If you think religious belief is irrational, I don't see how one interpretation of a scripture - or even not valuing a scripture at all - makes the belief any more or less rational.
It doesn't.
I just think it is funny when someone trying to convert someone else to atheism gets all angry because the person treats a scripture allegorically or doesn't put much weight on it.
It doesn't actually make a difference from the perspective of the atheists argument, but they get all frustrated and feel like the person is trying to cheat them of their rightful victory.
Are you referring to me? When have I gotten "angry" or "frustrated"? I remember you claiming that my "interpretation" of Biblical scripture was incorrect, though I don't remember you supporting that assertion.
I don't get angry when people take Deuteronomy 22:28, a verse that commands rape victims to marry their rapists, "allegorically." I simply ask why the person takes that verse allegorically—as opposed to the verse about, for example, the resurrection of Jesus.
You are completely correct- it is wrong to conclude that a supernatural force does not exist just because there is no evidence for it. Note, however that the ad ignorantum fallacy you brought up earlier states that it is inappropriate to believe in something only because it has not been proven false, which is exactly what religion is reduced to. Atheism, however, doesn't do the reverse- I don't believe in the existence of God for more reasons than just the fact that it hasn't been proven true. It just helps, since it allows the room for doubt in the first place- if God were proven true, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Note also, with regards to Negative Proof, that it is not wrong to say that a supernatural force probably does not exist, because there is no evidence for it.
Basically, we can still estimate probability in a wholly non-fallacious way. If you want you can go all god of the gaps on me and say that even though religion has no evidence now, it might in the future- but I've already granted that point. It doesn't change the basic fact that until you have evidence for something, it is inappropriate to conclude that it exists. It's jumping to conclusions
As for rain, it seems to me that religion is all about looking to the sky in the middle of a torrential downpour and nevertheless declaring that it is not, in fact, raining. Or looking up at clear blue skies and declaring that it is, in fact, raining, only the rain is invisible, cloaked by God, or really sneaky.
Again, proof is for math. If you want to declare us requiring formal logic for informal subjects, then all discussion stops. All science stops. All conclusions are untenable, all assumptions wrong, all beliefs equal. This is just...silly.
He considers those who think economic development to be an appropriate tool in fighting fundamentalism (in the middle east) to be living in a fantasy world. Because it's apparently not as effective as masturbating about atheism.
He has a point IMO. Areligiosity and religious liberalism tend to be correlated with economic progress, but I think it's mostly that economic progress in the modern world generally requires acceptance of modernism, which tends to work against most flavors of fundamentalism.
Modernization is widely accepted, so I don't see what the problem is. Unless you're using a definition that conflates it with westernism, and then I'd see what you're saying, but not really, because then it wouldn't have much to do with economic development. I wish I had my Huntington book with me, because he a had a rather clear definition for this.
You are completely correct- it is wrong to conclude that a supernatural force does not exist just because there is no evidence for it. Note, however that the ad ignorantum fallacy you brought up earlier states that it is inappropriate to believe in something only because it has not been proven false, which is exactly what religion is reduced to. Atheism, however, doesn't do the reverse- I don't believe in the existence of God for more reasons than just the fact that it hasn't been proven true. It just helps, since it allows the room for doubt in the first place- if God were proven true, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Note also, with regards to Negative Proof, that it is not wrong to say that a supernatural force probably does not exist, because there is no evidence for it.
Basically, we can still estimate probability in a wholly non-fallacious way. If you want you can go all god of the gaps on me and say that even though religion has no evidence now, it might in the future- but I've already granted that point. It doesn't change the basic fact that until you have evidence for something, it is inappropriate to conclude that it exists. It's jumping to conclusions
As for rain, it seems to me that religion is all about looking to the sky in the middle of a torrential downpour and nevertheless declaring that it is not, in fact, raining. Or looking up at clear blue skies and declaring that it is, in fact, raining, only the rain is invisible, cloaked by God, or really sneaky.
Again, proof is for math. If you want to declare us requiring formal logic for informal subjects, then all discussion stops. All science stops. All conclusions are untenable, all assumptions wrong, all beliefs equal. This is just...silly.
Incorrect. All arguments for or against a religion boil down to "this is so," and "no it isn't." Arguments in favor of Atheism are arguments from ignorance at best and arguments from personal incredulity in many cases. So, coincidentally are arguments in favor of a given religion. Do you have actual evidence of God's non-existance, or merely a lack of evidence that he exists? Because if it is the latter, then it is just as inappropriate for you to assert that God does not exist as it is for a Christian to assert that he does. All anyone can say for certain is that there is a lack of evidence either way.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
You are completely correct- it is wrong to conclude that a supernatural force does not exist just because there is no evidence for it. Note, however that the ad ignorantum fallacy you brought up earlier states that it is inappropriate to believe in something only because it has not been proven false, which is exactly what religion is reduced to. Atheism, however, doesn't do the reverse- I don't believe in the existence of God for more reasons than just the fact that it hasn't been proven true. It just helps, since it allows the room for doubt in the first place- if God were proven true, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Note also, with regards to Negative Proof, that it is not wrong to say that a supernatural force probably does not exist, because there is no evidence for it.
Basically, we can still estimate probability in a wholly non-fallacious way. If you want you can go all god of the gaps on me and say that even though religion has no evidence now, it might in the future- but I've already granted that point. It doesn't change the basic fact that until you have evidence for something, it is inappropriate to conclude that it exists. It's jumping to conclusions
As for rain, it seems to me that religion is all about looking to the sky in the middle of a torrential downpour and nevertheless declaring that it is not, in fact, raining. Or looking up at clear blue skies and declaring that it is, in fact, raining, only the rain is invisible, cloaked by God, or really sneaky.
Again, proof is for math. If you want to declare us requiring formal logic for informal subjects, then all discussion stops. All science stops. All conclusions are untenable, all assumptions wrong, all beliefs equal. This is just...silly.
Incorrect. All arguments for or against a religion boil down to "this is so," and "no it isn't." Arguments in favor of Atheism are arguments from ignorance at best and arguments from personal incredulity in many cases. So, coincidentally are arguments in favor of a given religion. Do you have actual evidence of God's non-existance, or merely a lack of evidence that he exists? Because if it is the latter, then it is just as inappropriate for you to assert that God does not exist as it is for a Christian to assert that he does. All anyone can say for certain is that there is a lack of evidence either way.
