On October 13 2009 22:06 koreasilver wrote: Seriously, as long as governments abide to a non-secular model and can keep their personal beliefs out of politics then every individual has the right to hold to whatever religious belief they want. There are more important things to look at in every person than their religious belief, and you will find both decent and abhorrent individuals from every demographic. I personally think most Atheistic circles have lost their intellectual edge due to it being flooded by idiots nowadays.
Do you mean a secular model? I used to say nonsecular when I meant secular.
I wonder if omninmo from last night is still here (sorry had to sleep). I feel it important to point out that the theory of evolution is rooted in physical observations subsequently supported by later molecular findings and has predictive value (Mendelian genetics, punnet squares anyone?). Studies charting allelic and phenotypic distribution within a species are less common now because enough evidence has been raised in the past for the scientific community to accept the evolutionary model (and now we can do cooler things on the molecular level).
The point that most people miss is that religion is a sociological phenomenon. It is the product of our fear of mortality and need to aspire to be better. But both of those things arise from biological factors - try to imagine the benefits of self betterment within an individual to the species, etc - and it is those factors that apply to the physical world.
Look at religion as philosophy and I totally agree with your right to follow it. There are even atheistic religions like Jainism and Buddhism where the philosophy is more important than the scriptures - it's only the West where religion clashes with science in such a spectacularly stupid way.
On October 13 2009 21:52 Mortality wrote: Dawkins is very intelligent, but you're (the OP's) thoughts on him are very subjective opinions, and in many cases not very meaningful.
"Right amount of... really big words/scientific facts to keep the audience guessing..."
I wouldn't even qualify that as a good thing. In science, you are attempting to explain the nature of the universe. An explanation is completely worthless if nobody understands it. The audience shouldn't be "guessing" anything.
I've seen several interviews of Dawkins and I like him (at least so far). But I really want to stress that the way you wrote about him is not very persuasive. :/
well that was the point.. I'm was just trying show what the lecture was, not my personal beliefs or opinions. I never said it was a good thing he used really big words that i've never heard of, and it's probably a bad thing since he's speaking to Indiana University which is a huge party schoool...
On October 13 2009 21:31 IdrA wrote: i think that impression is more because of the people hes talking to than his opinion of himself. i mean, look at it from the perspective of an atheist. what i said on the first page "a zombie jew who will cleanse us of the sins of a woman who ate an apple because a talking snake tricked her, but only if we eat his body." looking at christianity as a complete non believer that is a big part of what you see. yes theres more to it than that, but, really, its hard not to laugh at people who actually take something like that literally. when you're explaining something like "no those crackers do not actually become the body of a 2000 year old man/diety" its hard to avoid sounding condescending.
I think that the impression you make is more because of the people you're talking to than yourself. I mean, look at it from the perspective of any normal American. What you say when you introduce yourself, "a 20-something white kid who plays video games for a living in korea." Looking at progames as a complete non gamer is a big part of what you see. Yes there's more to it than that, but, really, its hard not to laugh at people who actually take something like that seriously. Especially when you're explaining something like "you don't know how to play the game you only win by doing stupid shit you fucking skill-less newbie" its hard to avoid sounding condescending.
On October 13 2009 12:11 Misrah wrote: If the book you were given is called 'the case for a creator' throw it out.
The sources and authors from that book are so pathetic and not reputable at all. Probably more use to read a picture book imo.
Atheism doesn't have all of the answers, and neither does religion. Only a fool would blindly follow either.
atheism isnt a thing, it doesnt give answers and people dont follow it. its just a lack of belief in something else. everyone is an atheist, its just a matter of with respect to which gods.
lol are you kidding me? Athiesm is a thing. It gives answers and people follow it. For all intensive purposes it is a religion, just a religion with out a god head.
Athiesm has answers to pretty much everything. I don't understand why you can't see that.
On October 13 2009 22:06 koreasilver wrote: Seriously, as long as governments abide to a non-secular model and can keep their personal beliefs out of politics then every individual has the right to hold to whatever religious belief they want. There are more important things to look at in every person than their religious belief, and you will find both decent and abhorrent individuals from every demographic. I personally think most Atheistic circles have lost their intellectual edge due to it being flooded by idiots nowadays.
