FARK.com: (7505697) Peter Higgs thinks Richard Dawkins is full of boson

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Peter Higgs thinks Richard Dawkins is full of boson (guardian.co.uk)		302
		More: Interesting

• • •

9392 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2012 at 2:04 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7505697

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

302 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

ProfessorOhki		2012-12-27 05:43:18 PM

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: Faith in talking snakes and faith in the work of your predecessors are two different things.

[tattooedphilosopher.files.wordpress.com image 512x625]

of course they are two different things, it's ok when you use the word, it's bad when we do it, i get it

so what happens when the work of your predecessors records the account of talking snakes?

wat do?

Unreproducible experiments are useless in science. If you doubt the work that came before you, you can perform it yourself and validate the existing results. That's one of the hallmarks of science.

/Link

Uncle Tractor		2012-12-27 05:46:21 PM

ciberido: I really doubt that's true, however. If the kind of Rapture evangelical Christians believe in were to actually happen, the next day people like Hawkins would be trying DESPERATELY to explain it away rather than say, "Oh, guess we were wrong. Whoops."

You obviously know nothing about scientists. If the Rapture happened, the scientists would be all over it, trying to figure out what really happened and whether it could be replicated in the lab. A few years later, Apple would patent the "iRapture"...

I drunk what		2012-12-27 05:48:50 PM

Inflatable Rhetoric: If god didn't create malaria & mosquitoes, who did?

Malaria? I'm guessing Sin created that, and concerning who created Sin you'll have to ask Adam & Eve, and perhaps a talking snake.

mosquitoes? we can probably blame God for creating the first Life, Evolution, Free Will, etc.. but as for what life forms were created as the result of all those initial conditions including the tampering of other life forms (up to and including Man), is anyone's guess

Inflatable Rhetoric: Doesn't god claim to be the creator of all living things?

Indirectly. But let's take you for example, a living thing. I'd say your parents had something to do with your existence. And concerning all the things that have occurred in IR's life? should we blame God for that? did He write that post for you?

now multiple those variables by the number of living organisms...

Inflatable Rhetoric: Or is he lying about that?

that is unpossible P =/= Q

I drunk what		2012-12-27 05:57:39 PM

Uncle Tractor: Then you evaluate the evidence for talking snakes. If you find no evidence for such a thing, you might decide that said predecessor was wrong, possibly on shrooms, and then you discard the "talking snake" theory.

so if i am unable to reproduce the claims made by them then i can safely assume that it never happened?

Uncle Tractor: See, one of the things that makes science > religion is that science corrects itself. Errors will sooner or later be found. Religion, OTOH, is supposed to be the eternal truth. Fixing what's wrong in a given religion will wreck it, while failing to do so will make it increasingly irrelevant and backward.

well no wonder you have such disdain for religion, you've been doing it terribly wrong this whole time...

have you tried doing it right?

ProfessorOhki: Unreproducible experiments are useless in science

do they have any use in Religion?

ProfessorOhki: If you doubt the work that came before you, you can perform it yourself and validate the existing results. That's one of the hallmarks of science.

but what if we are talking about temporal things? or non-physical causes??

should we keep using Science?

I drunk what		2012-12-27 06:01:00 PM

I drunk what: now ~~multiple~~ multiply those variables by the number of living organisms

meh, you prolly don't want to see the math

ProfessorOhki		2012-12-27 06:12:37 PM

I drunk what: ProfessorOhki: Unreproducible experiments are useless in science

do they have any use in Religion?

That's up to the religion, but since most have core tenants that are specifically untestable, I'm not sure what they'd get out of it.

I drunk what: ProfessorOhki: If you doubt the work that came before you, you can perform it yourself and validate the existing results. That's one of the hallmarks of science.

but what if we are talking about temporal things? or non-physical causes??

should we keep using Science?

