Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
<< Dawkins: Sex, Death & the Meaning of Life, Sin
|
Richard Dawkins: What if You're Wrong? South Park Remix >>
The session was titled "The Design of Life," and the TED audience was probably expecting remarks about evolution's role in our history from biologist Richard Dawkins.
Instead, he launched into a full-on appeal for atheists to make public their beliefs and to aggressively fight the incursion of religion into politics and education.
Scientists and intellectuals hold very different beliefs about God from the American public, he says, yet they are cowed by the overall political environment.
Dawkins' scornful tone drew strongly mixed reactions from the audience; some stood and applauded his courage.
Others wondered whether his strident approach could do more harm than good.
Dawkins went on to publish The God Delusion and become perhaps the world's best-known atheist.
Instead, he launched into a full-on appeal for atheists to make public their beliefs and to aggressively fight the incursion of religion into politics and education.
Scientists and intellectuals hold very different beliefs about God from the American public, he says, yet they are cowed by the overall political environment.
Dawkins' scornful tone drew strongly mixed reactions from the audience; some stood and applauded his courage.
Others wondered whether his strident approach could do more harm than good.
Dawkins went on to publish The God Delusion and become perhaps the world's best-known atheist.
Apr 23, 2007 8:41 AM
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Enjoying this clip so far, but I always run up against the same problem with Dawkins - the way he characterizes religion is so foreign to my own religious faith.
By: Ratster
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
What I would say to Dawkins is anyone who believes they can settle the debate as to the existence and nature of a supreme being, a debate that has been going on throughout human history, is the one who is delusional. There is nothing that I could possibly say that would convince a devout atheist that God exists, and there is nothing he could say to me to convince me of the contrary. This is simply because there is no proof either way, if there were proof that God didn't exists, many years ago religious people would have gone the way of flat Earthers or conspiracy theorists. No one on either side of the debate has the definitive answer and that's why the debate will continue. In the mean time we must respect the beliefs of the other guy, because in the end, we both look at the same universe and draw different conclusions and each side has to make a leap of faith whether to believe or not believe.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
"This is simply because there is no proof either way, if there were proof that God didn't exists [sic], many years ago religious people would have gone the way of the flat Earthers or the conspiracy theorists."
In a scientific experiment, if you have no data, you begin with the hypothesis "There is no correlation between X and Y," or "Z does not exist." This is called the null hypothesis. As there is no empirical evidence of a god, the null hypothesis is "God does not exist." In any experiment, the null hypothesis is never proven; it is something to be disproven. This is a huge part of the scientific method. The burden is on people who disagree with the null hypothesis to supply enough evidence and data to disprove it. While you may argue that this does not prove that a god does not exist, it is the same argument that is used against the existence of ghosts, fairies, unicorns, etc.
Further, statistics show that religious people are going the way of "flat Earthers and conspiracy theorists." There are more atheists and agnostics now than ever before.
On a side note, please make sure you watch and understand these clips before commenting on them. Dawkins cited statistics, and even had a pie chart to show how there are more atheists now than ever, and he also spoke about how atheists don't need to disprove god.
In a scientific experiment, if you have no data, you begin with the hypothesis "There is no correlation between X and Y," or "Z does not exist." This is called the null hypothesis. As there is no empirical evidence of a god, the null hypothesis is "God does not exist." In any experiment, the null hypothesis is never proven; it is something to be disproven. This is a huge part of the scientific method. The burden is on people who disagree with the null hypothesis to supply enough evidence and data to disprove it. While you may argue that this does not prove that a god does not exist, it is the same argument that is used against the existence of ghosts, fairies, unicorns, etc.
Further, statistics show that religious people are going the way of "flat Earthers and conspiracy theorists." There are more atheists and agnostics now than ever before.
On a side note, please make sure you watch and understand these clips before commenting on them. Dawkins cited statistics, and even had a pie chart to show how there are more atheists now than ever, and he also spoke about how atheists don't need to disprove god.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
You speak of science, but in order to make a study of the existence of God scientifically one would have to be able to do a certain number of impossible things. First of all, a quantitative definition of God would have to be determined. With the multitude of faiths in the world today, coming to a consensus of what God is would not be possible. Without a definition of God, gathering data regarding God's existence is not possible either. One would also have to determine, as part of this definition, where God could exist and therefore where to test for evidence. Going by your example of unicorns, we have a definition of unicorns, horses born with a horn on their forehead. We also know where, according to legend, such beings live, on dry land on Earth and usually in temperate areas. Since we can observe such areas and we know what we are looking for, unicorns can be disproved. Philosophy, not science, is the proper method to use to analyze the possibility of a higher power. Accordingly, using philosophy or religion to analyze a scientific question would not be proper. It would be as if one were using a ruler to measure mass, or a balance to measure length. Each of these tools is valid, but only when used for their proper purpose.
While there are more more atheists than before , they are still a vast minority. According to a non-biased study published in the 2005 Encyclopædia Britannica only 2.3% of people in the world consider themselves atheists. There are 11.9% of people who don't consider themselves religious, however this is not the same as being an atheist or agnostic. Some of these people may not affiliate with an organized dogma, or may just not care about religion one way or the other. We also must consider that a number of the 2.3% of people that consider themselves atheists do so because of some personal reasons that do not have to do with an actual introspection as to the existence of God. Some of these people may call themselves atheists because they have some sort of quarrel with a church, they want to associate themselves with the liberal atheist intellectuals, or they want to rebel from the religious teachings of their parents. The number of people who have actually looked into the issue and decided for themselves (i.e. not just taken the view of Dawkins or some atheist professor they liked) is probably closer to 1.5%. So no, religious people are not going the way of flat Earthers and conspiracy theorists.
"Dawkins . . . even had a pie chart."
Ross Perot had pie charts too.
While there are more more atheists than before , they are still a vast minority. According to a non-biased study published in the 2005 Encyclopædia Britannica only 2.3% of people in the world consider themselves atheists. There are 11.9% of people who don't consider themselves religious, however this is not the same as being an atheist or agnostic. Some of these people may not affiliate with an organized dogma, or may just not care about religion one way or the other. We also must consider that a number of the 2.3% of people that consider themselves atheists do so because of some personal reasons that do not have to do with an actual introspection as to the existence of God. Some of these people may call themselves atheists because they have some sort of quarrel with a church, they want to associate themselves with the liberal atheist intellectuals, or they want to rebel from the religious teachings of their parents. The number of people who have actually looked into the issue and decided for themselves (i.e. not just taken the view of Dawkins or some atheist professor they liked) is probably closer to 1.5%. So no, religious people are not going the way of flat Earthers and conspiracy theorists.
"Dawkins . . . even had a pie chart."
Ross Perot had pie charts too.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
"Philosophy, not science, is the proper method to use to analyze the possibility of a higher power." Rickhatman, you've said it all in this sentence. I'm very much a Theist, but I must give Dawkins his props; he is very eloquent and makes excellent logical and sincere conclusions from his stance and arguments, but he is certainly no metaphysician.
By: Bravado
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Sorry if this comes off as rude, as most of my arguments do. Bad habit of mine.
First, I'm going to agree with most of your first argument. Science has no data regarding any kind of supernatural being. That being said, you seem to have determined a number of characteristics about this entity who's very existence is in question. Before you determine that it is some kind of metaphysical entity without spatial extension, you must determine that it is. Any definition that precedes the determining of its object's existence is going to be meaningless and arbitrary. The definition of a unicorn, as a horse-like quadriped with a horn on its head, lacks any bearing on anything in reality, sparing the made-up stories we have about it. Therefore, saying that science cannot determine the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural being because science cannot measure these arbitrary characteristics you have already applied to it, is a fallacy.
Second, anyone who has put any effort into studying ancient, modern and contemporary philosophy will tell that that philosophy is certainly not the way to go about proving the existence of any kind of supernatural being. I'm finishing up my degree in philosophy myself, and every philosopher who attempts to prove the existence of a god or any supernatural entity, from Descartes to Kant to all their contemporaries, have provided arguments that are all untenable. Religion also does not supply a good "method," as it posits the existence of a supernatural entity from the get-go, rather than undergo any kind of rigorous proof.
On a slight tangent, philosophy has a lot to say about science, and science has a lot to say about philosophy. Neuroscience is making a lot of philosophical arguments null and void, while the scientific method itself is completely philosophical in nature. Moreover, philosophy, properly done (which it rarely is), is as scientific as a mathematical proof.
And now, on to the statistics: In one of the most advanced nation on the planet, atheism and agnosticism are both on the up-and-up. This is most probably due to a society that allows for free-thinking, open debate, and, well, atheism. There are so many places on this planet where being an atheist is simply not allowed. These places indoctrinate their people from birth; it's no wonder that they're slower to catch up. I'm not saying that there's going to be an overnight change, but there's been a slow trend, and as countries modernize and liberalize, I feel confident that this trend will pick up. Of course, this is speculation, based on the statistics in one country.
As for the Ross Perot quip, I'm not sure what your point is. Lots of people use pie charts. Are they all as silly as Ross Perot? I'm pretty sure you're not being fair to Mr. Dawkins. My point was that you seemed to ignore even the visual aid in order to make your statement.
First, I'm going to agree with most of your first argument. Science has no data regarding any kind of supernatural being. That being said, you seem to have determined a number of characteristics about this entity who's very existence is in question. Before you determine that it is some kind of metaphysical entity without spatial extension, you must determine that it is. Any definition that precedes the determining of its object's existence is going to be meaningless and arbitrary. The definition of a unicorn, as a horse-like quadriped with a horn on its head, lacks any bearing on anything in reality, sparing the made-up stories we have about it. Therefore, saying that science cannot determine the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural being because science cannot measure these arbitrary characteristics you have already applied to it, is a fallacy.
Second, anyone who has put any effort into studying ancient, modern and contemporary philosophy will tell that that philosophy is certainly not the way to go about proving the existence of any kind of supernatural being. I'm finishing up my degree in philosophy myself, and every philosopher who attempts to prove the existence of a god or any supernatural entity, from Descartes to Kant to all their contemporaries, have provided arguments that are all untenable. Religion also does not supply a good "method," as it posits the existence of a supernatural entity from the get-go, rather than undergo any kind of rigorous proof.
On a slight tangent, philosophy has a lot to say about science, and science has a lot to say about philosophy. Neuroscience is making a lot of philosophical arguments null and void, while the scientific method itself is completely philosophical in nature. Moreover, philosophy, properly done (which it rarely is), is as scientific as a mathematical proof.
And now, on to the statistics: In one of the most advanced nation on the planet, atheism and agnosticism are both on the up-and-up. This is most probably due to a society that allows for free-thinking, open debate, and, well, atheism. There are so many places on this planet where being an atheist is simply not allowed. These places indoctrinate their people from birth; it's no wonder that they're slower to catch up. I'm not saying that there's going to be an overnight change, but there's been a slow trend, and as countries modernize and liberalize, I feel confident that this trend will pick up. Of course, this is speculation, based on the statistics in one country.
As for the Ross Perot quip, I'm not sure what your point is. Lots of people use pie charts. Are they all as silly as Ross Perot? I'm pretty sure you're not being fair to Mr. Dawkins. My point was that you seemed to ignore even the visual aid in order to make your statement.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
The question of "is" is self-evident. Call it God or "Is", same metaphysical reality. This is where metaphysics and all philosophy begins, so to do philosophy is to already accept the premise of something that exists.
I have studied philosophy all my adult life in several disciplines (if bolstering reputation is necessary). Decartes through to Kant, while very influential upon the world and thinking, were hardly the glory of this discipline. In fact, they are largely responsible for the farce philosophy has become and can be ignored as a serious venue unless you are studying mathematics or the history of philosophy (I will admit, however, the immediate above is my own opinion). As is often said, all philosophy is a footnote after Plato. The whole God question is not so much a question of proof as a quesiton of being. If you look for proof, you are missing the forest for the trees. This is not an affirmation that God must be taken on blind faith, but that "God" or whatever you call It is as intuitive as existence. Unless of course "intuition" is faith, which is a question that has just occured to me now lol.
I have studied philosophy all my adult life in several disciplines (if bolstering reputation is necessary). Decartes through to Kant, while very influential upon the world and thinking, were hardly the glory of this discipline. In fact, they are largely responsible for the farce philosophy has become and can be ignored as a serious venue unless you are studying mathematics or the history of philosophy (I will admit, however, the immediate above is my own opinion). As is often said, all philosophy is a footnote after Plato. The whole God question is not so much a question of proof as a quesiton of being. If you look for proof, you are missing the forest for the trees. This is not an affirmation that God must be taken on blind faith, but that "God" or whatever you call It is as intuitive as existence. Unless of course "intuition" is faith, which is a question that has just occured to me now lol.
By: Bravado
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I think you're giving far too much credence to Plato and discounting far too many incredible thinkers who have changed the world in profound ways. Almost all the modern sciences owes their origins to philosophy, or at least to philosophers, and not necessarily to Plato, who, incidentally, supported slavery (at least theoretically). That being said, I intuit existence every moment that I am conscious, but I have never intuited god. That is, unless we're using different definitions of "intuit" or "god," which seems highly likely.
If you're willing to stretch a little, intuition can be interpreted as faith. We take all our intuitions for granted, but they can be illusory, i.e. mirages and hallucinations, but I digress.
If you're willing to stretch a little, intuition can be interpreted as faith. We take all our intuitions for granted, but they can be illusory, i.e. mirages and hallucinations, but I digress.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
No need to apologize. When people with strong personal faiths such as you and I are on opposite sides of an issue semblances of rudeness may come off when there are really none intended. I hope you feel the same of my arguments.
Regardless of the characteristics applied to an argument, one cannot rule out the existence of something scientifically without being able to collect data about it. To say that something cannot possibly exist, without properly observing its environment, is just not scientifically correct. Also, another key aspect of science is the ability to be open minded about things. I'm not saying scientists should necessarily believe in a higher power, but one should be open to all possibilities. There are new discoveries that occur every day and if scientists were to say that something were impossible just because it hadn't yet been proved, such discoveries would not be made.
Regarding unicorns, once again, while the concept of a unicorn is a fantasy story the existence of an animal with said characteristics is provable (or disprovable) through science. When we can define something and observe the environment that it is supposed to exist in, then we can determine whether or not it exists. As far as determining a definition before knowing its existence, theoretical physics (such as quantum theory) does that all the time. Black holes were postulated long before evidence of them was observed. The way an object behaves as it approaches the speed of light is something we have hypothesized on before suitable tests were created to observe such behavior. Speaking of theoretically physics, Stephen Hawking once said, "It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief." Hawking is an agnostic in that he believes that while the concept of God is possible, it is not provable scientifically and that is an a skeptical yet open minded attitude that one would expect one of the greatest living scientific minds to hold.
As far as philosophy and religion, there are a number of philosophers out there who do not believe in God, but there are also a great deal who do. The late Soren Keirkegaard is a prime example of the latter. Of course, he is not alone, but he is one of the more prominent examples. For philosophy students, there are plenty of conflicting views on morality, religion, and a many number of other topics to such an extent that one simply must find one they agree with. An atheist philosopher would be more of a follower of Satre or one of his cohorts than Kierkegaard or his followers.
I do agree that philosophy does use some scientific methods, logic is quite the mix of the two. However there are some things that science cannot answer. The question of why (not simply causation but a deeper meaning) is something that is unanswerable with scientific methods. Even philosophers and theologians will have trouble answering why sometimes but that does not mean that question is not a valid one.
As far as the growth of atheism, to assume that all or the majority of atheists choose that faith because they are free-thinking and have listened to open debate is as false an assumption as claiming that all Christians chose that faith because they believe in the Bible as opposed to other reasons such as wanting to belong to a church or in order to fit in with social norms. Also, many people believe that change is intrinsically good and would become choose atheism because it is seen as the "modern and liberal" way to see things. While change can be good, it is not always and proponents of modernism and liberalism often work on the false assumption that it is. It is true that many nations do not allow atheism, but there are many nations that do not allow religion as well. In China, for example, the Communist regime persecutes religious people such as Christians and as China modernizes religious tolerance will certainly follow and more people will find religious faith.
My point with the Perot comment was that you seemed to put so much emphasis on the fact that Richard Dawkins employed pie charts as evidence to his validity. I meant that just because someone can make a pie chart does not mean their statistics are valid.
I'm sure you or someone else will post another comment contradicting mine and I will post one contradicting yours and the argument will continue until this story leaves the front page or one or both of us develops a real life (I think the front page scenario will play out first, at least in my case). But I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend a great deal of time in an unresolvable debate. No matter what discoveries or research I did, there is no final word I could issue to you or another strong atheist that would convince you that God exists. Just the same, no argument could convince me or another strongly religious person that God doesn't exist. Each of us has heard all the opposition's arguments and nothing you or Richard Dawkins is saying is not that new, just as my arguments are not something that some Bible thumper hasn't already tried to convince you of. The one thing I'll end on is the fact that there is no proof as to the existence of God at least not while we are around to tell about it. The only people who know for sure whether religious people are right are the dead. Someday when I die, I will either be greeted by the God I have believed in all my life or it will be the end of everything. This is a point that Cicero would have agreed with. But the point is the debate has been going on for thousands of years among millions of people and it would be the epitome of hubris for anyone, atheist or religious, to believe that he or she could settle such an argument. Long after you, I, and Richard Dawkins are long gone, people will still debate the existence of God. And it is for that reason that I (most likely) will not be responding to any further comments on this subject. That and I have a great deal of history to study, so if there is a debate on American Civil War tactics, let me know.
Regardless of the characteristics applied to an argument, one cannot rule out the existence of something scientifically without being able to collect data about it. To say that something cannot possibly exist, without properly observing its environment, is just not scientifically correct. Also, another key aspect of science is the ability to be open minded about things. I'm not saying scientists should necessarily believe in a higher power, but one should be open to all possibilities. There are new discoveries that occur every day and if scientists were to say that something were impossible just because it hadn't yet been proved, such discoveries would not be made.
Regarding unicorns, once again, while the concept of a unicorn is a fantasy story the existence of an animal with said characteristics is provable (or disprovable) through science. When we can define something and observe the environment that it is supposed to exist in, then we can determine whether or not it exists. As far as determining a definition before knowing its existence, theoretical physics (such as quantum theory) does that all the time. Black holes were postulated long before evidence of them was observed. The way an object behaves as it approaches the speed of light is something we have hypothesized on before suitable tests were created to observe such behavior. Speaking of theoretically physics, Stephen Hawking once said, "It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief." Hawking is an agnostic in that he believes that while the concept of God is possible, it is not provable scientifically and that is an a skeptical yet open minded attitude that one would expect one of the greatest living scientific minds to hold.
As far as philosophy and religion, there are a number of philosophers out there who do not believe in God, but there are also a great deal who do. The late Soren Keirkegaard is a prime example of the latter. Of course, he is not alone, but he is one of the more prominent examples. For philosophy students, there are plenty of conflicting views on morality, religion, and a many number of other topics to such an extent that one simply must find one they agree with. An atheist philosopher would be more of a follower of Satre or one of his cohorts than Kierkegaard or his followers.
