I keep saying this in all these clips and I'll keep doing so:

Religion needs to go.

dawkins made his point. but i'd like to hear his answer to the response question: "what's the relevance of what happens in an islamic nation and great britain?"

if you look anywhere outside of islamic theocracies you will find that there are no legal ramifications for apostasy. Here in america (fuck yeah) if a muslim becomes a christian or an atheist or whatever he/she is not held under lawful punishment. I'm sure the same in britain, any free nation for that matter.

So what is the relevance of the question? to point out that fundamentalist, islamic theocracies are a dangerous, intolerant, and insufferable lot? to point the finger and laugh at the muslims and their mean ways? knowing the overt disposition of dawkins on religion i'd bet my bottom dollar on the latter. He was quite pointedly bashing religion, in this case islam, and being smug about it. "That's all i wish to hear"? fuck off dawkins.

look if you want to hold a conversation about the conflicts of theocracy fine. I think theocracy is shit and a bit oxymoronic in terms of its goal. but again, we have dawkins brow beating the religious and their neanderthal ways in lieu of actual dialogue.

i like dawkins ok. he's a brilliant scientist and widely influential. but this is the dawkins i cant stand. atheists like dawkins are no different than the religious who think he's an immoral, dirty, baby eating sinner that he talks down to.

what's really off putting about dawkins is that he thinks he's smarter, more evolved, and better looking than me because i'm NOT an antheist all while "preaching" how intolerant the religious are. How is that any different than if i were to think that i am more righteous, just, and compassionate than dawkins because he's NOT a christian?(ps: i dont think that)

it isnt.

i just hate interviews and videos like this i guess. where's the dialogue? wheres the discourse? theyve been substituted for a pissing contest

>> ^smooman:

dawkins made his point. but i'd like to hear his answer to the response question: "what's the relevance of what happens in an islamic nation and great britain?"


This guy wasn't killed in an islamic nation.

The relevance is that fundamental islamic followers are moving to great britain and setting up here. I've heard a few rumblings in the past about certain areas in certain cities where nutjob muslims (yes, like there are nutjob christians too) refuse to speak any language other than their own, virtually ostracise themself from great britain from anything other than selecting which benefits of our country they want to live with. Such as jobseeker's allowance, child maintenance, free health care, housing payments, free schooling, free speech (especially this one), etc. etc.

There are many english speaking fuckbags who do it too. There are many people whose family history you could trace back hundreds of years to these islands, they're doing it as well.

I've also heard rumblings that some of these people want to bring elements of sharia (spell check) law into british law, allowing them to deal with 'their own' people in 'their own' way (not my words). I won't pretend that this is some major agenda being pushed by credible muslim groups in this country, it could easily be a bunch of isolated nutcases like the christian families in america protesting army funerals.

What i can say for certain is that in these certain areas of certain cities sharia law IS being practised. These little communities within a community set themselves up as being apart from everyone else and the people in there live how they like. I wish i could cite the documentary i watched on this subject but i can't, so i'm reduced to looking like an idle speculator.

Segregation of communities is CLEARLY a problem. I think it's been a problem for a while here in britain, we haven't worked hard enough to make sure immigrants grow to become part of britain. As a result, we are left with places like that in this country, and left with people voting for the BNP/UKIP because they feel like that's their only option left to resolve tensions in certain areas. It's why we're left with people arguing over schools, what's taught there and what isn't, whether it's fair for things to be included or excluded from schools, what you can wear to work, and so on.

The relevance of this question to me is establishing that there are elements of muslim life and religion from muslim countries that simply cannot be taken to other countries, and not just the death penalty for leaving the faith. That's what it meant to me.

The relevance could also very easily be showing that certain aspects of the muslim faith can't be visited upon other countries because it would be tantamount to a war crime. Replicating images of their god, leaving their faith. These things should only apply to their country, not internationally. Yet we've seen events where they ARE applied internationally by lunatics.

To subscribe to any religion, you have to discard huge swaths of science. Dawkins' main focus has usually been evolution, and that's the biggest part of science you'd have to ignore for most religions. If I had to spend my entire career presenting people with evidence and facts, only to have them smile and reply "That's not what my faith tells me", I would probably not be very accepting of their willful ignorance either.

Dawkins doesn't think he's smarter, more evolved, better looking, etc. But I'm fairly certain he does believe that if you ignore scientific evidence and/or facts just to subscribe to a religion, you're an idiot.

>> ^smooman:


what's really off putting about dawkins is that he thinks he's smarter, more evolved, and better looking than me because i'm NOT an antheist all while "preaching" how intolerant the religious are. How is that any different than if i were to think that i am more righteous, just, and compassionate than dawkins because he's NOT a christian?(ps: i dont think that)
it isnt.

>> ^smooman:

i like dawkins ok. he's a brilliant scientist and widely influential. but this is the dawkins i cant stand. atheists like dawkins are no different than the religious who think he's an immoral, dirty, baby eating sinner that he talks down to.
what's really off putting about dawkins is that he thinks he's smarter, more evolved, and better looking than me because i'm NOT an antheist all while "preaching" how intolerant the religious are. How is that any different than if i were to think that i am more righteous, just, and compassionate than dawkins because he's NOT a christian?(ps: i dont think that)
it isnt.
i just hate interviews and videos like this i guess. where's the dialogue? wheres the discourse? theyve been substituted for a pissing contest

I see what you're saying. He does come off as smug. I guess he's the antithesis to those smarmy, smug religious pontificates. Every viewpoint has at least one. That doesn't mean that he speaks for all atheists. At least when it comes to how to conduct yourself. But you see, we do—for the most part—agree with what Dawkins is saying. And I don't know how else to combat such tenacious belief. I think you'd like to see him be more receptive and "pretend" like he's listening to something he's never heard before. I think he's just sick of it all and he doesn't care who he pleases.