Science isn't supposed to be a dogma; it's a set of tools that has yielded fantastic results. You use it wherever it's applicable. I'm not sure what you're getting at by temporal or non-physical things. If you're going to say temporal something like, "I sneezed on July 6th, 1976," but science can't reproduce that exact sneeze because it's 2012, guess you'll just have to take it on faith, I think you have a catastrophic misunderstanding of what science is.

Are you trying to build up a case for saying that in the past, the existence of God was witnessed and written down, but then he went away, so we're only left with writings? Still incompatible with science. If we found a 5000 year old text that said that pouring mercury and squirrel blood on lead, then burying it for a month turned it into gold, we could try it and go, "nope, that's BS." Don't tell me you're going to go for the, "well, what if it worked 5000 years ago, but now it doesn't" angle? Even if it WERE true at the time of writing, it would be invalid for the purposes of science.

thewitchking		2012-12-27 06:37:09 PM

"What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists,"

So basically what he is saying is Dawkins should hate on all believers and not just the fundamentalists?

Uncle Tractor		2012-12-27 06:41:40 PM

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: Then you evaluate the evidence for talking snakes. If you find no evidence for such a thing, you might decide that said predecessor was wrong, possibly on shrooms, and then you discard the "talking snake" theory.

so if i am unable to reproduce the claims made by them then i can safely assume that it never happened?

That depends how reasonable the claims are. Claim that you saw a meteor fall last night? You can't reproduce it but it's known to happen, so you'll probably be believed. Claim that a talking mushroom dictated a holy book to you? Eh ...

Uncle Tractor: See, one of the things that makes science > religion is that science corrects itself. Errors will sooner or later be found. Religion, OTOH, is supposed to be the eternal truth. Fixing what's wrong in a given religion will wreck it, while failing to do so will make it increasingly irrelevant and backward.

well no wonder you have such disdain for religion, you've been doing it terribly wrong this whole time...

have you tried doing it right?

In what way have I been "doing it wrong," and how does one "do it right?"

Uncle Tractor		2012-12-27 06:43:41 PM

Relevant to all Dawkins threads:

i560.photobucket.com

cegorach		2012-12-27 06:58:31 PM

Came here to see 'Atheists' displaying an utter lack of understanding of how the scientific method works and engaging in hilariously hypocritical irrational justifications of their belief systems, leaving satisfied.

It's like there's not enough retarded muppets worshipping deities so you lot decided to ape their tactics. Good work.

And yes, Dawkins is a douchebag channeling his personal issues into ideological fodder.

He and his publisher are just lucky that only-slightly-above-average-intellect males with a preponderance of neck hair share similar issues.

Uncle Tractor		2012-12-27 07:12:28 PM

cegorach: Came here to see 'Atheists' displaying an utter lack of understanding of how the scientific method works

For instance ...?

and engaging in hilariously hypocritical irrational justifications of their belief systems, leaving satisfied.

"Atheism is a religion?" Please.

And yes, Dawkins is a douchebag channeling his personal issues into ideological fodder.

People keep claiming that Dawkins is militant, aggressive, or in your case, a douchebag. Never really seen any justification of this. Must be one of those truisms that Fox keep repeating over and over until their viewers believe them. His personal issues is being fed up with all the bullshiat that comes with religion.

cegorach		2012-12-27 07:27:05 PM

Uncle Tractor: cegorach: Came here to see 'Atheists' displaying an utter lack of understanding of how the scientific method works

For instance ...?

and engaging in hilariously hypocritical irrational justifications of their belief systems, leaving satisfied.

"Atheism is a religion?" Please.

And yes, Dawkins is a douchebag channeling his personal issues into ideological fodder.

People keep claiming that Dawkins is militant, aggressive, or in your case, a douchebag. Never really seen any justification of this. Must be one of those truisms that Fox keep repeating over and over until their viewers believe them. His personal issues is being fed up with all the bullshiat that comes with religion.

