it occurred to me, that in the many months that i've now been able to do so, i've never *promoted this.

thank you.

*Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty.
To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom, in the pursuit of truth
as in the endeavour after a worthy manner of life."
-Bertrand Russell

*promote *british *books

starting with this one.

If you died and arrived at the gates of Heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism? VALERIE JACKSON, Richmond

I'd quote Bertrand Russell: "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence." But why is God assumed to care so much about whether you believe in him? Maybe he wants you to be generous, kind, loving, and honest - and never mind what you believe.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-you-ask-the-questions-special-427003.html
God is full of justice and mercy. For that, as stupid as the answer by he who is speaking in the video, to this question, your (Dawkins)only hope of salvation is either you submit yourself to God(I hope you are still alive) or God wishes to give you mercy. Never will your answer, "Not enough evidence" be noted excusable, because, in this time of age, i would say that you have known the Bible. You want evidences...I'll give you clues. Proverbs 3:5-9; Psalms 19:1-2; Daniel 12:10

I hope that was plain satire.. if not cheer the hell up and get a cat or something.. gee wiz

In reply to this comment by thinker247:
My name is Hebrew for "no, me first!", I live in the City of Trees in the State of Potatoes in the Nation of Idiot Consumers with Oversized Guts, Vehicles and Homes and Undersized Minds, Common Sense and Pride in Anything Outside of their Own Xenophobic Limits.

I don't own a car, I don't own a home, I don't have a girlfriend, I don't have children, and I really have no desire for any of those things anytime soon.

I work for the capitalist monster named Wal-Mart, and I try not to burn it down every time I walk through the doors.

My ideal society is communist and socialist, with no room for capitalism.

My username is a joke that overestimates my necessity for overanalyzing everything that comes through my mortal mind. I have another username that goes by thinker246, which sums up my life's philosophy quite succinctly-- everybody needs a day off.

I am an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, hidden in a riddle, and an unknown quantity, even to myself.

I have no foreseeable goals, except to find a way to ignore humanity, yet survive amidst their numbers.

I'm a college drop-out, and if I get bored enough, one day I will become a life drop-out. Suicide doesn't scare me, but eternal ennui does.

I tend to ramble on during conversations and posts about myself.

I am a huge fan of Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, TOOL, Bill Hicks, George Carlin, Doug Stanhope, Bill Maher, and anybody else who uses their brain for good instead of evil.

I would love to be a stand-up comedian and a writer.

I'm currently writing three books, without any direction for any of them. Don't look for them on your bookshelf anytime soon.

I love numbers and patterns, especially when you put them together.

If you want to know anything else about me...why? I just told you everything.

END

My name is Hebrew for "no, me first!", I live in the City of Trees in the State of Potatoes in the Nation of Idiot Consumers with Oversized Guts, Vehicles and Homes and Undersized Minds, Common Sense and Pride in Anything Outside of their Own Xenophobic Limits.

I don't own a car, I don't own a home, I don't have a girlfriend, I don't have children, and I really have no desire for any of those things anytime soon.

I work for the capitalist monster named Wal-Mart, and I try not to burn it down every time I walk through the doors.

My ideal society is communist and socialist, with no room for capitalism.

My username is a joke that overestimates my necessity for overanalyzing everything that comes through my mortal mind. I have another username that goes by thinker246, which sums up my life's philosophy quite succinctly-- everybody needs a day off.

I am an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, hidden in a riddle, and an unknown quantity, even to myself.

I have no foreseeable goals, except to find a way to ignore humanity, yet survive amidst their numbers.

I'm a college drop-out, and if I get bored enough, one day I will become a life drop-out. Suicide doesn't scare me, but eternal ennui does.

I tend to ramble on during conversations and posts about myself.

I am a huge fan of Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, TOOL, Bill Hicks, George Carlin, Doug Stanhope, Bill Maher, and anybody else who uses their brain for good instead of evil.

I would love to be a stand-up comedian and a writer.

I'm currently writing three books, without any direction for any of them. Don't look for them on your bookshelf anytime soon.

I love numbers and patterns, especially when you put them together.

If you want to know anything else about me...why? I just told you everything.

END

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Education_and_academic_career

PhDs in natural sciences are closer to the literal meaning of "Philosophy" (love of knowledge) while philosophy departments generally focus on the history of philosophy (covering all sorts of archaic nonsense from Socrates to Sartre while minimizing philosophers who actually did something worthwhile i.e. scientists and mathematicians, like Pythagoras, Isaac Newton, Bertrand Russell, and Thomas Jefferson). At Oxford there is a Classics course, and then there is a more useful and more rigorous version which discards the ancient bullshit, called modern classics or PPE. Dawkins got a PhD in zoology, which is a "hard science", unlike what often passes for Philosophy.

I think its a Dawkins quote, I wasnt sure, so I forgot to actually name my source, I know he uses it in "Root Of all Evil?" When he talks about Bertrand Russells orbiting teapot, but I dont think its a Russell quote, and Dawkins usually makes it clear if he's quoting.

You can prove anything using a false statement as a reference.

Bertrand Russel was challenged in this and was asked to prove he was the pope using 1 = 0 as an assumption:
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 0 + 1 (add 1 to both sides)
2 = 1
the pope and me are two persons, so the pope and me are one.

This also yields from the definition of the logical implication: F -> T
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_implication.

