I really doubt anyone here believes God will save them from inevitable death. Where the hell did you come up with this one?
He meant death as the end of your conscious existence. I'm shocked that you didn't understand it.
If he means that, it's all the more surprising to me why he thinks that way. Is it really impossible to be some form of afterlife? And how is believing that there isn't an afterlife 'manning up' as he calls it?
We can neither prove it or refute it.
Same with the universe. Is there really an end to the length of our universe? Who knows?
Which is why I don't see why people have to keep arguing about whether their view on the unknown is right or wrong. We never really can know for sure in our lifetime, so it's really up to personal belief.
edit: also the way he worded it was retarded as hell too. how would God 'protect' you from inevitable death if his very existence as well as the existence of heaven contradicts 'death' of your existence.
^ok I used the word existence alot but hope you understand it rofl
However, the fact that neither can be proven does not mean that both are equally likely. I despise analogies, since inevitably someone comes along, quotes you, and takes your analogy grossly out of context and then laughs that it's not actually completely the same - but if I were to make one I'd compare it to a weighted die.
On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote:also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.
What the hell is extreme atheist, how can you be extreme in your lack of belief in God? Lack of belief in God in itself does not motivate for anything good or bad. I kill people becouse I am atheist simply does not follow. What in your mind is equivalent of "I do x becouse bible say x" in atheism?
Having a worldview isn't just a motivation, but a manner and mode of thinking which changes all of your goals and conceptions about the world around you, as well as your interaction with the goals and conceptions of others.
You post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.
The only way you can make your claim is if your position is somehow sanctified as the neutral cultural norm. Now think about the argument in reverse from the opposite perspective.
I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.
I strongly agree with you that people should be more mindful of psychology and that any logical deduction relies on a correct set of underlying assumptions but I you are not correctly representing that one one side of this argument no attempt is made to employ logic at all. I won't by any means claim that all arguments I've seen for atheism have been logically sound - but can you offer up a single one in the other direction?
One 'side'?
The entire push for the 'knowability' of nature comes from the platonic drive to know an ultimate form of the 'good'. Science isn't divorced from religion, its a direct response to the western conception of the divine. There's a reason why the west kept searching for the truth and kept pushing the boundaries of what's knowable, despite some instances of knowledge being interfered with.
In comparison, China, the only other society of similar (actually superior, during the timeframe) means compared with western europe actually banned the majority of scientific developments for many centuries. Japan similarly went through a period of cultural re-entrenchment. The west pushed forth because of a few core beliefs:
1) The world is knowable.
- This seems odd, because 'everyone' believes that, right? Wrong. Hindu and Buddist belief systems often posit the complete opposite: that those with knowledge are to strive to liberate others, but that they're ultimately removed from the flow of karma as superior beings. Hinduism goes as far as to construe the world as an illusion.
2) That knowing is useful.
- Why would this be useful in a largely agrarian pre-industrial revolutionary society? After the initial period of specialization and agrivariation which led to domestication, there was relatively little resources available to spend. In some areas, say, on easter island, the extra resources were used to build monuments to local chiefs. They all died. In some areas, the extra food was used to feed more people. This is the case during the Chinese period wherein advancement was banned in the interest of a static culture. In the west, knowledge itself was prized as an avenue towards the divine, and the rich strove to become leaders in the field of knowledge because of the prestige that the religious background gave it.
There's quite a bit more, but pretending that the two phenomena are distinct and that there's only room for antagonism is pretty contrary to the historical account. Its kinda like pretending that Christians are conservative, whereas in the majority of the world they're more akin to progressive liberals. There's so much context and back-story lost from these little 'my belief is better than yours' threads that its almost impossible to surmount. I've always found it odd that people loudly championing atheistic beliefs as a clarion call for rationality have substantial deficits in knowledge which prevent them from making rational judgments and viewing their own inherent assumptions. On the other end, I've always found it odd how confrontational many theists get, especially catholics, given how positive a golden rule approach would be.
Oh well, go back to throwing shit at each other. That's more fun to read.
On September 20 2010 04:08 Cantankerous wrote: However, the fact that neither can be proven does not mean that both are equally likely.
This is a good point. Thousands of years of observing stuff falling to the ground doesn't prove that your monitor will fall to the ground if you push it off the desk. However, I think we can intuitively agree that it is more likely the monitor will indeed fall, than that it won't.
The problem is that we use inductive reasoning to come to the conclusion that the monitor will fall if we push it. Technically, inductive reasoning is a logical fallacy. However, it works, and it is what science is built on.
On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote:also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.
