So, I just got back from a talk/lecture/Q&A session Richard Dawkins gave to my university about evolution or more specifically, about his book "The Greatest Show on Earth"
Couple of thoughts:
1. He's a very smart speaker and person in general judging by his Q&A session. Every answer has the right amount of humor, anti-religious undertones, and really big words/scientific facts to keep the audience guessing what he will say in his next reply. While lacking the charisma and charm of a political speaker, he makes up for with an aura of absolute confidence and a "don't fuck with me on any topic" attitude. He speaks very deliberately (has an awesome British accent) and puts just enough condescension in his voice towards anything not agreeing with him. The combination of such led to a fully packed standing room only auditorium (3200) that awaited with absolute silence for his next words. A few people walked out on the talk after a certain quote*
2. While I do agree with him almost 100% on topics, initially I was wary of him as many outspoken atheist lectures generally end up being religion bashing. But he actually (I feel) did pretty well keeping the religion bashing to somewhat of a low. Although that's not to say there wasn't plenty of anti-religious statements.
3. The talk itself was pretty short and was mostly about how religious people try to use false arguments such as the "missing parts of the fossil record" argument and the "if you can't prove theory A, then we'll assume God did it until you can". The majority of the lecture was teh Q&A session which was mostly just people telling him how much they loved him. Some interesting quotes:
Question - 'why don't scientists try to show different, non-literal interpretations of the Bible that can be of the same vein as their science?' (something like that, don't remember the exact quote)
*RD - "Why should I care about the scribblings of middle-eastern goat herders?" (particularly amusing since I was sitting in the back and at first misheard the quote as "nerf herders"
Comment from some guy "Richard Dawkins, I may be an atheist but you're my god"
Question - "do you think there is any validity in creationism or intelligent design?"
RD - "no."
4. The most interesting part was after the session, when leaving attendees had to walk past the religious groups protesting the lecture. They were handing out books and flyers and info sheets on why and how evolution was false. Also they were yelling stuff like 'You're going to hell!" and the like. I even got a free 1300~ page book about how the scientific facts all point towards evolution being false. (looking forward to reading this). One interesting thing to note was that this lecture was sponsored by the Secular Alliance at our school and it's not like they go around protesting religion at the campus churches on sundays..
Thoughts? Opinions?
Just wondering what TL has to say about evolution, richard dawkins, religion, and the like.
I just listened to "The Greatest Show on Earth" audio book, but I listen while I play games so I don't really soak everything in. That said I enjoyed it but I think I liked the God Delusion much more. Haven't read any of his earlier works but I think I'll try to read them at some point.
Cool, I wish I had had the opportunity to attend a lecture by him. Yeah it is pretty sickening that religious groups protest events like that... although I think that consists of the more radical members.
I'd love to attend a lecture by Richard Dawkins. I'm currently trying to get a copy of A Devil's Chaplain and The Greatest Show on Earth.
I find it disturbing how so many people do not believe in evolution. It's amusing how they throw all kinds of reasons to "disprove" evolution, for example the "missing link" and "gaps" argument, and my favorite "You can't prove it, so I believe God did it". Its not like ALL bones from millions of years ago will turn to fossils.
So yeah, I'm a big fan of Dawkins' work and am extremely jealous you got to attend one of his lectures.
EDIT: Do update us on that 1300+ page book disproving evolution. I'd love to read your thoughts on it.
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 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.
So the truth doesn't matter then? You really ought to care, since many of these "condescending, uptight fucks" also happen to have high positions in the government, at least in the US.
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.
Calling the people on the other side "brain dead retards" is sure condescending in my book.
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.
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.
Everyone is an atheist? Are you serious? Dear God man, thank you for enlightening us with your useless philosophy.
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.
Everyone is an atheist? Are you serious? Dear God man. Thank you for enlightening us with your useless philosophy.
do you believe in zeus?
and its not a philosophy, its just making a point.
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.
Everyone is an atheist? Are you serious? Dear God man. Thank you for enlightening us with your useless philosophy.
do you believe in zeus?
and its not a philosophy, its just making a point.
What do you think? And honestly, I am having a hard time seeing your point. "Everyone is an atheist, it just a matter of with respect to which gods" Sounds like a contradiction.
your post originally said "of course i do not!" of course you dont! a supreme being who throws lightning bolts is far more ridiculous than 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.
the point is theres a whole host of gods and religions that you and any religious person would consider absolutely ridiculous. and alot of them have followers just as devoted your own (if you're religious). but somehow or another you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.
