As to the people vs. units in society thing: I don't make a habit of calling people anything other than people. I don't think it's practical or even possible to consider the entire breadth of the human experience when making a prediction or judgment about behavior or morals, but uh... wait what were you getting at here?
It seemed as though you might have thought that in absence of church, everyone that depends on it for a social network could simply find another one. Stating otherwise was my only point in saying that--it was not a point in and of itself.
I'm going to say this again with brevity since my earlier post (which contained paragraphs!!1one) seems to have gone ignored. The quote from Dawkins in the OP refers to government-funded unis in the UK whose theology programs are designed to groom Anglican ministers. They discuss other religions, but when they do it is from the Christian perspective - i.e. how to refute their claims or how they are actually just muddlings of Christian thought. The purpose is not to educate about the complicated relationship between human beings and religion, but to educate about a specific dogma.
I understand that, and I think that makes the theological education process more applicable. I think there should be a "seperate but equal" approach, though I don't know how practical that would be.
Separate but equal what now? I understand that the fact that ministry as a profession is usually the goal makes Theology economically viable (what you mean by applicable?) but the real problem here is the government subsidy of the whole thing. In the US that isn't even legal, and all evidence that I have seen points to the preservation of separation of church and state being beneficial to both the state and the church.
Obviously I don't give a damn about the church, but I do care about the state. They have guns, and, occasionally, badges.
My thinking is this: It's okay to have a class like that for Christians if you have one for Jews, and Moslems, and any other applicable religious groups, as well as a secular religious studies class, yes?
But again, I don't know how practical that would be. If nothing like that proved possible, then I would have to go with the secular religious studies idea. One class to rule them all.
My thinking is this: It's okay to have a class like that for Christians if you have one for Jews, and Moslems, and any other applicable religious groups, as well as a secular religious studies class, yes?
But again, I don't know how practical that would be.
It isn't. At all. There are literally thousands of sects within dozens of major religions. You have to pick one, and secular religious studies is the only one that doesn't (shouldn't) piss anyone off.
I should point out that a religious studies class that overtly pushes atheism is as bad as a Christian theology course. The value of atheism is that it is a conclusion that can and will be reached without anyone telling you what to think. If you're an atheist because you're told not to believe you're doing it wrong, and the authority who pushed it on you is as bad as... an extremely liberal preacher. So not very bad. But kinda hypocritical.
Actually I have no idea why I have such a visceral reaction to faith-based atheism, maybe because it does so much damage to a cause that I care about. Hm.
My thinking is this: It's okay to have a class like that for Christians if you have one for Jews, and Moslems, and any other applicable religious groups, as well as a secular religious studies class, yes?
But again, I don't know how practical that would be.
It isn't. At all. There are literally thousands of sects within dozens of major religions. You have to pick one, and secular religious studies is the only one that doesn't (shouldn't) piss anyone off.
I should point out that a religious studies class that overtly pushes atheism is as bad as a Christian theology course. The whole point of atheism is that it is a conclusion that can and will be reached without anyone telling you what to think. If you're an atheist because you're told not to believe you're doing it wrong, and the authority who pushed it on you is as bad as... an extremely liberal preacher. So not very bad. But kinda hypocritical.
Actually I have no idea why I have such a visceral reaction to faith-based atheism, maybe because it does so much damage to a cause that I care about. Hm.
There isn't a "point" of atheism, and there's no "doing atheism wrong", there's only "being an atheist for specious and/or dogmatic reasons".
I have a somewhat visceral reaction to pretty much anyone who brings up an exceptionally poor argument (so long as I'm able to perceive it as such), but I don't hold "atheism" up as some noble end. I suspect you have such a visceral reaction because you have taken up atheism as a dogma, and you've become one of those annoying ideological purists.
I have a somewhat visceral reaction to pretty much anyone who brings up an exceptionally poor argument (so long as I'm able to perceive it as such), but I don't hold "atheism" up as some noble end. I suspect you have such a visceral reaction because you have taken up atheism as a dogma, and you've become one of those annoying ideological purists.
There isn't a "point" of atheism, and there's no "doing atheism wrong", there's only "being an atheist for specious and/or dogmatic reasons".
I read the earlier thread where someone (emnmne?) seriously thought that atheism meant something other than "not believing in god." I am not that person. Do not put their nonsense in my mouth.
