since I have not seen any scientific evidence for a definitive starting point to a human life other than conception, I don't see how you can fairly claim that there are no non-religious arguments to be made for defining the start of life to be at conception. In any case, the issue is not whether abortion should be legal, but whether you should allow religious people to decide that ethics they came upon for a religious reason - rather than a rational one - are the only good ethics and should be imposed on the world. While I have a serious problem with religious people imposing their religion on the world by saying that such and such is the only correct way to live because some book said so, I don't have any problem with them holding beliefs which don't have a negative effect on my life, and holding ceremonies which they deem important, and I do have a serious problem with other people discriminating against them because they have certain harmless beliefs and participate in some ancient and personally important ceremonies.

I'm all for telling religious people to keep their religion out of things it has no business being involved in, and attacking the evil practices that religion sometimes fosters, but to simply call all religion evil is going way too far.

As for the "concrete evidence for the nonexistence of god", I'll comment more when I have gotten to the part in Dawkins' book where he explains how he has determined that there is no such a being as god. So far he's still trying to justify that science can at least put a probability figure on his existence, which I'm happy to accept, given the right evidence, but I'm skeptical whether he'll be able to put forth evidence that convinces me of his view. I will, however, explain why I find belief in the existence of a deity to be more logically supportable than the belief in a teapot orbiting in space somewhere between the earth and the sun.

Science provides somewhat good theories for how the universe formed, and very good theories for how the solar system formed. These theories are great because they are consistent with observed phenomena and current physical theories, and even better because they produce predictions which are later confirmed by further observation, so we can say with a high degree of scientific certainty that they are correct. They also tell us that if they are true, there is no way a teapot could have formed in orbit between the earth and the sun. There are also good scientific theories which tell us how an object can leave the earth's surface and make it into earth orbit, or even move from earth orbit into a seperate orbit about the sun. We have put such theories into practice by launching astronauts and probes into space. These theories also tell us that there is no way a teapot could have reached escape velocity and made it into a solar orbit. So unless some cosmonaut comes forward with a charming anecdote about the most spectacularly failed attempt to make tea in the history of astrogation, we can say with an extremely high degree of scientific certainty that there is no teapot in orbit of anything.

I do not, however, see how we can say the same thing about god. There are no good theories about why the big bang ocurred (at least not to my knowledge), or why the universe exists at all. So we can't use the same argument for the nonexistence of god, because unlike in the teapot case, we have no good theory that explains the universe perfectly and explains why god can't exist as long as the theory is correct. Perhaps Dawkins has some argument that I haven't thought of and which hasn't yet been put forward in anything I've read, so I'm reserving judgement until I see what his argument is, but I doubt it. I'm not saying that science can never put probabilities on the existence of god, but unlike in Dawkins' example of the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence, where it is more or less clear what the factors are which influence how likely it is, even if the values of the factors are unknown, I haven't even seen a mechanism which would let science place probabilities on the various possibilities out there. I'm certainly not saying that this means we should believe that there is a 50/50 chance of god's existence, I simply think that our current state of knowledge is insufficient for science to even think of placing probabilities. Of course, even if you do accept there being a scientific possibility of the existence of god, trying to ascribe certain human-invented characteristics to him sends the probability, whatever it may be, way down.

Quote
Skept, you would be better of to realize two opposing positions cannot be both perfectly logical.

Where did you get this idea? Certain questions (and I think that there are many ethical questions in this category) have no unique right answer. There are so many shades of gray that any point at which you decide to draw a line will be somewhat arbitrary. Personally, I think the beginning of a human life is a prime example of this. I don't think it begins at conception, and I don't think it begins at birth either; I think it begins somewhere in between, and the transition is so gradual that it is impossible to pinpoint when it does begin. And if there is no right answer, there can be logican reasons to take opposing positions. Also, there may be a question for which there simply does not exist information to answer, and logical reasons may exist for believing in multiple possible answers, or for taking the position that it is simply too soon to judge. Logical and correct only mean the same thing in the presence of perfect information about a question with a definite right and wrong answer, so there may be logical positions which later turn out to be incorrect if the whole story is not yet apparent.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on December 25, 2006, 05:59:57 PM
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
How is pointing at deism a straw man argument?


Because deism is a ridiculous minority, for which there is no organized religion.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
I merely said that to lump all religion into one basket and label it evil is simply ignorant and wrong.


When someone starts doing that, you ought to tell them off.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
If you want some examples that are more popular than Deism, then take Quakerism, which I already mentioned, or reform or reconstructionist or conservative egalitarian Judaism, or probably several similarly liberal branches of protestantism, which I am less familiar with, but which undoubtedly exist.


Socrates: "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance."

Even in a quiet, peaceful, liberal, moderate, protestant town like my own, seeing the scores of deluded people in the church is frightening for this reason: almost each one of those people is raising or has raised one or more children with a perverse world view. The Catholic high school is teaching kids to oppose abortion and stem cell research when they have the right to vote. Terrorism? Of course not. Morality? Surely not either.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
But since I have not seen any scientific evidence for a definitive starting point to a human life other than conception...


Without the existence of souls, when life begins doesn't really matter. Unspecialized cells are life. When life becomes human, and has the faculties to suffer, that is what people ought to be concerned about.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
I'm all for telling religious people to keep their religion out of things it has no business being involved in, and attacking the evil practices that religion sometimes fosters, but to simply call all religion evil is going way too far.


Alright, so is religion good?

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
So unless some cosmonaut comes forward with a charming anecdote about the most spectacularly failed attempt to make tea in the history of astrogation, we can say with an extremely high degree of scientific certainty that there is no teapot in orbit of anything.


You misunderstand, all other teapots were built in the image of Our Great Teapot. It is no normal china, it is a divine entity.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
I do not, however, see how we can say the same thing about god. There are no good theories about why the big bang ocurred (at least not to my knowledge), or why the universe exists at all.


Excuse me, but what does this have to do with God? The God Hypothesis barely qualifies as a theory at all for the Big Bang and the Universe. I've never heard any good theories about why God exists... you still have to invent a system for his existing.

We know almost completely certainly, just as we know about fairies and unicorns and hobgoblins, that Yahweh, Allah, and Ganesh are nonexistent. We know almost exactly as certainly (only not as because less properties are attributed to it) that the more modern concept of a God (along the lines of "the Great Spirit") is nonexistent as well.

[Yahweh is to goblins and pixies as God is to spirits and imaginary friends]

A deist deity is only slightly more likely (still almost certainly nonexistent as Dawkins shall go on to explain to you); we still know that there are no deist gods, just like we know about fairies, trolls, Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and giants. We know as certainly as we know that Vishnu didn't create our galaxy. The modern superstitions of our people today are equally as valid as the ancient superstitions of our ancestors: not at all.

As for other religious beliefs, we know with even more certainly that they are false. Like the Bible and the Qu'ran, for example. You can bet your life that they are both untrue without losing a instant of sleep. The Virgin Birth? The Assumption of Mary? Easily dismissable as religious myth. If people actually believe this stuff (which I can only sometimes comprehend that they could), then I can only gape and marvel at their supreme gullibility.

500 Scientologists (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Scientology)? Supreme gullibility indeed!

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Skept, you would be better of to realize two opposing positions cannot be both perfectly logical.


Where did you get this idea?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_non_contradiction

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Certain questions (and I think that there are many ethical questions in this category) have no unique right answer.


Given, with the caveat "...that is knowable with certainty by humans (at the present)."



Oh and by the way, Merry Christmas!
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on January 02, 2007, 05:18:54 PM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
How is pointing at deism a straw man argument?


Because deism is a ridiculous minority, for which there is no organized religion.

That doesn't make it a straw man argument. I simply think that we should be clear about what is the case: it is not that religion by its very nature is evil, but rather certain practices of certain religions.

Quote
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
I merely said that to lump all religion into one basket and label it evil is simply ignorant and wrong.


When someone starts doing that, you ought to tell them off.

Dawkins compares teaching children religion to child abuse, and while he is primarily talking about Christianity, he is definitely claiming also that it applies to all faith-based belief, even those beliefs that don't cause any harm, and may often go along with belief systems which can do good. If religious teaching is as bad as child abuse, does that mean the government should be able to take children away from religious parents? I'm sure he doesn't, since he tells a similar story while discussing "the evils of religion" but some of what he does say would support such an action. I'm sure he is fully aware that some religions are more evil than others, but I think his view that all religion is somewhat dangerous is more dangerous than many religions.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
If you want some examples that are more popular than Deism, then take Quakerism, which I already mentioned, or reform or reconstructionist or conservative egalitarian Judaism, or probably several similarly liberal branches of protestantism, which I am less familiar with, but which undoubtedly exist.


Quote
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
But since I have not seen any scientific evidence for a definitive starting point to a human life other than conception...


Without the existence of souls, when life begins doesn't really matter. Unspecialized cells are life. When life becomes human, and has the faculties to suffer, that is what people ought to be concerned about.

Which is why I explicitly said "the start to a human life." In any case, I agree that it should be a moral, not a religious, question, and I also agree that the woman should have a right to choose what to do with her fetus, at least in the first few months of a pregnancy. I simply think it would be wise to keep in mind that secular arguments could be made for multiple points of view on the abortion question - Dawkins even mentions one: the slippery slope arguement - and that it's not a clearcut case of the evils of religion, and shouldn't be used as an example of such.

Quote
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
I'm all for telling religious people to keep their religion out of things it has no business being involved in, and attacking the evil practices that religion sometimes fosters, but to simply call all religion evil is going way too far.


Alright, so is religion good?

I don't think it is. I don't think it provides any positive benefit to society that couldn't easily be replaced by secular institutions, and it certainly doesn't make people any more knowledgeable. However, people are good,
and most of them are religious, and taking some of the actions that Dawkins urges (for example not treating religion with any sort of privilege, which would remove the protections that religious people have against those of differing religions) - and more importantly the attitude he advocates - could cause serious harm. Nobody is protecting the Taliban because they have a right to practice religion as they see fit, but I can certainly imagine that people might listen to what Dawkins is saying and use it as justification to cause serious harm. I think that religious tolerance, even if it occasionally inadvertently allows harm to be done in the name of religion, is much less dangerous than the blanket intolerance of religion that some atheists advocate.

Quote
Excuse me, but what does this have to do with God? The God Hypothesis barely qualifies as a theory at all for the Big Bang and the Universe. I've never heard any good theories about why God exists... you still have to invent a system for his existing.

I never said it was a theory for the existence of the universe. My point was that nobody has a good theory of why the big bang occurred, and yet it quite clearly happened, so just because nobody has a good theory for why there should be a supernatural entity doesn't make it correct to say that there quite clearly (or even almost certainly) is no deity. I do think that science can say with a very high degree of certainty that there are no such things as prophets, and that Jesus was an ordinary mortal born of two parents, and that no miracles have been performed, and I wouldn't have any problem with this being taught in public school. But as long as people continue to believe such things, I don't think it is right to punish them for it, or even allow them to be discriminated against for believing things which don't harm other people, and when I say this, I certainly wouldn't consider the ideas themselves to constitute harm.

On the other hand, while I was raised in a religion (Judaism) I was also raised to think for myself about religion and was never told any horrifying things, so perhaps if my upbringing had been different I might be more sympathetic to the idea that a religious upbringing can in fact constitute abuse.

Quote
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Skept, you would be better of to realize two opposing positions cannot be both perfectly logical.


Where did you get this idea?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_non_contradiction

That just means that two opposing viewpoints cannot both be correct, and cannot both be provable. Since "logical" does not imply either truth or provability, it is possible for two opposing points of view to both be logical, at least until enough evidence is found to decide the issue.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Certain questions (and I think that there are many ethical questions in this category) have no unique right answer.


Given, with the caveat "...that is knowable with certainty by humans (at the present)."[/quote]

Quote
Oh and by the way, Merry Christmas!

Thank you! Sorry I didn't have a chance to reply earlier, but I was busy partying and then going on a skiing trip and then packing to come back to Chicago.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 02, 2007, 06:01:16 PM
Skept, you seem to be acting as if Dawkins is calling for genocide or the banning of religion.

What he and I both want is religious ideas not to be respected more than any other ideas, and for children not to be indoctrinated.

The deist god is an irrational argument and it should be open to free and critical discussion.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on January 02, 2007, 09:37:53 PM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Skept, you seem to be acting as if Dawkins is calling for genocide or the banning of religion.

I don't think I'm doing this at all. I am, however, bothered by two things that I see as possible or even probable consequences if Dawkins' views become widespread.

The first is the attitude that he is promoting to think of religious people as simply deluded, and of faith itself as an evil. I'm sure Dawkins has no trouble differentiating between the idea that 'faith is evil' and that 'people of faith are evil', but less intelligent people often fail to see such distinctions - many branches of Christianity teach that homosexuality is evil, but one should "hate the sin and not the sinner", but their followers often have trouble with the distinction. I am very much worried that an attitude that faith is evil could easily lead to unwarranted attacks against people of faith when Dawkins' ideas spread to the ignorant.

The second thing I am concerned about is a lack of protection for religion, which Dawkins is explicitly advocating. He seems to have a problem, for example, with the fact that a certain religious group in the Southwestern US have managed to get a judge order to allow them to smoke marijuana as part of a religious ritual. To me, if a religious right is important and causes no harm to society (such as people privately smoking marijuana), it should absolutely be protected, and I think it is entirely right and proper that it be treated with higher regard than, say, the desire of a secular person to smoke marijuana for personal enjoyment, since religiously motivated practices are often much more important than secular practices to the practitioner, and can sometimes even be viewed as a matter more important than life or death. Perhaps you might find this irrational, and I can see the wisdom in that view, but in any case, that is what they truly feel, and it should therefore be treated that way.

Quote
What he and I both want is religious ideas not to be respected more than any other ideas, and for children not to be indoctrinated.

I think the fact that religious ideas are held by their followers to be matters as important as breathing is a reason for them to be respected more than other ideas which are not held to be as important. If a man in prison doesn't want to eat pork hot dogs because they don't like them, then that is a very different matter than if they don't want to eat pork hot dogs because they are a Jew or Muslim, and believe that eating pork will make them ritually unclean - because the prisoner's view is so strongly different. If a Muslim in prison has no choice other than starve to death or eat food which is prohibited by the Koran, then the prison is effectively starving that prisoner to death, and all the explanations in the world that his belief is simply false will not change that. So yes, in some cases religious ideas need to be respected more than other ideas, because treating them without respect is in some cases morally wrong.

As for the indoctrination of children, I do agree that it is a problem. (In fact, my above example was initially a child in public school instead of a man in prison until I remembered that there is no such thing as a Muslim child.) However, where does one draw the line between education and indoctrination. If I tell my children that there are many religions out there which claim they have ultimate truth, and there is another way of finding out the truth, which is science, and science is better because it is an unbiased way of determining truth whereas religious truth is often anything but, am I educating or indoctrinating? What if I tell my children that it is wrong to murder and steal, and that people who do so are evil? Is there any clearcut distinction between indoctrinating and educating? If not, who is Richard Dawkins, or anyone else, to tell someone what they should and should not teach their children?

Everyone is biased, and it is often simply impossible to impart information without also spreading your biases. For example, I am biased to think that science is a good way of discovering truth, and religion is not, and will undoubtedly at least influence my children in that direction, even if I don't intend to indoctrinate them. You might think that these views do not constitute bias but are in fact the correct and unbiased truth, but if you think that way, it's just because you share the same bias that I do.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 02, 2007, 10:06:16 PM
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
I am very much worried that an attitude that faith is evil could easily lead to unwarranted attacks against people of faith when Dawkins' ideas spread to the ignorant.


That is about as sound as saying we shouldn't teach kids evolution because of the danger of wide-spread depression if they start thinking they are mere apes.

If someone takes Dawkins ideas, and does the total opposite of what he is saying, how is that is fault?

Moreover, if his ideas "spread to the ignorant" doesn't that mean a significant amount of "ignorant" people will have to reject their own faith in order to be violent or prejudiced (against Dawkins ideas) against faithful?

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
To me, if a religious right is important and causes no harm to society (such as people privately smoking marijuana), it should absolutely be protected, and I think it is entirely right and proper that it be treated with higher regard than, say, the desire of a secular person to smoke marijuana for personal enjoyment, since religiously motivated practices are often much more important than secular practices to the practitioner, and can sometimes even be viewed as a matter more important than life or death.


