Dawkins interview on some sort of God channel...

[Scouse]

I think a violent anti-religion movement is almost inevitable given human capacity for stupidity and violence.

I agree with this. But I don't necesarily think "atheism" will be the common denominator - I think stupidity will be.

I think that humans instinctively want to believe in something and can easily convince themselves that they're doing the right thing, with no evidence for it.

It's why religion exists, after all.


Toht'll probably love this, but maybe atheism, a genuine lack of belief, is the preseve of a few? Maybe some who would class themselves as "atheists" don't actually understand the concept any more than religious people do.

Men tend not to think deeply, after all.

Either way - the pertinent point is that the possibility of violent atheism is still dwarfed by the actual reality of ongoing religion-based wars that have been engulfing our planet for thousands of years and still do today.

 

[Wij]

True, but "less" doesn't mean "no"; as I pointed out in an earlier post, suicide bombers are motivated by a lot more than 70 virgins.

That's why I said 'less'.

However, it's worth pointing out that while it's true for many suicide bombers that '70 virgins' is not the motivating factor it's still true that most of them still believe they have an eternal life. That belief makes self-sacrifice a little easier to swallow.

 

[Scouse]

You can make the same claim for religion; violence isn't the majority view in any religion. You can create a common viewpoint amongst atheists if you try hard enough. Of course in theory you'd have to justify violence "scientifically", but that's been successfully achieved in the past.

At first I was going to sort-of agree with this (with some amendments - for example - it's never been done "scientifically" - Hitler used clever emotive arguments with selective use of truth and exploitation of prejudice).

However, I've had a think and I disagree.

It comes down to this: How do you target an argument at no group of people?


If atheism is the "lack of belief" then there is no "common motivating factor". Nothing to target with your argument. No way of making a speech that's going to resonate with all of them - because they hold no belief in common.


I still think there'll probably be an agressive "anti-religious" movement - a group of dickheads who understand that religion and belief are ultimately bad things yet fall into the same trap that religious people fall into - believing without thinking.

However, it'll be no different from the violent religious actions that have caused the suffering of hundreds of millions down the centuries.

 

[DaGaffer]

The key issue here will be the "in the name of" scenario. It doesn't really matter that that Atheism is a lack of belief and isn't a belief system; it can be used as a rallying call for the gullible. Many theologians will point out that many of religion's worst excesses have been carried out in the name of God/Allah/Vishnu/Crom without any real understanding of the tenets of that religion. The smart and unscrupulous (or sometimes sincerely charismatic) get the weak-willed and lazy to do their bidding, as they've always done.

 

[Scouse]

I sort of agree with that Gaff. It would be much harder to achieve though. Do you not think that our current laws would allow someone in the west to get up and preach that sort of stuff? The currently established religions are much more of a danger.

If popey stood up and said god says christians must pop a cap in Obama's ass then some religious nutter will do it. However, if I stood up and told a bunch of non-believers to do the same they'd tell me to fuck off (or pop a cap in my ass).

Even if it did happen it won't be "atheists" who do it. It'll be twats.

 

[georgie]

If popey stood up and said god says christians must pop a cap in Obama's ass then some religious nutter will do it. However, if I stood up and told a bunch of non-believers to do the same they'd tell me to fuck off (or pop a cap in my ass).

You don't quite have the cachet of Popey though. Now if Dawkins proclaimed that atheists should rise up and do it, some nutter might. Again the common thread is "nutter".

 

[Scouse]

You don't quite have the cachet of Popey though. Now if Dawkins proclaimed that atheists should rise up and do it, some nutter might. Again the common thread is "nutter".

Really. I mean really?

At least 100 million fundamentalist christians in the US who believe the end of the world is coming and that the dead are going to rise from the grave and Satan is going to walk the earth dispencing justice to anyone who ever did anything bad in their lives in the form of eternal burning magma-based torture.

Pope says "kill Obama" a stack of them will march on the White House.

Dawkins pops up and says "kill Obama" and he'd be straight in the clanger for incitement. Nothing else would happen other than the catholic church using it in publicity against the new "aggressive atheism" - which the pope is already pontificating about.

TBH - if Dawkins appeared on telly and said it there's a good chance most people would say "Is that Dawkins?" - and if it wasn't for repeated posts about him on Freddyshouse I'd be one of 'em

 

[Wij]

Really. I mean really?

At least 100 million fundamentalist christians in the US who believe the end of the world is coming and that the dead are going to rise from the grave and Satan is going to walk the earth dispencing justice to anyone who ever did anything bad in their lives in the form of eternal burning magma-based torture.

Pope says "kill Obama" a stack of them will march on the White House.

