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.

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

9414 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2012 at 2:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



302 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-27 08:17:56 AM  
Survey says?
 
2012-12-27 08:22:50 AM  
The funny thing is in the religion debate Peter Higgs is going to get extra weight added to his views because the 'god' particle was his and discovered, which can easily be manipulated by journalists who misrepresent science to suggest he has proof of god.

Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.

Science and religion are not incompatible, if both sides make compromise for each other. That an atheist might play nice and not tell a Muslim that there are no gods does not mean there are gods. There are still no gods. That's as compatible as science and religion get. You leave us alone we'll leave you alone. Truth doesn't change.
 
2012-12-27 08:56:18 AM  

Slaxl: The funny thing is in the religion debate Peter Higgs is going to get extra weight added to his views because the 'god' particle was his and discovered, which can easily be manipulated by journalists who misrepresent science to suggest he has proof of god.


Yet Hawking was right about black holes and Hawking radiation. And black holes will eventually gobble up everything, including Higg's boson. So inevitably, Hawking wins.
 
2012-12-27 09:40:22 AM  

St_Francis_P: Yet Hawking was right about black holes and Hawking radiation. And black holes will eventually gobble up everything, including Higg's boson. So inevitably, Hawking wins.


Hmmm.... my understanding was that according to Susskind,  Hawking was proven incorrect. Perhaps I misread (or missed additional publications after) The Black Hole War.
 
2012-12-27 09:52:19 AM  
Richard Dawkins showed them the way, but it was his "beautiful wife", Mrs. Garrison, who showed how one must be a dick to people they don't agree with.
 
2012-12-27 09:54:43 AM  

Rustico: St_Francis_P: Yet Hawking was right about black holes and Hawking radiation. And black holes will eventually gobble up everything, including Higg's boson. So inevitably, Hawking wins.

Hmmm.... my understanding was that according to Susskind,  Hawking was proven incorrect. Perhaps I misread (or missed additional publications after) The Black Hole War.


It's still in question one way or another. Either way, your sarcasm meter is in dire need of calibration.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:38 AM  
FTFA: "  Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind. "

Winner, winner, chicken dinner....and a Nobel Prize.

Dawkins is out of control but he was entertaining on Family Feud and Hogan's Heroes.
 
2012-12-27 10:30:06 AM  
Dawkins is all:
www.arsenalia.com
Taking the Ferrari unbelievers out for a spin.

Higgs is all:

www.fiftiesweb.com
 
2012-12-27 10:30:56 AM  
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."
 
2012-12-27 10:32:39 AM  

Slaxl: The funny thing is in the religion debate Peter Higgs is going to get extra weight added to his views because the 'god' particle was his and discovered, which can easily be manipulated by journalists who misrepresent science to suggest he has proof of god.

Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.

Science and religion are not incompatible, if both sides make compromise for each other. That an atheist might play nice and not tell a Muslim that there are no gods does not mean there are gods. There are still no gods. That's as compatible as science and religion get. You leave us alone we'll leave you alone. Truth doesn't change.


Scientists can be religious--even very religious. You just have to accept that religions require faith in the supernatural. Those are two very important and distinct factors:

1) Faith
2) Supernatural

Science does not and cannot address supernatural elements and it never properly uses faith in the religious sense. And it doesn't need to. Science-minded people can still believe. You just believe. That's why it's called "faith". It's when you start using dogma as a weapon against science that we have a problem.  Those people are the problem. They are a threat to human advancement, freedom, peace and cooperation.
 
2012-12-27 10:39:21 AM  
Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.
 
2012-12-27 11:06:44 AM  

Lumpmoose: Science does not and cannot address supernatural elements and it never properly uses faith in the religious sense. And it doesn't need to. Science-minded people can still believe. You just believe. That's why it's called "faith". It's when you start using dogma as a weapon against science that we have a problem.  Those people are the problem. They are a threat to human advancement, freedom, peace and cooperation.


Science and religion are answering two very different questions and there haven't been any scientific discoveries that would destroy the central message of the Abrahamic religions, for example. Now if you decided that the scriptures are the actual word of God and His timescales are the same as ours, yes you've got a problem. However, the Fundies don't like science in any form and haven't for a thousand years now, so I'm going with those people are whackaloons no matter how you look at them.

//The model of the Ark in the Creation Museum is wonderful in how it allows for air circulation and removal of waste fumes without any build up of toxic or flammable gasses and without things like ventilation and powered air circulation.  Pretty farking cool huh?
 
2012-12-27 11:30:51 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.


No surprise, that is what overzealous leaders of religious cults tend to do.
 
2012-12-27 11:46:14 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.


Yes, but the dickishness of one's demeanor has no bearing on the truthfulness of the argument.
 
2012-12-27 11:47:17 AM  
Well, of course he's full of boson.  That's why he's affected by the same field that...Don't blame me, I worship the sun and pray to Joe Pesci.
 
2012-12-27 11:52:19 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.


Why should we worry about hurting the image of Atheism? When does theistic asshattery ever cause them to take pause?
 
2012-12-27 12:02:58 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.


He's not a dick about it. Go find me examples of him being a dick.
 
2012-12-27 12:28:37 PM  
I guess I don't understand why outrageous claims with no supporting evidence are acceptable targets for ridicule (be it healing crystals, or psychics, or ancient aliens, or whatever), yet somehow the silliness of theism is supposed to be treated with kid gloves.
 
2012-12-27 01:23:12 PM  

Slaxl: AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.

He's not a dick about it. Go find me examples of him being a dick.


I did a Google search for "Dawkins ridicule them" and got tons of hits.  Here is just one.
http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/dawkins-mock-them-ridi cu le-them-in-public/

At the "Rally for Reason" he urged people to "mock and ridicule Catholics, in public."

Now personally, I think the Catholic Church is terrible, and religion is a harmful thing.  Fundamentalists of every stripe shout and scream at non-believers and are in my opinion, dicks.

How is Dawkins urging like-minded people to do basically the same thing NOT dickish?
 
2012-12-27 02:07:22 PM  
Dawkins responds to a similar allegation made by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEl4QfcAK2o

Worth watching (it's 2 minutes).
 
2012-12-27 02:11:29 PM  

St_Francis_P: Yet Hawking was right about black holes and Hawking radiation. And black holes will eventually gobble up everything, including Higg's boson. So inevitably, Hawking wins.


Sometimes I think the physicist are making inside jokes. I came across one pointing out that the mass of a black hole is directly proportional to the size of the event horizon and a black hole with the mass of the universe would be the size of the universe.

Compared to that, Dawkins calling someone silly is irrelevant.
 
2012-12-27 02:11:54 PM  

Rustico: Hmmm.... my understanding was that according to Susskind, Hawking was proven incorrect.


Hawking was wrong about what happens to information in a black hole, he said its destroyed, Susskind said it wasn't. This is different from the issue of black hole radiation.
 
2012-12-27 02:12:28 PM  

Slaxl: Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.


No, Dawkins is an attention whoring asshole.

Supporting reason and logic is one thing, actively calling people of faith mentally ill and deluded and insulting and belittling them doesn't win converts over, it is just the atheistic version of preaching to the choir.

His jackassery gives the religious plenty of fodder to depict atheism as a religion unto itself (and an evil one at that), because of the zealotry and fervor that he approaches it with is very much akin to religious.

When Dawkins is insulting people for having religion, and since most people are at least nominally religious, all faith leaders have to do is to play nice and look reasonable and benevolent and suddenly Dawkins looks like the looney calling everybody crazy.

Even if he supports the search for truth, reason and logic, he's such a poor ambassador for it that he isn't exactly winning over converts, just rallying his own "faithful" (or faithless as it were).
 
2012-12-27 02:12:50 PM  
The world is filled with assholes who think "I'm right, and that excuses any bad behavior on my part".
 
2012-12-27 02:16:27 PM  
I'm amazed that you people are still arguing with each other over something that can never be either proven nor dis-proven by either side.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.
 
2012-12-27 02:18:25 PM  
Atheism is a Religion.
 
2012-12-27 02:18:48 PM  

radarlove: I'm amazed that you people are still arguing with each other over something that can never be either proven nor dis-proven by either side.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.


Your reading comprehension is terrible and it makes you calling us idiots extremely funny.

No one is arguing over the existence of deity here, chuckles.
 
2012-12-27 02:19:55 PM  

Slaxl: The funny thing is in the religion debate Peter Higgs is going to get extra weight added to his views because the 'god' particle was his and discovered, which can easily be manipulated by journalists who misrepresent science to suggest he has proof of god.

Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.

Science and religion are not incompatible, if both sides make compromise for each other. That an atheist might play nice and not tell a Muslim that there are no gods does not mean there are gods. There are still no gods. That's as compatible as science and religion get. You leave us alone we'll leave you alone. Truth doesn't change.


Prove to me that God doesn't exist and you can then say science and religion are incompatible.  If something is immune to confimation by proof then it science has no opinion on the matter since it lies outside the realm of  what can be experiementally confirmed.  both Science and religion are similar in that they suffer when you try to make them into something they are not.  Religion is not useful guide to the physical truths of the observable universe.  Science is not an appropriate tool for definitively determining if a supreme being exists outside the boundaries and rules of time and space.
 
2012-12-27 02:20:40 PM  

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


....and?
 
2012-12-27 02:21:25 PM  
Not being a 'loud athiest', I am often curious what the ideal citizen is to a Loud Athiest. I think they secretly believe that all humans should really be Vulcans. Loud Athiests do not seem to have a framework to accept or deal with the fact the humans are NOT inherently 'rational' beings and never will be due to our emotional wet-ware.

Religion -- while perhaps being 'wrong' factually -- makes its daily bread by providing coping mechanism for an irrational world.

I don't have an answer, just fascinated by how it all plays out in future.
 
2012-12-27 02:21:47 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: radarlove: I'm amazed that you people are still arguing with each other over something that can never be either proven nor dis-proven by either side.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.

Your reading comprehension is terrible and it makes you calling us idiots extremely funny.

No one is arguing over the existence of deity here, chuckles.


Did I say deity?

Looks like your reading comprehension could use some work. But hey, keep making inferences, idiot.
 
2012-12-27 02:24:21 PM  

radarlove: AdolfOliverPanties: radarlove: I'm amazed that you people are still arguing with each other over something that can never be either proven nor dis-proven by either side.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.

Your reading comprehension is terrible and it makes you calling us idiots extremely funny.

No one is arguing over the existence of deity here, chuckles.

Did I say deity?

Looks like your reading comprehension could use some work. But hey, keep making inferences, idiot.


What is it then that you say can never be proven or dis-proven by either side, that we idiots are supposedly arguing about in this thread.  I honestly want to know.
 
2012-12-27 02:26:57 PM  
fc09.deviantart.net
 
2012-12-27 02:27:13 PM  
I've always viewed Richard Dawkins as kind of a dick. He resorts pedantic, childish tactics in attacking religion; tempering the beliefs of those very people he is trying to rationalize with.

I'd like to see more people able who intellectually hold their own tear him down. It would be good for him to have his ass handed to him every once in awhile.
 
2012-12-27 02:27:37 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Slaxl: AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.

He's not a dick about it. Go find me examples of him being a dick.

I did a Google search for "Dawkins ridicule them" and got tons of hits.  Here is just one.
http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/dawkins-mock-them-ridi cu le-them-in-public/

At the "Rally for Reason" he urged people to "mock and ridicule Catholics, in public."

Now personally, I think the Catholic Church is terrible, and religion is a harmful thing.  Fundamentalists of every stripe shout and scream at non-believers and are in my opinion, dicks.

How is Dawkins urging like-minded people to do basically the same thing NOT dickish?


Protestants mock Catholics quite a lot.

//recently went to a unassuming protestant church where the congregation had a loud guffaw over a story of John Knox :

"The prisoner was told to give it a kiss of veneration (picture of the Virgin Mary). He refused and when the picture was pushed up to his face, the prisoner seized the picture and threw it into the sea, saying, "Let our Lady now save herself: she is light enough: let her learn to swim."

A good time was had by all with that one. "Silly religious people" I thought.
 
2012-12-27 02:29:30 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-27 02:29:43 PM  

radarlove: I'm amazed that you people are still arguing with each other over something that can never be either proven nor dis-proven by either side.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.


Not true; eventually science will figure out whether Hawking radiation is a real thing.
 
2012-12-27 02:31:58 PM  

What_do_you_want_now: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

....and?


And that's terrible!
 
2012-12-27 02:32:07 PM  

ObscureNameHere: Not being a 'loud athiest', I am often curious what the ideal citizen is to a Loud Athiest. I think they secretly believe that all humans should really be Vulcans. Loud Athiests do not seem to have a framework to accept or deal with the fact the humans are NOT inherently 'rational' beings and never will be due to our emotional wet-ware.

Religion -- while perhaps being 'wrong' factually -- makes its daily bread by providing coping mechanism for an irrational world.

I don't have an answer, just fascinated by how it all plays out in future.


I find that most loud athiests are not so much atheists as they are asshole ex-somet-sect-or-other. They're like asshole ex-smokers or asshole ex-drinkers or asshole ex-meat eating vegetarians. As for me, I don't need you to be wrong in order for me to be right in my atheism.
 
2012-12-27 02:32:41 PM  

vactech: Protestants mock Catholics quite a lot.


Eh, I think Higgs makes a bad choice of words when he says Dawkins is a fundamentalist of another kind.

...but that's only because "douchebag" isn't a very gentile word to use in an interview, I think.
 
2012-12-27 02:33:45 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: radarlove: AdolfOliverPanties: radarlove: I'm amazed that you people are still arguing with each other over something that can never be either proven nor dis-proven by either side.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.

Your reading comprehension is terrible and it makes you calling us idiots extremely funny.

No one is arguing over the existence of deity here, chuckles.

Did I say deity?

Looks like your reading comprehension could use some work. But hey, keep making inferences, idiot.

What is it then that you say can never be proven or dis-proven by either side, that we idiots are supposedly arguing about in this thread.  I honestly want to know.


You're arguing over who is the bigger asshole.
 
2012-12-27 02:34:13 PM  

Slaxl: The funny thing is in the religion debate Peter Higgs is going to get extra weight added to his views because the 'god' particle was his and discovered, which can easily be manipulated by journalists who misrepresent science to suggest he has proof of god.

Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.

Science and religion are not incompatible, if both sides make compromise for each other. That an atheist might play nice and not tell a Muslim that there are no gods does not mean there are gods. There are still no gods. That's as compatible as science and religion get. You leave us alone we'll leave you alone. Truth doesn't change.


And we're done...at least before the obligate godbots start raving.

I will admit that I can see where even atheistic scientists find Dawkins an irritating prick. Their contemporaries found Martin Luther and Jesus Christ equally a pain in the ass, I'm sure. But when your mandate is paradigm-shifting, you tend to use a crowbar more than a dental pick when attempting to create leverage.
 
2012-12-27 02:36:43 PM  

Valiente: But when your mandate is paradigm-shiftingattention-whoring, you tend to use a crowbar more than a dental pick when attempting to create leverage.


There we go.
 
2012-12-27 02:36:46 PM  

Magorn: Prove to me that God doesn't exist and you can then say science and religion are incompatible.  If something is immune to confimation by proof then it science has no opinion on the matter since it lies outside the realm of  what can be experiementally confirmed.  both Science and religion are similar in that they suffer when you try to make them into something they are not.  Religion is not useful guide to the physical truths of the observable universe.  Science is not an appropriate tool for definitively determining if a supreme being exists outside the boundaries and rules of time and space.



Most religions aren't based on vague ideas of a silent magical being that hides out of reach and can't be proven or disproven. The Bible, for example, makes all sorts of claims about what God does or has done. Science does tell us about whether the universe was created in seven days and whether people can live for nine centuries. Sure, the goalposts are constantly on the move and everything that was once literally true can suddenly be a metaphor when it is no longer defensible. But I don't think there is any reasonable doubt at this point that the gods of the Bible or the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon don't exist. None of those books limit themselves to discussion of events "outside the boundaries of time and space".
 
2012-12-27 02:38:50 PM  

Silverstaff: Slaxl: Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.

No, Dawkins is an attention whoring asshole.

Supporting reason and logic is one thing, actively calling people of faith mentally ill and deluded and insulting and belittling them doesn't win converts over, it is just the atheistic version of preaching to the choir.

His jackassery gives the religious plenty of fodder to depict atheism as a religion unto itself (and an evil one at that), because of the zealotry and fervor that he approaches it with is very much akin to religious.

When Dawkins is insulting people for having religion, and since most people are at least nominally religious, all faith leaders have to do is to play nice and look reasonable and benevolent and suddenly Dawkins looks like the looney calling everybody crazy.

Even if he supports the search for truth, reason and logic, he's such a poor ambassador for it that he isn't exactly winning over converts, just rallying his own "faithful" (or faithless as it were).


He's not going to win over any converts anyway since almost everyone already has their mind made up barring some grand event that swings evidence in such a way that nobody could really ignore it, like the second coming or something. So he might as well be an ass for all the good it'll do for him to be nice. It's much, much better to be right than to be liked.
 
2012-12-27 02:39:52 PM  
Dawkins gets the hate because he stands his ground and doesn't apologize for it.
His biggest haters are those with the biggest butthurt.

/boohoo, skydaddy doesn't exist.
 
2012-12-27 02:40:14 PM  

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

Soooo then, they are in agreement?


They agree on both the what and lack of whos, but not the hows.
 
2012-12-27 02:40:43 PM  

Slaxl: The funny thing is in the religion debate Peter Higgs is going to get extra weight added to his views because the 'god' particle was his and discovered, which can easily be manipulated by journalists who misrepresent science to suggest he has proof of god.



"[Peter Higgs] agreed with some of Dawkins' thoughts on the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief"
 
2012-12-27 02:42:29 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.


Atheism can't be hurt. Unlike religion, it doesn't require believers.