However my post was extremely unclear on this front. When I said "doing it wrong" especially. "It" is really referring to thinking, not atheism.
I have a somewhat visceral reaction to pretty much anyone who brings up an exceptionally poor argument (so long as I'm able to perceive it as such), but I don't hold "atheism" up as some noble end. I suspect you have such a visceral reaction because you have taken up atheism as a dogma, and you've become one of those annoying ideological purists.
Poor arguments for atheism, in my mind, are worse than poor arguments for Linux and poor arguments for parabolic skis, even though I care a good deal more about those two things than I do about atheism. In the United States there is a serious issue with encroachment of the church on the state, and the argument in defense of it is that secularism is equally dogmatic.
But yes, in the strictest sense of the value of the argument in a vacuum there is no difference between poor arguments for atheism and any other poor argument. But in the sense of which sort of argument is more damaging to society, I think that dogmatic atheism is pretty scary.
I read the earlier thread where someone (emnmne?) seriously thought that atheism meant something other than "not believing in god." I am not that person. Do not put their nonsense in my mouth.
However that post was extremely unclear on this front. When I said "doing it wrong" especially. "It" is really referring to thinking, not atheism.
And the reason for the reaction is very simple. Every time someone is revealed to believe in no god because of dogma, those who desperately want to believe that all atheists are dogmatists are given powerful ammunition.
I retract my rebuke, then.
I tend to buy Sam Harris' argument that it's folly to persistently identify as part of an "atheist" group for that reason. When you wear that label on your sleeve, suddenly you're implicitly (though not actually) responsible for how and what every other atheist believes. It's a statement of non-belief, not a tribe, and people would do well to stop throwing it out there as such.
I tend to buy Sam Harris' argument that it's folly to persistently identify as part of an "atheist" group for that reason. When you wear that label on your sleeve, suddenly you're implicitly (though not actually) responsible for how and what every other atheist believes. It's a statement of non-belief, not a tribe, and people would do well to stop throwing it out there as such.
Which is why I prefer skeptic, if I must rally to a label.
Metaphysical in the "this is what Jesus tells us about this, and this is why we believe it" sense. The stuff that doesn't have any actual application in reality because there's no reason to believe it exists.
I think after 2000 years it may be fairly difficult to separate Christian dogma from Christian philosophy and theology, and given that Christian dogma still holds a great deal of sway over much of the world it would probably be a mistake to count that philosophy out. While it may not exist literally, a whole lot of people act as though it does, and so it effects the world regardless.
Metaphysical in the "this is what Jesus tells us about this, and this is why we believe it" sense. The stuff that doesn't have any actual application in reality because there's no reason to believe it exists.
I'm not religious in the slightest, but until you can give me some way in which you can vindicate the belief that it doesn't exist, I'll continue not caring. You don't have the universe figured out. Nobody does.
The scientific method has led to a much more astute understanding of the universe. Religious learning doesn't employ this in the slightest, and given that you're either doing a thought experiment or you need actual objective evidence to proclaim something in the scientific world without being called a kook, yeah, that understanding of the universe has much more validity.
Metaphysical in the "this is what Jesus tells us about this, and this is why we believe it" sense. The stuff that doesn't have any actual application in reality because there's no reason to believe it exists.
I'm not religious in the slightest, but until you can give me some way in which you can vindicate the belief that it doesn't exist, I'll continue not caring. You don't have the universe figured out. Nobody does.
The scientific method has led to a much more astute understanding of the universe. Religious learning doesn't employ this in the slightest, and given that you're either doing a thought experiment or you need actual objective evidence to proclaim something in the scientific world without being called a kook, yeah, that understanding of the universe has much more validity.
The scientific method calls for open-mindedness toward the possibility of all manner of things, not closing down and believing that they DON'T exist unless proven otherwise.
The scientific method calls for open-mindedness toward the possibility of all manner of things, not closing down and believing that they DON'T exist unless proven otherwise.
On the contrary, falsifiability is an integral part of science.
Yes, an untested hypothesis must not be closed down just because it's untested.
But something like "the sky is a solid dome with water above it"—the claim made in Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the Bible—is a testable hypothesis. It's also false.
Likewise falsifiable assumptions undermine philosophy too. Plato isn't taken too seriously anymore because we know lots of the stuff he assumed was provably false.
by that logic many "acceptable" secular academic disciplines should also be abandoned. I mean, how relevant is astronomy to a university education anymore?
