Is Richard Dawkins' Anti-Religion Campaign Dividing Society?

[PIT2]

Valhalla also represents a cluster of general ideas and Norse mythology gives its own answers to life questions. Should we then adopt it as superior to our scientific ignorance about life or consciousness? ...

On the other hand people from all cultures can agree that abandoning culturally imposed god-memes is refreshing, and the enterprise of science, incomplete as it is at this moment, is superior to blind assumptions.

Science isn't atheism is it? And the one claiming superiority wasnt me.

 

[Another God]

Science isn't atheism is it?

It does, however, work as an atheist. With no presumption of god or gods. Science may not be atheism, but science is atheistic.

 

[PIT2]

It does, however, work as an atheist. With no presumption of god or gods. Science may not be atheism, but science is atheistic.

Maybe science is atheistic, in the sense that god-ideas arent allowed in scientific theories. But science is only a method for humans to investigate reality. If the method is atheistic, then it doesn't logically follow that reality atheistic too (unless u define reality by the capabilities of the scientific method).

 

[Another God]

hmmm good point.

But any theory which is flawed on its metaphysical level can be disproven by its own findings. So even if Science assumes no God and then goes looking for stuff expecting no God to ever interfere...then if there was a god, it would eventually become apparent in the evidence.

 

[sneez]

But any theory which is flawed on its metaphysical level can be disproven by its own findings. So even if Science assumes no God and then goes looking for stuff expecting no God to ever interfere...then if there was a god, it would eventually become apparent in the evidence.

In limited degree yes. In absolute sense, no.

If spiritualist (like Buddhists) postulate that 'Brahma/super consciousness/..' is beyond physical and description of limits of logic then it hardly will disprove itself of this concept.

Just like science (physicalism) which postulates/assumes that only physical things exists can never prove itself wrong on this postulate.

So it is really about one method being superior in certain circumstances to the other. To learn correctly apply them when appropriate is wisdom.

As far as Dawking's 'crusade', it is pathetic concept to begin with. HE is eventually starting the same nonsense like mid-evil-age Christians practices of being just 'one-dogmatic-official-truth' to be enforced (isn’t this what he is trying to fight against as far as religions? Well, he is using the same method to do so).

Yes, to withhold/suppress exposure to such ideas as god/non-physical is really disgusting in concept and should be abhorred by rational ppl.

I think that soon enough adherents of this non-sense crusade will behave just like psychopaths of 11th century totally devoid of reasoning just sticking to the dogma. IMHO this concept of getting away with religion (just to replace it with another one), is very old in humanity and never produces anything nice to be looking forward to. Scientific ppl/community who really know what science is , should put Mr. Dawking back on earth.

 

[Hurkyl]

I think atheism is superior regardless of the method you use to assess the universe because atheism does not rely on any illogical leaps.

Pray tell, how did you logically leap to the conclusion that no god or gods exist?

Oh, and incidentally... you believe in empiricism, right? Then you have no legs to stand on here, since you too rely on an "illogical leap".

ignorance is NEVER a good argument for something.

Of course. In particular, ignorance of evidence for a god or gods is not a good argument that they do not exist.

It does, however, work as an atheist. With no presumption of god or gods. Science may not be atheism, but science is atheistic.

It works as a theist too. Science is agnostic; a priori, it neither assumes nor denies the existence of a god or gods.

 

[Rade]

Hurkyl,

I do not follow your argument above. If science a priori does not deny the existence of gods, and the concept god is by definition that which is outside the physical (e.g., supernatural), then one must conclude that science a priori is a way to knowledge of the supernatural, which is of course a false premise. Thus, as I see it, science does a priori deny any attempt to "knowledge" of the existence of god. Now, you are correct that science does not a priori assume the existence of the supernatural. But please do let me know where my thinking fails.

As to Dawkins, he is but one of a long line of humanists. That he is a scientist with an interest in pushing forward the humanist philosophy to the general public head-to-head against organized religion worldwide makes him unique in the history of science. In many ways Dawkins rivals all great religious figures, somewhat ironic that Dawkins and Jesus both preach the virtues of the absolute. Perhaps the truth lies in the dialectic union of both their positions.

 

[Hurkyl]

I do not follow your argument above.

Which one? I'm presuming the last point I made.

Well, go look at the scientific method. Is "deny the existence of deities" one of its procedures? Nope.

What about scientific theories? Is "deities do not exist" one of the axioms of Newtonian mechanics? Special relativity? General relativity? Quantum mechanics? Nope.

