Did anybody catch him on Q&A?

Missed it, but I will make sure I catch it on the weekend.

It's on Youtube in case you guys missed it.

Dawkins is great, which makes the fact that he has such an enormously mondoqueer fanbase all the more disappointing.

mondoqueer?

think like "mega gay"

I suppose it makes sense. Anything that winds the church up will make gays happy.

They're mostly just gigantic twats.

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 12:23pm:

Did anybody catch him on Q&A?

Saw him interviewed by Negus, that tired old fart embarrassing Dawkins and himself with his sycophantic Dorothy Dixers.

I liked Dawkins' example of a God who is so brutal that he needed to come down to earth and be tortured by humans in order to redeem them.

Christians, of course, see this as evidence of God's mercy.

Dawkins got a free ride on Q&A. It would have been good to team him up with a smart believer. Stephen Fielding looked totally lost.

I think Dawkins is smart, but he's not wise. His critique of all religion/spirituality is a negative. His solution is a return to classical empiricism. It's interesting that the Enlightenment really began as a critique of religion, so Dawkins is returning to the roots of hard science. Anything that you can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch does not exist.

Dawkins claims that many of the social sciences are false too.

I'm interested in a lot of what Dawkins says. But I take a lot of his stuff with a grain of salt. He hasn't come to terms with relativistic streams of thought like post-structuralism. He's got a very cut and dried mind. Things for Dawkins are either true or false.

I think he comes dangerously close to a new form of fundamentalism: scientific fundamentalism. He's right to ask questions of quack - and often completely accepted - treatments like Homeopathy. Dawkins has made me question practices like acupuncture, for example. It's good to hold these old treatments up to the light of day and test their claims - I now think this is essential.

But there are risks here too. The scientific method is not perfect. This is why philosophers like Kant divided thought up the subjective and objective.

Science - with its look at the surface of things - cannot always come up with reasons. Dawkins is pretty hopeless when it comes to questions of mental health, happiness, etc. Often, his critique of religion is based on the most simplistic understanding - religion is bad because the Christians started so many wars.

Dawkins has waded into the clash of civilizations, which is why his ideas resonate now. I think Dawkins will be seen as a bit of a fad in a few years time.

Which is a blessing and a curse. With the rise of the internet, quack techniques, conspiracy theories and supersticious mumbo jumbo are rising. With the reaction against medicine and psychiatry, people are turning to hackneyed remedies. Mind you, you'll do anything if you're sick. People have always done this.

On the blessing side, we need the freedom to be able to invest our minds into non-materialist objects. We need to be able to experiment with the subjective realm, and Dawkins' black and white stance discourages this.

Things are either true or false with Dawkins. He's almost Aspergers-like in his thinking. He's smart, but he's not flexible. I don't think he's a very good listener either.

Mind you, I'd have him to dinner anytime.

I think we all have to remember the obvious fact that Christian symbolism today is most likely not what it was taken to be at its inception. The Christian myth of Jesus' death probably resonated far more greatly and its meaning more direct and obvious than it is today.

Crucifixion was the punishment for enemies of the state, but it was also the penalty for crimes committed by slaves. The symbolism that may have been more directly interpreted in the 1st century CE was possibly not so much the remission of all humankind's sins, but that of god's solidarity with the poorest and the lowest caste.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 2:45pm:

I think we all have to remember the obvious fact that Christian symbolism today is most likely not what it was taken to be at its inception. The Christian myth of Jesus' death probably resonated far more greatly and its meaning more direct and obvious than it is today. Crucifixion was the punishment for enemies of the state, but it was also the penalty for crimes committed by slaves. The symbolism that may have been more directly interpreted in the 1st century CE was possibly not so much the remission of all humankind's sins, but that of god's solidarity with the poorest and the lowest caste.

Good points.

St Paul started the cult around Jesus Christ. Before then, there was no "Christianity." There's certainly no indication in the gospels that Jesus wanted a religion either.

The blood sacrafice, the atoning, etc, is perfect paganism. What St Paul did was create a deity out of Jesus that Romans could worship.

Jesus doesn't say anything in the gospels about wanting to be worshiped, or about being God Himself. This was all added later and crystalised in the Nicean Creed.

The blood sacrifice would have appealed to Romans - it's funny, however, that the story resonates today. I'm not sure if it does. I think modern Christians are attracted to Christianity for other reasons - among them the belief that Christianity is the only form of truth.

In Rome, there were a range of deities to choose from. And why not choose the god of the underclass?

Quote:

Dawkins claims that many of the social sciences are false too.

They are not genuine sciences, in that it is almost impossible to apply the scientific method. But to suggest that because of this they are false or lack worth is absurd.

"The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox" by Stephen Jay Gould puts it into better perspective.


Quote:

I think he comes dangerously close to a new form of fundamentalism: scientific fundamentalism.

I like where you are going with this. But it is pretty harmless as it creates no barriers to self correction.


Quote:

Which is a blessing and a curse. With the rise of the internet, quack techniques, conspiracy theories and supersticious mumbo jumbo are rising.

I would put most of Dawkins internet supporters into this category.

I've been banned from Richard Dawkins' webpage about four times now (I quit trying to go back there). His followers really are a terrible bunch of people. There was a massive controversy there once regarding a Japanese individual who used to argue about the validity of race and its purported links to psychological attributes in an enormous thread which he did not even create. It was eventually decided by the moderators on Dawkins site to "shut him up" (he had basically deflected most of the contentions made against his case and had the entire forum on sort of an argumentative retreat where they were still grappling onto tired old platitudes, "zombie arguments" and so on) and he was banned permanently from the site shortly after. I could understand if Dawkins himself didn't want this discussion going on his board -- Dawkins is a shrewd operator, and it would be bad both for his career and his wallet to have people running about on his board posting things like that. But as far as I know, Dawkins wasn't even involved at all in this fellow's termination -- it was entirely decided by his politically correct devotees who make a habit of masquerading as foremostly dedicated to scientific and rational principles.

I'm not even saying that the chance is indisputable that this guy was 100% correct -- I'm just amazed at the effrontery of these people that they can style themselves as paragons of rationality but get rid of a guy with obviously a lot of intelligent things to say (that had the lot of them in sort of a slow, steady rout) and condemn his views as so absolutely abhorrent and so absolutely wrong, without actually being able to explain why. It's very easy to characterise their group as TWGLO -- Theists With God Left Out. They subscribe to a litany of non-theistic religious causes, compartmentalize just as those who are religious do, and behave with incredible, hurtful animosity to anybody who deviates from their secular-humanist, progressive (and sometimes even claptrap Marxist) world views. People are a lot more respectful on this forum, and just posting here makes me feel a great deal of gratitude and respect to Freediver for allowing such a diversity of opinion, even regarding some particularly touchy or taboo subjects.

It's sad these twats glommed onto Dawkins like this, who does actually seem like a fair-minded scientist. I have a lot of respect for his greatly successful efforts to popularize contemporary biological research, whether it be through his writings or his interesting documentaries. I don't care at all about his Atheism, but that's another matter.

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 11:19pm:

It's very easy to characterise their group as TWGLO -- Theists With God Left Out. They subscribe to a litany of non-theistic religious causes, compartmentalize just as those who are religious do, and behave with incredible, hurtful animosity to anybody who deviates from their secular-humanist, progressive (and sometimes even claptrap Marxist) world views.

I agree with you about the TWGLO. They can get just as dogmatic as the most fundamentalist believer.

And I believe you should have the right to respectfully post your views. But having also been on the Dawkins website, I don't think it's full of Marxists or progressives - no more than any other website, anyway.

If the guys views on race were villifying, the site could be liable. If they were eugenic, biologically race-based, and "unscientific", I can see where they might have been coming from. Just banning people, however, is infantile.

I think a lot of your ideas on race, Imperium, are as "scientific" as creationism. I believe you deserve a forum to flesh your views out - and have them challenged or seen in the light of day. Censorship, however, just puts these views underground and creates more resentment.

I believe Dawkins has the same Voltairian ideal.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 3:02pm:

St Paul started the cult around Jesus Christ. Before then, there was no "Christianity." There's certainly no indication in the gospels that Jesus wanted a religion either. The blood sacrafice, the atoning, etc, is perfect paganism. What St Paul did was create a deity out of Jesus that Romans could worship.

True. This has been discussed here before. There's no doubt that Paul was competing with the various deity myths and belief systems of his potential converts throughout the Roman Empire, not least of them would have been those among the Jewish Diaspora who had taken to non-Jewish beliefs. He also was convinced the world was coming to an end, so he likely believed there was no time to convert non-Jews to Judaism-proper before the end. Tough call for him I guess, but then he was charismatic visionary, a gifted orator and well-educated for his time so he had all the right stuff to get the job done (somewhat similar to Muhammad at least in charisma and vision). Being associated with the Imperial Roman families would have helped as well, at least for a while, until he fell foul of Nero... but then again so did Seneca. There's just no pleasing some people.  ;D

Fell foul of Nero? Can you elaborate on this, Helian?

I didn't know Paul was that well connected (or not connected, I guess).

I've had trouble copying CDs also.


Quote:

It's very easy to characterise their group as TWGLO -- Theists With God Left Out.

I think atheism is a religion. It is an irrational belief regarding the existence of God.

Well, it's all in the name..

A Theism. :D

As a group they're irrational in more ways than one. They have an obnoxious tendency, like many atheists do, to attribute just about every social ill in the world in some way to religion. Events that have had some religious basis or interrelation are immediately and in total the result of the existence of religion in general even when its role has been clearly ancilliary.

Atheist deplore the binding together of people by a common belief - yet they very often agitate for the 'community', implying that there is, or rather there ought to be, some common thread that indeed does or should bind people.

Smells a little like progressivism too. Progressives loathe the supposedly intolerant conception of the "monolithic" social thread -- whether it be in the form of a non-theistic ideal, religion or the extended biological family. Instead they suggest that we should learn to celebrate and tolerate difference, yet at the same time insist that this principle itself must be adhered to with the most strict, stalwart dedication.

Just watched this online and thought Dawkins was great, the Rabbi was good, Bishop was ok and everyone else was totally out of their league.

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 8:53pm:

Atheist deplore the binding together of people by a common belief - yet they very often agitate for the 'community', implying that there is, or rather there ought to be, some common thread that indeed does or should bind people.

Less so the case that atheists deplore the binding or that which binds (and only insofar as a generalisation can be made of what all atheists deplore), but more that they refuse to submit to the delusion that demands those binds can never be loosed. That these binds result from the "very word of god himself", who unfortunately can never be here in person to adjudicate but instead has left us a book from which, through a circus act of metaphoric contortion, you can squeeze the camel of immutable law through its own arsehole and out the eye of a needle.

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 9:04pm:

Smells a little like progressivism too. Progressives loathe the supposedly intolerant conception of the "monolithic" social thread -- whether it be in the form of a non-theistic ideal, religion or the extended biological family. Instead they suggest that we should learn to celebrate and tolerate difference, yet at the same time insist that this principle itself must be adhered to with the most strict, stalwart dedication.

Quote:

Atheist deplore the binding together of people by a common belief - yet they very often agitate for the 'community', implying that there is, or rather there ought to be, some common thread that indeed does or should bind people.

You seem to have a grasp of what all atheists and progressives collectively perceive.  ::)

Hey now, just speaking with an out-my-arse generality ;D

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2010 at 11:14am:

Hey now, just speaking with an out-my-arse generality ;D

OK... That's alright then  ;D

Quote:

Atheist deplore the binding together of people by a common belief

-soren

Says who?

I love it when people just make crap up, and then spout it out as some general truism.

Now if you said that;
"many atheists deplore people that share a common delusional belief making extraordinary demands and unjustifiable allowances for their odd behaviours, inspired by their shared delusions"
well that I could agree with.

Oh come on. Do we really have to be berated everytime we don't amend every generalization with a "many"? We all knew what Soren meant. Whining about this is about as annoying as those little smart-arses that come after anybody who says a certain movie, album or band is sh!t with "In YOUR opinion."

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2010 at 8:21pm:

Oh come on. Do we really have to be berated everytime we don't amend every generalization with a "many"? We all knew what Soren meant. Whining about this is about as annoying as those little smart-arses that come after anybody who says a certain movie, album or band is sh!t with "In YOUR opinion."

Do we all? Do you think its actually true that all/many/some atheists deplore the binding together of people by a common belief? Would it not be closer to the mark to say that atheists deplore the notion that the tenets of the binding belief system are immutable law where these laws are claimed to be divine revelation, such that only a deity can repeal them?

Who said I even agreed with Soren's statement? I'm an atheist and I don't necessarily agree. It's the bitching and moaning that invariably occurs whenever a generalization is made without the addition of the word "many" that is irritating to me. I really, highly doubt he meant "all atheists"; nobody ever means "all" when they use a  generalization in such a fashion. I'm not talking about the veracity of his statement concerning whether or not many atheists think that way whatsoever.

I know I don't. 8-)

Whoosh!
That one went right over Imps head.
The "many" aspect, is just common sense, and common courtesy, if you think about it, but not a big deal either way, the objectionable aspect of Soren's post was that he offered a truism which was untrue.

People tend to speak out against atheism without really considering what they say, in a quite reactionary way, and because atheism is not a cohesive grouping, but merely a very loose categorisation for people who do not believe in deities, then the whole idea of making sweeping generalisations about it, is rarely going to be valid, or worthwhile.

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 14^th, 2010 at 3:05am:

Who said I even agreed with Soren's statement? I'm an atheist and I don't necessarily agree. It's the bitching and moaning that invariably occurs whenever a generalization is made without the addition of the word "many" that is irritating to me. I really, highly doubt he meant "all atheists"; nobody ever means "all" when they use a  generalization in such a fashion. I'm not talking about the veracity of his statement concerning whether or not many atheists think that way whatsoever. I know I don't. 8-)

I don't think anyone here is that pedantic, Imperium. It wasn't the omission of a quantifying adjective that was the concern in this case.

Do you actually know any atheists at all who deplore the binding together of people by a common belief where that common belief does not include an assertion of its divine (and immutable) status? And if you did, would you argue that their deploration is an attribute of their atheism or something else? Anarchism, perhaps?

We're bound together by many common beliefs that we either consciously choose or are born into... passion for a particular sport, for example.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 13^th, 2010 at 10:50am:

Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2010 at 8:53pm: Atheist deplore the binding together of people by a common belief - yet they very often agitate for the 'community', implying that there is, or rather there ought to be, some common thread that indeed does or should bind people. Less so the case that atheists deplore the binding or that which binds (and only insofar as a generalisation can be made of what all atheists deplore), but more that they refuse to submit to the delusion that demands those binds can never be loosed. That these binds result from the "very word of god himself", who unfortunately can never be here in person to adjudicate but instead has left us a book from which, through a circus act of metaphoric contortion, you can squeeze the camel of immutable law through its own arsehole and out the eye of a needle.

You won't find me shielding or defendingt clericalism (particular interpretations, many of them ossified into shackles, elevated to ecclesiastic law). But I am going to defend the engagement, the interpretive dialogue with 'god' and with each other about 'god'. To rule these out of court as harmful grounds of binding ourselves to each other is a serious overstating of a misunderstanding, the misidentification of clericalism and religion.

To use an ill-fitting example, I won't necessarily defend any particular interpretation of a poem but to say that it ought not to be interpreted and that reading poetry is harmful because some interpretations are wrong misses the point in a similar way. The power of looking religiously at the world is to see the world anew. It takes you out of the usual, Monday to Saturday way of seeing, as it were. Good art does this, the poetic imagination does this. Religion, as I undesrtand it, does this.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 14^th, 2010 at 6:02am:

Whoosh! That one went right over Imps head. The "many" aspect, is just common sense, and common courtesy, if you think about it, but not a big deal either way, the objectionable aspect of Soren's post was that he offered a truism which was untrue. People tend to speak out against atheism without really considering what they say, in a quite reactionary way, and because atheism is not a cohesive grouping, but merely a very loose categorisation for people who do not believe in deities, then the whole idea of making sweeping generalisations about it, is rarely going to be valid, or worthwhile.

What I said is not a trusim but a truth. Atheism's oppotitional stance, a-theism, is about cutting a paricular tie. By definition, before anything else is said. The first principle of a-theism is to oppose a binding.

SO if you are an atheist, then you are a priori, before anything else, oppose somemthing. After that it matters little how loosely atheists are in agreement with each other. Like spotted dicks have spots, atheists are ALL (not just many) againt the binding that is called religion.

Offering a muddled position on poetry and "good"? art, does nothing to validate your original flawed premise, Soren.

You would be far better off just admitting your original statement was wrong, rather than attempting to form arguments to justify an incorrect assumption.

Atheists, in general, do seem to deplore many aspects of religious behaviour, but it is the behaviour that is the issue, not the fact that people choose to identify themselves as belonging to one group or another.

You appear to struggle with this concept a lot, especially when you go all gung ho about muslims, without any apparent consideration for the billion or more muslims who do not reflect the behaviours that you brand as common to them all.

It is perfectly acceptable to deplore the bad behaviour of many people who are members of religious groups, without deploring all the members of those groups, who play no role in the behaviours you judge to be offensive.

From the Melbourne Atheist convention-

"As for dialogue with Islamists, he said it was "a remarkably effective tactic to say 'If you try to argue against me, I'll cut your head off', " but that the argument came from a position of intellectual weakness.

"I don't think we should go out of our way to insult Islam because it doesn't do any good to get your head cut off," he continued. "But we should always say that I may refrain from publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed, but it's because I fear you. Don't for one moment think it's because I respect you.""

Gotta love Dawkins. :)

Soren wrote on Mar 14^th, 2010 at 11:01am:

SO if you are an atheist, then you are a priori, before anything else, oppose somemthing.

Why am I not surprised to learn that soren lorenson doesn't even know what an atheist is? He really would do much better if he could just learn to do a little research on the things he seeks to define, let alone criticise. But I doubt this would ever happen. If such a concentrated effort, even a slight one, were within his abilities, he would not be capable of the lazy quasi-thinking we have all come to know and laugh at.

Which part don't you understand, child?

I ate paella on the weekend. It didn't go down too well.

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2010 at 7:39pm:

I ate paella on the weekend. It didn't go down too well.

That's ap-paelling!

Melanie Phillips (author of londonistan) seems to have Dawkins's measure in The Australian today:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/dawkins-preaches-to-the-deluded-against-the-divine/story-e6frg6zo-1225841086925

He became the apostle of scientism, the ideology that says everything in the universe has a materialist explanation and must answer to the rules of empirical scientific evidence; to believe anything else is irrational.