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.
Everyone is an atheist? Are you serious? Dear God man. Thank you for enlightening us with your useless philosophy.
do you believe in zeus?
and its not a philosophy, its just making a point.
What do you think? And honestly, I am having a hard time seeing your point. "Everyone is an atheist, it just a matter of with respect to which gods" Sounds like a contradiction.
Theres a Richard Dawkins Quote like this
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further"
On October 13 2009 13:17 IdrA wrote: your post originally said "of course i do not!" of course you dont! a supreme being who throws lightning bolts is far more ridiculous than 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.
the point is theres a whole host of gods and religions that you and any religious person would consider absolutely ridiculous. and alot of them have followers just as devoted your own (if you're religious). but somehow or another you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.
...You quick and incorrect judgments about me kind of makes me wonder what people think about you back in Korea. So, are you saying that a Christian who denies Paganism is an atheist? The definition of atheism is someone who denies the existence of any type of deity. You are not an atheist if you believe in one deity.
but somehow or another you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.
I was raised in a Christian family and converted to atheism. Nice deduction.
"Atheism doesn't have all the answers" is a misnomer. Atheism doesn't claim to have ANY answers. It's up to individuals to find answers for themselves, the best way they can. Atheism is just the belief that all religions give wrong answers.
Most atheists generally look to science for answers, because the scientific method is the best way we as a species have found to give us answers that can actually impact our lives.
Pardon me Greg but that part is trivial in my previous post. However, you said "but somehow or another you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.". You mentioned "if you were religious" but that did not apply in the sentences after that. Not only that, you did state that "you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.". which was directly stating that I was choosing the religion my family chose.
On October 13 2009 13:30 Mori600 wrote: Pardon me Greg but that part is trivial in my previous post. However, you said "but somehow or another you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.". You mentioned "if you were religious" but that did not apply in the sentences after that. Not only that, you did state that "you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.". which was directly stating that I was choosing the religion my family chose.
You understand that IdrA's talking in general terms, right? Stop taking everything as a personal insult when you're the only one dishing them out.
Im not religious or god-believing at all. What follows is basically a brief introduction to the thought of Danish thinker Søren Kierkegaard who would delight in rebutting the "godly" Richard Dawkins and his cult of personality.
on the leap of faith Jesus was both the son of god and a mortal. That is a contradiction. It never was supposed to make sense when using the "scientific method" as a guide. If you need science to validate your religion then you have lost your faith- which is what an authentic relation to God requires. "Doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world". Doubt is an element of Faith. It is impossible to gain any objective certainty about religious doctrines such as the existence of God or the life of Christ. The most one could hope for would be the conclusion that it is probable that the Christian doctrines are true, but if a person were to believe such doctrines only to the degree they seemed likely to be true, he or she would not be genuinely religious at all. Faith consists in a subjective relation of absolute commitment to these doctrines.
No such evidence could ever be enough to pragmatically justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or even romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. To have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous.
on Christianity and its sheep Secularised "Church" congregations are meaningless: The idea of congregations keeps individuals as children since Christians are disinclined from taking the initiative to take responsibility for their own relation to God
Christendom has become secularised and political: Churchs are corporations and controlled by individuals whose bureaucratic mission is to increase membership and oversee the welfare of its members. More members mean more power for the "pastors": a corrupt ideal. This mission would seem at odds with Christianity's true doctrine, which is to stress the importance of the individual, not the whole.
Christianity becomes an empty religion: Thus, the state church political structure is offensive and detrimental to individuals, since everyone can become "Christian" without knowing what it means to be Christian. It is also detrimental to the religion itself since it reduces Christianity to a mere fashionable tradition adhered to by unbelieving "believers", a "herd mentality" of the population, so to speak.
Dawkins is the voice of disgruntled nihilism en vogue. This is an old discussion and most of his arguments are lifted from previous thinkers. If you want to read about this subject for other reasons than looking cool and/or worshiping... an athiest... here is some suggested reading:
On October 13 2009 13:30 Mori600 wrote: Pardon me Greg but that part is trivial in my previous post. However, you said "but somehow or another you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.". You mentioned "if you were religious" but that did not apply in the sentences after that. Not only that, you did state that "you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.". which was directly stating that I was choosing the religion my family chose.
it doesnt apply to the sentences after that? what? obviously if you're not religious im not talking to you directly when i say "you just happened to choose the right one" when one means a religion. stop being purposely obtuse.
