Atheism will eat itself

[Domino]

everyone knows google is the one true god

 

» The Church of Google

 

google be with you

[MkII]

everyone knows google is the one true god

 

» The Church of Google

 

google be with you

Yeah I love that

[MkII]

But that's entirely my point. Any natural phenomenon that couldn't be explained would be described as an act of god. As our understanding of our universe grows, via various methodologies, we attribute less of it to some heavenly creator.

Yeah but those are all things that should never have been attributed to God in the first place. God does not equal everything unexplained. Only as lame answer fodder for little children. There is a grown up version too.

Edited January 12, 2009 by MkII

[fafster]

Yeah but those are all things that should never have been attributed to God in the first place. God does not equal everything unexplained. Only as lame answer fodder for little children. There is a grown up version too.

 

Ok, you explain to me what you define as god, and I'll tell you why it's nonsense

[gwendes]

You did say you weren't certain - I then asked the question if you agreed that you were technically agnostic but in real terms you describe yourself as Christian.

 

I'm not certain there isn't, you're not certain there is. We've independently reached conclusions of probability on opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

Where do dead people go? Is there anything more to coincidences? What are dreams all about? The exploration potential is huge, and a natural instinct to explore I think.

 

Asking the question presupposes an answer. We shouldn't assume that there always is. Sometimes there is an answer but we shouldn't treat the questions unscientifically.

 

I see perfection in the same way that fafster is saying - ie it's beautiful. I think you do too? Like I think I've said, to me the laws of physics are beautiful. If anything was created, they were. Everything follows that.

 

I can see beauty in nature, maths, physics etc but I also see pain and suffering. The natural world is a violent, dangerous and extreme environment - I think this contradicts the idea of a creator with an intention for mankind. Our first ancestors could have so easily been destroyed when they numbered only a few. Was there a God watching out for them? I don't imagine you believe there was. What of God if they hadn't survived? For me questions like this refute the argument that God exists.

 

terms that would be influenced by a God of course dummy!

 

...morality, well being, motivation, charity... etc

 

Probably very similar. You mug, rape, murder and steal too, right? Doesn't my rejection of religion support the idea that it doesn't make you a better person.

 

 

Am I pre-disposed? Looking at the interest you have in the subject I'd say you think about it more than I do. After that it's just circumstance that leads to any affiliation, which I think is immaterial.

 

Perhaps. I may very think about the subject more. Perhaps that's a predisposition. I think it's very dangerous for people to think and teach that faith is a virtue... you can't start off assuming that there is no God, you MIGHT go to heaven! I think you'd support religious texts carrying an (18) sticker, wouldn't you? Young minds need to learn to think and doubt before certainties about the universe are forced upon them.

 

He had a bad experience of some offthe wall thinking and that gives him the right to go whoop on people's asses. I don't think so.

 

 

I agree with countering crackpot ideas. Dawkins ignorantly takes it further and condemns all IT Professionals as well. Are you incensed? ARE YOU!!!

 

No. He challenges dangerous thinking where it conflicts with what we know about the universe. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. He's a scientist that released a book, 'The Selfish Gene' and found himself in the firing line of religion.

 

He is not challenging liberal religion but he is incensed by what religion does and the power it maintains based on unsubstantiated ideas and outright lies. Dawkins would not have a problem with your beliefs for example - the fact that you are prepared to discuss what and why you believe is well beyond what he would ask people to do!

 

 

1. Yes he does.

2. only doubt does?

 

Name one thing that God has given a solution to? In every case we need premises like 'If God exists and God is all-good.' which you would agree with and I wouldn't.

 

Doubt answers questions by providing a model. Assuming there is a God distorts both any given question and the answer.

Edited January 12, 2009 by gwendes

[Anon]

This book is a good read for anyone that's willing to explore spirituality/dreams/the after"life" from a scientific stand point.

 

I used to be atheist, now Im agnostic and I see hard nosed atheists, such as Dawkins, as being just as bad as stubborn religious folk in terms of open-mindness. I recognise the damage done by organised religions but I don't condemn all religious or spiritual attitudes. For the most part religious people are good people, but I've also met many that are pure evil who think they are good because they follow the words of another. foolish.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Anon

[MkII]

You did say you weren't certain - I then asked the question if you agreed that you were technically agnostic but in real terms you describe yourself as Christian.