I do agree that philosophy does use some scientific methods, logic is quite the mix of the two. However there are some things that science cannot answer. The question of why (not simply causation but a deeper meaning) is something that is unanswerable with scientific methods. Even philosophers and theologians will have trouble answering why sometimes but that does not mean that question is not a valid one.
As far as the growth of atheism, to assume that all or the majority of atheists choose that faith because they are free-thinking and have listened to open debate is as false an assumption as claiming that all Christians chose that faith because they believe in the Bible as opposed to other reasons such as wanting to belong to a church or in order to fit in with social norms. Also, many people believe that change is intrinsically good and would become choose atheism because it is seen as the "modern and liberal" way to see things. While change can be good, it is not always and proponents of modernism and liberalism often work on the false assumption that it is. It is true that many nations do not allow atheism, but there are many nations that do not allow religion as well. In China, for example, the Communist regime persecutes religious people such as Christians and as China modernizes religious tolerance will certainly follow and more people will find religious faith.
My point with the Perot comment was that you seemed to put so much emphasis on the fact that Richard Dawkins employed pie charts as evidence to his validity. I meant that just because someone can make a pie chart does not mean their statistics are valid.
I'm sure you or someone else will post another comment contradicting mine and I will post one contradicting yours and the argument will continue until this story leaves the front page or one or both of us develops a real life (I think the front page scenario will play out first, at least in my case). But I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend a great deal of time in an unresolvable debate. No matter what discoveries or research I did, there is no final word I could issue to you or another strong atheist that would convince you that God exists. Just the same, no argument could convince me or another strongly religious person that God doesn't exist. Each of us has heard all the opposition's arguments and nothing you or Richard Dawkins is saying is not that new, just as my arguments are not something that some Bible thumper hasn't already tried to convince you of. The one thing I'll end on is the fact that there is no proof as to the existence of God at least not while we are around to tell about it. The only people who know for sure whether religious people are right are the dead. Someday when I die, I will either be greeted by the God I have believed in all my life or it will be the end of everything. This is a point that Cicero would have agreed with. But the point is the debate has been going on for thousands of years among millions of people and it would be the epitome of hubris for anyone, atheist or religious, to believe that he or she could settle such an argument. Long after you, I, and Richard Dawkins are long gone, people will still debate the existence of God. And it is for that reason that I (most likely) will not be responding to any further comments on this subject. That and I have a great deal of history to study, so if there is a debate on American Civil War tactics, let me know.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Heh, these posts have a nasty habit of getting exponentially longer as the debate goes on, and so I'll skip the point-by-point and give the cliffnotes version of my argument: Since there is an infinite number of things that do not exist, the burden cannot possibly fall upon science to prove the nonexistence of everything that exists. The burden therefore falls upon those who claim that X does exist to in fact prove that X exists. I personally don't think that it's sufficient that people are trying to prove that god exists, but that's personal.
Best of luck with your *cringe* history.
Best of luck with your *cringe* history.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
He mentions the correlation between intelligence and secularism a lot. I now dread the coming of the coffee shop atheist.
By: Wondahboy
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
PLEASE can somebody tell me the name of the music that plays during the BMW Hydrogen 7 car advert at the end. It sounds a lot like a song from the animatrix.
Anyway i agree with the majority of what Dawkin's says but i still think its ignorant to completely rule out any possibility of a creator, Especially when the theory of evolution still cant explain how such complex molecules in life come about by chance.
But really all i care about is that music, so plz post name of the song here and also send a reply to dark_whitty@hotmail.com
Thnx
Anyway i agree with the majority of what Dawkin's says but i still think its ignorant to completely rule out any possibility of a creator, Especially when the theory of evolution still cant explain how such complex molecules in life come about by chance.
But really all i care about is that music, so plz post name of the song here and also send a reply to dark_whitty@hotmail.com
Thnx
By: Dark_Whitty
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
if you listen to his section on non-theism and tooth fairy agnosticism you'll note that these viewpoints place the likelihood of god on par with the likelihood of no god.
also take a look into the impossibility of proving a negative.
also take a look into the impossibility of proving a negative.
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
If you had read his book, The God Delusion (which you clearly haven't), Dawkins doesn't *completely* rule out the possibility of God, but rather argues for the reduction of the probability of his existence to almost nothing. One chapter in Dawkins' book reads "Why There Almost Certainly is No God". It's a good read and I highly recommend it.
For all the previous talk of philosophy, I have a few notes I'd like to add. The results of philosophy, when compared to the results of science, are very poor. Philosophy in the traditional sense that I'm familiar with contributes nothing in the way of tangible application. If anything, philosophy serves to enrich a person's thought capacity and understanding of distant, mental exercises. Science, however, is bounded only the technology we use to practice it and is nie infinitely applicable.
As Dawkins has illustrated in his book and as we've seen throughout history, philosophy does nothing to substantiate the existence of a God because even after the alleged philosophical proofs of God, we still don't know whether he or it exists and we yet remain at square one.
Thinking scientifically, we must fail to reject the null hypothesis and assume God doesn't exist, because absent any proof, we absolutely cannot make a claim, scientifically speaking. The burden of proof doesn't lie on athiests, but rather those of religious persuasion.
For all the previous talk of philosophy, I have a few notes I'd like to add. The results of philosophy, when compared to the results of science, are very poor. Philosophy in the traditional sense that I'm familiar with contributes nothing in the way of tangible application. If anything, philosophy serves to enrich a person's thought capacity and understanding of distant, mental exercises. Science, however, is bounded only the technology we use to practice it and is nie infinitely applicable.
As Dawkins has illustrated in his book and as we've seen throughout history, philosophy does nothing to substantiate the existence of a God because even after the alleged philosophical proofs of God, we still don't know whether he or it exists and we yet remain at square one.
Thinking scientifically, we must fail to reject the null hypothesis and assume God doesn't exist, because absent any proof, we absolutely cannot make a claim, scientifically speaking. The burden of proof doesn't lie on athiests, but rather those of religious persuasion.
By: Overmann
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
You're a lot better at explaining these things than I am. Well said.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
First of all, no one thought the earth was flat, the majority thought it was round and some thought it to be pear shaped lol.
I'm a lapsed catholic, and went to a catholic school, and it no point were we forced to believe in creationism. Infact evolution was taught freely. Believe it not, my religious education teacher said that "they used the saying of god creating the world in 6 days (resting on the 7th) as simplifying the explanation of how the world came to be." He beileved this to be true because, he finds it hard to believe that they knew that there were 52 weeks in a year.
Dawkins attacks religion quite harshly i feel, and i think he should have a little respect for people who believe in religion. Although i can see why he did as many wars were/are caused by religion. I feel strongly about this because in Glasgow were i live there is alot of bigotry between catholic and protestants for some reason. I believe in a God but choose not to follow religion because of this narrow mindedness. I believe that GOD gave us free will to do as we feel right. And that all people were created equally, so by this logic of the bible, i do not see why athiests are attacked, and considered non-citizens, or why religion should be brought into political debate, As preying on this majority of people to get votes is not the sign of someone who actually wants to use his/her policies to make the country a better place. It sickens me to know that some one would do this to get phenomenal power for the people.
In short there are some things i do agree with Dawkins and some i do not, and he should not attack someones beliefs.
I'm a lapsed catholic, and went to a catholic school, and it no point were we forced to believe in creationism. Infact evolution was taught freely. Believe it not, my religious education teacher said that "they used the saying of god creating the world in 6 days (resting on the 7th) as simplifying the explanation of how the world came to be." He beileved this to be true because, he finds it hard to believe that they knew that there were 52 weeks in a year.
Dawkins attacks religion quite harshly i feel, and i think he should have a little respect for people who believe in religion. Although i can see why he did as many wars were/are caused by religion. I feel strongly about this because in Glasgow were i live there is alot of bigotry between catholic and protestants for some reason. I believe in a God but choose not to follow religion because of this narrow mindedness. I believe that GOD gave us free will to do as we feel right. And that all people were created equally, so by this logic of the bible, i do not see why athiests are attacked, and considered non-citizens, or why religion should be brought into political debate, As preying on this majority of people to get votes is not the sign of someone who actually wants to use his/her policies to make the country a better place. It sickens me to know that some one would do this to get phenomenal power for the people.
In short there are some things i do agree with Dawkins and some i do not, and he should not attack someones beliefs.
By: D3NIS
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I'm fairly certain that Dawkins' barbs were not meant for people like yourself and your religious education teacher. That being said, I can completely understand why lots of people would simply write Dawkins off as a prick. I feel like he's overemphasizing a lot of the "prejudice" against atheists. I've never really encountered anyone intolerant of my views, but I've also grown up in New England, home of the skeptics.
Side question: What exactly is TED?
Side question: What exactly is TED?
By: i8ursandwich
Re: TED
Taken from their website (www.ted.com):
"TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from those three worlds. Since then its scope has become ever broader."
Click the 'TED Talks' media player, and it'll take you to the 'Talks' page of the TED website. =)
"TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from those three worlds. Since then its scope has become ever broader."
Click the 'TED Talks' media player, and it'll take you to the 'Talks' page of the TED website. =)
By: groovy_K
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Dunno why i'm back here, but its about the unicorn thing. I was just told by a mate of mine who laughed at this unicorn mentioned by a man who studies evolution. The unicorn being a horse with a horn, that maybe it did exist and it evolved into a horse, because it had no use for the horn lol.
This popped into his head because we were listening to the radio and apparantly they've discovered kryptonite, thats right i said it, they've discovered kryptonite, superman's weakness lol. Sadly its not green and glowing which would be cool, its only a white powdery mineral lol
This popped into his head because we were listening to the radio and apparantly they've discovered kryptonite, thats right i said it, they've discovered kryptonite, superman's weakness lol. Sadly its not green and glowing which would be cool, its only a white powdery mineral lol
By: D3NIS
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Krypton, atomic number 36, was discovered in 1898. It's solid form is a white crystalline substance with a face-centered cubic structure which is common to all the "rare gases." It is used for fluorescent lighting.
Jadarite is a white, powdery, non-radioactive monoclinic mineral. Jadarite's chemical formula is very close to the formula invented for the fictional chemical kryptonite in the 2006 film Superman Returns.
In regards to the Dawkins/God argument, I'm glad it's stayed so civil, if a little irrational. Excellent posts, sandwich.
Jadarite is a white, powdery, non-radioactive monoclinic mineral. Jadarite's chemical formula is very close to the formula invented for the fictional chemical kryptonite in the 2006 film Superman Returns.
In regards to the Dawkins/God argument, I'm glad it's stayed so civil, if a little irrational. Excellent posts, sandwich.
By: TheInquisitor
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Due to the comment system used here, I have to split up my comments into several parts. Please reply to my final comment if you plant to respond.
I'm going to do what Dawkins is incapable of doing, and actually speak objectively here.
I love it how he ignores the massive percent of scientists and intellectuals who do profess one religion or another.
He talks of people deluding themselves, but deludes himself in assuming that he and everyone who agrees with him is 'sophisticated' and that everyone who disagrees is not.
Many atheists are idiots. As are many 'religious' people. And there are many incredibly intelligent 'religious' people, Dawkins. If you'd stop being so full of yourself, and so stuck in your ideas that you start failing to look at the evidence (which is ironically exactly what you accuse all Christians of doing), you'd see that.
I would also like to remind Dawkins that both Newton and Galileo were Christian and both stated that they were heavily inspired in all their work by "the word of God".
Is Dawkins stating that two of the greatest minds in history who both revolutionized science in their findings are unintelligent and unsophisticated?
If religion is so corrosive to science, perhaps Dawkins is claiming they were lying when they stated they were inspired by the Bible?
I also find it rather amusing how he makes the ignorant mistake of just saying "evolution" to cover all of the many theories of Darwin, including both the proven and the disproven, and all revisions to those and new theories that have evolved from those.
I also find this statement rather interesting: "Don't be fooled. Intelligent design is the same argument the creationist have been using since Darwin, just with a new name."
I don't get it. How is this a bad thing?
Darwin supporters must change their arguments every few years every time new facts surface that proves one hypothesis or another incorrect (don't get me wrong, I applaud these people for accepting when something is wrong and moving on to new ideas; can't say the same of the American school system which has been teaching the same outdated hypotheses and theories for the last thirty years). This isn't how the scientific method works. You do not continue looking for facts to prove a predetermined idea. The facts are supposed to point to an undeniable result, one of which is not being attempted to prove if it has already been disproven.
I also find it interesting that he calls Kenneth Miller a Christian. First off, he's Roman Catholic and does not call himself a Christian.
Secondly, I question calling him either Christian or Catholic. After all, he does not believe in the Bible whatsoever, and therefore cannot be of this faith.
Also, he makes the common and incredibly ignorant mistake of bunching all 'religion' into one little ball.
He quotes Douglas Adams stating "Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call 'sacred' or 'holy'. What it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you are not allowed to say anything bad about'."
He certainly can not be speaking about Christianity. Perhaps the Islamic beliefs and those Roman Catholic beliefs of the middle ages. However, Christianity and the Bible both strongly encourage testing. And you'll find nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Do not test the science of the Bible."
I like it when he compares the two bills.
For America, it's "In God We Trust".
I suppose he's saying that for England its "In Darwin We Trust".
Now, you can debate all day about the existence of God, but why on earth would you want to put your trust in a man whose theories were, while revolutionary, either incredibly full of holes or incorrect, later updated by other great minds?
I'd also seriously like to question his "higher intelligence" = "not religious".
This is absurd.
It is a study done without study, and all results are predetermined.
Some of the greatest minds in history were religious, or at least, deistic. I'm not denying that there were great atheistic minds alike, but this statement is ridiculous.
He also nearly stated that these results were inconclusive and inaccurate. Then he goes on to state that he would like such a study committed and financed by those present.
The problem with such a study is that you can never accurately determine such a thing.
What is intelligence? Well, perhaps you can go by IQ. If their data turns out not in the atheist's favor, they will either try a new audience to interview, and come up with some other way to determine intelligence. Perhaps they'd turn to those who have had the highest educations. If this doesn't come to their favor, they'll simply say it is not an accurate way of determining such intelligence. Maybe they'll use the numbers of atheistic or religious scientists employed at certain universities or members of certain scientific orders. Of course, it will be their choosing which universities and scientific orders.
My points is, eventually, they'll find a way to get poll results and surveys and studies to reflect what they want them to reflect.
Just like many of these creationist polls and studies and surveys do in "proving atheism results in drugs and sex" and whatnot.
Both sides go about it incredibly wrong.
And because atheists choose to elect atheists into the National Academy of Sciences proves nothing aside from biased voting.
Especially since the NAS requires you agree with them, and any scientists who have opposing views, no matter how brilliant, are excluded.
It would be like creating a club within your school, calling it a club full of intelligent people, and only inviting in your friends along with one or two of your enemies. Then creating a survey (conducted by you of course), in which you took the amount of your friends and enemies in your club to see which was the majority (despite inviting in your friends as a majority intentionally). Then parading around the school for the next year telling everyone that your group of friends were the "top", the "cream of the crop", and the "most intelligent."
I'm going to do what Dawkins is incapable of doing, and actually speak objectively here.
I love it how he ignores the massive percent of scientists and intellectuals who do profess one religion or another.
He talks of people deluding themselves, but deludes himself in assuming that he and everyone who agrees with him is 'sophisticated' and that everyone who disagrees is not.
Many atheists are idiots. As are many 'religious' people. And there are many incredibly intelligent 'religious' people, Dawkins. If you'd stop being so full of yourself, and so stuck in your ideas that you start failing to look at the evidence (which is ironically exactly what you accuse all Christians of doing), you'd see that.
I would also like to remind Dawkins that both Newton and Galileo were Christian and both stated that they were heavily inspired in all their work by "the word of God".
Is Dawkins stating that two of the greatest minds in history who both revolutionized science in their findings are unintelligent and unsophisticated?
If religion is so corrosive to science, perhaps Dawkins is claiming they were lying when they stated they were inspired by the Bible?
I also find it rather amusing how he makes the ignorant mistake of just saying "evolution" to cover all of the many theories of Darwin, including both the proven and the disproven, and all revisions to those and new theories that have evolved from those.
I also find this statement rather interesting: "Don't be fooled. Intelligent design is the same argument the creationist have been using since Darwin, just with a new name."
I don't get it. How is this a bad thing?
Darwin supporters must change their arguments every few years every time new facts surface that proves one hypothesis or another incorrect (don't get me wrong, I applaud these people for accepting when something is wrong and moving on to new ideas; can't say the same of the American school system which has been teaching the same outdated hypotheses and theories for the last thirty years). This isn't how the scientific method works. You do not continue looking for facts to prove a predetermined idea. The facts are supposed to point to an undeniable result, one of which is not being attempted to prove if it has already been disproven.
I also find it interesting that he calls Kenneth Miller a Christian. First off, he's Roman Catholic and does not call himself a Christian.
Secondly, I question calling him either Christian or Catholic. After all, he does not believe in the Bible whatsoever, and therefore cannot be of this faith.
Also, he makes the common and incredibly ignorant mistake of bunching all 'religion' into one little ball.
He quotes Douglas Adams stating "Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call 'sacred' or 'holy'. What it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you are not allowed to say anything bad about'."
He certainly can not be speaking about Christianity. Perhaps the Islamic beliefs and those Roman Catholic beliefs of the middle ages. However, Christianity and the Bible both strongly encourage testing. And you'll find nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Do not test the science of the Bible."
I like it when he compares the two bills.
For America, it's "In God We Trust".
I suppose he's saying that for England its "In Darwin We Trust".
Now, you can debate all day about the existence of God, but why on earth would you want to put your trust in a man whose theories were, while revolutionary, either incredibly full of holes or incorrect, later updated by other great minds?
I'd also seriously like to question his "higher intelligence" = "not religious".
This is absurd.
It is a study done without study, and all results are predetermined.
Some of the greatest minds in history were religious, or at least, deistic. I'm not denying that there were great atheistic minds alike, but this statement is ridiculous.
He also nearly stated that these results were inconclusive and inaccurate. Then he goes on to state that he would like such a study committed and financed by those present.
The problem with such a study is that you can never accurately determine such a thing.
What is intelligence? Well, perhaps you can go by IQ. If their data turns out not in the atheist's favor, they will either try a new audience to interview, and come up with some other way to determine intelligence. Perhaps they'd turn to those who have had the highest educations. If this doesn't come to their favor, they'll simply say it is not an accurate way of determining such intelligence. Maybe they'll use the numbers of atheistic or religious scientists employed at certain universities or members of certain scientific orders. Of course, it will be their choosing which universities and scientific orders.
My points is, eventually, they'll find a way to get poll results and surveys and studies to reflect what they want them to reflect.
Just like many of these creationist polls and studies and surveys do in "proving atheism results in drugs and sex" and whatnot.
Both sides go about it incredibly wrong.
And because atheists choose to elect atheists into the National Academy of Sciences proves nothing aside from biased voting.
Especially since the NAS requires you agree with them, and any scientists who have opposing views, no matter how brilliant, are excluded.