Hmm, but if you're debating the accuracy of a particular religion you can find evidence to show that particular parts of that religion are false. In the case of judeo-christian beliefs you could show perhaps that the great flood did not occur, or that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Debating the existance of a particular god is quite different from debating the existance of any god.
"Militant","Fundamentalist","Asshole" atheists are a dime a dozen on the internet, and it really is a big problem because they all tend to conglomerate together and bash religion in a masturbatory orgy of oblivious groupthink. I really have no problem with having a discussion with an atheist, online or in person, concerning matters of religion and God when that person is essentially open-minded. But when you all get together online and sneer at Christians and other theists for being narrow-minded and intellectually inferior, you don't even realize the irony of the situation. That is why the term "fundamentalist atheist" is not entirely unjustifiable.
Internet atheists/ agnostics/ nontheists have had a whopping five to ten years of organizational power over the tubes. The environment you describe is not wholly dissimilar to some churches I've been to.
Incorrect. All arguments for or against a religion boil down to "this is so," and "no it isn't." Arguments in favor of Atheism are arguments from ignorance at best and arguments from personal incredulity in many cases. So, coincidentally are arguments in favor of a given religion. Do you have actual evidence of God's non-existance, or merely a lack of evidence that he exists? Because if it is the latter, then it is just as inappropriate for you to assert that God does not exist as it is for a Christian to assert that he does. All anyone can say for certain is that there is a lack of evidence either way.
Except for the fact that the burden of proof is on the people who make the claim that god exists, because the default position is that he does not exists, since we cannot detect it.
If I claimed that there was a 4x4inch invisible solid cube floating 10 feet above my head, you would ask for proof. On the other hand, if I claimed there wasn't a 4x4 inch invisible solid cube above my head, you probably wouldn't ask for proof because, well, it is more reasonable to assume that there isn't one than there is one.
edit: And even if God exists, there is the question of why he has different religions scattered around the globe. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all believe in the same god, don't they? So which religion is "correct"? Why hasn't God interfered and said "no, Christianity is the religion, the others have interpretted me incorrectly"?
Arguments in favor of Atheism are arguments from ignorance at best and arguments from personal incredulity in many cases. So, coincidentally are arguments in favor of a given religion. Do you have actual evidence of God's non-existance, or merely a lack of evidence that he exists? Because if it is the latter, then it is just as inappropriate for you to assert that God does not exist as it is for a Christian to assert that he does.
Just as inappropriate? Not at all. The two are not equally likely propositions.
All anyone can say for certain is that there is a lack of evidence either way.
And in that case, we don't reject the null hypothesis...and go with there being no God. That the universe is what it appears to be. Atheism is the default position. You don't adopt it because it has been proven- you adopt it because it is inappropriate to conclude otherwise without evidence.
Now, we can surely include the caveat that we must change our position in light of new evidence, but until that point, picking a religious or supernatural explanation without evidence for it is no different than just making something up. Or are you going to argue that I have to take every one of the following conclusions seriously: That God made the Heavens and the Earth, that Enki masturbated and created the Tigris and Euphrates River after Tiamaat gave birth to the Earth, that Thor is the Lord of Thunder, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created mountains and midgets, that there is no God and the universe formed through natural processes, that the universe has always existed following a cycle of reincarnation and rebirth...think about what you are arguing, here. In practice, does the absence of evidence for something not lead you towards believing in its absence? If there is no body, no bloody knife, no note saying: "I killed Jim. Signed- Bob", no missing persons report...do you still consider "No Murder Occurred" and "A Murder Occurred" equally likely?
Even if you lack proof either way, that does not mean two unproven conclusions are equal in merit. Sure, we can't say "for certain", but that's only relevant if you've got such a rigorous standard of certainty that you're willing to eliminate all science entirely.
EDIT: And also there is the burden of proof problem, as discussed by some smart fellow above. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof! Say it with me now...
All anyone can say for certain is that there is a lack of evidence either way.
And in that case, we don't reject the null hypothesis...and go with there being no God. That the universe is what it appears to be. Atheism is the default position. You don't adopt it because it has been proven- you adopt it because it is inappropriate to conclude otherwise without evidence.
Exactly.
ege02 on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
He considers those who think economic development to be an appropriate tool in fighting fundamentalism (in the middle east) to be living in a fantasy world. Because it's apparently not as effective as masturbating about atheism.
He has a point IMO. Areligiosity and religious liberalism tend to be correlated with economic progress, but I think it's mostly that economic progress in the modern world generally requires acceptance of modernism, which tends to work against most flavors of fundamentalism.
Modernization is widely accepted, so I don't see what the problem is. Unless you're using a definition that conflates it with westernism, and then I'd see what you're saying, but not really, because then it wouldn't have much to do with economic development. I wish I had my Huntington book with me, because he a had a rather clear definition for this.
Well, I'd say that modernism places a high value on technological and scientific progress, which tends to undercut some fundamentalist positions. It also tends to empower secular government organizations, which also ebbs the power of the church in some areas. Really, modernism is under some fire from a lot of quarters, including some areligious groups (e.g., postmodernism and some schools of environmentalism).
But yeah modernism also seems to be pretty bound to westernism to a lot of the world.
All anyone can say for certain is that there is a lack of evidence either way.
And in that case, we don't reject the null hypothesis...and go with there being no God. That the universe is what it appears to be. Atheism is the default position. You don't adopt it because it has been proven- you adopt it because it is inappropriate to conclude otherwise without evidence.
Exactly.
I mean, sure, if I outright state: "There is no God, and I know this to be true", I'm so fallacious my eyeballs will pop out of my sockets.
But I have no reason to conclude that God exists. I just don't- there's no evidence for it. So I conclude that he very probably doesn't and move on. But this is apparently illogical- I'm supposed to lend equal credence to the idea that he exists just because I can't prove he doesn't? Why on Earth should I do that?
