|
On July 14 2008 01:11 Funchucks wrote:
If you don't already agree with him, he just makes you mad.
He's a polarizer, not a persuader, and therefore a bad influence in the world.
Furthermore, he has a dangerously naive view of humanity. Civilization is not based on reason and natural goodwill, it is based on getting cooperation and appropriate behavior by hook or by crook. We need the cooperation of people who are fundamentally incapable of good reasoning and uncoerced decency, because they exist in large numbers.
Religion is one of the essential tools for the reasoners to control the unreasoning. The people who will follow bad reasoning and plausible lies easily had better be given some productive bad reasoning and plausible lies to follow before they latch onto some destructive ones.
And nobody can come out and say this in response to his attacks. They'd only help him undermine what they're trying to accomplish.
I'm not a fan.
the problem is that mainstream religions are not designed to be productive, theyre designed to give control to the people preaching them and alot of the methods/results of gaining that control have very unproductive results for society ('radical' islam and the red states most noticeably right now)
and you cant really blame him and the others for polarizing when addressing issues like that, because anyone who buys into the sort of religion that is most dangerous (the fundamentalists) will necessarily be deeply offended by ANY sort of criticism on their religion, no matter how nicely put or reasonable it is.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 14 2008 01:10 MasterOfChaos wrote:
The main problem with science and atheism is, that it does not provide an answer for the meaning of life. Just maximizing happiness seems a bit shallow.
You are simply presented with the facts that in a hundred years you don't exist anymore, and with great probability(unless you did something really remarkable) nobody remembers you another hundred years later. This is very depressing imo.
well your misery on this concept has little to do with the subject mater. from an athiest standpoint you are lucky to have the opportunity to live, to take an existentialist approach and manifest your own meanings from this life.
|
Nice to see your opinion on the matter tasteless. I always enjoy the dawkins' and hitchens' and dennets of the world. Sometimes I can go on into the wee hours of the morning watching their debates and speeches.
My only criticism of Dawkins is that his sense of humour is really...
really...
REALLY
lame ><
I also think that the more you watch and read Dawkins, the more you realise he doesn't mean to simply insult religion, but convey the extent to which many of the intelligentsia of the world deride the concept of believing something extremely vehemently for which you have no substantial scientific evidence.
|
I just watched the Q&A session he had where all the students from Liberty Uni asked him questions. He destroyed them. I agree however that his style wont win over many religious people.
|
Love Dawkins, he's great. I think I've watch mostly everything on youtube, as well as a few good anti-creationist and pro-evolution videos to boot. He's a great place to start for any prospective atheist.
I'm not too big a fan of christopher hitchens though. That guy was a big supporter of the war on terror, and I can't reconcile that with any of his witty atheist comments. Yes, fundamentalism can be extremely dangerous, but you can't win minds by fighting constant warfare.
|
The thought of death without an afterlife doesn't have to be depressing. You can try to make the best of your life, and have a positive influence on the world somehow. Change the world somehow. Sounds like a naive proposal made in movies. But it's true.  You can use your life to make the world a better place. Or just use your time to have the most fun possible.
Doesn't that sound even better than just living by some more or less stupid rules of your religion and then "hoping" to die so that you get to a better place? That's just like daydreaming.
And if you die, it's basically like going to sleep - you're simply gone for a time (in this case, forever :p) and don't even know about it. That's why I'm not particularly afraid of it (although I'd rather live long, of course). I know that when it happens, I won't notice it anyway. Apart from possible pain beforehand, depending on the circumstances. :>
|
I've watched Enemies of Reason the whole 2 parts. He enphasizes that we should trust the normal medicine. He goes against homeopathic medicine. On many interviews in his documentary he simply doesn't acknowledge the existence of other possibilites for treating the diseases.
I mean at the end when the lady asks him why then people come to homeopathic medicine and not normal medicine and they get a lot better he doesn't give any real answer. So what if it's placebo effect? From my knowledge the homeopathic medicine is a lot cheaper too and with greater effects on the long run. Why should I pay more for the same effect?