I don't think every view point can be true, but the one fought with the most vigor often times reigns, maybe he's just trying to fight fire with fire. I guess the ends justifies the means (in my own mind) if religion is abolished by human choice.

"what's the relevance of what happens in an islamic nation and great britain?"

Religions are transnational. If you are a believer church laws come from god then local laws are irrelevant.

If we accept that religion is core to a person's ethics and moral view of the world and other people - then changing country does not magically change those cultural attitudes.

When the pope in Rome forbids contraception under church law - Catholics in Africa, Spain, Brazil and around the world follow "the word of god" even if it means dying a horrible death from Aids.

The point is: Accepting murdering a loss of faith is the law of god, is accepting a moral code that is completely counter to tolerance, freedom and free will. - "Oh but i don't believe that part when i immigrate?"

Islam demands tolerance, in yet the very code of the religion's law forbids giving it in return.

>> ^rottenseed:


I see what you're saying. He does come off as smug.


I prefer the term "unapologetic".

>> ^smooman:
atheists like dawkins are no different than the religious who think he's an immoral, dirty, baby eating sinner that he talks down to.
what's really off putting about dawkins is that he thinks he's smarter, more evolved, and better looking than me because i'm NOT an antheist all while "preaching" how intolerant the religious are. How is that any different than if i were to think that i am more righteous, just, and compassionate than dawkins because he's NOT a christian?(ps: i dont think that)
it isnt.
i just hate interviews and videos like this i guess. where's the dialogue? wheres the discourse? theyve been substituted for a pissing contest


My mind implodes as I try and understand how you linked atheists to fundamentalists, until I realise you are not being fair.

Dawkins swatted away attempts to evade/sugercoat, and got a British muslim to staunchly state that Shaira law is clear - leave islam = death. And more telling, was the British muslim seemed to have no problem with human rights violations and the general hypocrisy of islam...because it was islam.

I saw an interesting exposure of islamic hypocrisy, but you became fixated with the stance Dawkins had to adopt to get the facts.

Is such a passive/"dont rock the boat" attitude really what you want?

*brief

This video has been flagged as being less than 1 minute in length - declared brief by Trancecoach.

Eh? Why does the video start and end where it does?

>> ^Myrmidian:

To subscribe to any religion, you have to discard huge swaths of science. Dawkins' main focus has usually been evolution, and that's the biggest part of science you'd have to ignore for most religions. If I had to spend my entire career presenting people with evidence and facts, only to have them smile and reply "That's not what my faith tells me", I would probably not be very accepting of their willful ignorance either.
Dawkins doesn't think he's smarter, more evolved, better looking, etc. But I'm fairly certain he does believe that if you ignore scientific evidence and/or facts just to subscribe to a religion, you're an idiot.



By "religion" I think you mean fundamentalists (and possibly the Catholic Church). Millions of religious people around the world have no qualms with science. Why should they? Science helps us learn about the world we live in. Religion helps us learn about how to live in the world. They are entirely different fields. You only run into problems when one tries to do the job of the other.

>> ^ponceleon:

I keep saying this in all these clips and I'll keep doing so:
Religion needs to go.


I don't think it's fair to dismiss all religions on the basis of the actions of a few unintelligent or uninformed people.

>> ^SDGundamX:
>> ^ponceleon:
I keep saying this in all these clips and I'll keep doing so:
Religion needs to go.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss all religions on the basis of the actions of a few unintelligent or uninformed people.


They are not saying that, they are watching clips about religion and forming an opinion. Completely ok.

Did you even read what they said? That's exactly what they were saying.

>> ^Raaagh:

They are not saying that, they are watching clips about religion and forming an opinion. Completely ok.

I'm having a rough time following your logic here. How can you adequately learn how to live in the world around you, without knowing about the world around you? How can learning about your environment be entirely separate from learning how to live in your environment?

And if religion has nothing to do with knowing about the world you live in, how can it possibly stand a chance to teach us about how to live in it?

Truthfully, it seems it could mainly teach us how to live in a world that we don't actually live in.

>> ^SDGundamX:

Science helps us learn about the world we live in. Religion helps us learn about how to live in the world. They are entirely different fields. You only run into problems when one tries to do the job of the other.

>> ^smooman:

dawkins made his point. but i'd like to hear his answer to the response question: "what's the relevance of what happens in an islamic nation and great britain?"
if you look anywhere outside of islamic theocracies you will find that there are no legal ramifications for apostasy. Here in america (fuck yeah) if a muslim becomes a christian or an atheist or whatever he/she is not held under lawful punishment. I'm sure the same in britain, any free nation for that matter.


Sure, thats because those countries have secular laws that are specifically designed NOT to cater to any particular religion, but is based upon human rights that has been agreed upon during the enlightenment up to today.

But islam is the same shit everywhere. I have no doubt that many muslims are as disgusted and disturbed by these laws as I am, but if they are, it isnt because of Islam, its because of everything but Islam .

Think about it: Islamic theocracies were not designed by some outside evildoers who did their best to pick out the worst aspects of Islam that they could find, and then used superpowers to force them on the population. These societies evolved out of attempts to follow Islam as faithfully and true as possible. The reason women are treated like obedient cattle in these states and people are executed for leaving Islam is because thats what Islam preaches.