On October 13 2009 13:39 omninmo wrote: on the leap of faith Jesus was both the son of god and a mortal. That is a contradiction. It never was supposed to make sense when using the "scientific method" as a guide. If you need science to validate your religion then you have lost your faith- which is what an authentic relation to God requires. "Doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world". Doubt is an element of Faith. It is impossible to gain any objective certainty about religious doctrines such as the existence of God or the life of Christ. The most one could hope for would be the conclusion that it is probable that the Christian doctrines are true, but if a person were to believe such doctrines only to the degree they seemed likely to be true, he or she would not be genuinely religious at all. Faith consists in a subjective relation of absolute commitment to these doctrines.
No such evidence could ever be enough to pragmatically justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or even romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. To have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous.
This would all be fine and well, if it were truly the way Christianity operated or the way most Christians thought. Speak to the average self-proclaimed "true believer", and one would find overwhelming certainty, not doubt.
Furthermore, based on such admittedly uncertain foundations, some very certain proclamations concerning morality and the nature of reality about us are pronounced. Surely you can see the flaw with this line of thought?
On October 13 2009 13:59 Lemonwalrus wrote: I don't view unwavering faith in something that you admit to be illogical as a good thing, and honestly I don't know why others do.
Because we are not robots. Also, because truth contains contradiction. Romantic love is very illogical also. Idra desiring to be come a progamer in korea two years ago. That was illogical too.
Romantic love is not illogical, it is evolutionarily useful to the protection of the species.
And IdrA had his meals/housing handled by a company while doing the thing that he loved and getting a small chance at becoming pretty darn famous in the gaming community, of which he is a member...what part of that is illogical?
Edit: I'm also going to venture a guess that getting laid for being good at starcraft is far more likely in Korea than it is in the U.S., so definitely not illogical.
On October 13 2009 13:39 omninmo wrote: on the leap of faith Jesus was both the son of god and a mortal. That is a contradiction. It never was supposed to make sense when using the "scientific method" as a guide. If you need science to validate your religion then you have lost your faith- which is what an authentic relation to God requires. "Doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world". Doubt is an element of Faith. It is impossible to gain any objective certainty about religious doctrines such as the existence of God or the life of Christ. The most one could hope for would be the conclusion that it is probable that the Christian doctrines are true, but if a person were to believe such doctrines only to the degree they seemed likely to be true, he or she would not be genuinely religious at all. Faith consists in a subjective relation of absolute commitment to these doctrines.
No such evidence could ever be enough to pragmatically justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or even romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. To have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous.
This would all be fine and well, if it were truly the way Christianity operated or the way most Christians thought. Speak to the average self-proclaimed "true believer", and one would find overwhelming certainty, not doubt.
Furthermore, based on such admittedly uncertain foundations, some very certain proclamations concerning morality and the nature of reality about us are pronounced. Surely you can see the flaw with this line of thought?
For Kierkegaard, faith and religion only have value insofar as they are subjective and personal. He would not say that his morality is TRUE for everyone but only for those who have made the qualitative leap. Likewise, he would ridicule the so-called tom, dick, and harry christians who claim an authentic relation to god can be found by attending church every sunday and reading a few verses of the bible before bed everynight, for instance.
I did not intend to post some danish philosophy from the 19th century and make god-fearers of you all. i merely wanted to show that there are relevant christian counter-arguments to Athiests. Basically, it is like this. Any christian who will "debate" you for any other purpose than to humor you... does not have authentic faith. Atheists have a real hang up with believers. It is almost pathological the way they have to disprove them. Don't you get it!? Religious types are not to be reasoned with...
On October 13 2009 13:39 omninmo wrote: on the leap of faith Jesus was both the son of god and a mortal. That is a contradiction. It never was supposed to make sense when using the "scientific method" as a guide. If you need science to validate your religion then you have lost your faith- which is what an authentic relation to God requires. "Doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world". Doubt is an element of Faith. It is impossible to gain any objective certainty about religious doctrines such as the existence of God or the life of Christ. The most one could hope for would be the conclusion that it is probable that the Christian doctrines are true, but if a person were to believe such doctrines only to the degree they seemed likely to be true, he or she would not be genuinely religious at all. Faith consists in a subjective relation of absolute commitment to these doctrines.
No such evidence could ever be enough to pragmatically justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or even romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. To have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous.
This would all be fine and well, if it were truly the way Christianity operated or the way most Christians thought. Speak to the average self-proclaimed "true believer", and one would find overwhelming certainty, not doubt.