It's in essence a logical position built on observation and evidence. If there were no atheists, God still wouldn't exist.

So Dawkins is less an asshole than an emetic: He's acting to purge out the poison of hard-core belief systems, which are rallying worldwide at the moment because science can't fix human nature.

So I guess you could call him a puke.

Also, I never get the sense that "light believers" are his target, nor does he despise all the top-rank art and music inspired by religious impulses (or religious commissions, glory be!).

It's just the dangerous farktards who not only believe, but insist it would really be easier for everyone if you believed, too, and lived by principles held by stoned shepherds 3,000 years ago.

That way lies madness, or at least a big uptick in camels and tents.
 
2012-12-27 02:43:14 PM  
Well, we all have opinions.
 
2012-12-27 02:43:22 PM  

Lumpmoose: What_do_you_want_now: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

....and?

And that's terrible!



lulz
 
2012-12-27 02:43:27 PM  

Makh: Well, of course he's full of boson.  That's why he's affected by the same field that...Don't blame me, I worship the sun and pray to Joe Pesci.


Does He amuse you?
 
2012-12-27 02:43:58 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.


Care to compare Dawkins' assholeness with any random cynical ploy pulled by a megachurch?

The spanish inquisition: those assholes.
 
2012-12-27 02:45:19 PM  

Slaxl: Science and religion are not incompatible


They're not even comparable. Religion is a body of beliefs. Science is a process for understanding the natural world. One is a thing, the other is an activity>. It would be like comparing apples to eating.

Religion just doesn't like it when Science investigates its assertions, but that's hardly Science's fault. Science investigates everything -- that's what it does. It is not dogma, it is a methodology.
 
2012-12-27 02:46:35 PM  

radarlove: AdolfOliverPanties: radarlove: AdolfOliverPanties: radarlove: I'm amazed that you people are still arguing with each other over something that can never be either proven nor dis-proven by either side.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.

Your reading comprehension is terrible and it makes you calling us idiots extremely funny.

No one is arguing over the existence of deity here, chuckles.

Did I say deity?

Looks like your reading comprehension could use some work. But hey, keep making inferences, idiot.

What is it then that you say can never be proven or dis-proven by either side, that we idiots are supposedly arguing about in this thread.  I honestly want to know.

You're arguing over who is the bigger asshole.


Nice attempt at saving face, but you pulled that one out of your ass.  You saw Dawkins in the thread title and assumed it was an Atheist vs Believers thread.  No one is arguing whether Higgs or Dawkins is a bigger asshole.  No one has stated that Higgs is an asshole at all.

Just man up and accept you lost this one.  It isn't a big deal.  Move on.

If you keep going, people might start to argue over which one of us two is the biggest asshole, and you're way ahead on points in that one.
 
2012-12-27 02:46:53 PM  

Sybarite: I guess I don't understand why outrageous claims with no supporting evidence are acceptable targets for ridicule (be it healing crystals, or psychics, or ancient aliens, or whatever), yet somehow the silliness of theism is supposed to be treated with kid gloves.


Wants a word:

upload.wikimedia.org

It's all silly. I treat organized religion with the same hazardous materials gloves as I do magic crystal woo-woo nonsense. It's fun, and sometimes it's even creative and even inspirational...but it's no way to go through life, haunted by fictive demons and crippling guilt/moral superiority.
 
2012-12-27 02:47:04 PM  

SkunkWerks: Do you know why they call it Atheism?

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


Did you mean 180 degrees? Or was there some humour there that I missed?
 
2012-12-27 02:49:17 PM  

Bhruic: SkunkWerks: Do you know why they call it Atheism?

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

Did you mean 180 degrees? Or was there some humour there that I missed?


It's an Xbox 360 joke, and very poorly applied here, so yeah you missed the "humor" cause there isn't any.
 
2012-12-27 02:52:54 PM  

had98c: It's an Xbox 360 joke, and very poorly applied here, so yeah you missed the "humor" cause there isn't any.


Form follows function.
 
2012-12-27 02:54:15 PM  
The masses accept the Higgs approach towards God/science. The masses also pay taxes that fund research. The Dawkins approach will get us run out of town and our funding revoked.
 
2012-12-27 02:54:32 PM  
Dawkins is an asshole and a fundamentalist.

People Teenagers worship him like a deity.

Adults just wonder where a sad old man gets so much vitriol from.
 
2012-12-27 02:55:30 PM  

vactech:

Protestants rock Catholics quite a lot..


My late mother told me about Protestant kids chucking rocks at her (for going to a Catholic school and presumably the Pope's whore) on Fridays and in particular King Billy Day.

The last time I saw an Orangeman parade about 20 years ago, it was a feeble, elderly affair watched with boredom and faint curiosity by hordes of recent immigrants who couldn't quite get what was happening. It's stopped now.

So things can change.
 
2012-12-27 02:56:07 PM  
ObscureNameHereNot being a 'loud athiest', I am often curious what the ideal citizen is to a Loud Athiest

It's someone who can spell atheist, for one.
 
2012-12-27 02:57:16 PM  
"What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists,"

When the religious accept a secular society in which religion is relegated to it's proper place inside peoples homes and places of worship people like Dawkins will stop. The only way to have true freedom of religion is to have a secular society. It has no business in government or the public square.

On the other hand if secularists quit the religious will not be satisfied with the over reaching control they already have and will seek to push their religion in to everything. These are not just fundamentalists or extremists. It's the nature of religion to do this to society anytime it gains power over it.

Pushing back hard against the creep of religion in to all portions of society is only required because of the religious.
 
2012-12-27 02:59:51 PM  

maggoo: AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.

Care to compare Dawkins' assholeness with any random cynical ploy pulled by a megachurch?

The spanish inquisition: those assholes.


Speaking of assholes, a surprisingly large number of fundie preachers/Catholic priests like to play with 'em, usually after some hot, sweaty preaching of manlove as being an abomination, etc.

I don't think Dawkins has been found, by way of contrast, with one hand in the collection plate and the other one on the back of a choirboy's head. That scenario is almost as expected these days as a random mass murder in America.

So there's that.
 
2012-12-27 03:02:07 PM  
I think there is room for both approaches. We need people like Higgs who can help use science to educate people with open minds. And we need people like Dawkins to fight the fundamentalists because the moderates won't step up and fight them. If groups would take care of their own dirty laundry, there wouldn't be a need for outsiders to fill that role. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, they won't.
 
2012-12-27 03:04:44 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: radarlove: AdolfOliverPanties: radarlove: AdolfOliverPanties: radarlove: I'm amazed that you people are still arguing with each other over something that can never be either proven nor dis-proven by either side.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.

Your reading comprehension is terrible and it makes you calling us idiots extremely funny.

No one is arguing over the existence of deity here, chuckles.

Did I say deity?

Looks like your reading comprehension could use some work. But hey, keep making inferences, idiot.

What is it then that you say can never be proven or dis-proven by either side, that we idiots are supposedly arguing about in this thread.  I honestly want to know.

You're arguing over who is the bigger asshole.

Nice attempt at saving face, but you pulled that one out of your ass.  You saw Dawkins in the thread title and assumed it was an Atheist vs Believers thread.  No one is arguing whether Higgs or Dawkins is a bigger asshole.  No one has stated that Higgs is an asshole at all.

Just man up and accept you lost this one.  It isn't a big deal.  Move on.

If you keep going, people might start to argue over which one of us two is the biggest asshole, and you're way ahead on points in that one.


While my initial post may have been intentionally and trollishly vague, I assure you that assholishness was completely my point. The fact of the matter is that that is ALL that you people EVER argue about, regardless of the topic. Religion, vegetarianism, the fiscal cliff, gun control, dog ownership, food allergies, circumcision- it doesn't matter. Every single argument any of you people get into can be boiled down to who you think is the bigger asshole. In this particular argument it isn't about Dawkins vs Higgs (and why would you think that I would believe Peter Higgs to be religious, especially considering the content of TFA?), but rather the religious (including Atheists) vs. the non-religious (including theists).

And guess what? Same as always, they're both equally assholish. Every single one of us is an asshole of equal proportion and gape, including you and I.

Arguing over who is the bigger one in any situation is not only the height of idiocy, but the height of blind childishness.

But you're right, I should just bow out of the thread and not engage in what is surely to become an argument.

I'm okay with being honest with myself and admitting that I'm an asshole- but I'm not okay with making myself a farking idiot.
 
2012-12-27 03:05:25 PM  
Theads about religion on FARK are almost as entertaining as the political ones, IMHO....
 
2012-12-27 03:05:29 PM  

piledhigheranddeeper: The masses accept the Higgs approach towards God/science. The masses also pay taxes that fund research. The Dawkins approach will get us run out of town and our funding revoked.


When the food gets tainted and the cars stop and the lights go out because all those fundie taxpayers stop paying for science, I assume they can huddle hungry in cold churches for warmth around their candles, which are a fine, medieval technology.

There's a lot of imams and preachers on chemo and radiation trying to beat the Big C and other ills. They really don't wish to live Biblically or Koranically when it's pointed out to them what life was really like then. Surprisingly few of them want to be shuffled off to Paradise, either. Why is that, I wonder?
 
2012-12-27 03:07:12 PM  

Forbidden Doughnut: Theads about religion on FARK are almost as entertaining as the political ones, IMHO....


Well, they are equally unresolvable in this format, but there among the laughs and trollery is an occasional spark of insight.
 
2012-12-27 03:08:52 PM  

Valiente: piledhigheranddeeper: The masses accept the Higgs approach towards God/science. The masses also pay taxes that fund research. The Dawkins approach will get us run out of town and our funding revoked.

When the food gets tainted and the cars stop and the lights go out because all those fundie taxpayers stop paying for science, I assume they can huddle hungry in cold churches for warmth around their candles, which are a fine, medieval technology.

There's a lot of imams and preachers on chemo and radiation trying to beat the Big C and other ills. They really don't wish to live Biblically or Koranically when it's pointed out to them what life was really like then. Surprisingly few of them want to be shuffled off to Paradise, either. Why is that, I wonder?


Nichiren.
 
2012-12-27 03:09:15 PM  

Ishkur: Slaxl: Science and religion are not incompatible

They're not even comparable. Religion is a body of beliefs. Science is a process for understanding the natural world. One is a thing, the other is an activity>. It would be like comparing apples to eating.

Religion just doesn't like it when Science investigates its assertions, but that's hardly Science's fault. Science investigates everything -- that's what it does. It is not dogma, it is a methodology.


Science is a noun, not a verb.
 
2012-12-27 03:10:17 PM  
Balls, if it were not for Richard, there would BE almost no modern mass public debate about religion. Before he put out 'The God Delusion' the truth and possible negative social impact of religion had almost become the taboo subject its adherents wish it to be, but now even wet fish like Higgs feel the urge to contribute to the topic. To suggest he has done harm to the secular and atheist causes is laughable.
 
2012-12-27 03:12:27 PM  

radarlove: While my initial post may have been intentionally and trollishly vague, I assure you that assholishness was completely my point. The fact of the matter is that that is ALL that you people EVER argue about, regardless of the topic. Religion, vegetarianism, the fiscal cliff, gun control, dog ownership, food allergies, circumcision- it doesn't matter. Every single argument any of you people get into can be boiled down to who you think is the bigger asshole. In this particular argument it isn't about Dawkins vs Higgs (and why would you think that I would believe Peter Higgs to be religious, especially considering the content of TFA?), but rather the religious (including Atheists) vs. the non-religious (including theists).

And guess what? Same as always, they're both equally assholish. Every single one of us is an asshole of equal proportion and gape, including you and I.

Arguing over who is the bigger one in any situation is not only the height of idiocy, but the height of blind childishness.

But you're right, I should just bow out of the thread and not engage in what is surely to become an argument.

I'm okay with being honest with myself and admitting that I'm an asshole- but I'm not okay with making myself a farking idiot.


If people didn't argue endlessly over things that cannot be definitively settled, Fark would probably cease to exist.
 
2012-12-27 03:12:35 PM  

Savian: Ishkur: Slaxl: Science and religion are not incompatible

They're not even comparable. Religion is a body of beliefs. Science is a process for understanding the natural world. One is a thing, the other is an activity>. It would be like comparing apples to eating.

Religion just doesn't like it when Science investigates its assertions, but that's hardly Science's fault. Science investigates everything -- that's what it does. It is not dogma, it is a methodology.

Science is a noun, not a verb.


You should drop by Los Alamos sometime. We science everything around here. We science the hell out of it.
 
2012-12-27 03:13:12 PM  

had98c: Silverstaff: Slaxl: Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.

No, Dawkins is an attention whoring asshole.

Supporting reason and logic is one thing, actively calling people of faith mentally ill and deluded and insulting and belittling them doesn't win converts over, it is just the atheistic version of preaching to the choir.

His jackassery gives the religious plenty of fodder to depict atheism as a religion unto itself (and an evil one at that), because of the zealotry and fervor that he approaches it with is very much akin to religious.

When Dawkins is insulting people for having religion, and since most people are at least nominally religious, all faith leaders have to do is to play nice and look reasonable and benevolent and suddenly Dawkins looks like the looney calling everybody crazy.

Even if he supports the search for truth, reason and logic, he's such a poor ambassador for it that he isn't exactly winning over converts, just rallying his own "faithful" (or faithless as it were).

He's not going to win over any converts anyway since almost everyone already has their mind made up barring some grand event that swings evidence in such a way that nobody could really ignore it, like the second coming or something. So he might as well be an ass for all the good it'll do for him to be nice. It's much, much better to be right than to be liked.


I'd hate to get to the pearlly gates after being a dick all my life about the non-existence of the pearlly gates..

lots of people believe things I know to be bs, and lots of people believe things that are true, but I just don't understand, I try not to be a dick about it, cause I don't want them to be dicks about it ..

ie: there's a good reason for just not being a dick, like just not being a dick..
 
2012-12-27 03:13:58 PM  

Valiente: Forbidden Doughnut: Theads about religion on FARK are almost as entertaining as the political ones, IMHO....

Well, they are equally unresolvable in this format, but there among the laughs and trollery is an occasional spark of insight.


speaking of the devil:

Ishkur: Slaxl: Science and religion are not incompatible

They're not even comparable. Religion is a body of beliefs. Science is a process for understanding the natural world. One is a thing, the other is an activity>. It would be like comparing apples to eating.

Religion just doesn't like it when Science investigates its assertions, but that's hardly Science's fault. Science investigates everything -- that's what it does. It is not dogma, it is a methodology.


:D

not to mention that religion is for stupid poopy heads but science will always trump it with its rational-logical awesomeness!!1!

FOR SCIENCE!!!11!

/for teh lulz
 
2012-12-27 03:16:47 PM  

Savian: Science is a noun, not a verb.


Yes, and to clarify the confusion, I think science should only be used as a verb for now on, as in "Let me science a paper on it to verify your claim" or "The bacterium is sciencing this petri dish" or "I totally scienced your mom last night".
 
2012-12-27 03:17:11 PM  
I see Ishkur is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

Ishkur is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this three year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the Wason Selection Task with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually revealed that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing new to be garnered from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every religion thread (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.
 
2012-12-27 03:18:15 PM  

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


Still farking that chicken eh
 
2012-12-27 03:18:36 PM  

petec: had98c: Silverstaff: Slaxl: Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.

No, Dawkins is an attention whoring asshole.

Supporting reason and logic is one thing, actively calling people of faith mentally ill and deluded and insulting and belittling them doesn't win converts over, it is just the atheistic version of preaching to the choir.

His jackassery gives the religious plenty of fodder to depict atheism as a religion unto itself (and an evil one at that), because of the zealotry and fervor that he approaches it with is very much akin to religious.

When Dawkins is insulting people for having religion, and since most people are at least nominally religious, all faith leaders have to do is to play nice and look reasonable and benevolent and suddenly Dawkins looks like the looney calling everybody crazy.

Even if he supports the search for truth, reason and logic, he's such a poor ambassador for it that he isn't exactly winning over converts, just rallying his own "faithful" (or faithless as it were).

He's not going to win over any converts anyway since almost everyone already has their mind made up barring some grand event that swings evidence in such a way that nobody could really ignore it, like the second coming or something. So he might as well be an ass for all the good it'll do for him to be nice. It's much, much better to be right than to be liked.

I'd hate to get to the pearlly gates after being a dick all my life about the non-existence of the pearlly gates..

lots of people believe things I know to be bs, and lots of people believe things that are true, but I just don't understand, I try not to be a dick about it, cause I don't want them to be dicks about it ..

ie: there's a good reason for just not being a dick, like just not being a dick..


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 you are probably not going to be able to stop yourself from being a dick.
 
2012-12-27 03:18:59 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: If people didn't argue endlessly over things that cannot be definitively settled, Fark would probably cease to exist.


"and-nothing-of-value-was-lost.jpg"
 
2012-12-27 03:19:09 PM  

I drunk what: I see Ishkur is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions: Words


Jesus dude. He must have done a number on you. And apparently it's still working.
 
2012-12-27 03:19:28 PM  

gaspode: To suggest he has done harm to the secular and atheist causes is laughable.


To suggest that there is a "secular or atheist cause" is fairly amusing in and of itself. It's like belonging to the Gravity Club, where members discuss the physical attribute of matter that least cares about your opinion.

I do not care if you believe in the divine collector of foreskins/hater of bacon, or even the FSM. I do care if you build public policy around it, or try to convert me, or try to deny me my right to avoid participating in your mumbo-jumbo.

In other words, you don't have to be like me, a heathenistic rationalist (yeah, I know). I, however, don't care for your monotheistic madness and wish to unsubscribe to your paradigms.

Religions that don't seek converts are rare. Religions that do good works and don't seek much outside help are also rare. I don't mind them much, even if I think a humanist organization could cut to the chase a little more effectively (stuff the psalms and pass the platter).