A second's thought tells one this is absurd. Love, law and philosophy are not scientific yet they are not irrational. So it is scientism that seems to be irrational.

As for Dawkins's claim that religion is responsible for the ills of the world, this is demonstrably a wild distortion. Some of the worst horrors in human history - the French revolutionary terror, Nazism, communism - have been atheist creeds. And although terrible things indeed have been done in the name of religion, the fact remains that Christianity and the Hebrew Bible form the foundation stone of Western civilisation and its great cause of human equality and freedom.

Through such hubristic overreach, Dawkins has opened himself up to attack from quarters that, unlike the theologians he routinely knocks around the park, he cannot so easily disdain.

Books taking his arguments apart on his own purported ground of scientific reason have been published by a growing number of eminent scientists and philosophers, including mathematicians David Berlinski and John Lennox, biochemist Alister McGrath, geneticist Francis Collins, and philosopher and recanting atheist Anthony Flew.

These have itemised his many howlers, sloppy assertions, internal contradictions, unscientific reasoning and illogicality. His responses to these stellar intellects are fascinating. He claims they cannot possibly have meant what they wrote, or they are senile, or their scientific credentials are somehow obviated by the fact they are practising Christians.

Indeed, he seems almost to believe that, since everyone who believes in God is stupid or evil and Christians are stupid and evil because they believe in God, those who oppose him must be Christian and can be treated with contempt.

A bit more of her article:


Just why is he so angry and why does he hate religion so much? After all, as many religious scientists can attest, science and religion are - contrary to his claim - not incompatible at all.

A clue lies in his insistence that a principal reason for believing that there could be no intelligence behind the origin of life is that the alternative - God - is unthinkable. This terror of such an alternative was summed up by a similarly minded geneticist as the fear that pursuing such thinking to its logical ends might allow "the divine foot in the door".

Such concern is telling because it suggests a lack of confidence by the Dawkins camp in its own position and a corresponding fear of rigorous thinking.

To stamp out the terrifying possibility of even a divine toe peeping over the threshold, all opposition has to be shut down. And so the great paradox is that the arch-hater of religious intolerance himself behaves with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist and, despite excoriating religion for stifling debate, does this in spades.

An illuminating example was provided by an atheists summer camp for children last year in Britain that Dawkins backed. The children who took part were to be taught to be critical thinkers, yet all discussion of religion was ruthlessly excluded.

Far from opening young minds, this was shutting them in the ostensible cause of reason.

Such indoctrination is a hallmark of the fundamentalist who knows he is not just right but righteous. So all who oppose him are by definition not just wrong but evil. Which is why alternative views must be howled down or suppressed.

This is, of course, the characteristic of all totalitarian regimes, including religious inquisitions. Which is why Dawkins can lay claim to being not the most enlightened thinker on the planet, as his acolytes regard him, but instead the Savonarola of scientism and an intolerant closer of minds.

Dude, you really need to learn to do a little research before you post stuff. It's not so hard these days: even Wikipedia is OK, at least for beginners.

Meantime, may I point out that you are quoting Melanie Phillips. MELANIE PHILLIPS!? A cursory check would bring to your attention that she isn a raving nutter.

Couldn't you at least find a quote from David Irving or Iain Paisely? I'm sure you could find something in Fred Phelps' recent works.

But Melanie Phillips? Geez, is it that bad?

She is not a nutter and I would be mildly curious to learn what makes her a nutter in your mind. Your hyperbolic yet utterly insubstantial reaction is a sure sign that she is right. From what I have seen from you here, you would not be able to put a coherent case, only one based on other people's opinions in newspapers.

Not yet having the assistance of other people's opinion about this article, I bet you are not ale to make any intelligent comment of your own on it. Hyperbole and bombast is your limit.

Whatever makes people like you so hot under the collar must be a good thing. In fact, seeing your sort apoplectic is one of this board's small pleasures.

There's no doubt Dawkins cuts the figure of a fundamentalist zealot with his polemical dogmatic atheism, the first sign of it for me being the loss of a sense of humour.

Saw him interviewed by Andrew Denton. When Denton asked him what star sign he was born under (as a gentle dig for a laugh) Dawkins looked irritated.

Still, until those religions that claim more than mere primacy, but absolute exclusivity and accept a philosophy of "many paths", there will be no tolerance, no lasting peace and no understanding among them. Until then they will always be a font of malignancy and plain old-fashioned evil. For that reason alone, the world needs all the polemicists it can get, provided their polemics neither encourage nor condone violence in the name of non-theism.

But at all times, challenge the religious and their malignant and fraudulent doctrines.

Well speaking as a confirmed atheist since I was old enough to reason that the whole "god" industry was the greatest bunch of hypocritical hogwash on the planet, which was obvious even to a pre-teen, I guess I must be missing something about Hawkins, for I have never seen him be dogmatic, or bombastic, only considered, and considerate.

Admittedly my views do seem to be similiar to his own, but as I formed them personally, many decades before Dawkins ever put pen to paper, I do not need to defend Dawkins, to justify my own ideas.

Now I do not know who this Melanie Philips is, but I do know that if she chooses to build her arguments on totally false, or unjustifiable premises, then she would have a great chance of being very well received amongst the religious community whose standards are naturally lowered to accommodate their own particular peccadillos.

Deliberately misinterpreting what people say is a good start if you wish to decry their position, and the opening shot from this lassy is to compare religion to "love, law and philosophy", in being "Unscientific" , which is provided by her as a challenge to what she claims is Dawkin's scientism.

Now while I appreciate how scientific knowledge, or actually almost any knowledge, is a challenge to a great many of the religious in this world, who prefer to seek answers from ancient scriptures or from praying for divine inspiration, yet the object of Dawkin's is not to promote science, but merely to promote understanding.
Now for a group who are so used to claiming they are the source of all understanding, through their interpretation of what they believe god has told them, this idea of having any knowledge allowed which may not be in step with their own religious prejudices is anathema, and why we still see today, religious people trying to suppress the teaching of accepted human knowledge in schools.

So let the religious raise their strawmen to knock down, they are fooling only those who are already committed to foolishness.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 17^th, 2010 at 6:33am:

Still, until those religions that claim more than mere primacy, but absolute exclusivity and accept a philosophy of "many paths", there will be no tolerance, no lasting peace and no understanding among them. Until then they will always be a font of malignancy and plain old-fashioned evil. For that reason alone, the world needs all the polemicists it can get, provided their polemics neither encourage nor condone violence in the name of non-theism.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. Once religions get off the "truth" bandwagon, the better off we'll all be.

What I like about atheism is its skepticism. There are so many hackneyed beliefs, practices and fads that just go unchallenged.

But religion's a crock if all it provides is a mere set of beliefs. Same as anything, really. Same as all the neo-Nazi fictions and distortions that get posted on this website.

Rather than religion, we need practice. I guess atheists would call this the supernatural, and they'd be right.

Mind control is ultimately a supernatural process - not a religious one, and the most important thing you can achieve in this life is not fame or wealth, but control over your own mind.

Please everyone, I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that soren lorenson admits that he thinks Melanie Phillips is not a nutter. Please keep this in mind if you bother reading any of his posts.

If you don't bother reading soren lorenson's posts, I heartily recommend that you do. They are hilarious.

I don't know if she is a nutter or not, but I would consider her a proselytiser, because of the way she constucts her arguments with false premises that only people who already share her opinion could ever accept.

So it is merely a case of preaching to the converted, I would have to assume most others would find her opinions more amusing than anything, if the example posted is indicative of how she writes.

I admit, I describe her as a nutter on the grounds that she totally and utterly believes that she is right, not in the sense that she has considered the issues, gathered evidence and found in favour of one position, but in the sense that she is right because she must be right. She is utterly incapable of even understanding that another person has a different point of view, much less of actually trying to see their point of view. I consider these people nutters, though perhaps this is out of line with the general understanding of the term. Piers Ackerman is a local nutter of the same ilk. Perhaps crackpot would be a better descriptor.

But yes, preaching to the converted is very accurate. Which is why she was sure to have a loyal follower in soren lorenson.

Quote:

What I like about atheism is its skepticism.

Atheists are not skeptics. They are the opposite. They just believe something different. They have even less rational grounds for that belief than those who believe in God.

Paella wrote on Mar 17^th, 2010 at 9:59pm:

I consider these people nutters, though perhaps this is out of line with the general understanding of the term. Piers Ackerman is a local nutter of the same ilk. Perhaps crackpot would be a better descriptor.

Excellent, thanks for that. I've long needed to know the difference between a crackpot, nutter, fruitloop and dingbat. Your post goes someway towards that.

It's like when I meet very short people... I'm never sure whether they're gnomes, pixies, elves or dwarves.... Don't mean to be insensitive but they all look the same to me (I know one lot are magical and another are given to mischief but I can never remember which is which).

Quote:

They have even less rational grounds for that belief than those who believe in God.

Really?

Can you be more specific.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 17^th, 2010 at 9:41pm:

I don't know if she is a nutter or not, but I would consider her a proselytiser, because of the way she constucts her arguments with false premises that only people who already share her opinion could ever accept.

And what false premise was that?

She stands for well-understood values and she is not ashamed of them. She is an columnists, employed by The Spectator, among others, just for that very reason. She is more articulate than most, knows her onions and can support her argunments by facts.
I don't know about Piers Ackerman.

I would be curious to know which of the sniggerers here can name anyone in Australia or overseas who has a 'progressive' bent and can do the same?

Even if you do not agree with everything she writes, she does write well and about interesting things. I like her. I also like Mark Steyn. And Spengler, PJ O'Rourke, Theodore Dalrymple and Roger Scruton. They are not my guides to life but as far as the shallow pleasures of current affairs debates go, they have the crucial advantage of being amusing. That they are right more often than not is only a bonus. That they upset the likes of Paella and make them take out the tired old spittle-covered rant-sheet is my essential reason for loyalty to these columnists.

Who do you like?

What false premise?
I know it may seem difficult to isolate a single false premise from the ridiculous mish mas of misquotes, misunderstandings and outright lies, that are contained in the article by Ms Phillips, and I am not sufficiently familiar with Dakin's works to identify them all, but someon has taken the trouble to deconstruct the rubbish put forward, and I will link to it here.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,5267,Dawkins-preaches-to-the-deluded-against-the-divine,Melanie-Phillips---The-Australian,page2

It is from a regular on a forum on a Dawkins site, so we can assume the respondent is probably pretty familiar with Dawkins material, and certainly gives that impression from reading her post.

Here is the start of it, and if you find that interesting, and consider that it may answer your question of "what false premises?", then go to the link and read her whole post, it is worthwhile.


Quote:

62. Comment #470009 by Jos Gibbons on March 17, 2010 at 8:18 am Comment #469965 by God fearing Atheist Well, 5 pages at any rate; I apologise for taking so long it ended up on the second page of posts. Here it is. Dawkins preaches to the deluded against the divine There are two types of people in the world: those who believe almost no religious claims, and those who believe no religious claims. The “deluded” in this case are apparently the latter. Much better, it would seem, to unfairly give credence to a tiny minority of religious claims, to one faith. But with no evidence as to which one, the most common criterion for the choice is the faith of a person’s parents. Is that really the not–deluded option of the two? 2500 hardcore believers in the absence of religion All the people present are aware religion exists, and not all of them wish to see it eradicated, and nor do all of their speakers. So what claim is MP making about them? Presumably, she is claiming their lack of a belief in a god or gods is a hardcore belief ... which is like saying that not believing in any superstitions is superstitious. [they gave] a hero's welcome to the high priest of belief in unbelief, Richard Dawkins. 1. Hero or priest? A similar distinction made by Steven Weinberg is that of heroes vs. prophets. He argued science has only the former, since, no matter how well a given scientist had done in their area of expertise, no–one would ever argue for their side in a controversy by referring back to said individual’s opinions; for example, Einstein was once the world’s greatest expert on gravity; but, within under half a century of his death, progress had led to any graduate of general relativity knowing more about gravity than Einstein did. It is unheard of for scientists to argue, on any of the current gravity controversies, “Einstein said X, so X” (and on many such issues Einstein did offer an opinion). Clearly, it is sensible to respect and revere an individual’s achievements, experience and expertise, but secondarily to the evidence. Now, where does this leave RD? The man backs up what he says with some arguments, and offers counterarguments to arguments for claims to the contrary of his own, and replies to critics with arguments. He has, over the course of decades, become respected for his skills in this forum without being appointed to a high position in an autocracy. This is why he is not a priest, but instead merely a hero. 2. “Belief in unbelief” might indicate the intended elimination of belief, or it may simply indicate a desire to see equality for those who lack belief. RD and his ilk usually focus their efforts on the latter, laudable civil rights issue, and they still get ticked off by bigots. the Australian media ... uncritically lapped up everything he said. Most of the reports by the Australian media have been the sorts of pieces whose job it is only to say what was said, not to analyse it ... and yet some such pieces still have. The next most common response has been radio interviews of RD, in which he was asked probing questions. The third most common has been attacks with the Australian media upon him such as this, and they have shown no evidence of critical thinking skills – and this piece is no exception. he referred to the Pope as a Nazi, which managed to combine defamation of the pontiff with implicit Holocaust denial. 1. Why is it that, if you criticise the past or present commitments of anyone else that’s OK, but if you do it to a pope it’s horrid “defamation”? 2. That isn’t Holocaust denial, is it? 3. Just for readers’ information, this was a past pope who really was a Nazi and whom the present one wishes to canonise, rather than the present pope, whose link to the Nazis is far more tenuous, and RD acknowledges that well. I make this point not to correct a somewhat irrelevant error by MP, but to observe that, not only is Benedict XVI praising Pius XII despite his Nazism, but he also recently unapologetically appointed to a senior Vatican position a Holocaust denier. Family First senator Steve Fielding may feel he got off lightly when Dawkins described him merely as more stupid than an earthworm. 1. This was no public statement. We all use hyperbole in private conversations. 2. He’s a creationist; furthermore, he considers the question of the age of the Earth more worthy of personal opinion than of the scientific evidence. Are you really trying to defend him?

lol, I love that our very own Fielding gets a jab, what a ninny

Quote:

Just for readers’ information, this was a past pope who really was a Nazi and whom the present one wishes to canonise, rather than the present pope, whose link to the Nazis is far more tenuous, and RD acknowledges that well. I make this point not to correct a somewhat irrelevant error by MP, but to observe that, not only is Benedict XVI praising Pius XII despite his Nazism, but he also recently unapologetically appointed to a senior Vatican position a Holocaust denier.

I'm no defender of the Vatican but it's certainly an outrageous claim that Pius XII was a Nazi. Absolute rubbish.

Pius XII despised both Hitler and Mussolini and both dictators wanted rid of him.

The trouble for Pius was that he feared Stalin and communism more. Both Hitler and Mussolini would negotiate with the Vatican (never mind the emptiness of their promises). Stalin refused all requests for diplomatic relations with the Vatican. This shocked Pius who was a career diplomat.

I think you may be right in regard to some people overstating the case against Pacelli, (PiusXII), sure he was of use to Hitler in the early days of the Reich, and the Concordat of 1933 , which Pacelli signed with Hitler, most certainly raised the legitimacy of both Hitler, and the Nazis in the eyes of many powerful people all over the world.
However to see that as something more than poor judgement is not a position I could justify from what I have read of the subject.
Most certainly there were many in the church who promoted Nazism and Hitler, but there were also others who lost their lives opposing them.

I do not know enough about all Pacelli's activities of the time to categorically state that he may not have helped the Nazis at times, but my impression is that if he did, it was in the course of trying to pursue the "lesser evil", which is unimaginable for me, to have to make cjoices which you know will cost 1,000 lives today, but may save ten thousand tomorrow, but that was the responsibility that Pacelli semed to have.

I do not need to agree with everything people like Hitchens, or Dawkins says, to still admire their general arguments, and most definitely the primary thrust of them.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

I think you may be right in regard to some people overstating the case against Pacelli, (PiusXII), sure he was of use to Hitler in the early days of the Reich, and the Concordat of 1933 , which Pacelli signed with Hitler, most certainly raised the legitimacy of both Hitler, and the Nazis in the eyes of many powerful people all over the world. However to see that as something more than poor judgement is not a position I could justify from what I have read of the subject. Most certainly there were many in the church who promoted Nazism and Hitler, but there were also others who lost their lives opposing them. I do not know enough about all Pacelli's activities of the time to categorically state that he may not have helped the Nazis at times, but my impression is that if he did, it was in the course of trying to pursue the "lesser evil", which is unimaginable for me, to have to make cjoices which you know will cost 1,000 lives today, but may save ten thousand tomorrow, but that was the responsibility that Pacelli semed to have. I do not need to agree with everything people like Hitchens, or Dawkins says, to still admire their general arguments, and most definitely the primary thrust of them.

And we know only of the scale of that evil in hindsight (not forgetting that Stalin murdered millions of Eastern Europeans).

Pius XII recognised his obligations to Catholics more clearly than those of other faiths, but that must be set against the times. He had considerable experience with the pre-Nazi German state and understood the German mindset. He banned Catholic newspapers from printing anti-Semitic opinion and did much to relieve the suffering of Jews under his care or direct sphere of influence. He stood up to Mussolini on these matters too. To not negotiate with Hitler would have meant the murder of many German Catholics and clergy and what would have been history's judgement of him then as the unrivalled Catholic primate?

History may judge him as having not done enough, but that judgement would be on the harsh side. History, however, cannot rightly judge him to have been a Nazi, a fascist or a supporter of Nazism or fascism.

He chose to vehemently oppose the greater (in his mind) of two unimaginably great evils. Maybe he should have opposed both with equal vehemence and its certainly a fact that every Pope since has done just that.

Because I agreed with the thrust of your previous post, I chose to not point out the obvious, that fear of Stalin, was also considered, and used by many, as legitimising factors of both Hitler, and Mussolini's regimes, so as a defence for Pacelli, it is a poor stand alone argument.

I think more pertinent are his actual words, and actions against the Nazi's, that have been passed on to us, which gives us a better indication of his lack of approval of them, and their ideology.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 10:41am:

Because I agreed with the thrust of your previous post, I chose to not point out the obvious, that fear of Stalin, was also considered, and used by many, as legitimising factors of both Hitler, and Mussolini's regimes, so as a defence for Pacelli, it is a poor stand alone argument.

You're forgetting, of course that the holocaust did not begin in earnest in 1933, not even in 1939. The world did not become aware of the true extent of the evil until the early 40's. Merely locking Jews into ghettos has been a European practise for nearly 2000 years. Anti-Semitism was also a common sentiment in Europe and Nazism's anti-Semitism was hardly unique to European (including Christian) thought.