In that case, people who want to smoke marijuana should pretend to be Christian so they can get special benefits.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
I think the fact that religious ideas are held by their followers to be matters as important as breathing is a reason for them to be respected more than other ideas which are not held to be as important.


The thing is, things like smoking marijuana and corporal mortification shouldn't be important to religious people. I'm not saying these religious rights should be taken away or limited more than they are, but if Christians are allowed to smoke marijuana for an irrational superstitious reason, secularists should be allowed to smoke marijuana for a more rational recreational or medicinal reason. This is the ideal of equality and tolerance. To not allow atheists to smoke marijuana as well is religious discrimination.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Is there any clearcut distinction between indoctrinating and educating?


Indoctrination is the conditioning to uncritically accept dogma and irrational faith. Teaching critical thinking, scientific observation, and philosophical inquiry would be education.

Teaching mathematics, English, geography, history, French, Spanish, economics, politics, and other related studies is education and certainly not indoctrination.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on January 02, 2007, 11:14:15 PM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
I am very much worried that an attitude that faith is evil could easily lead to unwarranted attacks against people of faith when Dawkins' ideas spread to the ignorant.


That is about as sound as saying we shouldn't teach kids evolution because of the danger of wide-spread depression if they start thinking they are mere apes.

Puhleease. If you can't see the difference between not teaching science because of irrational fears and not teaching intolerance because of rational fears, is it really my logic whose soundness should be questioned?

Quote
If someone takes Dawkins ideas, and does the total opposite of what he is saying, how is that is fault?

Because they aren't doing the total opposite, they're taking action that they think is based on Dawkins' ideas about the evils of faith, and taking it one step further to the evils of the faithful. Just because Dawkins himself wouldn't take that step doesn't mean he is utterly blameless when others do, just as I don't think religious leaders are blameless when teenagers take home the message that homosexuality is a sin and then beat a gay high schooler to death. I'm sure that most priests would never kill someone by beating them repeatedly with rocks and bottles, but they should still feel guilty when a member of their congregation does so because of the religious beliefs that they contributed to.

Quote
Moreover, if his ideas "spread to the ignorant" doesn't that mean a significant amount of "ignorant" people will have to reject their own faith in order to be violent or prejudiced (against Dawkins ideas) against faithful?

Or ignorant people would have to be raised in societies or families where Dawkins views are taught. I'm taking the long view here - as the popularity of atheism increases (which is what current trends suggest, and which I think is bound to happen) ignorant people will no doubt be raised as atheists, and I simply think the world will be a better place if they are also raised to be tolerant of religion than if they are raised to be intolerant of religion.

Quote
The thing is, things like smoking marijuana and corporal mortification shouldn't be important to religious people.

Well, you and I think that, but they would tend to disagree, and neither of us are likely to persuade them.

Quote
I'm not saying these religious rights should be taken away or limited more than they are, but if Christians are allowed to smoke marijuana for an irrational superstitious reason, secularists should be allowed to smoke marijuana for a more rational recreational or medicinal reason. This is the ideal of equality and tolerance. To not allow atheists to smoke marijuana as well is religious discrimination.

So to go back to my prison example, you think that it is just as important for the prison to cater to the individual appetites of its prisoners (perhaps some of them only like lobster, which would no doubt raise prison food costs by many orders of magnitude) as it is for prisons to provide food which is not prohibited on religious grounds?

Quote
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Is there any clearcut distinction between indoctrinating and educating?


Indoctrination is the conditioning to uncritically accept dogma and irrational faith. Teaching critical thinking, scientific observation, and philosophical inquiry would be education.

Teaching mathematics, English, geography, history, French, Spanish, economics, politics, and other related studies is education and certainly not indoctrination.

What about morality? What about the idea that faith is an evil that should be done away with? Surely there are arguments to be made on both sides of that issue. If I want to teach my four year old not to climb into the leopard cage at the zoo, can I just tell him it's a bad idea or should we settle the matter with scientific observation by performing the experiment? Whenever I discuss a controversial subject with my children, should I be forced to present all sides? You mentioned mathematics - can I just accept the mathematical dogma which says the axioms of set theory are true, which is to some extent an article of faith, (and in the case of the axiom of choice, a point on which there is a certain amount of disagreement) or would this be too dogmatic a thing to teach?

I've never raised a child, and I imagine you haven't either, but I imagine that some times a certain amount of uncritically accepting dogma is preferable, or even unavoidable - maybe not the dogma that there is no god but god and all others are false idols, but at least the dogma that stealing is wrong and that sometimes the child needs to do what I say for the child's own good, without question. I'm sure you agree, and that you don't consider this to be dogma, but what is the essential difference between the allowable dogma that stealing is wrong and the highly questionable dogma that abortion is wrong and the unacceptable dogma that practicing homosexuality is wrong and the downright evil dogma that females are the property of males?

You seem to see everything as having clear right and wrong answers, and I am much more willing to accept competing points of view as being perfectly valid, and that there are shades and nuances to almost every question. I think that there are very few bright line boundaries, and that one should be careful whenever one makes absolute judgments. This is one of the many ways that I see the New Atheism movement as being very much like a religion - they too promote bright line distinctions between right and wrong, moral and immoral, all based upon a several-thousand-year-old book. I'm not saying that Richard Dawkins himself sees these issues as being black and white, but many of his supporters seem to, and he tends to emphasize the distinctions rather than the shades of nuance for the sake of argument.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 09, 2007, 03:46:21 PM
[Will respond to this when I can]
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 10, 2007, 06:25:17 AM
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"


I've never raised a child, and I imagine you haven't either, but I imagine that some times a certain amount of uncritically accepting dogma is preferable, or even unavoidable


I really can't be bothered reading this topic anymore, too much has been said without me.  I just wanted to say that on this point raised, the evolutionary neurological work of a number of award winning Scientists (like Marc Hauser) has clearly demonstrated that in fact gullibility is an evolutionary trait that children are particularly "blessed" with and indeed they are much more willing to uncritically accept dogma than older people.  This explains why about 80% of people have the same religion as their parents and also why people believe in God and religion.  Of course there are plenty of other reasons and it's also important to understand that the reason we've evolved like that is because it gives us an advantage in not jumping in the leopard cage - not because religion gives us an advantage, in fact most likely religion is a bad offshoot of that and gives us no evolutionary advantage.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 10, 2007, 07:14:10 AM
Okay, Ubuntu.  

I believe there is a God.
This is a personal preference.  Nobody is capable of disproving -or- proving this belief, so when there is no clear distinction between truth and falsity, a person must make the decision based on personal preference, especially in such a small matter as whether a God exists or not.

I believe this God created the Universe.
As of yet, a reason for the creation of the Universe has not been discovered.  I attribute it therefore, to God.  Any force which created the Universe, must by definition, be outside the Universe, meaning a supernatural power.  The easiest to relate to power outside the Universe would be a rational one, so I attribute this outside power some form of intelligence.  Seeing as it s outside the Universe, it probably (but not neccesarily) has intelligence enough to create something, so I assume it's intelligence is beyond or equal to the intelligence of man.

You will probably argue this by attacking the premise that 'Any force which created the Universe, must by definition, be outside the Universe.'  I will try to defend that here:  If it was a force within the Universe, then where was it before the Universe was?  Before the Universe existed, what was it?

I believe this God is capable of (but not inclined to) do things in this physical Universe that are not possible by normal physical means.  
There are unexplained phenomenae that occur everyday, whether or not we find reason or logic to explain these things dictates whether or not they are 'miracles.'  Until every last one is explained, they will remain 'miracles.'

I believe that when I die, my mind will not die with my body.
Again, there is no way to prove either way, so it comes down to personal preference.  I WANT to believe that my mind will go on.  This does not mean that it WILL, it is just a personal belief.  Tied in with my belief in God is the belief that there is something besides the Physical which occurs after death.

I do NOT believe in a heaven nor a hell.  I do not know what the afterlife will be like, nor do I concern myself with it at most times, it is a minor aspect of my life.

I do not worship this God, I am merely aware of it's existence.  I am thankful that I exist, but I do not consider it to be infallible nor a source of morals, those are all the result of logic and reasoning.


Now Ubuntu, what is wrong with my 'religion?'
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Kwaun Se on January 10, 2007, 10:23:01 AM
Note that I hate all atheists very much from now on due to this topic. You stupid bigots just can't leave us theists alone can you? So shut up and go disprove some section of science or something... Jesus you guys are hypocrites. Always claiming to be open minded, but never even allowing possiblity of religion.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 10, 2007, 10:32:49 AM
Quote from: "Kwaun Se"
Note that I hate all atheists very much from now on due to this topic. You stupid bigots just can't leave us theists alone can you? So shut up and go disprove some section of science or something... Jesus you guys are hypocrites. Always claiming to be open minded, but never even allowing possiblity of religion.


Don't take this thread out of context.  First of all, several of us who are atheist are defending the right to personal belief.  If you want to call Skeptical Scientist and I bigots because of that, then maybe Ubuntu's case is valid after all--religion causes stupidity.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Kwaun Se on January 10, 2007, 10:34:58 AM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Quote from: "Kwaun Se"
Note that I hate all atheists very much from now on due to this topic. You stupid bigots just can't leave us theists alone can you? So shut up and go disprove some section of science or something... Jesus you guys are hypocrites. Always claiming to be open minded, but never even allowing possiblity of religion.


Don't take this thread out of context.  First of all, several of us who are atheist are defending the right to personal belief.  If you want to call Skeptical Scientist and I bigots because of that, then maybe Ubuntu's case is valid after all--religion causes stupidity.


There are no rights at all on the internet. Because I am currently outside of the USA, and their internet laws, there are also no rules. And I suggest that you go off in a corner and die. See how hot it is in Hell for me 'k?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 10, 2007, 10:37:02 AM
You're so blind you don't even know who is on your side.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Kwaun Se on January 10, 2007, 10:37:47 AM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
You're so blind you don't even know who is on your side.


Blind? I respect all theistic religion. Everything else is wrong and therefore must be destroyed.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 10, 2007, 10:39:00 AM
And that is exactly why theism is dangerous.  More and more every day I begin to agree with Ubuntu on this.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: dysfunction on January 10, 2007, 10:59:25 AM
Quote from: "Kwaun Se"
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
You're so blind you don't even know who is on your side.


Blind? I respect all theistic religion. Everything else is wrong and therefore must be destroyed.


...and you claim atheists are close-minded.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Kwaun Se on January 10, 2007, 11:28:56 AM
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "Kwaun Se"
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
You're so blind you don't even know who is on your side.


Blind? I respect all theistic religion. Everything else is wrong and therefore must be destroyed.


...and you claim atheists are close-minded.


My view is that all religions are ok, but anti-, or non-religions must be destroyed. And that's very close minded, and I'm proud of it because I won't be a homo if I don't become an atheist. Stupid homos is what atheists are, and on top of that they are tree-hugging liberals.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: dysfunction on January 10, 2007, 11:37:54 AM
Why do you use 'liberal' or 'homo' as an insult? And is there a problem with thinking trees are a good thing?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 10, 2007, 11:43:30 AM
Quote from: "Kwaun Se"
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "Kwaun Se"
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
You're so blind you don't even know who is on your side.


Blind? I respect all theistic religion. Everything else is wrong and therefore must be destroyed.


...and you claim atheists are close-minded.


My view is that all religions are ok, but anti-, or non-religions must be destroyed. And that's very close minded, and I'm proud of it because I won't be a homo if I don't become an atheist. Stupid homos is what atheists are, and on top of that they are tree-hugging liberals.


I support the right to bear arms, in the hopes that idiots like you accidentally shoot themselves.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Oliwoli on January 10, 2007, 11:55:37 AM
I prefer the right to arm bears. That would be awsome, but they'd own us.

And homo is only an insult because people take it as an insult, its the same with the word "retarded" which people also find innapropriate.

I use "gay" and "retard" as an insult all the time, but i am neither homophobic or "retardphobic?" i simply assume that people will take it as an insult. In the same way i could use any other word. If people start using "atheist" as an insult, it wont be long before even atheists use it to insult each other.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: dysfunction on January 10, 2007, 11:58:07 AM
Quote from: "Oliwoli"
I use "gay" and "retard" as an insult all the time, but i am neither homophobic or "retardphobic?" i simply assume that people will take it as an insult. In the same way i could use any other word. If people start using "atheist" as an insult, it wont be long before even atheists use it to insult each other.


By that logic, wouldn't it be perfectly fine to use 'nigger' as an insult?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Oliwoli on January 10, 2007, 12:00:29 PM
I personally have no real problem with it, although you have to aprreciate that its an insulting term for black people, rather than just a noun. Thats like "faggot" compared to "gay".
I myself feel that if people didnt care about things like that it would be much better. An insult is only offensive if you choose to find it that way.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 10, 2007, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: "Kwaun Se"
My view is that all religions are ok, but anti-, or non-religions must be destroyed. And that's very close minded, and I'm proud of it


It's this type of person that will cause the end of the world.  How can one be so irrational?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Captain_Bubblebum on January 10, 2007, 02:15:22 PM
haha i like this guy kwaun Se cos he's mad and a whole new type of dick i've never actually known before.  Tell us more about what you see as an injustice in a world with anti/non-religions and liberals and hippies. :lol:
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: rustyslacker on January 10, 2007, 02:39:16 PM
Quote
It's this type of person that will cause the end of the world. How can one be so irrational?

It's the effect of religion.

Hey. Hey Kwan Se! How come all atheists like thedigitalnomad and Ubuntu and I are so horrible? We have ethics an' stuff like that just like you. By saying you support all theist religions, do you include fundamentalist Islam? It's not okay to be atheist but it's okay to kill infidels and blow yourself up to get a few dozen virgins to play with in heaven?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on January 10, 2007, 03:04:01 PM
Quote from: "Astantia"
Okay, Ubuntu.  

I believe there is a God.
This is a personal preference.  Nobody is capable of disproving -or- proving this belief, so when there is no clear distinction between truth and falsity, a person must make the decision based on personal preference, especially in such a small matter as whether a God exists or not.

This is true. That does not mean we should accept the existence of a deity as being equally likely as nonexistence however; it is possible to imagine that of two or more possibilities which are all potentially true, some are more likely than others. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Ubuntu, I, and many others all believe that the probability that there is a deity, while nonzero, is vanishingly small. So there may be reasons other than personal preference for choosing - in this case, what you think is likely to be the true state of the universe.

Quote
I believe this God created the Universe.
As of yet, a reason for the creation of the Universe has not been discovered.  I attribute it therefore, to God.  Any force which created the Universe, must by definition, be outside the Universe, meaning a supernatural power.  The easiest to relate to power outside the Universe would be a rational one, so I attribute this outside power some form of intelligence.  Seeing as it s outside the Universe, it probably (but not neccesarily) has intelligence enough to create something, so I assume it's intelligence is beyond or equal to the intelligence of man.

Why must the universe have a cause outside itself? Couldn't it simply exist without causation? If nothing can exist without causation, what caused god, and so how does the idea of god explain anything? Otherwise, something exists without causation, and it seems at least as likely that the universe exists without cause than it does that the universe was caused by god, but nothing caused his existence.

Quote
You will probably argue this by attacking the premise that 'Any force which created the Universe, must by definition, be outside the Universe.'  I will try to defend that here:  If it was a force within the Universe, then where was it before the Universe was?  Before the Universe existed, what was it?

Ok, but this is not how I was arguing this.

Quote
I believe this God is capable of (but not inclined to) do things in this physical Universe that are not possible by normal physical means.  
There are unexplained phenomenae that occur everyday, whether or not we find reason or logic to explain these things dictates whether or not they are 'miracles.'  Until every last one is explained, they will remain 'miracles.'

Just because you cannot think of a natural explanation doesn't mean that none exist. Over the course of history, a great many things that were once thought inexplicable have been quite satisfactorily explained by natural causes, and the amount of inexplicable things has steadily grown smaller. Shouldn't we suppose then that there are no inexplicable events, but simply natural causes which are as yet unknown? Doesn't this seem much more likely than the idea that there is some supernatural entity who constantly meddles in our universe?

Quote
I believe that when I die, my mind will not die with my body.
Again, there is no way to prove either way, so it comes down to personal preference.  I WANT to believe that my mind will go on.  This does not mean that it WILL, it is just a personal belief.  Tied in with my belief in God is the belief that there is something besides the Physical which occurs after death.