 

I'm not certain there isn't, you're not certain there is. We've independently reached conclusions of probability on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Well it looks like we're standing back to back in the middle (in your reality at least).

 

I am certain of my belief, necessarily doubtful and constantly questioning of that certainty. Technically, you're suggesting that all Christians are agnostic, because they can't know what they believe beyond doubt. That sounds correct. Doubt is a very powerful, central part of faith.

 

Doubt in God is central. Assuming that there is a God is a step too far, like you say, that assumption makes doubt invalid, and the Bible backs up what you are saying.

 

 

Asking the question presupposes an answer. We shouldn't assume that there always is. Sometimes there is an answer but we shouldn't treat the questions unscientifically.

Your point being?/ I think the same.

 

 

I think this (suffering) contradicts the idea of a creator with an intention for mankind.

It contradicts the idea of a creator who didn't create the laws of physics, a creator who is described as weeping over human suffering...

 

 

(how different are our lives) Probably very similar. You mug, rape, murder and steal too, right?

Of course

 

Doesn't my rejection of religion support the idea that it doesn't make you a better person.

So you're a better person because you reject religion. If I thought religion is what you say it is then I 100% agree with that statement.

 

 

I think it's very dangerous for people to think and teach that faith is a virtue... you can't start off assuming that there is no God, you MIGHT go to heaven! I think you'd support religious texts carrying an (18) sticker, wouldn't you? Young minds need to learn to think and doubt before certainties about the universe are forced upon them.

That sadly assumes that all child carers are monsters. You'd take away freedom and put in it's place pure science. Disregard art, music & love because they couldn't be guaranteed to be pure. Very sad.

 

Faith is a virtue. I'm faithful to my wife and she is to me. i'm no childcare expert. My wife is far better at it. I think I'm right in saying though that it's the responsibility of parents/ guardians to teach children a moral framework. Equally important is also the responsibility to teach trust and truth. Fairy stories are lies and break trust.

 

 

Name one thing that God has given a solution to? In every case we need premises like 'If God exists and God is all-good.' which you would agree with and I wouldn't.

So you're asking what God solves to you without existing to you

 

Presuming you aren't asking for undeniable proof of this, as of course you know that such a request would be idiotic... erm...

 

God solves:

• many intellectual questions satisfactorily
  
• many moral questions
  
• religion and him being distant
  
• what matters in life
  
• doubt
  
• pure love
  
• life
  

Edited January 12, 2009 by MkII

[zag]

Bought my atheist t-shirt the other day

[gwendes]

Well it looks like we're standing back to back in the middle (in your reality at least).

 

Close to the edge of 100% either way. Any Christian that doubts God is technically agnostic. Some don't and their interpretations become things like Westboro. Most Christians are probably not 100% certain that God exists but think that He probably exists and life their lives on the assumption that He does.

 

Doubt is a very powerful, central part of faith.

Doubt in God is central.

...and the Bible backs up what you are saying.

 

That's not the way that I see it. Religious leaders and texts do not support this idea.

 

I've been in churches and never heard the words 'very likely' or 'probably' with reference to God - if it's important to doubt then why?

 

It contradicts the idea of a creator who didn't create the laws of physics, a creator who is described as weeping over human suffering...

 

This is the Judao-Christian God. Even if Genesis is metaphorical you still have a God that, by definition, is all loving and all-knowing - if he isn't 'weeping' He either doesn't know or He doesn't care.

 

A god that simply made the Big Bang happen and hasn't intervened since is not the J-C God.

 

So you're a better person because you reject religion. If I thought religion is what you say it is then I 100% agree with that statement.

 

No. I'm just not a worse person and I think that's important. However, I do think that religion has made some perfectly reasonable people become very dangerous.

 

Disregard art, music & love because they couldn't be guaranteed to be pure. Very sad.

 

No. Disregard religious claims to have certainty (same can be said for things like advertising). I'm not really sure that art and music appreciation are taught... I pinched* my brothers CDs and educated myself!

 

*Yeah, yeah. I'm totally going to Hell.