What about the study of biology? Economics? {insert scientific field here}? As far as I know, none of them take "deities do not exist" as one of their fundamental tenets.

In any of those topics, can the nonexistence of deities be rigorously logically deduced? Again, to the best of my knowledge, no.

Thus, it follows that, a priori, science does not deny the existence of deities.

If science a priori does not deny the existence of gods, and the concept god is by definition that which is outside the physical (e.g., supernatural), then one must conclude that science a priori is a way to knowledge of the supernatural, which is of course a false premise.

I don't see how, from
(1) science a priori does not deny the existence of gods
(2) the concept god is by definition that which is outside the physical (e.g., supernatural)
you intend to conclude
(3) science is a way to knowledge of the supernatural.

I suspect you've made a fallacy of the excluded middle: you've confused "does not deny" with "does affirm", forgetting that it is possible neither to affirm nor to deny something.


Now, mind you, I disagree that (3) is a false conclusion. If you have two theories of the supernatural that wind up having mundane differences, or you have a way of gathering supernatural evidence, then science can, in fact, be used to accumulate knowledge of the supernatural.

Of course, (3) is only true if you assume you can do one of those things, or something similar... but the point is that you have not given sufficient premises to be able to conclude (3) must be false.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, go look at the scientific method. Is "deny the existence of deities" one of its procedures? Nope.

What about scientific theories? Is "deities do not exist" one of the axioms of Newtonian mechanics? Special relativity? General relativity? Quantum mechanics? Nope.

Ah, but philosophical monism IS one of its founding principles. There is, for science, only one source of movement and life in the universe, and that source is the proper study of science. Any concept that can not be consistently introduced without appealing to dualism (or polyism) can not coexist amicably with science.

This is not to say that the source has to be seen as simple or mechanical; but it must be one in its role as cause of all.

 

[Rade]

... forgetting that it is possible neither to affirm nor to deny something...

?? confused. Are you saying the scientific method does not allow one to falsify a null hypothesis ? -- how so ? On a more human note, are you saying you can neither affirm nor deny your existence ? I realize this is off topic of Dawkins, but the statement just caught me as being odd.

 

[Another God]

 

[Hurkyl]

Are you saying the scientific method does not allow one to falsify a null hypothesis ?

I don't see why you would think that.

On a more human note, are you saying you can neither affirm nor deny your existence ?

Nor that.

 

[Hurkyl]

Ah, but philosophical monism IS one of its founding principles. There is, for science, only one source of movement and life in the universe, and that source is the proper study of science. Any concept that can not be consistently introduced without appealing to dualism (or polyism) can not coexist amicably with science.

This is not to say that the source has to be seen as simple or mechanical; but it must be one in its role as cause of all.

Would you care to elaborate? There are at least two points I'd like to hear you say more about:

(1) When I think "science", I think "the process of gaining knowledge via the scientific method". What additional meaning are you ascribing to the term?

(2) Could you spell out how monism applies here? In particular, in what sense science is monistic, while any concept of deity must be pluralistic?

 

[Astronuc]

Perhaps some relevant articles.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html

The New Unbelievers
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061105/13atheism.htm

I think the matter is more the clash of thoughts, beliefs and ideas. Take religion out of the picture, and one will still have conflicts among humans, and just as often, groups of humans, who share similar thoughts, beliefs and ideas.

Then the matter becomes - how to develop rational behavior that is peaceful and productive (i.e. positive) rather than negative (i.e. with attritubes such as aggression, hostility, greed, vanity, . . . ).

As for morality and ethical behavior, that ultimately comes down to one's choice (internal influence or direction - guided by one conscience), even when there is an external influence.

Then there is the matter of the individual vs the community (e.g. clan, tribe, nation, religion, race, . . . . ) How does one choose between conscience vs deferrence to the group thought or belief?

 

[ValenceE]

hello to all,

Astronuc, imho, I think that in order to start anything on the proper path, you have to really pay attention to the massive emotions that are part of the equation. Emotions will throw off and derail any rational set of laws, however 'good for mankind' they could be, and that's ashame...

 

[Rade]

Rade Quote:
On a more human note, are you saying you can neither affirm nor deny your existence ? Hurkyl Reply : I don't see why you would say that

See your post # 58 where you state as a conclusion of an argument that I have somehow made the error of...forgetting that it is possible neither to affirm nor to deny something. So, clearly you state that it is not possible for you to either affirm or deny anything--which I take to also mean your own existence. Hopefully all is now clear.

