The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.

No, dumbassess....Here's a 'strawman' for yas all:

The terrorists are created by a highly influential and financed cabal of cunts who need attention drawn away from their fascist police-state vision of something worse than Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, and Nineteen-Eighty-Four combined ever thought about being imagined, in order to prepare the world for an end game fist-fuck without lube and wrist-watches the likes of which Bradbury, Huxley, or Orwell could have never fucking imagined in their worst drug-addled nightmares, This potential anything-goes scenario enabled, by willing participants who think they have a clue ready to doubly-assfuck the gullible into thinking that sophistic mumbo-jumbo is some kind of cure.

Get a fucking clue people, you're all cattle to the conductors of the most twisted opera of catshit ever perpetrated on the civilized world.

Now: Are these the words of a "troll" or simply someone with a clue tired of reading the rambling retardation of passionate idiots??

"There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self."

-A. Huxley

We are all very impressed by all the authors you've read...

Then you pull a quote from Larken Rose? What a joke.

"People will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think." -A.Huxley

He read, from an ex-pat cafe in Morocco, undoing his capacity to think with a ball of hashish the size of of a pocket watch-

@19:00 some great excerpts from a talk from John Trudell. Meaty!

Anyone else read Aldous Huxley's "Island" ?

Professor Wagstaff!!

He's named after a Marx Bros. character!! (Thought President Wagstaff of Huxley College was Groucho's creation-

You have to take a little from Orwell, Huxley, and Bradbury as well.

I can't look at a Kindle or Kinect without thinking about a world voluntarily giving up books for immersion gaming and entertainment.

>> ^kevingrr:

As Huxley said, "It is possible to make people contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the past, but then I think it could be done even more effectively now because you can provide them with breads and circuses and you can provide them with endless distractions and propaganda."
@StukaFox
Your comment is as clever as it is simpleminded. You can worship the elephant or the donkey and I'll disagree with you based on the zeal you have for one and the disdain for the other. The world is a complicated place and whats best isn't found in one camp or the other.
Look at Huxley's last novel Island. He merges 'East and West'. He takes what he feels is best from both.


I upvoted because my reaction to this is that we've ended up in a world a lot closer to Aldous Huxley's shiny, distracted, and soul suckingly disconnected dystopia than we have 1984's drab, brutal, overtly totalitarian one. Our dystopia is much harder to break out of, because on the surface it seems open, free, and filled with prosperity, until you scratch the surface, and see the rot festering underneath.

I could've just as easily have downvoted for the stupidity of your pox upon both their houses view of modern politics though. I don't really get the sense much of anyone on the left is filled with some sort of "zeal" for the "donkey" -- and the disdain for the Republicans largely stems from the way they seem to be functionally identical to the Inner Party members from 1984. They can shamelessly go from lauding an individual mandate as the "personal responsibility principle that's essential to bring costs down" and then when the party's needs change, decry the same policy as somehow being a violation of everything that Americans hold sacred. All this while demanding they still be treated as if they were serious people of conviction and principle, and painting those who dare to point out their hypocrisy as some sort of dishonest partisan hack.

The fact that one side, and only one side has fully committed to this level of partisan loyalty should make even the most cynical, above the fray, non-partisan person sit up and take notice. Maybe it's time to stop pretending this is politics as usual, and see it for what it really is: a battle to stop a group of committed fanatics without a shred of human empathy from pushing out the last vestiges of the flawed, inept, but well-meaning opposition standing in their way.

As Huxley said, "It is possible to make people contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the past, but then I think it could be done even more effectively now because you can provide them with breads and circuses and you can provide them with endless distractions and propaganda."

@StukaFox

Your comment is as clever as it is simpleminded. You can worship the elephant or the donkey and I'll disagree with you based on the zeal you have for one and the disdain for the other. The world is a complicated place and whats best isn't found in one camp or the other.

Look at Huxley's last novel Island. He merges 'East and West'. He takes what he feels is best from both.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^shinyblurry:
lennox babbling

Religion and science are not in conflict because of how Galileo was treated ot because Huxley debated a bishop, they are in conflict, and will forever be in conflict because of the way they work:
Science is the systematic way of removing faith from the equation, and to systematically question and test every assumption to prevent us from fooling ourselves.
Religion is precisely the opposite: Its a systematic way of perserving faith in the face of doubt and uncertainty. Its a systematic way of avoiding the hard questions and keep fooling oneself.
Which is why its defenders often attack those who question and destroy previous assumptions about the world (Darwin or Galileo). The two examples Lennox gives are symptoms of the conflict, not the conflict itself.
As Jerry Coyne puts it in "Why evolution is true": "Not all religious people are creationists, but all creationists are religious" So when we ask ourselves why more than 40% of the US deny the factual existance of the fundamental process that created and drives all living things on earth, the answer isnt just ignorance or stupidity. It is organized ignorance, stupidity and dogma, or religion as some call it.


Very eloquent, i'd only recommend getting rid of the "hard questions, foolish" bit because it sounds insulting. Otherwise it's a really well constructed explanation that even a theologist would find hard to deny.

Do you realize how dogmatic your position actually is? I mean, do you actually find your analysis here intellectually satisfying?