Speaking as someone working in the operations directorate of a space agency, pretty relevant.
I'll admit that there's a possibility, because I spend a lot of time here drunk and with my head up my arse, but I'm almost definite I never said anything like that.
You are absolutely right, I must have removed the incorrect quote tags when I replied, when I went back and checked it was said by Zalbinion in response to a post of yours. That was a bad mistake on my part and I hope you will accept my apologies for incorrectly attributing that to you.
I will see if I can edit my original reply to correct my error.
The scientific method calls for open-mindedness toward the possibility of all manner of things, not closing down and believing that they DON'T exist unless proven otherwise.
This really can't be rebutted enough, because it's one of those classic arguments (like "it's only a theory") that both shows a lack of understanding and is incredibly destructive once people buy into it and stop actually thinking about it.
There is a world of difference between saying something isn't true, or a belief in it is irrational, and going against the scientific method by being close-minded. You can only say something is true if you can PROVE it's true, not just because you real want it to be or because you believe it is. I, and pretty much every person in the world, would love to see proof that religion is true, but that doesn't make it in the least bit wrong to say that believing religion is true given our current understanding of existence is irrational.
Really, I can't stress enough how wrong the idea "I'll believe whatever I please until you can prove I shouldn't" is. Honestly, I couldn't care less what you believe, but don't pervert the label of rationality just because it would make you feel better about your beliefs.
We who doubt that "theology" is a subject at all, or who compare it with the study of leprechauns
If billions of people believed in leprechauns, we would have plenty of university departments devoted to the study of them.
Also, if the case against theology & religion is such a given as Dawkins and co. claim, then they should be having a much easier time arguing that case. It isn't the unthinking denial of fundamentalists that are hampering him, it's the fact that most of his public arguments nowadays rely on thin rhetoric and little to no reasoning.
...and I largely agree with the man for fucks sake.
PS It's the Independant, read a real newspaper ffs!
The scientific method calls for open-mindedness toward the possibility of all manner of things, not closing down and believing that they DON'T exist unless proven otherwise.
This really can't be rebutted enough
You are correct, but not in the way you think you are.
When did scientific methodology become the measure of a subject's fitness for inclusion in a curriculum?
When it comes to rigorous academics, we need to have some measures validity. Without it, we could have people running around teaching how to tell primitive indigenous peoples in third world countries about the invisible, imaginary sky bully that will send them to hell if they don't acquiesce.
When did scientific methodology become the measure of a subject's fitness for inclusion in a curriculum?
When it comes to rigorous academics, we need to have some measures validity. Without it, we could have people running around teaching how to tell primitive indigenous peoples in third world countries about the invisible, imaginary sky bully that will send them to hell if they don't acquiesce.
Oh wait.
People that say things like that make me wish for Hell to be real and in effect, provided that it isn't.
I don't see what gets people so riled up about calling a spade a spade. I actually audited a few of my school's religion classes out of purely morbid curiosity when I was an undergrad, just to see what the fuck it was they were learning about. Of the three I sat in on, only one was even close to a legitimate class, and that was Christian Canon, an examination of the process by which books have canonized in the bible. The other two, Children's Ministries and Christian Creed, were both amazing schlock.
Seriously, one entire class devoted to how to teach the bible to children, and how to, not joking here, avoid certain topics and books, specifically Nahum, when discussing it. They wouldn't have called it avoidance, but the recommended answer to hard questions from little kids turned into something like, "You'll understand when you're older, so close your mouth and eat your swill." Christian Creed was nothing more than the practice of mental distraction, discussing things like why they believe Jesus didn't have any siblings.
I went to a private school, a Baptist school no less, so they don't really have a place in this discussion. I don't know if there are public schools out there that teach like that, but I would not have a hard time believing they do. It's a waste of time, plain and simple.
You keep throwing out that word, "vindication." It's almost like you just don't realize that, if plausibility were a linear scale, religion would be so far behind the scientific method that it wouldn't even register.
You keep throwing out that word, "vindication." It's almost like you just don't realize that, if plausibility were my linear scale, religion would be so far behind the scientific method that it wouldn't even register.
It really helps when you highlight what you change, but you've still managed to utterly fail. You know what's wonderful about the scientific method? Objectivity. Everybody can share it. This debases that little qualifier you tossed up there so childishly.