So I have trouble with the idea that non-belief is a cause. You can't "convert" to rationality unless you are pretty well crazy and get the right mix of anti-psychotics...and if this is what you meant, I salute your subtle trolling.
 
2012-12-27 03:20:20 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.


He's turned Atheism into Arseholism.
 
2012-12-27 03:20:53 PM  

Ishkur: Savian: Science is a noun, not a verb.

Yes, and to clarify the confusion, I think science should only be used as a verb for now on, as in "Let me science a paper on it to verify your claim" or "The bacterium is sciencing this petri dish" or "I totally scienced your mom last night".


img571.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-27 03:24:33 PM  

buck1138: petec: had98c: Silverstaff: Slaxl: Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.

No, Dawkins is an attention whoring asshole.

Supporting reason and logic is one thing, actively calling people of faith mentally ill and deluded and insulting and belittling them doesn't win converts over, it is just the atheistic version of preaching to the choir.

His jackassery gives the religious plenty of fodder to depict atheism as a religion unto itself (and an evil one at that), because of the zealotry and fervor that he approaches it with is very much akin to religious.

When Dawkins is insulting people for having religion, and since most people are at least nominally religious, all faith leaders have to do is to play nice and look reasonable and benevolent and suddenly Dawkins looks like the looney calling everybody crazy.

Even if he supports the search for truth, reason and logic, he's such a poor ambassador for it that he isn't exactly winning over converts, just rallying his own "faithful" (or faithless as it were).

He's not going to win over any converts anyway since almost everyone already has their mind made up barring some grand event that swings evidence in such a way that nobody could really ignore it, like the second coming or something. So he might as well be an ass for all the good it'll do for him to be nice. It's much, much better to be right than to be liked.

I'd hate to get to the pearlly gates after being a dick all my life about the non-existence of the pearlly gates..

lots of people believe things I know to be bs, and lots of people believe things that are true, but I just don't understand, I try not to be a dick about it, cause I don't want them to be dicks about it ..

ie: there's a good reason for just not being a dick, like just not being a dick..

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 you are probably not going to be able ...


I was thinking more like karma actually ;)
 
2012-12-27 03:24:46 PM  

I drunk what: I see Ishkur is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:


If I were a troll and I saw that someone had pre-prepared a two page manifesto denouncing and analyzing my trolling on the off chance that they encountered a thread that I was in, I'd cum in my farking pants.
 
2012-12-27 03:24:55 PM  

revrendjim: AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.

Yes, but the dickishness of one's demeanor has no bearing on the truthfulness of the argument.


It has an effect on the effectiveness of an argument.
 
2012-12-27 03:25:51 PM  

Savian: Jesus dude. He must have done a number on you. And apparently it's still working.


it's a joke called "Ishkur", with many lulz to follow

but i do completely agree with your initial evaluation that whoever posted that needs some serious psychiatric help, and probably should be kept in a padded room for everyone's safety

/cheers
 
2012-12-27 03:26:21 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: ObscureNameHereNot being a 'loud athiest', I am often curious what the ideal citizen is to a Loud Athiest

It's someone who can spell atheist, for one.


Yup, you caught me in a typo. Absolutely use that as a reason to ignore the rest of the content of my post.

But then, that is just the kind of cool, edgy behaviour that makes the ladies get all up ons, amirite?
 
2012-12-27 03:26:25 PM  

gaspode: ... To suggest he has done harm to the secular and atheist causes is laughable.


This.
How can one hurt a non-belief? Non-belief isn't a religion.
I liken these complainers complaining that I am an arsehole and am hurting the hobby of NOT stamp collecting.

I suppose the only real way to hurt atheism is for theists to actually provide evidence and facts for their deity's existence.... which isn't happening because no matter how hard they WANT to believe, skydaddy isn't real.
 
2012-12-27 03:29:23 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-27 03:31:59 PM  

loonatic112358: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

Still farking that chicken eh


Talk about "right-sizing".
 
2012-12-27 03:32:13 PM  

radarlove: I drunk what: I see Ishkur is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

If I were a troll and I saw that someone had pre-prepared a two page manifesto denouncing and analyzing my trolling on the off chance that they encountered a thread that I was in, I'd cum in my farking pants.


interesting, and how would you feel if you weren't a troll?

some have suggested pity, but sadness is usually more appropriate for those that are too stupid to be helped...

personally i think he can be good for something, even poop serves a purpose in nature

just like the topic of this thread, our beloved Dick Dawkins can be a useful tool given the right scenario, so then Richard Dawkins Jr. here (aka Ishkur) probably has some beneficial quality to his otherwise meaningless and useless life..?

let's wait and see

/if nothing else
//should be good for some lulz
 
2012-12-27 03:33:18 PM  

I drunk what: that religion is for stupid poopy heads but science will always trump it


Oh noes. I pulled the trump card!

rlv.zcache.com

Give it a kiss of veneration, IDW.
 
2012-12-27 03:34:19 PM  

radarlove: I drunk what: I see Ishkur is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

If I were a troll and I saw that someone had pre-prepared a two page manifesto denouncing and analyzing my trolling on the off chance that they encountered a thread that I was in, I'd cum in my farking pants.


I'll wager even Saddam appreciated all those poorly sculpted statues. It's the thought of having electrodes on your nuts that counts.
 
2012-12-27 03:36:39 PM  

I drunk what: interesting, and how would you feel if you weren't a troll?


Same as I always feel: ambivalent and slightly depressed.
 
2012-12-27 03:37:48 PM  

Silverstaff: Even if he supports the search for truth, reason and logic, he's such a poor ambassador for it that he isn't exactly winning over converts, just rallying his own "faithful" (or faithless as it were).


i dunno, he seems to be doing a decent job of keeping the flock in line

3.bp.blogspot.com

he's the one taking a pic with his cell phone
 
2012-12-27 03:42:16 PM  

vactech: I drunk what: that religion is for stupid poopy heads but science will always trump it

Oh noes. I pulled the trump card!

[rlv.zcache.com image 152x152]

Give it a kiss of veneration, IDW.


www.corporate-aliens.com

i absolve thee
 
2012-12-27 03:42:23 PM  
I have no problems accepting everything science has done. I also believe in God. Sue me. I don't see how the two have to be mutually exclusive. I have no idea what God is or why God is but that doesn't mean it diminishes my faith in science...or God for that matter.
 
2012-12-27 03:46:28 PM  

This is a late parrot: Survey says?


I liked him better hosting this game show:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-27 03:46:47 PM  
Pick a god, and god.

Religion = Superstition + $$$$$
 
2012-12-27 03:47:52 PM  

gaspode: Balls, if it were not for Richard, there would BE almost no modern mass public debate about religion. Before he put out 'The God Delusion' the truth and possible negative social impact of religion had almost become the taboo subject its adherents wish it to be, but now even wet fish like Higgs feel the urge to contribute to the topic. To suggest he has done harm to the secular and atheist causes is laughable.


So you're saying he is a  a founder/popularizer of a system of beliefs and thoughts? sort of a prophet/messiah kinda figure?
 
2012-12-27 03:51:17 PM  

Magorn: Slaxl: The funny thing is in the religion debate Peter Higgs is going to get extra weight added to his views because the 'god' particle was his and discovered, which can easily be manipulated by journalists who misrepresent science to suggest he has proof of god.

Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.

Science and religion are not incompatible, if both sides make compromise for each other. That an atheist might play nice and not tell a Muslim that there are no gods does not mean there are gods. There are still no gods. That's as compatible as science and religion get. You leave us alone we'll leave you alone. Truth doesn't change.

Prove to me that God doesn't exist and you can then say science and religion are incompatible.  If something is immune to confimation by proof then it science has no opinion on the matter since it lies outside the realm of  what can be experiementally confirmed.  both Science and religion are similar in that they suffer when you try to make them into something they are not.  Religion is not useful guide to the physical truths of the observable universe.  Science is not an appropriate tool for definitively determining if a supreme being exists outside the boundaries and rules of time and space.


Yea, and there's a Tooth Fairy, too.
 
2012-12-27 03:51:35 PM  

I drunk what: vactech: I drunk what: that religion is for stupid poopy heads but science will always trump it

Oh noes. I pulled the trump card!

[rlv.zcache.com image 152x152]

Give it a kiss of veneration, IDW.

[www.corporate-aliens.com image 400x300]

i absolve thee


www.gonemovies.com
 
2012-12-27 03:52:53 PM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: Pick a god, and god.

Religion = Superstition + $$$$$


Now that's not fair. It's not always about money. Sometimes it's only about the power/control part.
 
2012-12-27 03:53:23 PM  
Question for Loud Atheists: are there no aspects of your day-to-day existence that embrace or at least could be categorized as 'irrational'?
 
2012-12-27 03:53:23 PM  

Magorn: So you're saying he is a  a founder/popularizer of a system of beliefs and thoughts? sort of a prophet/messiah kinda figure?


what are you some kinda crazy fundamentalist??

i bet yer a 'goddelusion' thumper...

i'd love to stay here and badger you some more but i got to go do my evangelical work

cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com

come to our church, we have hot foreigners :D
 
2012-12-27 03:55:15 PM  

I drunk what: I see Ishkur is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

Ishkur is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

...
He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him


Is this an occurrence that has ever happened in the history of Farkdom?
 
2012-12-27 03:58:12 PM  

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


God evolved.
 
2012-12-27 03:58:44 PM  
You wanna watch someone be a dick to the religious, check out Hitchens. No Fark troll I've seen so far is his equal.

Dawkins can be a little "in your face" but I think he comes by it honestly. He has had to deal with religious fundamentalists at every turn. That can make a guy a little jumpy.
 
2012-12-27 03:59:22 PM  
Why science and religion can't co-exist:

i560.photobucket.com

Alternately:

i560.photobucket.com

So the whiny little theists think Dawkins is a big meanie? Maybe they should grow some skin, the fragile parsley leaves that they are. Adults who believe in fairy-tales should be ridiculed, particularly when they try to shove their fairy-tales into the classroom.

Talking snakes ... Noah's ark ... People actually believe that shiat?
 
2012-12-27 04:00:48 PM  

I drunk what: come to our church, we have hot foreigners :D


From now on we are enemies, You and I. Because You choose for Your instrument a boastful, trollful, smutty, infantile boy and give me for reward only the ability to recognize the incarnation. Because You are unjust, unfair, unkind, I will blockput You on ignore, I swear it. I will hinder and harm Your creature on earth as far as I am able.

//and now I have to go.
 
2012-12-27 04:03:05 PM  
Dawkins is a great scientist, but a horrible philosopher. Overall I am not a fan and would tend to agree that he should be described as a fundamentalist. However he does have a point with this: "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."
 
2012-12-27 04:05:41 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Inflatable Rhetoric: Pick a god, and god.

Religion = Superstition + $$$$$

Now that's not fair. It's not always about money. Sometimes it's only about the power/control part.


There's always money involved, and slogans have to be succinct.
 
2012-12-27 04:08:30 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'?


No, none.

And I'm not loud.
 
2012-12-27 04:12:35 PM  

enforcerpsu: I have no problems accepting everything science has done. I also believe in God. Sue me. I don't see how the two have to be mutually exclusive. I have no idea what God is or why God is but that doesn't mean it diminishes my faith in science...or God for that matter.


Being reasonable has no place on Fark!
 
2012-12-27 04:14:17 PM  

Madame Psychosis: Is this an occurrence that has ever happened in the history of Farkdom?


every blue moon. with him? i wouldn't hold my breath
 
2012-12-27 04:15:34 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'?


Of course there are. That said, we can still rationally examine and explain why we might act irrationally. For (admittedly, pretty bad) example, playing the lottery. The odds of winning are terrible and we know we're probably not going to win, but we might still do it because it's an enjoyable feeling to be hopeful. We're not going to plunk down that $1 with the expectation of winning though.

I'd like to think that's a decent description of most the Christians in the US. They 'believe' because it makes them feel good, not because they think they're literally going to be flying around with angels after they're dead. But hey, it's fun to hope, right? Irrationality v. rationality, IMHO comes down to being aware of the unlikeliness and intentionally putting it aside in your mind for whatever reason v. being convinced that it's actual fact. A decent person would also have the maturity and responsibility to realize when it was something they used simply because of how it made them feel and not force it on others. You can be rational and believe in stupid things, you'll just be aware of how stupid they are.

Hell, sometimes I think Evangelicals are the most rational - look at the great lengths they go through in order to convince themselves of something they must know inside just doesn't feel true. But hey, maybe if they can get enough other people to think the same thing, it'll become real, right?
 
2012-12-27 04:15:41 PM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: 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'?

No, none.

And I'm not loud.


Congratulations! You are the first human in existence to break free from the 'burdens' of emotions and not have one iota of silliness or irrationality (i.e. 'fun') at all to occupy your time. The Pon Far begins in 7 years.
 
2012-12-27 04:27:08 PM  

Magorn: S

Prove to me that God doesn't exist and you can then say science and religion are incompatible.  If something is immune to confimation by proof then it science has no opinion on the matter since it lies outside the realm of  what can be experiementally confirmed.  both Science and religion are similar in that they suffer when you try to make them into something they are not.  Religion is not useful guide to the physical truths of the observable universe.  Science is not an appropriate tool for definitively determining if a supreme being exists outside the boundaries and rules of time and space.


There is no need to proof that God exist, just as there is no need to proof that Santa Claus exists, as for both there is more than sufficient scientific, logical and common sensical evidence that they are human inventions.

You can make a pretty convincing scientific argument based on the lack of any proof for the existence of god, lack of proven miracles in recent times, archeological, historical and philological studies that prove that religious books are made by men and full of historical contradictions and were based upon older religions, studies that prove that prayer doesn't work, scientific studies that explain many things that the old people saw as miracles, psychological studies on mass delusion, recent examples of how lies and scams grow out to be religions (mormonism, scientology) and studies from a sociological and evolutionary psychological points of view that explain the origins and development and human need for religion.

You would have all that versus some thousand year old books full of fairytales, impossible happenings, contradictions, and evil, wrathful and completely illogical gods. Based on what science has found out, it is quite obvious all the world's religions are made up by man. In addition, the whole idea of a God, goes beyond common sense. Why would there need to be a God anyway? Where would God himself come from? Who created God? God is not an answer, it is just another question in an infinite string of questions. There is simply no real argument for the existence of God, let alone the biblical God. None whatsoever.

Therefore there is no need for the enlightened to prove the existence of God as the likelihood of him existing , given our current knowledge and common sense, is extremely negligible.

Any intelligent, educated person that has access to the internet or a good library and still choses to believe, against all factual evidence and common sense, in fairytales and invisible skywizards, deserves all the ridicule he or she gets. .
 
2012-12-27 04:28:44 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Why science and religion can't co-exist:


neat, so then Science doesn't use Faith? do tell

ProfessorOhki: Hell, sometimes I think Evangelicals are the most rational - look at the great lengths they go through in order to convince themselves of something they must know inside just doesn't feel true. But hey, maybe if they can get enough other people to think the same thing, it'll become real, right?


cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com

oops, unintended lulz 5 yard penalty
 
2012-12-27 04:29:31 PM  

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."
 
2012-12-27 04:37:45 PM  

radarlove: I'm amazed that you people are still arguing with each other over something that can never be either proven nor dis-proven by either side.


Depends which sense of the word "prove" you're using.

Magorn: If something is immune to confimation by proof then it science has no opinion on the matter since it lies outside the realm of what can be experiementally confirmed.


Science also includes testing by parsimony, as well as by experimental reproducibility (in part since the latter relies on the former). The sense of "proof" in science is marginally broader than you seem to think.

Anyway, I have to argue about flying saucers on the beach with people, you know. And I was interested in this: they keep arguing that it is possible. And that's true. It is possible. They do not appreciate that the problem is not to demonstrate whether it's possible or not but whether it's going on or not. - Richard Feynman


enforcerpsu: I don't see how the two have to be mutually exclusive.


Somewhat like cats and mice being mutually exclusive. They don't have to be, and certainly aren't absolutely exclusive; but they do tend to be, with more of one correlating to less of the other.

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'?


Depends whether you consider there to exist any is-ought bridge that is "rational". Otherwise, deciding that I ought to get out of bed in the morning is clearly irrational.
 
2012-12-27 04:43:35 PM  
lol Fark fat zstupid men, if you have a reasonable arguement, feel free to aproach me personally, otherwise, I'm glad the guy is dead
 
2012-12-27 04:44:35 PM  

Magorn: Prove to me that God doesn't exist and you can then say science and religion are incompatible. If something is immune to confimation by proof then it science has no opinion on the matter since it lies outside the realm of what can be experiementally confirmed. both Science and religion are similar in that they suffer when you try to make them into something they are not. Religion is not useful guide to the physical truths of the observable universe. Science is not an appropriate tool for definitively determining if a supreme being exists outside the boundaries and rules of time and space.


You do realize that science and religion are incompatible for exactly the reasons you go on to list, right? It's the fact you can't, through experimentation, support a claim of existence or non-existence that MAKES religion incompatible with science. Your first sentence makes no sense, given that you're already obviously aware of this.

Now, I'll agree that you can't apply science to religion as it's almost always, by definition, untestable. However, that means kindly get your mysticism out of everything that CAN have evidence gathered in support or against. I'll admit that we can't set up an experiment to see if God's real or not. Now, if they would just kindly admit that evoking God doesn't let them ignore centuries of research in hundreds of disciplines, that'd be great. The thing that the faithful just don't seem to be able to respect is the breadth of science's ability is always growing while religions is always, "whatever is left." If the future mimic's history, the final point of contention between the two will be humanity understanding nearly everything about our universe, with religion left going, "well, there's still a guy on the outside who did it."

You know what pisses atheists off more than anything? When someone gets out of a 5 hour surgery, after a full complement of doctors, techs, nurses worked their asses off, utilizing techniques honed by trial and error and equipped with tools that have been innovated again and again to keep up with discovery, and goes "thank you God for making me well." It's one thing to see a God in the unexplained, mysterious aspects of the universe; I can understand why you'd want to. It's entirely different when you let it blind you to the realities of the world.
 