The reverse just isn't true. I have reason to conclude God does not exist. It makes no sense to say, "I have no reason to conclude God does not exist" because I obviously do! If that's the case, then I have no reason to conclude that Loki does not exist. I have no reason to conclude L. Ron Hubbard didn't ascend to a higher plane of being and controls me from the sky. I have no reason to conclude there isn't an invisible, intangible, inaudible and in...smell...able (what's the word for this?) polar bear on my couch. After all, I can't prove that any of those things do not exist just or did not happen just because there's no evidence for any of them. The evidence might be unavailable to me. But I'm not beholden to prove them at all since I'm not making those claims, and I'm not going to go around granting them tax-exempt status.
But yeah modernism also seems to be pretty bound to westernism to a lot of the world.
That's somewhat the primary problem with coaxing economic development, which would lead to political freedoms eventually. Well, that and 'zomg globalization is going to slaughter your sheep and enslave you' type issues. They can be undercut, though. It's just a matter of reworking how some aid is given and giving the aid good PR in the country by having it actually work well.
He considers those who think economic development to be an appropriate tool in fighting fundamentalism (in the middle east) to be living in a fantasy world. Because it's apparently not as effective as masturbating about atheism.
He has a point IMO. Areligiosity and religious liberalism tend to be correlated with economic progress, but I think it's mostly that economic progress in the modern world generally requires acceptance of modernism, which tends to work against most flavors of fundamentalism.
Modernization is widely accepted, so I don't see what the problem is. Unless you're using a definition that conflates it with westernism, and then I'd see what you're saying, but not really, because then it wouldn't have much to do with economic development. I wish I had my Huntington book with me, because he a had a rather clear definition for this.
Well, I'd say that modernism places a high value on technological and scientific progress, which tends to undercut some fundamentalist positions. It also tends to empower secular government organizations, which also ebbs the power of the church in some areas. Really, modernism is under some fire from a lot of quarters, including some areligious groups (e.g., postmodernism and some schools of environmentalism).
I don't see technological and scientific progress as a potential problem, because the technological progress of the west is almost universally envied in the middle east, not detested.
Oh shit don't turn this into yet another debate on the definitions of weak, strong, and agnostic.
I'd have to say that although my religious beliefs are probably most similar to Loren's, in this debate I tend to agree with Evander.
FSM is a shitheel argument. Not only is it fundamentally logically flawed, not only is it a slippery slope argument along the lines of "gay marriage will lead to tree fucking!", but it also relies on ridiculing your audience in order to make your point. The FSM argument is an allegory for the current atheistic revival in this country. It is fueled by ridicule of the other side, haughty intellectual snobbery, undeserved self-righteousness, and many other qualities which unfortunately do resemble the qualities of the less desirable among the religious fundamentalists.
Atheism can be so much more palatable. Not just by shutting the fuck up, that isn't necessary. It can be outspoken. But it is so much more palatable when the rhetoric at least appears to acknowledge that the majority of the world, including a lot of really wonderful and brilliant people, are religious, and adopts some amount of humility for it's stance.
That being said, I've never particularly felt that Loren himself is the asshole type of atheist. He seems more in line with the palatable type I just described.
Did you learn nothing from our PM discussion on FSM? I've tried over and over to tell you that FSM is just a counterargument, not an allegory or mocking of religion.
As for there being a lot of "asshole" atheists, I don't think that's the case. I heard a lot about Dawkins being an "asshole" in the God Delusion, but all I found in there was passionate, well thought out arguments. Speaking your mind and backing up your ideas with reason (even if you're speaking out against something very popular) is not being an asshole.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
He considers those who think economic development to be an appropriate tool in fighting fundamentalism (in the middle east) to be living in a fantasy world. Because it's apparently not as effective as masturbating about atheism.
He has a point IMO. Areligiosity and religious liberalism tend to be correlated with economic progress, but I think it's mostly that economic progress in the modern world generally requires acceptance of modernism, which tends to work against most flavors of fundamentalism.
Modernization is widely accepted, so I don't see what the problem is. Unless you're using a definition that conflates it with westernism, and then I'd see what you're saying, but not really, because then it wouldn't have much to do with economic development. I wish I had my Huntington book with me, because he a had a rather clear definition for this.
Well, I'd say that modernism places a high value on technological and scientific progress, which tends to undercut some fundamentalist positions. It also tends to empower secular government organizations, which also ebbs the power of the church in some areas. Really, modernism is under some fire from a lot of quarters, including some areligious groups (e.g., postmodernism and some schools of environmentalism).
I don't see technological and scientific progress as a potential problem, because the technological progress of the west is almost universally envied in the middle east, not detested.
The problem is that Muslims' belief in the dogma of the Quran can restrict the scientific progress they make. For example, Muslim creationism is becoming more popular in Turkey and elsewhere in the Islamic world. If Muslims cannot learn about biology in their schools then they are going to have a lot trouble making advances in the fields of medicine and genetics.
I'm not saying that economic advances won't help promote modernism in the Middle east, but it seems foolish to ignore the rather large religious consituency that is strictly opposed to much of what modernism has to offer.
I'm not saying that economic advances won't help promote modernism in the Middle east, but it seems foolish to ignore the rather large religious consituency that is strictly opposed to much of what modernism has to offer.
Are they opposed to it because factories and management level positions exude evil, or because those factories are owned and run by Western corporations?
The problem is that Muslims' belief in the dogma of the Quran can restrict the scientific progress they make. For example, Muslim creationism is becoming more popular in Turkey and elsewhere in the Islamic world. If Muslims cannot learn about biology in their schools then they are going to have a lot trouble making advances in the fields of medicine and genetics.
Just for future reference, this is not true about Turkey. Science education is taken very seriously and is conducted very secularly in most regions.
Hardcore atheist and hardcore fundamentalists are the same people to me.
The same as ultra right wing and ulta left wing politicians. Neither are worthy of respect or attention.
The thing of it is, I don't know of any 'fundamentalist' atheists who have any actual political power(ie: power to influence or create governmental policy), whereas fundamentalist Christians(ie: people like James Dobson and Pat Robertson) have lots of political influence, up to and including the President of the United States. So the situation between the two groups does not seem equal to me at all.
Hardcore atheist and hardcore fundamentalists are the same people to me.
