Has he not seen the irrefutable proof?

Look at what making those movies about wizards has done to him. Damn you JK Rowling!

So according to TFA, "militant atheist" is defined as anyone who doesn't want churches to have control over writing civil legislation and who supports teaching sex ed.

That's it, folks, if you're anywhere to the left of Rick Santorum, you are hereby recognized as a militant atheist.

Welcome to the club!

Oh FFS. I refuse to be identified with Richard Dawkins.

gimmegimme: GAT_00: Oh FFS. I refuse to be identified with Richard Dawkins.

I know...all of those silly calls for rational thinking. What a jerk!

Dawkins makes terrible arguments. We can encourage rational thinking without logical fallacies.

GAT_00: gimmegimme: GAT_00: Oh FFS. I refuse to be identified with Richard Dawkins.

I know...all of those silly calls for rational thinking. What a jerk!

Dawkins makes terrible arguments. We can encourage rational thinking without logical fallacies.

Dawkins is a world class ethologist. If I have questions about animal behavior, I am eager to listen to his expertise.

His opinions on the topic of invisible, omnipotent, omniscient super-beings who wield supernatural powers beyond human comprehension are exactly as well-supported by the available evidence as everyone else's opinions on that topic, and therefore worth exactly as much.

Once we start discussing things that cannot, by their very nature, be supported or falsified by evidence, we are simply making monkey noises. They may be monkey noises of varying degrees of eloquence and mellifluousness, but they are still just monkey noises.

Ook Ook.

ya know, its not like the jesus crowd is gonna ever like Daniel Radcliff. he (and his costars) were the face of what they consider to be a satanic conspiracy to tempt kids away from Christ and into the occult.

*sigh*

anyways, its nice to see that the guy is out on his own, finding his way in the world. it's not always easy to make the transition from child star to an adult. I hope he lives well and enjoys his success.

gimmegimme:


I disagree with you. Perhaps you feel Dawkins is treading on too-thin ice by explaining why he thinks the existence of a deity is highly improbable.


Not at all. I think that as well.


The other side opens up a bag of cheese doodles and believes supernatural magic is commanding them to build a church or play the lottery or kill their children:



Is it possible, in your experience, to have a rational discussion, informed exclusively by the available empirical evidence, with someone who takes life coaching advice from snack foods?

If not, then it's just monkey noises. You may as well argue with a shoe.

FloydA: Once we start discussing things that cannot, by their very nature, be supported or falsified by evidence

You mean, things that don't exist?

DamnYankees: FloydA: Once we start discussing things that cannot, by their very nature, be supported or falsified by evidence

You mean, things that don't exist?

ISTM, at least for all practical purposes, that "cannot be supported or falsified by empirical evidence, and is proposed to be separate from and outside of the observable, measurable universe" is a pretty good synonym for "does not exist."

Unless someone wants to propose some way of distinguishing (A) a universe that has a God who does not want to be found from (B) a universe that does not have a God at all, I intend to carry on assuming that hypothesis B is more parsimonious.

If there is such a thing as God, then He has made it impossible for us to detect any evidence of His existence. If He is as clever as His fan clubs all claim, then I must conclude that He has a very good reason for making the universe appear as though He is not in it. Who am I, as a mere mortal, to oppose His wishes in that matter?

This is the fundamental (pardon the pun) flaw with ID creationism. (Well... it's among the top 10, at least.)

Keep in mind, he's getting in the news for being an Atheist. This is his right and he shouldn't have to defend it, as you don't have to.

/Someone will probably feel oppressed by him being an Atheist.

Poor kid is still traumatized by Dumbledore. I'd have a hard time believing in God too if I had been through what he went though. He'll come round after a few years of therapy.

Also, Dawkins is a perv

The Allied Atheist Alliance would just like you to know that they will smash their enemies heads like clams on their tummies.

Now the Fundies can officially return to hating the whole Harry Potter series.

t3knomanser: I believe in a higher power- it's responsible for creating the sun, the Earth, and pretty much everything we see. It reaches across space and time and holds the universe together. It's called gravity.

You can't explain that

FloydA: DamnYankees: FloydA: Once we start discussing things that cannot, by their very nature, be supported or falsified by evidence

You mean, things that don't exist?

