Richard Dawkins' Brand of Atheism

Great Debates
101

Eh, the God Delusion was OK, but not his best work IMO. I got much more out of The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Selfish Gene, and The Ancestor’s Tale. I also love to watch his lectures and his UK only documentaries on youtube, he’s a very articulate and entertainingspeaker. Like I said before, I could listen to the man all day. I consider him a modern day Carl Sagan, a champion of science. I wish him a long life and many more future projects.

As for the ‘ascension’ or the public awakening of atheists, I’m loving it. No society I know of ever went wrong by being too rational. There is understandably going to be a backlash which can even be witnessed in this thread. Slowly the gears of progress turn…certainly, religion will never be completely destroyed. I’m sure many of the secular components can be cut away from its supernatural dogma.

102

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Bingo. There’s the problem. You defined Atheism in its Weak sense, then went and included the Strong strain under the umbrella. Now, if this was just the two of us in a bar discussiing this, you could simply tell me that you are defining the term in the Weak sense—or Strong—and we could proceed rather easily. But on a board like this when people of varying strains of Atheism are present and participate, once you make an argument to one person, another chimes in (of another strain) and it all gets conflated and confused. It results in a very sloppy, frustrating debate.
[/quote]

No, not really. Atheism, at least as I defined it, is a big tent encompassing all non-believers. This is how I experience most people USING the word atheist, even if they later insist it means something else.

But there isn’t any confusion added by the fact that some atheists make strong atheist claims, anymore than there are some Christians who insist that a cracker really turns into Jesus’ body and some don’t. So? Why are you so confused by the idea that different atheists have different opinions about stuff? Aside from not believing in god, they are just people, after all. They don’t necessarily have anything else in common.

Because it’s always an excuse to dump on atheists, as has been going on, in fact, in this very thread. It’s not very honest to declare that I have a chip on my shoulder when in fact I’m responding to some pretty darn lazy, content-free criticism. Nor is it illegitimate to point out that, both historically and in my experience, a large part of the confusion is brought in by theists and agnostics trying to divide and conquer with booby-trapped definitions.

I have no objection to defining terms and I’ve had no problem doing so. But in this case, and knowing you as a poster, well, I guess I don’t see it as a particularly sincere request, especially given that no one has suggested that we DON’T define terms. And since you know what the terms are and how they are used, and I don’t see any problem here with anyone not understanding them other than you making one.

103

Acid Lamp on Der Trihs:
[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
That is just awesome. You have summed up exactly why people dislike and distrust atheists. You are a walking example of everything that retards the transition away from formal religion.
[/QUOTE]
"Gee I was starting to realize how ridiculous it is to believe in god since there is absolutely no evidence for his existence. I was beginning to realize that I was indoctrinated against my will at birth to believe in this “god”, and that billions of others like me were also force-fed this nonsense before they had even an inkling of what objective, critical thinking is. Yes, I was finally prepared to return to human beings’ natural, normal, pre-brainwash state: the birth-state of atheism.

“The black clouds of lies, deceit and confusion had parted, revealing the infinite depths of rational nothingness behind them when suddenly, some mean poopy-pants on the internet named Der Trihs said some mean things and used nasty words. Now I’m determined to be more religious than ever! So there! nyah, nyah, nyah!!”

This is the same non-logic used around here before the 2004 election. Some morons posted then that they really were thinking about voting for Kerry but since others here posted mean rants against George W. Bush they now were definitely voting for Dubya.

104

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
That is probably the most ignorant thing I’ve seen you write, unless you are referring to the idea that only the fundamentalists are the problem. A “sideshow”? I don’t get it. If someone goes about their life keeping their beliefs to themselves and not indoctrinating their children, what harm is there in it?
[/QUOTE]
Not much, probably. Not only are they doing as little harm as you can expect from the religious, their beliefs will die out in a generation or two. Which is one of the reason they are a sideshow, as I put it. It’s the fundies who affect the world and whose belief’s persist; not the moderates. It’s the fundies who represent the core of religion.

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
You are a walking example of everything that retards the transition away from formal religion.
[/QUOTE]
You are free to believe that; I, on the other hand believe religiosity is mostly a matter of genetics and childhood indoctrination; I don’t believe anything I do or don’t do will affect people’s beliefs about religion or atheism. I could be a perfect, shining example of kindness and altruism and it wouldn’t make people like atheism any more; I could be a cannibal child molester and it won’t make the religious any more hostile towards atheism.

The religious are beyond reason and beyond the sway of external reality with regards to their religion; that is part of the essence of religion.

105

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Dawkins, like too many atheists, insist that science ‘disproves’ religion. What they all fail to comprehend is that the information we have now is not the information we will have twenty years hence or two hundred years hence. If there are twenty-nine dimesions, then possibility is limitless and we, with our flawed and tiny human comprehension, tend to be far too unrealistic in apprehending how little of all knowledge we actually have managed to understand.
[/quote]

I forget, is it Zeus or Thor that sends down thunderbolts? And is the sun still orbiting around the earth in your world? Burn any books lately?

Said description reminds me of a lot of X-tians. Like you fer instance.