 

[Hurkyl]

So, clearly you state that it is not possible for you to either affirm or deny anything

How so?

 

[VonWeber]

I haven't watched his films yet or read his book. The only thing I am familiar with is his notion of memes. After Sept 11 he said:

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"

At first I thought this was sage, but after a while I thought since when has he ever had any respect for religion or thought it was harmless.

So one possible way of reading Dawkins is that he is trying to create nonreligious memes and send them out into the population.

I'm posting this in social sciences because it seems like Richard Dawkins is on a crusade against the social aceptance of religion. So this topic is sort of a religion topic, sort of a biology topic, sort of a physics topic, but allin all its about our society and how we accept beliefs.

Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins" " and so I have been watching a few videos on You Tube.

Personally I agree with virtually everything Dawkins says and think his logical consistency and philosophical integrity is unsurpassable. The potential ramifications of this 'crusade' I'm not so sure about though. (though I don't disagree with him doing it at all)

Anyway, watch these films and tell me what you think of what he is saying.

Interview
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY

The root of all evil
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AB2vmj8eyMk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C10sSC2kB3Q&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wr_qZ3P4nl4&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-cZGGD5grkQ&mode=related&search=

And a funny interview with Stephen Colbert
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X1fTkvefu5s

Shane

 

[Chris Davison]

When I was around age 6 a teacher said that a some guy
was turned into a pillar of salt by God. I am now 67 and have taken
religion with a "pinch of salt" since then. Have I missed something?

I am reading Dawkins's book The God Delusion, of course
he is right but I am frustrated by the fact that we are now
in the 21st century and such a book is needed. Perhaps
humans will always have some who believe in a God, my advice
is keep out of high buildings.

 

[Garth]

Yes, atheists find Dawkin's book very convincing.

Garth

 

[Hurkyl]

Yes, atheists find Dawkin's book very convincing.

Of course, one wonders whether that's because Dawkins wrote a convincing book, or because they want to believe in its conclusion.

 

[Chris Davison]

I do not "want to believe" anything. Wanting to believe is a religious
non scientific state of mind.


Religion is the early dawn of man's thinking: Bertrand Russell

 

[Hurkyl]

Wanting to believe is a religious ... state of mind.

Now why would you believe that?

 

[Chris Davison]

Here endeth the lesson Hurky , God simply does not exist
and I am not prepared to go around in circles
with someone who presumably has reached adulthood
and does not realize this.

 

[Hurkyl]

Here endeth the lesson Hurky , God simply does not exist
and I am not prepared to go around in circles
with someone who presumably has reached adulthood
and does not realize this.

I don't see what any of this has to do with your assertion that

Wanting to believe is a religious ... state of mind.​

Shall I assume that you are retracting this assertion? Or shall I go with the more likely possibility that you cannot back your statements up with logic, so you resort to red herring and ad hominem instead?

 

[Garth]

God simply does not exist

Spoken with the sure conviction of a person of faith.

Garth

 

[Doc Al]

Spoken with the sure conviction of a person of faith.

I assume you meant that as a putdown?

 

[Garth]

I assume you meant that as a putdown?

I think so.

What irritates me is the way some people make dogmatic statements about things that cannot be proven and then claim it is only others that are relying on faith.

When I argue with fundamentalist Christians I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are spiritually blind.

When I argue with some atheists I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are stupid and 'have reached adulthood without realising"God simply does not exist''. '

To explain the anthropic fine tuning of the physical universe that makes ours a fecund universe requires either faith in the existence of some kind of creator or in a multitude of other universes. Both responses requires belief in the existence of entities that cannot be observed by scientific means. I cannot see how one response is derided as 'metaphysical' and the other not.

Garth

 

[arildno]

I think so.

What irritates me is the way some people make dogmatic statements about things that cannot be proven and then claim it is only others that are relying on faith.

No, we don't. We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.

 

[sneez]

Here endeth the lesson Hurky , God simply does not exist
and I am not prepared to go around in circles
with someone who presumably has reached adulthood
and does not realize this.

Im glad you think that way. Let me put you into the group of religious fanatics who are ultimatelly right, no tolerance of other opinions allowed.

You r replacing one belief for another, applying the same irrational sense to it.

Really, wonder anyone who reached adulthood thinking this way.

 

[sneez]

When I argue with fundamentalist Christians I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are spiritually blind.

