Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In July, of 2005, Richard Dawkins gave a speech at TED. Mr. Dawkins opened with the following statement: "Queerer than we can suppose: the strangeness of science."

And moments later... Mr. Dawkins quotes J. B. S. Haldane (a biologist):

"Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. I have read and heard many attempts at a systematic account of it, from materialism and theosophy to the Christian system or that of Kant, and I have always felt that they were much too simple. I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth that are dreamed of, or can be dreamed of, in any philosophy. That is the reason why I have no philosophy myself, and must be my excuse for dreaming."

Out of context, yes, but that is beside the point. I understand where Mr. Dawkins is coming from.

In your humble opinion, do you think Mr. Dawkins is placing a "limit" on scientific pursuit?

An Atheist's Call to Arms

1APOxsp1VFw

It is as much of a waist of time being an atheist as it is being a theist.

He is awesome when he talks about science.

And no, he's not suggesting limits, the fact that we've figured out what we have already is proof of that. Also there's computers to help us and the continuing process of evolution.

The problem is that while there are (to our knowledge) no limitations on what we can learn through science there is a limit to what we can truly understand. Eventually, we will be more like Subblebine than Horatio, we will find ourselves confounded by our own intellectual knowledge not unable to move science forward.

Even modern science suffers from the Subblebine effect (dibs on that, btw). We are forced to rely on metaphor to describe the extremes of reality, forgetting to mention to people that the metaphors are less true than what we know. My favorite example comes from a show on quantum mechanics that noted "the thing to remember about parallel dimensions is that they are neither parallel nor dimensions". The more we learn about the truth the less we can explain it to those who don't (or even to ourselves) thanks to the Middle World problem Dawkins describes.

Or to place it in a context appropriate for this forum. We no more have the words to properly describe a religious experience to a lay person than to describe the Copenhagen Interpenetration to a child.


In essence we have no limits on what we can know but we may suffer from limits on what we understand.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is as much of a waist of time being an atheist as it is being a theist.

Why "waist" your time on Buddhism?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why "waist" your time on Buddhism?

I try not to waist any time.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is as much of a waist of time being an atheist as it is being a theist.

There is more evidence in science that the atheistic view is correct, than there is saying that theistic worldviews are on an equal footing, realistically.

Check out Christopher Hitchen's works also. He is an Anti-theist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is as much of a waist of time being an atheist as it is being a theist. That is a weird statement coming from you? How is being an Atheist a waste of time? I could see being an Atheist activist, but how is not believing in gods a waste of time?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
There is more evidence in science that the atheistic view is correct, than there is saying that theistic worldviews are on an equal footing, realistically.

Check out Christopher Hitchen's works also. He is an Anti-theist.

You are so silly. You have no idea what I was saying.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
That is a weird statement coming from you? How is being an Atheist a waste of time? I could see being an Atheist activist, but how is not believing in gods a waste of time?

Context!

Quoting Dawkins to represent Atheism is like quoting Falwell to represent Christianity....its invalid.

And yes, there is a limit on science. Its limits are the observable.

Originally posted by Ordo
Quoting Dawkins to represent Atheism is like quoting Falwell to represent Christianity.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Context! There is no context in here, get that gay context out of my face

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In essence we have no limits on what we can know but we may suffer from limits on what we understand. Damn those who say first what I was going to say.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
There is no context in here, get that gay context out of my face



Some Theists point a finger at Atheists and say "they are the enemy". While some Atheists point a finger at Theists and say "they are the enemy".

Do you see the commonality?

Theists are not the enemy of Atheists, and Atheists are not the enemy of Theists.

The enemy is extremism.

but extremism is not the enemy, it is them pesky dwarfs.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
but extremism is not the enemy, it is them pesky dwarfs.

I never quite understood the Dawkins stigma. He always seems like a reasonable guy to me, and his scientific work is brilliant. Hitchens-hate, that I get.

But yeah, basically it's just saying that our minds weren't evolved to handle the ultra-complex mathematics of modern physics. Can you imagine a 3-dimensional structure? Of course. 4 dimensions? Sure, since we have a working idea of time. 5 dimensions? 6? 10?! There are numerous mathematical models that suggest to us that these things are possible or even likely. But our minds literally cannot imagine them.

So there's the block. It's not that there's limits. It's that there's obstacles, and our current understanding is most likely skewed by those obstacles.

Also, shakya, nothing's a waste if you're happy. We all have to make some decision regarding a belief system, and stating one to be worthless is tantamount to damning them all.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, shakya, nothing's a waste if you're happy. We all have to make some decision regarding a belief system, and stating one to be worthless is tantamount to damning them all.