It would be like creating a club within your school, calling it a club full of intelligent people, and only inviting in your friends along with one or two of your enemies. Then creating a survey (conducted by you of course), in which you took the amount of your friends and enemies in your club to see which was the majority (despite inviting in your friends as a majority intentionally). Then parading around the school for the next year telling everyone that your group of friends were the "top", the "cream of the crop", and the "most intelligent."
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I also find it interesting that he points out that the highest offices in the American government are basically reserved for those who proclaim religious beliefs.
Yet, in the same sentence, he calls America the greatest nation in the world.
Despite those centuries of heavily religious leaders?
I think the facts in this case do more to disprove his overall point than to aid it.
His entire argument in this segment "These political positions are barred to the intelligent and honest" relies entirely on George W Bush. The applause he received at this point was also thanks to Mr Bush.
I suppose this man is saying that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and forty other presidents were neither intelligent nor honest.
I beg to differ.
Yet, despite America being, in his own words, "the greatest nation in the world", he wants to change the way things have been for the past centuries.
Mr Dawkins, sir, I just one thing to say to you.
"If it ain't broken, don't fix it."
Of course, Mr Dawkins is very whiny and persistent about this point because things are not his way.
While I wait for the next segment to load, I'd like to address a part of Dawkin's opinion on atheism and religion.
Dawkins seems to think that atheism will make the world a better place.
I have never seen atheism make someone a better person than they were previously. However, I have seen many people who were greatly benefited when they took up a set of beliefs. And I'm not just talking about Christianity. I've seen people become better people from other religions as well.
This is a poor argument I know, and thus why I do not use it often.
However, I'd like to point out that, while certain religions are dangerous (because of their violent teachings- won't name any names though), many religions greatly benefit people these days (and don't bring up "crusades" crap- I'm talking about modern day people, not seriously confused soldiers who hadn't even read the centerpiece of their religion).
Also, by claiming there is not even the slightest proof of God's existence, Dawkins is denying hundreds of thousands of historical accounts, or passing the incidences ascribed to the supernatural within these accounts as "merely coincidence".
In which case, Dawkins believes in a force of coincidence so powerful, that it might almost be considered a supernatural force itself.
One of numerous, for instance. Charles Grandison Finney in the mid 1800s praying for rain in a place that had experienced a phenomenally long drought, and rain pouring down in gushes within minutes after his prayer. You could deny this event, but then you'd be denying the account of thousands of witnesses, who all agreed on every detail of the event.
And this is no Bible-time or pre-middle age miracle, in which you might question the authenticity. This is a recent event, happening less than two hundred years ago.
And might I remind you this is only one of numerous ones that I could name.
I am just presenting this fact for your considering. Supernatural or super coincidence?
I'm not here to argue the existence of God, however, and will continue addressing Dawkin's statements.
I also find the remarks of him and Sagan (who he quotes) rather ignorant.
Saying that "no religion" appreciates the "grandeur" of the "bigger" universe of "wonder".
I should say, my good man, pull out your Bible.
You'll find many people in there discuss the vastness, the wonder, the enormousness, the grandeur of all "creation".
In fact, that is one of the arguments very often used to prove the existence of God (the complexities and wonder of the vast universe). Which, humorously enough, Dawkins also discussed.
However, Dawkins always ignores what he said before when it comes to making another absurd statement.
"My god is a little god and I want him to stay that way"?
Absurd. The Bible claims that God is infinite, all-powerful, and a God of science.
At this point, I'd like to recommend you all, including Dawkins, read Isaac Newton's "Mathematical Principles of Natural Science". It addresses this and the "religion corrodes science" that Dawkins mentioned earlier.
And tell me, Dawkins, that you don't claim to be more intelligent that Isaac Newton, do you? Are you of greater intellect than the man often credited as being one of or the greatest scientists of all time?
As for his September 11 remark, I heartily agree. There is no respect in my heart or mind for all these millions of Muslims who look proudly on such an event, who honor such an event, who support such an event.
Unfortunately, Dawkins feels that, in his closing remarks, bunching all the religions together and then associating them with a terrible and disastrous event is a good way to get your point across.
Perhaps many of the unsophisticated and unintelligent minds present at this event might applaud that statement, but it really quite foolish, ignorant, and incredibly unobjective and unfair.
In short, most of Dawkin's claims are poppycock. His arguments are poorly laid out and he is very poor at speaking his ways in a convincing manner. He angers too easily, and worse, he is incredibly arrogant.
If anyone read all that without getting pissed that I disagreed with their hero (who they only revere because he's as irrational and easily aggravated as they), and logically considered all I said, you have my respect.
But please don't respond unless you have.
And, for the record, there's nothing I hate like someone picking out one portion of your all writings and addressing that alone as if it's enough to disprove everything you've said.
Yet, in the same sentence, he calls America the greatest nation in the world.
Despite those centuries of heavily religious leaders?
I think the facts in this case do more to disprove his overall point than to aid it.
His entire argument in this segment "These political positions are barred to the intelligent and honest" relies entirely on George W Bush. The applause he received at this point was also thanks to Mr Bush.
I suppose this man is saying that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and forty other presidents were neither intelligent nor honest.
I beg to differ.
Yet, despite America being, in his own words, "the greatest nation in the world", he wants to change the way things have been for the past centuries.
Mr Dawkins, sir, I just one thing to say to you.
"If it ain't broken, don't fix it."
Of course, Mr Dawkins is very whiny and persistent about this point because things are not his way.
While I wait for the next segment to load, I'd like to address a part of Dawkin's opinion on atheism and religion.
Dawkins seems to think that atheism will make the world a better place.
I have never seen atheism make someone a better person than they were previously. However, I have seen many people who were greatly benefited when they took up a set of beliefs. And I'm not just talking about Christianity. I've seen people become better people from other religions as well.
This is a poor argument I know, and thus why I do not use it often.
However, I'd like to point out that, while certain religions are dangerous (because of their violent teachings- won't name any names though), many religions greatly benefit people these days (and don't bring up "crusades" crap- I'm talking about modern day people, not seriously confused soldiers who hadn't even read the centerpiece of their religion).
Also, by claiming there is not even the slightest proof of God's existence, Dawkins is denying hundreds of thousands of historical accounts, or passing the incidences ascribed to the supernatural within these accounts as "merely coincidence".
In which case, Dawkins believes in a force of coincidence so powerful, that it might almost be considered a supernatural force itself.
One of numerous, for instance. Charles Grandison Finney in the mid 1800s praying for rain in a place that had experienced a phenomenally long drought, and rain pouring down in gushes within minutes after his prayer. You could deny this event, but then you'd be denying the account of thousands of witnesses, who all agreed on every detail of the event.
And this is no Bible-time or pre-middle age miracle, in which you might question the authenticity. This is a recent event, happening less than two hundred years ago.
And might I remind you this is only one of numerous ones that I could name.
I am just presenting this fact for your considering. Supernatural or super coincidence?
I'm not here to argue the existence of God, however, and will continue addressing Dawkin's statements.
I also find the remarks of him and Sagan (who he quotes) rather ignorant.
Saying that "no religion" appreciates the "grandeur" of the "bigger" universe of "wonder".
I should say, my good man, pull out your Bible.
You'll find many people in there discuss the vastness, the wonder, the enormousness, the grandeur of all "creation".
In fact, that is one of the arguments very often used to prove the existence of God (the complexities and wonder of the vast universe). Which, humorously enough, Dawkins also discussed.
However, Dawkins always ignores what he said before when it comes to making another absurd statement.
"My god is a little god and I want him to stay that way"?
Absurd. The Bible claims that God is infinite, all-powerful, and a God of science.
At this point, I'd like to recommend you all, including Dawkins, read Isaac Newton's "Mathematical Principles of Natural Science". It addresses this and the "religion corrodes science" that Dawkins mentioned earlier.
And tell me, Dawkins, that you don't claim to be more intelligent that Isaac Newton, do you? Are you of greater intellect than the man often credited as being one of or the greatest scientists of all time?
As for his September 11 remark, I heartily agree. There is no respect in my heart or mind for all these millions of Muslims who look proudly on such an event, who honor such an event, who support such an event.
Unfortunately, Dawkins feels that, in his closing remarks, bunching all the religions together and then associating them with a terrible and disastrous event is a good way to get your point across.
Perhaps many of the unsophisticated and unintelligent minds present at this event might applaud that statement, but it really quite foolish, ignorant, and incredibly unobjective and unfair.
In short, most of Dawkin's claims are poppycock. His arguments are poorly laid out and he is very poor at speaking his ways in a convincing manner. He angers too easily, and worse, he is incredibly arrogant.
If anyone read all that without getting pissed that I disagreed with their hero (who they only revere because he's as irrational and easily aggravated as they), and logically considered all I said, you have my respect.
But please don't respond unless you have.
And, for the record, there's nothing I hate like someone picking out one portion of your all writings and addressing that alone as if it's enough to disprove everything you've said.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I'm not going to respond to your points here, as that would take forever. The examples you bring up don't apply to Dawkins' arguments and the conclusions you draw do not follow from your premises. You are either blatantly misinterpreting his statements or blatantly misunderstanding them. I hope it to be the latter. I've read through everything, and in two posts, both which had to be abbreviated on the front page, you made about two valid points. And please don't preface with "I'm going to speak objectively," when you blatantly aren't. If you'd like a point-by-point, I'd be more than happy to supply it via PM, later tonight.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Sure, man. My points probably have a number of flaws.
Would be happy to her your detailed opinion.
Would be happy to her your detailed opinion.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I don't see Dawkins as arrogant, though I can see why many people of religious persuasion do. Personally I feel he's trying to persuade the human race to give up religion because, indeed, it breeds too many conflicts and we've already demonstrated throughout all of human history that universal tolerance of alternate beliefs is improbable if not impossible. United under science and a banner of lack of belief we can do such wonderful things that are unfortunately impossible as is.
By: Overmann
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
In my previous comment I said that I would abandon further arguments on this subject. However, I will keep with that decision in that I won't argue the existence of God here as that is an argument that no side can win. That being said, I think I can argue against the idea of giving up religion.
Overmann, I do not intend to offend you in the following comment so please do not take it personally if you feel that I did. It is certainly not intentional.
Religion has led to conflicts, I accept that argument as true. However, it is not the only major source of conflicts. Ethnic differences and economic disparity are but two of the multitude of factors that lead to conflict. Communist societies attempted to eliminate the religious and economic factors of conflict and failed miserably at maintaining peace through those methods.
Human beings, by our very nature, will find things to fight about no matter the circumstances. While I hate to refer to South Park as an academic source, if you've seen the episode that featured Richard Dawkins and Cartman's trip to the future, you'll remember that even in a future where people have abandoned religious belief they still find things to fight about. Once again, while I'm not claiming South Park to be an academic resource, the basic philosophical claim made by Trey and Matt in the episode was valid and comically presented.
Who is to say that a world devoid of religious belief would devote itself to science and the improvement of the human condition? Such a world could be inhabited by people seeking to fulfill their own greed and necessarily interested in scientific discovery.
There is also the false supposition that convincing humanity to abandon religious belief will be any more possible than convincing humanity to tolerate the beliefs of others. While tolerance is a very difficult thing to achieve, it is the best method to reduce conflict. Tolerance of other people regardless of belief, race, sexual orientation is the key to reducing conflict. While universal tolerance probably is impossible, people seeking to reduce conflict should be preaching tolerance as opposed to elimination of the source of conflict. To go by the same logic, sex is a source of conflict, men fighting over women people's anger towards those of other sexual orientations, and since it is a source of conflict sex should be eliminated. One could argue that a segregated community should be selected to maintain the procreation of the human species, while the rest of humanity is castrated to prevent them from having sex and that would prevent conflict. That whole scenario is similar to that in "Brave New World" which by the way is a good read if you haven't taken the chance to look it over. I have many friends who are either agnostic or atheist as well as friends who have other different religious views than myself. However, we all agree to tolerate each other's beliefs and that is how we avoid conflict in that area. Personally, I see Richard Dawkins as someone who is intelligent, well spoken and basically well meaning, however I do not agree with his beliefs. I also see any man as arrogant who claims to have the solution to all the world's problems, no matter what their religious persuasion is.
Overmann, I do not intend to offend you in the following comment so please do not take it personally if you feel that I did. It is certainly not intentional.
Religion has led to conflicts, I accept that argument as true. However, it is not the only major source of conflicts. Ethnic differences and economic disparity are but two of the multitude of factors that lead to conflict. Communist societies attempted to eliminate the religious and economic factors of conflict and failed miserably at maintaining peace through those methods.
Human beings, by our very nature, will find things to fight about no matter the circumstances. While I hate to refer to South Park as an academic source, if you've seen the episode that featured Richard Dawkins and Cartman's trip to the future, you'll remember that even in a future where people have abandoned religious belief they still find things to fight about. Once again, while I'm not claiming South Park to be an academic resource, the basic philosophical claim made by Trey and Matt in the episode was valid and comically presented.
Who is to say that a world devoid of religious belief would devote itself to science and the improvement of the human condition? Such a world could be inhabited by people seeking to fulfill their own greed and necessarily interested in scientific discovery.
There is also the false supposition that convincing humanity to abandon religious belief will be any more possible than convincing humanity to tolerate the beliefs of others. While tolerance is a very difficult thing to achieve, it is the best method to reduce conflict. Tolerance of other people regardless of belief, race, sexual orientation is the key to reducing conflict. While universal tolerance probably is impossible, people seeking to reduce conflict should be preaching tolerance as opposed to elimination of the source of conflict. To go by the same logic, sex is a source of conflict, men fighting over women people's anger towards those of other sexual orientations, and since it is a source of conflict sex should be eliminated. One could argue that a segregated community should be selected to maintain the procreation of the human species, while the rest of humanity is castrated to prevent them from having sex and that would prevent conflict. That whole scenario is similar to that in "Brave New World" which by the way is a good read if you haven't taken the chance to look it over. I have many friends who are either agnostic or atheist as well as friends who have other different religious views than myself. However, we all agree to tolerate each other's beliefs and that is how we avoid conflict in that area. Personally, I see Richard Dawkins as someone who is intelligent, well spoken and basically well meaning, however I do not agree with his beliefs. I also see any man as arrogant who claims to have the solution to all the world's problems, no matter what their religious persuasion is.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Considering the number of mass crimes and wars many Atheists are responsible for, it's rather foolish to assume that a world full of Atheists will solve all our problems.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I don't see where atheism is meant to solve problems, and certainly not ALL problems.
But really, if you want to stack up atrocities, Religion has been a source of endless strife in human history. In fact, just about every large-scale elective horror can be attributed to two principle motivations: greed and/or religion.
Perhaps there's only a single prime motivation, and religion is just another tool in the service of greed.
But really, if you want to stack up atrocities, Religion has been a source of endless strife in human history. In fact, just about every large-scale elective horror can be attributed to two principle motivations: greed and/or religion.
Perhaps there's only a single prime motivation, and religion is just another tool in the service of greed.
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
And Atheists have never done anything wrong, right?
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
It's true that Stalin and Pol Pot were avowed atheist. But their horrors were not motivated by their atheism.
The Crusades, on the other hand, were entirely predicated on religion. As were the Inquisition, the American genocides, the anti-Jewish pogroms throughout the world, the pro-Jewish ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the recent anti-Muslim pogroms in India, the violent Islamic revolutions in Iran and Afghanistan, the 9/11 attacks, and so on.
Of course, most of these events were really motivated by power grabs, but religion is used as the central organizing principle. The ordinary people who carry out these atrocities claim to be motivated by their personal religious views.
Religion is how a ruthless person can convince a naive person to hack children to death with farm tools.
The Crusades, on the other hand, were entirely predicated on religion. As were the Inquisition, the American genocides, the anti-Jewish pogroms throughout the world, the pro-Jewish ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the recent anti-Muslim pogroms in India, the violent Islamic revolutions in Iran and Afghanistan, the 9/11 attacks, and so on.
Of course, most of these events were really motivated by power grabs, but religion is used as the central organizing principle. The ordinary people who carry out these atrocities claim to be motivated by their personal religious views.
Religion is how a ruthless person can convince a naive person to hack children to death with farm tools.
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Indeed your comment is long, but I am going to do my best to respond to every argument you make. hopefully my comment wont be nearly as long or repetitive as your own. I'm referring to every individual paragraph as a "point" with "I am actually going to do what Dawkins is incapable of doing…" being the first. This is a sirect refutation of squeakytoads statements and should be read as a companion to it, since i often referr to it without directly quoting it.
1. Your very first statement is both subjective and a lie. You do not evaluate Dawkins objectively and you never will. It is not a shortcoming on your part, I am not objective either, it is a fact. It is simply impossible to argue, at any level, without being subjective. Indeed the only thing that can be truly objective is evidence. Of which, over the next few points, you provide precious little.
2. This, and many of the following arguments is basically an argument from intelligence, "that because 'x' is of legendary intelligence, whatever he believes must be correct, or at least should be preferred over 'y' who is considerably less intelligent." This itself is a silly argument because there are many intelligent people who believe absurd things. Do you trust them? No. Dawkins also acknowledges that there are intelligent people who are believers in god, he mentions one in the first few minutes. Kenneth Miller, an impassioned critic of intelligent design, who is also a practicing roman catholic. Dawkins actual argument is that the majority of atheists are well educated. Not that all scientists are atheists. Pay attention. You also mention "evidence" but give none, and then say that Dawkins should view it, like the Christians. Im sorry, but if you take a good look at intelligent design, you would notice that it refutes, or ignores, this "evidence" which according to you Christian scholars are so passionately reviewing.
3. first see 2, but as a more direct rebuttal, calling forth geniuses from the past (as you will do later) is to place their beliefs out of perspective. If Newton and Galileo had professed to be atheists during their time they would have been risking their lives. In fact Galileo did risk his life when he supported heliocentric theory, which the all mighty (and supposedly scientific and accepting) christian church disagreed with. Furthermore, if Newton and Galileo had access to the scientific wealth we had today, such as our understanding of chemistry, or the fossil records, there is no proof that they would have maintained their belief in god. So what if they were inspired by the bible?
4. you do not mention any of these other theories specifically, additionally I think it would have been quite boring for his audience for him to laboriously mention every single one of Darwin's theories and discuss them before coming to a conclusion that would satisfy you.
5. it is a bad thing because Intelligent Design passes itself off as a new theory when it is not, Dawkins is calling attention to this.
6. Yes I think we should move on from ignorant theories that continue to override our culture with false information. Can you please tell me specifically which of Darwin's "incorrect" theories you are talking about. By the way, Darwin's core argument, that species are created by a process known as natural selection, has never been disproved.
7. This is an ad hominem attack on Kenneth Miller. First Roman Catholics are Christians because they accept Jesus Christ as their saviour. That makes them Christians. Second how do you know Kenneth Miller doesn't believe in the bible? Have you talked to him? Can you direct me to a source where Miller says he doesn't believe in the bible?