He doesn't seem to be open minded to me at all. There are more ways to achieve the same results. Sure one of them is through scientific proof. But there are others.
|
well you're still very conscious when you're asleep, so its unfathomable to imagine what its like to be dead.
|
On July 14 2008 01:32 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
And if you die, it's basically like going to sleep - you're simply gone for a time (in this case, forever :p) and don't even know about it. That's why I'm not particularly afraid of it (although I'd rather live long, of course). I know that when it happens, I won't notice it anyway. Apart from possible pain beforehand, depending on the circumstances. :>
Im not scared of death, but the thought of death does frustrate me. To think that there is all this stuff to see and learn, yet your not given a hope of actually getting around to seeing and learning about it. I want to see what the world is like in 500 years time. Too bad I will (most likely) not get that chance. Its not scary, its just frustrating.
EDIT: To krazyfool, ever had one of those nights where you hit the pillow, blink and its morning?
|
I think Dawkins acknowledges that he doesn't try to butter up staunch religionists. His prime target is people sitting on the fence. He definitely wants all people to essentially cast religion back into the theoretical realm, along with communism etc; however the way he argues is generally about opening up the strength of the hand of science; and showing how it completely obliterates basic religious reasoning etc.
I think there is a great use for religion in society. I personally am very touched, profoundly so, by very good religious art. Something about the genuine, or even feigned, certainty that there is an amazing person who sacrificed himself for the human race watching over us all; and then writing poems, music and painting pictures in his name, is very moving to me. Good religious art has a sense of purpose and certainty into which artists can pour all of their emotions. A song like jesu, joy of man's desiring (including the lyrics by martin jahn) is just simply beautiful and one of the most perfect songs in the world imo, and even if the creators of the work are not entirely religious, I can still feel the emotion far stronger than I can with many great songs which have less eternal and epic subjects.
|
On July 14 2008 01:25 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 01:10 MasterOfChaos wrote:
The main problem with science and atheism is, that it does not provide an answer for the meaning of life. Just maximizing happiness seems a bit shallow.
You are simply presented with the facts that in a hundred years you don't exist anymore, and with great probability(unless you did something really remarkable) nobody remembers you another hundred years later. This is very depressing imo. well your misery on this concept has little to do with the subject mater. from an athiest standpoint you are lucky to have the opportunity to live, to take an existentialist approach and manifest your own meanings from this life.
I think the issue with Chaos' argument, is that just because something provides an answer, does not make it correct. Santa Claus is an answer for the appearance of gifts under the christmas tree. To a child who has no other way of explaining this phenomenon, they will latch onto the only answer they know.
Religion is much the same way.
Besides, I agree with Tasteless, the point of life is not to be remembered. If you have a happy life, who gives a toss if anyone remembers it? You did, and you lived it, and that is all that matters.
|
On July 14 2008 01:37 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 01:32 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
And if you die, it's basically like going to sleep - you're simply gone for a time (in this case, forever :p) and don't even know about it. That's why I'm not particularly afraid of it (although I'd rather live long, of course). I know that when it happens, I won't notice it anyway. Apart from possible pain beforehand, depending on the circumstances. :> Im not scared of death, but the thought of death does frustrate me. To think that there is all this stuff to see and learn, yet your not given a hope of actually getting around to seeing and learning about it. I want to see what the world is like in 500 years time. Too bad I will (most likely) not get that chance. Its not scary, its just frustrating. EDIT: To krazyfool, ever had one of those nights where you hit the pillow, blink and its morning?
In regards to what happens after death not even science can explain it (other than the fact that our physical body dies). Sure I admit the possibility that maybe when you die you just die and that's it. But I also like to admit that there's a possibility that something happens when you die. Just because science doesn't have enough proofs of what happens, doesn't mean that life doesn't continue after you die in some sort of form or maybe even reincarnation.
Does anyone know if Richard Dawkins made some kind of documentary about the Philadelphia Experiment or maybe The Bermuda Triangle? Cause I would like to know his opinions on this strange phenomenas.
|
Germany2896 Posts
The question is do we really need to convert religious people to atheism. Perhaps they are happier believing in their faith with the certainity or at least hope of an afterlife. I don't know that, because I never believed in these things, evenso I am technically a Christian.
So we have some questions we need to answer before trying to convince relgious people that there is no god.
1) Will they be happier once they lost their faith?
2) If not, is it better for them to live in a happier delusion or in a less happy reality?
Giving them the choice is theoretically the best option. But you can't simply go back to a believer once you are convinced there is no god.