Are you willing to challenge your beliefs? I recommend two books for you:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0890510628/ref=tmm_pap_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1595553223/ref=sr_1_1_up_1_main_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342692277&sr=1-1&condition=used

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^shinyblurry:
lennox babbling

Religion and science are not in conflict because of how Galileo was treated ot because Huxley debated a bishop, they are in conflict, and will forever be in conflict because of the way they work:
Science is the systematic way of removing faith from the equation, and to systematically question and test every assumption to prevent us from fooling ourselves.
Religion is precisely the opposite: Its a systematic way of perserving faith in the face of doubt and uncertainty. Its a systematic way of avoiding the hard questions and keep fooling oneself.
Which is why its defenders often attack those who question and destroy previous assumptions about the world (Darwin or Galileo). The two examples Lennox gives are symptoms of the conflict, not the conflict itself.
As Jerry Coyne puts it in "Why evolution is true": "Not all religious people are creationists, but all creationists are religious" So when we ask ourselves why more than 40% of the US deny the factual existance of the fundamental process that created and drives all living things on earth, the answer isnt just ignorance or stupidity. It is organized ignorance, stupidity and dogma, or religion as some call it.

>> ^shinyblurry:
lennox babbling


Religion and science are not in conflict because of how Galileo was treated ot because Huxley debated a bishop, they are in conflict, and will forever be in conflict because of the way they work:

Science is the systematic way of removing faith from the equation, and to systematically question and test every assumption to prevent us from fooling ourselves.
Religion is precisely the opposite: Its a systematic way of perserving faith in the face of doubt and uncertainty. Its a systematic way of avoiding the hard questions and keep fooling oneself.

Which is why its defenders often attack those who question and destroy previous assumptions about the world (Darwin or Galileo). The two examples Lennox gives are symptoms of the conflict, not the conflict itself.

As Jerry Coyne puts it in "Why evolution is true": "Not all religious people are creationists, but all creationists are religious" So when we ask ourselves why more than 40% of the US deny the factual existance of the fundamental process that created and drives all living things on earth, the answer isnt just ignorance or stupidity. It is organized ignorance, stupidity and dogma, or religion as some call it.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

^It's like Shiny wants to be entirely rational about this subject...
But can't, cause all his thought and opinions are coated in a layer of bible nonsense.


I know exactly how the mind of a secular liberal works, GenjiKilpatrick, because I used to have one. It's not a mystery to me why you believe what you believe, or how you came to those conclusions. I used to think along the same lines and I used to buy the same things which the world is selling you.

The difference between us is, revealed truth versus autonomous reasoning. God has revealed Himself to me in such a way that His existence is undeniably true. I could no more deny God than I could my own reflection in the mirror. You, on the other hand, suppress the truth God has given you because you prefer your autonomous reasoning. Do you relate to this quotation?:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantegous to themselves...

For myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was an admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever.

-Aldous Huxley

God put you here for a reason but you would rather deny it and dream up your own reasoning, regardless of the truth. And you believe that your reasoning is superior, yet what is the basis of its validity? How do you justify it?

DFT,

I think Sam is prepared to make the distinction between moderate and radical Islam - and I believe he does. Still, it is true that he writes that religious moderation creates the foundation for religious extremism.

The problem is Hedges is greatly misrepresenting Sam's sentiment. He does not present the scenario in the detail or terms that Sam does in regard to the nuclear first strike or the use of torture. To generalize as he has done paints Sam's comments as advocating for a nuclear first strike against 'muslims'. That simply isn't true.


I think Sam would say if any group (religous, political, ideological) came to power somewhere in the world and had the means and will to deploy WMD we may be forced into a 'First Strike'.

I agree with you that the Middle East despises the US for its constant violence and meddling in their affairs. However, it seems that a perverted form of Islam is still used to motivate many of the 'foot soldiers.' It really isn't an either/or. You have blow back that expresses itself through the regional religion.

Chris Hedges, like David Eagleman, wants to represent the 'new atheists' as something that they are not - closed minded zealots with a blood-thirst. Having read of Sam and Hitchens' work do you really believe that represents them?


The smearing that Hedges is doing is similar to how atheist were dealt with near the turn of the 20th century when they were grouped with the unpopular fascist, socialist/communist, and darwinist. "Stalin was a socialist atheist, look what he did!"

Are Sam and Hitchens intolerant of people or of bad ideas? There is a big difference, and I reckon it is the latter.



Furthermore - Hedges here states that there is nothing in "human nature or human history to support that we are collectively morally moving forward as a species." (2:01 in the video) Really? Has Hedges bothered to read Sam's book Moral Landscape?

Steve Pinker on the Myth of Violence

Does Hedges posit then that we cannot progress morally? Slavery has been abolished, women were finally given the right to vote and equal rights, violence is on the decline globally... yet we are not collectively improving morally? Sorry Chris but the evidence is not in your favor.



I am pleased to see atheist coming back out. Thomas Paine, Walt Whitman, Thomas Huxley, Richard Ingersoll...Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins. Marching foward.

In closing - All opinions matter, but informed opinions matter more. That is why knowledge is good and ignorance is evil.

-Kevin

I'd love to give Soma (from Aldous Huxley's Brave New World) a go.