Dawkins pops up and says "kill Obama" and he'd be straight in the clanger for incitement. Nothing else would happen other than the catholic church using it in publicity against the new "aggressive atheism" - which the pope is already pontificating about.

TBH - if Dawkins appeared on telly and said it there's a good chance most people would say "Is that Dawkins?" - and if it wasn't for repeated posts about him on Freddyshouse I'd be one of 'em

Most USA fundamentalists would rather pop a cap in the Pope tbh

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm glad that my question on atheist extremism has brought people to the point at hand; nutters will be nutters.

Perhaps now Scouse, you understand what i meant earlier

The thing is, it's not about a common belief, but a common standpoint. Thsi standpoint ofcourse comes from a lot of atheist being atheist "just cause"(evidently a great game), which ofcourse means...you guessed it...part of the group giving a wrong image of the rest.

In time, as i said, if atheism becomes a norm(more so), this point will become more prudent. Ofcourse now, religion has a large large past, with several variations, so nutters are mostly in that camp.

 

[Calaen]

The thing is, it's not about a common belief, but a common standpoint. Thsi standpoint ofcourse comes from a lot of atheist being atheist "just cause"(evidently a great game), which ofcourse means...you guessed it...part of the group giving a wrong image of the rest.

Can you back that up with statistics? or you just pulling it out of your arse?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Can you back that up with statistics? or you just pulling it out of your arse?

Can you back up the % of religious people being nutters?

 

[Calaen]

Can you back up the % of religious people being nutters?

erm 100% based on the fact you believe in something which does not exist.

 

[old.Tohtori]

 

[Scouse]

Most USA fundamentalists would rather pop a cap in the Pope tbh

Hey. I'd not thought of it that way! Thank god for Henry VIII and his cock-swinging church-fucking ways eh? One fell swoop and the pope's powerbase is significantly hampered. Win


Anyway, Toht. I was going to post a facepalm based on what you wrote. I still disagree.

I understand your standpoint but disagree with the very fundamentals.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I understand your standpoint but disagree with the very fundamentals.

Oh gods...finally, we have come to an understandment

 

[mr.Blacky]

Now none of this alters your point that religion opens the door to irrational behaviour, but ultimately religion is just a human construct, like nationalism, racism or any other human-created ideology, but that actually strengthens the case for atheism; ideologies can be tested, and if found wanting (like communism) can be discarded, or improved (capitalism for example is a work in progress, although I'm sure its improving). The problem with religion, unlike other ideologies, is that it refuses to be tested (although you could certainly argue that some religions at least try to evolve).

agree with this BUT the only disagreement I have is that humans are irrational. Well live is irrational, a mother defending her offspring is irrational from the view point of continued existance that is. So why not embrace it?

after all normal people are boring

 

[Scouse]

Oh gods...finally, we have come to an understandment

I've never had a problem understanding any of your points about religion. I've just had a problem with your religious blinkers.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I've never had a problem understanding any of your points about religion. I've just had a problem with your religious blinkers.

Which i don't have, you assume a lot about how i percieve things.

 

[Scouse]

Which i don't have, you assume a lot about how i percieve things.

No assumptions are necessary. Evidence abounds:

The reams of pages of argument where you can't acknowledge atheism as a "lack of belief" or "unbelief", where you argue that that's no different to a "belief in no god" or that the unbelief must be an "active unbelief", where you proscribe action where there is none - not only suggest otherwise, rather they scream from the top of a high mountain as if Odin himself was giving voice: "Toht doesn't get it, or t'is ye olde trolle"

 

[old.Tohtori]

As i've said before, i have no trouble acknowledging atheism as a lack of belief. It's a given.

All i didn't agree on is people not having belief at all, in anything, as the whole term of the word, not just religious belief.

Guess you do have trouble understanding afterall.

 

[Raven]

A belief in nothing does not make someone a believer. Not in the faith/religion sense of the word. It's a simple fact that there is no god or gods, the same as the fact that the earth is not flat or that the moon is not made of cheese. It's just the way it is.

 

[ford prefect]

I am a little confused. Many of you seem to equate science with atheism, and ultimately proof that God does not exist. Now by and large mankind’s understanding of the universe is based largely on 20th century physics, much of which has been empirically proven. Yet many of the scientist who advanced physics in the 20th century where open to the idea of God, for example Planck, Borh, Feymen, Heisenberg and Einstein to name a few off the top of my head.

Often these men were critical of organised religion and some of them had a more metaphysical view of God, as God the Mathematician for example, yet all of them believed and debated the existence of God. How is it that these values embraced by some of the most intelligent men to ever live are so easily dismissed, while their science is so easily embraced? From an Atheist point of view, are we suggesting that these men advanced mankind’s understanding of the universe despite faith? To me that argument seems as arrogant as some of you seem to find religion and its claims.