 

Faith is a virtue. I'm faithful to my wife and she is to me.

 

Faith to a deity and being faithful to a partner are very different. One is belief without evidence and the other is based on trust in another human.

 

Faith in a deity cannot fail due to evidence since the non-existent don't leave proof of their non-existence! Being faithful of a partner can fail, you both have the potential to damage or break the relationship.

 

So you're asking what God solves to you without existing to you

 

Spot on.

 

God solves:

• many intellectual questions satisfactorily
  
• many moral questions
  
• religion and him being distant
  
• what matters in life
  
• doubt
  
• pure love
  
• life
  

 

Is the solution 'loving God' or similar in all cases? I cannot see one solution or answer there. Particularly if you come from the position of doubt being important - perhaps the 'answers' are not correct...

 

I would never pretend that there were answers or that I had them but this doesn't leave me feeling vunerable.

 

I used to be atheist, now Im agnostic and I see hard nosed atheists, such as Dawkins, as being just as bad as stubborn religious folk in terms of open-mindness. I recognise the damage done by organised religions but I don't condemn all religious or spiritual attitudes.

 

What made you change your mind?

 

Can you point me towards the 'damage' done in the name of Atheism that supports your claim that Dawkins is as bad as, for example, Rev. Falwell or Ted Haggard.

 

Please read a little about these guys before replying - Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett etc are intellictuals, educated and informed about their subject areas, science and that of those that they hope to put an end to.

 

Falwell was an aggressive business-man that offered salvation in exchange for cash, nothing short of a con-man. You cannot declare that God is on your side to preach hate - this is what the Four Horseman* would stop from happening.

 

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell]Jerry Falwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard]Ted Haggard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

These are not typical of religion but religion enables them. I'd like to know what Atheism has done in it's name that you think is comparable.

 

*"The Four Horsemen" (2008) is the first episode of a series of videos entitled Discussions with Richard Dawkins; Discussants are prominent atheists Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. The quartet themselves are occasionally referred to as "The Four Horsemen", as well. - wiki

[gwendes]

Bought my atheist t-shirt the other day

 

RDF 'A'?

[Anon]

What made you change your mind?

 

Can you point me towards the 'damage' done in the name of Atheism that supports your claim that Dawkins is as bad as, for example, Rev. Falwell or Ted Haggard.

 

Please read a little about these guys before replying - Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett etc are intellictuals, educated and informed about their subject areas, science and that of those that they hope to put an end to.

 

Falwell was an aggressive business-man that offered salvation in exchange for cash, nothing short of a con-man. You cannot declare that God is on your side to preach hate - this is what the Four Horseman* would stop from happening.

 

Jerry Falwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ted Haggard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

These are not typical of religion but religion enables them. I'd like to know what Atheism has done in it's name that you think is comparable.

 

 

Did I say there was any damage done in the name of Atheism? No.

I don't want to get caught up in arguing about religion on the internet, it's totaly fruitless.

 

I did however say that Dawkins could be as bad as fundamentalist religious folk in his approach in dealing with people that have attitudes or beliefs which contradict his. When I watched his series "The enemies of reason" I was prepared to see a fair, scientific approach of a range of subjects that science can't, or is in the process of trying to, explain.

 

What I saw was a dogmatic, closed minded, debunking operation set out to discredit anyone who disagreed with Dawkins world view.

 

Dawkins is a smart man, Im not denying that. I just think that his arrogance gets in the way of making any real progress with spirituality and the sciences.

[gwendes]

Did I say there was any damage done in the name of Atheism? No.

I don't want to get caught up in arguing about religion on the internet, it's totaly fruitless.

 

This is why I feel that religion deserves to be actively challenged.

 

I did however say that Dawkins could be as bad as fundamentalist religious folk in his approach in dealing with people that have attitudes or beliefs which contradict his.

 

How can that be possible when compared to the examples I gave? Dawkins hates the things that attack his field. He's passionate about expanding the knowledge of biology that religion attacks.

 

When I watched his series "The enemies of reason" I was prepared to see a fair, scientific approach of a range of subjects that science can't, or is in the process of trying to, explain.

 

What I saw was a dogmatic, closed minded, debunking operation set out to discredit anyone who disagreed with Dawkins world view.