Theres little doubt that the man in this video would wish for Dawkins to find religion like he has , and convert to Islam along with the rest of the studio audience, and all of Britain for that matter. If that happened, what would happen to secular law in britain? do you think we'd have more and better rights for women? a better judicial system?, more tolerance?, more freedom to choose religion freely?

wow, a lot to cover here =)
(how do you say something, quote someone, then say something below that quote like SDGundamX did? I'm pretty html illiterate)

>> ^terrestrialFish:

This guy wasn't killed in an islamic nation.

was that guy put to death for apostate laws set forth by his government? no? oh, so you did completely miss the point, splendid

>> ^Myrmidian:

To subscribe to any religion, you have to discard huge swaths of science.

bull
fucking
shit

for example, my college biology professor, devout christian, defender of evolution etc (he taught at a bible college too). there is not one "swath" of science he has discarded in the name of his religion

i could email you a 1000 page email of more examples if you'd like. or just keep using that broad brush to paint sweeping statements

>> ^raverman:

"what's the relevance of what happens in an islamic nation and great britain?"
Religions are transnational. If you are a believer church laws come from god then local laws are irrelevant.
If we accept that religion is core to a person's ethics and moral view of the world and other people - then changing country does not magically change those cultural attitudes.
When the pope in Rome forbids contraception under church law - Catholics in Africa, Spain, Brazil and around the world follow "the word of god" even if it means dying a horrible death from Aids.
The point is: Accepting murdering a loss of faith is the law of god, is accepting a moral code that is completely counter to tolerance, freedom and free will. - "Oh but i don't believe that part when i immigrate?"
Islam demands tolerance, in yet the very code of the religion's law forbids giving it in return.


when the pope forbade contraception and catholics the world over gave it up for aids, they did so of their own accord NOT because the african government said so or the brazilian government forced them by law to do so.

local laws are irrelevant only to those fundamental religious types. local laws still apply to the locals whether they want them to or not. that man that was killed by a radical muslim (with ties to al qaeda which, btw, probably had nothing to do with it (joke)) that was linked earlier, the murderer is still being sought for murder because thats the fucking law. Doesnt really fucking matter if John Q Murderingmuslim thought it was justified by God or fucking santa claus, he still murdered someone in a country where murder is against the damn law

>> ^Raaagh:

My mind implodes as I try and understand how you linked atheists to fundamentalists, until I realise you are not being fair.
Dawkins swatted away attempts to evade/sugercoat, and got a British muslim to staunchly state that Shaira law is clear - leave islam = death. And more telling, was the British muslim seemed to have no problem with human rights violations and the general hypocrisy of islam...because it was islam.
I saw an interesting exposure of islamic hypocrisy, but you became fixated with the stance Dawkins had to adopt to get the facts.
Is such a passive/"dont rock the boat" attitude really what you want?
I am by no means defending islam. it is hypocritical. but islamic nations are sovereign are they not? and as such if they wanna do fucked up shit and have that be a part of their own governmental laws fine. I'd probably lobby to get that shit stopped if only because of the gross raping of basic human rights. What i wouldnt do is what dawkins does every fucking day:

"lets make fun of religious people cuz i find them silly and absurd and lets not actually have discourse over legitimate issues and create progress lets just be completely dismissive and have pissing contests with these dark age camel jockeys"

or we could bomb em back to the stone age eh? ......oh, shit, thats not any better really

30% of young muslims living in britain want sharia law to be adopted by parliament, something like that. As i understand it, this is more or less where these concerns on islam are coming from. That is a perfectly legitimate and urgent concern.

Now im not entirely familiar with british constitution (if thats the name of it) so allow me to make a comparison (go with what you know right?)

in the american constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

if a large majority group of muslims in america wanted the same thing, IF it ever happened i'd have a much larger concern with why laws are being created that go against our own constitution than "oh shit now im gonna get stoned for having sex"

there was a similar debate on here posted a year ago (i think from the same show). i think imam was on it too. watched a good bit of it. gonna watch more later (HUNGRY!!!). Those are videos i'd like to see, not this snippit of dawkins smug self. There is plenty that was said in this other video and superb discourse. Lots of sides coming out and really just getting a keen grasp on very different perspectives and getting down to the root problems and not just the symptoms.

in short, i just wanna see the rest of this video, not just this clip. Hell i bet dawkins probably had some poignant and profound things to say. instead we get him thumbing his nose at a muslim for 30 seconds

dawkins made his point. but i'd like to hear his answer to the response question: "what's the relevance of what happens in an islamic nation and great britain?"

Surely he doesn't need one. I normally find Dawkins to be possessed by an irritatingly superiority and smugness, but on this point he is entirely justified in having it.

Let's repeat what was said. By Sharia law, in any Islamic country, converting from Islam is to be punished by death. Can anybody in favor of religious freedoms honestly say they have no problem with this? If your religious views consider it ok to murder people for converting away from your faith, I'd call that a valid point of criticism of your faith, no matter which country you are in.

Here in the Western world, we the ignorant infidels don't tolerate that kind of backwards garbage.

here's the debate in its entirety

part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-S7M0KZTsU
part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZllHfSLsRZg&feature=related
part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjnL4HVoMU&feature=related
part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtUd7-tha_w&feature=related
part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MPS_GLoNDk&feature=related
part 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndXYip6pdco&feature=related

Sure it is fair to dismiss ALL religion. Just because you are a little crazy in that you believe in magical forces controlling the universe doesn't make it ANY more legitimate.

Of course there are non-violent religious people. Of course there are religious people that don't piss me off as much as the tools I'm mostly talking about, that doesn't mean that they don't suspend reason for something with is just illogical.

I can definitely understand that there are "good teachings" in many religions and I have no problem with that, but it is the fact that those are indistinguishable from the other parts OF THE SAME RELIGIOUS TEXTS which call for violence, war, and intolerance which lead me to my ultimate statement: religion needs to go.

Want to teach about tolerance, love and understanding? Go right ahead, you don't need mana from heaven, Jesus walking on water, crucifixions or Abraham almost killing his son, Mohammed in a bear suit whatever to get there. Secularize the teachings, remove the mumbo-jumbo and the magic rings of power and I'll listen. The problem with mixing good teachings with this suspension of rational thought is that then you are subject to the whims of clergymen who invent their own bullshit (like priests not being able to marry so the church can inherit their property) in order to advance themselves. Teach people to be good and to think, don't teach them superstition, fear and ultimately hate. Yeah yeah, some of these stories in the bible are innocent enough, but by painting this magical harrypotteresque world they open in the doors to people believing in things that WILL have a bad effect on them.