In brief, it's very hard to say, but I think Bertrand Russell was right when he said, and I paraphrase, "It is a trivial task to convince a man of what he wants to believe"; it seems that many of those who buy into the conspiracy theories are, ideologically, extremely hard-left or hard-right. Further, many (especially the younger contingent) wish to conflate fantasy and reality so that they can feel that they're somehow special or modern-day revolutionaries or freedom-fighters or something of that kind. In short, they want to believe they're "like Neo from the Matrix." So, all these factors combine to make this alternate reality extremely attractive. That assessment, however, at best, only skims the surface.

what i find interesting is that so much of the time people really seem to talk past each other on these issues and don't always realise they aren't talking about the same things. i'm not sure if i can contribute to this conversation in a meaningful way but i would like to try. i haven't read every single post with careful eye so forgive me if i repeat too much of what has already been said, however i don't hear anyone addressing the topic that condell is incorrect on a number of points. he perhaps should look up the definition of faith again or think it through again. faith is not the suspension of disbelief or whatever he called it. perhaps some people call the suspension of reasoned faculties faith but they are not correct. faith should be well reasoned and though through very carefully. every belief a person holds should be weighed in light of evidence and there is no way around this. condell believes many things about life, himself, and the universe that he cannot prove but believes them anyway in light of his weighing of the evidence. he cannot prove he is not the only intelligent life form there is but there is good evidence this is not true. he cannot prove he is not a brain in a vat but it is not convenient to believe that and so most of us do not. everyone has basic beliefs and assumptions about life that are unavoidable. in short, we all have a "faith" and this is a plain fact. he happens to have faith in the human mind, human reasoning capability, and a whole host of other basic assumptions that no one can prove or disprove but perhaps seem likely based on experience... but in the end there is nothing that can ultimately validate those experiences... we just have to take a leap of faith at some point... everyone does it... totally unavoidable. there are some things that cannot be scientifically measured. there is a limit to science that people like dawkins can't seem to accept. science can not tells humans what is right and what is wrong. in an atheist world view there is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is anything wrong with taking an axe to condell's head yet i'm sure he believes very firmly that this would in fact be wrong. plato asked, "what is the good?" this is a good question and one that cannot be answered logically in an atheist framework because it all will boil down to opinion, power or preference. bertrand russell put forward the idea that you can understand right from wrong based on feeling. just like you determine colour with your eye so too you determine right from wrong based on feeling. this is silly but exactly the kind of nonsense the atheist is reduced to because without something outside the human system providing a moral frame work there is no foundation for morality.
practicality has nothing to do with it. what matters is what is true. someone earlier brought up the point that no matter what good things you think religion might bring you it doesn't matter if it is false. he is completely correct... and this is also true of atheism. despite what benefits one might think it could bring what matters if it is true. i find it incredible that dawkins cannot seem to understand that atheism is completely unprovable by any means. it might be valid for him to say he thinks it is more reasonable to believe atheism is true based on the evidence but ultimately that leaves in the same position as the well reasoned person of religious conviction arguing the same point from the other side.
i find it so sad that there are those who cannot seem to understand that science tells us zero about the existence or non-existence of God.
so of course religion and religious beliefs should be subject to careful evaluation for every person... and using reason, logic, philosophy and the like should all be employed... however, again, science is not the tool for that. those that think it is should reexamine the limitations of science. it is merely a tool to construct models to make predictions about the world. it cannot tell us right from wrong (in the moral sense) and it cannot tell us what is really real... what each person believes is really real is merely a leap of faith.

Like Buridans ass between two identical stacks of hay.

Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind, stating:

There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.


There, the start of something called faith and belief.

"No nation was ever so virtuous as each believes itself, and none was ever so wicked as each believes the other."
- Bertrand Russell

Sorry Gwaan's previous post got me to thinking about Russell and the quote seemed relevant

I like the bits about the Islamic Empire as a comparable to the Roman Empire in its influence on science, technology, and arts. But I wouldn't call the Ottoman Empire "great" for the same reason I wouldn't call any other empire great.

This video is overly reverent. It linguistically presumes Mohammad actually received "revelations". The act of a "religion of peace" being founded through forceful conquest of the known world is at best hypocritical.

Rather then re-re-re-interpreting scriptures to re-re-reconcile Islam with the changing moral zeitgeist, I'd rather read great philosophers like John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell, and think about ethics as its own subject. A cosmic despot's declaration cannot affect the ethicality of a deed to which he is not a party.

Even to put myself in a theist's shoes, if God declared certain acts good and evil, he must have had reasons for doing so, and we should seek to understand those reasons. If we can, there's no need to rely on fallible scriptures based on fallible memory of fallible oral recitations from a fallible slave-owning illiterate merchant named Mohammad who might or might not have had a revelation.

To treat what was probably mere trickery or hallucination as if it were some unquestionably glorious thing is to me a bit offensive because I value truth above almost everything else. The video devotes only about three seconds to skepticism about Mohammad's alleged revelation in the part about the life of Mohammad and quickly dismisses it with Mohammad's own fallacious argument involving combat victories. This is plainly pro-religion bias.

Peace

The entire discussion can be found here:
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/
(10 sessions, approximately 2 hours each)

farhad2000 wrote:
“
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”

- Bertrand Russell (Mauz )”

You have just quoted my favorite Philosopher.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”

- Bertrand Russell (Mauz )