 

We clearly saw a different programme.

 

Dawkins is a smart man, Im not denying that. I just think that his arrogance gets in the way of making any real progress with spirituality and the sciences.

 

Would it still be called arrogance if he was challenging something like the fact that fairies are responsible for holding down everything on the planet? Why is it ok for religion to attack biology because it goes against an ancient text and not okay for religion to attack physics or chemistry?

 

If the two are ultimately incompatible does 'spirituality' have a place?

[Anon]

How can that be possible when compared to the examples I gave? Dawkins hates the things that attack his field. He's passionate about expanding the knowledge of biology that religion attacks.

 

We clearly saw a different programme.

 

He wasn't interested in seeing evidence from Rupert Sheldrake concerning his research into telepathy. Even Dawkins called the series a"high grade debunking exercise.

Very unbiased and scientific of him.

 

 

 

Would it still be called arrogance if he was challenging something like the fact that fairies are responsible for holding down everything on the planet? Why is it ok for religion to attack biology because it goes against an ancient text and not okay for religion to attack physics or chemistry?

 

If the two are ultimately incompatible does 'spirituality' have a place?

 

The spiritual world shouldn't attack scientific world and vice versa. The two can co-exist as they are both essential parts of the human experiance.

You can be a great scientist and still believe in the mystical.

 

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.

[gwendes]

He wasn't interested in seeing evidence from Rupert Sheldrake concerning his research into telepathy. Even Dawkins called the series a"high grade debunking exercise.

Very unbiased and scientific of him.

 

There are no double-blind, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that goes anyway towards supporting telepathy. Do enough experiments and reject the evidence against what you believe and occasionally, as with anything random, you'll find supporting evidence.

 

If you think that telepathy is a reality then you'd make yourself very rich to demonstrate it with Mr James Randi...

 

Challenge Info

 

$1M is still available and I'm sure a positive result would have the attention of scientists and media worldwide overnight.

 

All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

 

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.

 

 

 

 

I'd grow tired of disproving claim after claim too. Science must be open-minded but there's surely a limit. After the first hundred studies come back with evidence against the paranormal the hundred-and-first is, although no less likely to succeed than those preceeding, a little pointless.

 

If the paranormal worked under testable conditions and could be repeated it wouldn't be called paranormal, it would be called science.

 

We should be open-minded but not so open-minded that our brains spill out.

 

 

The spiritual world shouldn't attack scientific world and vice versa. The two can co-exist as they are both essential parts of the human experiance.

You can be a great scientist and still believe in the mystical.

 

I think you would need to pigeon-hole the ideas seperately in your mind. I reject the idea that both are essential. If the paranormal is proven and becomes science then I'm interested - anything else is hearsay, coincidence or natural.

[gwendes]

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.

 

He's saying it's bad to stop asking the questions of the mysterious. He is not saying we should believe that there are people genuinely communicating with dead relatives on prime-time TV - Einstein, I'm sure, would be in favour of Randi.

 

I would also guess that he didn't support the idea of believing things were mysterious because they are not currently understood. If you want genuinely confusing stuff take a look at the quantum world not the 'paranormal' and it's multi-billion dollar industry.

[Anon]

There are no double-blind, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that goes anyway towards supporting telepathy. Do enough experiments and reject the evidence against what you believe and occasionally, as with anything random, you'll find supporting evidence.

 

If you think that telepathy is a reality then you'd make yourself very rich to demonstrate it with Mr James Randi...

 

Challenge Info

 

$1M is still available and I'm sure a positive result would have the attention of scientists and media worldwide overnight.

 

All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

 

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.

 

I didn't say I believed in telepathy.

I was just proving that Dawkins was not interested in seeing or discussing evidence concerning a subject that he raised with another scientist who is researching it. That's all.

 

 

I'd grow tired of disproving claim after claim too. Science must be open-minded but there's surely a limit. After the first hundred studies come back with evidence against the paranormal the hundred-and-first is, although no less likely to succeed than those preceeding, a little pointless.

 

If the paranormal worked under testable conditions and could be repeated it wouldn't be called paranormal, it would be called science.

 

We should be open-minded but not so open-minded that our brains spill out.