Again I remember a funny debate I had with a Jesus freak: I was discussing abortion and at some point the Jesus freak didn't like the logic I used and tried to convince me that his logic was superior by spouting the following example:

"Unlike you, I believe everyone deserves to live... even someone like YOU. And that is because my god teaches me this."

Think about that for a moment, he was essentially telling me that because of my ideas about abortion and woman's rights, he fundamentally felt that I deserved to die, but only because his god told him not to think that way he was willing to concede me my life.

I do good things because it is better for all of us to be good to each other, not because some magical being threatens me if I don't do what he says. Who is a better person, the one who does good deeds because he wants to do good deeds, or the one who does them because he's afraid of the consequences if he doesn't?

Religion needs to go.


>> ^Myrmidian:

>> ^ponceleon:
I keep saying this in all these clips and I'll keep doing so:
Religion needs to go.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss all religions on the basis of the actions of a few unintelligent or uninformed people.

>> ^ponceleon:
I was discussing abortion and at some point the Jesus freak didn't like the logic I used and tried to convince me that his logic was superior by spouting the following example:
"Unlike you, I believe everyone deserves to live... even someone like YOU. And that is because my god teaches me this."

Wouldn't that line of reasoning lead to the conclusion that people should conceive children as often as physically possible?

Think of all those poor innocent kids that will never have the opportunity to be born just because people don't want more of them!

What I believe most atheists do not comprehend is this—we, the human race, are a species that must believe. It is that simple. Yes, individuals can unlearn belief in the odd and stupid things we think are real, but as a whole we must believe. We believed long before God and Jesus existed, and we will believe long after. We believe in odd and crazy things when we are children because our minds are fascinated by the unknown and this spurs experimentation.
Everyone who acts as though the destruction of religion would sooth the woes of the world is silly. Instead of religion, humanity will/has find/found other ways to reclassify themselves into groups and kill/enslave everyone not in their class. Examples include are but not limited to race, gender, ethnic background, eye color, hair color, wealth, etcetera. This would not decrease with a lack of belief and the reason is simple—because we love to classify. It is a natural survival instinct that is there for the allocation of finite resources. It is easy to kill an infidel in the name of God, however, it is hard to kill the guy next to you because you are bored and/or need his resources. Indians ring a bell? Sadly, the Indians were pagan, but, more importantly, they held our land! Had to die…
See, religion is the crutch that atheists use. I am atheist myself and find that behind the gun, behind the religion, behind the boredom that leads to mania, there is always an insecure killer.

>> ^braindonut:

I'm having a rough time following your logic here. How can you adequately learn how to live in the world around you, without knowing about the world around you? How can learning about your environment be entirely separate from learning how to live in your environment?
And if religion has nothing to do with knowing about the world you live in, how can it possibly stand a chance to teach us about how to live in it?
Truthfully, it seems it could mainly teach us how to live in a world that we don't actually live in.



I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I was talking about the roles of religion and science, not how one learns.

Science helps us learn about the properties of the world around us but it fails to tell us how to live in that world. Science can tell us how to make rockets, but it doesn't tell us whether it is better to use those rockets to explore space or fill them with explosives and lob them at each other. In other words science provides us with plenty of knowledge but no wisdom. Religion (and philosophy) on the other hand focus on developing wisdom--what to do with the knowledge we have and how to live in the world.

I wasn't suggesting that deciding how to live was somehow in a separate realm from our knowledge. Obviously it is connected. I was arguing that it isn't the job--and shouldn't be the job--of science to provide us with wisdom, just as it is absolutely wrong for religion to try provide us with knowledge (facts) about the world.

>> ^ponceleon:

Sure it is fair to dismiss ALL religion. Just because you are a little crazy in that you believe in magical forces controlling the universe doesn't make it ANY more legitimate.

[edit]

I do good things because it is better for all of us to be good to each other, not because some magical being threatens me if I don't do what he says. Who is a better person, the one who does good deeds because he wants to do good deeds, or the one who does them because he's afraid of the consequences if he doesn't?


I'm only going to address these two parts of your post, so sorry for the edit.

First part. Do you have any legitimate proof that magical forces aren't controlling the universe? I highly doubt it... you would have published said proof and won the Nobel prize by now.

What science has given us are facts about the world we live in, but that collection of facts can be interpreted in multiple ways. Where some people see only random chaos others see intelligent organization. Clearly, your interpretation of the facts is that there cannot possibly be any divine being or beings or any "mystical" forces. And that's fine! But surely you must realize that this is your interpretation? That other interpretations are possible? Were you to demand everyone to believe your interpretation (as Dawkins does) you would be no better than the Fundamentalists that both you and he despise.

Second part. What exactly is "doing good things?" That is precisely the question most religions strive to answer. You feel you can come up with the answers for yourself. I respect that! But others feel: why re-invent the wheel? People have been exploring this question (and many others like, "What is the meaning of life?") through religion and philosophy for centuries. They choose to look to other places for answers and they should be free to do so. In fact, I think we all should do a bit of introspection on questions like this more often and instead of blindly trying to force others to see our opinion, engage others in open and honest dialogue. Most hostility towards religion comes precisely because there are those who refuse to engage in honest dialogue, thereby giving themselves and religion in general a bad name.

In closing, I just want to say that nobody thinks unquestioning belief is a good thing. Faith is not the same thing as unquestioning belief. Faith is trust, and trust comes from experience. You yourself, ponceleon, have faith--faith in yourself and your own moral code that I'm assuming stems from your own personal experiencese. That is exactly the same way it is for the bulk of religious people (with the exception of the radicals and fundamentalists I mentioned earlier). Most religious people believe not because of some threat or because they no longer question things, but because their experiences in life have given them confidence that their interpretation of things is correct.