1. Read up on what the scientific method actually is. Then see how 'Atheists' here are erroneously employing it to justify their belief systems.
2. "Atheism is a religion?" Please. - I am unsure whether reading comprehension or advanced reasoning is your problem. Either way, 'religion' is not the same thing as 'belief system'. Both Atheism and various religions are belief systems. Neither can be factually proven using scientific methods. They exist solely as assertions of belief.
3. Since you seem to enjoy making assertions based on a lack of evidence, you should fit in just fine in this thread. Use the internet. Plenty of examples of Dawkins doucheing around the place, preaching intolerance of the intolerance of religious types.

digitaldesperado		2012-12-27 07:31:05 PM

Science isn't at odds with the existence of God, it only appears to be at odds with a couple of verses in the Bible
I believe that the earth has been here for long time. That the earth, plants and animals have evolved by some process and that God created man and gave him a soul.

If you're an atheist, that's your choice. Just don't be foolish enough to try to use science to back up your belief.

Osomatic		2012-12-27 07:54:13 PM

digitaldesperado: Science isn't at odds with the existence of God, it only appears to be at odds with a couple of verses in the Bible

Um.... only a couple of verses?

the_chief		2012-12-27 08:03:00 PM

One of life's simple and cheap pleasures is toying with the minds of creationists.

Dreadskull		2012-12-27 08:09:03 PM

digitaldesperado: Science isn't at odds with the existence of God, it only appears to be at odds with a couple of verses in the Bible
I believe that the earth has been here for long time. That the earth, plants and animals have evolved by some process and that God created man and gave him a soul.

If you're an atheist, that's your choice. Just don't be foolish enough to try to use science to back up your belief.

You seem confused as to what the words "atheist" and "science" mean. You theorize that "God" created man and gave him a "soul" yet you lack any evidence to support this claim. Atheists make no such claims.

I'm surprised people are still having difficulty drawing a distinction between gnostic/strong/hard atheism and agnostic/soft/weak atheism. Science is always operating on the best estimation of what we know so far, atheism is simply operating on the premise that there has been no evidence to support the god theory so far.

Inflatable Rhetoric		2012-12-27 08:20:33 PM

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: Then you evaluate the evidence for talking snakes. If you find no evidence for such a thing, you might decide that said predecessor was wrong, possibly on shrooms, and then you discard the "talking snake" theory.

so if i am unable to reproduce the claims made by them then i can safely assume that it never happened?

Uncle Tractor: See, one of the things that makes science > religion is that science corrects itself. Errors will sooner or later be found. Religion, OTOH, is supposed to be the eternal truth. Fixing what's wrong in a given religion will wreck it, while failing to do so will make it increasingly irrelevant and backward.

well no wonder you have such disdain for religion, you've been doing it terribly wrong this whole time...

have you tried doing it right?

ProfessorOhki: Unreproducible experiments are useless in science

do they have any use in Religion?

ProfessorOhki: If you doubt the work that came before you, you can perform it yourself and validate the existing results. That's one of the hallmarks of science.

but what if we are talking about temporal things? or non-physical causes??

should we keep using Science?

There's news. Sin can create living creatures.
Citation needed.

Lionel Mandrake		2012-12-27 08:22:59 PM

douchebag/hater: He can no more prove there is no God than religious people can prove there is, it's that simple.

Well, you certainly are simple.

Lionel Mandrake		2012-12-27 08:24:33 PM

Uncle Tractor: Relevant to all Dawkins threads:

[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]

An IRL version:

Mithiwithi		2012-12-27 08:31:35 PM

I try to avoid mocking religious people, but I freely and openly indulge in mocking absurd religious beliefs. Merely believing that one or more gods exist doesn't qualify as absurd for me - that's reserved for physical or metaphysical nonsense, such as "the earth is 6000 years old", or "a ritual transforms the 'substance' of bread and wine into the flesh and blood of an incarnate deity, where 'substance' is defined as something completely intangible".