Stalin, on the other hand, was in control of the Soviet Union almost since the death of Lenin in 1924. His murderous pogroms were well known in Europe since the mid 20's. So to say that Pacelli should have known that Nazism and fascism would ultimately be greater evils than (or equal to) Stalinism (without the benefit of hindsight) is grossly inaccurate and unfair.

You misunderstand me, I was not saying that fearing Stalin was unfounded, just that both Hitler's and Stalin's supporters use that fear of Stalinism as at least a partial justification for what followed, so using it as a defence for Pacelli merely puts him into a similiar starting position to the Fascists, when it is what actions they each took later on, is what we need to understand.

As I said earlier, I have not accepted the criticisms of Pacelli from certain prominent atheists, as being particularly credible, in regard to just what degree of support he actually gave Nazism.

Soren wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 7:39am:

I also like Mark Steyn. And Spengler, PJ O'Rourke, Theodore Dalrymple and Roger Scruton. They are not my guides to life but as far as the shallow pleasures of current affairs debates go, they have the crucial advantage of being amusing. That they are right more often than not is only a bonus.

Out of these, I only know PJ O'Rourke, and I enjoy his books (although I disagree with them). However, the Global Financial Crisis has proved him - and I'm suspecting most of the others - wrong.

The fact that money can be lent out with no hope of return proves that market forces in themselves are not rational.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 11:46am:

You misunderstand me, I was not saying that fearing Stalin was unfounded, just that both Hitler's and Stalin's supporters use that fear of Stalinism as at least a partial justification for what followed, so using it as a defence for Pacelli merely puts him into a similiar starting position to the Fascists, when it is what actions they each took later on, is what we need to understand. As I said earlier, I have not accepted the criticisms of Pacelli from certain prominent atheists, as being particularly credible, in regard to just what degree of support he actually gave Nazism.

And negotiating with the new German government in 1933 was the correct diplomatic procedure for an executive head of state, hence the Concordat of 1933. The reason for its necessity is that Pacelli/Pius XII was an astute diplomat and intuited problems for the Vatican and the church's role in Germany based on intelligence at his disposal of the atheistic or at least anti-Christian nature of Nazism and fascism.

That Nazism evolved into the evil it became some 10 years later may encourage some to claim that Pacelli was fully aware of all its dangers and evils (or any great evil comparable to Stalinism which in 1933 it wasn't), which is grossly inaccurate.

Yes he feared Stalinism more because Stalinism had proved itself to be blatantly evil to a degree in the early 30's that Nazism and fascism had not. Most Germans and Italians saw fascism (in both its German and Italian forms) to be a force for great good. It was a very astute move on the part of Pius to reach an agreement with the German government to protect innocent Catholics' right to practise their religion unharrassed by the state.

The fact that Hitler and the Nazis misrepresented the Concordat as legitimising their policies was not the fault of Pius XII.

I do not disagree with you, in fact, in that pre war period, Neville Chamberlain was far more disposed towards Hitler than Pacelli, but I have not seen him pilloried as a Nazi sympathiser.

I only said I think you misunderstand, because in one response you seemed to give the impression that you thought I was supporting claims that Pacelli was a Nazi sympathiser, which I most definitely do not.
I do not know enough about it to say categorically that he wasn't, but what I have read points more to the belief that he was not, than the one that says he was.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 1:20pm:

I do not disagree with you, in fact, in that pre war period, Neville Chamberlain was far more disposed towards Hitler than Pacelli, but I have not seen him pilloried as a Nazi sympathiser. I only said I think you misunderstand, because in one response you seemed to give the impression that you thought I was supporting claims that Pacelli was a Nazi sympathiser, which I most definitely do not. I do not know enough about it to say categorically that he wasn't, but what I have read points more to the belief that he was not, than the one that says he was.

Yes, sorry about that I should have been more clear, I realised you weren't supporting those claims.

I'm not pro-Vatican myself, but much has been made of Pacelli as "Hitler's Pope" which is just plain wrong and unfair. Given who Hitler was, it's also an insult to the memory of Pacelli and to whatever remains of the Pacelli family.

Yes, it stems back to the whole moronic argument that atheists regimes are more violent, because they have no divine morals to guide them.

The atheists are allowed to argue against that, but the eagerness with which the stories about Pacelli were spread, does seem spiteful, if for no other reason than the people who spread them were so keen for them to be true, they did not properly check whether or not they were.

Someone like myself, who lived through systemic abuse at the hands of catholic clergy, has no love or loyalty to the church of Rome, but I do have a love and loyalty to fairness, and I fear the atheist commentators have failed to be fair on this issue.

Whilst I don't think Pius XII was any more a Nazi than Chamberlain, Roosevelt, even our beloved Menzies and all the other 'appeasers', the material point is that Ms Phillips' words "...he referred to the Pope as a Nazi ..." do not merely imply, but mean expressly that Dawkins called Ratzinger a Nazi. He did not.

Ratzinger is the Pope.
Pacelli was a Pope.

She is a journalist (allegedly). She should be able to get it right, but she can't.

Crackpot.

Here is the man himself:
http://vimeo.com/10226561

He is obviously happy to be ambiguous, even though he wold know that most of his audience would think of the current pope when hearing 'Pope... Nazi...'

He is obviously speaking off the cuff, not from prepared notes. But as he is so evidently filled with contempt (nothing wrong with that in itself) he and his defenders cannot be serious when journalists, polemicists, professional off-the-cuff speakers also use a bit of bombastic hyperbole, giving the man and his epogons a taste of his own medicine. He and his boosters are in no position to get all correct and pedantic.

Geez, I wish they'd lighten up about canonisation. Of course religions would bestow supernatural awards on religious exemplars. So bloody what. At least the Vatican is not issuing fatwas on living people... Giving licence to religious filth to murder them.

Paella wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 8:49pm:

Whilst I don'y think Pius XII was any more a Nazi than Chamberlain, Roosevelt, even our beloved Menzies and all the other 'appeasers',

Pius XII was not a Nazi at all. Nor was he an appeaser. He did what a Catholic primate should and he had the intellect and the experience to do it.

Soren wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 10:12pm:

Here is the man himself: http://vimeo.com/10226561 He is obviously happy to be ambiguous, even though he wold know that most of his audience would think of the current pope when hearing 'Pope... Nazi...' He is obviously speaking off the cuff, not from prepared notes. But as he is so evidently filled with contempt (nothing wrong with that in itself) he and his defenders cannot be serious when journalists, polemicists, professional off-the-cuff speakers also use a bit of bombastic hyperbole, giving the man and his epogons a taste of his own medicine. He and his boosters are in no position to get all correct and pedantic.

Peppered with the applause and cheers from the usual embarrassing and fawning Australian audience. We Australians aren't all that informed and matured when it comes to religious thought. Being secular and mostly areligious from birth, we have an infantile comprehension of it. Anyone who says "That god stuff is all sh!t" gets a standing ovation. As if something really insightful has just been uttered.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 10:24pm:

Geez, I wish they'd lighten up about canonisation. Of course religions would bestow supernatural awards on religious exemplars. So bloody what.

I think saints are aids and guides to the contemplation of examplary lives. If the word  'miracles' is a bridge too far for some people, we can subtitute 'inexplicable'.

It is extremely unwise to uncritically throw away 2000 years worth of contemplative wisdom on the basis of anti-clericalism. Just as we don't have to believe  - or militantly dispute - the existence of the Greek pantheon to see that Plato makes a lot of sense even if he doesn't always hit the mark. The Church has borne a lot of excellent fruit. To cut it down, rather than prune it, is folly.

Well as a collection of unaligned individuals, who happen to share a common idea that what is taught, spoken, and enforced upon us, about "god", and supposedly for, or under, "god", is unjustifiable, it is hardly surprising that many would stand and cheer, and throw in a good measure of, "about bloody time", as well, when someone gets public recognition for positing a contrary view to what we have had dished up to us for hundreds of years.

The vast majority of atheists seem to hold very humanistic views, and proportionally are in greater numbers than all religions, except catholicism, yet because they do not ascribe to any particular religious grouping, they are supposed to sit back as one group after another demands rights for their religions that are not offered to all, and that is the absolute last straw for me.

We are supposed to sit back and watch as they brainwash little children with their ridiculous beliefs, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS, which is not such a big deal if they are moderate Anglicans, (who not coincidentally are more ecumenical, and far less isolationist than most), but is a big deal when the religious indoctrination is served up with a helping of anti-social, and often seditious attitudes towards all people outside of their faith, which leads to the most extreme forms of anti-social behaviour imaginable.

We saw the idiotically inflammatory Ms Phillips castigating Dawkins for being supportive of a course that was run, by a group he is associated with, for teaching children how to think clearly and logically, literally, just to teach Critical Thinking, because it did not include religion on the agenda, or as she idiotically put it, "excluded religion" from the course, as if it is unthinkable to not have religion imposed on everyone at every opportunity.
The absolute hubris of these religious twats who firmly believe they have the right to impose their idiotic fantasies onto children, even those who are not in any way asking to be proselytised to, is frankly more disturbing, than staggering, however staggering it may be.

The clear inference I choose to draw from Ms Phillips point, is that Critical Thinking, and religious teachings are incompatible, and I can see her point, as very little religious teaching can survive any fair critical evaluation.
But if I had to choose whether I want our children to develop the ability to reason and choose for themselves, or be subjected to religious indoctrination from before they have any ability to reason at all, then the choice is obvious to me, as it should be to any decent human being.

So before the apologists for religions get too carried away in seeking to protect the rights of the religious organisations in our community,undesrved rights which are already greatly weighted, unfairly, in their favour, they should take time to consider the rights of those who may not wish to have their society primarily defined by dogmas handed down from bronze age men purporting to know the will of god.

In our democratic society it should be the will of men, and the rights and freedoms of all men, that we offer our primary allegiance to.

But check with just about any religion's teachings, and see how much of their preaching actually reflects those ideals of individual human rights and freedoms, and I think you will find exponentially greater numbers of teachings that seek to usurp, rather than enshrine, those principles.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 11:37pm:

In our society it should be the will of men, and the rights and freedoms of all men, that we offer our primary allegiance to.

A commendable, Christian idea.

Secular humanism has grown out of Christianity, and crucially, could only grow out of Christianity. Without Christianity, secular humanim has no intellectual or philosophical foundation. Unless you want to posit some sort of  18th century divine spark as its inspiration.
And I do not just mean that opposition to Christianity is the foundation of humanist secularism. That line above, that is unthinkable without Christianity, even if the conceptual debt is forgotten or air-brushed out.

On forced inoctrination - I agree.
But proscribing or preventing the teaching of the intellectual foundations of your own ethical values is taking spite and resentment too far.

Quote:

But proscribing or preventing the teaching of the intellectual foundations of your own ethical values is taking spite and resentment too far.

Should I quote that back to you when Islamic schools are the issue Soren?

Should we expand the principle to include madrassahs, where only the koran is taught?

I do not seek to take away people's right to teach their religion to their children, just that it should not ever be allowed to be done exclusively, and should never be allowed as part of a child's "formal" education.

If they want to teach religion to their kids, it should be totally extra-curricular.

At least that way kids have some chance of learning at least something of reality, before they become totally committed to the religious choice their parents choose for them.

Islam is not the intellectual foundation of anything, least of all Australian ethical values, or secular humanism.
So quote it back if you must. Here's another one you quote back to me any time.

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Soren wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 11:19pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 18th, 2010 at 10:24pm: Geez, I wish they'd lighten up about canonisation. Of course religions would bestow supernatural awards on religious exemplars. So bloody what. I think saints are aids and guides to the contemplation of examplary lives. If the word  'miracles' is a bridge too far for some people, we can subtitute 'inexplicable'. It is extremely unwise to uncritically throw away 2000 years worth of contemplative wisdom on the basis of anti-clericalism. Just as we don't have to believe  - or militantly dispute - the existence of the Greek pantheon to see that Plato makes a lot of sense even if he doesn't always hit the mark. The Church has borne a lot of excellent fruit. To cut it down, rather than prune it, is folly.

I don't believe canonisation is relevant or that useful at all to society, particularly not to Australian society (where canonisation could have the reverse of the intended effect by engendering ridicule), but I also don't believe there's any need to be concerned about it. It's harmless. It's a posthumous award bestowed by an organisation that can necessarily only bestow its highest award on dead people. If it makes some people feel warm and fuzzy about being Australian and Catholic, then well and good. Why should anyone deny or resent that comfort.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 11:37pm:

Well as a collection of unaligned individuals, who happen to share a common idea that what is taught, spoken, and enforced upon us, about "god", and supposedly for, or under, "god", is unjustifiable, it is hardly surprising that many would stand and cheer, and throw in a good measure of, "about bloody time", as well, when someone gets public recognition for positing a contrary view to what we have had dished up to us for hundreds of years.

It just seems a bit infantile to be so eager to cheer when nothing has been said. It's hardly the case that we're under the yoke of the church and only just being liberated by "the great father Dawkins".

But it's probably more that we're a great nation of iconoclasts and piss-takers (and ain't it great!) that makes us jump up and cheer so easily.

I sense a slight embarrassment in Dawkins and Hitchens when they speak in Australia. They're hardly challenged at all here. They're preaching to the converted. They announce to us that "god stuff is bunkum" and we're dancing in the aisles. The irony being that while we're busy with our iconoclasm we're making (dare I say it) living saints out of the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens by our fawning uncritical acceptance of their every utterance, no matter how frivolous they may be.

Is there not a risk that we're replacing "old-timey religion" with "scientism"?

A joke that did the email circuit recently was "100 office dares". One of them was - Finish every sentence with "In accordance with the prophecy...".

Maybe another could be - "In accordance with science..."

Or even more scary - "In accordance with Father Dawkins... let us cheer"

Fair enough points in many ways, Helian, but for some people it is a sad fact that they may not be the most critical and incisive thinkers, and to have people like Hitchens, or Dawkins, enunciate what they struggle to bring clearly to even themselves, is probably a heady experience for them when they see clear thinking, and rational arguments promoted over dogma and ritual, which they know is right, but struggle to do on their own.

They are hardly the happy clappers of Hillsaong, and even if they may err on certain points, and cross the bounds of what some deem as acceptable, as we agreed upon in regards to Pacelli, the fact remains that the church is still promoting practices which directly result in increasing suffering for those who adhere to their directives, so cannot be felt sorry for as a benign institution, until it actually retreats from it's malignant teachings.
So a current pope who most definitely was a part of the Hitler youth, seeking to canonise a former pope whose actions are not even yet fully known, because the vatican itself has not released all the documents from the time, is not going to receive great sympathy from me, for being harshly done by at the hands of criticisms which may have overstated their case by a significant margin.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 4:33am:

Maybe another could be - "In accordance with science..."

Which could be literally interpreted as "in accordance with that logical conjecture which has not been contradicted by an accumulation of thoroughly tested emprical data, and is subject to an ongoing and continual process of review and revision by both the peers of its proponents and by subsequent practitioners."

Obviously you have a problem with this?

mozzaok wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 7:42am:

Fair enough points in many ways, Helian, but for some people it is a sad fact that they may not be the most critical and incisive thinkers, and to have people like Hitchens, or Dawkins, enunciate what they struggle to bring clearly to even themselves, is probably a heady experience for them when they see clear thinking, and rational arguments promoted over dogma and ritual, which they know is right, but struggle to do on their own.

Fair enough.


mozzaok wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 7:42am:

They are hardly the happy clappers of Hillsaong,

Are you sure about that?


mozzaok wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 7:42am:

So a current pope who most definitely was a part of the Hitler youth,

And here we are again. An unjust slur against Catholic primate. Speak with old Austrians and Germans about the Hitler Youth and when you hear of the penalties for not allowing your children to attend the Hitler Youth which by December 1939 was compulsory (prior to that it from 1933-1939 it was all but legally compulsory) and you'll understand. Ratzinger was born in 1927. He was forced to join the Hitler Youth in 1941 against his wishes and those of his family who were ardent Catholics.

As I said, I'm not pro-Vatican but perpetuating outright falsehoods and half-truths against Popes merely because they are/were popes is just plain wrong.


mozzaok wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 7:42am:

seeking to canonise a former pope whose actions are not even yet fully known, because the vatican itself has not released all the documents from the time, is not going to receive great sympathy from me, for being harshly done by at the hands of criticisms which may have overstated their case by a significant margin.

Funny, because everyone who knew Pacelli agree that he was a decent, intelligent and empathetic person who was deeply affected by the plight of Jews and others suffering under fascism and Nazism. The Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem sent this message to him in 1944

Quote:

"The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world."

After the war, the Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism, taking the name Eugenio Zolli in honor of Eugenio Pacelli.

Doesn't appear that leading Jews of the day considered Pacelli "Hitler's Pope".

Paella wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 8:07am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 19th, 2010 at 4:33am: Maybe another could be - "In accordance with science..." Which could be literally interpreted as "in accordance with that logical conjecture which has not been contradicted by an accumulation of thoroughly tested emprical data, and is subject to an ongoing and continual process of review and revision by both the peers of its proponents and by subsequent practitioners."

Alright, finish every sentence with that. ;D

And wait till the conversation is about tits. (come to think of it, that might be funny... say it during a conversation about... bowel disorders).

Don't be surprised if you're not invited to too many office drinks after a while, but ;D

I saw richard dawkins on a tv prog a few nights ago.

A bit funny really, he was looking upwards for divine intervention whilst preparing a tirade against chrtistians.
he did not fire the same ammo at muslims.

then, to cap it off, he asked the crowd what they though of a god who came down to be tortured for their own forgiveness.
the crowd all though that was pretty cool really.

he was the bad side of athiests

Maybe he was just looking upwards. ??

Seems to me he'd be the last person to be looking for divine intervention.

He does hit the Christians hard (deservedly so), but I have seen him hit Islam as well. Stands to reason why he hits Christianity so hard in Australia, US and UK. He's no fan of Islam either.

i thought he'ld be unlikely to look for divine guidance too

he was a skirt against muzzies.

why would be be so justified in blasting christianity ?
bet he would not raise a peep inside an islamic country

You miss the point helian, the whole reason that I raised the current pope's involvement in the hitler youth, and his seeking to cannonise pacelli, who has long been considered by many as, "Hitler's" Pope, which both you and I disagree with, because of what we have read about the subject, but the fact that Rome still refuses to release documents from that period to be examined by any outside the church, which could shed further light onto just what really went on, is enough to still leave many with unanswered questions.
That paranoid secrecy, that resistance to openness, that refusal to ever allow the cold light of independent scrutiny to ever come to bear upon the church, is the same old catholic attitude that has set itself up for criticism on those issues for such a very long time.