Furthermore, based on such admittedly uncertain foundations, some very certain proclamations concerning morality and the nature of reality about us are pronounced. Surely you can see the flaw with this line of thought?
For Kierkegaard, faith and religion only have value insofar as they are subjective and personal. He would not say that his morality is TRUE for everyone but only for those who have made the qualitative leap. Likewise, he would ridicule the so-called tom, dick, and harry christians who claim an authentic relation to god can be found by attending church every sunday and reading a few verses of the bible before bed everynight, for instance.
I did not intend to post some danish philosophy from the 19th century and make god-fearers of you all. i merely wanted to show that there are relevant christian counter-arguments to Athiests. Basically, it is like this. Any christian who will "debate" you for any other purpose than to humor you... does not have authentic faith. Atheists have a real hang up with believers. It is almost pathological the way they have to disprove them. Don't you get it!? Religious types are not to be reasoned with...
This is exactly the problem. True believers, as your philosopher seems to define them, know they are being illogical; indeed, it is a necessary part of their faith. Unfortunately, our world is not one illogical leaps; even if it is not entirely deterministic, it is most certainly probabilistic. Viewing such a world through the teachings of religions (Christianity in this case) is like purposely wearing glasses with the wrong prescription.
On October 13 2009 13:59 Lemonwalrus wrote: I don't view unwavering faith in something that you admit to be illogical as a good thing, and honestly I don't know why others do.
Because we are not robots. Also, because truth contains contradiction. Romantic love is very illogical also. Idra desiring to be come a progamer in korea two years ago. That was illogical too.
romantic love isnt illogical, or at least it has its basis in logic. humans are social creatures because we have to be. a caveman wasnt gonna kill a lion one on one, so its in everybodys best interest to stick together. in the case of romantic love its even more direct. you want your kid to survive, to pass on your genetics, if you leave him alone with some bimbo hes probably gonna die. or, if you're the bimbo, if your kid is left alone with you hes probably gonna die. love is the result of that logical desire to stick together.
not that our behavior is entirely logical, at all, just thats not a good example of it. and truth does not necessarily contain contradiction. it may only appear so because we dont actually know the truth yet.
On October 13 2009 14:07 Lemonwalrus wrote: Romantic love is not illogical, it is evolutionarily useful to the protection of the species.
And IdrA had his meals/housing handled by a company while doing the thing that he loved and getting a small chance at becoming pretty darn famous in the gaming community, of which he is a member...what part of that is illogical?
Edit: I'm also going to venture a guess that getting laid for being good at starcraft is far more likely in Korea than it is in the U.S., so definitely not illogical.
Romantic love protects the species? That's sweet. I will refrain from commenting on the absurdity of the term "evolutionarily useful" (even though i just commented by calling it absurd).
Also,I said the desire of Idra to become a progamer was, at the time, illogical. Moving to korea to get paid and to play after the oppurtunity presents itself is fine.
K, you get one more flame-rebuttal then it's over. It is clear that we probably have no common ground from your dogmatic terminology and failure to grasp the notion that most human desires and actions are "illogical". let's not hog the flame thrower spotlight.
I keep trying to debate with you in threads, and you are such a cock-bag about it.
How is 'evolutionarily useful' an absurd term? It is a slightly poorly worded way of saying positively selected...you are so unbelievably dense.
Anyone that disagrees with you is 'dogmatic terminology this' and 'failure to grasp that'.
I haven't flamed you in the thread once before this post, but whatever, go on believing that your iron-logic can defeat all that challenge you, and that disagreeing with you is an admission of being wrong.
On October 13 2009 13:59 Lemonwalrus wrote: I don't view unwavering faith in something that you admit to be illogical as a good thing, and honestly I don't know why others do.
Because we are not robots. Also, because truth contains contradiction. Romantic love is very illogical also. Idra desiring to be come a progamer in korea two years ago. That was illogical too.
romantic love isnt illogical, or at least it has its basis in logic. humans are social creatures because we have to be. a caveman wasnt gonna kill a lion one on one, so its in everybodys best interest to stick together. in the case of romantic love its even more direct. you want your kid to survive, to pass on your genetics, if you leave him alone with some bimbo hes probably gonna die. or, if you're the bimbo, if your kid is left alone with you hes probably gonna die. love is the result of that logical desire to stick together.
not that our behavior is entirely logical, at all, just thats not a good example of it. and truth does not necessarily contain contradiction. it may only appear so because we dont actually know the truth yet.
my friend, i think you are confusing romantic love with monogamy. I am talking about the infatuation that comes long before insemination and the eventual shitting out of the semen-egg-fusion creature.
monogamy has practical advantages in a condition of scarcity, yep. but there are polygamous cultures which also do very well for themselves in similar conditions. I wonder,on a scale of 1 to 10, how "evolutionarily useful" polygamy is.
no, im talking about romantic love. monogamy is irrelevant. you want to stay together with someone you love right? its better for the kid if both its parents are working together to protect it right? did you even read my post? i said nothing about scarcity or monogamy or polygamy.