The same as ultra right wing and ulta left wing politicians. Neither are worthy of respect or attention.
The thing of it is, I don't know of any 'fundamentalist' atheists who have any actual political power(ie: power to influence or create governmental policy), whereas fundamentalist Christians(ie: people like James Dobson and Pat Robertson) have lots of political influence, up to and including the President of the United States. So the situation between the two groups does not seem equal to me at all.
He said 'hardcore' athiest, not 'fundamentalist' athiest. He was also just commenting on their personalities rather than their power or influence over other people.
"Militant","Fundamentalist","Asshole" atheists are a dime a dozen on the internet, and it really is a big problem because they all tend to conglomerate together and bash religion in a masturbatory orgy of oblivious groupthink. I really have no problem with having a discussion with an atheist, online or in person, concerning matters of religion and God when that person is essentially open-minded. But when you all get together online and sneer at Christians and other theists for being narrow-minded and intellectually inferior, you don't even realize the irony of the situation. That is why the term "fundamentalist atheist" is not entirely unjustifiable.
Internet atheists/ agnostics/ nontheists have had a whopping five to ten years of organizational power over the tubes. The environment you describe is not wholly dissimilar to some churches I've been to.
You are correct, there are churches like that. That certainly does not excuse atheists from such behavior, however. They rush to defend an abrasive, close-minded fanatic like Richard Dawkins just as fundamentalist Christians rush to defend an abrasive, close-minded fanatic like Pat Robertson, and in both groups people are climbing over each other to reject the term "fundamentalist." The fact that they can't see that they're just as bad as the other group would almost be funny, if it weren't so sad.
"Militant","Fundamentalist","Asshole" atheists are a dime a dozen on the internet, and it really is a big problem because they all tend to conglomerate together and bash religion in a masturbatory orgy of oblivious groupthink. I really have no problem with having a discussion with an atheist, online or in person, concerning matters of religion and God when that person is essentially open-minded. But when you all get together online and sneer at Christians and other theists for being narrow-minded and intellectually inferior, you don't even realize the irony of the situation. That is why the term "fundamentalist atheist" is not entirely unjustifiable.
Internet atheists/ agnostics/ nontheists have had a whopping five to ten years of organizational power over the tubes. The environment you describe is not wholly dissimilar to some churches I've been to.
You are correct, there are churches like that. That certainly does not excuse atheists from such behavior, however. They rush to defend an abrasive, close-minded fanatic like Richard Dawkins just as fundamentalist Christians rush to defend an abrasive, close-minded fanatic like Pat Robertson, and in both groups people are climbing over each other to reject the term "fundamentalist." The fact that they can't see that they're just as bad as the other group would almost be funny, if it weren't so sad.
Why do you think Dawkins is an "abrasive, close-minded fanatic"?
Can you cite something he said or did that calls to mind this description?
As Qingu said, the average religious audience is nowhere near being able to actually judge ideas based on logic. It isn't part of their life, even if it built much of the world around them. It's like expecting a librarian's primary interest in a library to be the mechanical engineering behind its architectural design. You're not usually going to get them to ponder the sheer value of the nails in the boards, but you MAY be able to argue with them about the placement of the card catalog.
As such, with your average religious audience, an atheist, agnostic, or whomever, trying to ellicit change, has no choice but to be, essentially, deceptive. "They can't handle the truth." as it were.
It's unfortunate, but until someone has disconnected from the religion they currently hold, they aren't open to criticisms of it on an all-encompassing level. You have to start with how they think vs. how their religious leaders think vs. how their books read.
This comes from practice. When I was at uni, there was a truly deranged hellfire preacher who was trying to gather power -- he already has a SCHOOL of his own to mind-fuck kids with, many of whom he brought along with him. He also had a habit of informing women who wore pants that they were going to burn in hell for all eternity. As such, I had the need to fuck up his act.
Originally, I just used basic atheist arguments. He couldn't comprehend a word I said, nor could any of the students who weren't already atheists. It was like talking to a stupid child.
So, I switched methods. It was clear I wasn't going to help anyone by letting them question their beliefs, but I could at least prevent the SuperAsshole5000X version from gaining any power; better benevolent irrational ideas than malicious ones. So I abandoned rational discussion and turned to a mixture of interpretation, contradictory passages, challanges on interpretations, and, when he was just trying to yell over my words (which was often), a mixture of cartoon humor (mimicing his gestures, yelling louder and saying "I'm loud, therefor I'm right!," and so forth) and drums -- another guy with similar ideas brought his drums to play through the crazy, it was fun -- and then bringing in Christians-who-were-not-assholes to counter his assholery.
It was a SHOW. It eventually drew huge crowds. We even inspired a poorly-executed anti-hate rally. Many students on that campus, rather than take his BS like they usually would, got the courage up to assert their own views. There was empowerment, and there was an overall "Yay love, boo hellfire shit."
It also helped people shrug off the idea that an authoritative mature adult (read: fogey) should be automatically respected in their views. People were reminded of their right to question such authority, including in religious aspects, and it's possible that some people took something from those shows that might, just might, give them a chance to question their own beliefs, and look deeper in to them.
But lacking the threats the religious have, there wasn't much instant conversion going on, and there just wasn't time to get in to depth in regards to proper critical thinking methods.
As Qingu said, the average religious audience is nowhere near being able to actually judge ideas based on logic. It isn't part of their life, even if it built much of the world around them. It's like expecting a librarian's primary interest in a library to be the mechanical engineering behind its architectural design. You're not usually going to get them to ponder the sheer value of the nails in the boards, but you MAY be able to argue with them about the placement of the card catalog.
As such, with your average religious audience, an atheist, agnostic, or whomever, trying to ellicit change, has no choice but to be, essentially, deceptive. "They can't handle the truth." as it were.
I absolutely disagree! I hope you didn't derive this from anything I've said because I don't think this is the case AT ALL.
There is nothing "deceptive" about discussing the Bible (which is what I'm advocating in place of philosophical arguments against God). There is absolutely nothing deceptive about taking the text of the Bible seriously, studying it in its own context and its historical context, and presenting this to a religious person and asking them questions about it.
