I aim to please.

(I'm making a proper response to you in the thread)

In reply to this comment by enoch:
>> ^gwiz665:

Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.


thanks bud for making my point.
well done.

>> ^longde:

Thanks.



Scientists get to have successful projects, only because they don't break new ground, and only because they don't advance any hypothesis that lacks popularity.

Thanks for the thought out reply. Before I get to specifics, let me throw out three thoughts:

1. First, let me define faith: complete trust in something, without personally verifiable proof.

2. I am in the same boat as you. I absolutely accept what has been taught to me in most science courses and books. But, aside from my own area of expertise, I take it for granted that past a certain point, I can't possibly reproduce the experiments and body of work in any particular field. So, my acceptance of, say, the results of organic chemistry is based on faith as defined above.

3. From my experience in the mill of American scientific academia and national laboratory culture, scientists DO NOT have an incentive to prove scientific 'canon' wrong. Especially in the politically strife world of academia, where tenure and grants are dependent not only upon good intellectual work, but upon soft skills and reputation. Too much in the fringe can sink you.

>> ^gwiz665:

@longde
I have seen the theories that have been through rigorous testing (aka the scientific method) and I can see the practical applications (power comes out of the reactor).
My logical basis stems from a mountain of scientific work in the field, where every single worker in the field has something to gain from disproving any given theory, but so far has been unable. Angels in the reactor is a rather hilarious hypothesis, but the onus of proving that hypothesis is on whoever makes it.
While the prevalent scientific theory has been verified by many independent scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor
If you can bring any sort of evidence, data or observation that can be analysed to the table that an angel actually powers the nuclear reactor, then present it, or have whoever made that theory present it.
Let's take a different example, since the nuclear reactor is a bit out of reach for laymen.
MAGNETS, I don't know that details about magnetic fields, but I do know that they attract/push each other depending on something or other. I have read books on why they do this, these books have been through this rigorous testing known as the scientific method, because every scientist in the world has an incentive to disprove it. This is one of the factor that make me believe in the validity of that particular book.
Furthermore theories about magnets have predictive powers in that they show how you can make magnets, and how to make different powers of magnets.
For me, knowing the gritty details of magnets is not that important, but to a physicist it is very important. A layperson just sees the results of academia knowing the details in all practical applications of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Common_uses_of_magnets)
Gnosticism/agnosticism does not apply, as agnosticism implies that we cannot know and this is obviously not true, since we (the relevant scientists) do know quite a bit about it.
I'd rather use terms such as perinormal (that we do not know yet, but can be known) or blackboxing. A layperson, such as myself, blackbox a lot of things (I don't know how a CPU works down in the nitty gritty with electrons and what not), but I use it anyway - it's a black box that does shit. I click my keyboard, and letters appear on my screen - fucking magic. To me this is something I do not know all the details of, but obviously it works somehow.

What I find ironic is that he states that religious faith limits curiosity and the search for knowledge, yet admitted that he'll believe "assume" what a scientist presents to him, since the 'scientific method intrinsically tests' science results.

What this implies to me is that if Dawkins or Tyson shows says something is true scientifically proven, such a person will believe it out of hand, especially if the person doesn't have the resources or intellect field-specific skills to delve deeper.>> ^enoch:

>> ^gwiz665:
Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.

thanks bud for making my point.
well done.

>> ^gwiz665:

Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.


thanks bud for making my point.
well done.

http://videosift.com/video/V-for-Vendetta-Are-You-Like-a-Crazy-Person

I have seen the results of other people testing it. Again, the scientific method intrinsically tests it for me, so I don't have to spend my life doing it.

I don't know that nuclear reactors actually work, I can't really test it because I don't have one available, but I think they do work, because I can see the results of them. Saying I have "faith" that they work, is misrepresenting what is actually going on.

>> ^longde:

The point is you haven't tested the results and the evidence.
It doesn't matter why or how or by what mechanism you have faith; you still have faith. Somehow, though, your faith is of more quality than someone else's. You reasoned out your faith, so it's OK.
"Assumption"? Let's not play semantics, here.>> ^gwiz665:
This is demonstrably false. "Taken on faith" is a huge misrepresentation.
We do not have faith in spite of the evidence, we have "faith" in the evidence. We can actually check up on it, we can even test them ourselves. If the results don't add up, one of our axioms (the stuff "taken on faith") might be false.
The entire scientific method rests on the fact that we can TEST our hypotheses, theories and the like.
I did a post on this earlier http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Jill
ette-An-Atheists-Guide-to-the-2012-Election?loadcomm=1#comment-1353716
Assumption is not the same as faith.
>> ^longde:
Whatever. Even atheists have faith. At least the ones that claim adherence to science.
Unless one has reproduced all scientific results and math proofs over the past hundreds of years, the efficacy of science and the honesty of scientists are taken on faith. This from an atheist trained as a physicist/engineer. There is nothing I have read about the scientific method that claims infallibility, but listening to alot of scientists (who should know better) and laymen atheists you would think it does.
edit: upvote for the discussion>> ^gwiz665:
Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.

The point is you personally haven't tested the results and the evidence.

It doesn't matter why or how or by what mechanism you have faith; you still have faith. Somehow, though, your faith is of more quality than someone else's. You reasoned out your faith, so it's OK.