8. "Christianity is a retarded faith for retarded people." Are any Christians who read this offended? I would be. Christianity is not accepting of principles which counter what it perceives as fact. If this were true there would be no argument for Intelligent Design. Actually there would be no debate between science and Christianity at all as Christians would be so accepting. Christianity's inability to mesh with scientific thoughts is Dawkins argument, that blind faith, which is celebrated by religions, is a bad thing.
9. In Britain the pound just mentions the Queen. No British coins or notes mention God. Your pal Newton's theories were updated by great minds like Einstein. do you still believe in the THEORY of Gravity? I don't personally trust Darwin, or believe in him, ive never met him. But I find his conclusions on the origin of natural things to be sound and convincing.
10. see 2 again, Dawkins claims that atheists are more likely to be educated people, not that all educated people are atheists. And what you're actually saying is that the conclusions of any study would not satisfy you. This doesn't mean that such a study should never be undertaken, or that whatever its claims are should be automatically void.
11, 12. Starting a cult where you accept Christ as your saviour is like starting your only little club at school but refusing admittance to anyone who disagrees with you. Actually people who disagree with you are to be shunned and even killed once you are able to influence the legal system. You would then parade your club to new cultures about how your ideas are the best, and how anyone outside of this club is ignorant and foolish.
All arguments and stances are vulnerable to belittling. Unfortunately when you use this tactic you aren't doing it ironically.
13. They are, public admittance of atheism is akin to political suicide. You might as well run under NAMBLAs banner. America can be a great country even with shortcomings like an overly Christian government. I don't see how this invalidates Dawkins argument. Dawkins was probably mentioning the history of scientific innovation that America has cultivated as to why it is a great country. Defining a country solely by its leaders is silly, especially a country where the law-making bodies are independent of the head of state.
14. No it does not. See 13. Running for office as an atheist in the United States would destroy your chances of winning. Many members of the American government may be atheists privately, but admitting it would effectively prevent any hope of re-election. Dawkins did not say that any of those presidents were ignorant, nor did he even imply that. You are guilty of the same generalizations that you accuse Dawkins of.
I think this is important. First you misinterpret Dawkins argument, that intelligent people are generally atheists, as, people who are not atheists are not intelligent. Then you try to extend this false argument to claim that Dawkins feels that many Christian minds through history are therefore, dishonest, mean, stupid, and bad people. im sure Dawkins thinks very highly of Newton, and Lincoln, even if he thinks their religious beliefs are absurd.
1. Your very first statement is both subjective and a lie. You do not evaluate Dawkins objectively and you never will. It is not a shortcoming on your part, I am not objective either, it is a fact. It is simply impossible to argue, at any level, without being subjective. Indeed the only thing that can be truly objective is evidence. Of which, over the next few points, you provide precious little.
2. This, and many of the following arguments is basically an argument from intelligence, "that because 'x' is of legendary intelligence, whatever he believes must be correct, or at least should be preferred over 'y' who is considerably less intelligent." This itself is a silly argument because there are many intelligent people who believe absurd things. Do you trust them? No. Dawkins also acknowledges that there are intelligent people who are believers in god, he mentions one in the first few minutes. Kenneth Miller, an impassioned critic of intelligent design, who is also a practicing roman catholic. Dawkins actual argument is that the majority of atheists are well educated. Not that all scientists are atheists. Pay attention. You also mention "evidence" but give none, and then say that Dawkins should view it, like the Christians. Im sorry, but if you take a good look at intelligent design, you would notice that it refutes, or ignores, this "evidence" which according to you Christian scholars are so passionately reviewing.
3. first see 2, but as a more direct rebuttal, calling forth geniuses from the past (as you will do later) is to place their beliefs out of perspective. If Newton and Galileo had professed to be atheists during their time they would have been risking their lives. In fact Galileo did risk his life when he supported heliocentric theory, which the all mighty (and supposedly scientific and accepting) christian church disagreed with. Furthermore, if Newton and Galileo had access to the scientific wealth we had today, such as our understanding of chemistry, or the fossil records, there is no proof that they would have maintained their belief in god. So what if they were inspired by the bible?
4. you do not mention any of these other theories specifically, additionally I think it would have been quite boring for his audience for him to laboriously mention every single one of Darwin's theories and discuss them before coming to a conclusion that would satisfy you.
5. it is a bad thing because Intelligent Design passes itself off as a new theory when it is not, Dawkins is calling attention to this.
6. Yes I think we should move on from ignorant theories that continue to override our culture with false information. Can you please tell me specifically which of Darwin's "incorrect" theories you are talking about. By the way, Darwin's core argument, that species are created by a process known as natural selection, has never been disproved.
7. This is an ad hominem attack on Kenneth Miller. First Roman Catholics are Christians because they accept Jesus Christ as their saviour. That makes them Christians. Second how do you know Kenneth Miller doesn't believe in the bible? Have you talked to him? Can you direct me to a source where Miller says he doesn't believe in the bible?
8. "Christianity is a retarded faith for retarded people." Are any Christians who read this offended? I would be. Christianity is not accepting of principles which counter what it perceives as fact. If this were true there would be no argument for Intelligent Design. Actually there would be no debate between science and Christianity at all as Christians would be so accepting. Christianity's inability to mesh with scientific thoughts is Dawkins argument, that blind faith, which is celebrated by religions, is a bad thing.
9. In Britain the pound just mentions the Queen. No British coins or notes mention God. Your pal Newton's theories were updated by great minds like Einstein. do you still believe in the THEORY of Gravity? I don't personally trust Darwin, or believe in him, ive never met him. But I find his conclusions on the origin of natural things to be sound and convincing.
10. see 2 again, Dawkins claims that atheists are more likely to be educated people, not that all educated people are atheists. And what you're actually saying is that the conclusions of any study would not satisfy you. This doesn't mean that such a study should never be undertaken, or that whatever its claims are should be automatically void.
11, 12. Starting a cult where you accept Christ as your saviour is like starting your only little club at school but refusing admittance to anyone who disagrees with you. Actually people who disagree with you are to be shunned and even killed once you are able to influence the legal system. You would then parade your club to new cultures about how your ideas are the best, and how anyone outside of this club is ignorant and foolish.
All arguments and stances are vulnerable to belittling. Unfortunately when you use this tactic you aren't doing it ironically.
13. They are, public admittance of atheism is akin to political suicide. You might as well run under NAMBLAs banner. America can be a great country even with shortcomings like an overly Christian government. I don't see how this invalidates Dawkins argument. Dawkins was probably mentioning the history of scientific innovation that America has cultivated as to why it is a great country. Defining a country solely by its leaders is silly, especially a country where the law-making bodies are independent of the head of state.
14. No it does not. See 13. Running for office as an atheist in the United States would destroy your chances of winning. Many members of the American government may be atheists privately, but admitting it would effectively prevent any hope of re-election. Dawkins did not say that any of those presidents were ignorant, nor did he even imply that. You are guilty of the same generalizations that you accuse Dawkins of.
I think this is important. First you misinterpret Dawkins argument, that intelligent people are generally atheists, as, people who are not atheists are not intelligent. Then you try to extend this false argument to claim that Dawkins feels that many Christian minds through history are therefore, dishonest, mean, stupid, and bad people. im sure Dawkins thinks very highly of Newton, and Lincoln, even if he thinks their religious beliefs are absurd.
By: accident
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
15, 16. No he does not. Dawkins wants to make America more like it should be, with freedom for expression about religious beliefs. America was NOT founded as a "Christian nation." It was founded as a free nation. That is the first amendment to the American Constitution, that "congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, the American government, does not, nor should it, favour any religion or religious beliefs in its lawmaking process. The system is broken, Ten Commandments in courtrooms? Court battles about the Intelligent Design vs Evolutionary Theory? Passing laws that respect an establishment of religion is illegal. A legal system that violates its own law is broken. And Dawkins seeks to fix it.
17, 18, not arguments
19. There is also an important discrepancy that Dawkins notices but you do not. There is a difference between being 'religious' and believing that there is in fact an entity in the sky, or all around us, that simultaneously listens to millions of different prayers, is all powerful and all knowing, and decides to consciously affect our lives, but then leave no discernable evidence that he has done so, for whatever his mysterious reasons may be. Being religious, and believing in God are two separate things. having a devout faith in the aforementioned entity i think is silly. but working to protect and foster an idea (being religious) is not. I am religious about my atheism.
20. Dawkins is indeed denying those accounts. Just like he would deny any account he thought absurd or contradictory to fact. We have terms for people who believe in things that didnt happen. they are simply mistaken, or more pejoratively crazy, insane, or mentally deranged. Walking home when i was six i became terrified that a trash bin was breathing because of the noise when i walked by it. of course it wasn't breathing, it was the wind. but if i had told you that i heard Jesus breathing in a trash bin would that make my account more believable?
21, 22, 23. Coincidence, Im sure Finney prayed alot for rain during the drought, why this one time? if no one were praying is it still an act of god? What about aztecs sacrificing children for rain? why did it rain then? did Finney try sacrificing children to gt rain? Finney had good timing. wow you can name numerous other accounts of coincidence involving religious beliefs. I too can name numerous other accidents or improbable events, but that does not make them acts of god, even if the people involved were praying.
24. All religions are absurdly anthropocentric. Mankind created in the image of God? for thousands of years, during the time the bible was written, people believed "creation" to be simply the earths surface, and the sky (which was also heaven). the bible makes no mention or appreciation of the vastness of the universe as a whole, of which our earth occupies a less than inconspicuous part. See 3 because the church had to suppress the idea that the heavens did not orbit around "creation." (heliocentrism) an idea which that a devout christian Galileo was persecuted for.
25. not an argument, are you dissing Dawkins god? you know thats mean
26. Really? i think that's pretty absurd, see 19, the bible also says the world was created in a week, about 6000 years ago. It also says that you should sacrifice a bull every Friday, stone adulterous women, and that it is acceptable to sell your daughter into slavery. do you believe that? A God of Science? Science is about asking questions, if you ask questions about God, you are doomed to damnation.
27. what does Newton address and how? telling me to read some random text is not an argument, also see 2. And when does Dawkins claim he is more intelligent than Newton? and what if he is? how can you tell or even measure this? im not claiming that he his, but Dawkins certainly knows more about biology than Newton ever did, does that make him more intelligent?
28, 29. Congratulations, you dont like people who attacked America in the name of God. what if they were devout Christians? would that make their attack more acceptable? You are trying to criticize Dawkin's generalization of religion. But september 11th was a religiously motivated attack, and Dawkins is criticizing religion. just because it wasnt your personal religion does it mean the argument isnt valid.
30. Perhaps many of the unsophisticated and unintelligent minds this thread might applaud your statements, but they are really quite foolish, ignorant, and incredibly unobjective (the actual word is "subjective")and unfair. This is not an argument and neither is your statement
31. Dawkins is clearly an excellent speaker, not to mention an accomplished author. You are foolish, subjective, and unfair.
32, 33. Dawkins is not my hero, but he is far more convincing than you are. I dont much care for your respect because judging from your writings you honestly doesnt seem very intelligent or articulate. I have met your ridiculous stipulation to refute every single one of your statements instead of just a few. This is not out of respect for you, but because all of your points are easily refuted. Finally, your "for the record statement" makes you a hypocrite if you truly embrace it.
17, 18, not arguments
19. There is also an important discrepancy that Dawkins notices but you do not. There is a difference between being 'religious' and believing that there is in fact an entity in the sky, or all around us, that simultaneously listens to millions of different prayers, is all powerful and all knowing, and decides to consciously affect our lives, but then leave no discernable evidence that he has done so, for whatever his mysterious reasons may be. Being religious, and believing in God are two separate things. having a devout faith in the aforementioned entity i think is silly. but working to protect and foster an idea (being religious) is not. I am religious about my atheism.
20. Dawkins is indeed denying those accounts. Just like he would deny any account he thought absurd or contradictory to fact. We have terms for people who believe in things that didnt happen. they are simply mistaken, or more pejoratively crazy, insane, or mentally deranged. Walking home when i was six i became terrified that a trash bin was breathing because of the noise when i walked by it. of course it wasn't breathing, it was the wind. but if i had told you that i heard Jesus breathing in a trash bin would that make my account more believable?
21, 22, 23. Coincidence, Im sure Finney prayed alot for rain during the drought, why this one time? if no one were praying is it still an act of god? What about aztecs sacrificing children for rain? why did it rain then? did Finney try sacrificing children to gt rain? Finney had good timing. wow you can name numerous other accounts of coincidence involving religious beliefs. I too can name numerous other accidents or improbable events, but that does not make them acts of god, even if the people involved were praying.
24. All religions are absurdly anthropocentric. Mankind created in the image of God? for thousands of years, during the time the bible was written, people believed "creation" to be simply the earths surface, and the sky (which was also heaven). the bible makes no mention or appreciation of the vastness of the universe as a whole, of which our earth occupies a less than inconspicuous part. See 3 because the church had to suppress the idea that the heavens did not orbit around "creation." (heliocentrism) an idea which that a devout christian Galileo was persecuted for.
25. not an argument, are you dissing Dawkins god? you know thats mean
26. Really? i think that's pretty absurd, see 19, the bible also says the world was created in a week, about 6000 years ago. It also says that you should sacrifice a bull every Friday, stone adulterous women, and that it is acceptable to sell your daughter into slavery. do you believe that? A God of Science? Science is about asking questions, if you ask questions about God, you are doomed to damnation.
27. what does Newton address and how? telling me to read some random text is not an argument, also see 2. And when does Dawkins claim he is more intelligent than Newton? and what if he is? how can you tell or even measure this? im not claiming that he his, but Dawkins certainly knows more about biology than Newton ever did, does that make him more intelligent?
28, 29. Congratulations, you dont like people who attacked America in the name of God. what if they were devout Christians? would that make their attack more acceptable? You are trying to criticize Dawkin's generalization of religion. But september 11th was a religiously motivated attack, and Dawkins is criticizing religion. just because it wasnt your personal religion does it mean the argument isnt valid.
30. Perhaps many of the unsophisticated and unintelligent minds this thread might applaud your statements, but they are really quite foolish, ignorant, and incredibly unobjective (the actual word is "subjective")and unfair. This is not an argument and neither is your statement
31. Dawkins is clearly an excellent speaker, not to mention an accomplished author. You are foolish, subjective, and unfair.
32, 33. Dawkins is not my hero, but he is far more convincing than you are. I dont much care for your respect because judging from your writings you honestly doesnt seem very intelligent or articulate. I have met your ridiculous stipulation to refute every single one of your statements instead of just a few. This is not out of respect for you, but because all of your points are easily refuted. Finally, your "for the record statement" makes you a hypocrite if you truly embrace it.
By: accident
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I'm not going to argue your points except to clarify points 15 and 16. The first amendment to the constitution was put in place by the founding fathers to guarantee the freedom to hold and express religious beliefs in a public discourse if they see fit. While atheists are protected in arguing against religion, religious people are also protected to express their beliefs. Accordingly, the Constitution did not and should not have the purpose of removing religion from the public discourse. Also, in the context that the constitutional framers would have seen it, the establishment clause had to do with a state church as the Anglican Church had been in England. The phrase "wall of separation of church and state" appears no where in the Constitution and derives itself from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. When taken in its context it, this proposed separation had much more to do with protecting religion from government rather than the opposite. The first amendment does grant freedom of religion to all, this is true. However it should be noted that a great number of the founding fathers such as George Washington, Patrick Henry, John Jay, James Madison (possibly), and many others were members of various Christian denominations and a good deal of these men had strong religious faith as expressed in their writings, George Washington being a prime example. It is also true that some of the other founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin had dubious religious beliefs best dubious as deists (that is people who believe in a higher power, but do not feel that power interacts with humanity). It should also be noted that none of the major founding fathers were avowed atheists, although this belief system had been around for a while and was avowed by philosophers, such as Baron d'Holbach, whose writings would have been available to many of the well-educated founders. So while I'm not explicitly disagreeing with your statement, I felt I should include my historical knowledge in a clarification and further explanation of the topic of the founding of America and the role religion played in it.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
It may be that the founding fathers intended the 1st Amendment to be used to guarantee the freedom to hold and express religious views. The 1st Amendment does this by forbidding congress from passing any law that would favor any religion, or denounce any religion. This essentially forbids the government of the United States of America to have any particular religious leanings. It is a country without a faith, and is therefore not legally, nor founded as, a "Christian Nation." This idea has been strongly tested in recent years as legislation with strong religious leanings has been introduced. Intelligent Design? the TerriSchiavo case? Bush vetoing the Stem Cell Bill? testing Roe vs Wade? all of these have obvious religious, and mostly Christian, motives and should therefore not be favored by Congress according to the text of the 1st Amendment.
As to the religious beliefs of the founding fathers themselves. Many founding fathers were deists, as you mention. A fairly weak religious stance. It is notinconceivable to argue that today they might be atheists. However, pulling historical figures out of their time to support your religious belief is fallacious because, very simply, the times were different then. Even if atheism was an accepted theory at that time, it was still a very fringe belief held publicly only by radicals or philosophers. For respected colonial aristocrats to be public atheists would have certainly been unusual. Not the least because atheism wasassociated with, and still is to some degree, immoral behavior, crime, and substance abuse.
As for the more overtly religious you mention Washington in particular and i feel the need to add a rebuttal. George Washington's religious beliefs have been difficult for scholars to identify. Conflicting accounts exist as to the extent of his religious belief and what, exactly he believed in. This has been made more difficult because Washington never left any writings, private or otherwise, that directly laid out his own thoughts on the subject of religion, and according to Thomas Jefferson he resented the label of "Christian." There is no doubt however, that he was a steady church goer and a strong fan of religious toleration. If you have any more doubt as to how the founding fathers saw religious leanings of their country i offer you Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted under Washington, signed by John Adams and ratified by the Senate in 1797:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
As to the religious beliefs of the founding fathers themselves. Many founding fathers were deists, as you mention. A fairly weak religious stance. It is notinconceivable to argue that today they might be atheists. However, pulling historical figures out of their time to support your religious belief is fallacious because, very simply, the times were different then. Even if atheism was an accepted theory at that time, it was still a very fringe belief held publicly only by radicals or philosophers. For respected colonial aristocrats to be public atheists would have certainly been unusual. Not the least because atheism wasassociated with, and still is to some degree, immoral behavior, crime, and substance abuse.
As for the more overtly religious you mention Washington in particular and i feel the need to add a rebuttal. George Washington's religious beliefs have been difficult for scholars to identify. Conflicting accounts exist as to the extent of his religious belief and what, exactly he believed in. This has been made more difficult because Washington never left any writings, private or otherwise, that directly laid out his own thoughts on the subject of religion, and according to Thomas Jefferson he resented the label of "Christian." There is no doubt however, that he was a steady church goer and a strong fan of religious toleration. If you have any more doubt as to how the founding fathers saw religious leanings of their country i offer you Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted under Washington, signed by John Adams and ratified by the Senate in 1797:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
By: accident
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
As I said earlier, I wasn't disagreeing with you on your point about the founding fathers, I just wanted to clarify. I've discussed philosophy with a philosopher friend of mine, and I've studied some science, but I am first and foremost a historian.