Just because you don't believe in the truth of the Bible doesn't mean you can't read the Bible and understand the Bible. People on this forum have accused me of "dishonestly" interpreting the Bible so that I can better attack it. That is nonsense—my interpretation of the Bible comes from a plain, honest reading of the text and comparing it to contemporary sources to elucidate meaning. There is a difference between believing the validity of an interpretation of a text and believing the claims of the text itself. (Example: Plato needs to be translated and understood, but you can "understand" Plato without "believing" Plato's claims).
The issue here, again, is that most Christians are simply Biblically illiterate. I believe the Bible is its worst enemy because an honest interpretation of the text reveals a book full of bronze-age morals—morals that most Americans, even Christians, find repugnant. I am not advocating dishonesty, I am advocating discussing the Bible in depth with believers. We should not view the Bible as "playing on their turf."
This comes from practice. When I was at uni, there was a truly deranged hellfire preacher who was trying to gather power -- he already has a SCHOOL of his own to mind-fuck kids with, many of whom he brought along with him. He also had a habit of informing women who wore pants that they were going to burn in hell for all eternity. As such, I had the need to fuck up his act.
Originally, I just used basic atheist arguments. He couldn't comprehend a word I said, nor could any of the students who weren't already atheists. It was like talking to a stupid child.
So, I switched methods. It was clear I wasn't going to help anyone by letting them question their beliefs, but I could at least prevent the SuperAsshole5000X version from gaining any power; better benevolent irrational ideas than malicious ones. So I abandoned rational discussion and turned to a mixture of interpretation, contradictory passages, challanges on interpretations, and, when he was just trying to yell over my words (which was often), a mixture of cartoon humor (mimicing his gestures, yelling louder and saying "I'm loud, therefor I'm right!," and so forth) and drums -- another guy with similar ideas brought his drums to play through the crazy, it was fun -- and then bringing in Christians-who-were-not-assholes to counter his assholery.
It was a SHOW. It eventually drew huge crowds. We even inspired a poorly-executed anti-hate rally. Many students on that campus, rather than take his BS like they usually would, got the courage up to assert their own views. There was empowerment, and there was an overall "Yay love, boo hellfire shit."
It also helped people shrug off the idea that an authoritative mature adult (read: fogey) should be automatically respected in their views. People were reminded of their right to question such authority, including in religious aspects, and it's possible that some people took something from those shows that might, just might, give them a chance to question their own beliefs, and look deeper in to them.
But lacking the threats the religious have, there wasn't much instant conversion going on, and there just wasn't time to get in to depth in regards to proper critical thinking methods.
What you described doesn't sound to me like "dishonesty." It sounds like, well, a fun show. We both agree that "rational argument about philosophical ideas" is not the only avenue to affect change amongst believers. But I don't think for a second that atheists should lie or resort to propoganda techniques to spread our message.
"Militant","Fundamentalist","Asshole" atheists are a dime a dozen on the internet, and it really is a big problem because they all tend to conglomerate together and bash religion in a masturbatory orgy of oblivious groupthink. I really have no problem with having a discussion with an atheist, online or in person, concerning matters of religion and God when that person is essentially open-minded. But when you all get together online and sneer at Christians and other theists for being narrow-minded and intellectually inferior, you don't even realize the irony of the situation. That is why the term "fundamentalist atheist" is not entirely unjustifiable.
Internet atheists/ agnostics/ nontheists have had a whopping five to ten years of organizational power over the tubes. The environment you describe is not wholly dissimilar to some churches I've been to.
You are correct, there are churches like that. That certainly does not excuse atheists from such behavior, however. They rush to defend an abrasive, close-minded fanatic like Richard Dawkins just as fundamentalist Christians rush to defend an abrasive, close-minded fanatic like Pat Robertson, and in both groups people are climbing over each other to reject the term "fundamentalist." The fact that they can't see that they're just as bad as the other group would almost be funny, if it weren't so sad.
Why do you think Dawkins is an "abrasive, close-minded fanatic"?
Can you cite something he said or did that calls to mind this description?
He has not done one or two clear-cut things that "make" him an abrasive, close-minded fanatic. I can, however, cite his overall smugness and condescension towards theists that pervades all of this works, from books to documentaries. He simply seems to not know very much about the subject of his most intense criticism.
The dishonesty is that there is an ulterior motive to the show, which is not explicitly mentioned. Sneaky may be a better word.
It's like how you take a kid to a museum with dinosaur exhibits, then run them by the part that isn't full of awesome skeletons and "Woooow, tyrannosaurus!" to make sure they actually get that something extra and broaden their horizons. If you just said, "Hey Timmy, we're going to the museum to look at the Declaration of Independence!" Timmy is likely to crap in your shoes.
--
Smugness goes both ways between theists and atheists. The primary alternative is pity, which is equally condescending. You have to keep in mind that each point of view is basically "you are living in a ridiculous fantasy world."
"Militant","Fundamentalist","Asshole" atheists are a dime a dozen on the internet, and it really is a big problem because they all tend to conglomerate together and bash religion in a masturbatory orgy of oblivious groupthink. I really have no problem with having a discussion with an atheist, online or in person, concerning matters of religion and God when that person is essentially open-minded. But when you all get together online and sneer at Christians and other theists for being narrow-minded and intellectually inferior, you don't even realize the irony of the situation. That is why the term "fundamentalist atheist" is not entirely unjustifiable.
Internet atheists/ agnostics/ nontheists have had a whopping five to ten years of organizational power over the tubes. The environment you describe is not wholly dissimilar to some churches I've been to.
You are correct, there are churches like that. That certainly does not excuse atheists from such behavior, however. They rush to defend an abrasive, close-minded fanatic like Richard Dawkins just as fundamentalist Christians rush to defend an abrasive, close-minded fanatic like Pat Robertson, and in both groups people are climbing over each other to reject the term "fundamentalist." The fact that they can't see that they're just as bad as the other group would almost be funny, if it weren't so sad.
Why do you think Dawkins is an "abrasive, close-minded fanatic"?
Can you cite something he said or did that calls to mind this description?
He has not done one or two clear-cut things that "make" him an abrasive, close-minded fanatic. I can, however, cite his overall smugness and condescension towards theists that pervades all of this works, from books to documentaries. He simply seems to not know very much about the subject of his most intense criticism.