2012-12-27 04:47:07 PM  

abb3w: Depends whether you consider there to exist any is-ought bridge that is "rational".


4.bp.blogspot.com

i thought you'd never ask
 
2012-12-27 04:47:34 PM  
Atheism is a Religion.

The amusing part is where an almost endless supply of Schoolboy Atheists will launch into ever-decreasing circles of denial, and exercises of semantics worthy of any medieval theologian.
 
2012-12-27 04:49:29 PM  

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: Why science and religion can't co-exist:

neat, so then Science doesn't use Faith? do tell

ProfessorOhki: Hell, sometimes I think Evangelicals are the most rational - look at the great lengths they go through in order to convince themselves of something they must know inside just doesn't feel true. But hey, maybe if they can get enough other people to think the same thing, it'll become real, right?

[cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com image 500x283]

oops, unintended lulz 5 yard penalty


Hey, I never said I liked Dawkins; the guy is sort of an asshole. Once you brand yourself that concretely one way or another and make a business out of it, you're pretty much guaranteed to end up proselytizing your cause. Once you're that deep in, you probably do need to keep convincing yourself you've been doing the right thing.
 
2012-12-27 04:50:49 PM  

abb3w: Somewhat like cats and mice dogs being mutually exclusive.


nice try you sneaky little atheist

if we did ever get along it would be mass hysteria
 
2012-12-27 04:56:09 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Once you brand yourself that concretely one way or another and make a business out of it, you're pretty much guaranteed to end up proselytizing your cause.


so then agnostics are the irrational ones?
 
2012-12-27 05:00:11 PM  
Maybe there is a god, we can't be certain.

If it's the bible god, I don't like him/her/it.

He/she/it is an asshole.

And allah is no better.
 
2012-12-27 05:07:14 PM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: If it's the bible god, I don't like him/her/it.


what problem do you have with Him?

lemme guess, the OT (Man's) interpretation of Him? did you keep reading??

didn't notice a major difference between the NT and the OT??? minor details, such as having direct access to His Word as opposed to 3rd party biased interpretations of Him?

and you claim to know the Bible? i'm unconvinced..
 
2012-12-27 05:13:15 PM  

I drunk what: ProfessorOhki: Once you brand yourself that concretely one way or another and make a business out of it, you're pretty much guaranteed to end up proselytizing your cause.

so then agnostics are the irrational ones?


Huh? I'm just saying that if you're in the public eye, you tend stick to your guns, even if you ever doubt yourself (especially when you're doing speaking events). That's what Higgs was talking about. He's got the impression that Dawkins's cause has become self propelled and even in the face of contradicting evidence, would refuse to reexamine his stance. The ones willing to reconsider in the face of evidence ARE the rational ones. You've got to be able to ask yourself if you're pushing a cause or the cause is pushing you.
 
2012-12-27 05:17:43 PM  
Well at least we know why the Israelite s spent 40 years in the desert, must have been hard to build a giant particle accelerator with bronze age tech. to etch those tablets
 
2012-12-27 05:18:48 PM  
Dawkins is certainly capable of being a dick.  A while back some controversy erupted in the skeptical community over one woman's comments about some behavior she thought was inappropriate at a skeptical conference, which she said was kind of creepy and said "hey guys, don't do that," which set off a firestorm of anger. It was rehashed endlessly, and at one point in yet another comment thread Dawkins popped in randomly with an extraordinarily dickish screed.  Rather than me trying to quote the whole thing, here's a rehash.

I'm not at all trying to get into who is wrong and right in this situation.  Just that the sarcastic, snotty little rant he posted was his entirely unsolicited reaction to a woman whose entire crime was to say "that was kind of creepy, guys, please don't do that."  So yeah... Dawkins can be an absolute prick when he puts his mind to it, and that right there is the evidence.
 
2012-12-27 05:21:21 PM  

I drunk what: Inflatable Rhetoric: If it's the bible god, I don't like him/her/it.

what problem do you have with Him?

lemme guess, the OT (Man's) interpretation of Him? did you keep reading??

didn't notice a major difference between the NT and the OT??? minor details, such as having direct access to His Word as opposed to 3rd party biased interpretations of Him?

and you claim to know the Bible? i'm unconvinced..


He created malaria and mosquitoes to spread it. Is that sufficient?
 
2012-12-27 05:21:52 PM  
Richard Dawkins = Westboro Baptist Church.
 
2012-12-27 05:22:38 PM  

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: Why science and religion can't co-exist:

neat, so then Science doesn't use Faith? do tell


Faith in talking snakes and faith in the work of your predecessors are two different things. Maybe you were thinking of something else?
 
2012-12-27 05:23:08 PM  

douchebag/hater: Richard Dawkins = Westboro Baptist Church.


Stick with LandoverBaptist.org. Much better church.
 
2012-12-27 05:23:34 PM  

douchebag/hater: Richard Dawkins = Westboro Baptist Church.


i560.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-27 05:24:40 PM  

revrendjim: AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.

Yes, but the dickishness of one's demeanor has no bearing on the truthfulness of the argument.


And what, EXACTLY, is the truthfulness of the argument?

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

As I just posted 'Dawkins = Westboro Baptist Church'.
 
2012-12-27 05:26:09 PM  

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
 
2012-12-27 05:26:17 PM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: He created malaria and mosquitoes to spread it.


[citation needed]

Inflatable Rhetoric: Is that sufficient?


nope

Uncle Tractor: Maybe you were thinking of something else?


Faith is: The evidence of things unseen.

I was thinking that words have meaning. and you were about to tell us how Science never engages in such nonsense? do tell

douchebag/hater: Richard Dawkins = Westboro Baptist Church.


fair enough, how about we scrap both?
 
2012-12-27 05:32:52 PM  

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


tattooedphilosopher.files.wordpress.com

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?
 
2012-12-27 05:33:53 PM  
Citation?

If god didn't create malaria & mosquitoes, who did? Doesn't god claim to be the creator of all living things? Or is he lying about that?
 
2012-12-27 05:37:24 PM  

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: Maybe you were thinking of something else?

Faith is: The evidence of things unseen.

I was thinking that words have meaning. and you were about to tell us how Science never engages in such nonsense? do tell


Words do have meaning, but I'm not sure what you think that particular word means.

As for things unseen; take the electron. We can't see it. We can't even be 100% certain that it exists. However, the electron theory does a really good job in explaining a whole bunch of phenomena. It does such a good job that it made it possible to build the computer you're using to post on fark. Maybe some day, the electron will be disproven, and an entirely new theory will take it's place. For now, the theory is good enough that one can act as if it was true.

That's non-religious faith. Another example would be the faith that you can buy milk and eggs at the local grocery store. You haven't seen the milk and eggs yet, but you have faith that they're there (and sometimes they're not).

Then there's religious faith: The one with the talking snake and the magical boat with two of every animal that somehow neither ate each other nor died of inbreeding later on (plus a boatload of other silly nonsense).
Was that what you had in mind?
 
2012-12-27 05:40:30 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."


Really? You really think that?

If some sort of apocalypse does happen, I doubt "whoops" would be the first thing said by an atheist. "Finally: evidence!", maybe.

You are not grasping that most atheists aren't out to change your mind. They are out to stop you constantly trying to change theirs. I'd love to meet Yahweh, if only to ask why he's such a nasty coont.
 
2012-12-27 05:43:09 PM  

I drunk what: 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


You obviously do not get it.

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


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.

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.
 
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
 
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"...
 
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
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?"
 
2012-12-27 06:43:41 PM  
Relevant to all Dawkins threads:

i560.photobucket.com
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
2012-12-27 08:03:00 PM  
One of life's simple and cheap pleasures is toying with the minds of creationists.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2012-12-27 08:24:33 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Relevant to all Dawkins threads:

[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]


An IRL version:



i159.photobucket.com
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2012-12-27 09:23:53 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.


That must mean that your militant douchiness is near indistinguishable from Dawkin's militant douchiness, relatively speaking, and moving along the same vector, duckily speaking.
 
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
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
2012-12-27 10:24:10 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.


He's right though. Chairman Mao was another.
 
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.
 
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?
 
2012-12-27 11:01:04 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?


I don't know that Lenin was "evil". Misguided and militant, but he wasn't a sadist. Same with Castro.
 
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.
 
2012-12-27 11:45:54 PM  
Maybe Higgs can explain why all the gold particles are missing in Ft. Knox.
 
2012-12-28 01:32:40 AM  
Oh hai, I'll just poop these here.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
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?
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2012-12-28 05:09:32 AM  
(cat wubs Unca Tractor)

wub, wub.

/scampers off to cushion, gotta sleep
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
2012-12-28 09:44:47 AM  

Kittypie070: Oh hai, I'll just poop these here.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 350x138]


use the litter box

paging mgshamster paging mgshamster, mgshamster to the thread: i need to finish a thought (thread closed on me) :\
 
2012-12-28 10:11:17 AM  

ProfessorOhki: but since most have core tenants that are specifically untestable, I'm not sure what they'd get out of it.


hopefully they were testable at some point in time, otherwise we would be discussing the probability that the claims are false...

once those those tests were done, i'm sure they'd get the Truth out of it


ProfessorOhki: I'm not sure what you're getting at by temporal or non-physical things.


temporal: being things that might have occurred during one range of time, but perhaps not now, up to and including the phenomena that caused them

non-physical: is pretty self explanatory, any things that are NOT physical, such as math, logic, spirits, mind, etc..

ProfessorOhki: 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


sorta, but i actually had even more extraordinary (supernatural-physical) examples in mind, which is why we have religion

and if you are going to try and figure out how science can evaluate those things, then you have a catastrophic misunderstanding of what science is

ProfessorOhki: 1.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.2. 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." 3. 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? 4. Even if it WERE true at the time of writing, 5. it would be invalid for the purposes of science.


speaking of catastrophes

1. sorta but, better phrased: God is still here, He is just as invisible as He was then, and chooses where, how and when to reveal Himself, however you are correct, for the time being we are only left with written accounts. that's the bad news.

2. bad analogies make for bad discussion, we are indicating the difference between Science vs. Religion, not how they are somehow dependent on each other

3. morel like the "it happened 2,000 years ago which proves it is real and that the claims made by those using such signs have access to a higher power than Nature-Physical itself" ...angle

4. which is important to note

5. and is completely irrelevant to the topic of religion, yet still has just as much bearing on reality as science

Kittypie070: wub, wub


are you a dubstep?
 
2012-12-28 10:27:45 AM  

Uncle Tractor: A. 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 ...

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


A. so then reality depends on: 1. Being perceived as reasonable by those witnessing it. 2. Being able to be scientifically reproduced.

B. pretty much everything you said, and pretty much the opposite of everything you said

Uncle Tractor: 1. See, one of the things that makes science > religion is that 2. science corrects itself. Errors will sooner or later be found. 3. 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.


1. Science and Religion are not in a competition to see who is better, they are different tools for different purposes. A hammer is better than a screwdriver for hammering nails, but a hammer is not by definition "better" than a screwdriver (at everything).

2. If Religion does not correct itself than you will have major problems, example:

www.ewtnnewsonline.com

and EVERYone knows what a complete failure they are

3. Religion attempts to find eternal Truth (revealed), it is not always successful. Interpretation of that revealed Truth is where it gets sticky. This is a process that must be constantly updated and corrected unless we fall into that above category. Revelation on the other hand is not fixed or updated since Truth remains constant, it is us, and our perception of Truth that changes. Revelation is witnessed, accounted and documented.

This is not Science.

Science is the tool for observing Physical things.
 
2012-12-28 10:49:31 AM  

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


the long version

tl;dr

From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die...

Cursed is the ground because of you;
In [f]toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the [g]plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.

Sin is not a person, it is a force. It requires Free Will to exist. If you want to find the cause of pain, suffering and death, you should look to those who engage in Sin.

but if you are specifically interested in the origin of malaria and/or mosquitoes

i would begin looking here and follow the evidence wherever it leads you

hint

to recap:

1. God created Man, Life, Free Will
2. Man created Sin
3. Sin altered God's Good-Perfect Creation into what you now see as Evil (aka malaria, mosquitoes, etc..)

Evolution didn't stop on the account of Man's corruption. It just keeps going...
 
2012-12-28 11:35:46 AM  

I drunk what: 1. God created Man, Life, Free Will
2. Man created Sin
3. Sin altered God's Good-Perfect Creation into what you now see as Evil (aka malaria, mosquitoes, etc..)


Ehhh... Having grown up Catholic, I'm well aware of the dogma surrounding this. Still, by those rules there isn't anything that Man creates that God didn't create by proxy. There's also pretty much no way He can feign ignorance, either. No Plausible Deniability to be found here.

After all, if what we're taught is to be taken for Law, God is:
Omnipresent.
Omnipotent.
Omnipowerful.


Sounds like a great gig until you realize that there's pretty much not a damn thing in all of Creation you aren't responsible for. On the plus side, it's not like there's a person in all of Creation who can hold you to it either. As such, I've concluded that, if there is a God, he sure is a douchebag. Not that this shocks or appalls me. Most managers have a pretty broad douchebag streak. It's what makes them Management material.

God- by way of creating Man, Free Will, and so on- also created Sin.

It wasn't accidental, nor some unforeseen consequence.

Working as intended... by Him.

This of course leads to the whole "works in mysterious ways" malarkey. Douchebags aren't really all that mysterious though. Another popular whipping boy is "God's plan", and this one I actually find even more hilarious. When you not only know everything that can happen, but everything that will happen, what exactly can you do that isn't planned?

The act of planning a thing involves summoning the faculty to predict probable outcomes. God doesn't have to summon that faculty, it's inherent in everything He does. Nor are there any probable outcomes. Everything that can happen is already pre-ordained.

Kinda makes one wonder if Free Will is all it's really cracked up to be.
 
2012-12-28 11:43:34 AM  

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: A. 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 ...

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

A. so then reality depends on:
1. Being perceived as reasonable by those witnessing it.


"Reasonable" as in "does not violate the laws of nature as we know them."

2. Being able to be scientifically reproduced.

Not always possible, as in the case of meteors. However, the meteors and the smoking craters can be found, which is physical evidence of the meteor falling.

B. pretty much everything you said, and pretty much the opposite of everything you said

So you've got nothing.

Uncle Tractor: 1. See, one of the things that makes science > religion is that 2. science corrects itself. Errors will sooner or later be found. 3. 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.

1. Science and Religion are not in a competition to see who is better, they are different tools for different purposes. A hammer is better than a screwdriver for hammering nails, but a hammer is not by definition "better" than a screwdriver (at everything).


True. Science is a tool for describing reality. Religion is a tool for controlling large groups of gullible people.

Seneca got it right: "Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

2. If Religion does not correct itself than you will have major problems, example:

[www.ewtnnewsonline.com image 320x240]

and EVERYone knows what a complete failure they are


Not sure what you're trying to say here.

3. Religion attempts to find eternal Truth (revealed),

Fill in the gaps in people's knowledge with made-up shiat, you mean.

it is not always successful. Interpretation of that revealed Truth is where it gets sticky.

One would think that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god would be better at communicating his intentions...

This is a process that must be constantly updated and corrected unless we fall into that above category. Revelation on the other hand is not fixed or updated since Truth remains constant, it is us, and our perception of Truth that changes. Revelation is witnessed, accounted and documented.

This is not Science.

Science is the tool for observing Physical things.


Science deals with reality. Religion does not.
 
2012-12-28 11:48:32 AM  

I drunk what: 1. God created Man, Life, Free Will
2. Man created Sin
3. Sin altered God's Good-Perfect Creation into what you now see as Evil (aka malaria, mosquitoes, etc..)


Uh, why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god create Free Will in such a way that it made Evil possible? An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god would know how to create Free Will without also enabling man to create Sin, would be able to follow through, and would very much want to make it happen. The notion that you can't have free will without evil is false.
 
2012-12-28 11:54:35 AM  
pardon the threadjack:

mgshamster: Religious belief is the belief in the reality of the mythological, supernatural, or spiritual aspects of a religion.

IDW: no, too messy, Religion is the tool we use to determine the truth about Reality concerning things that are not physical, and since most of you cannot comprehend Nature, people tend to oversimplify things into two major categories

Physical (Science) and Non-Physical [this is the gross oversimplification] (Religion)

some people try to reconcile their beliefs about non-physical things into an ambiguous "abstract" or "metaphysical" category, but they always end up failing miserably to appear intelligent in that discourse and usually end up making it worse by trying to explain it in Physical terms :3

tl;dr Religion is the methodological tool used to ponder SuperNatural-Physical things, in other words, it is the belief system that addresses non-physical things

mgshamster: Well, I pulled that straight from wiki, and the dictionaries seem to back it up. It certainly seems much less complex than your definition, so I question the use of the phrase "too messy." Regardless, let's go with yours to keep things relatively simple.

I try not to make judgments on things beyond the physical world, and I certainly try to not to base my actions and my life around them.


IDW: wiki-webster are decent for beginning a discussion, not for settling it, guess what happens when you wiki "Nature" and back it up with a dictionary...?

I also try not to make judgments on things beyond the physical world, but unfortunately you won't be able to make it through life without doing so. As for your claim that you "certainly try not to base your actions and life around them" i disagree. There many non-physical things you interact with on a daily basis that you absolutely base your actions on. Your Soul being the first thing, and the souls of those around you being the next.


mgshamster: I am aware of them.