Do you mean a secular model? I used to say nonsecular when I meant secular.
On October 13 2009 22:30 Sadistx wrote: What the hell is an Atheistic circle? A circlejerk of people who take pride in their lack of a belief in any deity? There's no intellectual prerequisite for that, so I'm not sure what you're referring to by "lost their intellectual edge due to it being flooded by idiots".
General Atheistic movements. Atheism did first grow through communities of like-minded individuals until the changes in society came to a point to where Atheistic thought could be professed publicly without getting lynched (in the Western world anyway). Atheism has historically always been lead by intellectuals of the times which was one of the greatest assets it had, and one of the main reasons why it has gained much credibility in the modern days, although the great decrease of political and social power of the Christian churches also let Atheistic thought become a very influential and prominent aspect in Western societies as of late. However, due to Atheism becoming much more accepted, and due to it's popularity amongst young, disgruntled youth that I sometimes find to just spew rhetoric with little insight to some of the main arguments to some of the arguments that they themselves are trying to make and the arguments that their opponents try to make, I find that the traditional intellectualism that has been a focal point of Atheistic movements to have been watered down. Nowadays I find most Atheists and Christians to be rather similar.
Also, Buddhism as a whole is not "Atheistic". That's a very common misconception that a lot of people have about Buddhism. There are many Buddhist sects and the difference between some of these sects are so large that sometimes they don't seem similar at all.
On October 13 2009 12:11 Misrah wrote: If the book you were given is called 'the case for a creator' throw it out.
The sources and authors from that book are so pathetic and not reputable at all. Probably more use to read a picture book imo.
Atheism doesn't have all of the answers, and neither does religion. Only a fool would blindly follow either.
atheism isnt a thing, it doesnt give answers and people dont follow it. its just a lack of belief in something else. everyone is an atheist, its just a matter of with respect to which gods.
lol are you kidding me? Athiesm is a thing. It gives answers and people follow it. For all intensive purposes it is a religion, just a religion with out a god head.
Athiesm has answers to pretty much everything. I don't understand why you can't see that.
I do not agree with this at all and I'm not sure how you arose at these conclusions...
On October 13 2009 12:11 Misrah wrote: If the book you were given is called 'the case for a creator' throw it out.
The sources and authors from that book are so pathetic and not reputable at all. Probably more use to read a picture book imo.
Atheism doesn't have all of the answers, and neither does religion. Only a fool would blindly follow either.
atheism isnt a thing, it doesnt give answers and people dont follow it. its just a lack of belief in something else. everyone is an atheist, its just a matter of with respect to which gods.
lol are you kidding me? Athiesm is a thing. It gives answers and people follow it. For all intensive purposes it is a religion, just a religion with out a god head.
Athiesm has answers to pretty much everything. I don't understand why you can't see that.
for all intensive purposes indeed
you're being confused by the fact that most atheists subscribe to a similar set of views, atheism in itself has nothing to do with these views and is solely concerned with the idea that god does not exist.
On October 13 2009 12:11 Misrah wrote: If the book you were given is called 'the case for a creator' throw it out.
The sources and authors from that book are so pathetic and not reputable at all. Probably more use to read a picture book imo.
Atheism doesn't have all of the answers, and neither does religion. Only a fool would blindly follow either.
atheism isnt a thing, it doesnt give answers and people dont follow it. its just a lack of belief in something else. everyone is an atheist, its just a matter of with respect to which gods.
lol are you kidding me? Athiesm is a thing. It gives answers and people follow it. For all intensive purposes it is a religion, just a religion with out a god head.
Athiesm has answers to pretty much everything. I don't understand why you can't see that.
for all intensive purposes indeed
you're being confused by the fact that most atheists subscribe to a similar set of views, atheism in itself has nothing to do with these views and is solely concerned with the idea that god does not exist.
This is true, but Atheism has lately taken the route of having various strongly rooted beliefs that are shared by most Atheists, and this has led to a lot of Atheists using fairly standardized rhetoric in their arguments, not quite unlike how a lot of Christians use the same rhetoric in their arguments against Atheists.