You don't like his attitude? This just seems entirely subjective to me. I've read his book and watched a couple of his debates on Youtube and, while his writing has that sort of British high-fallootin'-ness, he seems perfectly polite and even friendly in his debates and speeches. He doesn't strike me as smug at all, he strikes me as passionate and concerned.
I suppose it's easy to offend someone by claiming that everything they believe and have faith in is a "delusion," but he supports his case with rational arguments, he is open to debate and criticism, and he's certainly not advocating violence or even personal attacks or name-calling.
And why don't you think he "knows very much about the subject of his most intense criticism"? Can you elaborate on this point, please? Are you saying he hasn't read and studied the Bible or the Quran?
Qingu, it's probably important to keep in mind that religiosity tends to center around Charismatic individuals. That's why nobody actually reads the texts. It's about the speakers and how they say what they say, not what they're basing the ideas on.
You know I'm tempted to post something but I think I'll wait another couple of weeks for the next time loren restarts this thread.
5 pages until the lock.
This is a thread about atheism, and a particular brand of atheism, not religion.
You're being disingenuous again, Loren. Atheism, as everyone has fallen all over themselves to point out, is not a set of beliefs but rather an absence of certain beliefs.
You cannot intelligibly discuss the absence of something without discussing the thing that is absent. Ergo, a discussion of atheism is necessarily a discussion of religion.
You're being disingenuous again, Loren. Atheism, as everyone has fallen all over themselves to point out, is not a set of beliefs but rather an absence of certain beliefs.
Again?
Anyways, you can hardly blame me for attempting to skirt an inane policy.
You're being disingenuous again, Loren. Atheism, as everyone has fallen all over themselves to point out, is not a set of beliefs but rather an absence of certain beliefs.
Again?
Indeed.
Anyways, yes, the ten-page rule is certainly conducive to vigorous discussion.
Anyways, you can hardly blame me for attempting to skirt an inane policy.
I'm not saying that economic advances won't help promote modernism in the Middle east, but it seems foolish to ignore the rather large religious consituency that is strictly opposed to much of what modernism has to offer.
Are they opposed to it because factories and management level positions exude evil, or because those factories are owned and run by Western corporations?
I don't know about "factories." My point was that science, when undertaken by devout Muslims who don't believe in things like evolution, is going to be very limited in its focus. Surely we've seen this in America with Christian creationists.
There are other areas of "modernity" that would be extremely limited by devout Islam. The book and music publishing industry immediately spring to mind—many devout Muslims believe that listening to music is a sin (Cat Stevens, upon converting to Islam, called for the record company to destroy all of his music—he has since softened his stance). I doubt many Muslims would support publishing any books that don't support the Quran or the principles set forth in the Quran.
I just think that the focus of so-called "modern" societies is completely different than the focus of Islamic societies. In modern societies, industries exist to provide pleasure and interest to consumers; books are written and movies are made for entertainment and to provoke discussion and interesting questions. I don't think many Westerners realize how alien such a society looks to Muslims, who believe society should exist for the propogation and worship of Islam and nothing else.
Hardcore atheist and hardcore fundamentalists are the same people to me.
The same as ultra right wing and ulta left wing politicians. Neither are worthy of respect or attention.
Can you cite an example of a "hardcore atheist" behaving in a way or writing something that you find so offensive?
I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm actually trying to write a book about atheism, so I'd like to know what sort of things seem to offend people like you so much.
If you think religious belief is irrational, I don't see how one interpretation of a scripture - or even not valuing a scripture at all - makes the belief any more or less rational.
It doesn't.
I just think it is funny when someone trying to convert someone else to atheism gets all angry because the person treats a scripture allegorically or doesn't put much weight on it.
It doesn't actually make a difference from the perspective of the atheists argument, but they get all frustrated and feel like the person is trying to cheat them of their rightful victory.
Wait, you really don't get why Dawkins talks about that? It's because changing your position mid-debate and claiming that was the position all along is annoying.
Let's say I tell you that all of the statements in the box below are irrefutably true.
(Most) grass is green.
The sun is yellow.
The sky is blue.
No kangaroo has ever survived in Australia for more than a week.
*more stuff*
And you object, saying kangaroos can survive longer than that. And then I tell you that that sentence is metaphorical so I was right all along.
Yes, it's irritating. It may not make a difference as far as your main argument is concerned (whatever that may be), but it's still irritating to anyone who isn't a Vulcan. As a result, people like Dawkins shy away from things like debating specific points of the religion itself because it's so easy for the other side to simply do the above. With enough rationalization, deconstruction, and meta-meta-meta-language, you can interpret anything anyway you want, even if it's the opposite of what it actually says; like when "JFK is not a homosexual" implies that JFK is a homosexual. It's annoying whether or not it actually changes anything.
Posts
Actually I wasn't talking about you.
You seem a little defensive.
Sorry. I thought you were talking about our argument on the other thread.
You are completely correct- it is wrong to conclude that a supernatural force does not exist just because there is no evidence for it. Note, however that the ad ignorantum fallacy you brought up earlier states that it is inappropriate to believe in something only because it has not been proven false, which is exactly what religion is reduced to. Atheism, however, doesn't do the reverse- I don't believe in the existence of God for more reasons than just the fact that it hasn't been proven true. It just helps, since it allows the room for doubt in the first place- if God were proven true, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Note also, with regards to Negative Proof, that it is not wrong to say that a supernatural force probably does not exist, because there is no evidence for it.
Basically, we can still estimate probability in a wholly non-fallacious way. If you want you can go all god of the gaps on me and say that even though religion has no evidence now, it might in the future- but I've already granted that point. It doesn't change the basic fact that until you have evidence for something, it is inappropriate to conclude that it exists. It's jumping to conclusions
As for rain, it seems to me that religion is all about looking to the sky in the middle of a torrential downpour and nevertheless declaring that it is not, in fact, raining. Or looking up at clear blue skies and declaring that it is, in fact, raining, only the rain is invisible, cloaked by God, or really sneaky.
Again, proof is for math. If you want to declare us requiring formal logic for informal subjects, then all discussion stops. All science stops. All conclusions are untenable, all assumptions wrong, all beliefs equal. This is just...silly.