As for the OP, I don’t waste my time IRL arguing over religious matters. Too tedious a task and I am not out to convince anyone that I’m right when it comes to sky-gods. But, by the same token, if and when the topic comes up, I feel no compunction whatsoever in letting anyone know that I am not a believer – from there on, I’ll give the same amount of respect given me. I’ve lost a friend or two along the way for this very reason. But then, I figure they really weren’t friends to begin with if they can’t stand the fact that I am a heathen. It’s part and parcel of who I am…and has been for many a decade.

106

[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I]
This is the same non-logic used around here before the 2004 election. Some morons posted then that they really were thinking about voting for Kerry but since others here posted mean rants against George W. Bush they now were definitely voting for Dubya.
[/QUOTE]
You have no idea of the guilt I live with, knowing that I was probably personally responsible for Kerry losing the election. My bulldog W rants prevented many otherwise good hearted souls from voting their conscience just to spite me.

107

[QUOTE=Apos]
But there isn’t any confusion added by the fact that some atheists make strong atheist claims, anymore than there are some Christians who insist that a cracker really turns into Jesus’ body and some don’t. So? Why are you so confused by the idea that different atheists have different opinions about stuff? Aside from not believing in god, they are just people, after all. They don’t necessarily have anything else in common.
[/QUOTE]

I am not confused by that fact. I said that debates concerning Theism, Atheism, and religion get confusing. The clean debate is bewteen the first two,as they are the polar opposites. Atheist often argue Atheism against religion, which is subset of Theism. It is annoying to watch. Similarly, for instance, I’ve been in debates with Strong Atheists when another poster chimes (Weak strain) in that not all Atheists believe what that poster believes. So the point being made against the first poster because is dismissed (rightfully) against Atheism in general—which was not the argument. Then the first poster thinks that his side has won. Very annoying. Sloppy and annoying.

[QUOTE=Apos]
It’s not very honest to declare that I have a chip on my shoulder when in fact I’m responding to some pretty darn lazy, content-free criticism.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t “declare” anything. I shared an impression. “It seems” should have tipped you off. So, what I wrote was perfectly honest. “Lazy, content-free”? Whatever you say, bubb.

[QUOTE=Apos]
Nor is it illegitimate to point out that, both historically and in my experience, a large part of the confusion is brought in by theists and agnostics trying to divide and conquer with booby-trapped definitions.
[/QUOTE]

If that is your experience, I will not second guess it. It is not my experience. Mine is the opposite.

[QUOTE=Apos]
I have no objection to defining terms and I’ve had no problem doing so. But in this case, and knowing you as a poster, well, I guess I don’t see it as a particularly sincere request, especially given that no one has suggested that we DON’T define terms.
[/QUOTE]

Hmm. Okay since you kow me as a poster and thusly conclude that my request is insincere, I’ll hve to ask you of other similarly insincere requests, or insincerity in general. Barring either, I’ll look forward to a retraction and an apology.

108

I have been giving a lot of thought recently to the concept of religion in general. I am an atheist, but grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household. I was fortunate to have grown up around good, caring Christian people. I also grew up around Christian people who were jerks, Christian people who were negligent, Christian people who made mistakes. The fact is, they are people. Normal people. When they screw up, the good ones try to make amends and not make the same mistake in the future, not out of fear of punishment from some “sky bully”, but because they want to be happy and for those around them to be happy and because they believe that God told them that it’s the right thing to do.

Christians are not some crazy cult of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakkers (though they are there) who all bomb abortion clinics and hate fags. They are just regular people whose view of the world is through the mindset that there is an all powerful God who loves them and wants them do the right thing.

I think the problem lies not in some inherent evil present in the delusion of religion, but the rather in a lack of education or a general issue of human nature as it stands. Most of the problems I see and ignorant statements I hear stem from people who don’t know any better, or are mad and want a scapegoat, or are afraid of something unknown, or are just jerks. None of these conditions rely on religion to exist. Religion might fuel them or channel them, but so can countless other mindsets. Muslim extremism today seems to attract the same frustrated, directionless people who were drawn toward communism in the first half of the twentieth century or to anarchism prior to that.

I don’t always agree with Dawkins, but I love his books and lectures. The Selfish Gene introduced a fresh perspective into evolutionary science that helped prevent stagnation in scientific thought. I think The God Delusion is a fantastic catalyst for religious debate at a time when people are hesitant to criticize any religious or irreligious ideas or to question their own.

I know Dawkins would agree that education and an encouraging curiosity are key elements for bettering our world. Even educated and curious people can be cruel and harmful, but if we teach people about the world around them and encourage them to question and explore it, a lot of bad things will fall by the wayside. If genuine education and curiosity leads someone to look for a God, I encourage them to do so just as much as if they seek out how the brain processes memory or how to better organize international trade relations.

(Note: My experience has largely been with Christianity, which is why I single it out, however my argument is largely unchanged for other religions.)

109

[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I]
Yes. We lie to our children all the time but at a certain point we admit to them that there never was a Santa Claus. The problem is, some people just never get around to telling their kids that there is no God, either. I guess because they believe it themselves (because THEIR parents never told THEM the truth, and their parent’s parents never told their parents the truth and…)

[/QUOTE]
as kids get older they can and do decide for themselves what they believe. Sometimes they share their parents beliefs and sometimes they don’t.