When I argue with some atheists I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are stupid and 'have reached adulthood without realising"God simply does not exist''. '


Garth

Thank you.

 

[Garth]

When I argue with fundamentalist Christians I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are spiritually blind.

When I argue with some atheists I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are stupid and 'have reached adulthood without realising"God simply does not exist''. '

No, we don't. We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.

Thank you for providing such a good example.

Garth

 

[arildno]

Again, the same intellectual dishonesty is shown by an apologist of religion:

My example is a PRECISE analogy to the God hypothesis, but apologists, wholly UNWARRANTED, wave it away without argument.
Shame on you.

 

[sneez]

My example is a PRECISE analogy to the God hypothesis, but apologists, wholly UNWARRANTED, wave it away without argument.
Shame on you.

If one wants to belief in god or fairy or no god that's his choice. He will find arguments to support his/her choice. If i meet such person i give him my belief if he/she is interested. If mine argument makes sense to them i they will accept it or reject. The same goes the other way.

Thats the end of it. Long gone are the age when we needed spiritual leaders to think for us. (be it atheistic or religious priests)

Each one of us has mind on his/her own. Thats the end of it. Why do 'priests' feel like 'saving' lost souls? If one cannot tolerate another persons's belief, that person has no wisdom!

[do not be mad when if taliban would in the name of them being right start repressing atheism, christianity, any other way of thinking by means of intolerance you call for]

by the way, atheism is a belief just like any other belief. What cannt you understand about it?

 

[arildno]

If one cannot tolerate another persons's belief, that person has no wisdom!

Eeh?
Whatever are you talking about?

The fact that each person should be allowed to HOLD any opinions they want, is wholly separate from whether others should be required to RESPECT their beliefs.

In fact, when it comes to private fantasies (like religion), it is intolerant towards others to demand that they should respect your belief as something deep and rational.
This is, however, what religionists, and their apologists demand of others.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Eeh?
Whatever are you talking about?

The fact that each person should be allowed to HOLD any opinions they want, is wholly separate from whether others should be required to RESPECT their beliefs.

In fact, when it comes to private fantasies (like religion), it is intolerant towards others to demand that they should respect your belief as something deep and rational.
This is, however, what religionists, and their apologists demand of others.

Exactly. And note that religious fantasies have content concerning other people. And sooner or later religious people are going to enforce their fantasies on other people. The current example is the fight to define marriage as "a man and a woman".

To me, enforcing any kind of fantasies on somebody else is comparable to enforcing a masturbation fantasy on someone else. That is, to rape.

 

[Hurkyl]

We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.

Are you saying that God does not exist?

 

[sneez]

Exactly. And note that religious fantasies have content concerning other people. And sooner or later religious people are going to enforce their fantasies on other people. The current example is the fight to define marriage as "a man and a woman".

To me, enforcing any kind of fantasies on somebody else is comparable to enforcing a masturbation fantasy on someone else. That is, to rape.

Man vs woman marriage issue can be held by atheist as well or budhist or whatever.

Im NOT protecting religions (do not feel like you need to justfy atheism to me). I HATE RELIGION with utmost hatered! I just have enough honesty to admit that my opinions are limited as well as my knowledge to say somebody DO NOT BELIEF in this or that. All i can tell them fault in their reasoning or inconsistencies. Education is best weapon against ignorance.

So whatever religious ppl or their religions demand I am not protecting. I will be the first on the front line to protect freedom of belief! But i hate to see Mr. Dawkings attacking religions on something that he and his followers are guilty of as well!

The fact that one is dogmatically and violently speaking against one belief (to the point of prohibiting it) ! (not against the some of the demands of the institutions of that belief ) is clear proof that atheism as Dawkings conceives it is religion belief replacement.

 

[Astronuc]

We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested,

So the 'existence or non-existence of God or gods is nontestable - so one is left to 'believe God or gods exist' or 'believe God or gods do not exist' - either way, one is left 'believing'.

I am satisfied with what I know and I know that there are many things I don't know yet - but I enjoy discovering new things - and sharing those discoveries with those who are interested in such things.

Don't worry - Be Happy!

Also, religion doesn't necessarily imply mythology or belief. It does however involve living life with due deliberation as to the consequences of one's actions. There are many believers who are not religious.

 

[arildno]

Are you saying that God does not exist?

Not at all.
The hypothesis "God exists" is as LOGICALLY VALID as "God does not exist", since whatever reality MIGHT be, either one of the hypotheses must be true (neither of the statements can be regarded as self-contradictory).