Females in our species are more likely to be successful in raising young if the male counterpart stays around. For them, monogomy is selectively favored. Males are a bit different, in that simply using the shotgun method of impregnating as many women as possible and leaving them all will guarantee you lots of offspring, but staying with one mother/offspring group will make it more likely for the offspring to continue to spread the family genes. So for males the argument can be made in both directions, and I think it is obvious that monogomy is not the hard and fast rule for most men.
On October 13 2009 14:37 Lemonwalrus wrote: I keep trying to debate with you in threads, and you are such a cock-bag about it.
How is 'evolutionarily useful' an absurd term? It is a slightly poorly worded way of saying positively selected...you are so unbelievably dense.
Anyone that disagrees with you is 'dogmatic terminology this' and 'failure to grasp that'.
I haven't flamed you in the thread once before this post, but whatever, go on believing that your iron-logic can defeat all that challenge you, and that disagreeing with you is an admission of being wrong.
sorry bro. didnt mean to be a cock-bag. it's just that, we have not yet established how useful the study of evolution is itself, and yet here we are qualifying things in terms of their evolutionary usefulness. we are putting the cart before the horse as it were. i just find darwin, dawkins, and evolution studies in general to be just as dogmatic to their principles as christians are their god. Both are equally uninspiring to me. I guess i am guilty of the same thing that atheists are: namely, the pathological impulse to "disprove" those I disagree with.
On October 13 2009 14:50 IdrA wrote: no, im talking about romantic love. monogamy is irrelevant. you want to stay together with someone you love right? its better for the kid if both its parents are working together to protect it right? did you even read my post? i said nothing about scarcity or monogamy or polygamy.
you are not talking about romantic love. you are talking about monogamous child-rearing which is usually called marriage. marriage is a partnership with a focus towards child rearing. at this stage romantic love (which i define as passionate and selfish) has fizzled because the point now is no longer selfish pleasure and gratification but rather the nurturing of progeny.
Someone who has never been married can discuss marriage because it not based in passion but rather logic, e.g. the logical points which you have eloquently listed above in previous posts. Those who have never been involved in a passionate romance cannot discuss romantic love because they lack the experience of this feverish passion (i'm not trying to say you have never been in love but just trying to illustrate the differnce). This distinction is essential to understanding my point about the illogicality of romance.
On October 13 2009 15:05 IdrA wrote: you arent disproving anything. in fact you're ignoring any real debate at all.
heavens to betsy, you certainly are pugnacious. I spoke of my impulse to disprove. I should have said my impulse to dissuade someone from holding certain beliefs. disproving something implies that such and such was already "proven" previously. evolution, religion.. none of these things have every been proven because they are not analytical in nature. please bring us back to the REAL debate.
so caveman 1 and caveman 2 were talking together and were like 'hey we have this kid together but he might die if we dont work together to protect him which would end our genetic lines. also we wont get tax benefits. lets stay together forever' ? people who had the desire to stay together were more likely to reproduce successfully, so natural selection favored individuals who felt love. marriage is a relatively modern institution that is irrelevant to the discussion.
On October 13 2009 15:05 IdrA wrote: you arent disproving anything. in fact you're ignoring any real debate at all.
heavens to betsy, you certainly are pugnacious. I spoke of my impulse to disprove. I should have said my impulse to dissuade someone from holding certain beliefs. disproving something implies that such and such was already "proven" previously. evolution, religion.. none of these things have every been proven because they are not analytical in nature. please bring us back to the REAL debate.
no it doesnt. disproving something means proving something isnt true. it doesnt matter if it was previously proven true or not. and evolution has been proven. we can see that offspring are born with genetic mutations that alter their phenotypes. we have observed that over time the frequency of certain traits in a population varies depending on the survival rates of different attached phenotypes. just look at the development of drug resistant bacteria.
A really good article that deals with the evolutionary reasons for love.