>> ^SDGundamX:

I wasn't suggesting that deciding how to live was somehow in a separate realm from our knowledge. Obviously it is connected. I was arguing that it isn't the job--and shouldn't be the job--of science to provide us with wisdom, just as it is absolutely wrong for religion to try provide us with knowledge (facts) about the world.


I could agree with that, provided that it is understood that you can't start to form wisdom, without acquiring knowledge first. Which means they aren't entirely separate things - they are intrinsically linked, with wisdom being dependent upon knowledge.

(Though, I admit, not wholly dependent. You could make shit up and have a decent chance of living a good life - but the "make shit up" approach is shallow and doesn't scale with time... As we're starting to see now.)

Allow me to answer.

When you are saying that the universe is controlled by a zombie vampire that demands cannibalize of all his worshipers on Sunday, YOU are under the burden of providing proof of such a silly explanation of how the universe works, not me.

Just as Dawkins says, why not Vishnu, why not Xenu, why not the Magic juju at the bottom of the ocean, why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? See the problem with you "faithful" people is that you want to put the burden of proving that something by definition magical and unprovable on me the rational person.

Sorry, if you are going to believe that the tooth fairy is real, YOU have to show me the tooth fairy DNA. I don't have to WASTE my time searching for evidence in YOUR particular delusion when the world is FULL of other, funnier ones I'd rather search for if I was forced to.

As for re-inventing the wheel, I'm not saying we need to do that. If you re-read my post you'll see that I have no problem with secularizing the good teaching and removing them from all the mumbo jumbo. Be nice to each other, check. Don't kill people, check. Worship the magic doodaddie or you go to the magical pit of fire for all eternity... sorry, no check for you.

Anything else?

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^ponceleon:
Sure it is fair to dismiss ALL religion. Just because you are a little crazy in that you believe in magical forces controlling the universe doesn't make it ANY more legitimate.
[edit]
I do good things because it is better for all of us to be good to each other, not because some magical being threatens me if I don't do what he says. Who is a better person, the one who does good deeds because he wants to do good deeds, or the one who does them because he's afraid of the consequences if he doesn't?

I'm only going to address these two parts of your post, so sorry for the edit.
First part. Do you have any legitimate proof that magical forces aren't controlling the universe? I highly doubt it... you would have published said proof and won the Nobel prize by now.
What science has given us are facts about the world we live in, but that collection of facts can be interpreted in multiple ways. Where some people see only random chaos others see intelligent organization. Clearly, your interpretation of the facts is that there cannot possibly be any divine being or beings or any "mystical" forces. And that's fine! But surely you must realize that this is your interpretation? That other interpretations are possible? Were you to demand everyone to believe your interpretation (as Dawkins does) you would be no better than the Fundamentalists that both you and he despise.
Second part. What exactly is "doing good things?" That is precisely the question most religions strive to answer. You feel you can come up with the answers for yourself. I respect that! But others feel: why re-invent the wheel? People have been exploring this question (and many others like, "What is the meaning of life?") through religion and philosophy for centuries. They choose to look to other places for answers and they should be free to do so. In fact, I think we all should do a bit of introspection on questions like this more often and instead of blindly trying to force others to see our opinion, engage others in open and honest dialogue. Most hostility towards religion comes precisely because there are those who refuse to engage in honest dialogue, thereby giving themselves and religion in general a bad name.
In closing, I just want to say that nobody thinks unquestioning belief is a good thing. Faith is not the same thing as unquestioning belief. Faith is trust, and trust comes from experience. You yourself, ponceleon, have faith--faith in yourself and your own moral code that I'm assuming stems from your own personal experiencese. That is exactly the same way it is for the bulk of religious people (with the exception of the radicals and fundamentalists I mentioned earlier). Most religious people believe not because of some threat or because they no longer question things, but because their experiences in life have given them confidence that their interpretation of things is correct.

@ponceleon

First off, I'm wondering why you happen to think that I believe in a god or gods. No where in this thread have I stated that I'm religious. I simply think forcing opinions on other people is a bad idea--whether it's forcing others to believe in your religion or forcing others to give up their religion, as say China does. So maybe you might want to lay off the ad hominem attacks. Let's have a reasonable open dialogue, shall we?

Second, you entirely missed the point of my post. I'm not asking you to believe. You are free to look at the world around you and decide for yourself. My point was that the world around us can be interpreted in multiple ways. Take a roller coaster for instance. One person rides a roller coaster and is terrified. The person next to him is having a great time and loves it. Are roller coasters terrifying or fun? Science cannot help us answer this question. Both people experienced exactly the same event but interpret it in entirely separate ways. The best we can say is that some people find roller coasters scary and some people find them fun. What does this have to do with religion? So far, you have interpreted your experiences in this world to conclude there is no god or gods. That's fine! I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with you demanding everyone else interpret their own experiences exactly as you do. You want scientific proof of god. Again, I have no problem with that (although I find your insistence on scientific proof kind of funny, since I don't require scientific proof to know that I am having fun on a roller coaster). That's your choice. But I don't think you have the right to take away the choice from everyone else in the process. Trying to do so would be as absurd as trying to force everyone in the world to like roller coasters.

Let's talk about Dawkins for a second. I think Dawkins does a disservice to atheists everywhere by lumping all religious people into one group. We call that "stereotyping." The stereotype that Dawkins uses is based on a conservative fundamentalist Islamic/Christian religious fanatic (the unthinking believer that I was talking about in previous posts). Since he is using a stereotype, he may as well be railing against [insert the ethnicity of your choice] and screaming about all the problems they cause. Now, certainly he has an eager audience--as do KKK leaders at most of their rallies. But he's doing nothing to make the world a more civil or peaceful place. In fact, he's simply polarizing it even more.

Why not Vishnu? I have no problem with people who worship Vishnu. Or Thor. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or the Tooth Fairy. The problem comes only when people try to impose their religion on others--and that is not something I am advocating. As I said above, I have a problem whenever anyone forces their opinion on others (as does Dawkins--it's something we agree on). So obviously I am against things like the forced inclusion of Creationism in textbooks. Or blasphemy laws. Or the discrimination against a particular group based on their religion (or lack thereof).