Similarly, the hypothesis "pink unicorns exists somewhere" is as logically valid as its negation.

However, it does not follow that all logically valid statements are equally rational.

Whereas every illogical statement is irrational, not all logical statements are rational.

 

[arildno]

I am satisfied with what I know and I know that there are many things I don't know yet - but I enjoy discovering new things - and sharing those discoveries with those who are interested in such things. .

Of course. As long as it is DISCOVERED, rather than merely purported to exist, which is something quite different.

 

[arildno]

The fact that one is dogmatically and violently speaking against one belief (to the point of prohibiting it) ! .

Who are you talking about?
Surely not Dawkins, nor have anyone here at PF advocated a ban on religion!

Those individuals most typically in favour of banning other thoughts are..the (monotheistically inclined) religious individuals.
(Check out history on that)

 

[sneez]

Who are you talking about?
Surely not Dawkins, nor have anyone here at PF advocated a ban on religion!

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html"

http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html (Crusaide against religion?) what do you call that?

Read dawkins's 'New Atheism'

quote:"Yes, there could be a rational religion," Dennett says. "We could have a rational policy not even to think about certain things." He understands that this would create constant tension between prohibition and curiosity. But the borders of our sacred beliefs could be well guarded simply by acknowledging that it is pragmatic to refuse to change them.
"

Those individuals most typically in favour of banning other thoughts are..the (monotheistically inclined) religious individuals.
(Check out history on that)

Dear, i could shool ppl in religious oppressions, irrationalities. Thats why i recognize one when i see one. And new atheism is religion of hate and violence. Irrational in its demans and higly non-tolerant. All that you so much complain about.

And like i said, I am not protecting religion or ahteism. I am protecting the freedom to belief in whatever you want to as long as you let other do so as well. However, when some belief comes, even when some contemporary respected ppl, that is irrationaly absolutistic i speak against.

If this thread was about christian fanatics i would be here speaking of crimes they commit. But this thread is about Dawking and his new religion, which HE calls it!

 

[arildno]

Well, I've read the article. I didn't see anyone of the New Atheists, including Dawkins advocate a ban on religion.
The closest thing was this:

How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?" Dawkins asks. "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children?

This is a very important question Dawkins raises.
Why, indeed, do we have to accept parents as competent care takers who frighten small children with tales of eternal torture if, for example, you prefer to have sexual relations with someone of your own sex?

We are EMBARASSED and ASHAMED today that a staple ingredient of earlier times' child raising was physical "correction".

The mental hells conjured in quite a few children due to their parents' religious ravings is not something we "have to" accept, because it is in accordance with the "sincere and deep" religious beliefs of the parents.

While the parents should perfectly well be allowed to HOLD their opinions, it by no means follows that we must accept that they inflict damage on OTHER INDIVIDUALS (like their own children).



Furthermore, the article writer is in evident confusion:
He is so accustomed to the idea that we MUST show respect for other persons' religious beliefs, that he regards the New Atheists denial of the existence of such a duty as the result of unwarranted scorn.


However, NO private fantasy concerning what exists in the world or not, (whether religious or not) can lay any comparable claim on others' respect for it as, say, science can.
For example, I have the private belief that everything in the world is fundamentally discrete, and furthermore, that this in the last analysis may prove that continuous modelling of the world (say, by diff.eqs) is unsuitable (a difference equations approach might prove better).
In particular, I think problems concerning, for example, convergence of solutions and boundedness of them will crop up in any continuous modelling scheme.

Now, this is a PRIVATE fantasy I firmly believe in, and it is a FANTASY, because I really don't have any evidence to speak of to bolster it up.
Do I for that reason get mightily offended if others simply dismiss my idea as silly?
No, I don't! Why should I?
It is perfectly within their RIGHTS to dismiss EVERY claim about the world that has wholly insufficient evidence behind it.

That is, I do not REQUIRE that others respect my belief, because that, in my opinion would be an infringement of their rights as sovereign intellectual beings.

However, it is precisely this REQUIREMENT OF RESPECT for their religious beliefs that religionists, and their defenders, perennially put forth, and to which the article writer has submitted himself.

 

[ModernBaroque]

The most annoying thing about some atheists is not their atheism but their inconsistency.

While the parents should perfectly well be allowed to HOLD their opinions, it by no means follows that we must accept that they inflict damage on OTHER INDIVIDUALS (like their own children).