It really helps when you highlight what you change, but you've still managed to utterly fail. You know what's wonderful about the scientific method? Objectivity. Everybody can share it. This debases that little qualifier you tossed up there so childishly.
Nice reasoning. Your crappy insults really did a good job of explaining why your own beliefs are sound.
by that logic many "acceptable" secular academic disciplines should also be abandoned. I mean, how relevant is astronomy to a university education anymore?
Speaking as someone working in the operations directorate of a space agency, pretty relevant.
I'll admit that there's a possibility, because I spend a lot of time here drunk and with my head up my arse, but I'm almost definite I never said anything like that.
You are absolutely right, I must have removed the incorrect quote tags when I replied, when I went back and checked it was said by Zalbinion in response to a post of yours. That was a bad mistake on my part and I hope you will accept my apologies for incorrectly attributing that to you.
I will see if I can edit my original reply to correct my error.
People have said some similar things about Philosophy. Let me tell everyone something about Philosophy. It's not the same thing as theology.
I don't see what gets people so riled up about calling a spade a spade.
Of course. It's that they're delusional. It can't possibly be that they disagree with you.
You have no way to vindicate your own beliefs. Rather than face that reality, you pretend that those that oppose your view are lunatics.
You are the equal opposite of a fundie. An anti-fundie.
The point here is that we DO have a way to validate (since I'd rather not get into the emotionally laden vindicate and the basic meaning here is the same) what is or is not true. You look at all the current evidence regarding phenomena/idea X and you determine what conclusions are or are not supported by a objective examination of reality. It's called the scientific method, or alternately rationality.
Now, and this is the point that sometimes gets lost, just because something is not rationally supported doesn't mean it is 100% guaranteed to be false. It simply means to the best of our ability to determine it is not true. It's the only consistent method human history has found to determine what is true without also buying into things that are also false.
You, and basically everyone in existence, can and do believe things all the time that are irrational. While it is a natural part of being human, that doesn't mean we need to treat any one person's (or group's) irrational beliefs as if they carried the same weight as rational beliefs just because they want them to be more "valid".
Wait, you wished me to hell, and now you're just dodging the argument by going all high-and-mighty about insults?
You're a fucking hypocrite.
Don't get me wrong, if there is a Hell, we're both going and we both fully deserve it.
Insult me all you want, by the way. It doesn't bother me. But don't use insults in place of reasoning.
Werehippy: For the most part, you're right, but I'm speaking specifically of the universe's origins. All the evidence in the world that supports the big bang theory won't determine whether it "just happened" or whether some sort of divine entity caused it.
Werehippy: For the most part, you're right, but I'm speaking specifically of the universe's origins. All the evidence in the world that supports the big bang theory won't determine whether it "just happened" or whether some sort of divine entity caused it.
By the same token, all the faith in the world won't make believing it was divine intervention as opposed to a natural phenomena that caused the big bang rational. There exist some topics about which it is simply impossible for humanity to currently say anything rational about, but that doesn't make all other irrationality any more valid a viewpoint.
Werehippy: For the most part, you're right, but I'm speaking specifically of the universe's origins. All the evidence in the world that supports the big bang theory won't determine whether it "just happened" or whether some sort of divine entity caused it.
By the same token, all the faith in the world won't make believing it was divine intervention as opposed to a natural phenomena that caused the big bang rational. There exist some topics about which it is simply impossible for humanity to currently say anything rational about, but that doesn't make all other irrationality any more valid a viewpoint.
Understand that my argument is this: Nobody knows.
Werehippy: For the most part, you're right, but I'm speaking specifically of the universe's origins. All the evidence in the world that supports the big bang theory won't determine whether it "just happened" or whether some sort of divine entity caused it.
By the same token, all the faith in the world won't make believing it was divine intervention as opposed to a natural phenomena that caused the big bang rational. There exist some topics about which it is simply impossible for humanity to currently say anything rational about, but that doesn't make all other irrationality any more valid a viewpoint.
Understand that my argument is this: Nobody knows. I am agnostic.
And don't take this as harping on you, but agnostic is no more solid than deistic on logical grounds. The only rational answer to "Does X exist?" in the absence of evidence is not "Yes" or "Maybe", it's "No, but let me know if you find any evidence".
I have no particular issues with agnostics, since I share a lot more common ground with them than I do with passionate deists, but that doesn't mean I think it's a rational position. It's not like irrationality is something like pedophilia, something to be stamped out immediately where ever it exists, but calling it by another name does humanity no good either.