IDW: good, then you are also probably aware of whether or not you believe them to be true?

and whether or not you believe they are true, you no longer have a lack of belief concerning the existence of such things

for example: IDW does not believe that invisible spiritual dragons exist in Sagan's garage, however that belief does not magically become Scientific, simply because it appears to be rationale, it is in fact a Religious belief (against the claim in this case)

and now you realize that you do in fact have a religious belief, sorry to burst your bubble

however you'll be happy to know that you are more intelligent than paperclips and newborn infants, who DO lack a belief on the topic of SuperNatural-Physcial things... (aka "atheists" according to KiltedBastiche who is still technically correct)

mgshamster: Let's see if I follow:

There are two categories. 1) Physical world (the world in which we can use science); 2) Non-physical world (the world in which religions claim to have knowledge of).


IDW: in a nutshell, yeah close enough (though oversimplified, this is the most common perception of Nature)

mgshamster: So any knowledge or belief of the non-physical world is - by definition - a religious belief, regardless if it is a positive, negative, or agnostic belief. Also it is regardless of the content of the non-physical; this would mean all religions, all fiction books, and everything in one's imagination would be classified as religious.

IDW: FTFY, also agnostic is not a neutral vs +/- it is uncertain, but still has +/- properties. fiction and imagination reside in the realm of MIND, and since most people don't care to discern the difference between Spirit and MIND, then we just lump all that stuff under the Non-physical (aka Religion) category. Messy and oversimplified, but yes sufficient for this discussion.

mgshamster: So therefore, as soon as one is able to determine fantasy from reality, one has a religious belief.

IDW: i'm not sure exactly what you mean here...

Reality is not dependent on fantasy or religious beliefs, but it is possible that fantasies have some basis in Reality and it is most definitely possible that a religious belief accurately describes Reality. To recap the moment one is able to discern fantasy from reality has no guarantee that it is a religious belief. Since one can have fantasies of Nature-Physical which can be verified through Science.


mgshamster: And finally, we can deduce that because I have a lack of a belief that these non-physical things are real (and in some cases, I actively believe they are not real), I have a religious belief towards them.

IDW: Believing that non-physical things are not real =/= Lacking a belief about physical-nonphysical things. Let it go lad... let it go.

but yes, ANY belief you have about Non-physical things is a religious* belief not a scientific one. you don't have to be religious (read as "zealous") about your beliefs, however your underwhelming apathy toward the subjects doesn't magically reclassify them to protect you from criticism...

sorry

/*or "Philosophical"
//too ambiguous to have meaning


mgshamster: Is this correct?

IDW: corrected
 
2012-12-28 12:04:10 PM  

Uncle Tractor: So you've got nothing.


this pretty much sums up the post

Uncle Tractor: An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god would know how to create Free Will without also enabling man to create Sin


so then P = Q ? don't tell abbey, he gets fussy about this stuff

what is hot without cold...?

Uncle Tractor: The notion that you can't have free will without evil is false.


well i suppose it is possible to create a reality in which the only choice is "good"..?

but i guess that would depend on what you define as a "Loving" creator?
 
2012-12-28 12:10:42 PM  

I drunk what: well i suppose it is possible to create a reality in which the only choice is "good"..?

but i guess that would depend on what you define as a "Loving" creator?


I'm not convinced that this proposition is quantitatively different than the reality He purportedly created for us and we are currently living in.

Qualitatively however, that might be a different story.
 
2012-12-28 12:27:25 PM  

SkunkWerks: by those rules there isn't anything that Man creates that God didn't create by proxy


did God create this^ post? even by proxy perhaps...

SkunkWerks: There's also pretty much no way He can feign ignorance, either.


God doesn't feign anything, however part of being omnipotent is the ability to choose what He ignores and what He doesn't. which does seem to cause a hiccup with that omniscient part, but that just goes to show you that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about things we couldn't even possibly understand...

being aware of something =/= paying attention to it

logic is a cruel mistress, i suggest you dance with someone else

/look what she's done to poor abbey :(

SkunkWerks: No Plausible Deniability to be found here.


sounds like you're preparing for an epic court case, i hope you win

SkunkWerks: As such, I've concluded that, if there is a God, he sure is a douchebag.


any particular examples jump to mind? other than your ability to properly place the responsibility where it belongs...

SkunkWerks: Not that this shocks or appalls me. Most managers have a pretty broad douchebag streak. It's what makes them Management material.


me thinks you doth confuse mortals with the Immortal too mucheth

SkunkWerks: God- by way of creating Man, Free Will, and so on- also created Sin.


I disagree.

Is the only choice of a Free Willed Agent to sin...?

however feel free to blame Him for the ability to Freely Choose ...until your heart's content

SkunkWerks: Working as intended... by Him.


btw is there any Good in this dreadful universe of yours? just curious

/i wonder if that is important?

SkunkWerks: This of course leads to the whole "works in mysterious ways" malarkey. Douchebags aren't really all that mysterious though. Another popular whipping boy is "God's plan", and this one I actually find even more hilarious. When you not only know everything that can happen, but everything that will happen, what exactly can you do that isn't planned?


mysterious

SkunkWerks: Everything that can happen is already pre-ordained.


like this post?

i'm curious, did God also pre-ordain you to be such an idiot? honest question

SkunkWerks: Kinda makes one wonder if Free Will is all it's really cracked up to be.


darn it

good thing you don't have to worry about that stuff since you've been pre-ordained to herpty derp
 
2012-12-28 01:10:24 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.


It's arguable that they weren't atheists at all. They turned the religious impulse they found in their own societies from sky fairies to Party leaders. What was "the cult of personality" (besides a pretty good '90s hit) but an attempt to replace fictional gods with fictional humans?

In other words, if you claim "there is no god, but I'll be playing one for the masses", you're not so much an atheist as a master manipulator of human weakness.
 
2012-12-28 01:20:38 PM  

I drunk what: did God create this^ post? even by proxy perhaps...


If you believe in such things, yes. So let it be written...

I drunk what: but that just goes to show you that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about things we couldn't even possibly understand...


Again, whether you do or don't, the results are pretty much the same. And as I'd rather know than not know...

I drunk what: being aware of something =/= paying attention to it


Never said it did. But being aware and doing nothing is also a deliberate act.

I drunk what: any particular examples jump to mind?


See above.

I drunk what: I disagree.


You can if you like, for all the difference it makes. God knows all ends before they occur, where they lead, and all the steps in-between- if the dogma is to be believed. If man "created sin" (inasmuch as man can create anything in this sort of a system) God knew he was going to do it.

In fact, God knew it was a a consequence of his own actions. How is this functionally different than creating Sin directly?

I drunk what: me thinks you doth confuse mortals with the Immortal too mucheth


Remember, I'm not the one giving man sole credit for creating Sin in a paradigm whose every facet was carefully and deliberately set by the Almighty here.

I drunk what: btw is there any Good in this dreadful universe of yours? just curious


Dunno. It's not my universe, honestly. I stopped formally attending Church at age twelve, which was not too coincidentally when I started thinking about things like this.

As you're the one arguing for the existence of this universe, I'm not sure why you're asking me, really.

Talking to yourself? I don't mind, nor do I think less of you for it. Honestly I don't really find the act all that dissimilar to Prayer.

I drunk what: like this post?


Again, if you're inclined to believing such things, sure.

I drunk what: honest question


None of these have been all that honest so far, why should I start believing this endorsement now?

I drunk what: good thing you don't have to worry about that stuff since you've been pre-ordained to herpty derp


Again: not my universe there Sparky. Hell, I don't even think it was my universe before I quit the Church. I've got no issue with believers, though.

As it harm none, and all that. I won't call you "herpty-derpty" if it's what works for you in life. I might suggest you're rude for getting overly defensive when discussing it though...
 
2012-12-28 01:31:58 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Magorn: Prove to me that God doesn't exist and you can then say science and religion are incompatible. If something is immune to confimation by proof then it science has no opinion on the matter since it lies outside the realm of what can be experiementally confirmed. both Science and religion are similar in that they suffer when you try to make them into something they are not. Religion is not useful guide to the physical truths of the observable universe. Science is not an appropriate tool for definitively determining if a supreme being exists outside the boundaries and rules of time and space.

You do realize that science and religion are incompatible for exactly the reasons you go on to list, right? It's the fact you can't, through experimentation, support a claim of existence or non-existence that MAKES religion incompatible with science. Your first sentence makes no sense, given that you're already obviously aware of this.

Now, I'll agree that you can't apply science to religion as it's almost always, by definition, untestable. However, that means kindly get your mysticism out of everything that CAN have evidence gathered in support or against. I'll admit that we can't set up an experiment to see if God's real or not. Now, if they would just kindly admit that evoking God doesn't let them ignore centuries of research in hundreds of disciplines, that'd be great. The thing that the faithful just don't seem to be able to respect is the breadth of science's ability is always growing while religions is always, "whatever is left." If the future mimic's history, the final point of contention between the two will be humanity understanding nearly everything about our universe, with religion left going, "well, there's still a guy on the outside who did it."

You know what pisses atheists off more than anything? When someone gets out of a 5 hour surgery, after a full complement of doctors, techs, nurses worked their asses off, utilizing techniques honed by trial and erro ...


Note I also said that "religion is not good for explaining observable physical reality either"

Now to your second point. Let me tell you a real-life story that happened to me and my family and filter it through the eyes of my religious parents who regard it as a "miracle" despite the fact that one is an engineer for NASA and the other an RN of 50+ years experience:

My sister had recently graduated from college and was taking a review course for her nursing boards when she suddenly became extremely and violently ill.  being an almost nurse herself, she recognozised that something was seriously wrong and got herself to the ER.  There her condition quickly deteriorated to the point that she was irrational, and highly combatitive with the hospital staff and displaying signs of hysterical strength  before lapsing into a coma.   The attending physicans assumed it had to be a bad reaction to some sort of street drug because, frankly they couldn't figure out any other diagnosis.  So they initally ignored my parents protestations that they knew my sis had never so much as smoked a joint in her whole life, figuring they were just typically clueless and naive parents.

As her condition worsened the night-time attending intern took over.  After a long conversation with my mom on the phone, he decided to re-visit her diagnosis.  It just so happened that he had recently completed his pediatrics rotation at Pitsburgh's Children's Hospital, which at the time was the worldwide leader in research into a very rare disease called Reye's Syndrome which can affect early adolescents who take aspirin to treat flu-like symptoms, and causes your brain to swell and internal organs to go wonky.  because of his exposure to that research, he recognized that my sis' symptoms closely matched that of kids with Reye's even though she was, by all medical literature of the day, about 12 years too old to get the disease.  Still, he ordered a liver function test that would defintively diagnose the condition.  because he did so, so was tranferred to Children's Hospital in the nick of time and treated by the only team of doctors who had a serious shot at saving her life at that point.  (She was in a coma for nearly two weeks and kept medically immobilized by curare and had a stent put in her skull to relieve the build-up of intercranial pressure).  She did however surivive, completely intact and not even suffering the brain damage doctors had warned was incredibly likely.(and because she was in a review class for her boards, she was still technically on dad's insurance , which cheerfully paid for everything)

In my parent's eyes, her survival was "a miracle"  not in the sense that God reached down from a cloud and did some woo-woo magic to make her all better, but that he saw to it that all the right people were in the right places with the right training and life experiences to make the choices that lead to her surviving rather than dying of a missed diagnosis.  Are they right?  Well again, this is a matter of Faith and immune to proof so to them, they are right, if you chose not to think so, that's also perfectly fine
 
2012-12-28 01:32:28 PM  

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: So you've got nothing.

this pretty much sums up the post


Yes, it does. What that really what you intended to say?

Uncle Tractor: An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god would know how to create Free Will without also enabling man to create Sin

so then P = Q ? don't tell abbey, he gets fussy about this stuff


Huh?

what is hot without cold...?

If evil is necessary for good to exist, then those who do evil are following god's will every bit as much as those who do good -- in which case God is just amusing himself with a really gory soap opera.

Uncle Tractor: The notion that you can't have free will without evil is false.

well i suppose it is possible to create a reality in which the only choice is "good"..?


Is being good really a choice with you? Do you actually ponder the pros and cons of anti-social behavior? I don't. I don't have that choice, because I have this thing called "morals." Free will has nothing to do with it. My morals are wired into my brain.

Frankly, the notion that so many of you theists think being "good" or "evil" is a matter of choice is more than a little unsettling. On the other hand, it explains why theists are so easily led to do evil.

but i guess that would depend on what you define as a "Loving" creator?

"All-loving" = loves everyone equally. Such a god would not let anyone go to hell -- or experience any of the crap this world has to offer. See, this chaotic world makes more sense without the existence of a god than with one.
 
2012-12-28 01:38:45 PM  

Valiente: It's arguable that they weren't atheists at all. They turned the religious impulse they found in their own societies from sky fairies to Party leaders. What was "the cult of personality" (besides a pretty good '90s hit) but an attempt to replace fictional gods with fictional humans?

In other words, if you claim "there is no god, but I'll be playing one for the masses", you're not so much an atheist as a master manipulator of human weakness.


That doesn't make the dictator in question any less of an atheist, but it does make him / her a sociopathic sack of shiat.

Many of those dictators were bona fide atheists, but they were cynical, manipulative, asshole atheists who set themselves up as infallible leaders of religion-like ideologies. Personality cults, as you say. I think many of them were true believers of their ideologies, though.

Best Korea is an extreme example of this. That's definitely a religion. "Juche," or whatever it's called.
 
2012-12-28 01:46:17 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Personality cults, as you say.


Kinda like Dawkins, albeit on a smaller scale.

Honestly I haven't noted that either the Faithful or the Faithless ever cornered the market on Narcissism.
 
2012-12-28 01:55:29 PM  

SkunkWerks: I might suggest you're rude for getting overly defensive when discussing it though...


sorry the Devil made me do it

it was... pre-ordained

///if you believe in that sort of thing

SkunkWerks: And as I'd rather know than not know


know what?

SkunkWerks: But being aware and doing nothing is also a deliberate act.


who said He was doing nothing?

patience, lad patience

SkunkWerks: How is this functionally different than creating Sin directly?


i guess that is up to you to decide, isn't it? does it help you feel better to pass the blame? numbs the sting a bit, eh?

presuming that numbing pain is a good thing...

SkunkWerks: I'm not the one giving man sole credit for creating Sin


i'm just giving credit where it is due, i'm sorry that this bothers you

however as i've already clearly stated, God did create Free Will, darn it, so i guess we do get to blame Him for that, fair is fair

SkunkWerks: See above


the seeing bad stuff happen but not immediately stopping it part?

SkunkWerks: Talking to yourself? I don't mind, nor do I think less of you for it. Honestly I don't really find the act all that dissimilar to Prayer.


now you're getting it
24.media.tumblr.com

just be sure you listen

SkunkWerks: As you're the one arguing for the existence of this universe


well i can only see with my eyes (all 3 of em), what does your universe look like?

SkunkWerks: None of these have been all that honest so far, why should I start believing this endorsement now?


actually everything i say is true, however i know that some people need extra reassurance at times, and i wanted you to pause a moment and think before you responded

alas it appears i failed

SkunkWerks: I won't call you "herpty-derpty" if it's what works for you in life.


but what if "what works for me" is herpty derp? have you no heart?

you'd just watch and do ... nothing?

perhaps you should worry more about that beam in your eye before you fret over that projected-imaginary splinter in His...
 
2012-12-28 02:12:33 PM  

I drunk what: know what?


Why. Is there anything else to know, really?

I drunk what: who said He was doing nothing?


You did.

I drunk what: being aware of something =/= paying attention to it


Or is
not paying attention to it now= doing something about it?

I drunk what: i guess that is up to you to decide, isn't it?


No, it really isn't. He decided to create man, ergo he decided to create sin. And since he knew it was all going down that way before he did it, he did it on purpose, presumably.

Logic is a harsh mistress indeed.

I drunk what: does it help you feel better to pass the blame? numbs the sting a bit, eh?


Again, you're speaking as if I have a stake in the reality you're arguing for. Still not sure why.

I drunk what: God did create Free Will


And yet He knows everything we will do before we do it. So should I thank him for that non-gift?

I'm not so sure I should. Doesn't sound like he spent much on it.

I drunk what: the seeing bad stuff happen but not immediately stopping it part?


Now you're getting it.

I drunk what: just be sure you listen


I do. I have. Those discussions eventually resigned me to leaving the fold.

I drunk what: what does your universe look like?


Open, unfettered by mystical, super-powered beings. And that Free Will thingy seems to have a lot more effect on it. Overall I've been a good deal happier in the latter 20-some-odd years of my life. But I admit it's not for everyone.

Clearly it's not for everyone. And this is- in a way- part of what makes my universe quite nifty.

I drunk what: i wanted you to pause a moment and think before you responded

alas it appears i failed


If I wasn't pausing and thinking we wouldn't be conversing. At all. Don't go to all that trouble on my account, really.

I drunk what: perhaps you should worry more about that beam in your eye before you fret over that projected-imaginary splinter in His...


You're again speaking as if I have a stake in the reality you're arguing for. And I'm still mystified as to why.

His eye, the splinter in it, and so on are all quite imaginary from my perspective. As such any motes I may have in my own is all I worry about as it stands.

Appreciate the advice, but I'm already way ahead of you.

I drunk what: you'd just watch and do ... nothing?


Yep. But I might stop and chat along the way. Because whatever you care to call it, it interests me.
 
2012-12-28 02:19:23 PM  

SkunkWerks: Uncle Tractor: Personality cults, as you say.

Kinda like Dawkins, albeit on a smaller scale.


Personality cult? Really?
 
2012-12-28 02:23:37 PM  

Uncle Tractor: SkunkWerks: Uncle Tractor: Personality cults, as you say.

Kinda like Dawkins, albeit on a smaller scale.

Personality cult? Really?


Yes. Really.
 
2012-12-28 02:36:40 PM  
I do not believe in God.

I also do not believe in Santa Claus.

Is not believing in Santa Claus also a religion?
 
2012-12-28 02:39:35 PM  

SkunkWerks: Uncle Tractor: SkunkWerks: Uncle Tractor: Personality cults, as you say.

