Upvote for the humor

Hmmm Atheists meeting in a large congregation to talk about what they put their faith in... seems an awful lot like organized religion to me.

And whats so bad about organized religion?

Oh, thats right, we cant gather around and talk about that, because that would be like organized religion!!

I is smart!!! You are really winning these debates, arent you, gorgonheap. now either watch what you downvote, or as I've told you before, Fuck off.

I don't ever remember you telling to to "F*%$ off" before BRM. I do watch what you post and I find Dawkins has no argument for being atheist other then he likes to attribute all that's horrible and evil in the world to those with faith in a God.

But whatever I'll stay away from watching your videos since you seem to take such offense to it.

i think ol gorgon hasn't really watched any Dawkins if he states

"I find Dawkins has no argument for being atheist other then he likes to attribute all that's horrible and evil in the world to those with faith in a God."

nice strawman there ol gorgo

UPDATE. Ha, I like how you downvote my comment gorgo and only could come back with the lame "as good as any atheist strawman". nice

As good a strawman as any atheist has Q.

I really appreciate Dawkin's logical views.

The last time I told you, you downvoted a 10+ minute long video 11 seconds after I posted it. Admittedly, it took a little longer for your downvote to reach an excellent video this time, but your criticism, even in your little defence here, easily reveals your complete lack of knowledge about the contents of this video, My point is, feel free to downvote all you want, but atleast have the common courtesy to know what you are downvoting.

Richard Dawkins is actually an amazingly interesting guy, do yourself a favour and actually read one of his books, he understands the world better than you and me, and he explains with an unmatched clarity things you thought you understood but didnt.

I'll probably downvote Ann Coulter or Falwell or other idiots I dont like, but unlike you, I actually watch the videos first, and if , by some Heisenbergian coincidence Ann Coulter was to say something intelligent, I might even upvote.

You seem unwilling to even listen to an argument from the other side, I can only shrug.. is it fear?, anger? Who knows...

As good a strawman as any atheist has Q.

What the hell is this sentence supposed to express?`oh yeah, another fallacy. Someone points out HOW and WHY you are WRONG, and all you can do is report back with "You are wrong too" without giving ANY arguments to support your claim.. Do you even know what "strawman" means in this context? If you do, give one example of a strawman set up by "any atheist"

I can appreciate Dawkins as a scientist, He's undoubtedly a respectable man. However, I disdain his active attacks against non-atheists. In regards to his active aggression against those with religious faith is why I downvoted. As for the strawman thing, my understanding of a strawman argument is one that is easily blown over. If yours is different please clarify. What I was referring to was how the argument of "Some religions do bad things" is a poor reason for anyone to use.

I'm sorry that this has seemed to anger you so much. I'm not out to anger anyone I'm simply stating my feelings about Dawkins zealous atheism. Perhaps you can explain why this is angering you so much?

Atheism keeps religions more honest then they would be without it.

Has there ever been a functional majority atheist civilization of any kind?

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

"Atheism keeps religions more honest then they would be without it."

QM, great assertion, since it is absolutely impossible to prove in any quantifiable way. So, there is no need in us argueing about the validity of it.

as far as this question of yours

"Has there ever been a functional majority atheist civilization of any kind?"

I honesty do not know, good question. If there was I'm sure we'd see many of the same problems that we see in most societies, but with different motivations. Ultimately, I think power corrupts and that people can be greedy and do awful things, whether one has religous convictions or not.

I generally appreciate Dawkins' sharpened views on the spoils of religion and virtue of science. However... his constant self-reference does his message a disservice. And it's tacky.

"Has there ever been a functional majority atheist civilization of any kind?"

Well, that depends on your definition of "atheist", if you mean a country full of people like Dawkins (ie outspoken atheists) then probably no.. If atheist is to mean less religious people, or secular values treasured higher than religious ones, well, just look at the world today. With only one exception, the US, the top 20 list of "least religious countries" and "most successful countries" could might as well be done as one and the same list, likewise the bottom "most religious" and "least successful" would be pretty much the same countries.

The one exception on the list, the United States, also happens to be the ONLY country on the list with a constitutional ban on mixing state and religion.

I'm sure you support the efforts of the Bush administration, the Jerry Falwells, the neocons, fundamentalists and evangelicals to tear down that wall of separation thats been holding the US back a little bit at their most insane, but if I were you, I'd reconsider. Quickly.

Oh, and gorgonheap, http://www.videosift.com/video/Sam-Harris-about-Atheism

My memory failed me, its 40 minutes long and you downvoted after 11 minutes. I posted it about an hour or two after it was originally posted, and since I assume you are not a richarddawkins.net regular, I figured this was the first time you had seen it, thinking that the tag "atheism" is enough to warrant a downvote, am I close?

I share alot of his views,and he does make some good points, I just can't get over the...goddamned up-his-own-ass smugness of it all.

I'm sure he would have an easier time encouraging people to listen to what he has to say, and his explanations of the atheist's viewpoint, if he wasn't so condescending of those who don't agree with him.

Also; I'm puzzled as to why atheists like him feel the need to "Preach" their beliefs to others. He speaks of those that atheists "need to reach" in the video. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this one of the most distasteful (and irritating) things about the followers of organised religions.

Also; I'm puzzled as to why atheists like him feel the need to "Preach" their beliefs to others. He speaks of those that atheists "need to reach" in the video. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this one of the most distasteful (and irritating) things about the followers of organised religions.

Yes, well, as he explains in this video, the goal is not necessarily to convert people, but to "raise consciousness" as he puts it, to make atheism a legitimate point of view, if nothing else. Atheists wont threaten you with eternal hellfire unless you reject the supernatural, nor do we intend to have people follow some silly rules about sex that we invented. We dont want people to bow to some earthly nor celestial supreme being. Nor do we make outrageously arrogant claims of knowledge and certainty without at the very least pointing to publicly available evidence.

If we had to make demands, it would probably be that people should have a right, and a duty, to think for themselves.

Well trying to convert people will almost always fail anyway, due to the "Faith" element of religion, whereby a non-believer can present as many logical arguments as they like but logic is simply not part of the equation for real believers (ie those who care enough to bother with a debate in the first place).

Which is why most debates between the two sides will just go round in circles until they agree to disagree. I really don't see the point.

Dawkins would certainly have more of my humble support if he was more focused on eliminating the influence the church still inexplicably has on affairs of state and education, where their interference is more destructive in my opinion.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.

Awarding mauz15 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by mauz15.

*length=57:16

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 57:16 - length declared by xxovercastxx.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by chicchorea.