Werehippy: For the most part, you're right, but I'm speaking specifically of the universe's origins. All the evidence in the world that supports the big bang theory won't determine whether it "just happened" or whether some sort of divine entity caused it.
By the same token, all the faith in the world won't make believing it was divine intervention as opposed to a natural phenomena that caused the big bang rational. There exist some topics about which it is simply impossible for humanity to currently say anything rational about, but that doesn't make all other irrationality any more valid a viewpoint.
Understand that my argument is this: Nobody knows.
Understand that that is an absolutely stupid argument. That's the kind of shit logic people use to support ID, and you're basically doing the same thing.
Werehippy: For the most part, you're right, but I'm speaking specifically of the universe's origins. All the evidence in the world that supports the big bang theory won't determine whether it "just happened" or whether some sort of divine entity caused it.
By the same token, all the faith in the world won't make believing it was divine intervention as opposed to a natural phenomena that caused the big bang rational. There exist some topics about which it is simply impossible for humanity to currently say anything rational about, but that doesn't make all other irrationality any more valid a viewpoint.
Understand that my argument is this: Nobody knows. I am agnostic.
And don't take this as harping on you, but agnostic is no more solid than deistic on logical grounds. The only rational answer to "Does X exist?" in the absence of evidence is not "Yes" or "Maybe", it's "No, but let me know if you find any evidence".
Edit: Wait, no. I misread that. If there is no evidence to the presence or absence of X, then you can not credit any answer as rational unless you have pre-determined parametres for what is rational under these circumstances. Obviously you do, but they are yours to decide on.
Understand that that is an absolutely stupid argument. That's the kind of shit logic people use to support ID, and you're basically doing the same thing.
Again, plausibility.
You're a whip. Your powers of persuasion leave little room to argue. Calling my argument stupid without countering it in any way at all is the surest way to convince me you are right.
Understand that my argument is this: Nobody knows. I am agnostic.
And don't take this as harping on you, but agnostic is no more solid than deistic on logical grounds. The only rational answer to "Does X exist?" in the absence of evidence is not "Yes" or "Maybe", it's "No, but let me know if you find any evidence".
Edit: Wait, no. I misread that. If there is no evidence to the presence or absence of X, then you can not credit any answer as rational unless you have pre-determined parametres for what is rational under these circumstances. Obviously you do, but they are yours to decide on.
Then maybe we have a semantic issue here, because the green isn't agnostic but "weak" (oh how I hate that stupid name) atheism, or at least that's the generally accepted definitions as I understand it.
edit: I have to strongly disagree. We HAVE to discard (or at least count as untrue) ideas for which there is no support, or the only other option is to accept every possible claim that isn't directly disproven. It's a choice between either discounting the existence of all gods, or accepting that I have an invisible leprechaun in my garage.
While there's nothing in the set up of the the universe that determines the rules of rationality, they do have a commonly agreed upon definition and that's what I've been laying out. You can chose not to accept it, but then you have to discount the process of rationality itself (since a bastardization won't work). It's not exactly a debatable point, but it does seem to be the point we aren't seeing eye to eye on.
Posts
It seemed as though you might have thought that in absence of church, everyone that depends on it for a social network could simply find another one. Stating otherwise was my only point in saying that--it was not a point in and of itself.
Separate but equal what now? I understand that the fact that ministry as a profession is usually the goal makes Theology economically viable (what you mean by applicable?) but the real problem here is the government subsidy of the whole thing. In the US that isn't even legal, and all evidence that I have seen points to the preservation of separation of church and state being beneficial to both the state and the church.
Obviously I don't give a damn about the church, but I do care about the state. They have guns, and, occasionally, badges.
But again, I don't know how practical that would be. If nothing like that proved possible, then I would have to go with the secular religious studies idea. One class to rule them all.
It isn't. At all. There are literally thousands of sects within dozens of major religions. You have to pick one, and secular religious studies is the only one that doesn't (shouldn't) piss anyone off.
I should point out that a religious studies class that overtly pushes atheism is as bad as a Christian theology course. The value of atheism is that it is a conclusion that can and will be reached without anyone telling you what to think. If you're an atheist because you're told not to believe you're doing it wrong, and the authority who pushed it on you is as bad as... an extremely liberal preacher. So not very bad. But kinda hypocritical.