So while they maintain their secret organisation, and while they refuse to release pertinent material that could definitively settle the issue once and for all, then as they say in the classics, F... them.

Why not? Why do we have to respect something simply because others believe in it?

As far as Islam goes I'd love to see him go at them just as hard, perhaps he doesn't because of his following quote-

"I don't think we should go out of our way to insult Islam because it doesn't do any good to get your head cut off," ....

mozzaok wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 11:47am:

You miss the point helian, the whole reason that I raised the current pope's involvement in the hitler youth, and his seeking to cannonise pacelli, who has long been considered by many as, "Hitler's" Pope, which both you and I disagree with, because of what we have read about the subject, but the fact that Rome still refuses to release documents from that period to be examined by any outside the church, which could shed further light onto just what really went on, is enough to still leave many with unanswered questions. That paranoid secrecy, that resistance to openness, that refusal to ever allow the cold light of independent scrutiny to ever come to bear upon the church, is the same old catholic attitude that has set itself up for criticism on those issues for such a very long time. So while they maintain their secret organisation, and while they refuse to release pertinent material that could definitively settle the issue once and for all, then as they say in the classics, F... them.

So what has Ratzinger's forced membership of the Hitler Youth got to do with canonising Pacelli?

Actually nearly all of Pacelli's documents and relevant material have been made publicly available and there is very little that has not been due to Vatican archive rules. But of that which has not been made open to the public has been viewed by some historians. Few historians (Catholic or non) believe there is a "smoking gun" with Pacelli's name on it.

Most of what Pacelli did for the Jews went undocumented and unrecorded for very obvious reasons. One being that both Mussolini and Hitler were looking for any reason to invade the Vatican and arrest the Pope. His blatant and public interference in German and Italian government would probably have been a trigger. Mussolini would have taken particular delight in doing this as he hated Pacelli. The second obvious reason is that any documentation that indicated where the church was hiding Jews and "enemies of the state" would have meant death for them and their protectors.

For the more cynical among us, any idea that there would be document signed by Pacelli that proves he collaborated with the German and Italian governments to deport Jews or reveal their identity to the Nazis and fascists is about as likely as one that shows Hitler authorised, in writing, the final solution. So hey, maybe the holocaust was Pacelli's idea and Hitler just went along for the ride.  ::)

Ehh!, what can I say, I don't trust them, funny about that, who would think that lying to, and abusing people for hundreds of years would result in that?

jordan -
Quote:

Why not? Why do we have to respect something simply because others believe in it?

Exactly.  I entirely agree.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 12:16pm:

Ehh!, what can I say, I don't trust them, funny about that, who would think that lying to, and abusing people for hundreds of years would result in that?

You sound like an embittered ex-Catholic Mozz. ;D

If you are, you'd better watch out... According to the Jesuits, you're the kind who makes a late life return to the mother Church.  :o


But seriously.... We'll probably never know the reasons or extent of Pacelli's or anyone's silence or assistance. The final word on this could go to Keneally who said of the motives of the now lauded Oskar Schindler -


Quote:

"even those who knew [Schindler] will blink and shake their heads and begin the almost mathematical business of finding the sum of his motives. For one of the commonest sentiments of Schindler Jews is still 'I don't know why he did it'"

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 8:25am:

Paella wrote on Mar 19th, 2010 at 8:07am: Which could be literally interpreted as "in accordance with that logical conjecture which has not been contradicted by an accumulation of thoroughly tested emprical data, and is subject to an ongoing and continual process of review and revision by both the peers of its proponents and by subsequent practitioners." Alright, finish every sentence with that. ;D

Or I could just say "... in accordance with science."

Or perhaps " ... this is the gospel according to His noodly goodness, the flying spaghetti monster."

But I won't.

Paella wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 4:57pm:

Or I could just say "... in accordance with science." Or perhaps " ... this is the gospel according to His noodly goodness, the flying spaghetti monster." But I won't.

I tell ya, bloke, its harder than it looks. Its a long way to the top if you wanna be droll.

jordan484 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 6:46am:

Quote: They have even less rational grounds for that belief than those who believe in God. Really? Can you be more specific.

I assume you are familiar with the various reasons that religious people have for their belief. Atheists seem to base their belief on a belief that religious people are wrong, and that therefor believing the exact opposite is somehow right. They believe there is no God because other people believe there is a God. If there were no religious people, I doubt there would be any atheists.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 12:30pm:

The fact that Hitler and the Nazis misrepresented the Concordat as legitimising their policies was not the fault of Pius XII.

Who described him as a career diplomat?

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 9:06pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 18th, 2010 at 12:30pm: The fact that Hitler and the Nazis misrepresented the Concordat as legitimising their policies was not the fault of Pius XII. Who described him as a career diplomat?

Please, have you learned nothing from Mr Google?

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 8:56pm:

jordan484 wrote on Mar 18th, 2010 at 6:46am: Quote: They have even less rational grounds for that belief than those who believe in God. Really? Can you be more specific. I assume you are familiar with the various reasons that religious people have for their belief. Atheists seem to base their belief on a belief that religious people are wrong, and that therefor believing the exact opposite is somehow right. They believe there is no God because other people believe there is a God. If there were no religious people, I doubt there would be any atheists.

Excellent formulation: atheism is a contrariness that is utterly contingent on religion.

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 8:56pm:

jordan484 wrote on Mar 18th, 2010 at 6:46am: Quote: They have even less rational grounds for that belief than those who believe in God. Really? Can you be more specific. I assume you are familiar with the various reasons that religious people have for their belief. Atheists seem to base their belief on a belief that religious people are wrong, and that therefor believing the exact opposite is somehow right. They believe there is no God because other people believe there is a God. If there were no religious people, I doubt there would be any atheists.

We're atheists because there is no need to believe there is a god.

Soren wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 9:14pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 19th, 2010 at 8:56pm: jordan484 wrote on Mar 18th, 2010 at 6:46am: [quote]They have even less rational grounds for that belief than those who believe in God. Really? Can you be more specific. I assume you are familiar with the various reasons that religious people have for their belief. Atheists seem to base their belief on a belief that religious people are wrong, and that therefor believing the exact opposite is somehow right. They believe there is no God because other people believe there is a God. If there were no religious people, I doubt there would be any atheists.

Excellent formulation: atheism is a contrariness that is utterly contingent on religion.

Just on the plain of logic and argumentation, I am curious to see how zealous atheists will escape from these handcuffs.

Soren wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 9:16pm:

Excellent formulation: atheism is a contrariness that is utterly contingent on religion. Just on the plain of logic and argumentation, I am curious to see how zealous atheists will escape from these handcuffs.

Belief requires an object in which one believes.

Quote:

The vast majority of atheists seem to hold very humanistic views, and proportionally are in greater numbers than all religions, except catholicism, yet because they do not ascribe to any particular religious grouping, they are supposed to sit back as one group after another demands rights for their religions that are not offered to all, and that is the absolute last straw for me. We are supposed to sit back and watch as they brainwash little children with their ridiculous beliefs, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS, which is not such a big deal if they are moderate Anglicans, (who not coincidentally are more ecumenical, and far less isolationist than most), but is a big deal when the religious indoctrination is served up with a helping of anti-social, and often seditious attitudes towards all people outside of their faith, which leads to the most extreme forms of anti-social behaviour imaginable.

You start off talking about rights, but you end with the government taking people's children away from them because you disagree with what they are teaching. Can you explain what fundamental right they are taking away from atheists? The right to force other people to raise their children a certain way? The only person here promoting the denial of basic human rights is you Mozz. You throw the term around constantly, but won't say what you mean by it, because you actually opposue human rights. You are no different to the Christians who stole aboriginal children because they thought they had a better way, except that you cannot see the inevitable consequence of your argument.


Quote:

But if I had to choose whether I want our children

When you say 'our' children, you do actually mean other people's children that you are claiming ownership of?

Quote:

In our democratic society it should be the will of men, and the rights and freedoms of all men, that we offer our primary allegiance to.

And by this you mean that you get to interfere with how other people raise their children?


Quote:

It just seems a bit infantile to be so eager to cheer when nothing has been said. It's hardly the case that we're under the yoke of the church and only just being liberated by "the great father Dawkins".

It is kind of Ironic that Dawkins promotes criticism of Christianity when it is so tolerant of it, but also encourages people not to criticise Islam because it doesn't handle criticisme well. He is not a great defender of humanism - quite the opposite. He is a cowardly media whore who only takes the safe and populist options. He is basically telling people to self censor in the face of threats to freedom of speech.


Quote:

Which could be literally interpreted as "in accordance with that logical conjecture which has not been contradicted by an accumulation of thoroughly tested emprical data, and is subject to an ongoing and continual process of review and revision by both the peers of its proponents and by subsequent practitioners." Obviously you have a problem with this?

For starters it is too long and cumbersome.


Quote:

Excellent formulation: atheism is a contrariness that is utterly contingent on religion.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say.


Quote:

We're atheists because there is no need to believe there is a god.

So because you don't have to believe in God, you believe God does not exist? That is not logical, or rational. At least religious people can come up with rational reasons for their beliefs. Atheists cannot.


Quote:

Belief requires an object in which one believes.

So if you believe the 'object' does not exist, you don't actually believe anything?

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 9:32pm:

So because you don't have to believe in God, you believe God does not exist? That is not logical, or rational. At least religious people can come up with rational reasons for their beliefs. Atheists cannot. Quote: Belief requires an object in which one believes. So if you believe the 'object' does not exist, you don't actually believe anything?

The question is meaningless.

OK, let me simplify.

Do you believe that God does not exist?

If so, what is the rational or logical basis of this belief?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 9:22pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 19th, 2010 at 9:16pm: Excellent formulation: atheism is a contrariness that is utterly contingent on religion. Just on the plain of logic and argumentation, I am curious to see how zealous atheists will escape from these handcuffs. Belief requires an object in which one believes.

Atheism is negative theology, a firm belief in the absence of god. There's your object, the absent god. It is the belief in the absence of that object. It is a belief in 'there is no there, there.'

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 9:39pm:

OK, let me simplify. Do you believe that God does not exist? If so, what is the rational or logical basis of this belief?

The question is meaningless. There is no object in which to believe.

Soren wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 9:39pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 19th, 2010 at 9:22pm: Soren wrote on Mar 19th, 2010 at 9:16pm: Excellent formulation: atheism is a contrariness that is utterly contingent on religion. Just on the plain of logic and argumentation, I am curious to see how zealous atheists will escape from these handcuffs. Belief requires an object in which one believes. Atheism is negative theology, a firm belief in the absence of god. There's your object, the absent god. It is the belief in the absence of that object. It is a belief in 'there is no there, there.'

Is it?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 9:43pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 19th, 2010 at 9:39pm: OK, let me simplify. Do you believe that God does not exist? If so, what is the rational or logical basis of this belief? The question is meaningless. There is no object in which to believe.

You appear to be saying yes while denying the validity of the question at the same time.

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 9:49pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 19th, 2010 at 9:43pm: freediver wrote on Mar 19th, 2010 at 9:39pm: OK, let me simplify. Do you believe that God does not exist? If so, what is the rational or logical basis of this belief? The question is meaningless. There is no object in which to believe. You appear to be saying yes while denying the validity of the question at the same time.

No, I'm saying the question is meaningless.

But your reason for saying it is meaningless is because your answer is yes. That is, you claim that it is meaningless to ask whether you believe that God does not exist because you believe that God does not exist.

Have I misunderstood you? Perhaps you could try to clarify.

Quote:

Excellent formulation: atheism is a contrariness that is utterly contingent on religion. Just on the plain of logic and argumentation, I am curious to see how zealous atheists will escape from these handcuffs.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if people weren't labeled with such terms and just called each other people.
Yes atheists choose not to subscribe to club theist. This doesn't mean that they are automatically subcribed to club atheism, they just haven't joined club theism.


Quote:

OK, let me simplify. Do you believe that God does not exist? If so, what is the rational or logical basis of this belief?

Id' like to answer that question, but first I need some clarification on what I am or am not believing in.

If  you might answer these few simple questions, I would be happy to give you an answer to your question:


- What form does God take? A human form (such as an old man with a beard), a form of energy, or something else?

-The Christian God is always called a "He" Does he have genitals, and if so, what does he use them for? Making Jesus's?

- Does God control specific occurences such as earthquakes, cylones etc. or did he merely put the infrastructure into place and the rest is left up to chance?

- Can praying to God help to stop an earthquake?

- Does God live in the same house as Allah and all of the various other Gods?  If so, who washes the dishes?


...I have plenty more stupid questions, but a few answers here would help to clarify my belief or lack thereof.  :-?

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 9:53pm:

But your reason for saying it is meaningless is because your answer is yes. That is, you claim that it is meaningless to ask whether you believe that God does not exist because you believe that God does not exist. Have I misunderstood you? Perhaps you could try to clarify.

Mu.

Quote:

I assume you are familiar with the various reasons that religious people have for their belief. Atheists seem to base their belief on a belief that religious people are wrong, and that therefor believing the exact opposite is somehow right. They believe there is no God because other people believe there is a God. If there were no religious people, I doubt there would be any atheists.

Seems a rather infantile explanation, and a bitter one too. No it isn't exactly right. We base our belief on evidence. If that contradicts a religious belief of a magical man in the sky then sure, we believe the "exact opposite". We believe there is no God because there is no evidence for such a God. The same way we believe there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden. We base our beliefs in a totally different way to religious folk. What's LESS rational about it?

It is incorrect to say that atheists believe in the non-existence of god. It is meaningless to say one is in the state-of-belief in non-belief. The term “atheist” itself is only grammatically useful for purposes of distinction, but in the context of having the same properties as "theist" (i.e. having a direct object) it is meaningless.

Hence, it is senseless to imagine that “Atheists” sit in contemplation of what the state-of-non-existence (and by that I'm not implying that non-existence exists) has in mind for humanity.

The argument begins only after the theist’s declared consequences of his belief – “God exists so we must all keep holy and respect the Sabbath day”, “God exists so you must not eat pork” or “god exists and if you do not live your lives according to the rules that his prophets have provided for you, I will kill you”.

If I said to you “Grebeliansim exists and therefore we must all grotsnoo our schneerplonk every schnickplick”. If you shrugged your shoulders and walked away, are you declaring your agrebelianism? Are you, by that, in the state of believing in the non-existence of grebel?

If I banged drums at 7:00AM outside your house, harassed you in the street and demanded you observe snickplick by schneerplonking your grotsnoo and you got angry, abused me and/or took action against me, are you just a militant agrebelianist who has no more right (or even less right) to your agrebelianism than I to my grebelianism.

You did nothing to me to instigate the conflict, made no statement about your state-of-belief, yet somehow you must now be called to account (and offer an apology) for your agrebelianism.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 7:53am:

If I said to you “Grebeliansim exists and therefore we must all grotsnoo our schneerplonk every schnickplick”. If you shrugged your shoulders and walked away, are you declaring your agrebelianism? Are you, by that, in the state of believing in the non-existence of grebel? If I banged drums at 7:00AM outside your house, harassed you in the street and demanded you observe snickplick by schneerplonking your grotsnoo and you got angry, abused me and/or took action against me, are you just a militant agrebelianist who has no more right (or even less right) to your agrebelianism than I to my grebelianism. You did nothing to me to instigate the conflict, made no statement about your state-of-belief, yet somehow you must now be called to account (and offer an apology) for your agrebelianism.

The very obvious and cruucial difference is that blief in god makes you see the world in the way you imagine the world. Grebeliansim is random and is unrelated to the world, like round circles. The metaphysical imagination's greatest significanc is that it gives shape to the worldy imagination. Or the other way around - as you see the world, so you will imagine metaphysics. The metaphysical imagination is the grouinding for the social, practical world. Each society strives to reproduce or emulate or eanctr the ethics of its metaphysical world.

The empirical, positivist aspects of the world are but one part of this imagination. Stripping that of all ethics is verbally possible but cannot be a lived experience.

There is no athesist ethical imagintion that has not grown out of religious ethics, religious imagination. There are literary examples of what it might be like but all of them are dystopias: from the Homeric lotus eaters, through the Marquis De Sade to 1984.

There is a bit of patricidal element in current atheism. At any rate, it is not possible for an atheist to be anything but a rebel against (the idea) of god.

Quote:

The very obvious and cruucial difference is that blief in god makes you see the world in the way you imagine the world.

Does it?


Quote:

Grebeliansim is random and is unrelated to the world, like round circles.

Is it?


Quote:

The metaphysical imagination's greatest significanc is that it gives shape to the worldy imagination. Or the other way around - as you see the world, so you will imagine metaphysics. The metaphysical imagination is the grouinding for the social, practical world. Each society strives to reproduce or emulate or eanctr the ethics of its metaphysical world.

OK.


Quote:

The empirical, positivist aspects of the world are but one part of this imagination. Stripping that of all ethics is verbally possible but cannot be a lived experience.

So we should not eat pork?


Quote:

There is no athesist ethical imagintion that has not grown out of religious ethics, religious imagination.

Implying that religion comes before mind… That “do as you would be done by” cannot be intuited from experience without a priori religious knowledge.


Quote:

There is a bit of patricidal element in current atheism. At any rate, it is not possible for an atheist to be anything but a rebel against (the idea) of god.

Atheism, if it is anything at all, is the response to what you (the theist) say your belief must also mean to me.

Quote:

Yes atheists choose not to subscribe to club theist. This doesn't mean that they are automatically subcribed to club atheism, they just haven't joined club theism.

Amadd, if they are atheists, they are atheists.


Quote:

- What form does God take? A human form (such as an old man with a beard), a form of energy, or something else?

Any form you like. We are talking about theism, not any particular religion.


Quote:

Seems a rather infantile explanation, and a bitter one too. No it isn't exactly right. We base our belief on evidence.

So you have evidence that God does not exist? Interesting.


Quote:

We believe there is no God because there is no evidence for such a God.

This is a fundamental logical fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Plus, if you ask a religious person, they will produce plenty of evidence. Also, you said above that you base your belief on evidence, but here you contradict yourself and say you have no evidence on which to base your belief. Isn;t this identical to basing your belief on ignorance?


Quote:

It is incorrect to say that atheists believe in the non-existence of god.

No it isn't. That is after all what they believe.


Quote:

Hence, it is senseless to imagine that “Atheists” sit in contemplation of what the state-of-non-existence (and by that I'm not implying that non-existence exists) has in mind for humanity.

No-one is suggesting that. All we are suggesting is that atheists believe God does not exist, which is the definition of atheism.