I do see your point about Terri Schiavo and Stem Cells, personally I opposed the governmental positions on both of those and I myself am a Christian. So much of this stuff is up to personal interpretation. I believe that God wants us to learn about our world and how to help one another and stem cell research is a part of that. But my religious beliefs are not the subject of my argument here so I move on.
I also agree with you in that in the more politically tolerant climate of today some of the deists might "come out of the closet" as atheists. I would like to emphasize that while deism is not a strong religious stance in that they have no stated dogma or ceremony they do have a belief in a higher power. If the founders that were deists were alive today, they would probably describe themselves as "spiritual, but not religious".
There are conflicting reports as to Washington's religious beliefs as you stated. Jefferson, as you stated, downplayed Washington's Christianity however his daughter Nelly Custis-Lewis claimed that he was a Christian. Dr. Peter Lillback published a book in 2006 called George Washington's Sacred Fire that states Washington was definitely a Christian. I have yet to read that book as of yet, so I cannot attest to its quality as a historical work. Of course, scholars on both side of the debate tend to have an agenda. Christians want the greatest American on their side, and non-religious people want him on their side as well and with the variety of conflicting primary sources he is up for grabs.
Regarding the Treaty of Tripoli, you are right, the founders did not see the United States as a country just for Christians. It should be noted that in the context of the treaty, it was worded as such to emphasize that America was not involved in that conflict as some sort of holy war against Muslims but about piracy. So it is correct that America was not founded with a constitutional foundation in Christianity, however, the idea that people should be able to worship God in any way they choose (or not at all if that is their choice) is central to America. The idea that religion is a negative influence would be foreign, even to our less religious founders. But once again, I wasn't disagreeing with you in your post accident but I decided to clarify the position of the founding fathers. So many historical events and characters are shrouded in mystery because of the conflicting primary sources that we have on them.
I do see your point about Terri Schiavo and Stem Cells, personally I opposed the governmental positions on both of those and I myself am a Christian. So much of this stuff is up to personal interpretation. I believe that God wants us to learn about our world and how to help one another and stem cell research is a part of that. But my religious beliefs are not the subject of my argument here so I move on.
I also agree with you in that in the more politically tolerant climate of today some of the deists might "come out of the closet" as atheists. I would like to emphasize that while deism is not a strong religious stance in that they have no stated dogma or ceremony they do have a belief in a higher power. If the founders that were deists were alive today, they would probably describe themselves as "spiritual, but not religious".
There are conflicting reports as to Washington's religious beliefs as you stated. Jefferson, as you stated, downplayed Washington's Christianity however his daughter Nelly Custis-Lewis claimed that he was a Christian. Dr. Peter Lillback published a book in 2006 called George Washington's Sacred Fire that states Washington was definitely a Christian. I have yet to read that book as of yet, so I cannot attest to its quality as a historical work. Of course, scholars on both side of the debate tend to have an agenda. Christians want the greatest American on their side, and non-religious people want him on their side as well and with the variety of conflicting primary sources he is up for grabs.
Regarding the Treaty of Tripoli, you are right, the founders did not see the United States as a country just for Christians. It should be noted that in the context of the treaty, it was worded as such to emphasize that America was not involved in that conflict as some sort of holy war against Muslims but about piracy. So it is correct that America was not founded with a constitutional foundation in Christianity, however, the idea that people should be able to worship God in any way they choose (or not at all if that is their choice) is central to America. The idea that religion is a negative influence would be foreign, even to our less religious founders. But once again, I wasn't disagreeing with you in your post accident but I decided to clarify the position of the founding fathers. So many historical events and characters are shrouded in mystery because of the conflicting primary sources that we have on them.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
1. Agreed. It was stupid of me to say. No one can speak entirely objectively.
2. I disagree. Dawkins, throughout this entire thing, was trying to make the statement that atheists are more intelligent.
And even were his argument "the majority of atheists are well educated", this would be the stupidest statement I've ever heard.
I have met hundreds upon hundreds of atheists who were total idiots. As far as students go, those who call themselves atheists are generally the lowest scoring.
I know this is not always the case, but I have met so many overwhelmingly unintelligent, uneducated atheists that it would be ignorant to say "the majority of atheists are well educated".
3. So what if they were inspired by the Bible? Well, it proves Dawkin's whole "religion is corrosive to science" arguement false. Some religions are, including that of the church of that day.
4. Ah, but see, it's all in the wording. He is stating that the intelligent design groups "refuse to accept the teachings of Darwin." Quite the contrary, many of his theories have been accepted by them. I picked up a creationist Biology text the other day that had an entire section on microevolution and and organism's ability to adapt. They even talked about how "masterfully Darwin destroyed the ideas of the immutability of species".
Dawkins states it this way to make it sound as if they refuse all of Darwin's theories, to make these groups look flat out stupid.
5. I don't recall anyone stating that Intelligent Design was anything new. It's a concept that's been around for quite some time. They've made some revisions though. For instance, they've removed many sections of their arguements and added new ones, based on overwhelming evidence to the contrary of their earlier arguments. In the first half of this century, they were claiming that every currently existing species has been around since the beginning of creation and has not changed whatsoever. This idea has been removed, as it is absurd and ignores the facts. This is no different than what every new decade of Darwinism does. Unfortunately, as I stated, they're still teaching many outdated ideas in the school system, which seriously needs to be addressed. For the record, before you start going ballistic and claiming I want creationism taught in schools, no, I do not. I do not want any religious beliefs taught in the public school system for many reasons.
6. Of course it hasn't been disproved. New species do arise by the process of natural selection. However, I'm not going to ramble off about which of his many various theories (many of which are taught in schools) are incorrect. Especially since most intelligent Darwin supporters agree many of his arguements are outdated or proven false, and have thus removed them or modified them.
7. He does not believe in the Biblical account of creation whatsoever (not even as figurative), and does not believe various events in the Bible. The Bible itself states that every word of it is true, and thus to disbelieve part of it is to disbelieve all of it. The Bible states these things to make sure people like Miller can't pick and choose, calling themselves Christian to make their arguements seem to carry more weight.
8. You keep saying I don't point out any specifics in my statements. In which cases does Christianity deny absolutely proven evidence with no evidence to the contrary? And please don't be ignorant and point out things done by the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages or refer to some of those retarded creationist proffessors who have no idea what they're talking about.
Also, you don't really address my statement with this one. You just thought saying "Christians are retarded" would cover it. As I said, Christianity and the Bible both strongly encourage testing. And you'll find nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Do not test the science of the Bible."
9. Indeed. I wasn't implying anyone trusts in him. I just thought this was a pointless segement of video.
10. No, what I'm saying is that such a study would have to be carried out objectively by neutral members (or at least an equal balance of members from all sides of this arguement). What I'm saying is that a study like this could probably not be taken properly, as with most studies by both atheists and religious, creationist and evolutionists, the results always seem to come out in their favor. Why? Because both sides don't want their study to prove against them, and therefore do whatever it takes to make their surveys point to the results they have predertimend and desired. This is human nature. But thank you for putting words into my mouth.
11, 12. Ah, "shunned and killed". Reffering othe middle ages and crusades again, are you? Aren't we intelligent today? Maybe I should jump on the bandwagon and pick out every bad thing done by anyone who claims to be atheists in all history and use that as an example every freakin time I open my mouth.
Btw, didn't Jesus teach loving others? Giving them your stuff? Caring for them no matter what they believed? Turning the other cheek?
And, yes, Christian salvation is exlusive to those who believe in Jesus Christ as their savior. But no one's marching around saying that all any better than everyone else for this. Well, maybe someone is, but that person is clearly contradicting themselves.
13. Hmm... I don't really see how I can argue that. The country is dominantly Christian, and therefore they want their leaders to share their beliefs. I'm not stating that as a good thing or a bad thing. It's just the way it is. See, the thing is, that used to always mean someone of integrity (almost always). After these past few administrations, it is no longer the same. Calling yourself Christian is only a political move these days. Unfortunately, politics within the US and most other countries have become so corrupt as of this last half a century that it's gotten to the point of absurdity. I agree with Dawkins on the point that something has to change.
14. Hmm... I don't know, I'll have to ask him how he feels about this issue.
And I agree, many politicians are atheists only claiming to be Christians to get the public vote. However, such people, who are willing to publicly lie like that just to get a few votes, are not the kind of people of integrity I'd want leading the nation.
Yes, perhaps it is political suicide to name yourself Atheists, but that is because the majority of America is Christian and wants Christian leaders. And this is a democracy, may I remind you. The majority of the people should get to decide what they want in a leader. Whether it is a good choice or not.
Or are you saying that democracy is a bad thing now?
2. I disagree. Dawkins, throughout this entire thing, was trying to make the statement that atheists are more intelligent.
And even were his argument "the majority of atheists are well educated", this would be the stupidest statement I've ever heard.
I have met hundreds upon hundreds of atheists who were total idiots. As far as students go, those who call themselves atheists are generally the lowest scoring.
I know this is not always the case, but I have met so many overwhelmingly unintelligent, uneducated atheists that it would be ignorant to say "the majority of atheists are well educated".
3. So what if they were inspired by the Bible? Well, it proves Dawkin's whole "religion is corrosive to science" arguement false. Some religions are, including that of the church of that day.
4. Ah, but see, it's all in the wording. He is stating that the intelligent design groups "refuse to accept the teachings of Darwin." Quite the contrary, many of his theories have been accepted by them. I picked up a creationist Biology text the other day that had an entire section on microevolution and and organism's ability to adapt. They even talked about how "masterfully Darwin destroyed the ideas of the immutability of species".
Dawkins states it this way to make it sound as if they refuse all of Darwin's theories, to make these groups look flat out stupid.
5. I don't recall anyone stating that Intelligent Design was anything new. It's a concept that's been around for quite some time. They've made some revisions though. For instance, they've removed many sections of their arguements and added new ones, based on overwhelming evidence to the contrary of their earlier arguments. In the first half of this century, they were claiming that every currently existing species has been around since the beginning of creation and has not changed whatsoever. This idea has been removed, as it is absurd and ignores the facts. This is no different than what every new decade of Darwinism does. Unfortunately, as I stated, they're still teaching many outdated ideas in the school system, which seriously needs to be addressed. For the record, before you start going ballistic and claiming I want creationism taught in schools, no, I do not. I do not want any religious beliefs taught in the public school system for many reasons.
6. Of course it hasn't been disproved. New species do arise by the process of natural selection. However, I'm not going to ramble off about which of his many various theories (many of which are taught in schools) are incorrect. Especially since most intelligent Darwin supporters agree many of his arguements are outdated or proven false, and have thus removed them or modified them.
7. He does not believe in the Biblical account of creation whatsoever (not even as figurative), and does not believe various events in the Bible. The Bible itself states that every word of it is true, and thus to disbelieve part of it is to disbelieve all of it. The Bible states these things to make sure people like Miller can't pick and choose, calling themselves Christian to make their arguements seem to carry more weight.
8. You keep saying I don't point out any specifics in my statements. In which cases does Christianity deny absolutely proven evidence with no evidence to the contrary? And please don't be ignorant and point out things done by the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages or refer to some of those retarded creationist proffessors who have no idea what they're talking about.
Also, you don't really address my statement with this one. You just thought saying "Christians are retarded" would cover it. As I said, Christianity and the Bible both strongly encourage testing. And you'll find nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Do not test the science of the Bible."
9. Indeed. I wasn't implying anyone trusts in him. I just thought this was a pointless segement of video.
10. No, what I'm saying is that such a study would have to be carried out objectively by neutral members (or at least an equal balance of members from all sides of this arguement). What I'm saying is that a study like this could probably not be taken properly, as with most studies by both atheists and religious, creationist and evolutionists, the results always seem to come out in their favor. Why? Because both sides don't want their study to prove against them, and therefore do whatever it takes to make their surveys point to the results they have predertimend and desired. This is human nature. But thank you for putting words into my mouth.
11, 12. Ah, "shunned and killed". Reffering othe middle ages and crusades again, are you? Aren't we intelligent today? Maybe I should jump on the bandwagon and pick out every bad thing done by anyone who claims to be atheists in all history and use that as an example every freakin time I open my mouth.
Btw, didn't Jesus teach loving others? Giving them your stuff? Caring for them no matter what they believed? Turning the other cheek?
And, yes, Christian salvation is exlusive to those who believe in Jesus Christ as their savior. But no one's marching around saying that all any better than everyone else for this. Well, maybe someone is, but that person is clearly contradicting themselves.
13. Hmm... I don't really see how I can argue that. The country is dominantly Christian, and therefore they want their leaders to share their beliefs. I'm not stating that as a good thing or a bad thing. It's just the way it is. See, the thing is, that used to always mean someone of integrity (almost always). After these past few administrations, it is no longer the same. Calling yourself Christian is only a political move these days. Unfortunately, politics within the US and most other countries have become so corrupt as of this last half a century that it's gotten to the point of absurdity. I agree with Dawkins on the point that something has to change.
14. Hmm... I don't know, I'll have to ask him how he feels about this issue.
And I agree, many politicians are atheists only claiming to be Christians to get the public vote. However, such people, who are willing to publicly lie like that just to get a few votes, are not the kind of people of integrity I'd want leading the nation.
Yes, perhaps it is political suicide to name yourself Atheists, but that is because the majority of America is Christian and wants Christian leaders. And this is a democracy, may I remind you. The majority of the people should get to decide what they want in a leader. Whether it is a good choice or not.
Or are you saying that democracy is a bad thing now?
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
15, 16. Yes, but at the same time, the United States is a democracy, of the people, for the people, and by the people. As for Ten Commandments in the court room and religious teachings in the class room, I firmly agree that neither belong. I believe that history, which I study with great interest, proves that separation of Church and State is neccessary. Religion should not control the government. The people should. And in this case, the majority of these people want things this way. Whether I disagree or not, I cannot argue. That is democracy.
17, 18. Alright, then. If you say so.
19. Ok.
20. There is a difference between one six year old and thousands of adults, may I remind you.
You're claiming that those thousands of people were all insane (in which case it's a wonder they all agreed on the same account) or mistaken (I don't see how you can be mistaken about rain pouring down minutes after a guy prays, but ok...)?
If you went into court and brought several thousand people to testify to the same event, and they all agreed seperately without any contradictions, the court would rule that what they have said is fact.
Just because a ton of people who weren't there claim they're all insane or liars does not mean such an event did not happen.
How is absurd or contradictory to fact? Fact is the observable and the true. What has been witnessed and verified.
These events ARE the facts. This IS the evidence.
Most of your arguements are valid, but this is excessively ignorant.
21, 22, 23. Ah, you don't know the historical account of this event apparently. Finney gathered up all the farmers, settlers, and people (many of incredibly reputable character) from miles around, brought them to one spot on one day, prayed for rain, and within minutes of this single prayer it began to rain.
To deny this event is to say that you (just one person, and one who wasn't there) is right, and these thousands (who were actually there) are wrong.
And you claim creationists ignore the facts...
24. Your statement here is invalid as you have obviously not read the Bible. Within this statement you deny things stated in the Bible.
25. I chuckle.
26. Oh really? The digit "6,000" doesn't even appear in anything I've read.
But good luck putting words in God's mouth.
Apparently, you haven't read the Bible. Those were laws to the Israelites which Jesus Christ said changed after his coming. In case you don't remember, one of the most famous stories of Jesus was when he kept the mob from stoning the adulterous woman.
As for the "acceptable to sell your daughters into slavery", read the context.
27. Can't fit all his text here. Sorry.
28, 29. "Hey, Mom, one of the chairs you bought has a broken leg." "Well throw them all away, honey. If one's bad they all have to be."
30. Actaully, no one's applauding my thread. And don't be a hypocrite.
31. You too, darling.
32, 33. But I respect you notheless... somewhat... A bit... very slightly...
17, 18. Alright, then. If you say so.
19. Ok.
20. There is a difference between one six year old and thousands of adults, may I remind you.
You're claiming that those thousands of people were all insane (in which case it's a wonder they all agreed on the same account) or mistaken (I don't see how you can be mistaken about rain pouring down minutes after a guy prays, but ok...)?
If you went into court and brought several thousand people to testify to the same event, and they all agreed seperately without any contradictions, the court would rule that what they have said is fact.
Just because a ton of people who weren't there claim they're all insane or liars does not mean such an event did not happen.
How is absurd or contradictory to fact? Fact is the observable and the true. What has been witnessed and verified.
These events ARE the facts. This IS the evidence.
Most of your arguements are valid, but this is excessively ignorant.
21, 22, 23. Ah, you don't know the historical account of this event apparently. Finney gathered up all the farmers, settlers, and people (many of incredibly reputable character) from miles around, brought them to one spot on one day, prayed for rain, and within minutes of this single prayer it began to rain.
To deny this event is to say that you (just one person, and one who wasn't there) is right, and these thousands (who were actually there) are wrong.
And you claim creationists ignore the facts...
24. Your statement here is invalid as you have obviously not read the Bible. Within this statement you deny things stated in the Bible.
25. I chuckle.
26. Oh really? The digit "6,000" doesn't even appear in anything I've read.
But good luck putting words in God's mouth.
Apparently, you haven't read the Bible. Those were laws to the Israelites which Jesus Christ said changed after his coming. In case you don't remember, one of the most famous stories of Jesus was when he kept the mob from stoning the adulterous woman.
As for the "acceptable to sell your daughters into slavery", read the context.
27. Can't fit all his text here. Sorry.
28, 29. "Hey, Mom, one of the chairs you bought has a broken leg." "Well throw them all away, honey. If one's bad they all have to be."
30. Actaully, no one's applauding my thread. And don't be a hypocrite.
31. You too, darling.
32, 33. But I respect you notheless... somewhat... A bit... very slightly...
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Im answering any points that you refuted,
2. Dawkins argument IS that atheists are more intelligent. He cites his "43 studies" to that effect. He is trying to prove that atheism is a belief that is more common among intellectual individuals. Neither I, nor you, can argue this point effectively. neither one of us has real examples to draw from, "I have met hundreds upon hundreds of atheists who were total idiots. As far as students go, those who call themselves atheists are generally the lowest scoring." is not an argument. You cant prove it and frankly, i dont believe you.
3. You ignored my point about pulling great historical minds out of context. as for your argument, it really doesnt matter. lots of terrible crimes were "inspired" by the bible as well, does this make them divine or exceptional? Nor does "biblical inspiration" prove Dawkins wrong. Dawkins argues that in religions blind faith is not only acceptable, it is highly desirable. Believing that is fundamentally unscientific. Science teaches us not to be satisfied with our answers. Religions teaches us that we should be satisfied, and to continue searching when you already know the answer (that god did it) is tantamount to heresy. This is why religion is corrosive to science. Need i remind you the original sin was questioning gods judgment?
4. Intelligent design groups do refuse the teachings of Darwin. They believe that all complex organisms on this planet were "created" instead of "naturally selected." This is the most important part of the debate and why intelligent design is wrong. Micro-evolution is just icing on the cake. Again, you cannot expect Dawkins to delve into single theory postulated by Darwin and discuss it, he generalizes because he has an audience and has a time limit.