Actually I have no idea why I have such a visceral reaction to faith-based atheism, maybe because it does so much damage to a cause that I care about. Hm.
Yeah, it was a bit too open-ended, given the subject matter. I got lazy. Sorry everyone.
There isn't a "point" of atheism, and there's no "doing atheism wrong", there's only "being an atheist for specious and/or dogmatic reasons".
I have a somewhat visceral reaction to pretty much anyone who brings up an exceptionally poor argument (so long as I'm able to perceive it as such), but I don't hold "atheism" up as some noble end. I suspect you have such a visceral reaction because you have taken up atheism as a dogma, and you've become one of those annoying ideological purists.
Those are the worst.
I read the earlier thread where someone (emnmne?) seriously thought that atheism meant something other than "not believing in god." I am not that person. Do not put their nonsense in my mouth.
However my post was extremely unclear on this front. When I said "doing it wrong" especially. "It" is really referring to thinking, not atheism.
Poor arguments for atheism, in my mind, are worse than poor arguments for Linux and poor arguments for parabolic skis, even though I care a good deal more about those two things than I do about atheism. In the United States there is a serious issue with encroachment of the church on the state, and the argument in defense of it is that secularism is equally dogmatic.
But yes, in the strictest sense of the value of the argument in a vacuum there is no difference between poor arguments for atheism and any other poor argument. But in the sense of which sort of argument is more damaging to society, I think that dogmatic atheism is pretty scary.
I retract my rebuke, then.
I tend to buy Sam Harris' argument that it's folly to persistently identify as part of an "atheist" group for that reason. When you wear that label on your sleeve, suddenly you're implicitly (though not actually) responsible for how and what every other atheist believes. It's a statement of non-belief, not a tribe, and people would do well to stop throwing it out there as such.
Which is why I prefer skeptic, if I must rally to a label.
I think after 2000 years it may be fairly difficult to separate Christian dogma from Christian philosophy and theology, and given that Christian dogma still holds a great deal of sway over much of the world it would probably be a mistake to count that philosophy out. While it may not exist literally, a whole lot of people act as though it does, and so it effects the world regardless.
Just sayin'.
The scientific method has led to a much more astute understanding of the universe. Religious learning doesn't employ this in the slightest, and given that you're either doing a thought experiment or you need actual objective evidence to proclaim something in the scientific world without being called a kook, yeah, that understanding of the universe has much more validity.
The scientific method calls for open-mindedness toward the possibility of all manner of things, not closing down and believing that they DON'T exist unless proven otherwise.
Yes, an untested hypothesis must not be closed down just because it's untested.
But something like "the sky is a solid dome with water above it"—the claim made in Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the Bible—is a testable hypothesis. It's also false.
You are absolutely right, I must have removed the incorrect quote tags when I replied, when I went back and checked it was said by Zalbinion in response to a post of yours. That was a bad mistake on my part and I hope you will accept my apologies for incorrectly attributing that to you.
I will see if I can edit my original reply to correct my error.
This really can't be rebutted enough, because it's one of those classic arguments (like "it's only a theory") that both shows a lack of understanding and is incredibly destructive once people buy into it and stop actually thinking about it.
There is a world of difference between saying something isn't true, or a belief in it is irrational, and going against the scientific method by being close-minded. You can only say something is true if you can PROVE it's true, not just because you real want it to be or because you believe it is. I, and pretty much every person in the world, would love to see proof that religion is true, but that doesn't make it in the least bit wrong to say that believing religion is true given our current understanding of existence is irrational.
Really, I can't stress enough how wrong the idea "I'll believe whatever I please until you can prove I shouldn't" is. Honestly, I couldn't care less what you believe, but don't pervert the label of rationality just because it would make you feel better about your beliefs.
If billions of people believed in leprechauns, we would have plenty of university departments devoted to the study of them.
Also, if the case against theology & religion is such a given as Dawkins and co. claim, then they should be having a much easier time arguing that case. It isn't the unthinking denial of fundamentalists that are hampering him, it's the fact that most of his public arguments nowadays rely on thin rhetoric and little to no reasoning.
...and I largely agree with the man for fucks sake.
PS It's the Independant, read a real newspaper ffs!
You are correct, but not in the way you think you are.
When it comes to rigorous academics, we need to have some measures validity. Without it, we could have people running around teaching how to tell primitive indigenous peoples in third world countries about the invisible, imaginary sky bully that will send them to hell if they don't acquiesce.