3) How sure are we that there is no christian(or similar) god? If there is a finite chance left that there is such a good, and as believers we get an infinite gain(afterlife), but as non believers only a finite gain(potentially happier life) the expectany value is higher for a believer. (See Blaise Pascal)
I am an atheist, and that will probably not change. But should we really try to convert other people?
|
It doesn't matter if you call the antagonist religion or science. The problem is people thinking for theirselves. They don't.
Also dawkings comes off as way cockier and not nearly as enlightened as I'd hope.
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. Science doesn't even acknowledge investigation of the self, which is absolutely ridiculous imo. Yeah, alot of use our technology is when we can't even control ourselves.
ok i mgoing off topic ill stop
|
On July 14 2008 01:49 Angel[BTL] wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 01:37 Fen wrote:On July 14 2008 01:32 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
And if you die, it's basically like going to sleep - you're simply gone for a time (in this case, forever :p) and don't even know about it. That's why I'm not particularly afraid of it (although I'd rather live long, of course). I know that when it happens, I won't notice it anyway. Apart from possible pain beforehand, depending on the circumstances. :> Im not scared of death, but the thought of death does frustrate me. To think that there is all this stuff to see and learn, yet your not given a hope of actually getting around to seeing and learning about it. I want to see what the world is like in 500 years time. Too bad I will (most likely) not get that chance. Its not scary, its just frustrating. EDIT: To krazyfool, ever had one of those nights where you hit the pillow, blink and its morning? In regards to what happens after death not even science can explain it (other than the fact that our physical body dies). Sure I admit the possibility that maybe when you die you just die and that's it. But I also like to admit that there's a possibility that something happens when you die. Just because science doesn't have enough proofs of what happens, doesn't mean that life doesn't continue after you die in some sort of form or maybe even reincarnation.
Well of course, no-one can truely tell us what happens beyond death, however the chances are, that not much is going to happen. Everything I think, feel and know is because I have cells in my body going about their chemical reactions. A thought process is transported by an influx of Sodium into cells and eflux of Potassium. You stop these chemical reactions, and the chances are, the resulting phenomenon that they create is also going to stop, leaving me with no thought and no feeling.
|
I disagree with Dawkins on many things. He isn't a good writer, I don't find him to be particularly interesting, and I find some of his theories to be a tad... wonky for lack of a better word.
|
On July 14 2008 01:10 MasterOfChaos wrote:
The main problem with science and atheism is, that it does not provide an answer for the meaning of life.
It's not it's problem. It's yours and it may be mine.
If you don't already agree with him, he just makes you mad.
He's a polarizer, not a persuader, and therefore a bad influence in the world.
There's tons of philosophers, historians and sociologists that would state a polarizing debate reduces violence in a society. And you state exactly why.
You need to accept that there are people who have an opinion that make you mad. If there is no polarization then there can also be no acceptance or tolerance since there is nothing to accept or tolerate. And then when the two sides of something can no longer ignore each other there may be violence and dehumanization.
Furthermore, he has a dangerously naive view of humanity.
This can't be stated often enough: naivety is a virtue. Your view is incredibly cynic. Even if you are right, it's bad.
The fundamental mistake that Atheists like Dawkins (as in, the ones that try to convert people to Atheism) make is this: They seem to think that every religion in the world is fundamentalist Christianity or Islam.
Your two usages of 'fundamental' is ironic. For centuries all religion has been what we would now call 'fundamentalism'. And the non-fundamentalist believers, which are something totally new, are either in transition towards atheism or they remain in a status quo using Orwellian double think. The only reason we now have these 'liberal theists' is because there are now also atheists'.
Fundamentalists are the foundation of modern religion. Fundamentalism is the true nature of religion.
You can't convert people to atheism. And I don't understand why you think Dawkins does that. I mean, it's an moronical statement.
And wasn't Dawkins attacked earlier in this topic for not trying hard enough to convince people but rather presenting people the blunt results of science? Now he gets the exact opposite criticism?
That sentence is a fine example of arrogance. How can you expect people to listen to you if you insult their intelligence.
Yeah. Actually, the more educated a person is or becomes, the more likely that person is an atheist. Stats show this. And stats go up all the way. Each step from a high school drop-out to a science Nobel prize winner the percentage of atheists increase. Totally consistent. At least I saw those stats for the US. Probably uneducated people in the other industrialized/western countries are more reasonable.
I've watched Enemies of Reason the whole 2 parts. He enphasizes that we should trust the normal medicine. He goes against homeopathic medicine. On many interviews in his documentary he simply doesn't acknowledge the existence of other possibilites for treating the diseases.