No. You weren't really understanding what I was saying and I didn't care enough to invest the energy on that one.
- John Stuart Mill
No clue, I am not a practicing Christian. I just know that the Christian view of the OT and NT are rather different.
- John Stuart Mill
Except for the fact that the burden of proof is on the people who make the claim that god exists, because the default position is that he does not exists, since we cannot detect it.
If I claimed that there was a 4x4inch invisible solid cube floating 10 feet above my head, you would ask for proof. On the other hand, if I claimed there wasn't a 4x4 inch invisible solid cube above my head, you probably wouldn't ask for proof because, well, it is more reasonable to assume that there isn't one than there is one.
edit: And even if God exists, there is the question of why he has different religions scattered around the globe. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all believe in the same god, don't they? So which religion is "correct"? Why hasn't God interfered and said "no, Christianity is the religion, the others have interpretted me incorrectly"?
Just as inappropriate? Not at all. The two are not equally likely propositions.
And in that case, we don't reject the null hypothesis...and go with there being no God. That the universe is what it appears to be. Atheism is the default position. You don't adopt it because it has been proven- you adopt it because it is inappropriate to conclude otherwise without evidence.
Now, we can surely include the caveat that we must change our position in light of new evidence, but until that point, picking a religious or supernatural explanation without evidence for it is no different than just making something up. Or are you going to argue that I have to take every one of the following conclusions seriously: That God made the Heavens and the Earth, that Enki masturbated and created the Tigris and Euphrates River after Tiamaat gave birth to the Earth, that Thor is the Lord of Thunder, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created mountains and midgets, that there is no God and the universe formed through natural processes, that the universe has always existed following a cycle of reincarnation and rebirth...think about what you are arguing, here. In practice, does the absence of evidence for something not lead you towards believing in its absence? If there is no body, no bloody knife, no note saying: "I killed Jim. Signed- Bob", no missing persons report...do you still consider "No Murder Occurred" and "A Murder Occurred" equally likely?
Even if you lack proof either way, that does not mean two unproven conclusions are equal in merit. Sure, we can't say "for certain", but that's only relevant if you've got such a rigorous standard of certainty that you're willing to eliminate all science entirely.
EDIT: And also there is the burden of proof problem, as discussed by some smart fellow above. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof! Say it with me now...
Exactly.
But yeah modernism also seems to be pretty bound to westernism to a lot of the world.
I mean, sure, if I outright state: "There is no God, and I know this to be true", I'm so fallacious my eyeballs will pop out of my sockets.
But I have no reason to conclude that God exists. I just don't- there's no evidence for it. So I conclude that he very probably doesn't and move on. But this is apparently illogical- I'm supposed to lend equal credence to the idea that he exists just because I can't prove he doesn't? Why on Earth should I do that?
The reverse just isn't true. I have reason to conclude God does not exist. It makes no sense to say, "I have no reason to conclude God does not exist" because I obviously do! If that's the case, then I have no reason to conclude that Loki does not exist. I have no reason to conclude L. Ron Hubbard didn't ascend to a higher plane of being and controls me from the sky. I have no reason to conclude there isn't an invisible, intangible, inaudible and in...smell...able (what's the word for this?) polar bear on my couch. After all, I can't prove that any of those things do not exist just or did not happen just because there's no evidence for any of them. The evidence might be unavailable to me. But I'm not beholden to prove them at all since I'm not making those claims, and I'm not going to go around granting them tax-exempt status.
That's somewhat the primary problem with coaxing economic development, which would lead to political freedoms eventually. Well, that and 'zomg globalization is going to slaughter your sheep and enslave you' type issues. They can be undercut, though. It's just a matter of reworking how some aid is given and giving the aid good PR in the country by having it actually work well.
I don't see technological and scientific progress as a potential problem, because the technological progress of the west is almost universally envied in the middle east, not detested.
Did you learn nothing from our PM discussion on FSM? I've tried over and over to tell you that FSM is just a counterargument, not an allegory or mocking of religion.
As for there being a lot of "asshole" atheists, I don't think that's the case. I heard a lot about Dawkins being an "asshole" in the God Delusion, but all I found in there was passionate, well thought out arguments. Speaking your mind and backing up your ideas with reason (even if you're speaking out against something very popular) is not being an asshole.
I'm not saying that economic advances won't help promote modernism in the Middle east, but it seems foolish to ignore the rather large religious consituency that is strictly opposed to much of what modernism has to offer.
Are they opposed to it because factories and management level positions exude evil, or because those factories are owned and run by Western corporations?
The same as ultra right wing and ulta left wing politicians. Neither are worthy of respect or attention.
Just for future reference, this is not true about Turkey. Science education is taken very seriously and is conducted very secularly in most regions.
The thing of it is, I don't know of any 'fundamentalist' atheists who have any actual political power(ie: power to influence or create governmental policy), whereas fundamentalist Christians(ie: people like James Dobson and Pat Robertson) have lots of political influence, up to and including the President of the United States. So the situation between the two groups does not seem equal to me at all.
He said 'hardcore' athiest, not 'fundamentalist' athiest. He was also just commenting on their personalities rather than their power or influence over other people.
You are correct, there are churches like that. That certainly does not excuse atheists from such behavior, however. They rush to defend an abrasive, close-minded fanatic like Richard Dawkins just as fundamentalist Christians rush to defend an abrasive, close-minded fanatic like Pat Robertson, and in both groups people are climbing over each other to reject the term "fundamentalist." The fact that they can't see that they're just as bad as the other group would almost be funny, if it weren't so sad.
Can you cite something he said or did that calls to mind this description?
5 pages until the lock.
As such, with your average religious audience, an atheist, agnostic, or whomever, trying to ellicit change, has no choice but to be, essentially, deceptive. "They can't handle the truth." as it were.
It's unfortunate, but until someone has disconnected from the religion they currently hold, they aren't open to criticisms of it on an all-encompassing level. You have to start with how they think vs. how their religious leaders think vs. how their books read.