Kinda like Dawkins, albeit on a smaller scale.

Personality cult? Really?

Yes. Really.


And your evidence for this is ...?
 
2012-12-28 02:42:32 PM  

coffeecrisp: I do not believe in God.

I also do not believe in Santa Claus.

Is not believing in Santa Claus also a religion?


I have a belief system regarding the sun appearing to rise tomorrow morning. I am agnostic about Earth annihilating astroids hitting us in the middle of the night. It's been a rewarding religion all and all.
 
2012-12-28 02:47:27 PM  

Uncle Tractor: And your evidence for this is ...?


He's a pundit. It's true, he's also a biologist, but that isn't why we know his name. Pundits make a living selling... well, themselves.

He's quite good at it judging by all the Dawkins adherents I've ever met.
 
2012-12-28 02:49:53 PM  

SkunkWerks: Uncle Tractor: And your evidence for this is ...?

He's a pundit. It's true, he's also a biologist, but that isn't why we know his name. Pundits make a living selling... well, themselves.

He's quite good at it judging by all the Dawkins adherents I've ever met.


That's not a personality cult. That's just some guy voicing his opinions in public. Agreeing with him doesn't make one an "adherent."
 
2012-12-28 02:55:48 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Agreeing with him doesn't make one an "adherent."


No, idolizing him does. And that's what his Adherents tend to do in my experience...

Uncle Tractor: That's not a personality cult. That's just some guy voicing his opinions in public.


...up to and including rendering the man unimpeachable for the same crimes he accuses others of.

To my mind he's no different than a lot of other pundits, Limbaugh, O'Reilly... The man's in love with the sound of his own voice, and quite good at getting others to share that love.
 
2012-12-28 03:31:48 PM  

SkunkWerks: Uncle Tractor: Agreeing with him doesn't make one an "adherent."
No, idolizing him does. And that's what his Adherents tend to do in my experience...


For instance ...?

Uncle Tractor: That's not a personality cult. That's just some guy voicing his opinions in public.

...up to and including rendering the man unimpeachable for the same crimes he accuses others of.


For instance ...?

To my mind he's no different than a lot of other pundits, Limbaugh, O'Reilly... The man's in love with the sound of his own voice, and quite good at getting others to share that love.

What I'm seeing is a bunch of theists all butthurt because this guy not only had the temerity to write a book about why he thinks religion is a delusion, but has become a celebrity because of said book. Because the butthurt theists can't attack the actual contents of the book, they go for the author (by accusing him of being a militant douchebag etc) and for the people who agree with some of his ideas by calling the whole thing a "personality cult" or "religion" or what have you.

It's sad, really.
 
2012-12-28 03:53:42 PM  
I see IDW is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this three year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the Wason Selection Task with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually revealed that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing new to be garnered from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every religion thread (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.
 
2012-12-28 04:01:13 PM  

vactech: I have a belief system regarding the sun appearing to rise tomorrow morning


Heliocentrism is a religion.
 
2012-12-28 04:37:16 PM  

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


Reasonability and nuance are tools of the devil, infidel!
 
2012-12-28 04:46:05 PM  

Uncle Tractor: I drunk what: 1. God created Man, Life, Free Will
2. Man created Sin
3. Sin altered God's Good-Perfect Creation into what you now see as Evil (aka malaria, mosquitoes, etc..)

Uh, why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god create Free Will in such a way that it made Evil possible? An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god would know how to create Free Will without also enabling man to create Sin, would be able to follow through, and would very much want to make it happen. The notion that you can't have free will without evil is false.


May I point out here, being the reasonably learned Biblical scholar many atheists are, that the serpent never lied in the Genesis tale (one of two, in fact), but Yahweh's warning that if Adam and Eve ate of the apple of the knowledge of good and evil, they would cop it?

They did not cop it. Yahweh told a whopper, and the snake was just doing a gig. Not to mention that the snake somehow manifested under Yahweh's celestial snout, putting his superpowers of all-knowing in some doubt. Face it, even Sauron, who was merely demi-divine, spotted the hobbits on Mount Doom. It was just a few moments too late for him and Mordor's legions, etc. God couldn't keep his biatches in line in a two-biatch garden.

I could go on about this crap all day. Internal consistency in holy texts is not necessary, nor is it often found, and yet inerrancy is the cornerstone of much religious authority and child buggery.
 
2012-12-28 04:47:46 PM  

Valiente:
It's arguable that they weren't atheists at all.



Uncle Tractor: 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.



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.


So the theist rebuttal is "No True Scotsman"?

Joseph Stalin was clearly an atheist:

1. He openly and publicly renounced faith in God during the Russian Revolution.

2. He mandated that schools in the USSR teach that there is no God and mandated that this be the official doctrine of the USSR.

3. He ordered the closing of all seminaries and churches in the USSR and had Clergy who would not publicly renounce their faith shipped off to gulags in Siberia.

4. He sponsored the League of Militant Atheists as a wing of the Communist Party, with the intent of eradicating the very concept of religious faith.

5. He at one point personally ordered the complete banning of every religion practiced in the USSR.

6. He mandated a general program of anti-religion propaganda in the USSR. Even if he didn't personally speak out against it, by his orders his country DID speak out against it.

7. He mandated outright destruction of many holy sites, places of worship, and physical structures of religious significance specifically to weaken the influence of religion on society.

Trying to pretend he wasn't an atheist is pure No True Scotsman fallacy. "Even though he didn't believe in God and made enforced atheism a state policy, he wasn't a real atheist because. . ."

Yeah, he was a communist. Communism is an atheist ideology. Atheism is a key tenet of Marxist-Leninist and Maoist & Juche thinking. The whole reason for "Under God" being added to the the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" replacing "E Pluribus Unum" as the national motto in the 1950's was explicitly to reject the atheism that the USSR championed. One big reason that atheism has a stigma of being evil and unpatriotic is its association with communism.

I find it funny you all try to claim that Stalin (and Mao, Pol Pot ect.) aren't atheists because they encourage veneration of a non-divine philosophy or entity in lieu of a God. . .but when you are accused of doing that with science (or aspects of science such as evolution) or of certain scientists like Darwin (those little "Darwin Fish" instead of Jesus fish don't help there, you're replacing a religious symbol with a close equivalent naming a scientist and think that people WON'T assume you're worshiping Charles Darwin?), you try to laugh about how theists don't understand atheists.

I'm not trying to say that all atheists are like Stalin, just like the overwhelming majority of Christians aren't the WBC or abortion-clinic shooters, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims aren't jihadis. However, claiming that there is no such thing as a militant atheist or that a militant atheist is just a harmless grumpy intellectual is provably wrong.

If you are claiming to be champions of reason and logic, understand this: almost any philosophy or ideology (including atheism) can be taken to a violent or militant position, used as an excuse for violence, or be an integral part of a general agenda of violence and malevolence. Atheism has blood on its hands (Soviet Purges, the Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward, the Killing Fields) just like Christianity (the Crusades, abortion clinic murders), Islam (9/11, U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers et al.), Judaism (Yitzach Rabin, the Ibrihami Mosque, Zeev Sternhell et al.), Scientology (Lisa McPhereson, et al.), ect.
 
2012-12-28 04:53:42 PM  
In my parent's eyes, her survival was "a miracle" not in the sense that God reached down from a cloud and did some woo-woo magic to make her all better, but that he saw to it that all the right people were in the right places with the right training and life experiences to make the choices that lead to her surviving rather than dying of a missed diagnosis. Are they right? Well again, this is a matter of Faith and immune to proof so to them, they are right, if you chose not to think so, that's also perfectly fine.

I would be interested in finding out how Sis got Reyes' in the first place. Is the contention that she had never had a single aspirin until her 20s?

Also, what your parents called a miracle, I call "dumb luck and sharp eyesight" on the part of the attending. It's the basis for much of the medical advances since the Middle Ages and also the basis of the TV show House, M.D.. It's not a miracle that the right diagnosis exists, but it's lucky your sister's swollen brain triggered a "huh" in that doctor.
 
2012-12-28 05:14:21 PM  

I drunk what: and if you are going to try and figure out how science can evaluate those things, then you have a catastrophic misunderstanding of what science is


Nah. Science can't evaluate religion or faith, all it does is occasionally overlap with certain specific claims (usually having to do with observable the physical world) like the universe being made in 6 days, 6-10k year old Earth, etc. If religion could just be peeled back from the parts of the universe we do understand, I'd have no qualms with it. But as it stands, it's prone to digging it's heels in and obstructing the growth of human knowledge which is something none of us should be willing to accept. Where there's an overlap, science wins. Where there's no overlap, there's no issue.

Magorn: In my parent's eyes, her survival was "a miracle" not in the sense that God reached down from a cloud and did some woo-woo magic to make her all better, but that he saw to it that all the right people were in the right places with the right training and life experiences to make the choices that lead to her surviving rather than dying of a missed diagnosis. Are they right? Well again, this is a matter of Faith and immune to proof so to them, they are right, if you chose not to think so, that's also perfectly fine


Who knows? I just hope they thanked the doctor who put in the effort to become a worldwide expert in a super rare disease as well.

Though, I will point out that going any further down the "right place, right time" idea always leads to paradoxes regarding free will. Well, that and the whole, "why doesn't God ever take crap for aligning all the factors that cause illness in the first place," part.
 
2012-12-28 05:40:55 PM  

SkunkWerks: Why. Is there anything else to know, really?


What? Where? When? How?

Who?

Why what? Why free will? why life? why Good/Evil? why? why? why?

so many questions

SkunkWerks: You did.


nope

SkunkWerks: Or is
not paying attention to it now= doing something about it?


since when does paying attention to something require interacting with it? in physically detectable ways to appease SkunkWerks...(and his skeptical scientific curiosity)?

SkunkWerks: No, it really isn't. He decided to create man, ergo he decided to create sin.


oy vey, here we grow again. yes yes and he also decided to use the fark handle SkunkWerks to post pouty gibberish on Fark about how he is just a victim a mere pawn, nay PUPPET is this cruel game called life *dramatic pause* and how *gasp* that wretched IDW who is also the same puppeteer talking to himself through puppets keeps rambling on and on about what an idiot he-it-i-he-it-you-it-me-he is...

*raises hand to forehead* and what? does he get for all his trouble?? *stares blankly off into the distance*

the solemn reminder that no matter how much i stamp my feet and pout about the injustice this faux reality throws at me, in the end i am fully responsible for all of my actions...

[Scene]

~Fin

SkunkWerks: Logic is a harsh mistress indeed.


indeed, especially when you think you are leading

/she hates that

SkunkWerks: Again, you're speaking as if I have a stake in the reality you're arguing for. Still not sure why.


the neat thing about the reality that i'm arguing for, is that it doesn't need me to argue for it, even when i close my eyes, it's still there watching me

even if i were to quit believing in it, it believes in me

maybe if i were to wish it away? that would make a difference?? or if not perhaps i can at least sculpt it to something more pleasing to my taste... .... i hear the powers of a delusional mind can work wonders
 
2012-12-28 05:57:51 PM  

Silverstaff: Yeah, he was a communist. Communism is an atheist ideology. Atheism is a key tenet of Marxist-Leninist and Maoist & Juche thinking. The whole reason for "Under God" being added to the the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" replacing "E Pluribus Unum" as the national motto in the 1950's was explicitly to reject the atheism that the USSR championed. One big reason that atheism has a stigma of being evil and unpatriotic is its association with communism.


Communism is a social and economic ideology. Atheism is just a small facet of this ideology. When you call communism an "atheist ideology," you might as well call communism an "a-philatelist" ideology or a "pants-wearing" ideology. It doesn't make any sense.

I find it funny you all try to claim that Stalin (and Mao, Pol Pot ect.) aren't atheists because they encourage veneration of a non-divine philosophy or entity in lieu of a God. . .but when you are accused of doing that with science (or aspects of science such as evolution) or of certain scientists like Darwin (those little "Darwin Fish" instead of Jesus fish don't help there, you're replacing a religious symbol with a close equivalent naming a scientist and think that people WON'T assume you're worshiping Charles Darwin?), you try to laugh about how theists don't understand atheists.

Taking the darwin fish to be anything more than the joke it is shows that you do not, in fact, understand atheism.

Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. That is all. Just that one thing. It is no an ideology. It is not a religion. There are no tenants, no moral codes, no rules of conduct. Just the absence of belief in gods. Atheism can be included in an ideology. It can even be the basis of an ideology, but that ideology wouldn't be atheism, because atheism is just the absence of belief in gods.
 
2012-12-28 06:01:53 PM  

SkunkWerks: So should I thank him for that non-gift?


you're perfectly welcome to create your own Free Will and bestow it upon yourself, your also able to surrender the freedom given to you at any time you deem fit

isn't that interesting?

however to answer your inquiry, given the history of persons who has their freedom taken away from them and then later offered to them, most of them responded with a spirit of gratitude

so i'd vote yes

SkunkWerks: Now you're getting it.


so then He should negate our free will? after He spent so much time giving it to us?

is this that "logic" stuff you were referring to earlier?

SkunkWerks: I do. I have. Those discussions eventually resigned me to leaving the fold.


Good on you. what? were you expecting me to say something critical here?? ok... what took you so long?

also, just curious, what do you have planned next?

SkunkWerks: Open, unfettered by mystical, super-powered beings. And that Free Will thingy seems to have a lot more effect on it. Overall I've been a good deal happier in the latter 20-some-odd years of my life. But I admit it's not for everyone.

Clearly it's not for everyone. And this is- in a way- part of what makes my universe quite nifty.


and how does this differ from IDW's universe? btw aren't we breathing the same air, etc...? is yours colored differently or something??? i'm at a loss

SkunkWerks: If I wasn't pausing and thinking we wouldn't be conversing. At all. Don't go to all that trouble on my account, really.


sometimes people get a little emotional or touchy in these lil chats, i'm just trying to keep things on a pleasant and civil level while not boring the pants off of both parties, don't mind the guy behind the curtain

SkunkWerks: You're again speaking as if I have a stake in the reality you're arguing for. And I'm still mystified as to why.


and yet i'm equally mystified as to why you think you don't have a stake in the reality that totally doesn't care who is arguing for or against it

i like to just call it plain old "Reality" for short

now if you are concerned that we are not experiencing the same reality, i'd be happy to investigate where ours differ..?

can you give me a hint of what exactly you think 'it' is?

SkunkWerks: Appreciate the advice, but I'm already way ahead of you.


well then slow down, some of us have trouble keeping up

SkunkWerks: Yep.


coldblooded, and yet:

But I might stop and chat along the way. Because whatever you care to call it, it interests me.

yeah, i don't think you quite grasp the concept of "doing nothing" here, but i'm glad to see that you generally seem open minded and willing to discuss

ready when you are
 
2012-12-28 06:04:53 PM  

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

The amusing part is where an almost endless supply of Schoolboy Atheists will launch into ever-decreasing circles of denial, and exercises of semantics worthy of any medieval theologian.


Conversely, religion is atheism. So you're admitting you're an atheist.

Am I doing it right? ;)
 
2012-12-28 06:11:33 PM  
SkunkWerks:
...
Kinda makes one wonder if Free Will is all it's really cracked up to be.
...


I certainly don't remember ever choosing free will, so there's that.
 
2012-12-28 06:16:29 PM  

Ishkur: I see IDW is in the thread


i predict that somewhere in this thread, Ishkur will post a prepared statement about IDW

and cause many to feel a great amount of pity and sadness for him

Savian: Jesus dude. He must have done a number on you. And apparently it's still working.


thou has said it.

i broke his mentor-hero and his whole jolly idiot brigade, and i imagine it's only a matter of time before he snaps under the pressure

assuming there is anything left in there to snap

i tried to help them but sometimes people just cannot will not be helped, and instead of just watching them drag down as many people with them as possible, i chose to accelerate their self-destruction

full speed ahead

/darn that free will
 
2012-12-28 06:22:57 PM  

scalpod: I certainly don't remember ever choosing free will, so there's that.


t.qkme.me
/Ow, my brain
 
2012-12-28 06:30:48 PM  

coffeecrisp: Is not believing in Santa Claus also a religion?


is Santa Claus a physical or spiritual being?
 
2012-12-28 06:36:12 PM  

scalpod: I certainly don't remember ever choosing free will, so there's that.


given the choice would you choose it?

/gives ProfessorOhki an aspirin
//don't think about it

yeah yeah, and we all know given the choice to take this test would we take it? no. but you don't hear us complaining about it, much

//well except for every post in this thread..

time to get over it, move on

just don't panic
 
2012-12-28 06:38:41 PM  

I drunk what: coffeecrisp: Is not believing in Santa Claus also a religion?

is Santa Claus a physical or spiritual being?


Commercial
 
2012-12-28 06:39:16 PM  

I drunk what: is IN this cruel game called life


don't type angry IDW
 
2012-12-28 06:40:16 PM  

I drunk what: scalpod: I certainly don't remember ever choosing free will, so there's that.

given the choice would you choose it?

/gives ProfessorOhki an aspirin
//don't think about it

yeah yeah, and we all know given the choice to take this test would we take it? no. but you don't hear us complaining about it, much

//well except for every post in this thread..

time to get over it, move on

just don't panic


I'm glad you agree there's no choice involved.
 
2012-12-28 06:44:44 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Communism is a social and economic ideology. Atheism is just a small facet of this ideology. When you call communism an "atheist ideology," you might as well call communism an "a-philatelist" ideology or a "pants-wearing" ideology. It doesn't make any sense.


Here's a communist propaganda poster from 1911:

cdn.prosebeforehos.com

Note that it lists four main enemies of the working class:

The nobility and aristocracy: "We rule you"
The religious: "We fool you"
The military: "We shoot at you"
The bourgeois (middle class): "We eat for you"

Communist propaganda has always placed religion right alongside the bourgeois as enemies of the people. Atheism is an integral that belief system, has been since day one.