The article is titled MATING STRATEGIES and little to do with "love"
excerpts from the conclusions section (this is what evolutionary science tells us): -"humans have a complex menu of mating strategies" -the desire for youth and beauty is found in all societies with men valuing beauty more than women in selecting a mate. -women value a mate with solid finances more than men do. -"the empirical evidence is strong that men have evolved a more powerful desire for a variety of sex partners. -"The principle of co-evolution predicts that men will have evolved adaptations designed to defend against the diversion of their mate's sexual and reproductive resources. Jealousy as an emotion has been proposed as one such evolved mechanism". --"Much more research needs to be conducted on the complexities of human mating strategies"
In this thread omninmo tries to discuss things he doesn't understand. Which is a shame because the thread started off quite interesting - I've always thought Dawkins was a bit of an overly-aggressive atheist, though.
On October 13 2009 15:30 Equaoh wrote: In this thread omninmo tries to discuss things he doesn't understand. Which is a shame because the thread started off quite interesting - I've always thought Dawkins was a bit of an overly-aggressive atheist, though.
Actually, I did try to discuss a lot. I made several arguments which were neither refuted nor countered. This was because the participants couldn't agree on the definitions of the terms being discussed. Since you are now here perhaps you can illustrate what I failed to understand?
On October 13 2009 13:09 FragKrag wrote: Richard Dawkins is one of the best voices of science out there
I admire him !
When was the last time Dawkins actually conducted science? He's mostly just a loud voice now.
Hardline atheism causes problems because it fails to address the issues that make religion appealing for many people, choosing instead to further alienate them for the sake of being right. Try that tactic with your girlfriend and you can appreciate your rightness all by yourself on the couch. The difference is we're talking about people (on all sides) who will go a lot further and cause serious damage.
On October 13 2009 13:39 omninmo wrote: on the leap of faith Jesus was both the son of god and a mortal. That is a contradiction. It never was supposed to make sense when using the "scientific method" as a guide. If you need science to validate your religion then you have lost your faith- which is what an authentic relation to God requires. "Doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world". Doubt is an element of Faith. It is impossible to gain any objective certainty about religious doctrines such as the existence of God or the life of Christ. The most one could hope for would be the conclusion that it is probable that the Christian doctrines are true, but if a person were to believe such doctrines only to the degree they seemed likely to be true, he or she would not be genuinely religious at all. Faith consists in a subjective relation of absolute commitment to these doctrines.
No such evidence could ever be enough to pragmatically justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or even romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. To have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous.
This would all be fine and well, if it were truly the way Christianity operated or the way most Christians thought. Speak to the average self-proclaimed "true believer", and one would find overwhelming certainty, not doubt.
Furthermore, based on such admittedly uncertain foundations, some very certain proclamations concerning morality and the nature of reality about us are pronounced. Surely you can see the flaw with this line of thought?
For Kierkegaard, faith and religion only have value insofar as they are subjective and personal. He would not say that his morality is TRUE for everyone but only for those who have made the qualitative leap. Likewise, he would ridicule the so-called tom, dick, and harry christians who claim an authentic relation to god can be found by attending church every sunday and reading a few verses of the bible before bed everynight, for instance.
I did not intend to post some danish philosophy from the 19th century and make god-fearers of you all. i merely wanted to show that there are relevant christian counter-arguments to Athiests. Basically, it is like this. Any christian who will "debate" you for any other purpose than to humor you... does not have authentic faith. Atheists have a real hang up with believers. It is almost pathological the way they have to disprove them. Don't you get it!? Religious types are not to be reasoned with...
This is exactly the problem. True believers, as your philosopher seems to define them, know they are being illogical; indeed, it is a necessary part of their faith. Unfortunately, our world is not one illogical leaps; even if it is not entirely deterministic, it is most certainly probabilistic. Viewing such a world through the teachings of religions (Christianity in this case) is like purposely wearing glasses with the wrong prescription.
sorry for not commenting. I was busy responding to the Evolutionary Terran. Is this the quote you wanted me to respond to Draconizard? As I mentioned before, I am not religious and I do not have an active faith in any supernatural phenomena. I cannot defend a religious person from being called "illogical". My point was, those with honest faith, care not for such classifications. So Dawkins, and all other aggresive athiests are merely masturbating when they try to PROVE THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD for the betterment of society.
I need to withdraw from the the shitstorm now. I will leave the group with this:
I find it interesting that whether "real" or not mysticism, religion, god and many other illogical notions all played a significant part in the development of our species. now that we are post-post-modern the trend is to cast away all that is unverifiable and embrace the new dogma of science?