This comes from practice. When I was at uni, there was a truly deranged hellfire preacher who was trying to gather power -- he already has a SCHOOL of his own to mind-fuck kids with, many of whom he brought along with him. He also had a habit of informing women who wore pants that they were going to burn in hell for all eternity. As such, I had the need to fuck up his act.
Originally, I just used basic atheist arguments. He couldn't comprehend a word I said, nor could any of the students who weren't already atheists. It was like talking to a stupid child.
So, I switched methods. It was clear I wasn't going to help anyone by letting them question their beliefs, but I could at least prevent the SuperAsshole5000X version from gaining any power; better benevolent irrational ideas than malicious ones. So I abandoned rational discussion and turned to a mixture of interpretation, contradictory passages, challanges on interpretations, and, when he was just trying to yell over my words (which was often), a mixture of cartoon humor (mimicing his gestures, yelling louder and saying "I'm loud, therefor I'm right!," and so forth) and drums -- another guy with similar ideas brought his drums to play through the crazy, it was fun -- and then bringing in Christians-who-were-not-assholes to counter his assholery.
It was a SHOW. It eventually drew huge crowds. We even inspired a poorly-executed anti-hate rally. Many students on that campus, rather than take his BS like they usually would, got the courage up to assert their own views. There was empowerment, and there was an overall "Yay love, boo hellfire shit."
It also helped people shrug off the idea that an authoritative mature adult (read: fogey) should be automatically respected in their views. People were reminded of their right to question such authority, including in religious aspects, and it's possible that some people took something from those shows that might, just might, give them a chance to question their own beliefs, and look deeper in to them.
But lacking the threats the religious have, there wasn't much instant conversion going on, and there just wasn't time to get in to depth in regards to proper critical thinking methods.
There is nothing "deceptive" about discussing the Bible (which is what I'm advocating in place of philosophical arguments against God). There is absolutely nothing deceptive about taking the text of the Bible seriously, studying it in its own context and its historical context, and presenting this to a religious person and asking them questions about it.
Just because you don't believe in the truth of the Bible doesn't mean you can't read the Bible and understand the Bible. People on this forum have accused me of "dishonestly" interpreting the Bible so that I can better attack it. That is nonsense—my interpretation of the Bible comes from a plain, honest reading of the text and comparing it to contemporary sources to elucidate meaning. There is a difference between believing the validity of an interpretation of a text and believing the claims of the text itself. (Example: Plato needs to be translated and understood, but you can "understand" Plato without "believing" Plato's claims).
The issue here, again, is that most Christians are simply Biblically illiterate. I believe the Bible is its worst enemy because an honest interpretation of the text reveals a book full of bronze-age morals—morals that most Americans, even Christians, find repugnant. I am not advocating dishonesty, I am advocating discussing the Bible in depth with believers. We should not view the Bible as "playing on their turf."
What you described doesn't sound to me like "dishonesty." It sounds like, well, a fun show. We both agree that "rational argument about philosophical ideas" is not the only avenue to affect change amongst believers. But I don't think for a second that atheists should lie or resort to propoganda techniques to spread our message.
He has not done one or two clear-cut things that "make" him an abrasive, close-minded fanatic. I can, however, cite his overall smugness and condescension towards theists that pervades all of this works, from books to documentaries. He simply seems to not know very much about the subject of his most intense criticism.
It's like how you take a kid to a museum with dinosaur exhibits, then run them by the part that isn't full of awesome skeletons and "Woooow, tyrannosaurus!" to make sure they actually get that something extra and broaden their horizons. If you just said, "Hey Timmy, we're going to the museum to look at the Declaration of Independence!" Timmy is likely to crap in your shoes.
--
Smugness goes both ways between theists and atheists. The primary alternative is pity, which is equally condescending. You have to keep in mind that each point of view is basically "you are living in a ridiculous fantasy world."
I suppose it's easy to offend someone by claiming that everything they believe and have faith in is a "delusion," but he supports his case with rational arguments, he is open to debate and criticism, and he's certainly not advocating violence or even personal attacks or name-calling.
And why don't you think he "knows very much about the subject of his most intense criticism"? Can you elaborate on this point, please? Are you saying he hasn't read and studied the Bible or the Quran?
Hence Televangelism.
This is a thread about atheism, and a particular brand of atheism, not religion.
Anyways, yes, the ten-page rule is certainly conducive to vigorous discussion.
Abortion threads should also have a ten page rule. It would do well to keep them on-topic, I think.
You cannot intelligibly discuss the absence of something without discussing the thing that is absent. Ergo, a discussion of atheism is necessarily a discussion of religion.
Again?
Anyways, you can hardly blame me for attempting to skirt an inane policy.
Again.
I graciously accept the rebuke.
There are other areas of "modernity" that would be extremely limited by devout Islam. The book and music publishing industry immediately spring to mind—many devout Muslims believe that listening to music is a sin (Cat Stevens, upon converting to Islam, called for the record company to destroy all of his music—he has since softened his stance). I doubt many Muslims would support publishing any books that don't support the Quran or the principles set forth in the Quran.
I just think that the focus of so-called "modern" societies is completely different than the focus of Islamic societies. In modern societies, industries exist to provide pleasure and interest to consumers; books are written and movies are made for entertainment and to provoke discussion and interesting questions. I don't think many Westerners realize how alien such a society looks to Muslims, who believe society should exist for the propogation and worship of Islam and nothing else.
I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm actually trying to write a book about atheism, so I'd like to know what sort of things seem to offend people like you so much.
Wait, you really don't get why Dawkins talks about that? It's because changing your position mid-debate and claiming that was the position all along is annoying.
Let's say I tell you that all of the statements in the box below are irrefutably true.
And you object, saying kangaroos can survive longer than that. And then I tell you that that sentence is metaphorical so I was right all along.
Yes, it's irritating. It may not make a difference as far as your main argument is concerned (whatever that may be), but it's still irritating to anyone who isn't a Vulcan. As a result, people like Dawkins shy away from things like debating specific points of the religion itself because it's so easy for the other side to simply do the above. With enough rationalization, deconstruction, and meta-meta-meta-language, you can interpret anything anyway you want, even if it's the opposite of what it actually says; like when "JFK is not a homosexual" implies that JFK is a homosexual. It's annoying whether or not it actually changes anything.