Unfortunately for everyone involved, the distinction between mocking a belief and mocking the people who hold that belief is typically lost on the people holding the belief, since those people have made that belief part of their personal identity. So being scrupulous about that distinction does nothing but foster a personal sense of self-righteousness, really.

I do it anyway, because c'mon - transsubstantion? Really?

ParaHandy		2012-12-27 08:38:02 PM

SkunkWerks: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

Do you know why they call it Atheism?

Because when you see it you turn 360 degrees and walk the other way.

Are you a subatomic particle, or did I miss something subtle?

ParaHandy		2012-12-27 08:49:07 PM

ObscureNameHere: Question for Loud Atheists: are there no aspects of your day-to-day existence that embrace or at least could be categorized as 'irrational'?

I'll bite ... like Dawkins, I am totally fed up with religions and all the shiat they cause; it's much harder to start a war without a sky fairy or two (or preferably, a slightly different description of the same one). There is no form of bigotry or racism that doesn't have a religion to thank for its justification.

I do things that are emotional, not rational ... I own a really fast car and often drive it around the same piece of asphalt repeatedly at high speeds only to end up back where I started.

I don't believe in things that aren't true, no matter how many other people believe them. Reality is not a popularity contest.

ParaHandy		2012-12-27 08:56:20 PM

ciberido: raerae1980: FTA: "Higgs argued that although he was not a believer...."

Soooo then, they are in agreement?
I like this quote from Hawkins, "No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may 'believe', in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."

I really doubt that's true, however. If the kind of Rapture evangelical Christians believe in were to actually happen, the next day people like Hawkins would be trying DESPERATELY to explain it away rather than say, "Oh, guess we were wrong. Whoops."

Since it's a purely hypothetical event, who knows? I for one would be literally awestruck for a few seconds, and would then bust out every recording device to hand to document the evidence.

As someone who is 100% certain there are no gods, aliens, will o the wisps, ghosts, Nessies, fairies, goblins, trolls, vampires, etc. I would find witnessing a rapture as I understand the term to be compleeing evidence that one of the first two categories does in fact exist.

However, it's moot.

tbriggs		2012-12-27 09:19:13 PM

Why is Dawkins such a dick? He probably had an experience something like mine when as an undergrad, astounded daily by what I was learning in biology and specifically in evolution class, was set upon by fundamentalists when I brought some books to work one evening. I was preparing a report on the role of reproductive efficiency as the driving force behind the extinction of marsupials by mammals. Once spotted I was targeted for conversion by some of the dimmest humans I have ever encountered.

Across the street from the hospital where I worked was the North Central Bible College, on whose campus around the same time Jim Baker met Tammy Faye LaValley, for which we can all give thanks.

The alarm was sounded, and a phalanx of bible thumpers was dispatched.

Hoardes of nitwit country kids took it upon themselves to save my soul, and, happily, failed. Ever since I have nurtured a revulsion at the tactics of the mouth breathing class of American christer.

I will forever be a dick to them, they deserve no less.

RedVentrue		2012-12-27 09:23:53 PM

Silverstaff		2012-12-27 09:30:47 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Uncle Tractor: Relevant to all Dawkins threads:

[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]

An IRL version:

[i159.photobucket.com image 720x408]

upload.wikimedia.org

What an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.

You know, actively suppressing and persecuting clergy, enacting laws outlawing religion (he explicitly banned Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, as well as Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christianity), sending people espousing religious beliefs to prison camps, demolishing religious sites, actively trying to eradicate the very concept of religion.

Trying to claim some random grumpy Atheist is a "militant" atheist is like trying to claim that the little old Church lady who scowls when she sees a gay couple is a "militant Christian". No, the real militant atheists starve, shoot, burn and behead Christians, Jews, Muslims and anybody else they think is wrong.