I'm sure this is a very comforting belief, and it is one which I sometimes wish I shared, but I don't. Without evidence of anything occurring outside of nature, and with explanations for just about everything which occurs in nature, as well as the likelihood of there existing unknown explanations for the natural phenomena that we can't yet explain, what could possibly cause you to think that there's anything else except for sheer wishful thinking?

Quote
I do NOT believe in a heaven nor a hell.  I do not know what the afterlife will be like, nor do I concern myself with it at most times, it is a minor aspect of my life.

I do not worship this God, I am merely aware of it's existence.  I am thankful that I exist, but I do not consider it to be infallible nor a source of morals, those are all the result of logic and reasoning.

Thank god for that!

Quote
Now Ubuntu, what is wrong with my 'religion?'

Nothing at all, except for the fact it is almost certainly false. It doesn't cause anyone harm in any way, and if you wish to continue believing, it is none of my concern. However, I would urge you to carefully consider whether it is likely to be true, and if you come to the conclusion that it is not, I would urge you to discard it.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 10, 2007, 03:27:16 PM
Quote from: "Astantia"
Okay, Ubuntu.  

I believe there is a God.
This is a personal preference.  Nobody is capable of disproving -or- proving this belief, so when there is no clear distinction between truth and falsity, a person must make the decision based on personal preference, especially in such a small matter as whether a God exists or not.


I think this is a false statement.  While we can't 100% disprove the existence of God, we can disprove many of the claims made about God, and more importantly we can explain why people feel the way they do about God.  With things that we don't know the answer to, we can look at all the evidence and then make a decision based on that evidence as to the likelihood of the existence of God.  In this case we can see very strong neurological explanations for the phenomenon attributed to God and we can't see any objective evidence at all suggesting the existence of God.

Quote

I believe this God created the Universe.
As of yet, a reason for the creation of the Universe has not been discovered.  I attribute it therefore, to God.

Completely illogical.  What evidence do you have that the Universe was created by God and not by Adolph Hitler?  You have no evidence for either.


Quote

 Any force which created the Universe, must by definition, be outside the Universe, meaning a supernatural power.

How can you make this statement?  What logic did you use to come to that assumption?  Why does the Universe have to be created at all?  Isn't it just as possible that the Universe has always existed as it is possible that God has already existed?  Or else what created God?  Another God higher than God?

Quote

  The easiest to relate to power outside the Universe would be a rational one, so I attribute this outside power some form of intelligence.  Seeing as it s outside the Universe, it probably (but not neccesarily) has intelligence enough to create something, so I assume it's intelligence is beyond or equal to the intelligence of man.

How do you make the assumption that the creator would be rational?  Natural selection explains perfectly how life began and became as complex as it is, there's no need for a rational being to create life or to guide it.  Given the estimated number of planets in the Universe, it seems unlikely it was necessary for the rational creator to set up Earth and our solar system.  What did this rational creator do that is rational?  Create a lot of big explosions?  How can you assume that that is rational?  What actual evidence do you have to base this claim on?


Quote

You will probably argue this by attacking the premise that 'Any force which created the Universe, must by definition, be outside the Universe.'  I will try to defend that here:  If it was a force within the Universe, then where was it before the Universe was?  Before the Universe existed, what was it?

Specifically I'm attacking the point that you've made all these claims without backing them up with a single piece of evidence.

Quote

I believe this God is capable of (but not inclined to) do things in this physical Universe that are not possible by normal physical means.  
There are unexplained phenomenae that occur everyday, whether or not we find reason or logic to explain these things dictates whether or not they are 'miracles.'  Until every last one is explained, they will remain 'miracles.'

What evidence do you have to attribute these "miracles" to God?  Do you see how explaining things that you don't understand as the work of "God" is false logic?  Why don't you attribute the miracles to Zeus instead?

Quote

I believe that when I die, my mind will not die with my body.
Again, there is no way to prove either way, so it comes down to personal preference.  I WANT to believe that my mind will go on.  This does not mean that it WILL, it is just a personal belief.  Tied in with my belief in God is the belief that there is something besides the Physical which occurs after death.

Yes, on the face of it, that's a nice belief but it's not based on any evidence at all.  You have as much reason to believe that your soul will go on as you have to believe that in the afterlife you'll be in a world run by beans.  There are plenty of other things that would be nice.  You should believe that there is a pirate treasure chest in your backyard as well.


Quote

I do NOT believe in a heaven nor a hell.  I do not know what the afterlife will be like, nor do I concern myself with it at most times, it is a minor aspect of my life.

I do not worship this God, I am merely aware of it's existence.  I am thankful that I exist, but I do not consider it to be infallible nor a source of morals, those are all the result of logic and reasoning.


Now Ubuntu, what is wrong with my 'religion?'


The obvious thing wrong with your religion is the fact that you have all these beliefs but you have no reason to back them up.  Now on the face of it you haven't demonstrated any beliefs that would cause problems for the rest of people but in fact when we look at the world we can see just what an effect religion has on the world.  Because you believe in God, you're really giving more power to all the people who believe in God.  If we have to tolerate your beliefs, despite the complete lack of evidence supporting them, then we have to tolerate the beliefs of all religious people.  How would it be logical to say; "We can respect those beliefs, even though you can't back them up at all but we can't respect your friends beliefs, even though he also can't back them up at all."  Religion in the world has a huge amount of power at the moment, and it is power based on a belief in something that has no evidence to support it.  Some religious people may not use their power to influence the world but many do.  So long as we continue to tolerate the idea that people can hold a view and dictate other people's lives based on it, despite a lack of evidence for that view, we will be forced to tolerate all the many bad points of religion.

You said earlier that a person's religious belief is a small matter, but that's simply not the case.  Look at the major conflicts going on in the world at the moment and tell me what it is that is separating those two sides.  Ask yourself this, if those two sides suddenly both gave up their religion, would they still be fighting.  Who would be fighting who?  Over what?  But even beyond war we can see a massive influence on the lives of everybody.  For example in Australia a few weeks ago we had a debate about therapeutic stem cell research.  I'm sure you'd understand that a number of politicians voted in this debate, not on the evidence presented by the scientists or qualified ethicists, but instead, on their own interpretations of what God wants - despite the complete lack of reason to believe this, or even any kind of example of God's views on us living our lives having any credibility at all.  Luckily the bill passed but imagine if it hadn't.  That would mean that my rights to carry out stem cell research would be censored because of religious opinions that I don't have.  Of course, there are plenty of times where that has actually happened, and no doubt it will continue to happen until we move to a society where people base their decisions on rationality and human reasons, not superstition.  While your views may not directly effect me, they give more credibility to the people whose views do effect me and all of humanity and are therefore views I have problem with.

Quote
Note that I hate all atheists very much from now on due to this topic. You stupid bigots just can't leave us theists alone can you? So shut up and go disprove some section of science or something... Jesus you guys are hypocrites. Always claiming to be open minded, but never even allowing possiblity of religion.


Surely an open minded person looks at all the evidence and then decides on the option that is most likely.  Evidence against God - well there are 3 major religions in the world, and a huge amount of other religions, all of which contradict each other.  It is therefore clear that all but one have to be wrong - at least partially.  How can we decide which is correct?  How much evidence is there to back up each religion?  The fact is that there is no objective evidence and if we accept the fact that they're all equally likely to be right (by keeping an open mind) then we have to accept the fact that the existence of the other religions is evidence that any particular religion is wrong, coupled with the fact that there is no objective evidence, we have to assume that all religions are false and that God is a human construct.  In fact the work of many scientists, especially evolutionary biologists, psychologists and neurologists have led as to be able to explain very well why people believe in God and even what they experience when they have religious experiences.  We can explain so much.  We've also managed to prove large parts of religions wrong through science.  For example the world cannot be as young as the bible says it is.   We can disprove specific religious claims and we can explain the world in far more detail without God.

So you can claim that atheists are not open minded, but the fact is that they've actually looked at the evidence and made an assessment based on that.  You, on the other hand, have looked at the world, ignored the evidence, and made an assumption that because you can't understand things, there must be a supernatural power.  Not being able to understand something doesn't mean you should invent an answer - which is what religion does - it means you should pursue the real answer with great vigour, until you find it.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Captain_Bubblebum on January 10, 2007, 03:41:46 PM
Quote from: "Astantia"
I believe this God created the Universe.
As of yet, a reason for the creation of the Universe has not been discovered. I attribute it therefore, to God.


Quote from: "beast"
Completely illogical. What evidence do you have that the Universe was created by God and not by Adolph Hitler? You have no evidence for either.


wrong compadre, the universe existed before Adolf Hitler so he couldn't have created it - father told me so!
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: rustyslacker on January 10, 2007, 03:44:08 PM
All the religious debates I've seen are the same.

Theist states beliefs -> Atheists point out there is no objective evidence -> Theist gives subjective, obviously church-supplied evidence -> Atheists refute -> Theist insults atheists -> Atheist (s) make massive rant blowing theist's logic to smithereens.

Can we just make this a thread template so we don't have to keep doing it over and over? :D
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Captain_Bubblebum on January 10, 2007, 03:49:45 PM
Quote from: "rustyslacker"
All the religious debates I've seen are the same.

Theist states beliefs -> Atheists point out there is no objective evidence -> Theist gives subjective, obviously church-supplied evidence -> Atheists refute -> Theist insults atheists -> Atheist (s) make massive rant blowing theist's logic to smithereens.

Can we just make this a thread template so we don't have to keep doing it over and over? :D


yeah, and can there be something done about their names?  i'm sure im not the only one that finds it hard to follow a discussion late at night with sleepy eyes trying to distinguish the word "theist" from "atheist".  one letter.  ONE LETTER!  thats not much difference at all, infact if i didnt know any better i'd say they were the same thing.  'A' isnt even that great of a letter to make such a difference anyway.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 10, 2007, 03:50:30 PM
Quote from: "Captain_Bubblebum"
Quote from: "Astantia"
I believe this God created the Universe.
As of yet, a reason for the creation of the Universe has not been discovered. I attribute it therefore, to God.


Quote from: "beast"
Completely illogical. What evidence do you have that the Universe was created by God and not by Adolph Hitler? You have no evidence for either.


wrong compadre, the universe existed before Adolf Hitler so he couldn't have created it - father told me so!


But how do you know Hitler's presence on Earth was his first presence.  What's to say that he didn't create the universe and then, 13.7 billion years later, come into the universe and defend German nationalism at the expense of minorities?  More to the point, how is that statement any less likely than the statement that the universe was created by God?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Captain_Bubblebum on January 10, 2007, 03:53:09 PM
Quote from: "beast"
But how do you know Hitler's presence on Earth was his first presence.  What's to say that he didn't create the universe and then, 13.7 billion years later, come into the universe and defend German nationalism at the expense of minorities?  More to the point, how is that statement any less likely than the statement that the universe was created by God?


at the expense of repeating myself (sorry) - my father told me.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: rustyslacker on January 10, 2007, 03:56:28 PM
Quote
What's to say that he didn't create the universe and then, 13.7 billion years later, come into the universe and defend German nationalism at the expense of minorities?

Because the Earth is only 6000 years old? >.>
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Captain_Bubblebum on January 10, 2007, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: "rustyslacker"
Because the Earth is only 6000 years old? >.>


LOL!!!?!!! *spews out ass as a result of immense unexpected funnyness* :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 10, 2007, 09:26:16 PM
Granted, my beliefs are not based on logic.  However, my beliefs cannot be disproved, they can be said to be unlikely, or unmeaningful, but not disproved.

In the end, my beliefs are simply that, beliefs.  They are of little consequence to the world, and in fact, to my physical life.  I live according to a capitalistic, objective, egotistical system of ethics.  However, I do not understand why my beliefs, which are essentially harmless, can be compared to those beliefs ABOUT God that are not harmless.

How is it logical to say 'God is harmful, because these people say bad things in it's name?'

Wouldn't it be better to point out the inherent falacies within religions that abuse the authority of God to do evil?

As far as 'proving' God, one cannot do it by natural means.  If one could, the being you are describing would cease being God, and would become a natural force.  However, I will give you the reason for my preference:

I am an unusually lucky person.  I typically am capable of 'getting away with' quite a few things that other people get stuck with.  For example, I have always had a romantic interest, I am generally seen to make 'good' decisions, such as my choices in employment, where I am earning quite a profitable wage, not to mention regular comissions for my productive work.  

In addition, at various times in my life, I have felt (I know, it is not objective proof) feelings of discomfort, and have been compelled to act upon them.  I have prevented two suicides simply by picking up a phone and calling a friend.  Now, trying to rationalise this, I have a theory which I am going to post in another thread shortly, as soon as I get around to it, but the point remains:
  Either I am very lucky, or a God (with limited power or limited awareness) is influencing my actions.

I cannot prove God, but you cannot prove it away, so the matter comes to personal preference.  I prefer to believe that my 'luck' is supernatural.


As far as rustyslacker's post:
I stated my belief.
Atheists point out there is no objective evidence.
I have given subjective, but not church based evidence (I have no church)
Atheists should now refute it.
Why you think I will insult somebody is beyond me, and quite frankly, rude.
The atheist rant is something I would like to see, especially since 'Theist Logic' is an oxymoron.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on January 10, 2007, 09:41:22 PM
Quote from: "Astantia"
I cannot prove God, but you cannot prove it away, so the matter comes to personal preference.  I prefer to believe that my 'luck' is supernatural.

This is just silly. First of all, it makes no sense that there is a god, but he chooses to make you luckier than average and other people unluckier than average. What have you done to make a god favor you? It is much more likely that some people are luckier than others simply due to the laws of probability, and furthermore inherently optimistic people tend to see fortunate coincidence as evidence that their luck is particularly good, and pessimistic people think that their luck is particularly bad. This is a very good explanation of your perception of having better than average luck, and makes perfect sense. The idea that a deity exists and simply chooses to bless you at the expense of others makes no sense.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 10, 2007, 09:42:47 PM
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Quote from: "Astantia"
I cannot prove God, but you cannot prove it away, so the matter comes to personal preference.  I prefer to believe that my 'luck' is supernatural.

This is just silly. First of all, it makes no sense that there is a god, but he chooses to make you luckier than average and other people unluckier than average. What have you done to make a god favor you? It is much more likely that some people are luckier than others simply due to the laws of probability, and furthermore inherently optimistic people tend to see fortunate coincidence as evidence that their luck is particularly good, and pessimistic people think that their luck is particularly bad. This is a very good explanation of your perception of having better than average luck, and makes perfect sense. The idea that a deity exists and simply chooses to bless you at the expense of others makes no sense.


But it's pretty awesome!
Are you jealous that God likes me more than you?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 11, 2007, 12:03:26 AM
Quote from: "Astantia"
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Quote from: "Astantia"
I cannot prove God, but you cannot prove it away, so the matter comes to personal preference.  I prefer to believe that my 'luck' is supernatural.

This is just silly. First of all, it makes no sense that there is a god, but he chooses to make you luckier than average and other people unluckier than average. What have you done to make a god favor you? It is much more likely that some people are luckier than others simply due to the laws of probability, and furthermore inherently optimistic people tend to see fortunate coincidence as evidence that their luck is particularly good, and pessimistic people think that their luck is particularly bad. This is a very good explanation of your perception of having better than average luck, and makes perfect sense. The idea that a deity exists and simply chooses to bless you at the expense of others makes no sense.


But it's pretty awesome!
Are you jealous that God likes me more than you?


Haha.  He helps you find your car keys, and your TV remote, while he lets millions of kids in Africa starve to death.  Yes, I'm jealous.  :)
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 11, 2007, 12:20:29 AM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Quote from: "Astantia"
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Quote from: "Astantia"
I cannot prove God, but you cannot prove it away, so the matter comes to personal preference.  I prefer to believe that my 'luck' is supernatural.

This is just silly. First of all, it makes no sense that there is a god, but he chooses to make you luckier than average and other people unluckier than average. What have you done to make a god favor you? It is much more likely that some people are luckier than others simply due to the laws of probability, and furthermore inherently optimistic people tend to see fortunate coincidence as evidence that their luck is particularly good, and pessimistic people think that their luck is particularly bad. This is a very good explanation of your perception of having better than average luck, and makes perfect sense. The idea that a deity exists and simply chooses to bless you at the expense of others makes no sense.