Personally I never found either the IPU or the FSM arguments very compelling. Belief in God is much more than just an intellectual belief or exercise. It is also an emotional and subjective belief.

What kind of honest answer to the question would you like?

110

I agree. I’ve never thought the IPU or FSM were good arguments. OTOH, why Christianity stands on better footing than the Greek, Norse or Hindu gods, not to mention Mormanism or the Muslim faith, has always escaped me. Thoughts?

111

[Was correcting what I thought was a grammatical error, then realized I got it right the first time.]

112

[QUOTE=Meatros]
I don’t think this is accurate. Dawkins hasn’t said that science does disprove religion. What he’s said is that science has given him reason to reject religion.
[/QUOTE]

Tomato tomahto. He goes on about ‘evidence’ ad nauseam. Same arguments regurgitated here to the same degree.

113

[QUOTE=Drake Tungsten]

Christians are not some crazy cult of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakkers (though they are there) who all bomb abortion clinics and hate fags. They are just regular people whose view of the world is through the mindset that there is an all powerful God who loves them and wants them do the right thing.

I think the problem lies not in some inherent evil present in the delusion of religion, but the rather in a lack of education or a general issue of human nature as it stands. Most of the problems I see and ignorant statements I hear stem from people who don’t know any better, or are mad and want a scapegoat, or are afraid of something unknown, or are just jerks. None of these conditions rely on religion to exist. Religion might fuel them or channel them, but so can countless other mindsets. Muslim extremism today seems to attract the same frustrated, directionless people who were drawn toward communism in the first half of the twentieth century or to anarchism prior to that.

[/QUOTE]

Oh what a lovely breath of reason!

114

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
(Which religion, by the way, claims that there are 29 dimensions?)
[/quote]

Hey, guess what. Science and religion are not diametrically opposed. You seem to mistake me for a fundie.

Not in the least. You should actually read what your lot say about believers - try for comprehension sometime.

115

[QUOTE=Apos]

Right. This from the guy who simply refuses to see that the God of the OT calls for death as punishment to trivial and superstitious nonsense, even when cited to chapter and verse.
[/QUOTE]

I am not a guy and your problem with the OT is utter lack of comprehension.

116

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Hey, guess what. Science and religion are not diametrically opposed.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, they are. They are like matter and antimatter; oil and water. Each damages and opposes the other by it’s nature. Religion is about faith and dogma; science is about questions and facts. Religion tries to corrupt science; science undercuts religion simply by doing it’s job.

117

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Yes, they are. They are like matter and antimatter; oil and water. Each damages and opposes the other by it’s nature. Religion is about faith and dogma; science is about questions and facts. Religion tries to corrupt science; science undercuts religion simply by doing it’s job.
[/QUOTE]

That’s true in that sense.

But in practical terms, science can’t disprove deities. The only time science can really disprove something is when particular theories are mutually exclusive like, “The plate is in the dining room.” versus “The plate is in the kitchen.” and you find it in the kitchen.

So while we can dismantle the whole universe and cast extreme doubt on Christian-style 7-days of Creation stories, science can’t do much about invisible all-powerful entities. All-powerfullness automatically negates any proof you could ever hope to bring against it.

118

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Personally I never found either the IPU or the FSM arguments very compelling. Belief in God is much more than just an intellectual belief or exercise. It is also an emotional and subjective belief.

What kind of honest answer to the question would you like?
[/QUOTE]
First, I don’t mean to say that belief in a god is an intellectual exercise. The exercise is the hypothesizing of a made-up deity–such as the IPU–and then comparing belief in such an entity with a belief in God. Why don’t you find the IPU or FSM arguments very compelling?

And the question that I’d like an honest answer to is the hypothetical I posed in my post that you quoted from:

*How would a theist (or you, in this case) honestly respond to a person who truly and whole-heartedly believed that miniature toy soldiers in his skull created the Universe and everything in it? Do you treat him as a madman? As a joke? Do you try to help him?

How about if 100 people believed this?

How would you react to 100 million people who held this belief? Do you start to get scared because it seems that otherwise clear-thinking individuals have become delusional? Would your reaction be any different if some of these people held positions of power and could indirectly or directly affect your life?*

I used the “toy soldiers in the skull” instead of an IPU or FSM because those are overused.

119

Aside, Dangerosa, I’ve not noticed you before, though obviously you’ve been around the SDMB much longer than have I. I’m way impressed by the views you’ve expressed. And monsters are scared of teddy bears was brilliant. It’s little tidbits like that which make the time I spend here worthwhile.

120

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
I am not a guy and your problem with the OT is utter lack of comprehension.
[/QUOTE]

Lol, and you demonstrated that, how exactly?

Hint: when you deny the existence of something that everyone can see exists, and which virtually no believer denies, generally the one with the comprehension issue is going to be you.

I brook no particular opinion on exactly how one wants to read the OT. But claiming it doesn’t say what it pretty plainly says is a fools errand, and I’m surprised that you’ve even kept it up this long.