On October 13 2009 21:19 Jibba wrote: This is what bugs me.
"Hey guys, I just finished The God Delusion. I'm smarter than Wolterstorff and Plantinga put together!"
Hardline atheists, in particular, have this ridiculous belief that they're smarter than everyone else; that their conclusions are unshakably right and anyone that doesn't share them is irrational/idiotic/etc. It's not as if the best minds in theology are unaware of his work and have yet to respond. Humility is important when entering any realm of knowledge, and Dawkins' has none even when he is completely outclassed by other philosophers in the area.
Plantinga is a very smart man, but his reasoning on matters of faith leaves much to be desired. Reading what he has to say about "evidence of design in nature" and the "impossibility of the mammalian eye"... is like reading Kent Hovind or Kirk Cameron with a better grasp of the English language.
On October 13 2009 12:11 Misrah wrote: If the book you were given is called 'the case for a creator' throw it out.
The sources and authors from that book are so pathetic and not reputable at all. Probably more use to read a picture book imo.
Atheism doesn't have all of the answers, and neither does religion. Only a fool would blindly follow either.
atheism isnt a thing, it doesnt give answers and people dont follow it. its just a lack of belief in something else. everyone is an atheist, its just a matter of with respect to which gods.
lol are you kidding me? Athiesm is a thing. It gives answers and people follow it. For all intensive purposes it is a religion, just a religion with out a god head.
Athiesm has answers to pretty much everything. I don't understand why you can't see that.
i just wanted to reinforce along with everyone else that you are very wrong.
On October 13 2009 21:19 Jibba wrote: This is what bugs me.
"Hey guys, I just finished The God Delusion. I'm smarter than Wolterstorff and Plantinga put together!"
Hardline atheists, in particular, have this ridiculous belief that they're smarter than everyone else; that their conclusions are unshakably right and anyone that doesn't share them is irrational/idiotic/etc. It's not as if the best minds in theology are unaware of his work and have yet to respond. Humility is important when entering any realm of knowledge, and Dawkins' has none even when he is completely outclassed by other philosophers in the area.
Plantinga is a very smart man, but his reasoning on matters of faith leaves much to be desired. Reading what he has to say about "evidence of design in nature" and the "impossibility of the mammalian eye"... is like reading Kent Hovind or Kirk Cameron with a better grasp of the English language.
But it still doesn't change the fact that many Atheists completely denounce any sort of Religious theologians and refuse to acknowledge that many theologians were quite brilliant intellectuals. Some of Paul Tillich's ideas were immensely profound to me even though I read some of his work long after I abandoned Christianity. I consider him to be one of the greatest modern philosophers.
On October 13 2009 21:19 Jibba wrote: This is what bugs me.
"Hey guys, I just finished The God Delusion. I'm smarter than Wolterstorff and Plantinga put together!"
Hardline atheists, in particular, have this ridiculous belief that they're smarter than everyone else; that their conclusions are unshakably right and anyone that doesn't share them is irrational/idiotic/etc. It's not as if the best minds in theology are unaware of his work and have yet to respond. Humility is important when entering any realm of knowledge, and Dawkins' has none even when he is completely outclassed by other philosophers in the area.
Plantinga is a very smart man, but his reasoning on matters of faith leaves much to be desired. Reading what he has to say about "evidence of design in nature" and the "impossibility of the mammalian eye"... is like reading Kent Hovind or Kirk Cameron with a better grasp of the English language.
But it still doesn't change the fact that many Atheists completely denounce any sort of Religious theologians and refuse to acknowledge that many theologians were quite brilliant intellectuals. Some of Paul Tillich's ideas were immensely profound to me even though I read some of his work long after I abandoned Christianity. I consider him to be one of the greatest modern philosophers.
nobody said anything to the contrary. he just pointed out some of the problems that come with trying to combine faith and intellectualism. obviously everyone has their biases but approaching thought from a religious standpoint gives you a specific, common set of prejudices that really mess with alot of your conclusions.