On October 13 2009 16:03 IdrA wrote: you actually havent responded to me because your only responses consist of ignoring what i said, and that seems to be getting old.
everything you said about cavemen is probably right, but how would we know? you did confuse the two relation-modes i was trying to distinguish between though: -one is romantic, passionate, emotionally gratifying love for a selfish end (cuz it feelz good). -the other is the love between two who mate, produce, and raise a child together. this type is not for oneself but rather it is aimed at ensuring the furthering of one's genetic self- a task for which two are better suited than one.
I am seeing Dawkins in March when he is in Melbourne at the Global Atheist Convention - The Rise of Atheism. I cannot wait to go. It will be interesting to see if any religious crackpot groups show up to "save" us from our way. I wish I had a witty atheistic t-shirt to wear while I'm there.
Yes it is true that Dawkins is making preacher-like propaganda for atheism, without understanding why religion is so popular in the first place. He is not likely converting anyone, his audience is already atheists. Let's wish him good luck if what he does makes him happy.
The simplest definition of god that I can come up with is "the laws of nature personified". In my humble opinion, no such thing exists. It is just that people naturally have what we call empathy, which makes them able to see the world from someone else's perspective, including when that someone is actually something. Humans naturally look for patterns. Humans want to interact with the environment, and influence it, so having the delusion that you can have a relationship with the forces of nature makes humans comfortable. Humans also need a motivation to be "good" and by being good, as empathy dictates most of the time, there should be some reward. Humans cannot conceptualize a world where they(I mean from the perspective of the individual) do not exist, so there has to be life after death.
These are my thoughts on the origins of religion in a few words.
On October 13 2009 18:35 50bani wrote: Yes it is true that Dawkins is making preacher-like propaganda for atheism, without understanding why religion is so popular in the first place.
You clearly haven't read his stuff. He explores religions roots, what it is and why it's so popular quite thoroughly. Don't talk out of your ass.
I find it hilarious that IdrA's insight (out of all things) on these matters (biological imperatives of feeling "seemingly" illogical attraction) is leaps and bounds above everyone else in this thread. Apparently the Eastern culture gave him much insight.
On October 13 2009 19:41 Sadistx wrote: I find it hilarious that IdrA's insight (out of all things) on these matters (biological imperatives of feeling "seemingly" illogical attraction) is leaps and bounds above everyone else in this thread. Apparently the Eastern culture gave him much insight.
On October 13 2009 18:35 50bani wrote: Yes it is true that Dawkins is making preacher-like propaganda for atheism, without understanding why religion is so popular in the first place.
You clearly haven't read his stuff. He explores religions roots, what it is and why it's so popular quite thoroughly. Don't talk out of your ass.
Tis true. He dedicates entire chapters to religious roots and its popularity. One chapter I believe is called "The Roots of Religion", found in "The God Delusion".
On October 13 2009 16:03 IdrA wrote: you actually havent responded to me because your only responses consist of ignoring what i said, and that seems to be getting old.
everything you said about cavemen is probably right, but how would we know? you did confuse the two relation-modes i was trying to distinguish between though: -one is romantic, passionate, emotionally gratifying love for a selfish end (cuz it feelz good). -the other is the love between two who mate, produce, and raise a child together. this type is not for oneself but rather it is aimed at ensuring the furthering of one's genetic self- a task for which two are better suited than one.
why are you splitting it into 2 categories when there is no reason for a split? a man and a woman love each other, they have sex, that leads to children. if they love each other theyre more likely to stay together, allowing them to better care for the child. genes do not give an organism instructions. they are not sitting there in your head telling you explicitly to have sex with a person, and then a different gene comes along and starts telling you to stay with this person in order to raise the child. they manifest in physical and mental characteristics. like the drive to stay with a mate.
i think you're confusing hornyness with a special kind of love. there is no need for love to explain mating, plenty of species come together only to mate and then never see each other again. in some the female actively drives off the male.
On October 13 2009 19:41 Sadistx wrote: I find it hilarious that IdrA's insight (out of all things) on these matters (biological imperatives of feeling "seemingly" illogical attraction) is leaps and bounds above everyone else in this thread. Apparently the Eastern culture gave him much insight.
On October 13 2009 18:35 50bani wrote: Yes it is true that Dawkins is making preacher-like propaganda for atheism, without understanding why religion is so popular in the first place.
