Menu Bar
rickhatman's Comments
Re: Christopher Hitchens & Dinesh D'Souza
True, men like Hitchens and Dawkins may say they want to see an end to religious belief but if that happened they would be out of a job just like all the preachers, rabbis, etc.
By: rickhatman
Re: Noah's Flood: Debunked
First of all, I never said that the stories proved anything. I just said the fact that numerous cultures shared lends credence to the idea that they were based off a real event. Furthermore, while many of the cultures that had flood legends were linked by trade there were many others that weren't. Some Native American tribes had flood legends that were told for centuries before encountering Christians and their stories of Noah and the Ark.
Similar stories are a different matter from similar inventions. The bow and arrow was relatively simple and fulfilled an immediate physical need, the need to be able to hunt game and wage war from a distance. Such stories fulfill no physical need.
Finally, I never said that the story of Noah's flood was proof of God. Even if it could be proven that a massive flood occurred in the Earth's past and that a man built a large boat and filled it with animals to survive the flood, that does not necessarily prove the existence of God. It neither precludes the existence of God nor confirms it.
If nothing else, the historical evidence indicates that the story of Noah's flood deserves more than a cursory dismissal. As to what degree God had to do with it, that's a matter of faith and people will either believe in God or they won't.
Similar stories are a different matter from similar inventions. The bow and arrow was relatively simple and fulfilled an immediate physical need, the need to be able to hunt game and wage war from a distance. Such stories fulfill no physical need.
Finally, I never said that the story of Noah's flood was proof of God. Even if it could be proven that a massive flood occurred in the Earth's past and that a man built a large boat and filled it with animals to survive the flood, that does not necessarily prove the existence of God. It neither precludes the existence of God nor confirms it.
If nothing else, the historical evidence indicates that the story of Noah's flood deserves more than a cursory dismissal. As to what degree God had to do with it, that's a matter of faith and people will either believe in God or they won't.
By: rickhatman
Re: Noah's Flood: Debunked
Actually the Epic of Gilgamesh has been used to support the idea of Noah's flood. The fact that there are similar stories in various cultures across the world, including the Masai people of East Africa and many native American tribes such as the Ojibwe, lends credence to the idea that such stories are based on a grain of truth. I'm saying the historical evidence proves Noah's flood, but I am saying that it doesn't necessarily debunk it just because other cultures share similar legends. In fact, the opposite may be true.
By: rickhatman
Re: Israel and the ignored UN Resolutions
Exactly, Israel is the only democracy in the region any slight wrongdoing on the part of Israel is nothing compared to its violent theocratic neighbors. Israel has a right to exist and a right to defend itself.
By: rickhatman
Re: Bill Maher's Final Comment from Religulous
I totally agree with the_monk. The conflicts chalked up to religion most likely would have existed in one form or another if religion had never existed. People would still be killing each other over racial or cultural differences that have always existed and will continue to exist. Religious tolerance may seem to be an unobtainable goal, but considering the prevalence of religion in human history, elimination of religion is an even more ludicrous objective.
I can see how an atheist would find religion irrational and not worthy of respect. Accordingly, as a religious person, I find the ardent lack of belief that hardline atheists hold to be unworthy of my respect. However, while I might not respect the lack of belief I respect the person and their right to feel as they do. I also seek to get along with other people.
History shows evil acts perpetrated by the Christian crusaders, the Muslim terrorists, as well as atheists in Stalinist Russia. The key to peace is not the elimination of religion but something a lot simpler. Everyone needs to shut the hell up and stop being assholes to one another. It's that simple, but simple does not equal easy. It would be easy if no one was religious or had any other cultural differences because that would mean we wouldn't have to try to be tolerant of one another.
I can see how an atheist would find religion irrational and not worthy of respect. Accordingly, as a religious person, I find the ardent lack of belief that hardline atheists hold to be unworthy of my respect. However, while I might not respect the lack of belief I respect the person and their right to feel as they do. I also seek to get along with other people.
History shows evil acts perpetrated by the Christian crusaders, the Muslim terrorists, as well as atheists in Stalinist Russia. The key to peace is not the elimination of religion but something a lot simpler. Everyone needs to shut the hell up and stop being assholes to one another. It's that simple, but simple does not equal easy. It would be easy if no one was religious or had any other cultural differences because that would mean we wouldn't have to try to be tolerant of one another.
By: rickhatman
Re: Paper Airplane Flight over New York City
True, but I would counter that anyone who would remain still while something avoidable flew into their eye probably got what was coming to them.
By: rickhatman
Re: Camera Under Train
Also, if there was a person lying between the tracks with a camera, the engineer would have put on the brakes to try to avoid hitting him and there was no screeching sound on tape. I'm thinking maybe the camera was mounted on some type of platform that could have been operated via remote control maybe using the motor from an RC car or something.
By: rickhatman
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
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
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
"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
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
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