 

[Scouse]

Hola Mr prefect.

To answer: I don't equate science with atheism.

Science is a tool. Like a hammer. Nothing more.

The fact that some (but not all) scientists held religious beliefs of some sort doesn't have a bearing on the argument. They are just men, after all.

In fact, they would argue strongly that just because other humans believe in something is not a reason to believe too. The example used about Nazi Germany is a perfect example of why this sort of action would be dangerous.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Interesting that you use a same example to make a point, that was earlier deemed "not about religion and as such not relevant".

It's ofcourse speculation, but would those scientists come to those results without their religion?

Belief in something that's not yet proven(or even not there), often is a mark of an active imagination as well.

When did it become such a bad thing to have some fun with ideas?

 

[Krazeh]

Belief in something that's not yet proven(or even not there), often is a mark of an active imagination as well.

When did it become such a bad thing to have some fun with ideas?

There's a massive difference between having some fun with ideas and believing in something for which there is zero evidence. There's nothing about accepting the existence of something without evidence that marks you out as having a more active imagination than anyone else. It just means you're more willing to believe things people tell you.

 

[old.Tohtori]

There's a massive difference between having some fun with ideas and believing in something for which there is zero evidence. There's nothing about accepting the existence of something without evidence that marks you out as having a more active imagination than anyone else. It just means you're more willing to believe things people tell you.

I'd disagree, you do need a bit more imagination to think there might be a god around and if you didn't believe anything at all without proof, you'd live a very cynical life.

Religion as itself doesn't have to be so serious as some make it sound, it can be just the aformentioned fun with concepts.

Everyone believes, at some point or other, something people tell them.

The difference in an idea and belief is only as massive as you make it and that comes down to personalities.

 

[Krazeh]

I'd disagree, you do need a bit more imagination to think there might be a god around and if you didn't believe anything at all without proof, you'd live a very cynical life.

Believing in a god has absolutely no bearing on being able to consider the existence of a god. You can imagine what god could be just as well as a believer or a non-believer. The only difference is the believer has decided that they don't need any evidence in order to accept the existence of a supernatural entity.

And as for not believing in anything at all without proof leading to a very cynical life i'm not sure why you think that would be the case. I don't really see why you'd need to accept ideas and concepts without performing some level of critical examination first in order to live a non cynical life. It should be noted however that I never said anything about needing proof to believe in something, I was talking about evidence which isn't the same thing as proof.

 

[Scouse]

I'd disagree, you do need a bit more imagination to think there might be a god around and if you didn't believe anything at all without proof, you'd live a very cynical life.

I disagree. You need more of an active imagination, along with a willingness to be proven incorrect, to be able to come up with the amazing scientific theories that have changed the face of the entire planet and radically altered the human experience in the past hundred years or so.

For a start, you have to be able to attribute seemingly implausibly miraculous or amazingly coincidental occurances to something other than a god - which isn't something the human brain is hard-wired to do.

In fact, the human brain is hard-wired to readily believe in shit. To overcome that shows an incredible level of intellectual discipline and imagination.


Religion, on the other hand, stagnates the mind.

 

[Raven]

I am a little confused. Many of you seem to equate science with atheism, and ultimately proof that God does not exist. Now by and large mankind’s understanding of the universe is based largely on 20th century physics, much of which has been empirically proven. Yet many of the scientist who advanced physics in the 20th century where open to the idea of God, for example Planck, Borh, Feymen, Heisenberg and Einstein to name a few off the top of my head.

Often these men were critical of organised religion and some of them had a more metaphysical view of God, as God the Mathematician for example, yet all of them believed and debated the existence of God. How is it that these values embraced by some of the most intelligent men to ever live are so easily dismissed, while their science is so easily embraced? From an Atheist point of view, are we suggesting that these men advanced mankind’s understanding of the universe despite faith? To me that argument seems as arrogant as some of you seem to find religion and its claims.

But would it be a god in the traditional sense, a supreme being making decisions or would it be god as in a set of rules/laws that the universe follows. Gravity, light etc etc.

 

[ford prefect]

But would it be a god in the traditional sense, a supreme being making decisions or would it be god as in a set of rules/laws that the universe follows. Gravity, light etc etc.

That would probably be close to Plancks version yes, a god that set things in motion and left the universe alone - interestingly he was originally Protestant. Heisenberg saw it in a slightly different way - he called it two truths, he was interested in the unassailability of science versus the necessary moral construct of the christian church - his god lay somewhere inbetween.