Quote:

If I said to you “Grebeliansim exists and therefore we must all grotsnoo our schneerplonk every schnickplick”. If you shrugged your shoulders and walked away, are you declaring your agrebelianism?

No. That would be an ambiguous response.


Quote:

If I banged drums at 7:00AM outside your house...

This just reinforces the irrationality of atheism. Whether you are upset by what these people do obviously affects what you believe, just not in a rational way.

Quote:

[quote] It is incorrect to say that atheists believe in the non-existence of god.

No it isn't. That is after all what they believe. [/quote]
No, disbelief in the existence of god is not the same as belief in non-existence.

If you said “Pigs fly” and I said “I don’t believe it”. I am saying, “I don’t believe pigs fly”, not, “I believe in the non-existence of flying pigs”.

The term “atheist” itself is only grammatically useful for purposes of distinction, but in the context of having the same properties as "theist" (i.e. having a direct object) it is meaningless.


Quote:

[quote] Hence, it is senseless to imagine that “Atheists” sit in contemplation of what the state-of-non-existence (and by that I'm not implying that non-existence exists) has in mind for humanity.

No-one is suggesting that. All we are suggesting is that atheists believe God does not exist, which is the definition of atheism. [/quote]
Disbelief in the existence of god is not the same as belief in non-existence.


Quote:

[quote]If I banged drums at 7:00AM outside your house...

This just reinforces the irrationality of atheism. Whether you are upset by what these people do obviously affects what you believe, just not in a rational way. [/quote]

No, any response to that might indicate one's anger at being woken by banging drums outside one's house not militant agrebelianism.

Quote:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This is true. It's impossible to prove the absence of something. But common sense needs to kick in at some point. Do you belief in fairies, goblins, dragons, snozwagers and rotten vermicious knids? Because if you believe in God in the absence of evidence you must also believe in all that I mention and more.

I don't believe in something because of it's absence and the inability to prove that something doesn't exist, I believe in something because it does exist because of evidence.

Quote:

No, disbelief in the existence of god is not the same as belief in non-existence.

You are confusing agnostics and atheists.


Quote:

Because if you believe in God in the absence of evidence you must also believe in all that I mention and more.

I have never met a person who believes in God but bases this on no evidence.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 11:16am:

Quote: [quote] It is incorrect to say that atheists believe in the non-existence of god. No it isn't. That is after all what they believe.

No, disbelief in the existence of god is not the same as belief in non-existence.

If you said “Pigs fly” and I said “I don’t believe it”. I am saying, “I don’t believe pigs fly”, not, “I believe in the non-existence of flying pigs”.

[/quote]


I do see what you are aiming for but you ae making a basic mistake. You confuse attributes/qualities (flying) with existence (god).

A better analogy may be the phantom limb syndrome: if my leg is amputated but I still  feel it itching - do you believe me? There is no empirical test (except cutting off your own leg), only my reporting it.
An empirically, physically non existent thing has attributes felt and experienced in this world. Perhap god is that itch of the soul.

Quote:

I have never met a person who believes in God but bases this on no evidence.

"Faith" and/or delusion are not evidence.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 1:09pm:

Quote: No, disbelief in the existence of god is not the same as belief in non-existence. You are confusing agnostics and atheists.

Now you're just being silly.

Soren wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 1:18pm:

I do see what you are aiming for but you ae making a basic mistake. You confuse attributes/qualities (flying) with existence (god).

The upshot is the same.

Disbelief in the existence of X is not belief in non-existence.


Soren wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 1:18pm:

A better analogy may be the phantom limb syndrome: if my leg is amputated but I still  feel it itching - do you believe me? There is no empirical test (except cutting off your own leg), only my reporting it. An empirically, physically non existent thing has attributes felt and experienced in this world. Perhap god is that itch of the soul.

OK.

So long as your feeling an itch in your amputated limb does not lead you to insist I don't eat pork.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 2:10pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 1:18pm: I do see what you are aiming for but you ae making a basic mistake. You confuse attributes/qualities (flying) with existence (god). The upshot is the same. Disbelief in the existence of X is not belief in non-existence.

Well, not quite.


If you wipe away one horizon (a theistic one) you need to draw another one (an atheist one) . You can't have a landscape (the totality of your conception of the world and exsitence and all that stuff) without a conceptual horizon or limit. Looking out of your skull as a human being, you cannot but add, as an attribute of your consciousness,  a horizon to what you see, the same way as causality, time and dimention etc are qualities of your human mind and not of th world. (cf Kant).

So atheism might not have god as its limit experience but it has another horizon, a non-god one. If that is only science (a great and important thing), then it is an impoverished perception, nevertheless. Life is not lived scientifically.


It works the other way around too. Some atheists undego a perceptual shift and see the atheist horizon more and more as you see the horizon in a Turner painting - you can't quite make it out. They become lapsed atheists.  I am one of these.  





NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 2:10pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 1:18pm: A better analogy may be the phantom limb syndrome: if my leg is amputated but I still  feel it itching - do you believe me? There is no empirical test (except cutting off your own leg), only my reporting it. An empirically, physically non existent thing has attributes felt and experienced in this world. Perhap god is that itch of the soul. OK. So long as your feeling an itch in your amputated limb does not lead you to insist I don't eat pork.

Fine, tuck in. But one of the legs gotta go.

;)

jordan484 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 1:28pm:

Quote: I have never met a person who believes in God but bases this on no evidence. "Faith" and/or delusion are not evidence.

Think about it a bit more then.


NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 2:02pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 1:09pm: Quote: No, disbelief in the existence of god is not the same as belief in non-existence. You are confusing agnostics and atheists. Now you're just being silly.

I'm sure the agnostics would not consider the distinction silly. They certainly wouldn't want to be lumped together with the irrational atheists. Is your entire argument built upon failing to distinguish between these two groups?

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 2:32pm:

I'm sure the agnostics would not consider the distinction silly. They certainly wouldn't want to be lumped together with the irrational atheists. Is your entire argument built upon failing to distinguish between these two groups?

It seems we've stumbled over a Wittgensteinian problem.

Define agnosticism in this word game such that it demonstrates your point that my statement "disbelief in the existence of god is not the same as belief in non-existence" is anything about agnosticism.

Soren wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 2:24pm:

Well, not quite. If you wipe away one horizon (a theistic one) you need to draw another one (an atheist one) . You can't have a landscape (the totality of your conception of the world and exsitence and all that stuff) without a conceptual horizon or limit. Looking out of your skull as a human being, you cannot but add, as an attribute of your consciousness,  a horizon to what you see, the same way as causality, time and dimention etc are qualities of your human mind and not of th world. (cf Kant).

OK.


Soren wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 2:24pm:

So atheism might not have god as its limit experience but it has another horizon, a non-god one. If that is only science (a great and important thing), then it is an impoverished perception, nevertheless. Life is not lived scientifically.

And do you presume it can only be science? That there can be no sense of the numinous without god?


Soren wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 2:24pm:

It works the other way around too. Some atheists undego a perceptual shift and see the atheist horizon more and more as you see the horizon in a Turner painting - you can't quite make it out. They become lapsed atheists.  I am one of these.

Yep, some will come limping back when the fires of fury in their belly are out. Just like those bloody Jesuits said they would.


Soren wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 1:18pm:

Fine, tuck in. But one of the legs gotta go. ;)

Ya see, you can’t just have it as yours… You guys have always got to make it ours. ;)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 2:24pm: So atheism might not have god as its limit experience but it has another horizon, a non-god one. If that is only science (a great and important thing), then it is an impoverished perception, nevertheless. Life is not lived scientifically. And do you presume it can only be science? That there can be no sense of the numinous without god?

Numinous, god - what's the diff? The beard? But that's just for the kiddies.

Soren wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 3:12pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 3:03pm: Soren wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 2:24pm: So atheism might not have god as its limit experience but it has another horizon, a non-god one. If that is only science (a great and important thing), then it is an impoverished perception, nevertheless. Life is not lived scientifically. And do you presume it can only be science? That there can be no sense of the numinous without god? Numinous, god - what's the diff? The beard? But that's just for the kiddies.

A sense of the numinous is my emotional response and doesn't instruct me to not eat pork. ;)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 3:16pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 3:12pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 3:03pm: Soren wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 2:24pm: So atheism might not have god as its limit experience but it has another horizon, a non-god one. If that is only science (a great and important thing), then it is an impoverished perception, nevertheless. Life is not lived scientifically. And do you presume it can only be science? That there can be no sense of the numinous without god? Numinous, god - what's the diff? The beard? But that's just for the kiddies. A sense of the numinous doesn't instruct me to not eat pork. ;)

OK.
What does it instruct you do/not do?

Soren wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 3:18pm:

OK. What does it instruct you do/not do?

It's my emotional response.

The feeling doesn't compel me to not eat pork (presuming I have not been overcome with a sense of solidarity with pigs)

More importantly, though, the feeling doesn't compel me to insist others don't eat pork.

Quote:

Think about it a bit more then.

Weak and arrogant reply. You've been hanging around Abu too long. If there is real evidence for a God, let's see it. If not, simply admit you're going on faith and faith alone.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 3:19pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 3:18pm: OK. What does it instruct you do/not do? It's my emotional response.

I'm sorry, I didn't know that 'numinous' was a synonym for 'solipsism'.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 3:19pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 3:18pm: OK. What does it instruct you do/not do? It's my emotional response.

But the numinous is the presence of the divine, (by necessity something that is not any particular self). I don't think that the emotion of self-love, the self-referencing 'it's all me', quite cuts it as the numinous.

Once again we see silly theists attempting to resile their fantasies as not simply delusional beliefs they choose because it makes them feel good, by mounting semantic absurdities as argument.

FD brings the hoary old chestnut of atheism as being a "belief" in the non-existence of god, but shrinks from even attempting to provide any definition of the word, god, which is the basis for the whole silly exercise.

For the edification of the pedants, I will clearly state that I have absolutely no belief, in any form of deity that is worshipped by any organised religion.

These organised religions do give their deities, form, and attributes, and do not leave their personal definitions of deities as an unknown spiritual force, which would leave the door of possibility open, on just what does or does not exist.
No, these ratbags give their gods, birthdays, and even invent human characteristics and personalities for their gods, and naturally people not prone to fantasy, dismiss this as fantasy.
It seems perfectly fair to me.

So it seems that for some, the intellectual guilt they take on board, for choosing to believe in something which is contrary to all logical analysis, or critical evaluation, leaves them feeling the need to lash out at those who do not wish to share their delusions, which is a shame, because that sort of defeats the purpose of holding those silly delusions in the first place.

A more worthy response from a theist would be, I do not understand it, it may be contrary to logic, and I cannot explain it, but I just know it makes me feel better.
Now if they could do that, and not seek to impose onto society in general, beliefs and standards they claim come from their fantasy god, then I would be glad for them, and for society.

FD, you really are a bonehead about this whole religious education issue, you keep repeating the lie that I want to take children off their parents.
Why would you say that?
I most certainly have never endorsed that.
My position is clear, and it was repeated in the last post you responded to, no religion in scholls, religious education only as an extra curricular activity.
Comprehende muchacho?

Soren wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 5:36pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 3:19pm: Soren wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 3:18pm: OK. What does it instruct you do/not do? It's my emotional response. But the numinous is the presence of the divine, (by necessity something that is not any particular self). I don't think that the emotion of self-love, the self-referencing 'it's all me', quite cuts it as the numinous.

Why should theists think they have a mortgage on the term "numinous"?

A sense of the numinous (or wonder/awe) is quite human and does not require belief in the existence of god to appreciate the feeling nor to validate or legitimise it.

And don't kid yourself, any feeling you put down to the presence of god is entirely about yourself and how you feel.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 5:38pm:

A more worthy response from a theist would be, I do not understand it, it may be contrary to logic, and I cannot explain it, but I just know it makes me feel better.

I have no problem with this. Any idea of 'god' and all the rest of the rituals come from that 'I do not understand', that wonder. The vessels it is all poured into - since we have the misfortune of living now and 5000 years ago - are the historically developed religions.
Being hung up about the 'law' at the expense of the attentiveness to that wonder is silly and can be murderous.
All the same, dismissing all rituals is to dismiss the age old and tested spiritual exercises that do bring individuals into the presence of the numinous, even if they cannot develop their own self-referencial religion (except in California, of course.)
One of the greatest boons of religion is to keep in check the self-referencing reflex.

Soren wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 6:01pm:

One of the greatest boons of religion is to keep in check the self-referencing reflex.

Quote:

"The mystic tries to rid himself of self and in the process usually becomes obsessed with it." - Jawaharlal Nehru

Seems self-obsession may transcend and invade all states of mind and experience.

Why wouldn't it? After all its the "I" that is having the experience.

Quote:

Define agnosticism in this word game such that it demonstrates your point that my statement "disbelief in the existence of god is not the same as belief in non-existence" is anything about agnosticism.

Atheists believe that God does not exist. Agnostics don't know, or merely claim that there is not sufficient evidence either way. It is kind of hard to be a raving, militant agnostic, but they win hands down over atheists when it comes to a rational basis for their beliefs.


jordan484 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 3:28pm:

Quote: Think about it a bit more then. Weak and arrogant reply. You've been hanging around Abu too long. If there is real evidence for a God, let's see it. If not, simply admit you're going on faith and faith alone.

I'm not going on anything. I was merely pointing out the irrationality of your claims. You are the one who claimed your belief is based on evidence, but the only evidence you have is a lack of evidence, which is by definition not evidence. Furthermore, you claimed that religious people also lack evidence for their beliefs, just like you. But this is not actually true. Try asking them. Faith is not the only reason they will give for believing what they do. I thought this would be pretty obvious, hence my suggestion you have another think about it. If anyone has a belief that is totally lacking any evidence to support it, it is the atheists.


mozzaok wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 5:38pm:

Once again we see silly theists attempting to resile their fantasies as not simply delusional beliefs they choose because it makes them feel good, by mounting semantic absurdities as argument. FD brings the hoary old chestnut of atheism as being a "belief" in the non-existence of god, but shrinks from even attempting to provide any definition of the word, god, which is the basis for the whole silly exercise. For the edification of the pedants, I will clearly state that I have absolutely no belief, in any form of deity that is worshipped by any organised religion. These organised religions do give their deities, form, and attributes, and do not leave their personal definitions of deities as an unknown spiritual force, which would leave the door of possibility open, on just what does or does not exist. No, these ratbags give their gods, birthdays, and even invent human characteristics and personalities for their gods, and naturally people not prone to fantasy, dismiss this as fantasy. It seems perfectly fair to me. So it seems that for some, the intellectual guilt they take on board, for choosing to believe in something which is contrary to all logical analysis, or critical evaluation, leaves them feeling the need to lash out at those who do not wish to share their delusions, which is a shame, because that sort of defeats the purpose of holding those silly delusions in the first place. A more worthy response from a theist would be, I do not understand it, it may be contrary to logic, and I cannot explain it, but I just know it makes me feel better. Now if they could do that, and not seek to impose onto society in general, beliefs and standards they claim come from their fantasy god, then I would be glad for them, and for society. FD, you really are a bonehead about this whole religious education issue, you keep repeating the lie that I want to take children off their parents. Why would you say that? I most certainly have never endorsed that. My position is clear, and it was repeated in the last post you responded to, no religion in scholls, religious education only as an extra curricular activity. Comprehende muchacho?

What happened to all the banging on about rights Mozz? I thought you wanted to free the children from their parents and protect their right to be taken away by the government. You never did say what rights you thought you were protecting, but you insisted they were important rights. Which rights are you protecting Mozz?


Quote:

FD brings the hoary old chestnut of atheism as being a "belief" in the non-existence of god, but shrinks from even attempting to provide any definition of the word, god, which is the basis for the whole silly exercise.

Not true. I just didn't consider it necessary. All that seemed necessary was that I am not referring to any religion in particular. This is about theism and atheism. And atheism is a belief.


Quote:

FD, you really are a bonehead about this whole religious education issue, you keep repeating the lie that I want to take children off their parents. Why would you say that?

Not true. In fact I even acknowledged that you seem oblivious to the inevitable consequence of taking away a parent's right to raise their children as they see fit. You would have us believe in some kind of utopia with laws enforcing conformity but no punishment for those who disobey.

Quote:

You are the one who claimed your belief is based on evidence, but the only evidence you have is a lack of evidence, which is by definition not evidence.

Evidence = belief. No evidence = no belief. You cannot PROVE that something doesn't exist, so the onus is on believers to prove that God does exist. Anything else is pure semantics.
Going on your logic you must believe in fairies and goblins and dragons and Tom Cruise. And I know you're not that deluded.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 6:39pm:

Quote: Define agnosticism in this word game such that it demonstrates your point that my statement "disbelief in the existence of god is not the same as belief in non-existence" is anything about agnosticism. Atheists believe that God does not exist. Agnostics don't know, or merely claim that there is not sufficient evidence either way. It is kind of hard to be a raving, militant agnostic, but they win hands down over atheists when it comes to a rational basis for their beliefs.

Atheists do not believe that god does not exist. That would mean we are saying we believe in the existence of non-existence, which we are not.

We do not subscribe to the assertion that god exists. We take issue with those theists who arrogate to themselves the right to determine how we must think and live our lives based on immutable rules they claim are divine revelation.

So what has agnosticism to do with my statement?

Quote:

Evidence = belief. No evidence = no belief.

Ah, so your an agnostic?


Quote:

Going on your logic you must believe in fairies and goblins and dragons and Tom Cruise.

It seems you are having trouble with the logic.


Quote:

So what has agnosticism to do with my statement?

You are lumping agnostics and atheists together to avoid having to make a rational argument. If your definition of the two groups differs to mine, perhaps you should give your definition as well.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 7:02pm:

If your definition of the two groups differs to mine, perhaps you should give your definition as well.

An agnostic claims no direct experience of god and either may believe that god is currently knowable (if he exists at all) or may believe that god, if unknown now, is knowable in principle or may believe that, while he may exist, he is unknowable.

An atheist does not subscribe to the assertion that god exists. He has, therefore, no comment to make on the knowability of god.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 6:09pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 6:01pm: One of the greatest boons of religion is to keep in check the self-referencing reflex. Quote: "The mystic tries to rid himself of self and in the process usually becomes obsessed with it." - Jawaharlal Nehru Seems self-obsession may transcend and invade all states of mind and experience. Why wouldn't it? After all its the "I" that is having the experience.

Nehru was talking about Indian mystics. A fakir is not exacly a one man charitable organisation like so many of the Christian saints, just to cite another religion randomly... There is a hierarchy of religious sentiments.