You are basically saying parents don't have a right to educate their children. This is absurd. If people don't have a right to teach kids about what they believe, then they don't have a right to teach them about things like honesty or patriotism.

NO private fantasy concerning what exists in the world or not, (whether religious or not) can lay any comparable claim on others' respect for it as, say, science can.

Nobody is asking that religion be respected. For the most part, religious people feel little respect for different religions, or even different denominations of their own religion. This has nothing to do with respecting ideas, and everything to do with respecting people.

Claiming that people believe in religion because they are intellectually inferior is not showing lack of respect for the religion, it's showing lack of respect for people. That is not nice as your mother should have taught you.

For example, I have the private belief that everything in the world is fundamentally discrete, and furthermore, that this in the last analysis may prove that continuous modelling of the world (say, by diff.eqs) is unsuitable (a difference equations approach might prove better).
In particular, I think problems concerning, for example, convergence of solutions and boundedness of them will crop up in any continuous modelling scheme.

Now, this is a PRIVATE fantasy I firmly believe in, and it is a FANTASY, because I really don't have any evidence to speak of to bolster it up.

First you present some evidence or your "private fantasy", then you claim there's no evidence for it?

If, on the other hand, there really is no evidence for your idea, then it would be stupid of you to believe it. Isn't that exactly what you are claiming about religiuos people?

Do I for that reason get mightily offended if others simply dismiss my idea as silly?
No, I don't! Why should I?
It is perfectly within their RIGHTS to dismiss EVERY claim about the world that has wholly insufficient evidence behind it.

People don't get offended by atheism, you're getting it all wrong. Atheists have always existed and always will. People do get offended for being labeled idiots.

If I tell you you are dim-witted for believing "everything in the world is fundamentally discrete", would not that be offensive?

However, it is precisely this REQUIREMENT OF RESPECT for their religious beliefs that religionists, and their defenders, perennially put forth, and to which the article writer has submitted himself.

You can dismiss an idea as ridiculous without insulting the people who profess it - all it takes is civility, something Dawkins and his followers do not seem to have.

 

[Evo]

You are basically saying parents don't have a right to educate their children. This is absurd. If people don't have a right to teach kids about what they believe, then they don't have a right to teach them about things like honesty or patriotism.

You are incorrect, the quote specifically states "opinions". Religious beliefs are merely opinions. It has nothing to do with educating them about "real, factual" information. You should not put words into people's mouths.

is asking that religion be respected. For the most part, religious people feel little respect for different religions, or even different denominations of their own religion. This has nothing to do with respecting ideas, and everything to do with respecting people.

Claiming that people believe in religion because they are intellectually inferior is not showing lack of respect for the religion, it's showing lack of respect for people. That is not nice as your mother should have taught you.

What do your comments have to do with Arildno's post?

And you continue to misread what he wrote.

If you're going to quote someone's words then your following response needs to address what they wrote.

 

[Hurkyl]

Not at all.

*phew* I was worried that you were making that mistake.

We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing

Would you agree that someone who has seen what appears to be evidence of "this God thing" would be scientifically compelled to believe in it? At the very least, to have more confidence in God's existence than the agnostic stance would have?


And on a completely different note...

nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.

Where do you get off saying that Science is the only source of truth?

First off, what evidence is there that Science is good for anything at all? (Empirical evidence. Ponder that a moment)

Secondly, why should anyone believe that there can be no other source of truth?

Obviously your core beliefs include that Science is the only source of truth, and that's fine for justifying things to yourself. But it gives you no logical footing whatsoever when debating with company that doesn't share that core belief. And thus I reject this argument; it can only be valid when you are, pardon the phrase, preaching to the choir.

 

[Another God]

First off, what evidence is there that Science is good for anything at all? (Empirical evidence. Ponder that a moment)

Aeroplanes, space ships, penecilin, heart transplantation, microwaves, refrigeration, super-computers, electricity, year round climate control, structural integrity in high rises...

need I continue?

 

[Hurkyl]

Aeroplanes, space ships, penecilin, heart transplantation, microwaves, refrigeration, super-computers, electricity, year round climate control, structural integrity in high rises...

need I continue?

Ah, empirical evidence. Ponder that a moment.

 

[Another God]

through empirical studies science has provided information which has benn applied to create empirical solutions to empirical problems allowing for empirical improvements in longevity, health, wellbeing etc.

Better or worse can't be empirical, but stats can. Stats show science improves stuff.