 

 

 

 

I think you would need to pigeon-hole the ideas seperately in your mind. I reject the idea that both are essential. If the paranormal is proven and becomes science then I'm interested - anything else is hearsay, coincidence or natural.

 

Well that’s it. There are people researching the paranormal to bring their research into the realms of scientific studies, but it doesn't help that people like Dawkins try to shoot them down, claiming that their efforts are futile and that they should stop embarrassing themselves. It's a very old attitude to have.

 

 

He's saying it's bad to stop asking the questions of the mysterious. He is not saying we should believe that there are people genuinely communicating with dead relatives on prime-time TV - Einstein, I'm sure, would be in favour of Randi.

 

I thought he was saying that we should be able to just enjoy the thrill of the mystery, without having to claim that we know what it is. Just be a part of it.

 

I would also guess that he didn't support the idea of believing things were mysterious because they are not currently understood. If you want genuinely confusing stuff take a look at the quantum world not the 'paranormal' and it's multi-billion dollar industry.

 

Oh yes, the quantum world, to me, is far more interesting than the paranormal world. I like the idea of an unlimited number of universes where every possible outcome of every possible action is played out.

It would at least answer those that say "what are the chances that we're here? It must be God!"

When you get into the realm of an infinite number of possibilities then the improbable suddenly becomes a definite.

[MkII]

From your posts gwendes it would appear that you are a great evangelist for current populist beliefs. Back in the middle ages I think you would have been a great help as a witch hunter.

 

Close to the edge of 100% either way. Any Christian that doubts God is technically agnostic. Some don't and their interpretations become things like Westboro. Most Christians are probably not 100% certain that God exists but think that He probably exists and life their lives on the assumption that He does.

You know I think you seriously don't get it. I had a feeling using the word 'certain' would go badly wrong. Absolute tosh. Go back to square 1.

 

That's not the way that I see it. Religious leaders and texts do not support this idea.

 

I've been in churches and never heard the words 'very likely' or 'probably' with reference to God - if it's important to doubt then why?

 

This is the Judao-Christian God. Even if Genesis is metaphorical you still have a God that, by definition, is all loving and all-knowing - if he isn't 'weeping' He either doesn't know or He doesn't care.

Contradiction. The Bible says he weeps.

 

A god that simply made the Big Bang happen and hasn't intervened since is not the J-C God.

Agreed.

 

No. I'm just not a worse person and I think that's important. However, I do think that religion has made some perfectly reasonable people become very dangerous.

1. well that was what I was getting at

2. As has non religion. Non point.

 

Faith to a deity and being faithful to a partner are very different. One is belief without evidence and the other is based on trust in another human.

 

Faith in a deity cannot fail due to evidence since the non-existent don't leave proof of their non-existence! Being faithful of a partner can fail, you both have the potential to damage or break the relationship.

It's all faith. You can only know your own faith, the same as a partner can know theirs to you. It's the same with a deity... you know if you have faith and know if you're keeping your end of the bargain. Never does the JC God say he has faith in us. Existence or non is irrelevant to this point.

 

Is the solution 'loving God' or similar in all cases? I cannot see one solution or answer there. Particularly if you come from the position of doubt being important - perhaps the 'answers' are not correct...

Well it was a completely idiotic question. Tell me something that x solves where I don't accept x.

 

Likewise your summation beggars belief.

 

I would never pretend that there were answers or that I had them but this doesn't leave me feeling vulnerable.

[MkII]

Originally Posted by ittech: "Bought my atheist t-shirt the other day"

 

RDF 'A'?

 

Keep telling yourselves you're all individuals!

[MkII]

We clearly saw a different programme.

I saw exactly what anon saw too. I can only think that you are very blinkered.

 

Would it still be called arrogance if he (Richard Dawkins) was challenging something like the fact that fairies are responsible for holding down everything on the planet? Why is it ok for religion to attack biology because it goes against an ancient text and not okay for religion to attack physics or chemistry?

He IS only really attacking fairy stories because he doesn't start to consider genuine religion. He reduces genuine religion to superstition, that's his point. Except in quiet & private moments where he retracts any criticism of serious religion. That convenient back-pedal when confronted with serious argument, much like you use.