"Assumption"? Let's not play semantics, here.>> ^gwiz665:

This is demonstrably false. "Taken on faith" is a huge misrepresentation.
We do not have faith in spite of the evidence, we have "faith" in the evidence. We can actually check up on it, we can even test them ourselves. If the results don't add up, one of our axioms (the stuff "taken on faith") might be false.
The entire scientific method rests on the fact that we can TEST our hypotheses, theories and the like.
I did a post on this earlier http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Jill
ette-An-Atheists-Guide-to-the-2012-Election?loadcomm=1#comment-1353716
Assumption is not the same as faith.
>> ^longde:
Whatever. Even atheists have faith. At least the ones that claim adherence to science.
Unless one has reproduced all scientific results and math proofs over the past hundreds of years, the efficacy of science and the honesty of scientists are taken on faith. This from an atheist trained as a physicist/engineer. There is nothing I have read about the scientific method that claims infallibility, but listening to alot of scientists (who should know better) and laymen atheists you would think it does.
edit: upvote for the discussion>> ^gwiz665:
Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.

This is demonstrably false. "Taken on faith" is a huge misrepresentation.

We do not have faith in spite of the evidence, we have "faith" in the evidence. We can actually check up on it, we can even test them ourselves. If the results don't add up, one of our axioms (the stuff "taken on faith") might be false.

The entire scientific method rests on the fact that we can TEST our hypotheses, theories and the like.

I did a post on this earlier http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Jillette-An-Atheists-Guide-to-the-2012-Election?loadcomm=1#comment-1353716

Assumption is not the same as faith.

>> ^longde:

Whatever. Even atheists have faith. At least the ones that claim adherence to science.
Unless one has reproduced all scientific results and math proofs over the past hundreds of years, the efficacy of science and the honesty of scientists are taken on faith. This from an atheist trained as a physicist/engineer. There is nothing I have read about the scientific method that claims infallibility, but listening to alot of scientists (who should know better) and laymen atheists you would think it does.
edit: upvote for the discussion>> ^gwiz665:
Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.

Whatever. Even atheists have faith. At least the ones that claim adherence to science.

Unless one has reproduced all scientific results and math proofs over the past hundreds of years, the efficacy of science and the honesty of scientists are taken on faith. This from an atheist trained as a physicist/engineer. There is nothing I have read about the scientific method that claims infallibility, but listening to alot of scientists (who should know better) and laymen atheists you would think it does.

edit: upvote for the discussion>> ^gwiz665:

Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.

I do not often feel the urge to state my admiration for a comment, but this time, I think, I must. Nice one.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Brothers and sisters.

As an atheist, and a fairly outspoken one at that, I don't feel like Hedges trying to mischaracterize myself or my atheism. I feel like he is trying to challenge me, to keep me from being hypocritical and to make sure that my anger is turned only towards those who do harm, regardless of faith.

I think his criticism of Harris and Hitch have more to do with American attitudes on the middle east than atheists attitudes. Most Americans, myself included, know very little about that region, and what little I/we do know is all negative - sexism, genital mutilation, death threats against cartoonists, jihad, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. I assume a more realistic picture of the middle east would more closely resemble people of any country. I assume they love their friends and family, that they wish for a better life and a better world for their kids, that they enjoy art and music, that they have skills and hobbies and struggle to make ends meet, that they laugh and joke and mock and criticize the extremists of their country the way we do in ours, that they are frustrated with politics and the power the privileged few lord over them... but portraying humanity of the people in the middle east is something that is simply not done in American media.

I believe that we atheists, who value tolerance, should be making these arguments ourselves, and not trying to brush it under the rug when one of our public figures gets called out. I'm sure if you go through my comments over the years, I've probably made countless fruitless, unproductive and spiteful things about religion. I'm going to make an effort to do and say things differently in the future.

I'm down for coexisting with good people of all walks of life. We all have a common enemy in the powerful individuals who have seized control of our country. I don't want to fight with well intentioned Christians anymore; I want to fight along side them. I want to embrace the social justice that has long been a tradition of both liberalism and Catholicism - among other religions. I want to embrace throwing the money changers out of our democratic temples. I want a society that can be judged on how it treats the least among us. I want to live in a tighter knit, more connected and stronger society; not a selfish, paranoid and weaker one.

I think Hedges sees the problems of our time with remarkable clarity. I'm not threatened by him.

good one!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Here is another video here on the sift that helps shed a bit more light on some of the more atypical views held by a minority of people that are anti-theistic.

Maybe this will help direct people in the right direction if they are looking for anti-theists that can truly be anti-social and all around assholes, making atheists in some circumstances look responsible for their loud comments and vitriolic actions.
------

Yet, Chris Hedges is being a little dishonest here. He is using a bit of the good'ol straw men arguments and he is misrepresenting Sam and Christopher. So while this may lead to more information, make sure you get the full context and story that any example uses or referring too. Most of the anti-theists that do harm or those that upset the community will most likely belong to small atheist/anti-theist groups, or are loners to their community, but they are by nature loud and abrasive people.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'chric hedges, secular, religious, fundamentalism, critique, hitchens' to 'chris hedges, secular, religious, fundamentalism, critique, hitchens' - edited by Fusionaut

>> ^entr0py:

Here's another response by Sam Harris. This time on Chris Hedges equating Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens to the Christian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik


Dear Angry Lunatic: A Response to Chris Hedges


THIS! Thank you for reminding me of this, Harris expresses what I think of Hedges much better than I can.