But it's pretty awesome!
Are you jealous that God likes me more than you?


Haha.  He helps you find your car keys, and your TV remote, while he lets millions of kids in Africa starve to death.  Yes, I'm jealous.  :)


You find you car keys, and your TV remote, and you let millions of kids in Africa starve to death too!

(God is not all-powerful, btw)
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 11, 2007, 12:29:11 AM
It was a joke.  And I do donate to hunger funds.  Doesn't do a whole hell of a lot, but it's better than just sitting by doing nothing.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 11, 2007, 12:40:09 AM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
It was a joke.  And I do donate to hunger funds.  Doesn't do a whole hell of a lot, but it's better than just sitting by doing nothing.


Like all those religious groups that just sit back and do nothing.

I know it was a joke, I am continuing it.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 11, 2007, 01:06:32 AM
I know there are a handful of religious groups that do help out in the world.  However, the majority of theists (and really, people in general) are more content being ignorant of such causes and only concern themselves with their own lives.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 11, 2007, 01:19:53 AM
Quote from: "Astantia"
Granted, my beliefs are not based on logic.  However, my beliefs cannot be disproved, they can be said to be unlikely, or unmeaningful, but not disproved.

In the end, my beliefs are simply that, beliefs.  They are of little consequence to the world, and in fact, to my physical life.  I live according to a capitalistic, objective, egotistical system of ethics.  However, I do not understand why my beliefs, which are essentially harmless, can be compared to those beliefs ABOUT God that are not harmless.

The issue is not about if your beliefs are harmless or not, it's about the fact that they say that it's ok to believe things without any evidence.  What is the difference between your beliefs and Osama Bin Ladins?  Both of you believe that God is helping you to achieve your objectives despite neither of you having any evidence or reason to believe that God actually exists.  We need to try to live in a society where claiming something to be true without evidence is frowned upon and not tolerated.  We need to move to a rational society.  Now you claim that your beliefs can't be disproved, and maybe that's the case, but we can evaluate the likelihood of their truth and say that it is exceptionally unlikely that there is any truth to those beliefs.  Wouldn't you rather base your life on reality than on delusion?

Quote
How is it logical to say 'God is harmful, because these people say bad things in it's name?'


God doesn't exist.  Belief in God is harmful because it leads people to make decisions based on a lack of evidence or reason.  Making decisions based on a falsehood is usually a bad thing to do - hence belief in God is typically bad.

Quote

Wouldn't it be better to point out the inherent falacies within religions that abuse the authority of God to do evil?


So long as some parts of religion are tolerated where can we draw the line.  How is logical to arbitarily decide that some religious beliefs are bad, while others, based on exactly the same evidence, are good.  Surely there is much likelihood that Osama's beliefs are right as there is that your beliefs are right - how can we draw that arbitrary line and be able to back it up with anything other subjective morality?  Surely logically if we accept one person's religious beliefs, we have to accept them all, as they are all as likely to be right as one another.  If we accept that one is wrong, how can we not accept that they're all wrong?  There is no evidence to suggest Osama is any more correct than anybody else's religious beliefs.

Quote

As far as 'proving' God, one cannot do it by natural means.  If one could, the being you are describing would cease being God, and would become a natural force.  However, I will give you the reason for my preference:

I am an unusually lucky person.  I typically am capable of 'getting away with' quite a few things that other people get stuck with.  For example, I have always had a romantic interest, I am generally seen to make 'good' decisions, such as my choices in employment, where I am earning quite a profitable wage, not to mention regular comissions for my productive work.  


I'm sorry, but that's not a logical argument at all.  I'm a national sporting champion, I hold like 4 world records, I get paid around $400 an hour to do the thing I've been doing every day for the last 5 years, I also work almost full time in a job that I look forward to going to every day and where I feel like I'm making a difference to the world.  I have a lot of really good friends from all around the world and I really enjoy life.  I've been ranked in the top 0.03% of maths students from my year, I've won countless sporting and academic awards.  I've also had rough periods in my life in the past and times when things have not been so good.  I've got to be in the position I'm in now through hard work.  It's not a case of luck, if I relied on luck then there is no way I'd be in this position.  I've spent countless hours doing repetitive training and I've learnt how to get really good at things.  I have not been at all lucky, everything I've achieved has been through blood, sweat and tears.

Quote

In addition, at various times in my life, I have felt (I know, it is not objective proof) feelings of discomfort, and have been compelled to act upon them.  I have prevented two suicides simply by picking up a phone and calling a friend.


How can you possibly know that?  I once walked in on a recently ex girlfriend who was trying to cut her wrists, I tried to get the knife off her, I have a scar to prove it and then when I did, I took us both to the hospital.  There is no way that I can claim that I saved her life because I can't know what would have happened if I came in.  Maybe she would have gone through with it, maybe somebody else would have come around - to claim that you've prevented somebodies life from ending in such circumstances is complete speculation.

Quote

 Now, trying to rationalise this, I have a theory which I am going to post in another thread shortly, as soon as I get around to it, but the point remains:
  Either I am very lucky, or a God (with limited power or limited awareness) is influencing my actions.

Or maybe you work hard to achieve what you want?  Maybe those things are just coincidental.  I see no evidence at all that anybody is influencing your actions, you're jumping at a conclusion for the sole reason that you can't explain the phenomenon.  That's no reason to believe anything.  Idle speculation and assumptions are meaningless.


Quote

I cannot prove God, but you cannot prove it away, so the matter comes to personal preference.  I prefer to believe that my 'luck' is supernatural.


You say it like there's an equal chance of both, but clearly that is not the case.  There is a ubundance of evidence that God doesn't exist - there is all the claims of things being God, that have turned out to be false.  There are all the other religions that claim that there God is the only true God - that contradict all the other religions.  All the evidence points at the non existence of God and non of it points towards the existence of God.  The only thing you can argue is your own personal experiences, but a great deal of neurological evidence now explains what's going on in your brain when you have those personal experiences, and I'm sure a lot of them are the false logic you've used in posts like above where you claim to have your life influenced by God when you have no evidence for that.

I think Nomad raised a good point also.  What kind of God would make your life easier while killing 20,000 children under the age of 5 every day?  That's the God you believe in.  I can't understand how you can accept that.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 11, 2007, 07:12:56 AM
That is not the God I believe in.  You are not listening.

God is not all powerful, there is no way he could be.  Nor is he infallible, he just is.

Now, disprove my God.

I'll define him in a nice box to make it easy for you:


God is a Rational Supernatural Being.

Saying that I 'base my life' on delusion is a meaningless statement.  Nobody bases their life on anything except the things that they observe, excepting of course, the hypocrits.

Also, making decisions based on a lack of evidence is not inherently evil, just foolish.  Now, if you want to dictate to me how I can or cannot live my life, then you are infringing upon my life, and are in fact, being evil.


I'm sorry, but that's not a logical argument at all.

No shit, I told you that before hand.  Stop using the not logical arguement, it doesn't work.  We are talking about something that is outside the physical universe.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Oliwoli on January 11, 2007, 08:27:01 AM
You also say that belief in God leads to irrational decisions, however it also prevents harmful ones.

I have seen to compelling evidence of a reason for morality outside of religion. If i didnt believe in God I WOULD commit evil deeds I could get away with. Regardless of whether there IS a reason for morality or not, religon is the only reason I dont commit evil deeds. The God i believe in does not ask me to kill muslims or catholics. Whether or not my God is real or not is irrelevant, my God is indisputably beneficial to society, albiet slightly.

The logical thing to do, i would say, is to say "God probably doesnt exist, I dont believe in God myself, but God can be a positive force, and I should promote this force whenever i meet a religious person"

I would also say that atheistic religion bashing is leading to increased fundamentalism, saying "religon is stupid and evil" is bringing religious factions together and making them more fundamental. I would say it acheives nothing but makes the problem worse.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 11, 2007, 01:51:28 PM
Quote from: "Oliwoli"
God can be a positive force, and I should promote this force whenever i meet a religious person


Given a certain god, that might be true.  For example, I can invent a god that is a positive force in our culture.  However, Allah and God are not necessarily positive forces (or at least atheists are arguing that the negative outweighs the positive--esp. in regards to Allah).  Read The End of Faith by Sam Harris and you might become convinced that irrational religious beliefs can definitely be extremely negative forces in society, and that we ought to embark upon a campaign of rationality in order to moderate world conflict.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Oliwoli on January 11, 2007, 02:18:06 PM
All im saying is that a believer's faith can simply ignore atheists arguments because they come from an atheist. WHat im saying is that if what Atheists care about is the dangers that religon might create (and not religon in itself, which would make them just as religously intolerant as their idea of other religons and therefore hypocritical) then they should work towards promoting a "safe" God rather than insulting theists.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 11, 2007, 04:02:48 PM
Quote from: "Astantia"
Okay, Ubuntu.  

I believe there is a God.
This is a personal preference.


So properties of objective reality are preference? You said you believed in a God. Since you get to decide what's true on whim, doesn't it mean that God is you?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 11, 2007, 04:07:03 PM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
I support the right to bear arms, in the hopes that idiots like you accidentally shoot themselves.


QUOTE OF THE YEAR 2007
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 11, 2007, 04:12:03 PM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
I support the right to bear arms, in the hopes that idiots like you accidentally shoot themselves.


QUOTE OF THE YEAR 2007


:)
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 11, 2007, 04:20:01 PM
Quote from: "Astantia"
That is not the God I believe in.  You are not listening.

God is not all powerful, there is no way he could be.  Nor is he infallible, he just is.

Now, disprove my God.


I can't disprove things that don't exist.  Let me ask you a question.  I believe that there are invisible super intelligent midget pandas that live in people's houses and hide their stuff - like socks and car keys.  Disprove my belief.  You can't can you?  Do you believe it's true?  What likelihood do you believe there is that it is true?  I can even provide you evidence of times when I've seen the consequences of the pandas actions, and I'm sure you've experienced their actions as well.  So there is evidence for their existence, and no evidence for their non existence.  Surely we must say that it is more likely than not that they exist.  Can you point out my logic fallacy?


Quote

I'll define him in a nice box to make it easy for you:


God is a Rational Supernatural Being.


What evidence do you have for this?  What evidence do you have for the existence of God?  What evidence do you have that he is rational?

Quote

Saying that I 'base my life' on delusion is a meaningless statement.  Nobody bases their life on anything except the things that they observe, excepting of course, the hypocrits.

What have you observed that led you to believe in God?  Is it possible that you actually just observed something you couldn't explain, and rather than admit that ignorance, you invented a reason for that observation?

Quote

Also, making decisions based on a lack of evidence is not inherently evil, just foolish.  


Exactly.

Quote

Now, if you want to dictate to me how I can or cannot live my life, then you are infringing upon my life, and are in fact, being evil.


We must have different definitions of evil, because personally I don't think of the people who dictate my life as "evil".  I think your statement is good, but nieve.  I don't really mind how you live your life, so long as it doesn't effect me, or anybody else.  Unfortunately that's not the case.  Religion has a huge impact on my life and on the lives of everybody in the world.  It has that effect because people like you give power to the people with religious beliefs in power.  When Kevin Rudd voted against stem cell research because his religious views oppose it, nobody said that his religious views are rubbish.  It's ok to attack how he voted, but not the reason behind it.  Religion is off limits.  That should change.



Quote

Quote

I'm sorry, but that's not a logical argument at all.


No shit, I told you that before hand.  Stop using the not logical arguement, it doesn't work.  We are talking about something that is outside the physical universe.


What evidence do you have that this is something outside the physical universe?  You have none.  I know you have none.  You're making that up because otherwise your delusion doesn't work.  If it wasn't so widely accepted, people would call you crazy.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 11, 2007, 04:23:56 PM
Quote from: "Oliwoli"
You also say that belief in God leads to irrational decisions, however it also prevents harmful ones.

I have seen to compelling evidence of a reason for morality outside of religion. If i didnt believe in God I WOULD commit evil deeds I could get away with. Regardless of whether there IS a reason for morality or not, religon is the only reason I dont commit evil deeds. The God i believe in does not ask me to kill muslims or catholics. Whether or not my God is real or not is irrelevant, my God is indisputably beneficial to society, albiet slightly.


The science shows that this is, in fact, not the case at all.  The science shows that all people have evolved the same sense of morality and that religion clouds this.  What evidence do you have that people who don't believe in God are more likely to commit acts of "evil"?  I've sourced Marc Hauser so much and nobody has refuted his work - nobody on this forum, and indeed, nobody in science.  There are a number of other great books about the same subject, from equally high ranking scientists.

Quote

The logical thing to do, i would say, is to say "God probably doesnt exist, I dont believe in God myself, but God can be a positive force, and I should promote this force whenever i meet a religious person"


God is not a positive force.  There is no evidence that suggests a belief in God makes a persons life better, or more moral.  If you're going to make this claim, back it up with some evidence.

Quote

I would also say that atheistic religion bashing is leading to increased fundamentalism, saying "religon is stupid and evil" is bringing religious factions together and making them more fundamental. I would say it acheives nothing but makes the problem worse.


Any evidence for this claim?  Or are you just wildly speculating?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 12, 2007, 12:50:27 AM
I would kindly ask you to stop associating myself with theists who base their decisions on their God.  I do not.

It IS speculation.  It IS unproveable.

It is not destructive to believe in something that will not occur until after death.

As far as 'not having a reason, therefore I attribute it to God' that is exactly what I told you I was doing.  Now, do you have a reason why I should not?

Just because things are being explained away with science does not mean that everything can be explained with science, and IF and UNTIL that happens, God will still have an important place in human culture.

Using rationality to explain God is not sufficient.  There is no reason behind the belief in God.  Now, just because something is not proveable does not make it evil.  If you continue to group me in with religious fundamentalists who ignorantly and arrogantly attack other religions or atheism, then continuing this dialogue would be useless.

My religion is not used to attack the beliefs of others, just as an explanation to my own life.  I have no authority over your life, nor do I claim to.  I reject any claim you have on my life, although I will always keep an open mind to what you have to say.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 12, 2007, 06:07:00 AM
All religion gives power to the idea that religious views should be tolerated.  How is it logical to tolerate some religious views and not others?

The existence of God may be unprovable, but so is the existence of invisible midget pandas.  We can, however, say that there is absolutely not likelihood or reason to believe in God.  We can explain why people believe in God and what the experience in a context that doesn't rely on the existence of God.

I will continue to oppose all religion until religion stops imposing itself on me and on the rest of humanity.  I would rather know the truth than live in a false world.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on January 12, 2007, 03:11:00 PM
Quote from: "beast"
All religion gives power to the idea that religious views should be tolerated.  How is it logical to tolerate some religious views and not others?

How's this for a reason: "Because some religions teach their followers to blow themselves up as long as they take a busload of infidels with them, and others teach their followers to be good and decent people to their fellow human beings, no matter what their beliefs."

That strikes me as an eminently logical reason to tolerate some religions but not others.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 12, 2007, 03:17:24 PM
Yeah beast, although I do agree that we should keep up the conversation/debate on these issues, it's clear that some religions are inherently violent and should thus be given more of our attention.  But you are correct in keeping the conversation going.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 12, 2007, 03:32:18 PM
Quote from: "Oliwoli"
All im saying is that a believer's faith can simply ignore atheists arguments because they come from an atheist.


Which is one of many reason's why faith = stupidity.

Quote from: "Oliwoli"
WHat im saying is that if what Atheists care about is the dangers that religon might create...


Not "might." Does.

Quote from: "Oliwoli"
...then they should work towards promoting a "safe" God rather than insulting theists.


Been done. Haven't you heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.veganza.org/)?

However, even if Pastafarianism catches on for the entire world population, FSM will not be a "safe" god because

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

Quote from: "Oliwoli"
If i didnt believe in God I WOULD commit evil deeds I could get away with. Regardless of whether there IS a reason for morality or not, religon is the only reason I dont commit evil deeds.


Then you are truly an enemy of the good.


[The writer of this has dyslexia and has to rewrite everything a few times and it is still a little incoherent; I've cleaned it up a bit by spacing it out.]