Hindu or Buddhist mysticims, focusing or the eternal return and how to end it, could be very self-obsessed. Western Buddhists are the most self-obsessed people I have ever met.  

jordan484 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 6:53pm:

Quote: You are the one who claimed your belief is based on evidence, but the only evidence you have is a lack of evidence, which is by definition not evidence. Evidence = belief. No evidence = no belief. You cannot PROVE that something doesn't exist, so the onus is on believers to prove that God does exist. Anything else is pure semantics. Going on your logic you must believe in fairies and goblins and dragons and Tom Cruise. And I know you're not that deluded.

This is like saying that because you cannot prove that something is funny, therefore jokes are just meaningless conventions.
Or that you cannot prove that love exists. Just because people people do somthing in the name of love, you cannot say that love exists because you cannot see it, weigh it, measure it. It must be a delusion like goblins and dragons.
Or dread. You have never experienced dread? Its reality cannot be proved but people recognise it as an actual state.

It is not a post-sceintific afterthought to say that the god experience is not an empirical one. Many other aspects of human life are not empirical.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Quote:

It seems you are having trouble with the logic.

Well how about you quit being so smugly arrogant, and explain it properly then? New concept for you, perhaps, but it may just get us somewhere.

I am not saying that lack of evidence of the 'non-existence' of something means you should believe in it's existence. That is, I am not saying the atheists should believe in God because they can't produce evidence that he doesn't exist. I am merely saying that they have no evidence in support of their own belief that he does not exist. It is an entirely reactionary belief that is more irrational than the belief they are reacting against.

Quote:

It is an entirely reactionary belief that is more irrational than the belief they are reacting against.

Explain how it is MORE irrational.

Quote:

I am merely saying that they have no evidence in support of their own belief that he does not exist.

I have no evidence that fairies don't exist either. Hardly think that's MORE irrational than the belief in something where there's no evidence for that belief.

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 1:43pm:

I am not saying that lack of evidence of the 'non-existence' of something means you should believe in it's existence. That is, I am not saying the atheists should believe in God because they can't produce evidence that he doesn't exist. I am merely saying that they have no evidence in support of their own belief that he does not exist. It is an entirely reactionary belief that is more irrational than the belief they are reacting against.

Really, this spurious reasoning would be fine and dandy if theists contained themselves to belief in something undefined, and undefinable, but we all know that they do not do that, and it is their addition of magical traits and behaviours that assert to people that their "something" has, , just little things like omniscience, and omnipotence, ( I assume they are working on the principle of the bigger the lie, the more who will believe it principle)that causes all the problems.

It has been said a million times, but loses no validity for having been, as it has still never received a reasonable response, "Extraordinary claims, demand extraordinary evidence to validate them".

Not only have we seen no extraordinary evidence, we have seen no evidence of any kind, just baseless claims.

Now we all know of the inverse proportionality between faith and intelligence, it has been shown time and time again with empirical testing, but that does not mean that you must be stupid to believe in god, but it undoubtedly helps, as we have seen evidenced with the reasoning added to this thread. ;D ;D ;D

mozzaok wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 6:33pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 21st, 2010 at 1:43pm: I am not saying that lack of evidence of the 'non-existence' of something means you should believe in it's existence. That is, I am not saying the atheists should believe in God because they can't produce evidence that he doesn't exist. I am merely saying that they have no evidence in support of their own belief that he does not exist. It is an entirely reactionary belief that is more irrational than the belief they are reacting against. Really, this spurious reasoning would be fine and dandy if theists contained themselves to belief in something undefined, and undefinable, but we all know that they do not do that, and it is their addition of magical traits and behaviours that assert to people that their "something" has, , just little things like omniscience, and omnipotence, ( I assume they are working on the principle of the bigger the lie, the more who will believe it principle)that causes all the problems. It has been said a million times, but loses no validity for having been, as it has still never received a reasonable response, "Extraordinary claims, demand extraordinary evidence to validate them". Not only have we seen no extraordinary evidence, we have seen no evidence of any kind, just baseless claims. Now we all know of the inverse proportionality between faith and intelligence, it has been shown time and time again with empirical testing, but that does not mean that you must be stupid to believe in god, but it undoubtedly helps, as we have seen evidenced with the reasoning added to this thread. ;D ;D ;D

I am happy to be called stupid by you or anyone else on this board, Mozz. Snide, sniggering remarks go nowhere.
Here's one thing I want you to consider.

Walk into a a medieval cathedral and imagine all the people who went in there before you, over the centuries. More often than not you can gauge their number by how worn the stone threshold is. Imagine all their sorrow, all their despair, all their hopes and prayers and outpourings of the heart. They are all dead. Are you telling me that they were not true? That they were stupid, deluded idiots? That their lives were crap?

Religion binds us to all those who went before us, as well as all those who are here with us now and all who come after us, for centuries  - all sharing the one thing. Everyone you ever see will be dead. like you.


I would rather side with all those whose feet worn those stones hollow than with you and those who would piss on them as deluded, stupid idiots. i

Soren wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 7:48pm:

Walk into a a medieval cathedral and imagine all the people who went in there before you, over the centuries. More often than not you can gauge their number by how worn the stone threshold is. Imagine all their sorrow, all their despair, all their hopes and prayers and outpourings of the heart. They are all dead. Are you telling me that they were not true? That they were stupid, deluded idiots? That their lives were crap? Religion binds us to all those who went before us, as well as all those who are here with us now and all who come after us, for centuries  - all sharing the one thing. Everyone you ever see will be dead. like you. I would rather side with all those whose feet worn those stones hollow than with you and those who would piss on them as deluded, stupid idiots.

Ah, Soren

You're fearing death.

jordan484 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 5:53pm:

Quote: It is an entirely reactionary belief that is more irrational than the belief they are reacting against. Explain how it is MORE irrational.

Because most people who believe in God can cite evidence for their belief. Whatever you think of that evidence, their belief has a more rational basis than a belief based on reactionism and an absence of evidence.

Quote:

Really, this spurious reasoning would be fine and dandy if theists contained themselves to belief in something undefined

Not true Mozz. The logic is sound regardless of how much religious people annoy you. This is just piling irrationality on top of irrationality.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 8:10pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 21st, 2010 at 7:48pm: Walk into a a medieval cathedral and imagine all the people who went in there before you, over the centuries. More often than not you can gauge their number by how worn the stone threshold is. Imagine all their sorrow, all their despair, all their hopes and prayers and outpourings of the heart. They are all dead. Are you telling me that they were not true? That they were stupid, deluded idiots? That their lives were crap? Religion binds us to all those who went before us, as well as all those who are here with us now and all who come after us, for centuries  - all sharing the one thing. Everyone you ever see will be dead. like you. I would rather side with all those whose feet worn those stones hollow than with you and those who would piss on them as deluded, stupid idiots. Ah, Soren You're fearing death.

Not since I had the above experience, about 20 years ago.
At any rate, all philosophy is preparation for death,  as I would expect you to know.

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Quote: Really, this spurious reasoning would be fine and dandy if theists contained themselves to belief in something undefined Not true Mozz. The logic is sound regardless of how much religious people annoy you. This is just piling irrationality on top of irrationality.

Rubbish FD, constuct a logical argument for any "identified" god.

You cannot, as soon as you attribute any of the traits assigned to all the god's I have ever heard of being worshipped, then you by necessity have to begin from a false premise of assuming the existence of something which can be logically disproved from existing.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 9:24pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 21st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: Really, this spurious reasoning would be fine and dandy if theists contained themselves to belief in something undefined Not true Mozz. The logic is sound regardless of how much religious people annoy you. This is just piling irrationality on top of irrationality. Rubbish FD, constuct a logical argument for any "identified" god. You cannot, as soon as you attribute any of the traits assigned to all the god's I have ever heard of being worshipped, then you by necessity have to begin from a false premise of assuming the existence of something which can be logically disproved from existing.

Everyone who has ever believed in god was an idiot - that is a larger claim than you can support.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 9:24pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 21st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: Really, this spurious reasoning would be fine and dandy if theists contained themselves to belief in something undefined Not true Mozz. The logic is sound regardless of how much religious people annoy you. This is just piling irrationality on top of irrationality. Rubbish FD, constuct a logical argument for any "identified" god. You cannot, as soon as you attribute any of the traits assigned to all the god's I have ever heard of being worshipped, then you by necessity have to begin from a false premise of assuming the existence of something which can be logically disproved from existing.

Not to mention that you could not, evrn if your life depended on it, logically disprove the existence of god, let alobe of 'god'.
A fool's errand, don't try it. You can't do it.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 9:24pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 21st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: Really, this spurious reasoning would be fine and dandy if theists contained themselves to belief in something undefined Not true Mozz. The logic is sound regardless of how much religious people annoy you. This is just piling irrationality on top of irrationality. Rubbish FD, constuct a logical argument for any "identified" god. You cannot, as soon as you attribute any of the traits assigned to all the god's I have ever heard of being worshipped, then you by necessity have to begin from a false premise of assuming the existence of something which can be logically disproved from existing.

Mozz, simply changing the subject won't make you right either.

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 8:26pm:

jordan484 wrote on Mar 21st, 2010 at 5:53pm: Quote: It is an entirely reactionary belief that is more irrational than the belief they are reacting against. Explain how it is MORE irrational. Because most people who believe in God can cite evidence for their belief. Whatever you think of that evidence, their belief has a more rational basis than a belief based on reactionism and an absence of evidence.

God exists because it says so in a book. God exists because it feels like he must. God exists because I won't accept that death is the end. God exists because he came to me in a dream. God exists because everything is beautiful. God exists because I survived an accident. God exists because he does... Most theists would cite one or more of the above as their "evidence".

And so we all must not eat pork.

Soren wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 8:32pm:

Not since I had the above experience, about 20 years ago. At any rate, all philosophy is preparation for death,  as I would expect you to know.

Never mind the great Socratic question, "How should we live?"

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 11:28pm:

mozzaok wrote on Mar 21st, 2010 at 9:24pm: freediver wrote on Mar 21st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: Really, this spurious reasoning would be fine and dandy if theists contained themselves to belief in something undefined Not true Mozz. The logic is sound regardless of how much religious people annoy you. This is just piling irrationality on top of irrationality. Rubbish FD, constuct a logical argument for any "identified" god. You cannot, as soon as you attribute any of the traits assigned to all the god's I have ever heard of being worshipped, then you by necessity have to begin from a false premise of assuming the existence of something which can be logically disproved from existing. Mozz, simply changing the subject won't make you right either.

Hmmm, that looks a bit like evasion to me.

Don't forget who introduced the whole spurious argument that lack of belief in god is less logical than belief.

Now you obviously know that all defined god's that are worshipped are attributed with traits which cannot be supported by logical argument, so try and contain the argument to an undefined concept which is irrelevant to any religion or deist.

For the life of me I do not know why religious people cannot at least be honest enough to admit their beliefs make no sense, apart from the fact they get a personal satisfaction from holding those beliefs.

If I was a theist I would happily say that I know it is stupid, on an intellectual level, but I also know that on a personal level it makes me feel good, so I am happy to continue with it on that basis.
The fact that they do not display enough integrity, or self awareness to offer such a response tends to make me assume they may carry an intellectual shame for holding beliefs that they know are preposterous.

Soren wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 7:48pm:

mozzaok wrote on Mar 21st, 2010 at 6:33pm: freediver wrote on Mar 21st, 2010 at 1:43pm: I am not saying that lack of evidence of the 'non-existence' of something means you should believe in it's existence. That is, I am not saying the atheists should believe in God because they can't produce evidence that he doesn't exist. I am merely saying that they have no evidence in support of their own belief that he does not exist. It is an entirely reactionary belief that is more irrational than the belief they are reacting against. Really, this spurious reasoning would be fine and dandy if theists contained themselves to belief in something undefined, and undefinable, but we all know that they do not do that, and it is their addition of magical traits and behaviours that assert to people that their "something" has, , just little things like omniscience, and omnipotence, ( I assume they are working on the principle of the bigger the lie, the more who will believe it principle)that causes all the problems. It has been said a million times, but loses no validity for having been, as it has still never received a reasonable response, "Extraordinary claims, demand extraordinary evidence to validate them". Not only have we seen no extraordinary evidence, we have seen no evidence of any kind, just baseless claims. Now we all know of the inverse proportionality between faith and intelligence, it has been shown time and time again with empirical testing, but that does not mean that you must be stupid to believe in god, but it undoubtedly helps, as we have seen evidenced with the reasoning added to this thread. ;D ;D ;D I am happy to be called stupid by you or anyone else on this board, Mozz. Snide, sniggering remarks go nowhere. Here's one thing I want you to consider. Walk into a a medieval cathedral and imagine all the people who went in there before you, over the centuries. More often than not you can gauge their number by how worn the stone threshold is. Imagine all their sorrow, all their despair, all their hopes and prayers and outpourings of the heart. They are all dead. Are you telling me that they were not true? That they were stupid, deluded idiots? That their lives were crap? Religion binds us to all those who went before us, as well as all those who are here with us now and all who come after us, for centuries  - all sharing the one thing. Everyone you ever see will be dead. like you. I would rather side with all those whose feet worn those stones hollow than with you and those who would piss on them as deluded, stupid idiots.

Ah Soren, I can indulge thoughts of the communal aether as well, I get the feeling of wonder when I step into an ancient cathedral and my thoughts are carried away to ancient days, where the noble deeds of knights and damsels in distress, were played true.
As a child I could envelop myself in the majesty of epic tales, telling of courage and honour, it abounds in our literature, and so, in us.

I do not see how religion, or the religious have any superior claim on this experience, which history and literature provide us.

You take offence at the fact that I mention the empirical evidence that belief in god is inversely proportion to intelligence, and take it upon yourself to be insulted by that.
Your call. ;D

Would you prefer I did not mention it?
Pretend it isn't so?
Of course you would, but whether I mention it or not, the fact remains unchanged, and while I can obviously agree that there are a huge number of theists who will have vastly superior intelligence to myself, and very many atheists, we do witness the distinct lack of intelligent arguments that they apply to their beliefs, and the dishonest way in which they try to define and justify them.

So I must challenge your false assertion that I think all religious people's lives are crap, I do not.

I do believe their religions are crap, and they are misguided in following them, but that is my personal opinion, and if the religions of the world stopped imposing themselves into people's lives, I would happily keep that opinion to myself.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2010 at 1:38am:

freediver wrote on Mar 21st, 2010 at 8:26pm: jordan484 wrote on Mar 21st, 2010 at 5:53pm: Quote: It is an entirely reactionary belief that is more irrational than the belief they are reacting against. Explain how it is MORE irrational. Because most people who believe in God can cite evidence for their belief. Whatever you think of that evidence, their belief has a more rational basis than a belief based on reactionism and an absence of evidence. God exists because it says so in a book. God exists because it feels like he must. God exists because I won't accept that death is the end. God exists because he came to me in a dream. God exists because everything is beautiful. God exists because I survived an accident. God exists because he does... Most theists would cite one or more of the above as their "evidence". And so we all must not eat pork.

Thanks for the examples helian, though I suspect most would give 'less trivial' examples. Whatever you think of their evidence or their interpretation of it, it makes a lot more sense than believing that God does not exist because of the absence of evidence (that is acceptable to you) and because religious people piss you off and teach their children ideas you don't like.

Quote:

Now you obviously know that all defined god's that are worshipped are attributed with traits which cannot be supported by logical argument, so try and contain the argument to an undefined concept which is irrelevant to any religion or deist.

Can you give an example of one of these traits? Once things get 'supernatural' you can't expect them to follow 'natural' laws. Maybe I am misunderstanding you here.

Well to keep it simple, and fair, how about we stick with the major traits that all religions seem happy to ascribe to their deity.
Benevolent, Omnipotent, and Interventionist.

richards a dawk

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2010 at 7:07am:

Thanks for the examples helian, though I suspect most would give 'less trivial' examples.

I doubt it. Few willingly give their reasons at all (and usually only in a "safe" environment) Probably fearing ridicule or not wanting to have the delicate flower of their faith 'mishandled'.


freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2010 at 7:07am:

Whatever you think of their evidence or their interpretation of it,

Their "evidence", as you over-dignify it, are non sequiturs.


freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2010 at 7:07am:

it makes a lot more sense than believing that God does not exist because of the absence of evidence (that is acceptable to you) and because religious people piss you off and teach their children ideas you don't like.

You’re still keeping up that linguistic “sleight of hand”. It’s not that atheists “believe that god does not exist”. They disbelieve/do not subscribe to the conclusion/assertion that god exists.

This is the problem with the term "atheism"... Its linguistic attributes are confused with those of theism. It does not follow that because theists believe something, then atheists (insofar as they can be called "atheists") must necessarily believe something.

An “atheist” is not required to prove the non-existence of god. A theist is required to give evidence that god exists and particularly where he claims consequences and eternally immutable rules for all based on his belief that god exists.

Quote:

An “atheist” is not required to prove the non-existence of god. A theist is required to give evidence that god exists and particularly where he claims consequences and eternally immutable rules for all based on his belief that god exists.

Exactly.

http://i327.photobucket.com/albums/k468/jordan484484/religiouslogic.jpg

Quote:

Because most people who believe in God can cite evidence for their belief. Whatever you think of that evidence, their belief has a more rational basis than a belief based on reactionism and an absence of evidence.

It is not more irrational to disbelieve in something where there is no evidence that it exists, than to believe in something from within that you cannot prove to anyone else.

jordan484 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2010 at 9:06am:

Quote: Because most people who believe in God can cite evidence for their belief. Whatever you think of that evidence, their belief has a more rational basis than a belief based on reactionism and an absence of evidence. It is not more irrational to disbelieve in something where there is no evidence that it exists, than to believe in something from within that you cannot prove to anyone else.

Just one small qualification with that.

"It is not more irrational to disbelieve in  something where there is no evidence that it exists..."

To disbelieve in something is to imply one is believing in one's disbelief. It may appear pedantic at first, but when you consider that it is linguistic confusion that causes the misunderstanding of what "atheism" is, the consequences for that seemingly minor "grammatical nicety" are profound.

Corrected! Thanks.

I think that will at last lay to rest any suggestion that "atheism" is fundamentally irrational.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2010 at 1:51pm:

I think that will at last lay to rest any suggestion that "atheism" is fundamentally irrational.

lol, you would not want to put your house on that. ;D
We have witnessed some mighty tenuous links with logic, as well as rationality being fervently argued by theists before today.