Oh wait.
People that say things like that make me wish for Hell to be real and in effect, provided that it isn't.
Seriously, one entire class devoted to how to teach the bible to children, and how to, not joking here, avoid certain topics and books, specifically Nahum, when discussing it. They wouldn't have called it avoidance, but the recommended answer to hard questions from little kids turned into something like, "You'll understand when you're older, so close your mouth and eat your swill." Christian Creed was nothing more than the practice of mental distraction, discussing things like why they believe Jesus didn't have any siblings.
I went to a private school, a Baptist school no less, so they don't really have a place in this discussion. I don't know if there are public schools out there that teach like that, but I would not have a hard time believing they do. It's a waste of time, plain and simple.
Of course. It's that they're delusional. It can't possibly be that they disagree with you.
You have no way to vindicate your own beliefs. Rather than face that reality, you pretend that those that oppose your view are lunatics.
You are the equal opposite of a fundie. An anti-fundie.
Nice reasoning. Your crappy insults really did a good job of explaining why your own beliefs are sound.
You're a fucking hypocrite.
People have said some similar things about Philosophy. Let me tell everyone something about Philosophy. It's not the same thing as theology.
The point here is that we DO have a way to validate (since I'd rather not get into the emotionally laden vindicate and the basic meaning here is the same) what is or is not true. You look at all the current evidence regarding phenomena/idea X and you determine what conclusions are or are not supported by a objective examination of reality. It's called the scientific method, or alternately rationality.
Now, and this is the point that sometimes gets lost, just because something is not rationally supported doesn't mean it is 100% guaranteed to be false. It simply means to the best of our ability to determine it is not true. It's the only consistent method human history has found to determine what is true without also buying into things that are also false.
You, and basically everyone in existence, can and do believe things all the time that are irrational. While it is a natural part of being human, that doesn't mean we need to treat any one person's (or group's) irrational beliefs as if they carried the same weight as rational beliefs just because they want them to be more "valid".
Don't get me wrong, if there is a Hell, we're both going and we both fully deserve it.
Insult me all you want, by the way. It doesn't bother me. But don't use insults in place of reasoning.
Werehippy: For the most part, you're right, but I'm speaking specifically of the universe's origins. All the evidence in the world that supports the big bang theory won't determine whether it "just happened" or whether some sort of divine entity caused it.
By the same token, all the faith in the world won't make believing it was divine intervention as opposed to a natural phenomena that caused the big bang rational. There exist some topics about which it is simply impossible for humanity to currently say anything rational about, but that doesn't make all other irrationality any more valid a viewpoint.
Understand that my argument is this: Nobody knows.
And don't take this as harping on you, but agnostic is no more solid than deistic on logical grounds. The only rational answer to "Does X exist?" in the absence of evidence is not "Yes" or "Maybe", it's "No, but let me know if you find any evidence".
I have no particular issues with agnostics, since I share a lot more common ground with them than I do with passionate deists, but that doesn't mean I think it's a rational position. It's not like irrationality is something like pedophilia, something to be stamped out immediately where ever it exists, but calling it by another name does humanity no good either.
Understand that that is an absolutely stupid argument. That's the kind of shit logic people use to support ID, and you're basically doing the same thing.
Again, plausibility.
Edit: Wait, no. I misread that. If there is no evidence to the presence or absence of X, then you can not credit any answer as rational unless you have pre-determined parametres for what is rational under these circumstances. Obviously you do, but they are yours to decide on.
You're a whip. Your powers of persuasion leave little room to argue. Calling my argument stupid without countering it in any way at all is the surest way to convince me you are right.
Then maybe we have a semantic issue here, because the green isn't agnostic but "weak" (oh how I hate that stupid name) atheism, or at least that's the generally accepted definitions as I understand it.
edit: I have to strongly disagree. We HAVE to discard (or at least count as untrue) ideas for which there is no support, or the only other option is to accept every possible claim that isn't directly disproven. It's a choice between either discounting the existence of all gods, or accepting that I have an invisible leprechaun in my garage.
While there's nothing in the set up of the the universe that determines the rules of rationality, they do have a commonly agreed upon definition and that's what I've been laying out. You can chose not to accept it, but then you have to discount the process of rationality itself (since a bastardization won't work). It's not exactly a debatable point, but it does seem to be the point we aren't seeing eye to eye on.