This is sound. I like it.


and....

Samurai Champloo!

Originally posted by Digi
...
Also, shakya, nothing's a waste if you're happy. We all have to make some decision regarding a belief system, and stating one to be worthless is tantamount to damning them all.

But I did not say anything was a waist. I said...

"It is as much of a waist of time being an atheist as it is being a theist." That means any waist on one side is equal to the waist on the other side.

Deism's awesome.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Deism's awesome.
Only if the members are smart enough.

"Long ago we realized isms are great for those who are rational, but in the hands of irrational people, isms always lead to violence."---South Park.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But I did not say anything was a waist. I said...

"It is as much of a waist of time being an atheist as it is being a theist." That means any waist on one side is equal to the waist on the other side.

IT'S WASTE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. WASTE! WAIST IS THE PART BETWEEN RIB CAGE AND HIPS. AHHHHHH

Originally posted by Ordo
Quoting Dawkins to represent Atheism is like quoting Falwell to represent Christianity....its invalid.

And yes, there is a limit on science. Its limits are the observable.

Falwell didnt have the facts backing him up.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are so silly. You have no idea what I was saying.

Well no wonder. Heres why, below

\/

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But I did not say anything was a waist. I said...

"It is as much of a waist of time being an atheist as it is being a theist." That means any waist on one side is equal to the waist on the other side.

Well if you'd SAID "waste" rather than "waist" we'd all get the context. I thought you were making a Buddah's waistline joke, in all honesty.

Originally posted by Bardock42
IT'S WASTE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. WASTE! WAIST IS THE PART BETWEEN RIB CAGE AND HIPS. AHHHHHH I wanna see you on Comedy Central. I bet you'd have great stage presence.

Well.... he was influenced by Hitler.... a man who's stage prescence could not be knocked.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well if you'd SAID "waste" rather than "waist" we'd all get the context. I thought you were making a Buddah's waistline joke, in all honesty.

Sorry, but I am not a good speller. I was wondering why people were not getting it; now I know.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, but I am not a good speller. I was wondering why people were not getting it; now I know. I ttolaly daisgere, you are a garet slpelr

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, but I am not a good speller. I was wondering why people were not getting it; now I know. The problem is not your spelling, but your vague statements that you then elaborate to mean something totally else.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Falwell didnt have the facts backing him up.

Neither does Dawkins. He always takes things one step beyond fact and damages the reputations of both science and atheism in the process. Just because he uses facts at some point in his argument does not mean his conclusions are, in fact, based on those facts.

As a scientist and an atheist he often offends me with his statments, just as most Christians I know are offended by firebrands like Falwell.

Originally posted by Ordo
Neither does Dawkins. He always takes things one step beyond fact and damages the reputations of both science and atheism in the process. Just because he uses facts at some point in his argument does not mean his conclusions are, in fact, based on those facts.

As a scientist and an atheist he often offends me with his statments, just as most Christians I know are offended by firebrands like Falwell. Like what statements?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Like what statements?

To say the least, those with regard to the mental health of religious people

Originally posted by inimalist
To say the least, those with regard to the mental health of religious people

What does he say about it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What does he say about it?

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004

Originally posted by Ordo
Neither does Dawkins. He always takes things one step beyond fact and damages the reputations of both science and atheism in the process. Just because he uses facts at some point in his argument does not mean his conclusions are, in fact, based on those facts.

As a scientist and an atheist he often offends me with his statments, just as most Christians I know are offended by firebrands like Falwell.

As a professor of evolutionary sceince, basing alot of his rebuttals for religious explainations on his Darwinian and other sciences, Id say he fits the very definiotion of a man who knows what he is talking about.

But I better understand your comparison in that respect.

Hitchens is probably more your kind of guy then.

But in an age where Religion has so much power in politics and worldpower, it really should be able to stand up to Dawkins level scrutiny, I feel....and it doesnt.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004 Just that he compares believe in God to a Delusion or something else?

I feel Dawkins has had his day...seriously he is barely around any more, it's like Militant Atheism died overnight...I guess now the republicans are out of office there is less of an appetite for it. Perhaps?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I feel Dawkins has had his day...seriously he is barely around any more, it's like Militant Atheism died overnight...I guess now the republicans are out of office there is less of an appetite for it. Perhaps?