5, 6. see 4, intelligent design ignores the premise of the orgins of species by claiming that complex organisms were "designed." if you would refute this there would be no difference between evolution and intelligent design. I dont see how i was ever going ballistic, or where i claimed you wanted ID taught in schools. I actually worded my first rebuttal carefully because i wasnt even sure you were christian, Im only refuting your arguments because they are wrong.
And until you finally point out which of Darwins theories are wrong and where they are being taught i cant argue with you. i cant refute something that doesnt exist.
7. You still dont offer proof that Kenneth Miller says, "i dont believe in the bible" The bible is a contradictory and incredibly confusing document. Not only that, but you, and every other chrisitan picks and chooses beliefs from the bible. this has more to do with changing social norms than with matters of theology, but that does not make it any less true. For example, do you, as a Christian, believe it is a sin for women to wear the clothing of men? because there are a hell of alot of sinners out there.
8. I dont see how pointing out idiot theologians is ignorant, you were all too happy to talk about the brilliant ones. I dont even need to bring up the medieval catholic church when we have a great one today, telling african men that condoms are sinful(thereby increasing the spread of HIV), or teaching third world citizens that "poverty is a blessing!" In the end, both these groups are christians as well. also, see 3. Religion does not allow questioning. Period. actually, maintaining your faith in the face of overwhelming evidence is considered a heroic action. My quoted statement was anattempt to point out that christians dont like to be criticized, obviously you sank to the lower level. As to your assessment that both the bible and Christianatily encourage testing. No, they do not, instead they encourage absolute and unwavering belief in god. to question your belief is to question god and that is sinful. Or perhaps they encourage testing your faith, but they only expect that this will strenghten you faith in god, not that you will actually believe those silly tests.
10. Again, whatever compromise they come up with, no matter how diversified their board or their method of study, some people, including you, will not be satisfied. Rest assured, the scientists will not care. But if the Templeton foundation can fund a study determining the effects of prayer on healing, NationalAcademy of Science should be able to study the correlation between measured intelligence and religious belief.
11, 12. Actually i was referring to the colonial expansion period, but it can be modern day missionaries if you'd like. My real objective was pointing out that your argument was nothing more than belittling Dawkins idea. since you haven't refuted this I would have to assume i succeeded. trying to goad me with "Ah, 'shunned and killed'" or questions like, "Arent we intelligent today?" come off to me as really immature, which for me takes credence away from what you have to say. and ive met a lot of self righteous Christians who think they are better than me. Ive been asked plenty of times where my morals come from. (as apparently all morals come from god) PS If you want a good evil atheist try Stalin, hes very popular.
13. You concede then that your original point, that Dawkins was contradicting himself, was incorrect as i find no mention of it here. And yes, something does have to change. I dont expect politicians to be standard bearers of honesty but when lying about your religious beliefs is required for public office there is something wrong.
14. Your last statement in this point almost made me laugh. Im surprised you havent mentioned Nazis yet. Regardless, I cannot refute that 160 million Americans are christian, nor did i say that all lawmakers should be atheists. but Dawkins points out that statistically speaking there are more secular citizens than jewish citizens. Dawkins also questions this, why is the jewish lobby so powerful? Small powerful lobbies should not be directing our political system, religious or otherwise.
Or are YOU saying that democracy is a bad thing now?!?!
you probably voted YES on AIDS and NO on Children
15.16 Of course you can argue! that is what active citizenship is all about. Democracy says that you have a right to be heard. Democracy is not the tyranny of the majority, religion should not control the government and as a citizen of the United States you should protect the Constitution and refuse religion in government. Dont just slouch around and say, "oh well, its democracy!"
2. Dawkins argument IS that atheists are more intelligent. He cites his "43 studies" to that effect. He is trying to prove that atheism is a belief that is more common among intellectual individuals. Neither I, nor you, can argue this point effectively. neither one of us has real examples to draw from, "I have met hundreds upon hundreds of atheists who were total idiots. As far as students go, those who call themselves atheists are generally the lowest scoring." is not an argument. You cant prove it and frankly, i dont believe you.
3. You ignored my point about pulling great historical minds out of context. as for your argument, it really doesnt matter. lots of terrible crimes were "inspired" by the bible as well, does this make them divine or exceptional? Nor does "biblical inspiration" prove Dawkins wrong. Dawkins argues that in religions blind faith is not only acceptable, it is highly desirable. Believing that is fundamentally unscientific. Science teaches us not to be satisfied with our answers. Religions teaches us that we should be satisfied, and to continue searching when you already know the answer (that god did it) is tantamount to heresy. This is why religion is corrosive to science. Need i remind you the original sin was questioning gods judgment?
4. Intelligent design groups do refuse the teachings of Darwin. They believe that all complex organisms on this planet were "created" instead of "naturally selected." This is the most important part of the debate and why intelligent design is wrong. Micro-evolution is just icing on the cake. Again, you cannot expect Dawkins to delve into single theory postulated by Darwin and discuss it, he generalizes because he has an audience and has a time limit.
5, 6. see 4, intelligent design ignores the premise of the orgins of species by claiming that complex organisms were "designed." if you would refute this there would be no difference between evolution and intelligent design. I dont see how i was ever going ballistic, or where i claimed you wanted ID taught in schools. I actually worded my first rebuttal carefully because i wasnt even sure you were christian, Im only refuting your arguments because they are wrong.
And until you finally point out which of Darwins theories are wrong and where they are being taught i cant argue with you. i cant refute something that doesnt exist.
7. You still dont offer proof that Kenneth Miller says, "i dont believe in the bible" The bible is a contradictory and incredibly confusing document. Not only that, but you, and every other chrisitan picks and chooses beliefs from the bible. this has more to do with changing social norms than with matters of theology, but that does not make it any less true. For example, do you, as a Christian, believe it is a sin for women to wear the clothing of men? because there are a hell of alot of sinners out there.
8. I dont see how pointing out idiot theologians is ignorant, you were all too happy to talk about the brilliant ones. I dont even need to bring up the medieval catholic church when we have a great one today, telling african men that condoms are sinful(thereby increasing the spread of HIV), or teaching third world citizens that "poverty is a blessing!" In the end, both these groups are christians as well. also, see 3. Religion does not allow questioning. Period. actually, maintaining your faith in the face of overwhelming evidence is considered a heroic action. My quoted statement was anattempt to point out that christians dont like to be criticized, obviously you sank to the lower level. As to your assessment that both the bible and Christianatily encourage testing. No, they do not, instead they encourage absolute and unwavering belief in god. to question your belief is to question god and that is sinful. Or perhaps they encourage testing your faith, but they only expect that this will strenghten you faith in god, not that you will actually believe those silly tests.
10. Again, whatever compromise they come up with, no matter how diversified their board or their method of study, some people, including you, will not be satisfied. Rest assured, the scientists will not care. But if the Templeton foundation can fund a study determining the effects of prayer on healing, NationalAcademy of Science should be able to study the correlation between measured intelligence and religious belief.
11, 12. Actually i was referring to the colonial expansion period, but it can be modern day missionaries if you'd like. My real objective was pointing out that your argument was nothing more than belittling Dawkins idea. since you haven't refuted this I would have to assume i succeeded. trying to goad me with "Ah, 'shunned and killed'" or questions like, "Arent we intelligent today?" come off to me as really immature, which for me takes credence away from what you have to say. and ive met a lot of self righteous Christians who think they are better than me. Ive been asked plenty of times where my morals come from. (as apparently all morals come from god) PS If you want a good evil atheist try Stalin, hes very popular.
13. You concede then that your original point, that Dawkins was contradicting himself, was incorrect as i find no mention of it here. And yes, something does have to change. I dont expect politicians to be standard bearers of honesty but when lying about your religious beliefs is required for public office there is something wrong.
14. Your last statement in this point almost made me laugh. Im surprised you havent mentioned Nazis yet. Regardless, I cannot refute that 160 million Americans are christian, nor did i say that all lawmakers should be atheists. but Dawkins points out that statistically speaking there are more secular citizens than jewish citizens. Dawkins also questions this, why is the jewish lobby so powerful? Small powerful lobbies should not be directing our political system, religious or otherwise.
Or are YOU saying that democracy is a bad thing now?!?!
you probably voted YES on AIDS and NO on Children
15.16 Of course you can argue! that is what active citizenship is all about. Democracy says that you have a right to be heard. Democracy is not the tyranny of the majority, religion should not control the government and as a citizen of the United States you should protect the Constitution and refuse religion in government. Dont just slouch around and say, "oh well, its democracy!"
By: accident
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
"Human beings, by our very nature, will find things to fight about no matter the circumstances. While I hate to refer to South Park as an academic source, if you've seen the episode that featured Richard Dawkins and Cartman's trip to the future, you'll remember that even in a future where people have abandoned religious belief they still find things to fight about. Once again, while I'm not claiming South Park to be an academic resource, the basic philosophical claim made by Trey and Matt in the episode was valid and comically presented."
Oh, you even know the names of the creators of South Park. You like that show? I couldn't really give a shit for it, nor the point you raise. It doesn't pertain to anything I said. Nowhere did I give the notion that universal atheism would halt the practice of war. Get a clue, huh?
"Who is to say that a world devoid of religious belief would devote itself to science and the improvement of the human condition? Such a world could be inhabited by people seeking to fulfill their own greed and necessarily interested in scientific discovery."
A society devoid of religion, superstition, and irrationality would necessarily turn to science for sound explanations of phenomenon. If people only realized how completely ridiculous it is to believe in something so ambiguous, irrational, and intangible as a God, let alone going to war for one, we'd shed those beliefs and accept that we're all just human beings living on a lonely planet in an ever-expanding, ever desolate plane of time and space. It's not that we lack compassion for one another; merely that that compassion is barred, by religion, from developing further.
"There is also the false supposition that convincing humanity to abandon religious belief will be any more possible than convincing humanity to tolerate the beliefs of others."
That is a matter of opinion, seeing how no grand campaign for atheism has as of yet been attempted.
"To go by the same logic, sex is a source of conflict, men fighting over women people's anger towards those of other sexual orientations, and since it is a source of conflict sex should be eliminated. One could argue that a segregated community should be selected to maintain the procreation of the human species, while the rest of humanity is castrated to prevent them from having sex and that would prevent conflict."
That point stinks of bullshit. Sexual reproduction is a necessity for the survival of our species and doesn't even remotely compare to religion, seeing how sex is a physical act and religion a prevalent belief system. Do you see the flaw in your logic?
"I also see any man as arrogant who claims to have the solution to all the world's problems, no matter what their religious persuasion is."
I don't think Dawkins is preaching that he has the solutions to all the world's problems; in my view I think he's attempting to put us on a better footing so that we may better investigate possible solutions, having one less obstacle in the way between us all.
Oh, you even know the names of the creators of South Park. You like that show? I couldn't really give a shit for it, nor the point you raise. It doesn't pertain to anything I said. Nowhere did I give the notion that universal atheism would halt the practice of war. Get a clue, huh?
"Who is to say that a world devoid of religious belief would devote itself to science and the improvement of the human condition? Such a world could be inhabited by people seeking to fulfill their own greed and necessarily interested in scientific discovery."
A society devoid of religion, superstition, and irrationality would necessarily turn to science for sound explanations of phenomenon. If people only realized how completely ridiculous it is to believe in something so ambiguous, irrational, and intangible as a God, let alone going to war for one, we'd shed those beliefs and accept that we're all just human beings living on a lonely planet in an ever-expanding, ever desolate plane of time and space. It's not that we lack compassion for one another; merely that that compassion is barred, by religion, from developing further.
"There is also the false supposition that convincing humanity to abandon religious belief will be any more possible than convincing humanity to tolerate the beliefs of others."
That is a matter of opinion, seeing how no grand campaign for atheism has as of yet been attempted.
"To go by the same logic, sex is a source of conflict, men fighting over women people's anger towards those of other sexual orientations, and since it is a source of conflict sex should be eliminated. One could argue that a segregated community should be selected to maintain the procreation of the human species, while the rest of humanity is castrated to prevent them from having sex and that would prevent conflict."
That point stinks of bullshit. Sexual reproduction is a necessity for the survival of our species and doesn't even remotely compare to religion, seeing how sex is a physical act and religion a prevalent belief system. Do you see the flaw in your logic?
"I also see any man as arrogant who claims to have the solution to all the world's problems, no matter what their religious persuasion is."
I don't think Dawkins is preaching that he has the solutions to all the world's problems; in my view I think he's attempting to put us on a better footing so that we may better investigate possible solutions, having one less obstacle in the way between us all.
By: Overmann
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
When addressing a particular comment, you would do better to reply to it rather than create a new thread.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I want to ensure that it is read and not lost in the perpetually growing midst of other comments. I'll do what I please.
By: Overmann
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
"What one may please is not always what is best."
It is also less likely to be read and understood when not written in reply to the comment which you quote.
It is also less likely to be read and understood when not written in reply to the comment which you quote.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I disagree. It is easier and more convenient to scroll to the very bottom of the comments rather than sift through them to find what one is looking for. Why do you concern yourself with the posting habits of others, anyway? Is it really only because you enjoy nitpicking and being generally asinine? My post didn't concern you anyway, so do bugger off.
By: Overmann
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
When addressing a particular comment, you would do better to address its content, rather than its position on the page.
Now be nice, children, or else you'll have to go sit in the corner.
Now be nice, children, or else you'll have to go sit in the corner.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
"It's not that we lack compassion for one another; merely that that compassion is barred, by religion, from developing further."
First of all, there are many compassionate religious people. What exactly makes you think that religion is keeping people from living in harmony. You seem to ignore the fact that even without the concept of God, there would still be things that would lead to conflict and selfishness. The absence of a belief in God would not lead people to suddenly become enlightened to rational thought. Atheism is not some magic cure to all the worlds problems as you think it would be.
"Nowhere did I give the notion that universal atheism would halt the practice of war."
"A society devoid of religion, superstition, and irrationality would necessarily turn to science for sound explanations of phenomenon. If people only realized how completely ridiculous it is to believe in something so ambiguous, irrational, and intangible as a God, let alone going to war for one, we'd shed those beliefs and accept that we're all just human beings living on a lonely planet in an ever-expanding, ever desolate plane of time and space."
Those two quotes of yours seem to contradict each other, say you never claimed that and end to religion would end war, however you paint such an unrealistic and idealistic picture of a godless world that you cannot separate these two ideas. The Earth would not be united, even if we all shared a lack of belief in God, it you truly believe that we would be, then you are the naive one. Your atheism and the Utopian world you envision as its result is as near and dear to you as God and Heaven are to a Christian.
"That is a matter of opinion, seeing how no grand campaign for atheism has as of yet been attempted. "
Soviet Russia and China.
I think I stated something in a previous comment about having atheist and agnostic friends. They tolerate my Christian beliefs and I tolerate their atheist beliefs. If I went around talking about how if they would just accept the truth of Christianity the whole world would be a wonderful place, these friends would see my as a pompous ass and rightfully so. The same would go for them if they acted as though atheism was the solution to removing the barriers between us. In the absence of proof, people will believe what they want to believe, they always have and they always will. Some will choose to be atheists, some will chose to be Christians, Jew, Muslims, Hindus, and so on. And there's nothing Overmann, Richard Dawkins, or anyone can do about it. That is just how human beings are and always will be.
First of all, there are many compassionate religious people. What exactly makes you think that religion is keeping people from living in harmony. You seem to ignore the fact that even without the concept of God, there would still be things that would lead to conflict and selfishness. The absence of a belief in God would not lead people to suddenly become enlightened to rational thought. Atheism is not some magic cure to all the worlds problems as you think it would be.
"Nowhere did I give the notion that universal atheism would halt the practice of war."
"A society devoid of religion, superstition, and irrationality would necessarily turn to science for sound explanations of phenomenon. If people only realized how completely ridiculous it is to believe in something so ambiguous, irrational, and intangible as a God, let alone going to war for one, we'd shed those beliefs and accept that we're all just human beings living on a lonely planet in an ever-expanding, ever desolate plane of time and space."
Those two quotes of yours seem to contradict each other, say you never claimed that and end to religion would end war, however you paint such an unrealistic and idealistic picture of a godless world that you cannot separate these two ideas. The Earth would not be united, even if we all shared a lack of belief in God, it you truly believe that we would be, then you are the naive one. Your atheism and the Utopian world you envision as its result is as near and dear to you as God and Heaven are to a Christian.
"That is a matter of opinion, seeing how no grand campaign for atheism has as of yet been attempted. "
Soviet Russia and China.
I think I stated something in a previous comment about having atheist and agnostic friends. They tolerate my Christian beliefs and I tolerate their atheist beliefs. If I went around talking about how if they would just accept the truth of Christianity the whole world would be a wonderful place, these friends would see my as a pompous ass and rightfully so. The same would go for them if they acted as though atheism was the solution to removing the barriers between us. In the absence of proof, people will believe what they want to believe, they always have and they always will. Some will choose to be atheists, some will chose to be Christians, Jew, Muslims, Hindus, and so on. And there's nothing Overmann, Richard Dawkins, or anyone can do about it. That is just how human beings are and always will be.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
"First of all, there are many compassionate religious people."
What, did I say there weren't?
"What exactly makes you think that religion is keeping people from living in harmony."
Haha... hahahaha... eh... you *are* kidding, right?
"You seem to ignore the fact that even without the concept of God, there would still be things that would lead to conflict and selfishness."
I didn't say that. I said that religion breeds too many conflicts, but I did not say that without religion we'd have none. Part of the reason why you are so disagreeable is because you perceive other parties are stating something contentious when they are not.
"The absence of a belief in God would not lead people to suddenly become enlightened to rational thought."
Not suddenly, no.
"Atheism is not some magic cure to all the worlds problems as you think it would be."
Neither Dawkins nor I have said as much. Again you are putting words in peoples' mouths.
"Those two quotes of yours seem to contradict each other..."
Not at all. One comment is me stating that atheism will not halt or resolve the practice of war, while the other comment is me stating that giving up religion will decrease the diversity we perceive we hold from one another. You know, if you want me to clarify my statements, just ask and I can hopefully save you from making an ass of yourself.
"Your atheism and the Utopian world you envision as its result is as near and dear to you as God and Heaven are to a Christian."
Actually I don't consider myself atheist at all, but rather agnostic.
"Soviet Russia and China."
Systematically enforcing atheism is not the way to go; people tend to resist having their fundamental values repressed. On the other hand, if appeals to the long-term, practical advantages of atheism were made and if the stigmata and negative stereotypes of atheism were done away with, I feel that rationality and education would prevail. If nothing else, the persistently ignorant could be gathered and shot.
"They tolerate my Christian beliefs and I tolerate their atheist beliefs."
Notwithstanding the insidious, double-standard intolerance disguised as religious righteousness prevalent throughout the major religions. Without religion, there'd be no such thing left to tolerate, thereby removing that aspect of the problem entirely.
What, did I say there weren't?
"What exactly makes you think that religion is keeping people from living in harmony."