It is not too dissimiliar to any form of denial, where you see falsehoods repeated ad nauseum, and the proponents then accept those false premises as truisms.
Mind you if you really go too deeply into any philosophy you invariably work your way back to what are at best, very shaky premises.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2010 at 2:29pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 22nd, 2010 at 1:51pm: I think that will at last lay to rest any suggestion that "atheism" is fundamentally irrational. lol, you would not want to put your house on that. ;D

True! I wouldn't bet a runny sh!t on it. ;D

Just to overcome the confusion of those who don't know what agnostics and atheists are, I will rephrase:

Atheism, according to the philosophical and common definitions, is irrational.

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2010 at 5:01pm:

Just to overcome the confusion of those who don't know what agnostics and atheists are, I will rephrase: Atheism, according to the philosophical and common definitions, is irrational.

Did you notice those weasel words in there FD? "commonly defined" ::)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 27^th, 2010 at 7:54pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2010 at 5:01pm: Just to overcome the confusion of those who don't know what agnostics and atheists are, I will rephrase: Atheism, according to the philosophical and common definitions, is irrational. Did you notice those weasel words in there FD? "commonly defined" ::)

I don't think they are weasel words. I even gave examples of where I myself have encountered people using the term atheism in it's broader context. However, I have done some brief googling and I now concede that athiests themselves tend to define atheism the exact way that agnosticism is defined, or at least to split themselves up into weak and strong atheists, with weak atheism being agnosticism and strong atheism being atheism by the common and philosophical definitions.

If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest using the strong and weak atheism as alternative definitions, rather than any of the alternatives that have been provided here. Though it seems to me that this is just ahtiests trying to come up with PC nonesense to make themselves look less silly.

It also reminds me of the way 'evangelic evolutionists' put forward the terms micro and macro evolution as alternatives to evolution and natural selection. It seems to give evolution the same 'scientificness' as natural selection, in the same way that strong and weak atheism seems to give atheists the same rationality as agnostics. It is a subtle use of the association fallacy.

Anyway, I am not going to use whatever PC terms atheists come up with to try to make themselves look less silly. I will use the common terms - atheism and agnosticism, with their common defintions, as to do otherwise would just encourage confusion.

Did you need to change your pants after reading Gary Ablett Sr's article in the paper the other day? Right up your deluded alley.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/what-kind-of-world-do-we-want-to-live-in/story-e6frf7jo-1225845501207

Link doesn't work.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/what-kind-of-world-do-we-want-to-live-in/story-e6frf7jo-1225845501207

Wow, what a surprise, a man living with a guilt that he has never faced, is searching for comfort, and finds it in a fantasy construct, which I guess would beat having to confront your own ignorance and cowardice.

There were few people I held in lower esteem than this man, and his religious protestations change nothing.

You're harsh mozz. I, for one, am convinced. Gary has shown me the path! Hallelujah.

I rang Melanie Phillips and had a chat with her and asked her to write an article in The Spectator about the stupidity of our age. She graceously obliged and here is her piece:


Welcome to the Age of Irrationality
Melanie PhillipsWednesday, 28th April 2010The Western mind is snapping shut, says Melanie Phillips. Are we entering a new era of anti-enlightenment?

It is a truth universally acknowledged that reason and religion are mortal foes. Reason deals a death blow to religion; religion is clearly irrationality on stilts. If only religion didn’t exist, reason would rule the world and there would be no more wars, tyrannies or murderous hatreds. It follows therefore that religious people are either stupid or unbalanced and are inimical to progress, modernity and happiness.

Well, this universal truth isn’t true at all. In fact, reason is underpinned by religion — at least the Biblical variety. Without Genesis there would have been no Western science, no equality and human rights and no liberal belief in progress.

I see I’ve already caused you to throw your Spectator round the room. What about the Enlightenment, you cry. That’s what gave rise to Western science and the opening of the Western mind, precisely because it ushered in an age of reason that knocked religious obscurantism out of the park.

Ah yes, the open Western mind. But if you look around you — with a mind that is truly open — you will see much evidence that the Western mind is currently snapping tightly shut. Indeed, the paradox is that some of our most noisy advocates of reason say a lot of things which are demonstrably absurd.

Take those scientists who promote not science but scientism — the belief that science can deal with every aspect of existence. The scorn and vituperation they heap upon religious believers is fathomless. And yet their materialism leads them to say things which are just... well, nutty.

For example, Professor Richard Dawkins told me he was ‘not necessarily averse’ to the idea that life on earth had been created by a governing intelligence — provided that such an intelligence had arrived from another planet. How can it be that our pre-eminent apostle of reason appears to find little green men more plausible as an explanation for the origin of life than God?

The answer is that in certain areas science has overreached itself by trying to play God, and as a result has turned into an ideology. Contrary to popular myth, Western science was not created by Enlightenment secularism. It grew out of the revolutionary claim in the Bible that the universe was the product of a rational Creator, who endowed man with reason so that he could ask questions about the natural world. With the rise of secularism, the striking thing is that people didn’t lose the drive to believe. They stopped having religious faith — but that drive was diverted instead into the creation of a wide variety of secular religions, otherwise known as ideologies. But these are the true enemies of truth and reason.

Just look at environmentalism. This defines the modern ‘progressive’ — and yet it is fundamentally irrational, illiberal and pre-modern. Based on a spiritual belief in the innate, organic harmony of the universe, it grew out of pagan and animistic ideas which not only defied reason but, in elevating emotion and subjectivity as well as downgrading mankind, were to feed directly into such regressive thinking as eugenics and fascism. Indeed, all the ideologies so prevalent today in ‘progressive’ circles — scientism, environmentalism, anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, moral and cultural relativism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism — are deeply reactionary, illiberal and coercive.

This is because ideology, by wrenching evidence to fit a prior idea, is inimical to reason and sacrifices truth to power. That’s why environmentalism’s most famous offspring, man-made global warming theory, is totalitarian gobbledegook. There is no evidence to support it, plenty of evidence against it and even more evidence that much of the ‘science’ on which it is based is fraudulent.
But like other ideologies, it appears immune to challenge, however compelling the case against it. And that’s because these are not propositions to be debated in a rational way, but rather self-evident truths which have the infallibility of religious dogma — and which are equipped with secular inquisitions against heretics. They represent not a point of view but virtue itself. All opposition must therefore be stamped out. So reason is replaced by bullying, intimidation and the suppression of debate.

Thus scientists sceptical of man-made global warming are subjected to funding famine, character assassination or professional ostracism. Or Christians asserting the need for a child to be brought up by a mother and father find themselves forced off adoption panels and vilified as ‘homophobic’ bigots. In Manichean fashion, the left divides the world into rival camps of good and evil. Anyone who is not on the left is ‘the right’ and thus beyond the moral pale. But much that is demonised in this way as ‘right-wing’ is simply an attempt to uphold truth, reality and liberty against the distortions, fabrications and bullying of ideology.

What’s really odd is this. Just like the persecution of medieval heretics, these secular inquisitions are driven at root by fear — the terror that a challenge to the Received Truth might actually succeed. Scientific triumphalists may realise that what they are saying about the origin of the universe is ludicrous. Yet they persist because of their fear of the alternative explanation — God. As the Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin has candidly explained, such scientists ‘take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs’ because they ‘cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door’.

So what is it about the possibility of even a Divine toenail over the threshold that terrifies these men of reason into becoming so irrational? Or to put it another way, if they are going to believe in ten impossible things before breakfast, then why not believe in the one impossible thing which happens to have an infrastructure of critical thought, thousands of years of history and their own civilisation attached to it?

It can’t be that religion has committed terrible atrocities, because atheism has committed terrible atrocities too. Maybe it’s the fear that Biblical morality fetters the freedom to be footloose and fancy-free. After all, if genes are selfish why should they alone have all the fun?

Maybe it’s a projection on to religion of all the bad stuff in human nature. For if the Biblical God is the cause of intolerance and war, tyranny and genocide, then humanity gets a free pass. But since Biblical religion actually underpinned reason and morality, the decline of religion means the erosion of truth and conscience. If religious totalitarianism was rule by the Church and political totalitarianism was rule by the ‘general will’, this is cultural totalitarianism, or rule by the subjective individual.

In Britain, the effects are plain to see. Everything is upside down: the transgressive becomes the norm while the normal is discriminatory; victims become aggressors while aggressors are indulged; education leaves children in a state of noble savagery; broken families are promoted as lifestyle choice. And a brutal utilitarianism means elderly or coma victims are starved and dehydrated to death, with anyone who dares to mention the sanctity of human life dismissed as a Bible-bashing nut-job.

Once the pre-eminent nation of reason and free debate, tolerance and civility, Britain is now the global leader of the rout of rationality and the retreat to a pre-modern war of all against all, facilitated by secular ‘human rights’. Britain — first into the Enlightenment, and now first out.

Quote:

If only religion didn’t exist, reason would rule the world and there would be no more wars, tyrannies or murderous hatreds.

She lost me there. Just another "blame everything on one cause" fool.

Well at least Melanie is prepared to fight the good fight in support of irrationality, and naturally she is employing as much of that, as she can muster.

Once more we see ignorance and superstition being held up as, almost  ideals to aspire to, by this perverse woman, as though she was actually proud to be adding extra delusions to her repertoire.

Most peculiar behaviour.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 8:36pm:

Quote: If only religion didn’t exist, reason would rule the world and there would be no more wars, tyrannies or murderous hatreds. She lost me there. Just another "blame everything on one cause" fool.

You have a miniscule attention span. The vry next pragraph shows that she is parodying Mozz:

"Well, this universal truth isn’t true at all."

mozzaok wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 9:15pm:

Well at least Melanie is prepared to fight the good fight in support of irrationality, and naturally she is employing as much of that, as she can muster. Once more we see ignorance and superstition being held up as, almost  ideals to aspire to, by this perverse woman, as though she was actually proud to be adding extra delusions to her repertoire. Most peculiar behaviour.

Have another fag, just to make sure you don't get too rational.

Your actual, personal choices are a negation of your rhetoric. You blabber but live wholly contrary to your rational credo.

This is called bad faith.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 2:09pm:

I think Dawkins is smart, but he's not wise. His critique of all religion/spirituality is a negative. His solution is a return to classical empiricism. It's interesting that the Enlightenment really began as a critique of religion, so Dawkins is returning to the roots of hard science. Anything that you can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch does not exist.

Well any philosophy starts with a negative...from the rest of your critique he seems to have positive assertions. Is it comprehensive...that takes time...he's early in his career.


Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 2:09pm:

Dawkins claims that many of the social sciences are false too.

Good for him. they are. There is no social reality. There is only the capacity under democracy or the world of thuggery in which we live, for people to impose their values on you. Take away that, and the social sciences lose all significance.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 2:09pm:

I'm interested in a lot of what Dawkins says. But I take a lot of his stuff with a grain of salt. He hasn't come to terms with relativistic streams of thought like post-structuralism. He's got a very cut and dried mind. Things for Dawkins are either true or false.

Come to terms with it. I guess he finds no value in it. Good for him. 'Cut & dry' mind? Is that a logical conception. Perhaps if you break down your ideas you might find they have an err of vagueness about them.


Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 2:09pm:

Science - with its look at the surface of things - cannot always come up with reasons. Dawkins is pretty hopeless when it comes to questions of mental health, happiness, etc. Often, his critique of religion is based on the most simplistic understanding - religion is bad because the Christians started so many wars.

Someone without all the answers I guess can get a little tiresome. That is why we need to answer our own questions. Mental health is the province of people with a respect for reality. i.e. They don't evade responsibility or fake reality...simple, but basically it.


Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 2:09pm:

On the blessing side, we need the freedom to be able to invest our minds into non-materialist objects. We need to be able to experiment with the subjective realm, and Dawkins' black and white stance discourages this.

Really? And why do we need such indulgence. Sounds like the freedom of a spoilt child whom we know recognised as 'abused' because they don't have any self-discipline. Rationalists to be sure! I can imagine you don't like the discipline of Dawkins, though can't say I've read him. Only going on your statements.


Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 2:09pm:

Things are either true or false with Dawkins. He's almost Aspergers-like in his thinking. He's smart, but he's not flexible. I don't think he's a very good listener either.

Finally closing with smear. Why do collectivists always end an argument with back-handed smear. Why does anyone who disagree with you have to have Aspergers Disease. I've been labelled before like that...so I know that con. Went to look up the condition, and its one of the floating conditions which are really poorly defined, and probably does not exist as a 'disability' but actually a preference for arguing from strength. I've not read his book, but I dare say he uses deductive and empirical arguments. But I've not really heard anything from you.

Quote:

There is only the capacity under democracy or the world of thuggery in which we live, for people to impose their values on you. Take away that, and the social sciences lose all significance.

So democracy and oppression are insignificant? If you take away Newtonian mechanics and relativity, physics becomes insignificant, but your statement also becomes meaningless.

Quote:

I can imagine you don't like the discipline of Dawkins

He does not appear very disciplined to me. He seems more of a media whore.


Quote:

I've not read his book, but I dare say he uses deductive and empirical arguments.

Perhaps you should read his book first then. I have read some of his arguments and they are neither deductive nor empirical.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2010 at 1:49pm:

He does not appear very disciplined to me. He seems more of a media whore.

I always thought of him as being more akin to Christopher Monckton than any serious scientist. They are both masters of highly convincing equivocation and both serve up a tantalisingly congenial feast of piping hot air, seizing upon half-truths and capitalising on shock tactics.  They fill an emotional void and provide absolution, direct  self-righteous indignation at their opponents, and provide articulate confirmation to their doting groupies that they were right in their vague muddled ideas all along.

It's the stuff of comfort.

I really fail to see anything wrong with Dawkins, I have never read his work, as my views on religion and god were formed many decades before he ever came to prominence, but I have seen him interviewed, and in that scenario I have always considered him to be kind, and tolerant of others, and almost gentle in his rejection of their acquired delusions.

I get the impression that issues with Dawkins arise from mostly those who are terribly insecure about the fact that they have chosen a spiritual path which goes against a pattern of rationality and logic that they employ in other aspects of their life, but necessarily must abandon when it comes to accepting the inconsistencies of their particular religion's teachings.

He is "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching", as Terry Eagleton, a fellow atheist puts it.


http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching


Eagleton has also delivered the Yale Terry lectures, available on youtube and iTunes.
Worth a read/listen.

Soren wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

He is "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching", as Terry Eagleton, a fellow atheist puts it. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching Eagleton has also delivered the Yale Terry lectures, available on youtube and iTunes. Worth a read/listen.

I have read "The God Delusion" and I agree with Terry Eagleton's assessment on Dawkins. At best, I found "The God Delusion" to be at its best, simply irrelevant, and at it's worst, distasteful.  

An attempted scientific critique of Religion is a bit like describing the works of Shakespeare in algebraic formulae.

mozzaok wrote on May 9^th, 2010 at 7:16pm:

I really fail to see anything wrong with Dawkins

http://www.poetryarchive.org/poetryarchive/singlePoem.do?poemId=219

Soren wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

He is "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching", as Terry Eagleton, a fellow atheist puts it. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching Eagleton has also delivered the Yale Terry lectures, available on youtube and iTunes. Worth a read/listen.

I'm glad to see you welcome Eagleton's, er, critical sensibilities.

A very sensible man - now that's something lacking in these trying times.

Sense.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 4:49pm:

Soren wrote on May 12th, 2010 at 1:53pm: He is "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching", as Terry Eagleton, a fellow atheist puts it. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching Eagleton has also delivered the Yale Terry lectures, available on youtube and iTunes. Worth a read/listen. I'm glad to see you welcome Eagleton's, er, critical sensibilities. A very sensible man - now that's something lacking in these trying times. Sense.

Indeed. You have to admire a man who is not seduced and meshmerised by post-modernist claptrap like you are.

Sense indeed.

muso wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 3:37pm:

An attempted scientific critique of Religion is a bit like describing the works of Shakespeare in algebraic formulae.

I have to disagree. Nothing is outside the scope of a science. Nothing. Science has not only discredited the authorities that the religious claim as the basis for belief, it has explained the reasons for the existence of them.

Further, all religions make scientific claims. These, in scientific parlance, represent testable hypotheses.

Finally:
let "All the World" be x
let y be a stage
Then x = y

Or:
let f(x) = "to be"
then choose f(x) or f^-1(x) and proceed.

(Sorry. Got a bit carried away)

Quote:

Science has not only discredited the authorities that the religious claim as the basis for belief

You should start a new thread so you can enlighten us all.

It's hardly a contentious claim fd. Heard of evolution?

Well if it comes down to being able to present an argument about "theology", and maintain any semblance of still appearing sane, then I reckon that Dawkins plays this Eagleton guy on a break, as what was displayed appeared more like pretentious piousness trying to disguise itself as reason.

I read about two thirds of his mostly incoherent defense of  preposterousness before bailing on it.
I even battled on past another stupid theistic attempt at using belief in love as justification for theistic self delusion.

"while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it. For my claim to love you to be coherent, I must be able to explain what it is about you that justifies it; but my bank manager might agree with my dewy-eyed description of you without being in love with you himself."

Great, another twit who ascribes that me believing him when he says that he believes, therefore justifies the object of his belief.
Hello you theistic clown, it just means I recognise your ability to delude yourself, not that I share your delusion.

What he offers is like a paranoid delusional asserting that there is a monster in the bushes waiting to get him, and acknowledging that he believes that does not give the monster physical form, it just acknowledges that I accept his belief in his delusion.

I found not a single argument he presented either enlightening, or insightful, merely unapologetic misrepresentation of what religion means.

Nearly everyone agrees that there are philosophical concepts about supreme beings that have some intellectual worth, but to then attach that tiny theoretical plausibility as being sufficient justification for the gross misstatements of religious dogma, which includes all the outrageous claims of perception of truths and abilities to determine moral imperatives that they associate with their personal dogmas is impossibly indulgent self justification, for wishing to believe in the preposterous, which is always beyond any rational justification.  

So put your respect for this guys arguments up there on your altars, it is certainly as unbelievable as most other stuff you seem to worship.

Paella wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 9:49pm:

muso wrote on May 12th, 2010 at 3:37pm: An attempted scientific critique of Religion is a bit like describing the works of Shakespeare in algebraic formulae. I have to disagree. Nothing is outside the scope of a science. Nothing. Science has not only discredited the authorities that the religious claim as the basis for belief, it has explained the reasons for the existence of them. Further, all religions make scientific claims. These, in scientific parlance, represent testable hypotheses. Finally: let "All the World" be x let y be a stage Then x = y Or: let f(x) = "to be" then choose f(x) or f^-1(x) and proceed. (Sorry. Got a bit carried away)

Yeah, but I like your sense of humour.  ;D

As for nothing being outside the scope of science, science is limited only by the potential to understand something. If it is not possible to understand something (eg Supernatural aspects) then there is no point trying to use Science to understand it.