What the hell is extreme atheist, how can you be extreme in your lack of belief in God? Lack of belief in God in itself does not motivate for anything good or bad. I kill people becouse I am atheist simply does not follow. What in your mind is equivalent of "I do x becouse bible say x" in atheism?
Having a worldview isn't just a motivation, but a manner and mode of thinking which changes all of your goals and conceptions about the world around you, as well as your interaction with the goals and conceptions of others.
You post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.
The only way you can make your claim is if your position is somehow sanctified as the neutral cultural norm. Now think about the argument in reverse from the opposite perspective.
I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.
I strongly agree with you that people should be more mindful of psychology and that any logical deduction relies on a correct set of underlying assumptions but I you are not correctly representing that one one side of this argument no attempt is made to employ logic at all. I won't by any means claim that all arguments I've seen for atheism have been logically sound - but can you offer up a single one in the other direction?
One 'side'?
The entire push for the 'knowability' of nature comes from the platonic drive to know an ultimate form of the 'good'. Science isn't divorced from religion, its a direct response to the western conception of the divine. There's a reason why the west kept searching for the truth and kept pushing the boundaries of what's knowable, despite some instances of knowledge being interfered with.
In comparison, China, the only other society of similar (actually superior, during the timeframe) means compared with western europe actually banned the majority of scientific developments for many centuries. Japan similarly went through a period of cultural re-entrenchment. The west pushed forth because of a few core beliefs:
1) The world is knowable.
- This seems odd, because 'everyone' believes that, right? Wrong. Hindu and Buddist belief systems often posit the complete opposite: that those with knowledge are to strive to liberate others, but that they're ultimately removed from the flow of karma as superior beings. Hinduism goes as far as to construe the world as an illusion.
2) That knowing is useful.
- Why would this be useful in a largely agrarian pre-industrial revolutionary society? After the initial period of specialization and agrivariation which led to domestication, there was relatively little resources available to spend. In some areas, say, on easter island, the extra resources were used to build monuments to local chiefs. They all died. In some areas, the extra food was used to feed more people. This is the case during the Chinese period wherein advancement was banned in the interest of a static culture. In the west, knowledge itself was prized as an avenue towards the divine, and the rich strove to become leaders in the field of knowledge because of the prestige that the religious background gave it.
There's quite a bit more, but pretending that the two phenomena are distinct and that there's only room for antagonism is pretty contrary to the historical account. Its kinda like pretending that Christians are conservative, whereas in the majority of the world they're more akin to progressive liberals. There's so much context and back-story lost from these little 'my belief is better than yours' threads that its almost impossible to surmount. I've always found it odd that people loudly championing atheistic beliefs as a clarion call for rationality have substantial deficits in knowledge which prevent them from making rational judgments and viewing their own inherent assumptions. On the other end, I've always found it odd how confrontational many theists get, especially catholics, given how positive a golden rule approach would be.
Oh well, go back to throwing shit at each other. That's more fun to read.
It truly is amazing hearing this from the other end. Considering I distinctly remember posting the exact same thing in another religious thread somewhere.
Yes, when it comes down to it, Atheism is a system of belief, just as Religion is a system of belief, which can be further divided into individual religions. These systems of belief are ways we interpret value from world. Systems of belief are inherently subjective, and thus, none can be objectively better then another. People need systems of beliefs in order to function in this world, and any argument whos basis is inherently subjective is just a confliction of values in differing systems of beliefs.
You just realize that?
Indeed If you tried to argue any actual position, you yourself would fall into the same fallacy's you deride us for falling into.
But of course, your better then arguing for any actual position right? You just get your kicks from laughing at people with ideals and convictions. Every single person marginalized or derided is just another mental victory. In the end, your viewpoint becomes nothing more then an useless structure to preposition yourself as superior to your fellow man, because you lack actual convictions. A kind of mental device to vindicate yourself as superior to everyone else, by the shear virtue of being detached and effectively redundant.
Its amazing how you can write so much and say absolutely nothing.
I'm sure you feel really proud about yourself. You want a cookie?
Its funny because despite your purported sophistication, you present an argument that has no more merit then Blitzkriegs criticism of Atheism.
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
Essentially, you attempt to attack the integrity of an argument for Atheism from the role of an outsider. due to its lack of empirical merit, despite the fact that Atheism does not claim to have emperical merit (in terms of "moral value"), only empirical social value in the context of the world today (not the world two thousand years ago), and subjective personal value.
On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote:also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.
What the hell is extreme atheist, how can you be extreme in your lack of belief in God? Lack of belief in God in itself does not motivate for anything good or bad. I kill people becouse I am atheist simply does not follow. What in your mind is equivalent of "I do x becouse bible say x" in atheism?