You clearly haven't read his stuff. He explores religions roots, what it is and why it's so popular quite thoroughly. Don't talk out of your ass.
Tis true. He dedicates entire chapters to religious roots and its popularity. One chapter I believe is called "The Roots of Religion", found in "The God Delusion".
And he does a poor job of it, and I doubt he really understands it. He's not a sociologist; he has no business pretending to be one, let alone attempt to do it in such a watered down way. But alas, the Super Academic always thinks they're an expert on everything.
On October 13 2009 18:35 50bani wrote: Yes it is true that Dawkins is making preacher-like propaganda for atheism, without understanding why religion is so popular in the first place.
You clearly haven't read his stuff. He explores religions roots, what it is and why it's so popular quite thoroughly. Don't talk out of your ass.
Tis true. He dedicates entire chapters to religious roots and its popularity. One chapter I believe is called "The Roots of Religion", found in "The God Delusion".
And he does a poor job of it, and I doubt he really understands it. He's not a sociologist; he has no business pretending to be one. But alas, the Super Academic always thinks they're experts on everything.
its not intended to be a comprehensive study of the beginnings of religion. the book is an overall look at some of the problems with religion, and he addresses the roots of religion as they apply to that.
On October 13 2009 18:35 50bani wrote: Yes it is true that Dawkins is making preacher-like propaganda for atheism, without understanding why religion is so popular in the first place.
You clearly haven't read his stuff. He explores religions roots, what it is and why it's so popular quite thoroughly. Don't talk out of your ass.
Tis true. He dedicates entire chapters to religious roots and its popularity. One chapter I believe is called "The Roots of Religion", found in "The God Delusion".
And he does a poor job of it, and I doubt he really understands it. He's not a sociologist; he has no business pretending to be one. But alas, the Super Academic always thinks they're experts on everything.
its not intended to be a comprehensive study of the beginnings of religion. the book is an overall look at some of the problems with religion, and he addresses the roots of religion as they apply to that.
It's intended to identify the appeal of religion, and he doesn't know how to do it. This is like Moon telling you how to macro in SC properly.
He's an expert in biology, with a shiny title and lots of publicity. If you want religious philosophy or a real investigation into religion and fanaticism, there is research by people who actually study these things.
They'll probably never be on the NYTimes best seller list and they don't come in shiny covers, but their work is infinitely better than Dawkins'.
One interesting thing to note was that this lecture was sponsored by the Secular Alliance at our school and it's not like they go around protesting religion at the campus churches on sundays..
Good point. I hate it when people aren't tolerant of other peoples religious views.
actually its like octzerg telling a D rank player how to macro. he may not get the finer points but overall its a simple enough thing and hes talking to someone on such a low level that hes gonna give them a pretty good idea of whats going on. any rational person looking in on a religion from the outside can pick it to pieces, and anyone reasonably smart can figure out whats so appealing about it. and unless its changed his current job is professor for the public knowledge of science or something so attempting to communicate all that to the public is what hes supposed to be doing. now i dont think his approach is particularly effective since he doesnt seem to understand how people can see things from an irrational perspective, but hes certainly doing more good than harm simply by pushing things into the spotlight.
and again hes not claiming to be writing academic papers on the foundations of religion or fanaticism or any such thing.
On October 13 2009 19:41 Sadistx wrote: I find it hilarious that IdrA's insight (out of all things) on these matters (biological imperatives of feeling "seemingly" illogical attraction) is leaps and bounds above everyone else in this thread. Apparently the Eastern culture gave him much insight.
"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.
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.
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. :/
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.
So the truth doesn't matter then? You really ought to care, since many of these "condescending, uptight fucks" also happen to have high positions in the government, at least in the US.
lol@you if you think any of these people give the truth. At the end of every religious debate you'll find that there is no end. Of course everyone should give a serious thought about these things, but there is a point where further headbutting goes nowhere for most people.
Seriously, as long as governments abide to a 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.
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".
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.
Although i agree with many of his views, and i must admit i feel rather upset by how fanatical, ilogical and unreasonable (in my opinion) can some sections of the modern religious community be, i can't say i find him to be a good emissary for reason, logic and science when he comes off as someone so arrogant and condescending.
I don't really see what is the point on arguing something that has a 100% chance please the people that already think the way you do, but an almost 0% chance of reaching those who think different.
I just find it to be and useless exercise of: "I'm smarter than you, i'm right and you're wrong."
EPT
!
wtf I said the same stuff he said....