ISTM, at least for all practical purposes, that "cannot be supported or falsified by empirical evidence, and is proposed to be separate from and outside of the observable, measurable universe" is a pretty good synonym for "does not exist."

Do not read this as a "God of the gaps", because I'm not arguing that, but this statement that things outside of our measurement don't exist is severely logically flawed. Photons have been travelling to edge of space for 13 billion years, beyond which we can't "see". Does that mean nothing exists outside? We for all intents and purposes can't measure below what, ~0.1 attometers, does that mean that there is nothing below that scale and we should simply ignore it? Or what about the idea that we can't see anything before ~1 second after the big bang (the cosmic background radiation) or infer anything because our equations all fail? Did that time simply not exist, or anything that may have come before it (which is really a meaningless statement since time starts at the big bang).

Don't take these as pedantic nitpicking, because aside from maybe the 2nd one, some of these questions may never be answered. And they directly speak to the kind of metaphysics you write about, how the Universe came into being. We currently have only guesses for these, even thought they are very educated guesses, they're still that. That's why they fall into metaphysics, and things like string theory or a multiverse are every bit of a theoretical construct as God is. If someones belief or lack of belief in a diety doesn't infringe on the physical constraints we know about the universe, why put so much effort into caring what they think?

Unless someone wants to propose some way of distinguishing (A) a universe that has a God who does not want to be found from (B) a universe that does not have a God at all, I intend to carry on assuming that hypothesis B is more parsimonious.

Well you really can't, its why its called metaphysics. As long as your beliefs are consistent with what we know, they're not really less valid than others.

If there is such a thing as God, then He has made it impossible for us to detect any evidence of His existence. If He is as clever as His fan clubs all claim, then I must conclude that He has a very good reason for making the universe appear as though He is not in it. Who am I, as a mere mortal, to oppose His wishes in that matter?

This is the fundamental (pardon the pun) flaw with ID creationism. (Well... it's among the top 10, at least.)

ID is really separate with what you're trying to say, it really addresses the origin of life and its change, not the universe. But yeah, God can't be currently proven or disproven, what I would love is that people on both sides, who exhibit more certainty of their opinions than information, just not be so damn vocal about it.

Kurmudgeon: FloydA: If there is such a thing as God, then He has made it impossible for us to detect any evidence of His existence. If He is as clever as His fan clubs all claim, then I must conclude that He has a very good reason for making the universe appear as though He is not in it. Who am I, as a mere mortal, to oppose His wishes in that matter?

There's probably a ground mole out there that doesn't think you exist either.

Yeah, but he's not going to send the mole to hell for not believing in him.

t3knomanser: struct: But yeah, God can't be currently proven or disproven

I'd go further: no useful statements can be made about "god", as used in the Western Judeochristiolamic sense. It's not about whether or not it can be proven- the hypothesis cannot even be stated in a meaningful way. Discussing god is roughly like discussing zebrulex.

The problem is that in our society many people take this meaningless garbage seriously. The only reason they have to do so is tradition and acculturation. They become defensive over this meaningless garbage because they've come to identify it as inseparable from their culture, traditions and sense of self. They don't defend their theistic hypothesis on its merits- it doesn't have any. They defend it because they view an assault on the hypothesis as an assault on their person.

That's fine, but why then go the extra mile and defend things such as "culture" "Traditions" or "sense of self" at the expense of one characteristic you disapprove of? Aren't they just as transient and meaningless? So what that a group of religions were dreamed up from nomadic desert-wanderers from 3000 years ago who prayed for deliverance into a land of plenty? Or that some Eastern religions bring up a belief in that suffering is transient and the life is cyclical in response to wanton murder and barbarism around them? I think these things, and the roots that they come from, are just as important for culture and people's identities as the color of flag or what hat you wear.

And I'm fine with it as long as it doesn't impinge on modern views from the Enlightment (human rights, freedom of religion, freedom of thought). I get it, I know that often this isn't the case and that those with strong beliefs use those to override others freedoms, but try to separate that from other aspects that provide people with cultural identity or help them grapple with a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives and how everything got here. These ideas are imperfect, but when you deal with ultimate causes or the ultimate reality of nature you go into metaphysics, and every idea we have is imperfect.