Between the Great Purge and Holodomor of the USSR, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Great Leap Forward of the PRC and the decades of famine in Best Korea, I'd say that atheistic movements have caused as much, or more death in the 20th century than religiously motivated ones

The Communist Party of the USSR even had a wing of the party called the: League of Militant Atheists

Lionel Mandrake		2012-12-27 09:54:35 PM

Silverstaff: Lionel Mandrake: Uncle Tractor: Relevant to all Dawkins threads:

[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]

An IRL version:

[i159.photobucket.com image 720x408]

upload.wikimedia.org

What an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.

Seriously weak.

Silverstaff		2012-12-27 10:06:48 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Silverstaff: Lionel Mandrake: Uncle Tractor: Relevant to all Dawkins threads:

[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]

An IRL version:

[i159.photobucket.com image 720x408]

upload.wikimedia.org

What an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.

Seriously weak.

Are you saying that Joseph Stalin WASN'T a militant atheist?

A man who personally banned religion in the country he ran, exiled clergy to death camps, ordered schools to teach that all religions are wrong and God does not exist, ordered the destruction of churches and temples, and officially sponsored an organization called the "League of Militant Atheists"?

You know, if you've got some proof that Joseph Stalin was religious after his abandoning of Orthodox Christianity during the Russian Revolution, you could make a huge smash in academia. Write that historic paper, get it peer reviewed, and get it published!

Lionel Mandrake		2012-12-27 10:21:46 PM

Silverstaff: Lionel Mandrake: Silverstaff: Lionel Mandrake: Uncle Tractor: Relevant to all Dawkins threads:

[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]

An IRL version:

[i159.photobucket.com image 720x408]

upload.wikimedia.org

What an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.

Seriously weak.

Are you saying that Joseph Stalin WASN'T a militant atheist?

A man who personally banned religion in the country he ran, exiled clergy to death camps, ordered schools to teach that all religions are wrong and God does not exist, ordered the destruction of churches and temples, and officially sponsored an organization called the "League of Militant Atheists"?

You know, if you've got some proof that Joseph Stalin was religious after his abandoning of Orthodox Christianity during the Russian Revolution, you could make a huge smash in academia. Write that historic paper, get it peer reviewed, and get it published!

You are clearly implying a link between his evil and his atheism...Yes, he was an evil atheist. But he was not one because of the other.

RedVentrue		2012-12-27 10:24:10 PM

RedVentrue		2012-12-27 10:27:49 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Silverstaff: Lionel Mandrake: Silverstaff: Lionel Mandrake: Uncle Tractor: Relevant to all Dawkins threads:

[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]

An IRL version:

[i159.photobucket.com image 720x408]

upload.wikimedia.org

What an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.

Seriously weak.

Are you saying that Joseph Stalin WASN'T a militant atheist?

A man who personally banned religion in the country he ran, exiled clergy to death camps, ordered schools to teach that all religions are wrong and God does not exist, ordered the destruction of churches and temples, and officially sponsored an organization called the "League of Militant Atheists"?

You know, if you've got some proof that Joseph Stalin was religious after his abandoning of Orthodox Christianity during the Russian Revolution, you could make a huge smash in academia. Write that historic paper, get it peer reviewed, and get it published!

You are clearly implying a link between his evil and his atheism...Yes, he was an evil atheist. But he was not one because of the other.

Of couse it does, unless you are an Atheist Humanist, then all bets are off.

Just kidding, evil power mongers will be evil power mongers, regardless of religious persuasion.

ShonenBat		2012-12-27 10:31:09 PM

RedVentrue: Lionel Mandrake: Silverstaff: Lionel Mandrake: Uncle Tractor: Relevant to all Dawkins threads:

[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]

An IRL version:

[i159.photobucket.com image 720x408]

upload.wikimedia.org

What an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.

Seriously weak.

He's right though. Chairman Mao was another.

And Vladimir Lenin, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Castro an Nicolae Ceaușescu. If the contention is that these men were merely 'evil' and not 'militant atheist', might the not the militant theists be categorized as merely 'evil' and thus their actions cannot have bearing on the theological doctrine they propagated?