Quote from: "Fugin from Philosophychatforum.com"
for it is written that in the beginning man created

on the 1st day he created words and the words were good for the words carried thought but the thought giveth and the thought taketh away

and so on the evening of the 1st day man wandered about the garden unable to answer his own questions.

so on the 2nd day man created the gods form every living thing and of the moon the stars and the sun and he gave them names with the words that he created ,and so man had brought order out of the chaos.

but on the 3rd day man created the gods in his own image and likeness he created them both male and female, but on the evening of the third day man became jealous of the female gods for they could bring forth life, so man destroyed the female gods and in his rage he sort out and hunted down all the other gods and chaos returned.

then on the forth day man built giant houses for his god and he called out to him day and night god god where are you hiding? but god did not answer.

on the morning of the 5th day some men considered that maybe there was no god and really nobody new where we came from
so on the 6th day they created new words of logic and numbers for maths and man created science and philosophy he made schools so every one could think about the question that were asked long ago in the garden and help find a better truth alas but some men were already resting from there labor and tried to hold back the world of thinking,

on the 7th day man became like a god he made machines and he saw that they were good for they did the work of man and he told the machines to go forth and multiply and fill the whole earth this man did so he could rest from all his labor , but like everything that man had created it could be used for woe

in the evening of the 7th day about the 1950s men fell under a strong delusion and found a means to ultimate power one nation would rise above all other's 'in god we trust they said'........... to be continued.........?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 12, 2007, 04:34:42 PM
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
...others teach their followers to be good and decent people to their fellow human beings, no matter what their beliefs.


That's a crap reason to tolerate (intellectually/memetically) these religions. Beast and I just invented a religion in the last 24 hours. It dictates that there are midget invisible pandas (at least 7) running around every single dwelling in the world. If you do not perform a ritual prayer for 2 minutes to them every day you are home, they will eventually eat you and your children alive. Then the pandas will tease and torment your spirits for eternity.

However, if you keep your house clean, are kind to your neighbours, never commit any crimes, donate to charity, and keep your kids' geography marks above 80%, you will be spared, and the pandas will give your spirit an extended life of 100 years with which you may do anything you want.

Time to be a midget panda evangelist! Are you going to tolerate this religion?


http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/do-we-really-need-bad-reasons-to-be-good/

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2006/12/gods_enemies_are_more_honest_t_1.html
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 12, 2007, 05:07:51 PM
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "Oliwoli"
I use "gay" and "retard" as an insult all the time, but i am neither homophobic or "retardphobic?" i simply assume that people will take it as an insult. In the same way i could use any other word. If people start using "atheist" as an insult, it wont be long before even atheists use it to insult each other.


By that logic, wouldn't it be perfectly fine to use 'nigger' as an insult?


I don't think that racial slurs and homophobic slurs are cultural mirrors. Nor are slurs supposedly against mentally handicapped people. Since "gay" and "retard" have gone down a waterslide in the meme pool, there no longer really offensive, in my opinion, to either of said groups.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 12, 2007, 10:24:39 PM
Quote from: "Astantia"
I am an unusually lucky person.  I typically am capable of 'getting away with' quite a few things that other people get stuck with.  For example, I have always had a romantic interest, I am generally seen to make 'good' decisions, such as my choices in employment, where I am earning quite a profitable wage, not to mention regular comissions for my productive work.


Where's the sense in this? Why does God favour you? And if you thought yourself "unlucky," wouldn't that just mean there's a God that hates you? Or if you have average "luck," an indifferent God?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 13, 2007, 12:49:21 AM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Quote from: "Astantia"
I am an unusually lucky person.  I typically am capable of 'getting away with' quite a few things that other people get stuck with.  For example, I have always had a romantic interest, I am generally seen to make 'good' decisions, such as my choices in employment, where I am earning quite a profitable wage, not to mention regular comissions for my productive work.


Where's the sense in this? Why does God favour you? And if you thought yourself "unlucky," wouldn't that just mean there's a God that hates you? Or if you have average "luck," an indifferent God?



Absolutely.  A theist will find God in all things.  An Atheist will not.

But just because something cannot be proven to exist means that it does not.  It is kind of nice to know that God is watching out for me, I wish I could feel bad that God doesn't like the rest of you, but hey, maybe it didn't create the Universe, it's just something that likes me.

Maybe it's space aliens.

Maybe it's computer code that makes my existence better than others.

Maybe it's my positive thinking.

All of these things could be 'God' but they are all equally unexplainable, and unproveable.  As far as FSM or MP (midget pandaism) go, nobody truly believes these things.  They are created by man to mock other men.  They were not created for personal constructive use, but merely to attack the beliefs of others.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 13, 2007, 01:55:24 PM
So Astantia, would I be correct in saying you have no interest in what's true, only what makes you feel good?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 13, 2007, 02:04:29 PM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
So Astantia, would I be correct in saying you have no interest in what's true, only what makes you feel good?


I smell pragmatism...
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 13, 2007, 02:07:49 PM
Quote from: "Knight"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
So Astantia, would I be correct in saying you have no interest in what's true, only what makes you feel good?


I smell pragmatism...


Smells like your mom.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 13, 2007, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Smells like your mom.


I'm not sure if she's pragmatic, deluded, or correct.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 13, 2007, 05:55:39 PM
The objective truth cannot be determined conclusively.  If it cannot be determined beyond doubt, then pragmatism makes an excellent substitute.

Does this mean that there can be no truth?  Absolutely not, it is just a substitute until this can be proven (either way) conclusively.  At this point in time, pragmatism is an acceptable replacement for faith in either method.

If Atheism works for you, I have no way or method of 'proving' that God exists.  If Theism works for you, there is no way of disproving such a thing.

At death, we will be unable to be pragmatists.  We will either be conscious and aware, and unable to deny the afterlife, or we will not.

Pragmatism does not hold true in all things, however.  If something can be objectively known and proven (such as mathematics) then it is silly and pointless to believe otherwise (unless, of course, you have never been taught, or have been taught incorrectly.)
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 13, 2007, 05:58:18 PM
Astantia, Sam Harris argues against pragmatism in his book The End of Faith.  I suggest you read it.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 13, 2007, 05:58:57 PM
So Astantia, why is it that you treat God differently than alike entities - trolls, unicorns, pixies, hobgoblins, etc?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: rustyslacker on January 13, 2007, 06:08:23 PM
Quote
So Astantia, why is it that you treat God differently than alike entities - trolls, unicorns, pixies, hobgoblins, etc?

Because they don't exist. ONLY GOD EXISTS!!!!11

This is a classic question and I eagerly await the answer. I fear it'll be similar to the one above. :)

Astantia, is there some form of organized religion you follow, or did you just make everything up yourself?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 13, 2007, 06:13:16 PM
Some of you have made the claim that belief in an afterlife is not harmful. But the universe is a very different place with an afterlife. Decisions could be influenced in a very harmful way if you take that bombshell into your ethical thinking.

The most important part is the believer's own well-being. What's the different between telling an HIV victim she has 8 years to live and a faith victim that she has 80?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 13, 2007, 06:16:50 PM
1.  I have no reason to believe that those things exist, as they have not revealed themselves to me.

2.  I do not follow an organised religion.

3.  Nothing is 'made up.'  In fact, there is very little to my 'religion.'  

It is simply: there is a rational being that exists outside the Universe which is capable of interacting with this one.

Other than that, there is nothing else about my 'religion.'


Quote
Some of you have made the claim that belief in an afterlife is not harmful. But the universe is a very different place with an afterlife. Decisions could be influenced in a very harmful way if you take that bombshell into your ethical thinking.


What decisions Ubuntu?

Quote
The most important part is the believer's own well-being. What's the different between telling an HIV victim she has 8 years to live and a faith victim that she has 80?


I don't know, what would be the difference?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 13, 2007, 06:31:15 PM
Quote from: "Astantia"
1.  I have no reason to believe that those things exist, as they have not revealed themselves to me.


Has God revealed himself to you in any other way than showing you to your keys as bombs drop on school children?

Quote from: "Astantia"
Quote
Some of you have made the claim that belief in an afterlife is not harmful. But the universe is a very different place with an afterlife. Decisions could be influenced in a very harmful way if you take that bombshell into your ethical thinking.


What decisions Ubuntu?


Well here's an example: if you really do believe in an afterlife, and that the mind transcends the body, having tons of babies which you can't support and killing them so they can enjoy the afterlife is perfectly justifiable. Also with complex ethical issues, a person living on after they die may sway you one way when perhaps you should have selected the other one.

Quote from: "Astantia"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
The most important part is the believer's own well-being. What's the different between telling an HIV victim she has 8 years to live and a faith victim that she has 80?


I don't know, what would be the difference?


Nothing.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 13, 2007, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Quote from: "Astantia"
1.  I have no reason to believe that those things exist, as they have not revealed themselves to me.


Has God revealed himself to you in any other way than showing you to your keys as bombs drop on school children?

Quote from: "Astantia"
Quote
Some of you have made the claim that belief in an afterlife is not harmful. But the universe is a very different place with an afterlife. Decisions could be influenced in a very harmful way if you take that bombshell into your ethical thinking.


What decisions Ubuntu?


Well here's an example: if you really do believe in an afterlife, and that the mind transcends the body, having tons of babies which you can't support and killing them so they can enjoy the afterlife is perfectly justifiable. Also with complex ethical issues, a person living on after they die may sway you one way when perhaps you should have selected the other one.

Quote from: "Astantia"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
The most important part is the believer's own well-being. What's the different between telling an HIV victim she has 8 years to live and a faith victim that she has 80?


I don't know, what would be the difference?


Nothing.


1. I'm not sure.  Perhaps.  But then again, it could have been me that found my car keys, couldn't it?  I think it is more of a general feeling that God exists, not a defineable moment of revelation.  It's just always been there.

2. Well, what religion tells you to have tons of babies and then to kill them all?  What would be the moral justification for killing?  To experience a heaven?  Ubuntu, you are making an extreme example, that nobody who is without serious mental defect would do.

3. What complex ethical issues?

4. I'm not sure I understand, could you speak plainly?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 13, 2007, 06:53:25 PM
1. Describe this feeling to me. Why do you take feelings as being evidence?

2. If you truly believe in an afterlife where the mind exists, you should go ahead, make lots of babies, and kill them once their mind develops. That way you can save money but create more consciousnesses that can enjoy transcending physicality.

3. Let's say you had to decide whether someone would die or go under a sever amount of pain. If you believe they will survive their own death anyways, it would be more ethical to kill them so they can continue a painless existence. But if life is the only shot you got, then it would be ethical to give them the pain along with the few precious years of existence we are so lucky to have.

4. Is that in reference to the human immunodeficiency and faith viruses or the subject above?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 13, 2007, 07:04:10 PM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
1. Describe this feeling to me. Why do you take feelings as being evidence?

2. If you truly believe in an afterlife where the mind exists, you should go ahead, make lots of babies, and kill them once their mind develops. That way you can save money but create more consciousnesses that can enjoy transcending physicality.

3. Let's say you had to decide whether someone would die or go under a sever amount of pain. If you believe they will survive their own death anyways, it would be more ethical to kill them so they can continue a painless existence. But if life is the only shot you got, then it would be ethical to give them the pain along with the few precious years of existence we are so lucky to have.

4. Is that in reference to the human immunodeficiency and faith viruses or the subject above?


1.  It is a feeling of security and hope that always returns to me, regardless of my circumstances.  It is the feeling that I am right. It is the feeling that there is a being greater than any man.

1(a.) Now 2.  Why wouldn't you take feelings into consideration?  They are an aspect of our existance, aren't they?

2. But if I kill them, then wouldn't I have ended their life, and thus, there chance to reach a higher potential as human beings?

3.  The only person who should be making those decisions are those who would suffer.  A few extra years of suffering really isn't a few extra years of life, even if there is nothing after life, I would rather die than live for another 8 years in agony.

4.  The faith virus.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 13, 2007, 07:25:36 PM
1. Please describe in more detail... times... circumstances comparisons... etc. Some people have disorders where they are paranoid all the time. Should they believe they are being hunted by aliens even though it contradicts the evidence and logical thinking?

1.(a.) Feelings are well explained by science and have shown to relate to immediate physical observations, and often have nothing to do with metaphysical "vibrations."

2. But without you, they wouldn't have been born in the first place. With an afterlife, sending minds into the next plane of being could be considered humanitarian work. A conscious mind is better than no mind after all.

3. It's not always possible. If you knew an unmarried 30-year-old with no family or close friends would suffer agony in a coma for a full week, but make a recovery, would it be more ethical to euthanise him so he can pass onto the next phase of existence or to let him suffer but live his brief life?

4. The God Delusion (http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-6169720917221820689%26q%3Dthe%2Bgod%2Bdelusion&docid=-6169720917221820689) ---> The Virus of Faith (http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-5752208690443739173%26q%3Dthe%2Bvirus%2Bof%2Bfaith&docid=-5752208690443739173)
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 13, 2007, 09:45:04 PM
Quote from: "Knight"
Astantia, Sam Harris argues against pragmatism in his book The End of Faith.  I suggest you read it.


I'm curious, Knight.  When I first came to this forum, you seemed to be somewhat devout in your faith--has this changed recently?  I don't want to assume anything, but it sounds like you might not be quite as much of a believer anymore?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 13, 2007, 10:06:22 PM
I never was a 'believer' (at least I never argued for it on here).  I'm not an atheist either.  I'm agnostic.  However, I have argued against other atheists on here (Ubuntu, Erasmus, beast, etc.) in defense of agnosticism over atheism, I believe.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 14, 2007, 10:08:19 AM
Just added curiosity, but after reading The God Delusion, especially the "Poverty of Agnosticism" section, do you still have those same beliefs about agnosticism?

Yeah, just curious and stuff.  It really interests me what kind of effect those books might have on people.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 14, 2007, 10:59:14 AM
I haven't read The God Delusion yet but I'm eagerly awaiting it to come in the mail.  I'll be reading Letter to a Christian Nation before Delusion.

If Dawkins argues that we should be atheists in regards to Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, I might concur.  I'm agnostic in regards to whether or not there exists any such supernatural entity (despite having no evidence to even be agnostic).  Interesting topic.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 14, 2007, 11:24:10 AM
He touches on both subjects, actually.  Agnosticism regarding personal gods, and regarding a more...  Deistic god, I guess would be the phrasing for it.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: James on January 14, 2007, 12:44:42 PM
Quote from: "Astantia"
I think it is more of a general feeling that God exists, not a defineable moment of revelation.  It's just always been there.


I hate to go against the flow of my original post here, but - "a general feeling"? Are you saying that you basically believe in God purely on a hunch?

Would you believe me if I told you "the Earth is Round... I just have a feeling it is. Trust me"?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on January 14, 2007, 01:09:11 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Would you believe me if I told you "the Earth is Round... I just have a feeling it is. Trust me"?


Hell no!  The people who say "Trust me" are always the kind of people that you definitely shouldn't.

Dogplatter, I don't trust you.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 14, 2007, 01:25:58 PM
God DOES excist, only I call Him diffrently.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 14, 2007, 01:48:04 PM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
God DOES excist, only I call Him diffrently.


Probably because you can't spell.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 14, 2007, 01:50:21 PM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
God DOES excist, only I call Him diffrently.


Evidence? That is to say, why shouldn't I think you are deliberately trying to trick me? And how to I know you aren't honestly mistaken? How do you know God exists?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 14, 2007, 04:53:21 PM
Ubuntu, I know you were wondering about Atheist Universe.  Here is the author's homepage, on which it seems he has put the audio book for download:  http://www.davidmills.net/
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 15, 2007, 09:30:54 AM
Quote from: "Astantia"
I think it is more of a general feeling that God exists, not a defineable moment of revelation.  It's just always been there.


Quote from: "Dogplatter"
I hate to go against the flow of my original post here, but - "a general feeling"? Are you saying that you basically believe in God purely on a hunch?

That is exactly what I am saying.

Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Would you believe me if I told you "the Earth is Round... I just have a feeling it is. Trust me"?

Am I telling you to trust me?  I do not care if you are Atheist or Theist.  However, I will not be told that being a Theist is stupid, as science has not disproven God.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 15, 2007, 09:41:27 AM
Quote from: "Astantia"
I will not be told that being a Theist is stupid, as science has not disproven God.


Don't expect to see science disprove the existence of a god (though scientists might be able to disprove the existence of the character God in the Bible--that's another story).  Keep your mind open and evaluate the arguments.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 15, 2007, 09:42:19 AM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
God DOES excist, only I call Him diffrently.