Sorry this post is getting so long. I'll wrap it up with this: I'm curious what your stance is on the existence of dark matter. Most astronomers believe in dark matter in spite of the fact there is no physical way to measureit. It's basically invisible. And yet current models of the structure of the universe require the existence of dark matter to work properly. You demand proof in order to believe in a god or gods. Well, there is no proof of dark matter--only speculation. And yet the scientific community generally has faith that it exists. How do you reconcile that?

Although I don't have any evidence of the existence of God or gods, science has ironically given us plenty of evidence for the benefits and evolutionary advantages of faith. Have a read.

The Evolutionary Advantages of Faith

So, your insistence on doing away with religion is actually quite amusing, as you would be fighting evolution apparently.

Disagree completely.

If you abolish religion then you have one goal - The betterment of humanity. If everybody is on that same page and not thinking about how their lord and savior will take care of everybody in the afterlife, they'll realize that we need to fix how things are now.

Think about it, no more wars in the name of gods, no people getting killed for changing their beliefs.

Oh sure, there would still be killings of sorts, people come home and find another man with their wife and they snap. But that's never going to change.

As for the Natives of the Americas, I got news for you. They were enslaved and sent to Boarding Schools where they were forced to learn... Christianity.

I'm not exactly done with that either. Truly, you think that the people a few hundred years ago were as reasonable as we are now? Picture this, we master space travel. We find a new world inhabited by Aliens. Do you think Earth would A) Kill them all, and declare it Earth II, or B) Try to trade and reason with them?

I'm pretty sure most of us would vote option B. With time we've gained knowledge. Almost everywhere has drifted away from "They're different then us, so we need to not trust them and/or kill them and claim it as ours."

Muslims are a large exception to this, and that's why it has to change.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

What I believe most atheists do not comprehend is this—we, the human race, are a species that must believe. It is that simple. Yes, individuals can unlearn belief in the odd and stupid things we think are real, but as a whole we must believe. We believed long before God and Jesus existed, and we will believe long after. We believe in odd and crazy things when we are children because our minds are fascinated by the unknown and this spurs experimentation.
Everyone who acts as though the destruction of religion would sooth the woes of the world is silly. Instead of religion, humanity will/has find/found other ways to reclassify themselves into groups and kill/enslave everyone not in their class. Examples include are but not limited to race, gender, ethnic background, eye color, hair color, wealth, etcetera. This would not decrease with a lack of belief and the reason is simple—because we love to classify. It is a natural survival instinct that is there for the allocation of finite resources. It is easy to kill an infidel in the name of God, however, it is hard to kill the guy next to you because you are bored and/or need his resources. Indians ring a bell? Sadly, the Indians were pagan, but, more importantly, they held our land! Had to die…
See, religion is the crutch that atheists use. I am atheist myself and find that behind the gun, behind the religion, behind the boredom that leads to mania, there is always an insecure killer.

@SGD Ah I think we are coming a bit closer together here, but you are backpeddling a bit.

There is a BIG difference between you telling me that it is MY job as a rational person to disprove the existance of God the Son and the Holy ghost, v. telling me that dark matter is unmeasurable.

You see, Dark Matter is based on actual calculations and rational deliberation which leads scientists to see that something is missing from their model. As it turns out, I'm willing to CONSIDER dark matter as a possibility because it is based on something thought out and observable (though itself it may not be). That said, I would not be surprised at all if it turns out to be bunk. But that's the great part of science, Dark Matter can turn out to be real or not real and NO SCIENTIST is going to FATWAH me for believing on either side. It's exactly as you say.

As for why religion needs to go, well it is exactly for the reason you state: they DO try to force their views on others. When Sarah Palin, champion of the religious nuts in this country, gets up and tells us that fruit fly research is "silly and pointless" I see that as highly dangerous and definitely something that needs to be addressed. Killing and threatening artists. Suicide Bombers, child-abuse cover-ups, intelligent design, Jesus camps, invading the west bank, female oppression, and good christians don't vote for Obama.... all great examples of how "good teachings" of a religion have been cast aside in favor of fear, hate mongering, and irrational behavior.

Religion has forced itself on human culture for all of our history and while some good has come of it, a great portion of the bad in the world can be traced back to someone listening to a magical being in their head (or as I often suspect, saying they do in order to sway uneducated masses).

So in conclusion, I think you are now a lot closer to me in what I mean (though I fall on the other side of the argument when it comes to the usefulness of religion), but I do think you backpedaled a bit. Dark Matter /= Jesus.

Side note-God, my response is long... I hate long posts and so hate my own post...

There was a time when I would have insulted you for such a... magical fairytale-type post. However, age has tempered my youthful arrogance and I will attempt to be more respectful.

You have an illusion that is polar opposite from the fanatics who propose that God is our savior and that if everyone follows his word we will all be saved… (Your argument is that the belief in God is our destroyer and that if everyone abandons his word we will all be striving for the betterment of humanity…) You assume that religion is not the excuse for war but the problem itself... If religion is truly the excuse, as I claim, there will be more wars even if religion is abolished and all the wars that have happened, not in the name and constant glorification of God, but for other reasons, will repeat themselves. If religion is the problem, as you state, then wars will dry up and poof, comfort for the world. The betterment of mankind… Um, I need to write a self-help booklet with a title like that…

Think of your ideal utopia... and now, make it real. No wars, no conflict (like trade wars, where entire areas starve out, etcetera,) on massive scales leading to the degradation of other countries. Nothing interesting for the news huh? Just a few murders and social discord now and again? Just near-utopia? No massive riots when corporations cause the subjugation and poverty of millions... No mass rape in Africa? Can someone say boring!