Haha... hahahaha... eh... you *are* kidding, right?
"You seem to ignore the fact that even without the concept of God, there would still be things that would lead to conflict and selfishness."
I didn't say that. I said that religion breeds too many conflicts, but I did not say that without religion we'd have none. Part of the reason why you are so disagreeable is because you perceive other parties are stating something contentious when they are not.
"The absence of a belief in God would not lead people to suddenly become enlightened to rational thought."
Not suddenly, no.
"Atheism is not some magic cure to all the worlds problems as you think it would be."
Neither Dawkins nor I have said as much. Again you are putting words in peoples' mouths.
"Those two quotes of yours seem to contradict each other..."
Not at all. One comment is me stating that atheism will not halt or resolve the practice of war, while the other comment is me stating that giving up religion will decrease the diversity we perceive we hold from one another. You know, if you want me to clarify my statements, just ask and I can hopefully save you from making an ass of yourself.
"Your atheism and the Utopian world you envision as its result is as near and dear to you as God and Heaven are to a Christian."
Actually I don't consider myself atheist at all, but rather agnostic.
"Soviet Russia and China."
Systematically enforcing atheism is not the way to go; people tend to resist having their fundamental values repressed. On the other hand, if appeals to the long-term, practical advantages of atheism were made and if the stigmata and negative stereotypes of atheism were done away with, I feel that rationality and education would prevail. If nothing else, the persistently ignorant could be gathered and shot.
"They tolerate my Christian beliefs and I tolerate their atheist beliefs."
Notwithstanding the insidious, double-standard intolerance disguised as religious righteousness prevalent throughout the major religions. Without religion, there'd be no such thing left to tolerate, thereby removing that aspect of the problem entirely.
By: Overmann
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
"Without people of different skin colors, there'd be no such thing left to tolerate, thereby removing that aspect of the problem entirely".
Remove stuff and you won't have to tolerate it. Howdy, Hitler.
And just because you mean something contrary to your actual statement, does not mean someone is an "ass" for reading it as it was actually written.
Remove stuff and you won't have to tolerate it. Howdy, Hitler.
And just because you mean something contrary to your actual statement, does not mean someone is an "ass" for reading it as it was actually written.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
"Remove stuff and you won't have to tolerate it. Howdy, Hitler."
Only because we've already demonstrated that we cannot tolerate other's religion over the past, oh, whole of human history. Either we unite under one religion (or lack thereof), or we continue killing each other because it's not going to go any other way. Because I believe science to be a more realistic and therefore better alternative to self-delusion, I feel ultimately science can and will prevail provided we all stop kidding ourselves.
Comparing this idea to Hitler's Final Solution is absurd, seeing how my idea is attempting to end killing to an extent and Hitler was all about extermination. See, that's what happens when you pull things out of your ass: they tend to reek.
"And just because you mean something contrary to your actual statement, does not mean someone is an "ass" for reading it as it was actually written."
Wrong you are. Granted I could have phrased it better, but the meaning of both of my statements are as I said they are and any misunderstanding is on the reader's part.
Only because we've already demonstrated that we cannot tolerate other's religion over the past, oh, whole of human history. Either we unite under one religion (or lack thereof), or we continue killing each other because it's not going to go any other way. Because I believe science to be a more realistic and therefore better alternative to self-delusion, I feel ultimately science can and will prevail provided we all stop kidding ourselves.
Comparing this idea to Hitler's Final Solution is absurd, seeing how my idea is attempting to end killing to an extent and Hitler was all about extermination. See, that's what happens when you pull things out of your ass: they tend to reek.
"And just because you mean something contrary to your actual statement, does not mean someone is an "ass" for reading it as it was actually written."
Wrong you are. Granted I could have phrased it better, but the meaning of both of my statements are as I said they are and any misunderstanding is on the reader's part.
By: Overmann
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
One good thing about every religion, save one: At least it's not Scientology.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I find his insistence on "more money" rather amusing.
Why not fund it yourself, Dawkins?
"Were my books selling as well as Hawking's, I would gladly do it myself."
Pfffft. You've got several best-selling books, made some television and DVD documentaries, and have tons of scientific funding.
Dawkins lives rather comfortably, to say the least.
If he is this firm in his belief that such a campaign should be started, why doesn't he downsize to an apartment, give up the fancy suits and dinners, and start funding as much of it on his own as he can?
I've seen people who hardly have a cent to their name give over half of what they own to causes they believe in.
One more point added to Dawkin's selfishness and arrogance I suppose. Perhaps he believes his "intellect" deserves to live in wealth.
Also, Dawkins is proving himself rather stupid if he believes that the only way to make yourself heard is through money.
Dawkins, we live in an age where any of us can make a video and have over a million hits on it by morning (if it's good enough).
Some of my crappy animations have had over 300,000 views and they're not that great.
If Dawkin's ideas were so convincing, he could easily win over half those people for his cause, correct? (Then those thousands would spread the links to his videos to more thousands.)
If not, why bother spending so much money on such a campaign if you can't convince even 100,000 people?
There are so many publications in the United States (many of which Dawkins has submitted to) that will print your essays to be read by a sizable audience.
Unless you want to go as far as "atheist TV commercials", you can make yourself just as heard for free as through any method that costs money.
Why not fund it yourself, Dawkins?
"Were my books selling as well as Hawking's, I would gladly do it myself."
Pfffft. You've got several best-selling books, made some television and DVD documentaries, and have tons of scientific funding.
Dawkins lives rather comfortably, to say the least.
If he is this firm in his belief that such a campaign should be started, why doesn't he downsize to an apartment, give up the fancy suits and dinners, and start funding as much of it on his own as he can?
I've seen people who hardly have a cent to their name give over half of what they own to causes they believe in.
One more point added to Dawkin's selfishness and arrogance I suppose. Perhaps he believes his "intellect" deserves to live in wealth.
Also, Dawkins is proving himself rather stupid if he believes that the only way to make yourself heard is through money.
Dawkins, we live in an age where any of us can make a video and have over a million hits on it by morning (if it's good enough).
Some of my crappy animations have had over 300,000 views and they're not that great.
If Dawkin's ideas were so convincing, he could easily win over half those people for his cause, correct? (Then those thousands would spread the links to his videos to more thousands.)
If not, why bother spending so much money on such a campaign if you can't convince even 100,000 people?
There are so many publications in the United States (many of which Dawkins has submitted to) that will print your essays to be read by a sizable audience.
Unless you want to go as far as "atheist TV commercials", you can make yourself just as heard for free as through any method that costs money.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Again squeakytoad, same system,
1. Please great squeakytoad, enlighten me on how that misery old atheist Dawkins steals from the poor to give to the rich! Its almost a pity his name is Richard Goldsteinberg!
2. Which project? and when did Dawkins say he wouldn't contribute anything? you cant reasonably expect him to fund everything himself, why should he? What Dawkins is calling for is an atheist foundation just like say, the thousands of religious foundations that conduct "scientific projects."
3, 4. This is called a "joke." It is a literay and rhetorical device to entertain your audiecence, and capture their attention. So what if Dawkins has books? Plently of authors write best sellers but dont have much money. do you have any authority at all to speak on the subject of Dawkins personal wealth? And what is this "tons of scientific funding" he has? can you give some, any, examples? and for what purpose (if he acutally has this funding) is it being used for? Dawkins is a biologist, if his "tons of scientific funding" is supposed to be used for his biologiy projects he cant just re-appropriate that to his atheism project. That is illegal.
5. How do you know this? again do you have any proof, besides your personal claims, that Dawkins drives fancy cars, lives the high life, when he could be using this money for other ends? Dawkins is the most vocal atheist on the planet, he is doing quite alot to support his belief, writing books, visiting universities delievering lectures, while you sit at home and let "democracy" run things for you.
6. This example is irrelevant, so what? does this comparision make Dawkins any less believable? or his ideas any less correct, becuase he is not willing to radically upset his lifestyle over this idea? Your challenging the religious conviction of Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is doing far more to promote his ideas than you are, or ever will. I dont see you in rags telling me how god is all you need to survive.
7. This statement is simply mean spiritied. When does Dawkins say, or imply, that he deserves money simply for being intelligent? Did you make this up? I find is strangley amusing you can criticize Dawkins smugness with a straight face.
8. When does Dawkins say the only way to be heared is through money? He doesnt, and again, he is doing far more to promote his belief system than you are for yours.
9. Your own argument is ridiculed by the fact you are commenting on an a free online video of Richard Dawkins preaching his views. Obviously he is taking this route as well. Why should he be content with only that? why shouldn't he ask for additional funds if people are willing to supply him? that could only help his campaign which is already utilizing the method you so highly praise
10. Im sure they're awful.
11. How do you know he hasn't? and even if he didnt convince a single person why should Dawkins stop thinking or preaching just because he cant convince people? the man obviously has conviction.
12. Yes he has, and he continues to do so, thank you for mentioning that Dawkins was an author.
13. I have a word for you, Televangelism. Each year churches, televangelists, and traveling pastors earn thousands, if not millions of dollars in donations (all tax exempt) for doing nothing other than what Dawkins is doing now, preaching their beliefs. Should they refuse those donations and live lifes of abject poverty, or donate their fortunes to christian charities? Dawkins has every bit a right to additional funding as they do to donations.
1. Please great squeakytoad, enlighten me on how that misery old atheist Dawkins steals from the poor to give to the rich! Its almost a pity his name is Richard Goldsteinberg!
2. Which project? and when did Dawkins say he wouldn't contribute anything? you cant reasonably expect him to fund everything himself, why should he? What Dawkins is calling for is an atheist foundation just like say, the thousands of religious foundations that conduct "scientific projects."
3, 4. This is called a "joke." It is a literay and rhetorical device to entertain your audiecence, and capture their attention. So what if Dawkins has books? Plently of authors write best sellers but dont have much money. do you have any authority at all to speak on the subject of Dawkins personal wealth? And what is this "tons of scientific funding" he has? can you give some, any, examples? and for what purpose (if he acutally has this funding) is it being used for? Dawkins is a biologist, if his "tons of scientific funding" is supposed to be used for his biologiy projects he cant just re-appropriate that to his atheism project. That is illegal.
5. How do you know this? again do you have any proof, besides your personal claims, that Dawkins drives fancy cars, lives the high life, when he could be using this money for other ends? Dawkins is the most vocal atheist on the planet, he is doing quite alot to support his belief, writing books, visiting universities delievering lectures, while you sit at home and let "democracy" run things for you.
6. This example is irrelevant, so what? does this comparision make Dawkins any less believable? or his ideas any less correct, becuase he is not willing to radically upset his lifestyle over this idea? Your challenging the religious conviction of Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is doing far more to promote his ideas than you are, or ever will. I dont see you in rags telling me how god is all you need to survive.
7. This statement is simply mean spiritied. When does Dawkins say, or imply, that he deserves money simply for being intelligent? Did you make this up? I find is strangley amusing you can criticize Dawkins smugness with a straight face.
8. When does Dawkins say the only way to be heared is through money? He doesnt, and again, he is doing far more to promote his belief system than you are for yours.
9. Your own argument is ridiculed by the fact you are commenting on an a free online video of Richard Dawkins preaching his views. Obviously he is taking this route as well. Why should he be content with only that? why shouldn't he ask for additional funds if people are willing to supply him? that could only help his campaign which is already utilizing the method you so highly praise
10. Im sure they're awful.
11. How do you know he hasn't? and even if he didnt convince a single person why should Dawkins stop thinking or preaching just because he cant convince people? the man obviously has conviction.
12. Yes he has, and he continues to do so, thank you for mentioning that Dawkins was an author.
13. I have a word for you, Televangelism. Each year churches, televangelists, and traveling pastors earn thousands, if not millions of dollars in donations (all tax exempt) for doing nothing other than what Dawkins is doing now, preaching their beliefs. Should they refuse those donations and live lifes of abject poverty, or donate their fortunes to christian charities? Dawkins has every bit a right to additional funding as they do to donations.
By: accident
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
You know, not every comment is meant to be entirely serious (this was rather jocular- I'm not proving global warming or anything here- just discussing how he continues to beg his audience for money) or meant for debate.
Seriously.
This is MilkandCookies, an entertainment site. People can make simple spur-of-the-moment remarks you know. I didn't put an hour into typing this up or anything (I know it takes you quite a while to formulate a sentence, but not so with the rest of us). It was some random thought I put down in a few minutes.
And I'm not really going to defend any of these points, since, well, this isn't a debate.
Seriously, you said Dawkins wasn't your "hero", but you seem a Dawkins fanboy to me. Ready to jump in the ring, make assumptions, and write up essays on the spur of the moment if someone jokes around about him or even slightly insults him.
Seriously.
This is MilkandCookies, an entertainment site. People can make simple spur-of-the-moment remarks you know. I didn't put an hour into typing this up or anything (I know it takes you quite a while to formulate a sentence, but not so with the rest of us). It was some random thought I put down in a few minutes.
And I'm not really going to defend any of these points, since, well, this isn't a debate.
Seriously, you said Dawkins wasn't your "hero", but you seem a Dawkins fanboy to me. Ready to jump in the ring, make assumptions, and write up essays on the spur of the moment if someone jokes around about him or even slightly insults him.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Seriously,
I would like to remind you that you made the original posts which i rebutted. Actually you left specific instructions about how anyone was supposed to refute you (by going through and answering each of your posts individually, a requirement i fulfilled), making me suspect that you expected, if no desired, "a debate" Those arguments are largely dead now since you haven't responded to my latest round, and apparently you never will since, "this isnt a debate." If you had no desire to defend your points, or if you didnt want your arguments scrutinized why did you bother posting them to begin with? and why would you leave instructions for would be responders, if this wasnt a debate?
Milk and Cookies is indeed an entertainment website, it has brought me many lulz in the past and this is no exception. It has been very entertaining for me to argue with you, except reading posts like "this isnt a debate! i dont have to respond to you!" instead of continuing to support their position. Im glad you felt your random thoughts (the ones you write so quickly, and which are therefore somehow superior to mine?) were worth sharing with everybody else. I was always taught "think before you speak," clearly i had been raised incorrectly. Especially since as i glance over your previous statements i can see the genius this rapid writing style brings to your arguments.
When did i say you had to defend your points? and when did i say that you had to use the format i devised? i did that simply because it made it easier to pick through your first long and rambling post. But alas i was wrong again, for the Internet is not a debate, it is a series of tubes.
As for "taking all of my words out of context or twisting them to your favor." I never took your words out of context. I twisted them in my favor only when you made remarks like, "I can't argue" which seems pretty in my favor already. You did have some brilliant moments though, some of my favorites:
"I'm going to do what Dawkins is incapable of doing, and actually speak objectively here."
"First off, he's Roman Catholic and does not call himself a Christian." (yes because Catholics aren't really Christians, im sure thats news to them)
"Or are you saying that democracy is a bad thing now?" (not only do i never say democracy is a bad thing, but you act as if calling out my faith in theAmerican political system is an effective response to my arguments)
As for allegations of Dawkins fanboyism. I generally agree with Dawkins, but I am not his "fanboy." There are real legitimate arguments against what Dawkins says, you just never mention any of them. And what is wrong with me being ready to defend my beliefs? you made arguments, and i returned the favor, and now your telling me "this isnt a debate, so i dont have to talk to you." I have every right to defend Dawkins as you do to criticize him.
I would like to remind you that you made the original posts which i rebutted. Actually you left specific instructions about how anyone was supposed to refute you (by going through and answering each of your posts individually, a requirement i fulfilled), making me suspect that you expected, if no desired, "a debate" Those arguments are largely dead now since you haven't responded to my latest round, and apparently you never will since, "this isnt a debate." If you had no desire to defend your points, or if you didnt want your arguments scrutinized why did you bother posting them to begin with? and why would you leave instructions for would be responders, if this wasnt a debate?
Milk and Cookies is indeed an entertainment website, it has brought me many lulz in the past and this is no exception. It has been very entertaining for me to argue with you, except reading posts like "this isnt a debate! i dont have to respond to you!" instead of continuing to support their position. Im glad you felt your random thoughts (the ones you write so quickly, and which are therefore somehow superior to mine?) were worth sharing with everybody else. I was always taught "think before you speak," clearly i had been raised incorrectly. Especially since as i glance over your previous statements i can see the genius this rapid writing style brings to your arguments.
When did i say you had to defend your points? and when did i say that you had to use the format i devised? i did that simply because it made it easier to pick through your first long and rambling post. But alas i was wrong again, for the Internet is not a debate, it is a series of tubes.
As for "taking all of my words out of context or twisting them to your favor." I never took your words out of context. I twisted them in my favor only when you made remarks like, "I can't argue" which seems pretty in my favor already. You did have some brilliant moments though, some of my favorites:
"I'm going to do what Dawkins is incapable of doing, and actually speak objectively here."
"First off, he's Roman Catholic and does not call himself a Christian." (yes because Catholics aren't really Christians, im sure thats news to them)
"Or are you saying that democracy is a bad thing now?" (not only do i never say democracy is a bad thing, but you act as if calling out my faith in theAmerican political system is an effective response to my arguments)
As for allegations of Dawkins fanboyism. I generally agree with Dawkins, but I am not his "fanboy." There are real legitimate arguments against what Dawkins says, you just never mention any of them. And what is wrong with me being ready to defend my beliefs? you made arguments, and i returned the favor, and now your telling me "this isnt a debate, so i dont have to talk to you." I have every right to defend Dawkins as you do to criticize him.
By: accident
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
First of all, this is a totally different thread.
This is not at all in response to my "original posts".
This section isn't a "debate". This is an unrelated comment, not even in the same thread. An entirely new and different thread.
Geez, open your eyes.
I also love it how you're now bringing up comments, once again, from a totally different thread.
Basically, you're making yourself look really stupid here dragging a conversation from one thread into another.
Man, can't imagine what it's like to be a member of the same forum as you. Have a debate in one thread, move on to another thread, pretty unrelated as well, and you carry your arguments there.
You gonna start carrying this on to threads I create in entirely different headlines soon?
This is not at all in response to my "original posts".
This section isn't a "debate". This is an unrelated comment, not even in the same thread. An entirely new and different thread.
Geez, open your eyes.
I also love it how you're now bringing up comments, once again, from a totally different thread.
Basically, you're making yourself look really stupid here dragging a conversation from one thread into another.
Man, can't imagine what it's like to be a member of the same forum as you. Have a debate in one thread, move on to another thread, pretty unrelated as well, and you carry your arguments there.
You gonna start carrying this on to threads I create in entirely different headlines soon?
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
First of all, both of these threads are in the same topic, and they are not wholly different from one another. You started both arguments by posting criticisms of Dawkins, i have responded to both your criticisms. You, the same person, made both comments correct? I dont see how it is totally unreasonable to mention other comments of yours when they are all about the same topic. Both your statements were related. You really didnt seem that upset when i took your Hitler comment out of context. You were all to happy to rail on me about it. You certainly didnt say, "thats part of a different thread, lets not discuss it here."