Evidence? That is to say, why shouldn't I think you are deliberately trying to trick me? And how to I know you aren't honestly mistaken? How do you know God exists?


No proof of it of course. So I can't prove anything.
But a television isnt made by some explosion in a factory. Its designed.
Just aswell could our universe be designed.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 15, 2007, 09:54:09 AM
Quote from: "Knight"
Quote from: "Astantia"
I will not be told that being a Theist is stupid, as science has not disproven God.


Don't expect to see science disprove the existence of a god (though scientists might be able to disprove the existence of the character God in the Bible--that's another story).  Keep your mind open and evaluate the arguments.


As I have said before, God is real, some of the things people say about it are lies.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 15, 2007, 10:06:52 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
But a television isnt made by some explosion in a factory. Its designed.
Just aswell could our universe be designed.


That's a horrible analogy.  I suggest you take some time and look into evolution (read The Blind Watchmaker or something).

Quote from: "Astantia"
As I have said before, God is real, some of the things people say about it are lies.


When you say "God is real," I'm thinking that you're making a claim about the existence of the Biblical god (whom we refer to as capital-G-God).  If you're not making an assertion about this god, then either say "Some god exists" or "______ exists" (depending on the name you attribute your god).  In the meantime I'll assert "the celestial teapot exists and it is orbiting Mars as we speak."
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 15, 2007, 10:12:22 AM
Quote from: "Knight"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
But a television isnt made by some explosion in a factory. Its designed.
Just aswell could our universe be designed.


That's a horrible analogy.  I suggest you take some time and look into evolution (read The Blind Watchmaker or something).

Quote from: "Astantia"
As I have said before, God is real, some of the things people say about it are lies.


When you say "God is real," I'm thinking that you're making a claim about the existence of the Biblical god (whom we refer to as capital-G-God).  If you're not making an assertion about this god, then either say "Some god exists" or "______ exists" (depending on the name you attribute your god).  In the meantime I'll assert "the celestial teapot exists and it is orbiting Mars as we speak."


Well, all I know is that it is a supernatural rational being.  SO,I guess I can call it Essarbee.  That's my God's name, how about that?

That's fine, I guess there really is no way to disprove the celestial teapot.  I guess eventually, we will get conclusive results about it, however.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 15, 2007, 10:55:44 AM
Were you the one claiming that god (Essarbee) exists simply because you feel that it exists?

I feel like you know you've created an idol.  That's fine.  But just keep in mind this quote from Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 16, 2007, 04:08:21 AM
Quote from: "Knight"
Were you the one claiming that god (Essarbee) exists simply because you feel that it exists?

I feel like you know you've created an idol.  That's fine.  But just keep in mind this quote from Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."


Of course it can.  But not by me.  It is an unproveable being.  I cannot convince you of it's existence, but neither can you convince me of it's non-existance.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Masterchef on January 16, 2007, 07:30:45 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
No proof of it of course. So I can't prove anything.
But a television isnt made by some explosion in a factory. Its designed.
Just aswell could our universe be designed.

My lunch is a turkey sandwich. Just as well could our universe be a turkey sandwich.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 16, 2007, 03:32:12 PM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
God DOES excist, only I call Him diffrently.


Evidence? That is to say, why shouldn't I think you are deliberately trying to trick me? And how to I know you aren't honestly mistaken? How do you know God exists?


No proof of it of course. So I can't prove anything.
But a television isnt made by some explosion in a factory. Its designed.
Just aswell could our universe be designed.


It's completely illogical to draw a conclusion without any evidence to back up that conclusion.  It could be that the universe is designed, but there is absolutely no evidence of that, and in fact science explains the universe in much more specific terms that do not require any kind of intelligent designer at all.

Interestingly the term "Intelligent Design" only appeared in 1987 after the US supreme court ruled that Creationism was a religious belief and could not be taught in public schools (thank god America was founded by atheists).

Quote from: "Asantia"
Of course it can. But not by me. It is an unproveable being. I cannot convince you of it's existence, but neither can you convince me of it's non-existance.


Just because it's unprovable, it doesn't mean we can't look at the evidence and say what is most likely.  Evidence for the existence of any gods: nothing.  So why would we make the conclusion that gods exist?  Clearly it is illogical to believe something without any evidence to back it up.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 16, 2007, 03:59:16 PM
beast, I'm going to caution you to not dismiss the beliefs of theists so quickly.

 
Quote from: "beast"
It could be that the universe is designed, but there is absolutely no evidence of that


Keep in mind that you don't mean "there's no evidence to suggest that," as there surely is.  There are 'objective facts' about the universe that can be interpreted a number of ways, and can thus be used as evidence for a number of positions (including ID).  However, the situation is not whether or not there's any evidence backing up an Intelligent Designer, it's whether or not we have a better explanation.

Quote from: "beast"
Evidence for the existence of any gods: nothing.


Once again, there is evidence for the existence of a god, but the evidence might be better explained by another means.  For example, I take it as evidence for the existence of a god that I used to carry out intra-mental conversations with such a character.  These conversations were very real, don't get me wrong.  However, I now am no longer sure that my intra-mental conversations best suggest an actual conversation with a god.  Instead, perhaps, a better explanation is that I was simply fooling myself into thinking the conversation was mutual, whereas I was simply answering all of my own questions (praying/talking to myself).  Perceived 'miracles' are the same way.  They can be evidence of a god, even if they're better explained another way.  So that's just something to keep in mind.  We're not arguing that people don't have evidence to suggest that their god is correct, we're appealing to a principle called the 'inference to the best explanation' (IBE).
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: sodapop112 on January 16, 2007, 06:12:59 PM
i dont belive in any of your silly gods thor lord of the lightning is the real 1
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Masterchef on January 16, 2007, 07:35:54 PM
Quote from: "Knight"
Keep in mind that you don't mean "there's no evidence to suggest that," as there surely is.  There are 'objective facts' about the universe that can be interpreted a number of ways, and can thus be used as evidence for a number of positions (including ID).  However, the situation is not whether or not there's any evidence backing up an Intelligent Designer, it's whether or not we have a better explanation.

"Objective Facts" is an oxymoron. If a fact is objective, it is not a fact.

Quote from: "Knight"
...a whole bunch of philosophical bullshit...

If you honestly think the voices in your head are proof of a god, I suggest you get a CAT scan.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 16, 2007, 07:44:51 PM
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
If you honestly think the voices in your head are proof of a god, I suggest you get a CAT scan.


Interestingly, I'm not convinced that you even read what I wrote, as I was clearly showing that although a perceived conversation with a god is 'evidence' of the existence of that god, the conversation is most likely a trick of the mind, and thus, the evidence for that god doesn't add up to a theistic belief.  But nice try, Master... :roll:
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on January 16, 2007, 09:51:59 PM
Quote from: "Knight"
Once again, there is evidence for the existence of a god, but the evidence might be better explained by another means.

If the evidence could be explained by theory A, but can be better and more simple explained be theory B, it can't properly be said to be evidence for theory A at all.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 16, 2007, 10:30:52 PM
It seems to me that it can be called evidence still.  For example, lets say I walk outside and see a red dragon (I experience it phenomenologically).  In seeing this dragon, I have a reason to believe there is a dragon there.  There's evidence (though most likely only evidence for myself) that there is, indeed, a dragon.  Yet later on, when I think back to the dragon, I start thinking that perhaps what I saw was just a hallucination.  That certainly makes more sense.  Yet this inference to the best explanation doesn't mean that I don't have any evidence to believe that I really saw a dragon (because the phenomenological appearance of the dragon itself constitutes evidence).
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: dysfunction on January 16, 2007, 10:36:34 PM
But a gut feeling that 'something must be there' isn't quite the same as an actual sensory perception.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 16, 2007, 10:57:25 PM
Why are you discussing God here? There is no proof so on what does everybody base their arguments? Assumptions? Belief? Please stop it.
This is just something you can't go discussing.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 17, 2007, 01:19:52 AM
That's ridiculous.  We don't have proof that invisable midget pandas don't exist either, but nobody believs that they do.  Many of us are basing this discussion on the evidence we see for the religion theory - and we're atheists.  Some of the people are basing this discussion on their illogical emotions - and they are superstitious people.

Quote
We, as humans, excist only to have sex and
keep our species alive, the rest is just there
to make life easier and more enjoyable.


Your signature is hilarious.  If you understood anything about evolution you would know that we do not "excist" [sic] for the purpose of having sex or keeping our species alive at all.  The idea that this is we exist to do anything is ludicrious and has absolutely no evidence to support it.  The fact is that we exist because we have sex, not to have sex - that's a fairly significant difference.  Science shows that we do not exist for a purpose, but rather because we're good at existing we continue to exist.  You might as well say that the purose of rain is to fall towards the ground.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: jk12 on January 17, 2007, 03:36:38 AM
purpose? mhmm, interesting word. Our purpose depends on our nature, and our nature is created by how we think and the choices we make. The purpose of rain, is simply to rain, for that is the nature of rain.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Masterchef on January 17, 2007, 07:27:44 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
This is just something you can't go discussing.

Says who?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 17, 2007, 07:29:20 AM
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
This is just something you can't go discussing.

Says who?


Well ok, you can discuss it all you want. But it wont lead to anything.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 17, 2007, 07:30:25 AM
Quote from: "beast"
That's ridiculous.  We don't have proof that invisable midget pandas don't exist either, but nobody believs that they do.  Many of us are basing this discussion on the evidence we see for the religion theory - and we're atheists.  Some of the people are basing this discussion on their illogical emotions - and they are superstitious people.

Quote
We, as humans, excist only to have sex and
keep our species alive, the rest is just there
to make life easier and more enjoyable.


Your signature is hilarious.  If you understood anything about evolution you would know that we do not "excist" [sic] for the purpose of having sex or keeping our species alive at all.  The idea that this is we exist to do anything is ludicrious and has absolutely no evidence to support it.  The fact is that we exist because we have sex, not to have sex - that's a fairly significant difference.  Science shows that we do not exist for a purpose, but rather because we're good at existing we continue to exist.  You might as well say that the purose of rain is to fall towards the ground.


Nope, we excist to have sex. Thats how it is in nature, thats how its allways going to be. Everything else.. like in my sig, is just to make life easier.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Masterchef on January 17, 2007, 07:33:48 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Nope, we excist to have sex. Thats how it is in nature, thats how its allways going to be. Everything else.. like in my sig, is just to make life easier.

Nature isn't intelligent, and therefore doesn't have a reason for creating us. In order for the Human race to have a purpose, there would have to be some kind of intelligent creator.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Captain_Bubblebum on January 17, 2007, 08:16:26 AM
Quote from: "jk12"
The purpose of rain, is simply to rain, for that is the nature of rain.


are you being sarcastic? cos you should know by now (assuming you have experienced geography lessons in school at some point) that it rains for a reason, and it is not simply to rain.  water is evapourated from the ocean/sea, turned into clouds, clouds cant cope with the amount of moisture residing within them, and they have to rain inorder to get rid of it (this is called the "hydrologic cycle").  this helps to sustain life on the planet.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 17, 2007, 08:28:36 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Well ok, you can discuss it all you want. But it wont lead to anything.


Yes it will.  It will lead to a rational conversation about our religions that needs to be carried out.  Many people, when forced to give reasons for believing in their specific God, find that the best reasons they have are tradition and the assumption that the Bible is the 'Word of God'.  If this is the case, any subsequent deep thought by that person will reveal that he/she does not believe in God any more than he/she believes in Hercules.  Then that person will probably stop discriminating against homosexuals, electing people into office that are bent on destroying the world, and giving their money to the church (the money, after all, can be spent in a much more humanitarian way).  There are many reasons to discuss religion and God.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 17, 2007, 08:54:16 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Quote from: "beast"
Your signature is hilarious.  If you understood anything about evolution you would know that we do not "excist" [sic] for the purpose of having sex or keeping our species alive at all.  The idea that this is we exist to do anything is ludicrious and has absolutely no evidence to support it.  The fact is that we exist because we have sex, not to have sex - that's a fairly significant difference.  Science shows that we do not exist for a purpose, but rather because we're good at existing we continue to exist.  You might as well say that the purose of rain is to fall towards the ground.


Nope, we excist to have sex. Thats how it is in nature, thats how its allways going to be. Everything else.. like in my sig, is just to make life easier.


Read that part of his post again a few more times, and never post again.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 17, 2007, 10:21:42 AM
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Nope, we excist to have sex. Thats how it is in nature, thats how its allways going to be. Everything else.. like in my sig, is just to make life easier.

Nature isn't intelligent, and therefore doesn't have a reason for creating us. In order for the Human race to have a purpose, there would have to be some kind of intelligent creator.


Ok tell me, what does every organism do eventually in its life? It reproduces. Why? To keep its species alive.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 17, 2007, 10:52:44 AM
How is that the purpose of life, though?  Life didn't start just so it could reproduce.  It only continues because it does reproduce.  You don't seem to understand the meaning of the words "meaning" and "purpose."
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 17, 2007, 10:56:41 AM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
How is that the purpose of life, though?  Life didn't start just so it could reproduce.  It only continues because it does reproduce.  You don't seem to understand the meaning of the words "meaning" and "purpose."


What else could it be?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 17, 2007, 10:58:44 AM
That's not answering the question.  Explain to me how reproduction is the purpose of life.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 17, 2007, 11:05:59 AM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
That's not answering the question.  Explain to me how reproduction is the purpose of life.


Because if you don't (at all, so nobody on earth), your species would get extinct, luckily evolution "thought" of that and made us some nice organs for reproduction.
Nothing else can be the purpose of life, it would fall under the category "Making life easier and/or more enjoyable"
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 17, 2007, 11:17:02 AM
Life did not begin just to reproduce.  You still don't understand what "purpose" means.

Take this hypothetical situation, then.  Some time in the future, say that we have augmented ourselves with nano- and bio-technology which allows us to live indefinitely.  We no longer have the need to reproduce, as it is no longer necessary to further the species.

What is the purpose to life then?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 17, 2007, 11:19:46 AM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Life did not begin just to reproduce.  You still don't understand what "purpose" means.

Take this hypothetical situation, then.  Some time in the future, say that we have augmented ourselves with nano- and bio-technology which allows us to live indefinitely.  We no longer have the need to reproduce, as it is no longer necessary to further the species.

What is the purpose to life then?


To live forever.
As we cant do that now, we must reproduce, so our species CAN live forever.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 17, 2007, 11:22:00 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Life did not begin just to reproduce.  You still don't understand what "purpose" means.

Take this hypothetical situation, then.  Some time in the future, say that we have augmented ourselves with nano- and bio-technology which allows us to live indefinitely.  We no longer have the need to reproduce, as it is no longer necessary to further the species.

What is the purpose to life then?


To live forever.
As we cant do that now, we must reproduce, so our species CAN live forever.


Why can't the purpose be simply to live?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 17, 2007, 11:23:03 AM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Life did not begin just to reproduce.  You still don't understand what "purpose" means.

Take this hypothetical situation, then.  Some time in the future, say that we have augmented ourselves with nano- and bio-technology which allows us to live indefinitely.  We no longer have the need to reproduce, as it is no longer necessary to further the species.

What is the purpose to life then?


To live forever.
As we cant do that now, we must reproduce, so our species CAN live forever.


Why can't the purpose be simply to live?


Because you will not live forever, but we can make sure mankind can.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 17, 2007, 11:28:21 AM
You are thinking too specifically.  Humans aren't the only creatures in existence, you know.

If you want to do specifics, what is the purpose of life for a mule?  Mules, for the most part, can't reproduce.  Do these creatures have no purpose?  What about people who are born without the ability to reproduce, in whatever case?  Do these people have no purpose?  They're obviously worthless for furthering the species, so should we just kill them because they have no purpose for living?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 17, 2007, 11:31:03 AM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
You are thinking too specifically.  Humans aren't the only creatures in existence, you know.

If you want to do specifics, what is the purpose of life for a mule?  Mules, for the most part, can't reproduce.  Do these creatures have no purpose?  What about people who are born without the ability to reproduce, in whatever case?  Do these people have no purpose?  They're obviously worthless for furthering the species, so should we just kill them because they have no purpose for living?