Sorry, I can only respect your opinion so much. I understand your opinion but think it a little wishful thinking. I wish you were right on the money and that religion was the cause, but the rose-colored glasses are not for me. You asked an A/B question and the answer is a mix of A and B-We certainly would invade another planet and try to reason with them. If our terms (The complete surrender of their finate resources and land) of reasoning failed, we would kill them all and take their resources.

Christianity was the excuse we used on the Indians not because we truly believed in god, but because A-It is a form of control and B-It makes us the savior instead of the animal. As I said before, we cannot slaughter because of greed... we need another reason. In other words, religion is a tool and if broken, we will make another one.

Let's look at some wars fought around the world and why... Vietnam? The expansion of communism (Because, we Americans could not abide our competitor actually advancing.) Iraq? Boredom and glory. Rome's barbarity? Conquest. Germany? Racial superiority. The American Civil War? Expansion of Federal powers. The hundreds of mini-conflicts between warring peoples due to poverty? Starvation. The crusades? Religion. Does religion win over in history as the leading cause? Yes. Has religion been involved in the aforementioned wars as a secondary motivator?-No, not even motivator, I mean excuse?-Yes. Germany was supported by the pope and hunted a religious people---for the resources. (Also, just because those nations I used as examples may have been supported by the religious or purported to be religious, they did not fight under the constant "support" or glorification of God. In other words, those wars were fought for religion as much as Iraq was fought because of weapons of mass destruction…)

Will there be something to replace religion on a massive scale if the excuse dies? Yes. Reminds me of the episode of South Park when the world fought a war simply because they could not agree on the name of their all-atheist nation...

We grow bored, we bomb Iraq. We need oil? We take it. We need other resources? Here we come. Government subjects massive amounts of people to poverty? We burn it down. By we, I mean humanity. Oh, Germany is certainly more reasonable than a few hundreds of years ago... cept that whole gassing incident... and I know Africa, a country that sold their own into slavery for the most part, is more reasonable... cept the whole raping and tribal fighting. You know one tribe fights another because they believe male-anal penetration is wrong? Yet male-oral is okay... and the other tribe thinks male-oral is fine, but anal is wrong… so naturally, they both have to kill each other…

So disagree, it’s your right. I just see a lot of "religious" stubbornness in your argument that is equal to the other side's arguments... You are basing your guesses of what might be; I am basing my estimations on what has been...

>> ^Shepppard:
Disagree completely.
If you abolish religion then you have one goal - The betterment of humanity. If everybody is on that same page and not thinking about how their lord and savior will take care of everybody in the afterlife, they'll realize that we need to fix how things are now.
Think about it, no more wars in the name of gods, no people getting killed for changing their beliefs.
Oh sure, there would still be killings of sorts, people come home and find another man with their wife and they snap. But that's never going to change.
As for the Natives of the Americas, I got news for you. They were enslaved and sent to Boarding Schools where they were forced to learn... Christianity.
I'm not exactly done with that either. Truly, you think that the people a few hundred years ago were as reasonable as we are now? Picture this, we master space travel. We find a new world inhabited by Aliens. Do you think Earth would A) Kill them all, and declare it Earth II, or B) Try to trade and reason with them?
I'm pretty sure most of us would vote option B. With time we've gained knowledge. Almost everywhere has drifted away from "They're different then us, so we need to not trust them and/or kill them and claim it as ours."
Muslims are a large exception to this, and that's why it has to change.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
What I believe most atheists do not comprehend is this—we, the human race, are a species that must believe. It is that simple. Yes, individuals can unlearn belief in the odd and stupid things we think are real, but as a whole we must believe. We believed long before God and Jesus existed, and we will believe long after. We believe in odd and crazy things when we are children because our minds are fascinated by the unknown and this spurs experimentation.
Everyone who acts as though the destruction of religion would sooth the woes of the world is silly. Instead of religion, humanity will/has find/found other ways to reclassify themselves into groups and kill/enslave everyone not in their class. Examples include are but not limited to race, gender, ethnic background, eye color, hair color, wealth, etcetera. This would not decrease with a lack of belief and the reason is simple—because we love to classify. It is a natural survival instinct that is there for the allocation of finite resources. It is easy to kill an infidel in the name of God, however, it is hard to kill the guy next to you because you are bored and/or need his resources. Indians ring a bell? Sadly, the Indians were pagan, but, more importantly, they held our land! Had to die…
See, religion is the crutch that atheists use. I am atheist myself and find that behind the gun, behind the religion, behind the boredom that leads to mania, there is always an insecure killer.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ponceleon" title="member since February 8th, 2008" class="profilelink">ponceleon
You demand proof in order to believe in a god or gods. Well, there is no proof of dark matter--only speculation.


No, thats not accurate. The whole reason we have to concept dark matter is because of evidence-based reasoning. The point about dark matter is that we dont know anything ABOUT it, except that its probably out there, because of the way the matter in the universe is behaving.

A simple analogy would be the finding of exoplanets (planets around stars different then our own) until recently, noone had actually photographed one, we only knew they were there because they caused slight alterations in the light from the stars they orbit. in other words we knew of them because of their effect on their parent star. The same thing can be said of dark matter: We know its there because of the way it affects the universe.

If we were to ask for similar evidence of the existence of gods, a good start would perhaps be a huge natural disaster that only spared the devout, for example. If there was a consistent trend that those people who prayed seemed always to be spared from disasters where everybody else died, we could draw "dark matter"-like conclusion about god, we couldnt be 100% sure, but we could say that there seems to be a god who likes being prayed to.

@BicycleRepairMan (and @ponceleon indirectly too)

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to do with that post. I had thought that ponceleon's objection of religion (and religious people) was "faith"--believing in something for which there is no "proof" (as defined as something that can be scientifically measured or tested) for their beliefs. I brought up dark matter to point out that science itself does not always have such proof. People (including scientists) don't just throw up their hands and go "oh well" just because there is no proof of something--particularly, as you pointed out, when reason suggests that said thing might possibly exist. For religious people, reason does suggest that a god or gods exist. Therefore, it seemed to me that ponceleon was applying a double-standard. It's okay for science to believe in things for which there is no proof (but which reason suggests exists) yet it isn't okay for religious people.