How would you use science to study the effectiveness of levitation spells?   ;)  (I know I'm going to regret asking that)

Soren wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 8:15pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on May 12th, 2010 at 4:49pm: Soren wrote on May 12th, 2010 at 1:53pm: He is "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching", as Terry Eagleton, a fellow atheist puts it. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching Eagleton has also delivered the Yale Terry lectures, available on youtube and iTunes. Worth a read/listen. I'm glad to see you welcome Eagleton's, er, critical sensibilities. A very sensible man - now that's something lacking in these trying times. Sense. Indeed. You have to admire a man who is not seduced and meshmerised by post-modernist claptrap like you are. Sense indeed.

Indeed. Eagleton stands firmly in the modernist camp. He's a Marxist.

;D

muso wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 3:37pm:

Soren wrote on May 12th, 2010 at 1:53pm: He is "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching", as Terry Eagleton, a fellow atheist puts it. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching Eagleton has also delivered the Yale Terry lectures, available on youtube and iTunes. Worth a read/listen. I have read "The God Delusion" and I agree with Terry Eagleton's assessment on Dawkins. At best, I found "The God Delusion" to be at its best, simply irrelevant, and at it's worst, distasteful.   An attempted scientific critique of Religion is a bit like describing the works of Shakespeare in algebraic formulae.

Agreed. Which is a pity because I quite like Richard Dawkins but he let himself down by not holding his own arguments up to the same scrutiny.

I wonder if he regrets writing it though.

One positive if it can be called that is that it may help the less critical reader to at least start down the path of intellectual salvation rather than religious mumbo jumbo.

I think he is an excellent scholar and would have prefered he do a work similar, but improved on Berty Russels "Why I am not a Christian"

Well I cannot comment about Dawkin's books, because I have not read them, as I never needed any validation for views I assume he analysed in his books.

I can only go on what I have seen of him on video, both online, and on TV, and he has always come across very well in that media, not the least bit strident or extreme, just matter of fact in a kind, humanistic fashion.

I had never heard of Eagleton before seeing that linked to article, but he certainly does come across as some sort of pathetic apologist for religion, which I always consider as being a most ridiculous position to put oneself in.
To try and argue intellectual merit for religion requires the most outrageous distortions of both facts, and reality, and can only ever have merit on the most purely theoretical basis, which bears no resemblance to any religious teachings, or religious practices, and is totally obtuse to anyone but the most esoteric theological scholars.

Certainly the ability to form ideas in as incoherent a fashion as possible, will aid in creating the illusion of argument, where no real argument exists, but that also makes reliance on such rhetoric as terminally worthless.

If any of you guys would care to expand on the particular arguments that Dawkins puts forward, that you find without merit, and explain why, I think we would all find that eminently more worthwhile than the claptrap that the Eagleton fellow offered.

I think I am very close to concluding that this whole “New Atheism” movement is only a passing fad—not the cultural watershed its purveyors imagine it to be, but simply one of those occasional and inexplicable marketing vogues that inevitably go the way of pet rocks, disco, prime-time soaps, and The Bridges of Madison County. This is not because I necessarily think the current “marketplace of ideas” particularly good at sorting out wise arguments from foolish. But the latest trend in à la mode godlessness, it seems to me, has by now proved itself to be so intellectually and morally trivial that it has to be classified as just a form of light entertainment, and popular culture always tires of its diversions sooner or later and moves on to other, equally ephemeral toys.
….
The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/believe-it-or-not

That's funny.  ;D ;D ;D Crazy funny :D :D :D

In a previous post in another topic you accussed Mozz of speaking in religious tones (not how I read his post BTW) and then you follow up with what I can only describe as pure BS grade pontification.

How do you purchase atheism? I'm curious.

What forefathers are you speaking of?

What choice is there in faith? You have it or you do not.

Where is there a lack of courage?

What do you mean by moral intelligence?

The rest of what you said is a mixture of truism and wierdness in it's non-rellevence.

Yes curious idea that, purchasing faith.
We would have to assume that the currency required does not travel well, because the geographic probabilities have far greater portent on what faith one acquires, or profoundly more often, inherits, than any investment of intellectual currency.

Obstreperous? Excuse me. When was the last time you received an unsolicited house call from an atheist? How many times have you seen an atheist preaching atheism with a megaphone? How many films have been banned or boycotted at the behest of atheists?

As for the claim of intellectual and moral triviality ... maybe he's finally getting it: atheism makes no intellectual or moral claims whatsoever. The commonly held perception that it does probably stems from the fact that a mental effort is required on the part of those who have been indoctrinated with religious belief. So if you don't want to be offended by the existence of intellectually superior atheists, don't press religion as a default belief system. if you do, you will find that only the most intelligent are able to transcend it.

Finally, I love the battle references: courage, conquests, strategists etc. There simply is no battle, not on our part anyway. Any battle that may exist is yours alone. If you want everyone to believe in the existence of god, prove that there is one. Now that sound like a battle. Good luck with it.

Paella wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 10:22pm:

It's hardly a contentious claim fd. Heard of evolution?

Evolution is not a scientific theory.

Like I said, you should start a new thread so you can enlighten us all.

Quote:

If any of you guys would care to expand on the particular arguments that Dawkins puts forward, that you find without merit, and explain why, I think we would all find that eminently more worthwhile than the claptrap that the Eagleton fellow offered.

He argues for example that religious education is indoctrination, and extends this to arguing that it is a form of abuse. However, all education is indoctrination, especially education in science. The inevitable consequence of his stance would lead to atheists committing some of the worst crimes that religious people have committed in the past.

Quote:

How do you purchase atheism? I'm curious.

Some of the most obnoxious, arrogant, and intellectually void arguments I have seen on this issue have come from online atheists. I'm not sure about 'real life' as neither group bothers me especially there, but certainly online it is the atheists who are louder and more willing to call for their views to be forcibly imposed on others.

Quote:

Evolution is not a scientific theory.

FD

You really have a bee in your bonnet about this particular issue for reasons known only to yourself, suffice it to say, the "Scientific Community" disagrees with you on that point.
I agree with them, because they are "scientists", so if it is good enough for them to call it a "scientific theory", then it is good enough for me.


Quote:

He argues for example that religious education is indoctrination, and extends this to arguing that it is a form of abuse. However, all education is indoctrination, especially education in science. The inevitable consequence of his stance would lead to atheists committing some of the worst crimes that religious people have committed in the past.

FD

Well I have no issue with Dawkin's position there, in fact I agree with it wholeheartedly.
Freediver's contention that all education is indoctrination, so therefore no less harmful than religious indoctrination, is a rather wild, and strange accusation to make, as I doubt that learning to read and write is in any way equivalent to being taught lies about heaven and hell, and instilling fear into the hearts of small children with threats of eternal hellfire if one dies without committing their life to the parents, or preachers religion of choice.

I also fail to see the logical progression from not teaching religious dogma to children, and how that leads to the assertion that atheists will mirror the horrific excesses committed in the name of religion.

I think he needs to flesh out that particularly bizarre notion before we can see if there is any sense or logic there to even bother refuting.


Quote:

Some of the most obnoxious, arrogant, and intellectually void arguments I have seen on this issue have come from online atheists. I'm not sure about 'real life' as neither group bothers me especially there, but certainly online it is the atheists who are louder and more willing to call for their views to be forcibly imposed on others.

FD

lol, well I guess we can assume you are not too keen on atheists, well I can live with that, but perhaps you would care to expand on just what views atheists are seeking to have forcibly imposed on others?

I have a sneaking suspicion it will most likely be the forcing of religious zealots not to teach their religious dogma as part of any school curriculum you may be alluding to, but I would prefer you actually stated what unspeakable horror you expect atheists to impose upon you before deciding if it is a valid concern or not.

Quote:

the "Scientific Community" disagrees with you on that point.

No they don't.


Quote:

Freediver's contention that all education is indoctrination, so therefore no less harmful than religious indoctrination

I was merely pointing out a logical flaw in Dawkins' argument. I did not mean to imply that all forms of indoctrination are equal.


Quote:

I also fail to see the logical progression from not teaching religious dogma to children, and how that leads to the assertion that atheists will mirror the horrific excesses committed in the name of religion.

Dawkins is not merely asserting that people should refrain from teaching it to their children. Rather he is arguing that it is a form of abuse. Tell me Mozz, what is the inevitable consequence of that?

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2010 at 9:41pm:

Quote: the "Scientific Community" disagrees with you on that point. No they don't.

Only to the extent that the scientific community has long considered evolution to be a scientific fact.

Quote:

No they don't.

FD

Oh yes they do. ;D
(We could go on like this for quite some time, but I will contend the point to you on the basis that I don't really care.)  (Plus I know you are wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D)


Quote:

I was merely pointing out a logical flaw in Dawkins' argument

FD

I have not read his argument, so cannot categorically state there is no logical flaw, but I fail to see how either your, or my interpretation of what we think he may be saying is illogical. If you could explain what you find illogical about the idea that religious indoctrination has a distinct propensity for imprinting very negative imagery, at the very least, into young kids minds, which is unnecessary, in all cases, and unhealthy in some?


Quote:

I did not mean to imply that all forms of indoctrination are equal.

FD

When you said; "However, all education is indoctrination, especially education in science. The inevitable consequence of his stance would lead to atheists committing some of the worst crimes that religious people have committed in the past. " what were you thinking of?
Well perhaps just flesh that statement out a bit more, because it is a little bewildering to say the least.
I cannot think what fears you hold but I strongly suspect they may be unfounded.

Finally the point of abuse is not universal, but it is most certainly predominant.
EXAMINE ANY RELIGIOUS DOGMA, REALLY EXAMINE THE HORROR STORIES THEY CONVEY, THEN TELL ME WHAT AGE YOU WOULD INTRODUCE THEM TO KIDS.

The bible, koran, the talmud, all contain stuff inappropriate for children, and parents have no more right to demand it be taught in school than members of the Ku Klux Klan have the right to demand their kids be taught that blacks are sub-humans, and that jews are evil and deserve to die.
We cannot stop these people from imposing their beliefs on their children in their own homes, or any other private extra curricular activity arenas they attend, but we can make sure that at least when they are in school, they will not be indoctrinated with such dogmatic nonsense.
School is about attaining a balanced education, and about teaching people how to think rationally, and independently, and if schools do that, then they are doing their job.

mozzaok wrote on May 13^th, 2010 at 10:19pm:

The bible, koran, the talmud, all contain stuff inappropriate for children

Just that one, innocent-looking weasel word, 'inappropriate' - what untold list of unexamined assumptions does it cover? It is so full of morality, yet it has no ground on which to base all that morality. Science / evolution / genetics is amoral. To what else can an atheist turn for moral authority? Yet atheists moralise.  The cheek, what?


Elsewhere in the argument: anyone who decided in childhood, on childish grounds, that there is 'no god' (along the lines of tooth fairy, santa and easter bunny) and is happy to stick with that for the rest of his life has not put childish things aside and lives to that extent in an infantile mental world. That the event we call god does not exists as a child would imagines it is a trivial discovery and for a grown man to be stuck with that as a life-defining discovery is self-infantilising.


'God', apart from the religious meanings, has a civilisational meaning, that is to say, a metaphysical meaning. If one want to maintain unbelief, this is the area one should grope around. But it requires much more sustained thought than the infantile conclusions along the lines of 'big bearded geezer didn't strike me down when I was naughty therefore there is no god'

Quote:

To what else can an atheist turn for moral authority?

how about common human decency? now go flick yaself ya bible bashing basket.

Soren wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 12:19am:

To what else can an atheist turn for moral authority?

Yer, right... Like you'd know anything about morality... Short of burning a witch at the stake.

Soren wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 12:19am:

To what else can an atheist turn for moral authority? Yet atheists moralise.  The cheek, what?

"Morality" is a socially constructed model of ethical behaviour that favours social behaviour which stenghtens and preserves our communities. Humans live best in communities. Have you noticed that?

This is demonstated by the fact that all people have roughly the same basic moral code of behaviour, whether religious or not, whether anglican,buddhist, pastafarian, whatever. This has been thoroughly empiracally tested.

Funny, for one so critital of Dawkins, I'd have thought you'd have read his work.

mozzaok wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 1:01am:

Quote: To what else can an atheist turn for moral authority? how about common human decency?

WHich thumb does that one come from?

Common human decency? what is the source of our notion of that? Selfish genes? Maths? WHat?

Oh, not much really. Just 4 billion years of evolution.

Soren wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 12:19am:

Elsewhere in the argument: anyone who decided in childhood, on childish grounds, that there is 'no god' (along the lines of tooth fairy, santa and easter bunny) and is happy to stick with that for the rest of his life has not put childish things aside and lives to that extent in an infantile mental world. That the event we call god does not exists as a child would imagines it is a trivial discovery and for a grown man to be stuck with that as a life-defining discovery is self-infantilising. 'God', apart from the religious meanings, has a civilisational meaning, that is to say, a metaphysical meaning. If one want to maintain unbelief, this is the area one should grope around. But it requires much more sustained thought than the infantile conclusions along the lines of 'big bearded geezer didn't strike me down when I was naughty therefore there is no god'

Wow! An overall pretty ridiculous assumption on the quality of peoples' non-belief.

Ironically, and this is the good bit, a reverse scenario concerning the maturity of belief is more the case.

Paella wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 12:20pm:

Oh, not much really. Just 4 billion years of evolution.

And what is the value of evolution? What is the value of a pet rock? Why do try to assign value to something that has none?

locutius wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 12:36pm:

Soren wrote on May 14th, 2010 at 12:19am: Elsewhere in the argument: anyone who decided in childhood, on childish grounds, that there is 'no god' (along the lines of tooth fairy, santa and easter bunny) and is happy to stick with that for the rest of his life has not put childish things aside and lives to that extent in an infantile mental world. That the event we call god does not exists as a child would imagines it is a trivial discovery and for a grown man to be stuck with that as a life-defining discovery is self-infantilising. 'God', apart from the religious meanings, has a civilisational meaning, that is to say, a metaphysical meaning. If one want to maintain unbelief, this is the area one should grope around. But it requires much more sustained thought than the infantile conclusions along the lines of 'big bearded geezer didn't strike me down when I was naughty therefore there is no god' Wow! An overall pretty ridiculous assumption on the quality of peoples' non-belief. Ironically, and this is the good bit, a reverse scenario concerning the maturity of belief is more the case.

more the case of what?

Soren wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 12:54pm:

locutius wrote on May 14th, 2010 at 12:36pm: Soren wrote on May 14th, 2010 at 12:19am: Elsewhere in the argument: anyone who decided in childhood, on childish grounds, that there is 'no god' (along the lines of tooth fairy, santa and easter bunny) and is happy to stick with that for the rest of his life has not put childish things aside and lives to that extent in an infantile mental world. That the event we call god does not exists as a child would imagines it is a trivial discovery and for a grown man to be stuck with that as a life-defining discovery is self-infantilising. 'God', apart from the religious meanings, has a civilisational meaning, that is to say, a metaphysical meaning. If one want to maintain unbelief, this is the area one should grope around. But it requires much more sustained thought than the infantile conclusions along the lines of 'big bearded geezer didn't strike me down when I was naughty therefore there is no god' Wow! An overall pretty ridiculous assumption on the quality of peoples' non-belief. Ironically, and this is the good bit, a reverse scenario concerning the maturity of belief is more the case. more the case of what?

that there is 'god' (along the lines of tooth fairy, santa and easter bunny) and is happy to stick with that for the rest of his life has not put childish things aside and lives to that extent in an infantile mental world

Soren wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 12:52pm:

Paella wrote on May 14th, 2010 at 12:20pm: Oh, not much really. Just 4 billion years of evolution. And what is the value of evolution? What is the value of a pet rock? Why do try to assign value to something that has none?

Soren, at last I think you're starting to get it.

You don't assign value to something that has none. You assign value to things that have some. It's a socially constructed, subjective, negotiated process. Religion was invented in this way, and for this purpose.

And I'll hand it to religion: it worked pretty well for a long time. It still works well for some people in particular parts of the world. It just doesn't work too well for us anymore. You see, about three or four hundred years ago we finally really did bite that damned snake's apple, and figured out that it's all bollocks. You can't go back, sorry. We don't need to, and why would we want to?

I know some of us struggle more than others to accept that we are actually in control of our own destiny. But don't give up. You'll get there.

Paella wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 1:14pm:

Soren wrote on May 14th, 2010 at 12:52pm: Paella wrote on May 14th, 2010 at 12:20pm: Oh, not much really. Just 4 billion years of evolution. And what is the value of evolution? What is the value of a pet rock? Why do try to assign value to something that has none? Soren, at last I think you're starting to get it. You don't assign value to something that has none. You assign value to things that have some. It's a socially constructed, subjective, negotiated process. Religion was invented in this way, and for this purpose.

Actually I disagree. That's what being human is all about.  We have many "irrational" beliefs that make us human.  Marx referred to them as consumer fetishes. An example is the fact that in some cases, we spend the token of many weeks of labour for a small transparent rock that we offer to our potential mates as a symbol of love.

If humanity ever woke up to the fact that the pieces of rock serve no logical purpose,  then the bottom would fall out of markets worldwide. If people stopped believing in diamonds and gold, many people would die worldwide. Economics is a false construct. So are the works of fiction.  The survival of our way of life probably depends on these human constructs.   Gods and religions are human constructs. Some recognise them as such, just as some recognise that pretty bits of rock have no real value - other than holding the fabric of humanity together.

By the way, I make no apology for referring to Marx. His economic paradigm was unworkable, but his observations were astute.

Aha, Muso, we finally get down to it, what mental gymnastics you force yourself to perform to create a positive facade to be worthy of your respect, while you allow yourself to accept that behind it all is the grubby interior that is, 'organised religion'.

You choose to think of religion as a type of glue that helps bind the different elements of society together, and I can certainly respect the effort it must take to maintain such a stance, when one holds no particular religious dogma as providing personal, eternal salvation, or even enlightenment.
You respect it as a civilising factor.

I think that was probably truer in past times than present, when social life as well as spiritual life, revolved around the church, but in modern secular societies that is less and less the case, so I fear the one reason you may have had to maintain that respectful consideration for religion, is fast evaporating, and is unlikely to return.

We have reached the point where secular standards exceed religious standards on just about any moral issue you could imagine, so I think that the churches need to start applying a policy of harm minimisation, because there ability to provide benefits is pretty much behind them.