Wayne 985		2012-12-27 11:01:04 PM

Lionel Mandrake		2012-12-27 11:04:30 PM

ShonenBat: RedVentrue: Lionel Mandrake: Silverstaff: Lionel Mandrake: Uncle Tractor: Relevant to all Dawkins threads:

[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]

An IRL version:

[i159.photobucket.com image 720x408]

upload.wikimedia.org

What an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.

Seriously weak.

He's right though. Chairman Mao was another.

And Vladimir Lenin, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Castro an Nicolae Ceaușescu. If the contention is that these men were merely 'evil' and not 'militant atheist', might the not the militant theists be categorized as merely 'evil' and thus their actions cannot have bearing on the theological doctrine they propagated?

Well, abortion provider assassins, the WBC and their ilk, and suicide-bombing jihadis do not affect how I feel about Christianity or Islam in general. However, each of those terrorists/assholes is clearly religiously motivated.

Stalin, et al were intent on destroying any competing base of power or perceived base of power, or possible future base of power. Whether that base is religious in nature is irrelevant, but formidable political opponents often are. For the most part, evil autocrats have no problem with priests, monks, popes, whatever, as long as they toe the line and don't appear threatening.

Deep Contact		2012-12-27 11:45:54 PM

Maybe Higgs can explain why all the gold particles are missing in Ft. Knox.

Kittypie070		2012-12-28 01:32:40 AM

Oh hai, I'll just poop these here.

upload.wikimedia.org

sudo give me more cowbell		2012-12-28 01:35:40 AM

Lionel Mandrake: You are clearly implying a link between his ~~evil~~ communist ideology and his atheism

Yeah, I mean Karl Marx only declared religion the opiate of the masses and and evil to be fought against, but heck, what does he know about communism?

roncofooddehydrator		2012-12-28 01:38:27 AM

Uncle Tractor: douchebag/hater: He can no more prove there is no God than religious people can prove there is, it's that simple.

[i560.photobucket.com image 522x640]

That argument is just a different version of Russell's Teapot. The main point of Russell's Teapot though is that you should not be expected to believe or act upon something without proof. It has nothing to do with the belief itself.

So if you are a theist then that's well and good, just don't expect others to have the same belief because you have no proof that any god or gods exist. But likewise if you are an atheist, don't expect others to have the same belief because you similarly have no proof that no god or gods exist.

Ishkur		2012-12-28 01:52:50 AM

Silverstaff: What an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.

Stalin wasn't an atheist. Neither was Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.. not once did they rant in any of their speeches that their enemies must be eliminated for the sake of secular humanism and rational inquiry. Rather, what they did was establish systems of moral absolutes with state theocracies, oppressive social obedience and strict political doctrine replacing scripture. Essentially: Political ideology as church, with themselves as God.

The whole "who committed more atrocities" argument is a mutually assured destruction debate tactic anyway. Do you really want to count them all up? Christians wiped out two entire continents and an entire race of people. And not only did they commit genocide to others, they committed genocide to themselves (the greatest enemy to Christians has always been other Christians: Quite possibly up to 50 million in just the wars of the Reformation....20 million in the 30 years war alone). But do these numbers make any argument better? Do you feel better about your side if you can tally it up and show that your beliefs only killed a few million less than their beliefs? Does that make it more right?

Today's Christians should not have to answer for every past atrocity done in the name of Christianity, just as today's atheists should not have to answer for every past atrocity done in the name of atheism (which is technically none...but even if you throw in Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot or anyone else who wasn't Christian or an atheist, that still doesn't justify either argument).

RedVentrue		2012-12-28 02:51:54 AM

Ishkur: Silverstaff: What an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.

Stalin wasn't an atheist. Neither was Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.. not once did they rant in any of their speeches that their enemies must be eliminated for the sake of secular humanism and rational inquiry. Rather, what they did was establish systems of moral absolutes with state theocracies, oppressive social obedience and strict political doctrine replacing scripture. Essentially: Political ideology as church, with themselves as God.