 

If the two are ultimately incompatible does 'spirituality' have a place?

And that's the sort of xenophobic reasoning you bring to the table.

[Jiser]

Basically we are simply advanced mammal calculators living on a small planet in the middle of nothingness!

 

Alot of incidents, wars and tension has been caused by so called people of faith.

[gwendes]

I didn't say I believed in telepathy.

I was just proving that Dawkins was not interested in seeing or discussing evidence concerning a subject that he raised with another scientist who is researching it. That's all.

 

I just think that it's not scientific. Science sets out to disprove a theory. Things like this set out to prove a theory.

 

I think it may even devalue science - where should we draw the line?

 

It's like the Church investing money to find God.

 

Well that’s it. There are people researching the paranormal to bring their research into the realms of scientific studies, but it doesn't help that people like Dawkins try to shoot them down, claiming that their efforts are futile and that they should stop embarrassing themselves. It's a very old attitude to have.

 

What if those scientists had a strong inner conviction that the sky is a carpet painted by God. Every peice of evidence we have suggests that it isn't but surely it is equally deserving of time, energy and funding. Afterall - all ideas are equally worthy in your opinion?

 

I thought he was saying that we should be able to just enjoy the thrill of the mystery, without having to claim that we know what it is. Just be a part of it.

 

I don't think so but perhaps.

 

 

When you get into the realm of an infinite number of possibilities then the improbable suddenly becomes a definite.

 

"In an infinite universe anything, even the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, is possible."

 

 

From your posts gwendes it would appear that you are a great evangelist for current populist beliefs. Back in the middle ages I think you would have been a great help as a witch hunter.

 

Come on.

 

You love science.

 

Investigation of every insane theory is a waste of time.

 

The difference between science in the Middle Ages is that now we have a peer-reviewed system and agreed standards. Modern science isn't about a personal hunch or saying what you think the government or king would like to hear.

 

Contradiction. The Bible says he weeps.

 

You JUST said He didn't.

 

It's all faith. You can only know your own faith, the same as a partner can know theirs to you. It's the same with a deity... you know if you have faith and know if you're keeping your end of the bargain. Never does the JC God say he has faith in us. Existence or non is irrelevant to this point.

 

Then everything is based on faith. I don't agree that the two are the same. I know, based on empirical evidence, that my partner exists and I think that's a major factor in deciding whether I have faith in her!

 

Keep telling yourselves you're all individuals!

 

Cheeky sod. Atheism isn't some emo-teenage-rebellion type of thing! Sometimes I wear t-shirts that support a cause I believe in...

 

My DNA says that I'm an individual but only a tiny, tiny bit individual.

 

He IS only really attacking fairy stories because he doesn't start to consider genuine religion. He reduces genuine religion to superstition, that's his point. Except in quiet & private moments where he retracts any criticism of serious religion. That convenient back-pedal when confronted with serious argument, much like you use.

 

What makes a religion genuine?

 

Although Dawkins does not agree with the religious he tries hard not distance the intentions of liberals and atheists in speaking out against the thing which is an active danger - fundamentalism.

 

The first person to question the burning of witches probably didn't get an easy ride either...

[gwendes]

[ame=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=quCVttW_Uhw]YouTube - James Randi and Richard Dawkins[/ame]

[MkII]

You JUST said He didn't (weep).

where? I thought you knew your bible anyway?

 

Then everything is based on faith. I don't agree that the two are the same. I know, based on empirical evidence, that my partner exists and I think that's a major factor in deciding whether I have faith in her!

No, not everything. I don't see how faith in your partner is any different, and you haven't rationalised why.

 

Cheeky sod. Atheism isn't some emo-teenage-rebellion type of thing! Sometimes I wear t-shirts that support a cause I believe in...

I believe you, I really do! (except the thing about not being part of a larger movement, that has no meetings, no leaders, no brainwashing, doesn't seek charity status... etc )

 

What makes a religion genuine?

What makes a science genuine? The same applies.

 

Although Dawkins does not agree with the religious he tries hard not distance the intentions of liberals and atheists in speaking out against the thing which is an active danger - fundamentalism.

..and is a fundamentalist himself.