Having a worldview isn't just a motivation, but a manner and mode of thinking which changes all of your goals and conceptions about the world around you, as well as your interaction with the goals and conceptions of others.
You post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.
The only way you can make your claim is if your position is somehow sanctified as the neutral cultural norm. Now think about the argument in reverse from the opposite perspective.
I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.
I strongly agree with you that people should be more mindful of psychology and that any logical deduction relies on a correct set of underlying assumptions but I you are not correctly representing that one one side of this argument no attempt is made to employ logic at all. I won't by any means claim that all arguments I've seen for atheism have been logically sound - but can you offer up a single one in the other direction?
One 'side'?
The entire push for the 'knowability' of nature comes from the platonic drive to know an ultimate form of the 'good'. Science isn't divorced from religion, its a direct response to the western conception of the divine. There's a reason why the west kept searching for the truth and kept pushing the boundaries of what's knowable, despite some instances of knowledge being interfered with.
In comparison, China, the only other society of similar (actually superior, during the timeframe) means compared with western europe actually banned the majority of scientific developments for many centuries. Japan similarly went through a period of cultural re-entrenchment. The west pushed forth because of a few core beliefs:
1) The world is knowable.
- This seems odd, because 'everyone' believes that, right? Wrong. Hindu and Buddist belief systems often posit the complete opposite: that those with knowledge are to strive to liberate others, but that they're ultimately removed from the flow of karma as superior beings. Hinduism goes as far as to construe the world as an illusion.
2) That knowing is useful.
- Why would this be useful in a largely agrarian pre-industrial revolutionary society? After the initial period of specialization and agrivariation which led to domestication, there was relatively little resources available to spend. In some areas, say, on easter island, the extra resources were used to build monuments to local chiefs. They all died. In some areas, the extra food was used to feed more people. This is the case during the Chinese period wherein advancement was banned in the interest of a static culture. In the west, knowledge itself was prized as an avenue towards the divine, and the rich strove to become leaders in the field of knowledge because of the prestige that the religious background gave it.
There's quite a bit more, but pretending that the two phenomena are distinct and that there's only room for antagonism is pretty contrary to the historical account. Its kinda like pretending that Christians are conservative, whereas in the majority of the world they're more akin to progressive liberals. There's so much context and back-story lost from these little 'my belief is better than yours' threads that its almost impossible to surmount. I've always found it odd that people loudly championing atheistic beliefs as a clarion call for rationality have substantial deficits in knowledge which prevent them from making rational judgments and viewing their own inherent assumptions. On the other end, I've always found it odd how confrontational many theists get, especially catholics, given how positive a golden rule approach would be.
Oh well, go back to throwing shit at each other. That's more fun to read.
You're confusing the historical background with truth. Christianity may or may not have contributed to a culture that values knowledge, but that is entirely besides the point of whether or not the claims of the religion are true. In particular that one point concerning whether or not god actually exist is in question. It really does not matter if christianity makes people into super nice cuddle machines that work their entire lives to spread love and understanding to the less fortunate.
As for the reason science and religion are distinct is that science in its very definition does not allow for religious thinking. There are plenty of people that fit both in their minds, but that is a matter of cognitive dissonance and does not reflect the philosophical compatibility of the two.
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity.
Case in point.
It's a pretty big assumption to say that scientific advancement is synonymous with making the world a better place. I think I'd rather be a hunter gatherer than go to college.
On September 20 2010 04:08 Cantankerous wrote: However, the fact that neither can be proven does not mean that both are equally likely.
This is a good point. Thousands of years of observing stuff falling to the ground doesn't prove that your monitor will fall to the ground if you push it off the desk. However, I think we can intuitively agree that it is more likely the monitor will indeed fall, than that it won't.
The problem is that we use inductive reasoning to come to the conclusion that the monitor will fall if we push it. Technically, inductive reasoning is a logical fallacy. However, it works, and it is what science is built on.
Not to make this sound like the atheist support club where we go to pat each other on the back but this is also a very good point that needs to be stressed
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity.
Case in point.
It's a pretty big assumption to say that scientific advancement is synonymous with making the world a better place. I think I'd rather be a hunter gatherer than go to college.
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Interesting point given the fact that the Church, I'm sure, could make an enormous difference in say building/digging wells, schools, and teaching safe sex in Africa.
you're right, non-religious folk clearly don't know how to use condoms or shovels.