Religious hatred is part of the Afghanistan conflict, but ethnic strife is as much (or more) a part of it. Conflicts, massacres and movements and wars have multiple causes and factors. Religion is a factor in some. Atheism is a factor in some wars and atrocities.

Only when it was clear they could not totally eradicate it did the USSR stop officially trying to completely annihilate religion, and that wasn't until the mid 1960's (after 40+ years of trying), and even then they still were officially atheist and officially denounced religion, they just gave up on total destruction of faith. The PRC didn't stop trying to completely destroy religion within China until the late 1970's (one of the slogans of the Cultural Revolution translated to: "beating down the Jesus following"), and even now they only tolerate it because they can't destroy it.

Also, I know the Darwin fish is a joke, but a lot of people don't, but I'm saying that when Atheists intentionally duplicate symbols that are religious in nature, then wonder why people call atheism a religion, they should know they are setting themselves up for that to begin with.
I'm not trying to say that all atheists are communists, but again, there have been militant atheists in the world, and they have done some horrible things in the name of wiping out religion and advancing the lack of belief in God. It is intellectually dishonest to try to depict that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, while showing militant Christians and militant muslims.
 
2012-12-28 06:56:03 PM  

SkunkWerks: He's quite good at it judging by all the Dawkins adherents I've ever met.


while i can certainly understand why he gives the faux scientist hatetheist crowd such a hard on
mattstone.blogs.com

it's his particular brand of "there is no God, because I'm an asshole" philosophy that i find fascinating, and i'm surprised he hasn't won over more converts..

oh wait i just remembered where i'm posting... say why has the IB been so quiet in this thread?

your thoughts, Ishkur?

any thoughts? thinking... accidental synapses firing?? nada?
 
2012-12-28 06:57:15 PM  

scalpod: I'm glad you agree there's no choice involved.


before or after?

and a simple 'yes' or 'no' would suffice
 
2012-12-28 07:02:16 PM  

I drunk what: scalpod: I'm glad you agree there's no choice involved.

before or after?

and a simple 'yes' or 'no' would suffice


Yes.
 
2012-12-28 07:04:43 PM  

ProfessorOhki: The ones willing to reconsider in the face of evidence ARE the rational ones. You've got to be able to ask yourself if you're pushing a cause or the cause is pushing you.


hmm that's an interesting observation
 
2012-12-28 07:06:38 PM  

scalpod: Yes.


then what is all this belly aching about?? you got what you wanted, use it!

carpe diem

the world is your oyster
 
2012-12-28 07:07:45 PM  

Silverstaff: Note that it lists four main enemies of the working class:

The nobility and aristocracy: "We rule you"
The religious church: "We fool you"
The military: "We shoot at you"
The bourgeois (middle class): "We eat for you"

Communist propaganda has always placed religion right alongside the bourgeois as enemies of the people. Atheism is an integral that belief system, has been since day one.


Could go either way, I suppose, but there's a huge gap between atheism and having a distaste for organized religion.
 
2012-12-28 07:10:16 PM  

ProfessorOhki: having a distaste for organized religion


would you prefer disorganized religion?

perhaps we can use the calvinball rules instead

/certainly would make services more interesting
 
2012-12-28 07:24:40 PM  

I drunk what: ProfessorOhki: having a distaste for organized religion

would you prefer disorganized religion?

perhaps we can use the calvinball rules instead

/certainly would make services more interesting


I like where this is going. Besides, a thurible is almost a tetherball.
 
2012-12-28 08:07:25 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Could go either way, I suppose, but there's a huge gap between atheism and having a distaste for organized religion.


Yes, but my whole point, since the beginning of this little discussion, was taking exception to the graphics a few people put up implying that there either is no such thing as a militant atheist, or that they are harmless and nonviolent. I've been trying to show that militant atheists exist. They are however, very rare. Then again, militant Christians or militant Muslims are quite rare too.

Dawkins isn't a militant atheist, he's just an obnoxious atheist jerk, and by being a jerk he gets publicity and attention and thus book sales and money. He believes what he's saying, but the antagonistic style helps him make money.

I'm just trying to show that pretty much any ideology or belief system (and yes, atheism is an ideology) can become militant or be a part of a larger militant movement.

Even Buddhism, one of the more pacifist religions normally, has had violent movements, like the Ikko-Ikki Sect of 15th and 16th century Japan or the Buddhist Uprising of 1966 in South Vietnam.

Atheism has had its hand in the communist atrocities of the 20th century.

Atheism does not inherently require violence and can be quite peaceful and ethical, but so can Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, ect.
 
2012-12-28 08:48:16 PM  

I drunk what: scalpod: Yes.

then what is all this belly aching about?? you got what you wanted, use it!

carpe diem

the world is your oyster


Buzz! You asked "before or after" and suggested I keep my answer to either "Yes" or "No", to which I replied "Yes".

I'm sure it all makes perfect sense to you though. In fact it's one of the very few things I'm reasonably sure of.
 
2012-12-28 08:49:50 PM  

I drunk what: scalpod: Yes.

then what is all this belly aching about?? you got what you wanted, use it!

carpe diem

the world is your oyster


Except that if I don't carpe diety I get to carpe eternal punishment. No pressure or anything.
 
2012-12-28 09:15:35 PM  
Even if you like Dawkins or don't. Religion is still full of crap.

God needed blood to fix the universe, but only his own blood has enough magic to do it, so he gives himself a body and killed it.
 
2012-12-29 04:12:41 AM  

Uncle Tractor: I drunk what: 1. God created Man, Life, Free Will
2. Man created Sin
3. Sin altered God's Good-Perfect Creation into what you now see as Evil (aka malaria, mosquitoes, etc..)

Uh, why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god create Free Will in such a way that it made Evil possible? An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god would know how to create Free Will without also enabling man to create Sin, would be able to follow through, and would very much want to make it happen. The notion that you can't have free will without evil is false.


Free will without choice is not free at all, therefore the evil are as neccessary as the good.
 
2012-12-29 05:29:05 AM  

Silverstaff: Note that it lists four main enemies of the working class:

The nobility and aristocracy: "We rule you"
The religious: "We fool you"
The military: "We shoot at you"
The bourgeois (middle class): "We eat for you"

Communist propaganda has always placed religion right alongside the bourgeois as enemies of the people. Atheism is an integral that belief system, has been since day one.


The church, not the religious. The church. The church used to be part of the system that kept the peons in place. Still is, in some places. As part of the ruling class, the church was an enemy of the people. If you want to start a revolution, you have to attack the existing power structure. In the 1800s, the church was very much part of the power structure.
 
2012-12-29 05:37:57 AM  

Silverstaff: Yes, but my whole point, since the beginning of this little discussion, was taking exception to the graphics a few people put up implying that there either is no such thing as a militant atheist, or that they are harmless and nonviolent. I've been trying to show that militant atheists exist. They are however, very rare.


Can you name even one?

Then again, militant Christians or militant Muslims are quite rare too.

Wat. Entire wars have been fought in the name of those religions.

Dawkins isn't a militant atheist, he's just an obnoxious atheist jerk, and by being a jerk he gets publicity and attention and thus book sales and money.

In what way is he an obnoxious jerk? Examples ...?

He believes what he's saying, but the antagonistic style helps him make money.

Dawkins the least antagonistic of these so-called "new atheists." I suspect you're just mouthing truisms you've picked up from Fox News.

I'm just trying to show that pretty much any ideology or belief system (and yes, atheism is an ideology) can become militant or be a part of a larger militant movement.

No, atheism is not an ideology. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. Nothing more.

You don't know what you're talking about.
 
2012-12-29 05:50:30 AM  

RedVentrue: Free will without choice is not free at all, therefore the evil are as neccessary as the good.


Then evil is not evil and Hitler was no worse than Gandhi.

No, evil is not necessary, and there is no choice or free will involved at all. As I stated further upthread; I have morals. They prevent me from doing "evil." I have no choice in the matter.

An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god would have been able to set up a universe were free will was possible without evil. He would have known how to make it happen, would have been able to make it happen, and would have the motive to make it happen.
Which is why I can say with absolute certainty that there is no all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god.
 
2012-12-29 09:13:19 AM  

Uncle Tractor: No, atheism is not an ideology. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. Nothing more.


cdn.theatlantic.com

are you smarter than a 5th grader paperclip?
 
2012-12-29 09:20:08 AM  

RedVentrue: Free will without choice is not free at all, therefore the evil are as neccessary as the good.


correct

I drunk what: are you smarter than a 5th grader paperclip?


Uncle Tractor: Then evil is not evil and Hitler was no worse than Gandhi.

[more words]


we will take that as a 'no'

and fyi, you have ethics not "morals", and there is nothing about the inherent properties of ethics that prevent you from doing evil, even being aware of Morality does not magically prevent one from doing things contrariwise

darn that free will
 
2012-12-29 09:25:05 AM  

scalpod: No pressure or anything.


I drunk what: don't panic


:P

what is your most urgent concern and what do you think ought to be done about it? if i may ask
 
2012-12-29 10:04:41 AM  

I drunk what: and fyi, you have ethics not "morals", and there is nothing about the inherent properties of ethics that prevent you from doing evil, even being aware of Morality does not magically prevent one from doing things contrariwise


Nothing magical about it. There are choices I can't make, because my brain is wired in a certain way. If you really have to ponder whether to hurt people or not, then I'm glad I'll never meet you IRL.

BTW: If you look up "ethics" you'll get stuff like "Ethics: a system of moral principles," so you're not really adding anything to the discussion.

darn that free will

i560.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-29 10:22:14 AM  

Uncle Tractor: There are choices I can't make, because my brain is wired in a certain way.


give one example

Uncle Tractor: If you really have to ponder whether to hurt people or not, then I'm glad I'll never meet you IRL.


i have to ponder hurting people (both physically and mentally) all the time, because as an intelligent person i am aware that it is sometimes necessary for their own good

online.umary.edu

you should meet us in IRL who knows what you might learn?

Uncle Tractor: If you look up "ethics" you'll get stuff like "Ethics: a system of moral principles,"


what will happen if i look up "Nature" ? are you adding anything to this discussion or just doing the opposite?

because it feels like the latter

some of us have decided to continue our edumucation beyond that of a dictionary, while others of us have come to realize the limits of Man's understanding and have even moved beyond that

but if it provides you comfort to stay there, we won't override your free will

/we'll just wait patiently here
 
2012-12-29 10:42:32 AM  

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: There are choices I can't make, because my brain is wired in a certain way.

give one example


Rape.
Robbery.
Burglary.
Arson.
Theft.
Torture.
Kidnapping.
Child abuse.
Murder.

Well, that was quite a bit more than one. Yes, I am quite aware that there are situations where I might act differently WRT some of the above, but not all. Can you guess which?

Uncle Tractor: If you really have to ponder whether to hurt people or not, then I'm glad I'll never meet you IRL.

i have to ponder hurting people (both physically and mentally) all the time, because as an intelligent person i am aware that it is sometimes necessary for their own good


You knew perfectly well I wasn't talking about medical treatment. You're just clouding the issue.

Uncle Tractor: If you look up "ethics" you'll get stuff like "Ethics: a system of moral principles,"
what will happen if i look up "Nature" ? are you adding anything to this discussion or just doing the opposite?
because it feels like the latter


You drank what?

some of us have decided to continue our edumucation beyond that of a dictionary, while others of us have come to realize the limits of Man's understanding and have even moved beyond that

Where are those limits? What did you find on the far side of those limits?
 
2012-12-29 10:52:19 AM  

Uncle Tractor: You knew perfectly well I wasn't talking about medical treatment. You're just clouding the issue.


tattooedphilosopher.files.wordpress.com

Uncle Tractor: Rape.
Robbery.
Burglary.
Arson.
Theft.
Torture.
Kidnapping.
Child abuse.
Murder.


i see. so then you are physically incapable of doing any of those things? because for some magical reason your free will has been handicapped? do tell

Uncle Tractor: Where are those limits?


Science

Uncle Tractor: What did you find on the far side of those limits?


Religion, and ultimately a far more complete view of the "Truth about Reality" puzzle.

Science is just the tip of the iceburg. But that is all some are able to handle. So perhaps it is better that they devote their entire life to studying it. I suppose we could always use more knowledge for something?
 
2012-12-29 11:58:36 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Silverstaff: Yes, but my whole point, since the beginning of this little discussion, was taking exception to the graphics a few people put up implying that there either is no such thing as a militant atheist, or that they are harmless and nonviolent. I've been trying to show that militant atheists exist. They are however, very rare.

Can you name even one?

Then again, militant Christians or militant Muslims are quite rare too.

Wat. Entire wars have been fought in the name of those religions.

Dawkins isn't a militant atheist, he's just an obnoxious atheist jerk, and by being a jerk he gets publicity and attention and thus book sales and money.

In what way is he an obnoxious jerk? Examples ...?

He believes what he's saying, but the antagonistic style helps him make money.

Dawkins the least antagonistic of these so-called "new atheists." I suspect you're just mouthing truisms you've picked up from Fox News.

I'm just trying to show that pretty much any ideology or belief system (and yes, atheism is an ideology) can become militant or be a part of a larger militant movement.

No, atheism is not an ideology. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. Nothing more.

You don't know what you're talking about.


I find it incredibly amusing, and ironic, that you're accusing me of parroting FOX News.

I have years speaking out in favor of single-payer socialized healthcare, publicly speaking out against the Iraq War, advocating for higher taxes, supporting sustainable agriculture and environmentalism, AND being part of an Occupy protest.

I'm a registered Democrat who can't remember the last time he voted Republican, and gave as much to the Obama campaign as I could afford to. I spent the entire election season laughing at teabaggers and trying to point out how Emperor Romney had no clothes.

I've lost some of the friends I grew up with because I kept trying to point out to them that the US can't ban Islam and why "Separation of Church and State" is NOT something "liberals" made up to oppress Christians.

However, despite decades of liberalism, in the last week on Fark I've now been accused of being nothing but a mindless Republican parrot of FOX News twice. Once for being firmly opposed to further gun control, seeing it both clearly unnecessary to public safety and a blatant violation of civil liberties. Now for having faith, seeing that the belief system of atheism has no moral high ground compared to theism, and the public champion of atheist dogma.

I'm a left-winger, but I'm no stereotype. I have faith, I support second amendment rights just as much as I do first, fourth, et al., and I would love to see Bradley Manning in front of a firing squad. . .but none of that doesn't mean that I'm left wing. I'm just not a two-dimensional stereotype of a liberal. I step away from the liberal rank-and-file and the liberal echo chamber (yeah, we've got one too, it's more about blogs and internet message boards than cable news and talk radio), and I'm accused of being just another FOX News spouting dittohead?

Now, as for proof of Richard Dawkins being a loudmouthed jackass:

" "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fark off." Richard Dawkins, in 2006 in response to a question by Neil DeGrasse Tyson at a conference (with video proof). That's definitely being an obnoxious jerk. Here's the funny thing, right or wrong, you can still be a jerk, but if you're a jerk, a lot fewer people will listen to your message and people will start to ignore anything you say (like how being a chronic troll here on Fark winds you up on peoples ignore lists).

Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig A tirade published in The Guardian where he basically says that Christianity condones genocide and he is so sure that atheism is correct that he refuses to debate it with theologians, especially a theologian who has built his entire career about proving the case of Christianity vs. atheism and agnosticism, because he won't dignify Christianity with a response.

Link Dawkins own speeches call for atheists to "ridicule and show contempt" to Catholics especially, but to the religious in general.

Sure sounds like being antagonistic to me

Link Here's Dawkins being a general jackass online insulting feminists, basically telling women that if they aren't as bad off as the women in Saudi Arabia they have nothing to complain about and should just shut up.

As for atheism being an ideology:

Just saying: "I don't believe in God" isn't an ideology. When you start writing lengthy books about it, arguing why not only is there no God, but that people who believe in God are delusional and worthy of mockery, it starts becoming an ideology. When you engage in a public campaign to convert other people to your own belief, it starts to become an ideology. When you intentionally mimic the symbols and rituals of religion for mockery to bring attention to your beliefs (like Darwin-fish and un-baptism ceremonies), it becomes an ideology. When you actually create symbols for what you believe:

bornatheist.com

commonsenseatheism.com

Guess what, you're an ideology. When you get butthurt because somebody suggests that the leader is a jerk because of how he acts, when you go around insulting people of other belief systems trying to berate them into believing the same way you do, when you hold public rallies in Washington devoted to what you believe, you're an ideology.
 
2012-12-29 12:37:28 PM  

I drunk what: [tattooedphilosopher.files.wordpress.com image 512x625]


You are not being clever.

i see. so then you are physically incapable of doing any of those things? because for some magical reason your free will has been handicapped? do tell

Did I say anything about being physically incapable of doing these things? Are you moving goalposts?

Uncle Tractor: Where are those limits?
Science


Fair enough. The sum total of human knowledge comes from science.

Uncle Tractor: What did you find on the far side of those limits?
Religion, and ultimately a far more complete view of the "Truth about Reality" puzzle.


In what way do a bunch of made-up stories provide a more complete view of reality?

Science is just the tip of the iceburg.

Science is just a tool. A very useful, potent tool, and the only tool we have for explaining reality. All religion does is provide stock phrases and made-up answers that don't really explain anything. "God only knows," "God moves in mysterious ways ..." Bah.
 
2012-12-29 01:05:20 PM  

Magorn: Science is not an appropriate tool for definitively determining if a supreme being exists outside the boundaries and rules of time and space.


Religion isn't a good method for determining that, either. How would you verify the existence of something "outside of time and space"?
 
2012-12-29 01:17:10 PM  

Silverstaff: I find it incredibly amusing, and ironic, that you're accusing me of parroting FOX News.

I have years speaking out in favor of single-payer socialized healthcare, publicly speaking out against

(snip left-wing cred)

blogs and internet message boards than cable news and talk radio), and I'm accused of being just another FOX News spouting dittohead?