I'll address here one objection you might have to the above paragraph. You might say (and ponceleon most certainly would) that the belief in the existence of a deity or deities is not reasonable. I don't fault you at all for that point of view. It brings us back to my central point--that people interpret their experiences in the world in different ways. Perhaps you look around the world and see simply a collection of chaos that coincidentally happens to form pockets of order. Others see the very same world and interpret it as designed. Some might see it as something in between. The point I've been trying to make is that we cannot at this moment prove any one of those views is correct. In fact, it may be impossible to "prove" because it is so subjective--you basically need to "disprove" the other person's experiences. Try proving to someone that is afraid of roller coasters that they are in fact quite fun. Try proving to someone that their favorite flavor isn't rocky road but chocolate chip mint instead. And try proving to an atheist that gods exist, or proving to a believer that they don't.

@ponceleon (for a response to your Dark Matter questions see above)

First off, I'd like to thank you for a very interesting discussion. It is through such dialogue that we clarify our thoughts, and your responses have really helped me explore many different ideas.

I'd like to start out by explaining why I responded to your post in the first place. Your initial post called for the end of all religion. It seemed to be a gross overreaction to the clip. You seemed to be equating every single religious person with a fanatic Muslim willing to kill for his beliefs.

You very clearly place a high value on reason and logical thought. My initial purpose in posting, then, was to show you how illogical it is to condemn an entire group of people for the actions of a few individuals. You would not consider it reasonable to call for an end to Democracy simply because some people have started wars in the name of Democracy (see Lawdeedaw's post above). It is just as illogical to call for an end to all religion because some people have committed evil in the name of religion. Likewise, just because Sarah Palin blew some hot air on national TV about fruit flies, it doesn't logically follow that all religious people are against science. Or that they all want to convert you. That's another gross over-generalization. As a refutation, I provide the example of two of the worlds biggest religions--Buddhism and Hinduism--which co-exist peacefully with multiple other religions and do not try impose their teachings on those who don't voluntarily come seeking them.

So that was my original point, basically. Your initial call for an end to religion wasn't logical, reasonable, or even plausible. How could you accomplish it? By force? That would rob you of the moral high ground. By law? In the U.S., at least, you would face the problem that freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Given the improbability of a religious-free world anytime in the near future (almost certainly not our lifetimes) wouldn't it be better to use our intellectual powers for figuring out how to get along? And how to deal humanely with those radicals and fundamentalists who refuse to try to get along or insist on imposing their views on others? Personally, I feel that is a much better use of our time and energy than trying to ban religion outright.

This will be my last post here. I'll let you have the last word on the matter. If you want to continue talking about this or other things, send me a profile reply. However, I'm very busy with work right now and might not be able to reply right away, so I apologize for that.

>> ^ponceleon:

@SGD Ah I think we are coming a bit closer together here, but you are backpeddling a bit.
There is a BIG difference between you telling me that it is MY job as a rational person to disprove the existance of God the Son and the Holy ghost, v. telling me that dark matter is unmeasurable.
You see, Dark Matter is based on actual calculations and rational deliberation which leads scientists to see that something is missing from their model. As it turns out, I'm willing to CONSIDER dark matter as a possibility because it is based on something thought out and observable (though itself it may not be). That said, I would not be surprised at all if it turns out to be bunk. But that's the great part of science, Dark Matter can turn out to be real or not real and NO SCIENTIST is going to FATWAH me for believing on either side. It's exactly as you say.
As for why religion needs to go, well it is exactly for the reason you state: they DO try to force their views on others. When Sarah Palin, champion of the religious nuts in this country, gets up and tells us that fruit fly research is "silly and pointless" I see that as highly dangerous and definitely something that needs to be addressed. Killing and threatening artists. Suicide Bombers, child-abuse cover-ups, intelligent design, Jesus camps, invading the west bank, female oppression, and good christians don't vote for Obama.... all great examples of how "good teachings" of a religion have been cast aside in favor of fear, hate mongering, and irrational behavior.
Religion has forced itself on human culture for all of our history and while some good has come of it, a great portion of the bad in the world can be traced back to someone listening to a magical being in their head (or as I often suspect, saying they do in order to sway uneducated masses).
So in conclusion, I think you are now a lot closer to me in what I mean (though I fall on the other side of the argument when it comes to the usefulness of religion), but I do think you backpedaled a bit. Dark Matter /= Jesus.

SDGundamX: I think you misunderstand what I was trying to do with that post. I had thought that ponceleon's objection of religion (and religious people) was "faith"--believing in something for which there is no "proof" (as defined as something that can be scientifically measured or tested) for their beliefs. I brought up dark matter to point out that science itself does not always have such proof.



I dont think I misunderstood what you attempted to do, but I think you failed to show that scientists make the same kinds of leap-of-faith as religion does. My whole point about dark matter is that there IS evidence that strongly suggests that it exists, its not just about scientists throwing out a guess. Infact, we wouldnt even have the concept of dark matter in science at all, if it wasnt for all the evidence.

So even tho we cant see or measure the dark matter, assuming that it exists is a reasonable and logical thing to do, its precisely not "faith" like you need to believe in God.

Exhibit A:If you abolish religion then you have one goal - The betterment of humanity. If everybody is on that same page and not thinking about how their lord and savior will take care of everybody in the afterlife, they'll realize that we need to fix how things are now.


Exhibit B:Think about it, no more wars in the name of gods, no people getting killed for changing their beliefs.

The fatal flaw in your plan is how to get A without doing the very things you want to eliminate in B. Exactly what plan can you present to 'abolish' religion that will not necessarily involve wars and killing people to change their beliefs?