In every species there are exeptions that cant do like the rest. No we should not kill them. (wtf? of course not)
But for "the human" generally the purpose is to reproduce.
As for Mules, thats probably one of nature's mistakes xD
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 17, 2007, 12:00:33 PM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
In every species there are exeptions that cant do like the rest. No we should not kill them. (wtf? of course not)
But for "the human" generally the purpose is to reproduce.
As for Mules, thats probably one of nature's mistakes xD


But those people obviously have no purpose of living if they can't reproduce, according to your proposal.

Which means that your proposal does not hold true.  Life's purpose is not to reproduce, if many lifeforms cannot.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 17, 2007, 12:08:36 PM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
In every species there are exeptions that cant do like the rest. No we should not kill them. (wtf? of course not)
But for "the human" generally the purpose is to reproduce.
As for Mules, thats probably one of nature's mistakes xD


But those people obviously have no purpose of living if they can't reproduce, according to your proposal.

Which means that your proposal does not hold true.  Life's purpose is not to reproduce, if many lifeforms cannot.


But many lifeforms cant because there is something wrong with them. Because reproduction should be possible.
As for those who can't reproduce they have nothing else to do but to enjoy life xD

As for those of us that can reproduce, we can enjoy life while we reproduce :P
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 17, 2007, 04:37:36 PM
The word is spelt exist!!!!!  You're obviously not making a typo, so I wanted to point that out so I don't have to look at "excist" every time you post.

You're clearly wrong and clearly won't be convinced because you have a dogmatic belief that we are here for the purpose of sex, so instead of trying to convince you, I suggest you read some books about evolution.  Probably the most highly regarded book on the subject (apart from Origin) is The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins (which I haven't read yet, but have on my bookshelf).  It's obvious that you've never studied evolution, so instead of debating this issue, I suggest you try to learn more about the subject, at least so we can be on the same page.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 17, 2007, 05:58:53 PM
He probably understands the theory, but is not using the language correctly.

Purpose is defined as working towards something.  Humanity is not working for something else, if it already contains all that it can be.  You could say that our culture has a purpose, but even then, culture would have to be controlled in order to yield a specific result.  Hell, even when you take science as a whole, there is no purpose as everyone is doing research or conducting experiments for different reasons.  In the end, the individual decides the purposes (or lack thereof) of their own actions, and to speak of the 'purpose' of humanity, or the 'purpose' of culture is not very useful at all.

However, it does appear that human beings are adept at reproducing (hell, that may be the only thing we have a natural aptitude for) but that does not mean it is our purpose.  Purpose is a human thing, and it is decided by each individual.  Your purpose may be to reproduce, (lol) but that does not mean that every person's purpose is to reproduce.  My purpose (chosen by myself) is to enjoy life, and to enjoy it in the company of others who enjoy it.  Eventually, I would like to enjoy the company of my children.  Eventually, I would like to enjoy the company of my grand children, but:

1. I do not have children simply for the sake of having children.
2. I do not have children simply for the sake of having grand children.

Do not begin to think that life has any higher purpose, especially not reproduction.  Life just is.  Enjoy it.  Or don't.  Nobody will choose for you, and if you decide to pursue another goal, nodoby will choose that goal for you.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 17, 2007, 06:03:45 PM
Quote from: "Astantia"
He probably understands the theory, but is not using the language correctly.

Purpose is defined as working towards something.  Humanity is not working for something else, if it already contains all that it can be.  You could say that our culture has a purpose, but even then, culture would have to be controlled in order to yield a specific result.  Hell, even when you take science as a whole, there is no purpose as everyone is doing research or conducting experiments for different reasons.  In the end, the individual decides the purposes (or lack thereof) of their own actions, and to speak of the 'purpose' of humanity, or the 'purpose' of culture is not very useful at all.

However, it does appear that human beings are adept at reproducing (hell, that may be the only thing we have a natural aptitude for) but that does not mean it is our purpose.  Purpose is a human thing, and it is decided by each individual.  Your purpose may be to reproduce, (lol) but that does not mean that every person's purpose is to reproduce.  My purpose (chosen by myself) is to enjoy life, and to enjoy it in the company of others who enjoy it.  Eventually, I would like to enjoy the company of my children.  Eventually, I would like to enjoy the company of my grand children, but:

1. I do not have children simply for the sake of having children.
2. I do not have children simply for the sake of having grand children.

Do not begin to think that life has any higher purpose, especially not reproduction.  Life just is.  Enjoy it.  Or don't.  Nobody will choose for you, and if you decide to pursue another goal, nodoby will choose that goal for you.


Astantia wins the thread.  Flawless victory.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 17, 2007, 06:10:26 PM
Holy shit, did you just agree with me?

HOLY SHIT DID I JUST GET A FLAWLESS VICTORY?!?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 17, 2007, 10:24:29 PM
Quote from: "beast"
The word is spelt exist!!!!!  You're obviously not making a typo, so I wanted to point that out so I don't have to look at "excist" every time you post.

You're clearly wrong and clearly won't be convinced because you have a dogmatic belief that we are here for the purpose of sex, so instead of trying to convince you, I suggest you read some books about evolution.  Probably the most highly regarded book on the subject (apart from Origin) is The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins (which I haven't read yet, but have on my bookshelf).  It's obvious that you've never studied evolution, so instead of debating this issue, I suggest you try to learn more about the subject, at least so we can be on the same page.


Apperently I know more than you do. I thought with your books you would be smarter.
I dont mean we are here to hump and die. You obviously have some other stuff to do while you live ( duuuuh ). But thats something you decided yourself ("I'm gonna be rich!"). Thats a personal issue. The goal of our species is to keep existing, like you said earlier: We exist because we are good in it, so we keep existing.
But YOU as an individual can't keep existing, so that cant be the purpose of life. So that's why we reproduce.
Saying I wont have children for this or that is again just a personal issue.

Like so.

GET BORN --> GROW UP --> REPRODUCE ---> DIE

Anything in between is what you make of your life. And i suggest that everybody should make the best of it.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 17, 2007, 10:26:55 PM
Quote from: "Astantia"
Holy shit, did you just agree with me?

HOLY SHIT DID I JUST GET A FLAWLESS VICTORY?!?


Not really.

There is no "higher purpose" like you said. We are organisms, just like bacteria, or anything else. We just got a set of big brains to go with it. Read my above post and you might understand.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 18, 2007, 06:08:39 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"


Apperently I know more than you do. I thought with your books you would be smarter... The goal of our species is to keep existing, like you said earlier: We exist because we are good in it, so we keep existing.


Clearly that's not the case at all, and you're completely misquoting me.  Understand this.  We are not here for any reason.  Evolution is the purposeless adoption to the current environment.  Things are not getting better for a future goal, they're getting better because being better makes them survive more than things that don't get better.  Evolution is just reaction to environment - There is no purpose.  We keep existing because we're good at existing.  If something else was better, we wouldn't exist and that would neither be good or bad.  Existence as a result of what has come before, not what we are trying to achieve.  The fact that we keep existing has no meaning without context.  I don't think I can keep repeating myself in different ways, we don't have any purpose or goal.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 18, 2007, 06:45:56 AM
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Reason%20for%20our%20existence.htm
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 18, 2007, 08:10:16 AM
Quote from: "beast"
Quote from: "Sanirius"


Apperently I know more than you do. I thought with your books you would be smarter... The goal of our species is to keep existing, like you said earlier: We exist because we are good in it, so we keep existing.


Clearly that's not the case at all, and you're completely misquoting me.  Understand this.  We are not here for any reason.  Evolution is the purposeless adoption to the current environment.  Things are not getting better for a future goal, they're getting better because being better makes them survive more than things that don't get better.  Evolution is just reaction to environment - There is no purpose.  We keep existing because we're good at existing.  If something else was better, we wouldn't exist and that would neither be good or bad.  Existence as a result of what has come before, not what we are trying to achieve.  The fact that we keep existing has no meaning without context.  I don't think I can keep repeating myself in different ways, we don't have any purpose or goal.


Seems you dont understand that i DO understand you. I know evolution is pure random, and everything that comes with it. But, we are not feeling evolution at this moment, it's slowly changing us. But not in a way we remember how diffrent we looked a few years ago. We live NOW in our current forms. And now that we exist, that came so randomly due to evolution, our goal is to keep existing. But to do this, we have to reproduce or mankind will be gone over a hundred years. Get what I'm saying now?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Masterchef on January 18, 2007, 09:13:24 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Seems you dont understand that i DO understand you. I know evolution is pure random, and everything that comes with it. But, we are not feeling evolution at this moment, it's slowly changing us. But not in a way we remember how diffrent we looked a few years ago. We live NOW in our current forms. And now that we exist, that came so randomly due to evolution, our goal is to keep existing. But to do this, we have to reproduce or mankind will be gone over a hundred years. Get what I'm saying now?

Beast understands exactly what you are claiming, he is just saying that you are wrong.

Who decided that mankind's goal is to reproduce? Nobody, because there is no plan for our race. We do not have a purpose.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 18, 2007, 09:20:16 AM
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Seems you dont understand that i DO understand you. I know evolution is pure random, and everything that comes with it. But, we are not feeling evolution at this moment, it's slowly changing us. But not in a way we remember how diffrent we looked a few years ago. We live NOW in our current forms. And now that we exist, that came so randomly due to evolution, our goal is to keep existing. But to do this, we have to reproduce or mankind will be gone over a hundred years. Get what I'm saying now?

Beast understands exactly what you are claiming, he is just saying that you are wrong.

Who decided that mankind's goal is to reproduce? Nobody, because there is no plan for our race. We do not have a purpose.


MANKIND WOULDNT EVEN BE IF OUR ANCESTORS DIDNT HUMP EACHOTHER! Doh!
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 18, 2007, 09:21:28 AM
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
We do not have a purpose.


Did I say we have a purpose? No i said our purpose is to keep our species alive, like every other organism in the universe does. KEEPING THEIR SPECIES ALIVE.

This is done by fucking.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Masterchef on January 18, 2007, 09:21:29 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
MANKIND WOULDNT EVEN BE IF OUR ANCESTORS DIDNT HUMP EACHOTHER! Doh!

That doesn't mean that reproducing is our purpose.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 18, 2007, 09:22:02 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
We do not have a purpose.


Did I say we have a purpose? No i said our purpose is to keep our species alive, like every other organism in the universe does. KEEPING THEIR SPECIES ALIVE.

This is done by fraking.


Lol i just contradicted myself.. .lol nvermind that you get what i mean
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Masterchef on January 18, 2007, 09:22:15 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Did I say we have a purpose? No i said our purpose is to keep our species alive...

Yes, that is saying that we have a purpose, which we don't.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 18, 2007, 09:23:12 AM
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Did I say we have a purpose? No i said our purpose is to keep our species alive...

Yes, that is saying that we have a purpose, which we don't.


Then you might as well die. ( You, not mankind )
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Masterchef on January 18, 2007, 09:25:55 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Then you might as well die. ( You, not mankind )

Why, because I don't have a purpose?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 18, 2007, 09:28:56 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Did I say we have a purpose? No i said our purpose is to keep our species alive...

Yes, that is saying that we have a purpose, which we don't.


Then you might as well die. ( You, not mankind )


I hope natural selection finds you some day.  I kind of feel bad that you think that reproduction is the only important thing in life.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 18, 2007, 09:32:31 AM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Did I say we have a purpose? No i said our purpose is to keep our species alive...

Yes, that is saying that we have a purpose, which we don't.


Then you might as well die. ( You, not mankind )


I hope natural selection finds you some day.  I kind of feel bad that you think that reproduction is the only important thing in life.


 :lol:  Ok... but thats not what i mean. I mean that humans have to reproduce so our species may exist forever. Like i said earlier, what ever you make of your life has nothing to do with all of mankind. So if you think (example:) you need to be rich to be happy, than thats something you find important.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 18, 2007, 09:33:11 AM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Did I say we have a purpose? No i said our purpose is to keep our species alive...

Yes, that is saying that we have a purpose, which we don't.


Then you might as well die. ( You, not mankind )


I hope natural selection finds you some day.  I kind of feel bad that you think that reproduction is the only important thing in life.


 :lol:  Ok... but thats not what i mean. I mean that humans have to reproduce so our species may exist forever. Like i said earlier, what ever you make of your life has nothing to do with all of mankind. So if you think (example:) you need to be rich to be happy, than thats something you find important.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Masterchef on January 18, 2007, 10:02:44 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
:lol:  Ok... but thats not what i mean. I mean that humans have to reproduce so our species may exist forever. Like i said earlier, what ever you make of your life has nothing to do with all of mankind. So if you think (example:) you need to be rich to be happy, than thats something you find important.

Yes, it is in our best interest to breed, but that does not make it our purpose for living. There can not be a purpose for us without a creator to assign us a purpose.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: dysfunction on January 18, 2007, 10:09:20 AM
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
:lol:  Ok... but thats not what i mean. I mean that humans have to reproduce so our species may exist forever. Like i said earlier, what ever you make of your life has nothing to do with all of mankind. So if you think (example:) you need to be rich to be happy, than thats something you find important.

Yes, it is in our best interest to breed, but that does not make it our purpose for living. There can not be a purpose for us without a creator to assign us a purpose.


Oh can't there?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Masterchef on January 18, 2007, 10:16:04 AM
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Oh can't there?

Unless of course we give ourselves a purpose, but that would be on an individual level, where as he is saying that everyone has the same purpose that is automatically assigned to them.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 18, 2007, 10:23:06 AM
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Oh can't there?

Unless of course we give ourselves a purpose, but that would be on an individual level, where as he is saying that everyone has the same purpose that is automatically assigned to them.


Lets see what you mean: "We dont have a purpose, we exist to exist" ?
Well you and me cant exist forever. To... somehow... exist forever, we have to reproduce, that way our species will keep existing. We exist to exist, but also to make sure our species keeps existing.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: midgard on January 18, 2007, 10:23:17 AM
It's like asking what is the purpose of a rock:The only difference is we assign our own purposes.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 18, 2007, 10:24:30 AM
Quote from: "midgard"
It's like asking what is the purpose of a rock:
  • It doesn't have one unless you assign one to it.
  • Each assignment of purpose is on an individual rock level as oppposed to one purpose for all rocks.
The only difference is we assign our own purposes.


Yes, we do. But mankind is here now to make sure that the mankind of the future exists.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: midgard on January 18, 2007, 10:25:00 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Lets see what you mean: "We dont have a purpose, we exist to exist" ?
Well you and me cant exist forever. To... somehow... exist forever, we have to reproduce, that way our species will keep existing. We exist to exist, but also to make sure our species keeps existing.


We can choose to further the life of the species by reproducing but we can also choose not to.

Reproduction is not a purpose for living, there is no purpose.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: midgard on January 18, 2007, 10:26:00 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Yes, we do. But mankind is here now to make sure that the mankind of the future exists.


There is no "mankind", humans are not a collective.

I know plenty of people who are choosing not to have children.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 18, 2007, 10:33:34 AM
Quote from: "midgard"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Yes, we do. But mankind is here now to make sure that the mankind of the future exists.


There is no "mankind", humans are not a collective.

I know plenty of people who are choosing not to have children.


Like i said earlier.. thats your personal issue. And whats that?? Arent we a species?? What so now nobody have babies?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: midgard on January 18, 2007, 10:40:19 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Like i said earlier.. thats your personal issue. And whats that?? Arent we a species?? What so now nobody have babies?


So my friends aren't fulfilling their purpose? Should I get them raped? If I don't get them raped am I also not fulfilling my purpose?

More importantly if our purpose is to reproduce so that the species can survive what is the purpose of the species surviving?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 18, 2007, 10:44:34 AM
Quote from: "midgard"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Like i said earlier.. thats your personal issue. And whats that?? Arent we a species?? What so now nobody have babies?


So my friends aren't fulfilling their purpose? Should I get them raped? If I don't get them raped am I also not fulfilling my purpose?

More importantly if our purpose is to reproduce so that the species can survive what is the purpose of the species surviving?


Good point. Dont know. Think of something yourself.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: midgard on January 18, 2007, 10:52:01 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Good point. Dont know. Think of something yourself.


Gotcha.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Sanirius on January 18, 2007, 10:55:49 AM
Quote from: "midgard"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Good point. Dont know. Think of something yourself.


Gotcha.


Have you thought of something yet?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: midgard on January 18, 2007, 10:59:39 AM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Have you thought of something yet?