My mistake.

I forgot that the far right and the far left often use similar arguments when it comes to religion vs science. When it comes to Dawkins, you and Fox viewers sound a lot alike.

Now, as for proof of Richard Dawkins being a loudmouthed jackass:

" "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fark off." Richard Dawkins, in 2006 in response to a question by Neil DeGrasse Tyson at a conference (with video proof). That's definitely being an obnoxious jerk.


Yeah, that's a nice example of the cherry-picking typical of people who want to make Dawkins out to be a jerk. Here's the quote in context. Was he still being an obnoxious jerk? Or was he quoting somebody else?

Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig A tirade published in The Guardian where he basically says that Christianity condones genocide and he is so sure that atheism is correct that he refuses to debate it with theologians, especially a theologian who has built his entire career about proving the case of Christianity vs. atheism and agnosticism, because he won't dignify Christianity with a response.

Did you actually read the article you linked to?

Link Dawkins own speeches call for atheists to "ridicule and show contempt" to Catholics especially, but to the religious in general.

Sure sounds like being antagonistic to me


Yeah, an article by some butthurt theist is a good, neutral source. Stuff like this is why I thought you were a Fox viewer.

Link Here's Dawkins being a general jackass online insulting feminists, basically telling women that if they aren't as bad off as the women in Saudi Arabia they have nothing to complain about and should just shut up.

A slightly more neutral view on the incident. Was he being a jerk? Maybe. Could it just have been a foot-in-mouth incident? Maybe. I wasn't there, Neither were you.
So far, it's the only actual example of possible jerkiness you've got, and it's not much.

Personally, I have the impression that Dawkins has, in some ways, led a rather sheltered life, and that he simply does not understand why that woman got upset.

Just saying: "I don't believe in God" isn't an ideology.

Good.

When you start writing lengthy books about it, arguing why not only is there no God, but that people who believe in God are delusional and worthy of mockery, it starts becoming an ideology.

Nope. Have you read God Delusion? He lines up arguments for and against religion (not many, if any for, of course) and reaches a conclusion. There is nothing ideological about it.

Honest question: What would you think about an adult who openly believes in, say, the Easter Bunny? Who wants to build a temple where he can worship the EB? Who wants to convert you to the gospel of the EB? Who has daily conversations with the EB?

Would you think he might be a little off? Delusional perhaps?

If he kept bugging you whenever he thought you had violated the commandments of the EB, would you perhaps begin mocking him?

It is possible to create an ideology around atheism. It's also possible to create an ideology around the color purple. However, that ideology would not be atheism nor the color purple, nor would it represent all atheists or purple objects.
 
2012-12-29 02:54:32 PM  

I drunk what: scalpod: No pressure or anything.

I drunk what: don't panic

:P

what is your most urgent concern and what do you think ought to be done about it? if i may ask


My most urgent concern is not being killed by fundamentalist whackadoos of any stripe. There's not much I can do about it though, thanks to free will and the fact that they've made a conscious choice to remain ignorant and governed by fear. I'm not terribly worried about the gods or God but their followers tend to make life difficult for anyone who doesn't think and live the way they do, which becomes a problem for the rest of us. I'm not suggesting anyone should panic, but caution when dealing with this type of mentality seems well advised given a cursory glance at human history.
 
2012-12-29 03:37:50 PM  

Silverstaff: Joseph Stalin was clearly an atheist:


No. He was a cult leader who saw religion as competition and saw fit to dispel it so he could replace the church with the state.
 
2012-12-29 04:43:13 PM  

Ishkur: I see IDW is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this three year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the Wason Selection Task with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually revealed that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing new to be garnered from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every religion thread (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.


scalpod: There's not much I can do about it though, thanks to free will and the fact that they've made a conscious choice to remain ignorant and governed by fear.


darn that free will

though i do share your concern, if anyone knows Ishkur in real life i suggest they take him in for psychiatric treatment and keep him away from any weapons, you gotta keep a close eye on those fundamentalist whackadoos
 
2012-12-29 04:46:36 PM  

Ishkur: Silverstaff: Joseph Stalin was clearly an atheist:

No. He was a cult leader who saw religion as competition and saw fit to dispel it so he could replace the church with the state.


Again with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy from the atheists.

Joseph Stalin:
1. Publicly proclaimed that he did not believe in God.
2. As the dictator of the USSR, made atheism mandatory, and actively suppressed all religion, and persecuted and even executed clergy and faithful.
3. Sponsored a group called the "League of Militant Atheists" to promote the eradication of the very concept of religion.

That's NOT an atheist?

You're saying he's not an atheist because even though he didn't believe in God, he was a bad guy, so obviously not a real atheist?

It does not matter if he was an atheist for the purposes of garnering political power, would you call Ahmadinejad not really a Muslim because he uses Islam for political power? Would you claim that Pat Robertson isn't a Christian because he tried to use Christianity to achieve political power?

No, he was by any definition, an atheist, and he was murderous and highly militant in that pursuit. I know you don't want to think of atheism as being like other belief system in that it can have members that are militant and violent, and that horrible things can be done in its name, but atheism has no moral or ethical high ground to stand on, many millions died in the 20th century because atheistic leaders ordered it done.
 
2012-12-29 04:50:23 PM  

Ishkur: Silverstaff: Joseph Stalin was clearly an atheist:

No. He was a cult leader who saw religion as competition and saw fit to dispel it so he could replace the church with the state.


also any apologist who feels the need to defend people like Stalin and white-knight for their honor should be approached with great caution when dealing with this kind of mentality

even more so when they clearly live in a delusional world that cannot handle the most obvious properties of reality

a straight jacket and padded room would be in the interest of public safety
 
2012-12-29 04:59:33 PM  

Silverstaff: That's NOT an atheist?


it wouldn't be wise to continually aggravate a paranoid schizophrenic, subjecting their weak fragile mind to such pressure, might cause a psychotic reaction

perhaps it would be best if you quit while you're ahead?

any sane or intelligent person would realize by now that you've made your point
 
2012-12-29 05:06:52 PM  

Silverstaff: No, he was by any definition, an atheist, and he was murderous and highly militant in that pursuit. I know you don't want to think of atheism as being like other belief system in that it can have members that are militant and violent, and that horrible things can be done in its name, but atheism has no moral or ethical high ground to stand on, many millions died in the 20th century because atheistic leaders ordered it done.


Once again; you are confusing atheism with communism. Yes, Stalin was (most likely) an atheist, but that was just part of being a communist. Did he persecute the churches? Of course he did; they were the competition. They were part of the power structure toppled by the revolution.
 
2012-12-29 05:16:15 PM  

Silverstaff: Again with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy from the atheists.


It's not a "No True Scotsman" because it's a false equivalency. Saying Stalin's purges had anything to do with atheism is like saying eugenics has anything to do with evolution.

You are mistaking an ideological position for the misapplication of its conceit.

Don't do that.

/for the record: I'm not an atheist
 
2012-12-29 05:22:25 PM  

Silverstaff: You're saying he's not an atheist because even though he didn't believe in God, he was a bad guy, so obviously not a real atheist?


I want to say something else: Even if Stalin was an atheist and sought to eliminate all religions for the sake of secular humanism and rational inquiry (good luck finding anything like that in any of his speeches)..... so what? What good does it do your argument?

Let me repeat what I wrote earlier that you conveniently neglected:

The whole "who committed more atrocities" argument is a mutually assured destruction debate tactic anyway. Do you really want to count them all up? Cuz if so, then Christianity wins easily. 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?

once more, with feeling:
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.
 
2012-12-29 05:51:28 PM  

Ishkur: 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.


I'm just fine with that.

The only reason I started making this argument was to rebut the idea put forth upthread that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, or that militant atheists are harmless compared to militant Christians or militant Muslims.

For every militant Christian shooting up an abortion clinic or being a WBC attention whore, you've got a million Christians being relatively law abiding and peaceful. For every militant Muslim blowing himself up, you've got hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are not radicalized to the point of militancy. For every militant Jew out there assassinating politicians like Rabin, you've got hundreds of thousands who are horrified at bloodshed in the name of their faith.

For every atheist who has commanded that people die for worshiping God, you've got hundreds of thousands or millions who just want to live a peaceful life of reason.

My whole point in this is not to accuse modern atheists of being like Stalin, merely to show that atheism as a belief system has no moral high ground to claim that it is free of the murderous history of religions.
 
2012-12-29 10:22:59 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Silverstaff: No, he was by any definition, an atheist, and he was murderous and highly militant in that pursuit. I know you don't want to think of atheism as being like other belief system in that it can have members that are militant and violent, and that horrible things can be done in its name, but atheism has no moral or ethical high ground to stand on, many millions died in the 20th century because atheistic leaders ordered it done.

Once again; you are confusing atheism with communism. Yes, Stalin was (most likely) an atheist, but that was just part of being a communist. Did he persecute the churches? Of course he did; they were the competition. They were part of the power structure toppled by the revolution.


The real question here is:
Why are the Atheist, murdering despots all Communist?
 
2012-12-30 03:41:40 AM  

RedVentrue: Why are the Atheist, murdering despots all Communist?


Because communism hates religion. That doesn't make it atheist (find me one instance of ANY despot saying "there is no God"), that makes it vehemently opposed to any established systems of order: political, economic, military, and theological. It will violently dispel any threats to the purification of its ideological ethos and religion frequently tops the list.

It's more appropriate to call Communism anti-theist. But I don't think it ever pondered over whether there was a God or not.
 
2012-12-30 04:04:19 AM  

Silverstaff: The only reason I started making this argument was to rebut the idea put forth upthread that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, or that militant atheists are harmless compared to militant Christians or militant Muslims.


The reason why its actually quite easy to say that is because atheism predates both Christianity and Islam (Ionian Greeks first proposed it 2500 years ago and it was a central tenet of some sects of Stoicism and Neo-Platonism), and up until the 20th century (according to you), committed no genuine atrocities whatsoever.

If atheism needed communism to become militant, that doesn't say anything about atheism but it says a lot about communism.

Your argument, once again, is false.
 
2012-12-30 04:55:29 AM  

RedVentrue: Why are the Atheist, murdering despots all Communist?


Because atheism is one of the many tenets of communism. Atheism is not an ideology, but it can be part of one.
 
2012-12-30 04:57:37 AM  

Silverstaff: The only reason I started making this argument was to rebut the idea put forth upthread that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, or that militant atheists are harmless compared to militant Christians or militant Muslims.


There is no such thing as a militant atheist, because atheism is not an ideology or a religion. I might as well call you a militant pants-wearer or a militant non-stamp-collector (assuming you don't collect stamps).
 
2012-12-30 05:03:21 AM  

Silverstaff: My whole point in this is not to accuse modern atheists of being like Stalin, merely to show that atheism as a belief system has no moral high ground to claim that it is free of the murderous history of religions.


Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods.
 
2012-12-30 08:44:17 AM  

Silverstaff: I'm just fine with that.


wow, i'm ok you're ok?

and you were doing so good, despite the fact that you had punched up lil tar baby up to the point where you spending more time covering yourself in his shiat than actually making a point

and this^ kiddies is why one ought not to argue with the Idiot Brigade, even when you win you lose, and inevitably become one of them

Silverstaff: merely to show that atheism as a belief system has no moral high ground to claim that it is free of the murderous history of religions


well duh

Silverstaff: My whole point in this is not to accuse modern atheists of being like Stalin


but they are alike (in ideals, philosophy, lacking morality, etc..), what do you suppose would happen if any of these passive-aggressive anti-theists were to be give the opportunity to form-join a group that did have the military capability of a well organized communist organization? read any good history books lately? they are only passive depending on their situation, the aggression kicks in when they have weapons-power to backup their godless agenda.

sorry lad, but you failed

it was a nice go, for a bit there

and you were warned to quit while you were ahead...

but don't worry about them, after all, atheists are just harmless little paperclips:

Uncle Tractor: Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods.


:D

Silverstaff: For every militant Christian shooting up an abortion clinic or being a WBC attention whore, you've got a million Christians being relatively law abiding and peaceful. For every militant Muslim blowing himself up, you've got hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are not radicalized to the point of militancy. For every militant Jew out there assassinating politicians like Rabin, you've got hundreds of thousands who are horrified at bloodshed in the name of their faith.

For every atheist who has commanded that people die for worshiping God, you've got hundreds of thousands or millions who just want to live a peaceful life of reason.


an awful lot of equivocation going on in here, not to mention gross oversimplifications and mischaracterizations , but once you've jumped on the "im ok you're ok" bandwagon guess what happens to your perspective?

FYI, he already knows he's beaten you, he's just trying to troll you further into agreeing with him and recanting anything you said previously

and i must say he is doing a fine job, it's almost as if tar is running in his veins, maybe even his bones are made of tar?

how many punches does it take to get the sticky center of a tar baby pop?

let's find out

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-30 09:41:48 AM  

I drunk what: Silverstaff: My whole point in this is not to accuse modern atheists of being like Stalin

but they are alike (in ideals, philosophy, lacking morality, etc..),


Do you actually believe that? Are you really that ignorant? Or just trolling?

what do you suppose would happen if any of these passive-aggressive anti-theists were to be give the opportunity to form-join a group that did have the military capability of a well organized communist organization?

And once again a theist is too ignorant to tell the difference between atheism and communism.

read any good history books lately? they are only passive depending on their situation, the aggression kicks in when they have weapons-power to backup their godless agenda.

Atheists have no agenda. There is no such thing as an "atheist agenda." Want to know what happens when atheists are dominant? Look at northern Europe.

but don't worry about them, after all, atheists are just harmless little paperclips:

Uncle Tractor: Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods.

:D


And yet, that little "paperclip" is far beyond your mental capacity.
 
2012-12-30 10:11:15 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Atheists have no agenda.


of course not, if they did, they wouldn't be true atheists

Uncle Tractor: And yet, that little "paperclip" is far beyond your mental capacity.


not so, i lack a belief in paperclips, therefore i win

/rational
//freethinker
///logical

i own science

Uncle Tractor: Want to know what happens when atheists are dominant?


i'm already familiar with history, i don't have to wait and see if this time is going to be different

just like i don't need to know what happens when muslims are dominant, or hindus, or buddhists, or any other religious faction

but you just go on and keep pretending that there is actually some sort of utopian society that consists of mostly agnostic-agnostics, who "lack a religious belief" who fly around on unicorns that fart rainbows out of their ass

and then tell us about how they created the society-civilization that they currently inhabit

Europe you say? oh yeah, a long history of atheism there, yep, you got it
 
2012-12-30 10:56:17 AM  

Silverstaff: When you engage in a public campaign to convert other people to your own belief, it starts to become an ideology.


paperclips would never do such a thing

don't worry your pretty little head about it, i'm ok you're ok

it was all just a dream
 
2012-12-30 11:13:09 AM  

I drunk what: Silverstaff: When you engage in a public campaign to convert other people to your own belief, it starts to become an ideology.

paperclips would never do such a thing

don't worry your pretty little head about it, i'm ok you're ok

it was all just a dream


wouldn't you agree SkunkWerks?

/after you watch the link
 
2012-12-30 11:16:11 AM  

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: Atheists have no agenda.
of course not, if they did, they wouldn't be true atheists


What I wrote above was poorly formulated. Atheists can and do have agendas, which may or may not be related to atheism. There is no agenda to be found in atheism itself.

Uncle Tractor: Want to know what happens when atheists are dominant?
i'm already familiar with history


Again: For an example of what happens when atheism becomes dominant, look at northern Europe.

Europe you say? oh yeah, a long history of atheism there, yep, you got it

Apparently, your familiarity of history and the world around you is very limited. Not that I didn't already know that from your previous posts.

I think I know what you drank, BTW:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-30 03:29:34 PM  

Uncle Tractor: What I wrote above was poorly formulated.


finally you have produced a chain of words in which we can completely agree

peace be with you

/everything above this post
 
2012-12-30 06:27:01 PM  

Silverstaff: I've been trying to show that militant atheists exist. They are however, very rare. Then again, militant Christians or militant Muslims are quite rare too.


The atheist sort are disproportionately rarer in the West, however. You might look into Altemeyer's study.

Uncle Tractor: Fair enough. The sum total of human knowledge comes from science.


Arguably, not mathematics. Mathematics is the mother of the sciences, but since mathematics is not dependent on empirical data, it's arguable not a science itself.

Silverstaff: atheism as a belief system


That's like saying "theism as a belief system", and then blaming the pope for the antics of the Westboro Baptist church -- completely ignoring the variant strains of the philosophy.

RedVentrue: Why are the Atheist, murdering despots all Communist?


Perhaps because Communism was primarily a social philosophy about how the world "ought" to be run, while most other major strains of atheist philosophy focus more on how the world "is". It also seems the most authoritarian of those strains -- and even that seem a significant departure from Marx.
 
2012-12-30 06:50:01 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Silverstaff: My whole point in this is not to accuse modern atheists of being like Stalin, merely to show that atheism as a belief system has no moral high ground to claim that it is free of the murderous history of religions.

Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods.


Which is in itself a belief, therefore part of a belief system, therefore a religion.

You repeat yourself, but repetition does not make your assertion more true.
 
2012-12-30 08:54:30 PM  

RedVentrue: Which is in itself a belief, therefore part of a belief system, therefore a religion.


Religion requires more than just belief.

/rituals
//symbols
///effigies
///buildings
////hierarchical power base
//a self-derived code of ethics and a philosophical worldview that relies on an unverifiable inference as a starting point
 
2012-12-30 11:20:07 PM  

RedVentrue: Which is in itself a belief, therefore part of a belief system, therefore a religion.


Not all belief systems are religions; the term has additional denotative elements, particularly in anthropological senses. Atheism lacks ritual, quest, and devotional elements, and is pretty sparse on shamanic mediation.
 
Displayed 302 of 302 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report