 

The first person to question the burning of witches probably didn't get an easy ride either...

Dawkins is the Grand Inquisitor!

[MkII]

re James Randi: The terms 'science' and 'atheism' are as all encompassing as the concept of God. As much as I use the perfect construct of religion, so too do ppl use the perfect constructs of science and atheism:

 

"Science doesn't know anything"

 

"Atheism isn't a religion"

 

 

Do you use clear assertion but deny clear theological assertions?

[gwendes]

where? I thought you knew your bible anyway?

 

Sorry. I misread an earlier post.

 

It doesn't really matter if I know your Bible - it's all down to interpretation anyway. Makes you wonder why He wouldn't just stop His own suffering?

 

No, not everything. I don't see how faith in your partner is any different, and you haven't rationalised why.

 

It's hard to rationalise.

 

I suppose the premise of certainty of the existence of the thing that you are putting faith in is a start. I could prove that the person I put my faith or hope in actually exists. We would be able to agree on things like exact physical characteristics. That's a good starting point.

 

I believe you, I really do! (except the thing about not being part of a larger movement, that has no meetings, no leaders, no brainwashing, doesn't seek charity status... etc )

 

Meetings? Yeah, sorry about that one...

Leaders? Is that what maketh a religion?

Brainwashing? I think that's against the point. Humanist, atheist and freethinking groups are usually interchangeable - I can think of real examples of brainwashing from many religions but not a single, for example, Atheist school. Brainwashing adults is actually quite tough and I don't think there is any idea to support your claim. Religion does this and I'm glad you pointed this out when comparing the two.

Seeking charitable status? This is quite interesting. There are atheist charitable organisations already. Atheism is not looking for charitable status. Why did you raise this point? Have you got a problem with atheist charities or is it something that you associate only with religion?

 

What makes a science genuine? The same applies.

 

It doesn't and asking another question isn't answering mine. Genuine science is the process of attempting to disprove a theory based on doubt and reason. It is worldwide, peer-reviewed and embraced by almost all religions ('cept YEC and Scientology etc). It is fallible but is as good as is possible. Individual scientists may be biased or make mistakes but Science doesn't.

 

..and is a fundamentalist himself.

 

He really doesn't think there is a God, so? The question is why he should even need to describe himself as an a-theist and be challenging primitive beliefs that are attacking the science that works for the benefit of mankind.

 

Why don't physicists need to speak out against religion - because there isn't a conflict based on any ancient text. The Bible doesn't describe how angels push the planets.

 

I think you'd feel very differently about the way he speaks if there was a direct conflict that challenged something you believed strongly in. It wouldn't make you a fundamentalist just because you were made a spokesperson by your peers.

 

Dawkins wrote about biology and evolution - only very recently (2006) has he directly addressed the conflicts.

 

I don't think I can make you understand this.

 

Dawkins is the Grand Inquisitor!

 

Dawkins is the outspoken itelligent chap standing in the crowd calling foul. People generally don't like having their faith challenged. Hopefully our descendants will look back on these unenlightened times and agree on the absurdity of organised religion much like we do of the witch trials. I hold this hope because I don't think there can ultimately be freedom and peace with barriers like religion not because I want to remove human and civil rights.

 

re James Randi: The terms 'science' and 'atheism' are as all encompassing as the concept of God.

 

In that? I don't really understand. Sure, there are people that believe in Science but it's very different from believing in a God.

 

As much as I use the perfect construct of religion, so too do ppl use the perfect constructs of science and atheism:

 

"Science doesn't know anything"

 

"Atheism isn't a religion"

 

 

Do you use clear assertion but deny clear theological assertions?

 

A belief in science is something we all share. We all look at the world and attempt to disprove our own theories - all the time. We all believe in the method and have evidence of how successful that has been. Our jobs wouldn't be much with science!

 

Only when the two conflict do people pick a side.

 

Science doesn't KNOW anything. Science knows things! It's the model that holds disproving a long-held theory as the (sorry) 'Holy Grail'! We acheive more by finding out that we are wrong!

 

Atheism isn't a religion. It is a number of people that are united by not sharing the beliefs of a group of people that would very much (for some reason) like them to believe the same. Atheism only exists in response to religion.