The whole "who committed more atrocities" argument is a mutually assured destruction debate tactic anyway. Do you really want to count them all up? Christians wiped out two entire continents and an entire race of people. And not only did they commit genocide to others, they committed genocide to themselves (the greatest enemy to Christians has always been other Christians: Quite possibly up to 50 million in just the wars of the Reformation....20 million in the 30 years war alone). But do these numbers make any argument better? Do you feel better about your side if you can tally it up and show that your beliefs only killed a few million less than their beliefs? Does that make it more right?

Today's Christians should not have to answer for every past atrocity done in the name of Christianity, just as today's atheists should not have to answer for every past atrocity done in the name of atheism (which is technically none...but even if you throw in Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot or anyone else who wasn't Christian or an atheist, that still doesn't justify either argument).

I think the important lesson here is to be wary of fundamentalism, and rigid thinking, regardless of your philisophical position or religious persuasion.

Ishkur		2012-12-28 03:04:54 AM

RedVentrue: I think the important lesson here is to be wary of fundamentalism, and rigid thinking, regardless of your philisophical position or religious persuasion.

Extremism in general is bad. You should never follow any "ism" to its complete extent. Almost everything can be tamed with exceptions and exclusions, consensus and compromise, temperance and tolerance, and to completely devote yourself to a single-minded brand of blind faith is, well, blind.

Whenever you have a blind faith belief in something - it doesn't matter what that something is - you open the door for atrocities to occur. Anyone can be brought to the bidding of their superiors or be compelled to commit any heinous or unspeakable act for the sake of strict adherence to a format of social control.

There is a commonality of blind faith in all the extremisms of past ages, from fundamentalist theocracies to military dictatorships, from the totalitarian nation-states of the twentieth century to the Inquisitions of medieval Europe. The holder of a blind faith is static in a constantly changing Universe. It is not what they believe in that's so dangerous - the exact particulars of the belief are quite irrelevant - but to the extent that they will defend their beliefs. This is true of zealots from every facet of civilization, from politics to religion, law, war, culture, race and industry. It is also true for value systems that people show unwavering fealty toward, from holy books to Constitutions.

Everything comes down to a fundamental assumption of faith. But it's how faith is upheld that matters. If you believe in something absolutely from a position of blind faith then you will defend it absolutely from a position of blind faith. There is no room for interpretation: It is 100% true, absolute, and beyond question. You will seek out and destroy its opponents as they are threats to its wisdom and self-evident superiority. You are capable of dying for it and you are capable of killing for it. You are capable of being told to kill for it, and you accept conquest or annihilation as the only logical courses of action. There is no middle ground.

If we wish to live in an ethical world where atrocities do not occur, then we must reject blind faith and accept critical evaluation (but don't do this blindly, of course). The reason for this is quite simple: If you recognize the possibility that your basic assumptions might not be absolutely correct, then you will be much more tolerant of someone who disagrees with your assumptions. Moreover, you will not perceive their opposition as a threat to yours. You will disagree, but you will not die, and you will not kill for your convictions. The door to a better world lies down this path.

Uncle Tractor		2012-12-28 03:52:15 AM

cegorach: 1. Read up on what the scientific method actually is.

Read up on it? I posted a graphic that explains it further upthread. The basic idea is to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Then see how 'Atheists' here are erroneously employing it to justify their belief systems.

You'll have to elaborate on that, I'm afraid.

2. "Atheism is a religion?" Please. - I am unsure whether reading comprehension or advanced reasoning is your problem. Either way, 'religion' is not the same thing as 'belief system'. Both Atheism and various religions are belief systems. Neither can be factually proven using scientific methods. They exist solely as assertions of belief.

Not believing in gods is not an assertion of faith. I have never seen a reason to believe in a god. Therefore I do not believe in gods. I am not making claims of any kind. The only people making claims are the ones who go on about the sky wizard who sneezed on his play-dough.