This is a debate, you posted several idiotic comments, i responded to them, calling them out. You are refusing to continue talking about them because "you dont have to." Fine, but dont criticise me just for responding to you. If you didnt want any to talk about them dont post. I dont see how its stupid. Your comments are your comments, they apply to everything else you say. If i were to contradict myself on this thread im sure you would parade it as proof of my incompetence anywhere else i felt like speaking.
"You gonna start carrying this on to threads I create in entirely different headlines soon?" - huh? huh? are you big guy? come on!
An obnoxious question. No, not unless you make similar comments that are applicable and the topic is related. If those requirements are met i see no reason why i cant make similar responses.
As for your next post which is a reply in this thread so it MUST be related.
I like how "bigotry" is in quotes,
"No, I don't know that MUSLIMS should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
"No, I don't know that JEWS should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
"No, I don't know that BUDDHISTS should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Bigotry? Obviously yes.
"No, I don't know that ATHEISTS should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Bigotry? apparently not.
I find it rather disturbing that you can brush that off so lightly. A President should be a model citizen, he is the Head of State, the First Diplomat, the leader of the American people, and for him to deny that part of his population are not citizens speaks volumes for religious intolerance. Not to mention the nasty history that atheists have with every organized religion. I see any outrage at such a comment totally justified, not "whiny" and certainly not "arrogant."
This is a debate, you posted several idiotic comments, i responded to them, calling them out. You are refusing to continue talking about them because "you dont have to." Fine, but dont criticise me just for responding to you. If you didnt want any to talk about them dont post. I dont see how its stupid. Your comments are your comments, they apply to everything else you say. If i were to contradict myself on this thread im sure you would parade it as proof of my incompetence anywhere else i felt like speaking.
"You gonna start carrying this on to threads I create in entirely different headlines soon?" - huh? huh? are you big guy? come on!
An obnoxious question. No, not unless you make similar comments that are applicable and the topic is related. If those requirements are met i see no reason why i cant make similar responses.
As for your next post which is a reply in this thread so it MUST be related.
I like how "bigotry" is in quotes,
"No, I don't know that MUSLIMS should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
"No, I don't know that JEWS should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
"No, I don't know that BUDDHISTS should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Bigotry? Obviously yes.
"No, I don't know that ATHEISTS should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Bigotry? apparently not.
I find it rather disturbing that you can brush that off so lightly. A President should be a model citizen, he is the Head of State, the First Diplomat, the leader of the American people, and for him to deny that part of his population are not citizens speaks volumes for religious intolerance. Not to mention the nasty history that atheists have with every organized religion. I see any outrage at such a comment totally justified, not "whiny" and certainly not "arrogant."
By: accident
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
And even you can't deny the irony in getting so pissed over the "bigotry" of one foolish president in saying that he doesn't consider atheists proper citizens, and then going on for an hour about how stupid people of any religion are.
There's arrogance and whinyness in a nutshell for ya.
There's arrogance and whinyness in a nutshell for ya.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
The guy in the back mentioned Douglas Adams had been invited to TED in the past. Wish there was some video of whatever talks he may have had.
And the guy laughing it up next to the camera should move away or laugh a little more quietly.
And no, Accident, this is not a debate. So don't make a spreadsheet of points on me taking all of my words out of context or twisting them to your favor.
And the guy laughing it up next to the camera should move away or laugh a little more quietly.
And no, Accident, this is not a debate. So don't make a spreadsheet of points on me taking all of my words out of context or twisting them to your favor.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Only 61 comments to date? What's with you guys, you can do better than that! Rachet it up a bit and see if you can set some kind of record in futility.
Look, no one is going to convince anyone else to jump ship. Have you figured that out yet?
Look, no one is going to convince anyone else to jump ship. Have you figured that out yet?
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Says the guy who got involved in these all the time.
It's all for fun I suppose. Nobody's (well, most people aren't) expecting anyone else to change their opinions. These discussions are entertainment. And that's the purpose of M&C. Entertainment.
It's all for fun I suppose. Nobody's (well, most people aren't) expecting anyone else to change their opinions. These discussions are entertainment. And that's the purpose of M&C. Entertainment.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Yeah, I knew that I was setting myself up for that. And quite frankly, I think I deserve a bigger dig against me for some of my past rails.
Bottom line is, maybe I'm just jaded a bit. I've made my positions known on most of the hottest topics here. Entertaining? Sure. To read, or at least skim through. Some folks take it far more personally than I ever did.
Don't worry. I'll get the gloves back on sometime in the next 18 months. Hey, there's a Democratic candidate debate tonight in South Carolina. Maybe that will get my mojo back. Heh.
Bottom line is, maybe I'm just jaded a bit. I've made my positions known on most of the hottest topics here. Entertaining? Sure. To read, or at least skim through. Some folks take it far more personally than I ever did.
Don't worry. I'll get the gloves back on sometime in the next 18 months. Hey, there's a Democratic candidate debate tonight in South Carolina. Maybe that will get my mojo back. Heh.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Well, I recently spoke with a friend of mine who is a philosophy major and a biology minor. She categorizes her beliefs as "spiritual but no religious" (she probably would have gotten along well with Jefferson). I asked her if she were familiar with Dawkins and I showed her some of the quotes from this discussion and here's what she had to say. From a utilitarian standpoint, individuals must decide for themselves whether it would more beneficial to believe in God or not to believe. Saying nothing as to the actual existence of God, to some people there are benefits to a belief in God. Such people take comfort in the idea that God is out there intervening in their lives and that death is not the end for their souls. They also do not get into serious conflict with others based on differing beliefs. Of course there is a major difference between discussion and violent conflict. To these people, religious belief is more beneficial than non-belief and it is best for them that they believe what they do. Other people see religion as a delusion that does not fit in with what they determine to be rational. For these people, believing in God would be less beneficial than not believing and therefore the right thing for them to do is not believe. So according to utilitarian theory, one should do what causes more good than harm. Despite the conflicts that can be caused by religion there are many personal benefits to some people who choose to believe. There are also public benefits when one considers the charitable organizations founded in the name of religion. There is simply not enough evidence to state that universal atheism would cause more good than harm. That being said, for many people the problems they have with religion make it not the right choice for them. Because of this, each individual must decide whether for him or herself whether religious belief is of benefit. If Dawkins and other atheists want to try to persuade others that atheism would be personally beneficial that is fine. However, to advocate universal atheism, even among people to whom it would do more harm than good is unethical and when it comes to personal beliefs the only person who can decide whether religion does more good or harm is the individual themselves. Dawkins nor any other person knows my inner thoughts and feelings and therefore no one other than me can decide if religious beliefs are a good personal choice. The same goes for all of you.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Naturally she presents a good argument... but only to those who chose to acknowledge it as such. She happens to believe there is inconclusive evidence that universal atheism is harmful or beneficial, whereas I believe many people, many times over, have proven one way or the other.
For those who long for a level of comfort found in religion I say that such a level of comfort is found not exclusively in religion. Using the message that Carl Sagan tried to present, our actions in the grand scheme of things are trivial and insignificant and if we realized the full extent of that, we would all look inwards of ourselves and draw strength from each other knowing that nothing but cooperation can save us from ourselves. The reason why religion makes this perspective impossible is because faith *requires* one to believe that their faith is the "true" faith, inherently allowing no room for tolerance or acknowledgment of other faiths. Regardless how moderate one believes themselves to be, there will *invariably* be fundamentalists willing to kill or commit other atrocities for their religious convictions, which goes back to precluding any sort of unity or cooperation.
The only way to avoid this problem is to acknowledge that, through it all, we still really don't *know* whether our religious beliefs are accurate and should opt to say as much, because saying otherwise hasn't worked thus far and likely never will. While universal atheism will not rule out all wars, it would rule out the source of a great deal of them, and that, to me, sounds like a very good start.
For those who long for a level of comfort found in religion I say that such a level of comfort is found not exclusively in religion. Using the message that Carl Sagan tried to present, our actions in the grand scheme of things are trivial and insignificant and if we realized the full extent of that, we would all look inwards of ourselves and draw strength from each other knowing that nothing but cooperation can save us from ourselves. The reason why religion makes this perspective impossible is because faith *requires* one to believe that their faith is the "true" faith, inherently allowing no room for tolerance or acknowledgment of other faiths. Regardless how moderate one believes themselves to be, there will *invariably* be fundamentalists willing to kill or commit other atrocities for their religious convictions, which goes back to precluding any sort of unity or cooperation.
The only way to avoid this problem is to acknowledge that, through it all, we still really don't *know* whether our religious beliefs are accurate and should opt to say as much, because saying otherwise hasn't worked thus far and likely never will. While universal atheism will not rule out all wars, it would rule out the source of a great deal of them, and that, to me, sounds like a very good start.
By: Overmann
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I agree that religion is not the only source of comfort and I am a great admirer of Carl Sagan. As far as tolerance and believing in the truth of ones faith, I believe that my faith is true, otherwise I wouldn't believe it. However, I acknowledge the fact that there is no proof of that and the faiths of other people, such as Jews and Muslims, provide them with comfort and inspiration and I am happy for them that they have found happiness. There are people who will bastardize many things for evil. I think that national pride can be a good thing, however, that too can be the source of conflict and atrocities.
I will admit, there is no proof as to the existence of God and therefore I cannot know for sure that my beliefs are accurate. But to me, I have faith that it is true. If you choose not to believe then that is your right and as long as you are happy then I am happy for you.
Diversity can be a source of conflict, whether it be racial, religious, or ethnic in nature. However diversity can also be one of our greatest strengths. I know tolerance is an almost astronomical goal, however if we can achieve this we will solve most of the world's problems. You, Richard Dawkins, and everyone else has the right to refuse to believe in God and I respect that right. I simply ask for the same respect for my beliefs.
I will admit, there is no proof as to the existence of God and therefore I cannot know for sure that my beliefs are accurate. But to me, I have faith that it is true. If you choose not to believe then that is your right and as long as you are happy then I am happy for you.
Diversity can be a source of conflict, whether it be racial, religious, or ethnic in nature. However diversity can also be one of our greatest strengths. I know tolerance is an almost astronomical goal, however if we can achieve this we will solve most of the world's problems. You, Richard Dawkins, and everyone else has the right to refuse to believe in God and I respect that right. I simply ask for the same respect for my beliefs.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
"I simply ask for the same respect for my beliefs."
I'm finding it gradually more and more difficult to respect a system that has promoted and still promotes conquest, jihad, forced conversion, and violence. Like I said: regardless how moderate and open-minded you believe yourself to be, there will always be others (while religion is still a respected establishment) who are willing to go to the very extreme to prove their devotion to a delusion. It's not become a matter of respecting one's right to believe what they will, but rather a matter of punishing the extent to which a person is willing to realize their beliefs and fight for a perceived interloping of this right. We need to seriously consider the impact religion has on us on a planetary scale and, having opened a discussion on that point, think of ways to fix whatever problems we find, as surely there are many problems to be found.
One of my biggest problems with religion is that some feel the need for an excuse to do good works, as if their their morality should be determined by the extent to which they fear the consequences of their actions. We don't need to use religion as an excuse to do good works and worry about the welfare of we as a species. Everyone should know this already, but unfortunately some are raised, from birth, to believe otherwise.
I'm finding it gradually more and more difficult to respect a system that has promoted and still promotes conquest, jihad, forced conversion, and violence. Like I said: regardless how moderate and open-minded you believe yourself to be, there will always be others (while religion is still a respected establishment) who are willing to go to the very extreme to prove their devotion to a delusion. It's not become a matter of respecting one's right to believe what they will, but rather a matter of punishing the extent to which a person is willing to realize their beliefs and fight for a perceived interloping of this right. We need to seriously consider the impact religion has on us on a planetary scale and, having opened a discussion on that point, think of ways to fix whatever problems we find, as surely there are many problems to be found.
One of my biggest problems with religion is that some feel the need for an excuse to do good works, as if their their morality should be determined by the extent to which they fear the consequences of their actions. We don't need to use religion as an excuse to do good works and worry about the welfare of we as a species. Everyone should know this already, but unfortunately some are raised, from birth, to believe otherwise.
By: Overmann
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I respect the atheist's right not to believe in God. I respect the religious beliefs of the Jew, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Hindu and everyone else. Overmann, I respect you and your beliefs. I am sure that you have to come to these beliefs after a good deal of thought and introspection. However, I do not, and I cannot respect the concept of stereotyping entire groups of people based on the actions of some. Stereotyping all religious people as violent extremists is just as wrong as stereotyping all African-Americans as criminals or all homosexual men as flamboyant dandies. And before you "correct" me, I understand that religion is a choice unlike race or sexual orientation, however stereotyping is still wrong. I do not know you, if I met you in class or at the bar, we might very well get along (unless the topic of religion came up). I know you are not a religious person, I believe you said in a previous post you are an agnostic although I don't precisely recall. When I hear someone say they are agnostic, the only impression I get of them is that they are someone who doesn't have religious faith. I don't make assumptions as to whether they are an intelligent and rational person or whether they are a good and moral person. There are intelligent atheists (and agnostics) and there are stupid atheists (and agnostics). There are atheists who are kind and good people. There are also atheists who are mean and immoral people. I won't make such a judgment about a person until I get to know him or her. However, from what I've read from your posts, it seems to me that you have already formed an impression of me that goes beyond what you actually know about me. I've stated that I'm a Christian. It seems that based on that fact, you group me with the Crusaders and the members of the Westboro Baptist Church. I am an individual and I will believe what I want to believe. You want to be an atheist, fine. You want to preach your message and persuade others to follow suit, that's your right as well. I and people like me will never give up our beliefs just because a small minority of people think it will bring about a better, more enlightened world, because there's just no evidence that it would. Any conflicts brought about by religion would quickly resurface without religion, they would just take on a new justification. And if you think you can bring people about to your point of view by calling them irrational and giving them the blame for a bulk of the world's problems, perhaps it is you who is delusional.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
First of all, I haven't stereotyped you or anyone. I said that, and I quote:
"...regardless how moderate and open-minded you believe yourself to be, there will always be others (while religion is still a respected establishment) who are willing to go to the very extreme to prove their devotion to a delusion."
This means that although there may be well-behaved religious people, there will always be ill-behaved religious people. Although you could argue I'm persecuting all of religion based on the actions of a few, I would argue that eliminating religion on the whole will gradually settle (the first few decades will be dramatic) out to pretty much how life is today, only less superstitious and ignorant and more rational and reasonable.
Secondly I'm not hoping to convert anyone to my view by calling them irrational or placing sole blame on them; let it be known, as it should be given, that I don't blame all the world's problems on religion or its followers. Rather, I would go about convincing them by illustrating the negative aspects of religion and then how the good effects of religion can be achieved without the aforementioned ill effects. A world with less diversification is in principle leaning more towards unity and all it represents, including progress and collaboration.
While I believe people have a right to believe what they will, they should realize that there are consequences for whatever negative effects they inflict on others, for instance criminals or the dangerously insane. They can believe what they want, but society has an obligation to protect itself from them. So it is with religion, or should be.
I do not believe systematic religion has the best interests of all humans and all life in mind, and I feel something should be done. My aim is borne of service and obligation, not cruelty or spite.
You too, rickhatman, seem intelligent, but I feel you have an inclination, whether accidental or otherwise, to misconstrue my words. I would hope someday you have the wisdom to appreciate and agree with them.
"...regardless how moderate and open-minded you believe yourself to be, there will always be others (while religion is still a respected establishment) who are willing to go to the very extreme to prove their devotion to a delusion."
This means that although there may be well-behaved religious people, there will always be ill-behaved religious people. Although you could argue I'm persecuting all of religion based on the actions of a few, I would argue that eliminating religion on the whole will gradually settle (the first few decades will be dramatic) out to pretty much how life is today, only less superstitious and ignorant and more rational and reasonable.
Secondly I'm not hoping to convert anyone to my view by calling them irrational or placing sole blame on them; let it be known, as it should be given, that I don't blame all the world's problems on religion or its followers. Rather, I would go about convincing them by illustrating the negative aspects of religion and then how the good effects of religion can be achieved without the aforementioned ill effects. A world with less diversification is in principle leaning more towards unity and all it represents, including progress and collaboration.
While I believe people have a right to believe what they will, they should realize that there are consequences for whatever negative effects they inflict on others, for instance criminals or the dangerously insane. They can believe what they want, but society has an obligation to protect itself from them. So it is with religion, or should be.
I do not believe systematic religion has the best interests of all humans and all life in mind, and I feel something should be done. My aim is borne of service and obligation, not cruelty or spite.
You too, rickhatman, seem intelligent, but I feel you have an inclination, whether accidental or otherwise, to misconstrue my words. I would hope someday you have the wisdom to appreciate and agree with them.
By: Overmann
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I can never understand how intelligent people can believe in a God. Perhaps they're not so intelligent after all, since the process of asking oneself a few honest questions would seem to me sufficient to shake the whole rotten edifice to pieces.
Leaving aside the question as to why anyone should 'believe' in something which cannot be seen, touched or detected with any one of our senses or any scientific instrument, there's the question of why believe in his particular religion? The intelligent believer must surely see that 'his' religion depends on where and when he was born. If born and raised in the West he's probably a christian; if raised in the middle east or north Africa a Muslim, if in India a Hindu etc. But he must surely also realize that if he'd been born a thousand years ago in Scandinavia he might have believed in Thor or Wodin and if born 2500 years ago in Greece he'd have believed in Zeus and the rest of the many Greek gods. I'll come to the point: What kind of belief system is it which depends almost solely on where, when, and in what family you are born? As Dawkins so eloquently points out elsewhere how ridiculous it would be if science worked in the same way so that, for example, scientists in Europe all agreed that the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago due to an asteroid impact, whereas scientists in North America believed it was due to climate change brought on by the abnormally high emissions of gases from the Deccan traps! Totally absurd! But there you are: Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs and all the rest seem blind to these absurdities and incapable of freeing themselves from their childhood conditioning so as to become sensible, adult people who do not need fairy tales to live happy productive lives.
Leaving aside the question as to why anyone should 'believe' in something which cannot be seen, touched or detected with any one of our senses or any scientific instrument, there's the question of why believe in his particular religion? The intelligent believer must surely see that 'his' religion depends on where and when he was born. If born and raised in the West he's probably a christian; if raised in the middle east or north Africa a Muslim, if in India a Hindu etc. But he must surely also realize that if he'd been born a thousand years ago in Scandinavia he might have believed in Thor or Wodin and if born 2500 years ago in Greece he'd have believed in Zeus and the rest of the many Greek gods. I'll come to the point: What kind of belief system is it which depends almost solely on where, when, and in what family you are born? As Dawkins so eloquently points out elsewhere how ridiculous it would be if science worked in the same way so that, for example, scientists in Europe all agreed that the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago due to an asteroid impact, whereas scientists in North America believed it was due to climate change brought on by the abnormally high emissions of gases from the Deccan traps! Totally absurd! But there you are: Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs and all the rest seem blind to these absurdities and incapable of freeing themselves from their childhood conditioning so as to become sensible, adult people who do not need fairy tales to live happy productive lives.
By: DrZenith