You know what homeopathy is right?
Apparently not. I guess that was in part 1.
[edit]
Wait. I misread. I thought you said you saw part 2 only. So I don't understand why you say what you say. By definition of what they are both homeopathy and astrology must be wrong.
And once something is proven to work and live up to the very high standards, it's mainstream medicine.
Well of course, no-one can truely tell us what happens beyond death
We know very well what happens after death. Our cognition/consciousness is the product of a neural network made up of our brain cells. Once the brain stops getting oxygen brain activity starts to cease and neural net patterns degrade. Our bodies, including the brain cells, get eaten/digested by other organisms. The cells get broken down into bare molecules and are used as nutrition.
And that's it. We stop existing.
It's like saying a computer program is still running somewhere beyond in some void after you have literally evaporated the hardware it was running on in a 10,000 degrees hot oven because 'suddenly' the program is gone and no where to be found.
|
Sydney2287 Posts
The first 5 or 6 posts convinced me to finally buy some of richard dawkin's books.
3 of them coming in in 3 days, I can't wait 
|
On July 14 2008 01:52 MasterOfChaos wrote:
The question is do we really need to convert religious people to atheism. Perhaps they are happier believing in their faith with the certainity or at least hope of an afterlife. I don't know that, because I never believed in these things, evenso I am technically a Christian.
So we have some questions we need to answer before trying to convince relgious people that there is no god.
1) Will they be happier once they lost their faith?
2) If not, is it better for them to live in a happier delusion or in a less happy reality?
Giving them the choice is theoretically the best option. But you can't simply go back to a believer once you are convinced there is no god.
3) How sure are we that there is no christian(or similar) god? If there is a finite chance left that there is such a good, and as believers we get an infinite gain(afterlife), but as non believers only a finite gain(potentially happier life) the expectany value is higher for a believer. (See Blaise Pascal)
I am an atheist, and that will probably not change. But should we really try to convert other people?
No, because religion is a reflection of humanities need for comfort. About issues of death, and life. Many people cannot cope with life, without the belief they are eternally protected by a god.
However religion causes many bad things to happen as well.
If we were to convert everyone immediately there would be a problem, but a gradual dissipation of the irrationality of religion, I certainly believe there would be a positive outcome.
Also, Pascals wager makes very little sense. If I believe in the christian god, I could easily go to the hell of Anubis, Zeus, Odin, Allah, etc. There are thousands of gods, and there have been thousands of successful religions. If one of them is right, it isn't necessarily the christian faith which seems to be synonymous with the word "religion" in most arguments.
|
On July 14 2008 01:55 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 01:49 Angel[BTL] wrote:On July 14 2008 01:37 Fen wrote:On July 14 2008 01:32 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
And if you die, it's basically like going to sleep - you're simply gone for a time (in this case, forever :p) and don't even know about it. That's why I'm not particularly afraid of it (although I'd rather live long, of course). I know that when it happens, I won't notice it anyway. Apart from possible pain beforehand, depending on the circumstances. :> Im not scared of death, but the thought of death does frustrate me. To think that there is all this stuff to see and learn, yet your not given a hope of actually getting around to seeing and learning about it. I want to see what the world is like in 500 years time. Too bad I will (most likely) not get that chance. Its not scary, its just frustrating. EDIT: To krazyfool, ever had one of those nights where you hit the pillow, blink and its morning? In regards to what happens after death not even science can explain it (other than the fact that our physical body dies). Sure I admit the possibility that maybe when you die you just die and that's it. But I also like to admit that there's a possibility that something happens when you die. Just because science doesn't have enough proofs of what happens, doesn't mean that life doesn't continue after you die in some sort of form or maybe even reincarnation. Well of course, no-one can truely tell us what happens beyond death, however the chances are, that not much is going to happen. Everything I think, feel and know is because I have cells in my body going about their chemical reactions. A thought process is transported by an influx of Sodium into cells and eflux of Potassium. You stop these chemical reactions, and the chances are, the resulting phenomenon that they create is also going to stop, leaving me with no thought and no feeling.
this is what science does. it changes the way people view the world. just like religion.
but the problem is, when people change the way they view the world they close up to other possibilities. science does nothing to hint at the nature of the universe. science just says what rules are in effect. your entire parapgraph is assumption with, honestly, no basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