A excellent speech by Dawkins. I find it ridiculous that anyone takes the Pope seriously. Because he says something, it makes it worth discussing about? Dawkins has devoted his life to discussing it, so I honor him for it. But why all this arguing? Let the religious people live their own world, they're the ones missing out.
op is a little misleading. i feel that he's not saying that without christianity, society would crumble, but rather that with christian values in mind, society could improve.
Why are people like you so fucking arrogant? Some of the most powerful nations on earth were built upon the absence of religion, and many world powers today are mostly irreligious, like Japan and Korea, and many moderate European Nations like Sweden and Denmark.
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Now this is slightly less common among the younger generation but it did play a significant part both of those nations history.
In Scandinavia you had the early Nordic Gods, and there was also a strong Christian movement in Denmark at least (Catholic and Protestant) again this are less common now with the younger generation but religion has played a part in the country as it developed.
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Japan is 65% irreligious. Denmark is 80%. Scandinavia is 70%.
I said "mostly", not entirely. Unless your case is that the 20-35% of those societies is alone holding up the other % that is Atheist scum.
And buddhist values are not Christian values. They are not comparable. In fact, buddhism has as much in common with many non-religious philosophies as it does with Christianity.
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
I heard Einstein was pretty smart. Newton? A lot of people actually. In fact some monk found out how cells and basic genetics work. Even DARWIN was a priest (or monk forget) when he studied the Galapagos Islands (sp?). In fact people who are religious are people who question and see order and wonder why this is or that is. In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them.
I've heard its going down because poor people have more kids and poor people are usually less educated/intelligent. Smart people tend to have less kids and focus on individual pursuits, whether that be business, science, or faith.
Einstein was spiritual, saying that "God" was in the beauty and complexity of nature. And the graph up there is the most moronic thing anyone could ever have though of. If it wasn't for Islam, a lot of the scientific progress would've been lost - same goes the other way around. Who exactly do you guys think printed the theories? Sure, the dark ages are called dark for a reason, but using the dark ages as a reason for religion being bad is like using the Hiroshima as an argument that science is bad...
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Japan is 65% irreligious. Denmark is 80%. Scandinavia is 70%.
I said "mostly", not entirely. Unless your case is that the 20-35% of those societies is alone holding up the other % that is Atheist scum.
And buddhist values are not Christian values. They are not comparable. In fact, buddhism has as much in common with many non-religious philosophies as it does with Christianity.
Please don't dissect parts of my posts and only choose bits and pieces that might help your argument. Argue against the whole statement not parts that you manipulate and take out of context. I also realize you said 'Some of the most powerful nations'. All I did was take the examples given and dispute what you said with fact.
I didn't say that it was the predominant belief, I said it's still a prominent belief in these countries. Many politicians and leaders in these countries still hold to their beliefs as do the older generation. I said that it is less common now among the younger generation (generally 30 years old and younger). I also stated that they played a significant part in history not that they are the be all end all now.
Please don't act like I have a hate on for atheists, I have never once stated in any post that I have an issue with Atheism, it is a belief and you're perfectly entitled to it. I don't think it's wrong or right, it's just what you choose to believe or not believe. I don't think a persons religious beliefs make them inherently a bad person. A priest doesn't decide molest children because he Catholic nor does an Atheist. The world doesn't work like that. People aren't 'A Christian who is a bad person' or 'A Atheist who is a bad person' it's 'A bad person who happens to be Christian/Atheist/Muslim/etc.' Point is, avoiding using phrases like 'Atheist scum' to try and make me come across as some non-religious hating person.
If you're going to argue at least do it intelligently and logically, not by nit picking, twisting words, and demonizing anyone that doesn't believe as you do you are no better than the extremists of any religion who do the same thing.
On September 20 2010 02:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote: the rejection of the notion that God exists would be Weak Atheism which is essentially a form of Agnosticism
Weak Atheism is as much a form of agnosticism as a blue castle is a shade of blue. I would let this slide, not wanting to turn this into a semantics discussion, where it not for the fact that a lot of evangelical christians seem to want to discredit atheism by claiming that all atheists are in fact 'just' agnostics, and that there are no 'real' atheists. I'm not saying you are one of those, I'm just explaining why I think it's important to point this out.
I apologize, I didn't mean to say Atheism, specifically Weak Atheism, was the same as Agnosticism.
I merely wanted to emphasize that Weak Atheism (as well as Weak Theism) are both compatible with Agnosticism, whereas Strong Atheism/Theism are not compatible with Agnosticism.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/darkages.gif)
![[image loading]](http://images.loqu.com/photos/481/334/the-bullets-are-real-your-god-is-not.jpg)