As in a purpose for the existance of the human species? No, I'll leave that up to you.

If you can't answer it your argument about individuals' purposes being to reproduce for the species seems pretty lame.

We're not just organs in a body.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we are supreme individuals - I'm just saying that we aren't important as either an individual or as a collective species. We have no purpose.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: skeptical scientist on January 18, 2007, 11:16:52 AM
When you ask "does life have a purpose", what do you even mean? The word implies that there is some being who intends something with life. If there were a creator, one might well ask what his purpose was when creating life, but since life, the universe, and everything appears to have come about naturally, there is no entity who exists to have a purpose in creating life or the universe.

Of course, there are many other entities whose purpose you could mean. One could reasonably ask whether your parents had a purpose in having you. The answer to that would, of course, depend on who you and your parents are. You could ask whether you have a purpose for your own life. Perhaps your purpose is to have a happy family life. Perhaps your purpose is to become a great scientist. Perhaps your purpose is to rid Germany of all Jews.

In any case, only thinking beings and their actions can have purposes, because purpose implies reasoning and intent, which are impossible for natural processes. A rock doesn't have a purpose for rolling down a hill. But just because humanity came about without being intended by a divine creator doesn't mean that your parents didn't have a purpose in having you, or that you can't have a purpose for your own life.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Masterchef on January 18, 2007, 12:48:38 PM
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Lets see what you mean: "We dont have a purpose, we exist to exist" ?
Well you and me cant exist forever. To... somehow... exist forever, we have to reproduce, that way our species will keep existing. We exist to exist, but also to make sure our species keeps existing.

No, we do not exist to exist. Like I said, we have no purpose.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 18, 2007, 04:25:31 PM
Quote from: "Sanirius"

Seems you dont understand that i DO understand you. I know evolution is pure random, and everything that comes with it. But, we are not feeling evolution at this moment, it's slowly changing us. But not in a way we remember how diffrent we looked a few years ago. We live NOW in our current forms. And now that we exist, that came so randomly due to evolution, our goal is to keep existing. But to do this, we have to reproduce or mankind will be gone over a hundred years. Get what I'm saying now?


Evolution is NOT random at all.  In fact evolution is the constant improvement and adaptation to the environment.  There is nothing random about evolution at all.  In fact evolution explains how the world could have got to where it is without direction or randomness.  Evolution is also not about "goals" at all.  Rather it is a naturally occurring phenomenon where life forms that are more likely to survive out survive things that are less likely to survive.  It's not that either life form has the purpose of surviving, that's just what it does - in the same way that water runs down hill.  The water has no mind or purpose, it just behaves the way it does because of the laws of physics.  Life is the same - it's not that we have a reason to exist, although we can certainly give our lives the meaning we want them to have, I'm obviously talking in more general terms - we simply do survive for longer if we are better suited to surviving.  There is no purpose to that, it's simply what happens - just like water running down hills.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 18, 2007, 05:03:32 PM
Quote from: "beast"
There is nothing random about evolution at all.


While I do realize that natural selection is a cumulative process, isn't it a bunch of 'random' fluctuations within a species that turns out to be beneficial?  Perhaps random is not the word there.  But anyway, since there is something inherently random about the universe (quantum mechanics), doesn't this mean that there's at least something random about evolution?  I do realize that Richard Dawkins points out in The Blind Watchmaker how evolution is not random, but is he talking about random in the sense that I just mentioned or another?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 18, 2007, 07:27:36 PM
Quote from: "Knight"
Quote from: "beast"
There is nothing random about evolution at all.


While I do realize that natural selection is a cumulative process, isn't it a bunch of 'random' fluctuations within a species that turns out to be beneficial?  Perhaps random is not the word there.  But anyway, since there is something inherently random about the universe (quantum mechanics), doesn't this mean that there's at least something random about evolution?  I do realize that Richard Dawkins points out in The Blind Watchmaker how evolution is not random, but is he talking about random in the sense that I just mentioned or another?


The individual mutations are random, but only the most surviveable mutations are selected.  So, it's like drafting a football team.  Your pool of available players may be random, but only the best make the cut.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 18, 2007, 09:47:59 PM
And indeed, given a specific environment and a specific form of life, the evolution of that form of life is very predictable and completely follows the predictions made by evolutionary biologists in the vast majority of cases.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 18, 2007, 10:26:12 PM
Quote from: "beast"
And indeed, given a specific environment and a specific form of life, the evolution of that form of life is very predictable and completely follows the predictions made by evolutionary biologists in the vast majority of cases.


Please give me an example where scientists have predicted the evolution of an animal, and observed that evolution.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 18, 2007, 11:01:02 PM
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=successful+evolution+predictions&btnG=Google+Search&meta=


There are thousands.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 19, 2007, 11:02:44 AM
Quote from: "beast"
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=successful+evolution+predictions&btnG=Google+Search&meta=


There are thousands.


I'm sorry, I thought you had an example on hand that you were referring to.

I can't find anything on the first page of google, and I don't have time to go through and find it.  If you have an example, please post it, but otherwise, just doing a google search and posting the (rather poor) results isn't helping.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 19, 2007, 11:11:37 AM
From what it looks like:

Astantia is talking about scientists literally predicting evolutionary changes and physically watching them happen right now.

Beast is referring to looking at primitive organisms and predicting how they would have evolved and checking their predictions with the actual physical results of evolution we have today.

So don't get confused everyone.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Astantia on January 19, 2007, 11:16:44 AM
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
From what it looks like:

Astantia is talking about scientists literally predicting evolutionary changes and physically watching them happen right now.

Beast is referring to looking at primitive organisms and predicting how they would have evolved and checking their predictions with the actual physical results of evolution we have today.

So don't get confused everyone.


Okay.  Thanks.

Could I get some examples of that then?
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: dysfunction on January 19, 2007, 01:43:30 PM
Sure. Read this. (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 20, 2007, 08:17:03 AM
Slightly relevant, I have a new blog :)

http://anatheistfuture.blogspot.com/
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on January 20, 2007, 09:33:39 AM
Quote from: "beast"
Slightly relevant, I have a new blog :)

http://anatheistfuture.blogspot.com/


Bookmarked.  :)
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 20, 2007, 08:49:00 PM
Quote from: "Knight"
But anyway, since there is something inherently random about the universe (quantum mechanics), doesn't this mean that there's at least something random about evolution?


If quantum mechanics is random, how can non-random processes exist on the macroscopic scale? What system does randomness use to operate?

Also, if you qualify the evidence people have for God as evidence for God, why isn't my ability to breathe evidence that you don't exist?


The meaning of life: a scientific analysis of teleology

A very promising idea about the purpose of life probably arised many years ago (it's a common statement that "biology debunked teleology a century ago"), although it has been further popularized recently. The "debunking" is said to have coincided with or resulted from advances in biological knowledge such as the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (i.e. the creation of the theory of natural selection). It is not unlikely however, that it was philosophized long before that teleology (perceived meaning or purpose) is an illusion, a system only valid or existent within our own minds, that has no grounding in reality and that ultimately there is no objective purpose to anything.

The proposition follows basically like this: setting goals and finding potential goals in physical objects and abstract ideas is an instinct deeply seated in the primate mind, as it was a characteristic fashioned by natural selection; part of the evolution of humanity's ancestors. This instinct, which is the search for purpose (or "meaning") is often known as teleology. Teleological thinking is useful in the natural (and modern) world, making it a favorable trait for  species to have. However, when we use this instinct when thinking philosophically about life, the universe, and everything, it misfires and we come up with an unsolvable conundrum - one which doesn't really exist in the first place. Teleological instincts apply well to physical objects such as food (purpose: to eat) but fail when they are attempted to be applied to the more abstract, like subjective experience. The failure of teleology can be demonstrated not just with abstract concepts, but objects that serve no known utility to human beings. What, for example, is the purpose of an asteroid floating around light years outside of this galaxy? We can objectively explain the cause of things like space rocks, but we must conclude, if we are to embrace teleological thinking, that either a) far away asteroids have no purpose or b) purpose doesn't exist in objective reality.

The argument about teleological thinking as a result of natural selection is put forward in various books and articles. The best-selling author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins puts forward the explanation in his  Discovery Science video  The Big Question: why are we here? (http://richarddawkins.net/article,325,The-Big-Question-Why-are-we-here,Discovery-Science).

This explanation of our famous (or infamous)  teleological conundrum is to many the most probable, satisfying, and ultimate answer we have attained for the problem of the meaning of life, especially since it is falsifiable and can be backed up with specific scientific evidence, such as neurological research, while it is already supported by general scientific evidence, such as the evidence for evolution.


Quote from: "Wikipedia"
Of the meaning of life, Ludwig Wittgenstein and the logical positivists said: expressed in language, the question is meaningless. This is because "meaning of x" is a term in life usually conveying something regarding the consequences of x, or the significance of x, or that which should be noted regarding x, etc. So when "life" is used as "x" in the term "meaning of x", the statement becomes recursive and therefore nonsensical.

In other words, things in a person's life can have meaning (importance), but a meaning of life itself, i.e., apart from those things, can't be discerned. In this context, a person's life is said to have meaning (significance to himself and others) in the form of the events throughout his life and the results of his life in terms of achievements, a legacy, family, etc. But to say that life itself has meaning is a misuse of language, since any note of significance or consequence is relevant only in life (to those living it), rendering the statement erroneous. Language can provide a meaningful answer only when it refers to a realm within the realm of life. But this is not possible when the question reaches beyond the realm in which language exists, violating the contextual limitations of language. Such a question is broken. And the answer to a broken question is an erroneous or irrelevant answer.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Knight on January 20, 2007, 09:38:00 PM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Also, if you qualify the evidence people have for God as evidence for God, why isn't my ability to breathe evidence that you don't exist?


I don't know what you're talking about.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on January 20, 2007, 09:51:54 PM
Sorry for going off topic slightly.  I just wanted to share these emails from a friend :)

----

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

Audiobook:

link to the audiobook

176 MB

Well worth the download and listen :-)

Love

  - Allan

---

Dude, Thanks, but I've already read that book about 4 times and
convinced the Mormons who visit me every week to read it as well.
Richard Dawkins is the man and he's given me so much confidence in
taking on religion.  In a dismal display of leadership, the only hope
for Australia recently voted on a stem cell research bill in
opposition purely on his religious beliefs.  There is much work that
needs to occur in Australia but if footbag has taught me anything, it
is that actions speak louder than words.

Cheers,

Beast
---

On 1/19/07, Beast wrote:
> Dude, Thanks, but I've already read that book about 4 times and
> convinced the Mormons who visit me every week to read it as well.

Nice! That's awesome :-) I am fortunate to live in an apartment where
I simply don't get solicitations from mormons (or anyone else for that
matter). But I've already burned a few CDs of this to give out to
anyone I come across with whom I get into the "god" debate with.


> Richard Dawkins is the man and he's given me so much confidence in
> taking on religion.

Personally, I can't believe that I've only recently "discovered" him.
I wish he was given more publicity than he has been.

I've always considered myself agnostic, but no more :-)


> In a dismal display of leadership, the only hope
> for Australia recently voted on a stem cell research bill in

I read about that; so very unfortunate. Canada isn't a whole lot more
progressive on that issue either :-(

Thanks for replying. I sent this email to about 20 people, and I'm
surprised at some of the positive responses I got . . .

I hope you're doing well!

 - Allan

---

Definitely made my day :) - Apart from the rain.  Richard Dawkins wins another again :).
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Masterchef on January 21, 2007, 09:57:21 AM
Yeah, Bush vetoed the stem cell research bill based on his "personal beliefs". I hope our next president is an Atheist.
Title: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 24, 2007, 02:41:42 PM
Quote from: "Knight"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Also, if you qualify the evidence people have for God as evidence for God, why isn't my ability to breathe evidence that you don't exist?


I don't know what you're talking about.


I'm simply saying that if you make an observation and make a small jump to a conclusion, you've still made a jump, which is just about as bad as making a leap in reasoning.
Title: Re: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Ubuntu on January 28, 2007, 12:51:41 PM
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
The presenter, Rod Little, claimed that inflexible atheism was at least as misguided as inflexible religious faith, interviewing eminent atheists and theists alike.


Atheism is flexible by its nature. There is no such thing as atheist dogma; science is about examining the evidence and coming to conclusions. The probability of God, given the current evidence, is barely nonzero. If there were significant evidence, or if such evidence ever arises, you will atheists become theists.

Quote from: "Dogplatter"
I was surprised he didn't bring up the "Brights organization" (essentially a church of atheism) which I think Ubuntu referred us to a while ago.


Listed in the Brights' media exposure for 2006: "Filming of meetup on 4/9/2006 - a presentation by Martin Freedman followed by questions to the panel that included myself and Tom Morris.  Evidently we weren't nasty enough to be included in C4's 'The trouble with atheism', the destination for which the footage was intended."

If the Brights' is a church,  Greenpeace is a hospital.
Title: Re: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: cmdshft on April 05, 2007, 08:25:29 AM
NECROPOST FROM HELL!!!
Title: Re: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Miss M. on April 05, 2007, 09:55:57 AM
what was the point in bumping?
Title: Re: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Masterchef on April 05, 2007, 11:21:31 AM
Darkness vanishes in the presence of light, especially with much light.  Knowledge makes unknowing disappear, especially with much knowledge.  Think not of this as deprivation, but rather in terms of transcendence, and then you will be able to perceive something which is truer than all truth, namely, that the knowledge of God escapes those who possess extant light and knowledge of being.  His transcendent darkness is concealed from all light and hidden from all knowledge.  One who has seen God and understood what he saw did not see Him, but rather one of His creatures that are existing and known.  He Himself is unknowable and non-existant.  He does exist above all being and is known beyond the mind. This positively complete unknowing IS knowledge of Him Who is above all knowledge and being.

- Dionysios
Please have fun. :D
Title: Re: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Midnight on April 09, 2007, 04:04:18 PM
Quote from: Erasmus
Quote from: thedigitalnomad
I don't believe that it is morally right for society to let parents teach their kids hate and intolerance.

Why?

What authority do you think we have to tell anybody what to teach their children?

Seems reasonable enough to argue that not allowing such intolerance to be taught will undoubtedly prevent future crimes based on that hate and intolerance.

Wrong. Human nature cannot be taught.
Title: Re: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: beast on April 10, 2007, 08:11:18 AM
Quote from: beast
If we accept science, which is the pursuit of knowledge and of the fundamental truths of the world that are not effected by our perceptions then we can say that with all probability, no supernatural beings of any description exist.  We can't rule that out 100%, but we can rule it out 99.99%.

Beast's scientific reasonings are ofcourse fallacious in their own right, but to belabor such a point is incomparably petty and immaterial to the theme of my previous post above.

Explain yourself.  And don't give me any of that rubbish from your last post.  If you can't provide evidence that what you're saying is true, don't bother saying anything, because none of us really care what delusions a crazy nazi has if he can't back them up with evidence.
Title: Re: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Midnight on April 10, 2007, 10:50:13 AM
Quote from: beast
If we accept science, which is the pursuit of knowledge and of the fundamental truths of the world that are not effected by our perceptions then we can say that with all probability, no supernatural beings of any description exist.  We can't rule that out 100%, but we can rule it out 99.99%.

Beast's scientific reasonings are ofcourse fallacious in their own right, but to belabor such a point is incomparably petty and immaterial to the theme of my previous post above.

Explain yourself.  And don't give me any of that rubbish from your last post.  If you can't provide evidence that what you're saying is true, don't bother saying anything, because none of us really care what delusions a crazy nazi has if he can't back them up with evidence.

Human nature sodomizes your stance. Period.
Title: Re: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Vauxhall the Vampire on April 10, 2007, 10:52:04 AM
NECROPOST FROM HELL!!!

TALES FROM THE CRYPT
Title: Re: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on March 11, 2009, 07:55:09 AM
Way to go resurrecting a two year old thread.
Title: Re: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: Nomad on March 11, 2009, 10:32:02 AM
Oh, you know.  Still an atheist, still enjoying the winter solstice around December 22, still eating babies, the usual.
Title: Re: Dogmatic Atheism
Post by: cmdshft on March 11, 2009, 10:45:31 AM
Oh, you know.  Still an atheist, still enjoying the winter solstice around December 22, still eating babies, the usual.

Don't forget abducting theist babies and putting them to work! We can't eat them all!