3. Since you seem to enjoy making assertions based on a lack of evidence,

Hmm... where?

you should fit in just fine in this thread. Use the internet. Plenty of examples of Dawkins doucheing around the place, preaching intolerance of the intolerance of religious types.

Oh, you poor oppressed christian you. Reading all those critical comments must be hard on your fragile christian psyche.

Uncle Tractor		2012-12-28 03:53:39 AM

digitaldesperado: If you're an atheist, that's your choice. Just don't be foolish enough to try to use science to back up your belief.

Atheism is not a choice. Not for me, anyway. My brain simply refused to believe those silly stories.

Uncle Tractor		2012-12-28 04:06:08 AM

Silverstaff: What an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.

No, that's what a militant *communist* looks like.

Apparently, you're just another ignorant theist who can't tell the difference between communism (an ideology) and atheism (the absence of belief in gods). This invalidates the rest of your post.

Uncle Tractor		2012-12-28 04:16:11 AM

ShonenBat: And Vladimir Lenin, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Castro an Nicolae Ceaușescu. If the contention is that these men were merely 'evil' and not 'militant atheist', might the not the militant theists be categorized as merely 'evil' and thus their actions cannot have bearing on the theological doctrine they propagated?

You guys seriously need to learn the difference between communism, which is an ideology, and atheism, which is merely absence of belief in gods.

Or you can continue watching Fox News.

Kittypie070		2012-12-28 05:09:32 AM

(cat wubs Unca Tractor)

wub, wub.

_{/scampers off to cushion, gotta sleep}

petec		2012-12-28 07:24:52 AM

had98c: petec: buck1138: petec:

Pascal's wager is a piss poor reason to not be a dick because if that is all that is stopping you from being a dick

I was thinking more like karma actually ;)

Which doesn't exist either.

just cause you don't believe in the concept doesn't mean it doesn't exist ..

/just don't be a dick
//cause people don't like dicks

SkunkWerks		2012-12-28 07:49:03 AM

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

Atheism is the best MMO.

letrole: The amusing part

is that there isn't one.

ParaHandy: Are you a subatomic particle, or did I miss something subtle?

It wasn't subtle. Again: form follows function.

ObscureNameHere		2012-12-28 09:18:31 AM

ParaHandy: ObscureNameHere: Question for Loud Atheists: are there no aspects of your day-to-day existence that embrace or at least could be categorized as 'irrational'?

I'll bite ... like Dawkins, I am totally fed up with religions and all the shiat they cause; it's much harder to start a war without a sky fairy or two (or preferably, a slightly different description of the same one). There is no form of bigotry or racism that doesn't have a religion to thank for its justification.

I do things that are emotional, not rational ... I own a really fast car and often drive it around the same piece of asphalt repeatedly at high speeds only to end up back where I started.

I don't believe in things that aren't true, no matter how many other people believe them. Reality is not a popularity contest.

No 'bite' needed, I wasn't trolling.
Where I start losing patience with the Loud Atheists (insert Jon Stewart 'You're Not Helping' pic here) is when they move from the 'there is no evidence' aspect of the debate to actively attacking religous people for -- in essence -- believing inn 'silly' and irrational things; as if doing something silly and irrational are somehow 'flaws' that the Loud Atheists sometimes appear to stridently believe should be excised from the human experience.

Uncle Tractor		2012-12-28 09:25:09 AM

ObscureNameHere: Where I start losing patience with the Loud Atheists (insert Jon Stewart 'You're Not Helping' pic here) is when they move from the 'there is no evidence' aspect of the debate to actively attacking religous people for -- in essence -- believing inn 'silly' and irrational things; as if doing something silly and irrational are somehow 'flaws' that the Loud Atheists sometimes appear to stridently believe should be excised from the human experience.

The problem is this: The silly and irrational things theists believe in can lead them to commit atrocities. As a result, some people get nervous around adults who believe in silly and irrational things. That's why some atheists get loud.

upload.wikimedia.org

Displayed 50 of 302 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.