On October 13 2009 21:19 Jibba wrote: This is what bugs me.
"Hey guys, I just finished The God Delusion. I'm smarter than Wolterstorff and Plantinga put together!"
Hardline atheists, in particular, have this ridiculous belief that they're smarter than everyone else; that their conclusions are unshakably right and anyone that doesn't share them is irrational/idiotic/etc. It's not as if the best minds in theology are unaware of his work and have yet to respond. Humility is important when entering any realm of knowledge, and Dawkins' has none even when he is completely outclassed by other philosophers in the area.
If The God Delusion saves even one person out there from the excruciating pain of having to read Wolterstorff or Plantinga, it's done a great service to the world. The funny thing about the book is that it's not a book on theology, it's a book arguing against any possible need for theology in the first place. Dawkins is, of course, going to take a scientific approach to things rather than a philosophical one. There's no need for him to include the apologetic, circular logic of the christian philosophers you mention, because most of their assumptions don't hold up to the scientific method in the first place. As a result, the arguments they make in response to the book are either ad hominem or haplessly pathetic assaults on science itself.
On October 13 2009 12:29 koreasilver wrote: I find Richard Dawkins to be just as annoying as some of the more outspoken religious fanatics.
Please just leave my brain in peace. I really don't care if you think you're smarter and the people on the other side are brain dead retards. You're all just condescending, uptight fucks.
On October 14 2009 00:26 koreasilver wrote: This is true, but Atheism has lately taken the route of having various strongly rooted beliefs that are shared by most Atheists, and this has led to a lot of Atheists using fairly standardized rhetoric in their arguments, not quite unlike how a lot of Christians use the same rhetoric in their arguments against Atheists.
There is a version of Godwin's law that replaces Hitler with comparing atheism to religious fundamentalism. I sense validation.
There's a difference of comparing something or someone to Nazism or the Nazis regardless of what they think and comparing one side of the argument with the other. I find both sides to share a lot of similarities in how they approach each other. I'm not saying that Atheism is a "non-God religion" or anything ridiculous like that. I'm just saying that many people, when they approach the whole whole "God question", tend to run into each other with the same kind of stubborn dogmatic fervor while being largely ignorant of the intricacies in the beliefs of the opposition.
It's kinda like watching a wall of death happen over and over again.
I guess this makes me an apathetic agnostic, instead of an atheist. I generally see theologic discussions of relatively little value and bearing no actual purpose in our day to day lives. You could have a philosophical debate about whether most people need to believe in something blindly and whether it improves their lives (theistic placebo?), but you really cannot have any sort of debate on the actual existence of deity. I mean you can, but it would be pointless, because you cannot formulate a hypothesis for testing, which means neither side can be proven or disproven.
On October 13 2009 12:11 Misrah wrote: Atheism doesn't have all of the answers, and neither does religion. Only a fool would blindly follow either.
Oh jesus, so what? "science doesnt have all the answers" well, whatever dude, first off, religion doesnt have any good answers of its own. And then, not every single question is worthwhile enough to answer. Language is a man made tool and its not exactly fool proof; if you can formulate some random stupid question, it doesnt mean it has to have an answer for you to be "spiritually" complete or whatever. Take as an example the big bang. As Stephen Hawking said: If the universe did begin as a singularity, then everything before that time is completely and utterly meaningless and inconsequential to anything after that time; so, the question, "what happened before the big bang?" Is a completely useless, irrelevant and impossible to answer question.
On October 14 2009 05:19 Sadistx wrote: I guess this makes me an apathetic agnostic, instead of an atheist. I generally see theologic discussions of relatively little value and bearing no actual purpose in our day to day lives. You could have a philosophical debate about whether most people need to believe in something blindly and whether it improves their lives (theistic placebo?), but you really cannot have any sort of debate on the actual existence of deity. I mean you can, but it would be pointless, because you cannot formulate a hypothesis for testing, which means neither side can be proven or disproven.
depends on the deity. some unknown higher power, that you cant argue with, but you you can make logical attempts to disprove a deity with defined characteristics. no such arguments would ever have any effect on the faithful, but they can still be made.
EPT