Well, it's natural to see more media coverage around the release of his book, which has now been out for a while. But taking that and making a broad generalization like this, with no evidence, is flatly wrong. Besides, religious beliefs aren't fashion fads...Dawkins may be in the spotlight less in this country nowadays, but the percentages of atheists, militant or otherwise, will be roughly the same regardless.

Originally posted by Digi
Well, it's natural to see more media coverage around the release of his book, which has now been out for a while. But taking that and making a broad generalization like this, with no evidence, is flatly wrong. Besides, religious beliefs aren't fashion fads...Dawkins may be in the spotlight less in this country nowadays, but the percentages of atheists, militant or otherwise, will be roughly the same regardless.

Where did I make the claims you claim I make?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just that he compares believe in God to a Delusion or something else?

sort of, that was more tongue-in-cheek than serious

looking back, "Does Dawkins misrepresent science" isn't quite the argument I want to get into, as, to be fair, I can't think of anything specific he has said, of a scientific nature, that I would question.

My major problem with Dawkins is that he believes in atheism. He would self identify as an "atheist" as more than just a quick reference to his beliefs. To me, atheism was as much about rejecting the hirearchical nature of religious institutions as it was about rejecting the dogma.

The short answer is that I feel he thinks that he knows what is right. Like, I am of the opinion that God doesn't exist, and I believe it to be true, etc. However, I understand enough about human psychology to know that the sense of "truth" I feel is a byproduct of the physical pathways that I process information through, and thus, could be experienced by each person in really any circumstance. Dawkins doesn't present this in his work. He understands only one interpretation of reality, and generalizes this accross individuals, as if the unique contexts which produced his brain were the most proper, or "truthiest".

To me, this is as bad as what religions do, in fact, imho, it is the worst thing that religions do.

(I hope that makes sense, I'm really sketchy and trying to abbreviate some weird opinions of mine)

He doesnt reject that, he is a firerce discussor of what he feels his a religious experience in the einsteinian sense (Using the phrase "God does not play Dice" god is not to be confused with a belief confirmation, just his take on a concept in Quantum theory he disagreed on.), and seeks to account for things like the sense of religiousness in atheistic scientists in himself and even like Einstein himself.

Scientifically explaining this all and the Darwinian origins of morals, belief in god and promoting awareness of the damage it does when the "get em when they're young mentality of religion - branding kids with a religious affliation before the kid has even thought seriously about "is there a god" etc. And shows that rejection of organised religion neednt shut you off from love, and perception of warmth in the universe, a moral good of your own etc.

He still does good work and is active on the lecture circuit in universities over the world and stuff. Loads of stuff on youtube.

Hitchens is the man that if Q turned up and said "right, human f**ks, send out your best and most knowlegable arguer your species has now, or youre all dead now" and he was to debate for our species' continuation, I'd sleep soundly that he was up at the podium.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Where did I make the claims you claim I make?

Right here:
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I feel Dawkins has had his day...seriously he is barely around any more, it's like Militant Atheism died overnight...I guess now the republicans are out of office there is less of an appetite for it. Perhaps?


...also, lulz at the way this thread has gone. No topic with Dawkins can stay focused for long. Such is his influence, and ability to polarize people.

Originally posted by Digi
Right here:

Nah sorry, don't see it. Where did I ever make a claim?

Not gonna argue this, since it's going to be more frustrating than productive. Your post was a generalization based on a hunch. There's like 2 sentences in the post, so I don't need to spell it out for you. It wasn't a statement of absolute fact, but it makes the rationale behind it no less absurd.

You'll likely clarify yourself to make it seem much more reasonable, and I have no doubt that we'd come to some sort of agreement about it after playing semantics for a few posts.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Hitchens is the man that if Q turned up and said "right, human f**ks, send out your best and most knowlegable arguer your species has now, or youre all dead now" and he was to debate for our species' continuation, I'd sleep soundly that he was up at the podium.

No, Q would probably kill us all or force Dawkins to sleep with him

lolz

Originally posted by inimalist
sort of, that was more tongue-in-cheek than serious

looking back, "Does Dawkins misrepresent science" isn't quite the argument I want to get into, as, to be fair, I can't think of anything specific he has said, of a scientific nature, that I would question.

My major problem with Dawkins is that he believes in atheism. He would self identify as an "atheist" as more than just a quick reference to his beliefs. To me, atheism was as much about rejecting the hirearchical nature of religious institutions as it was about rejecting the dogma.

The short answer is that I feel he thinks that he knows what is right. Like, I am of the opinion that God doesn't exist, and I believe it to be true, etc. However, I understand enough about human psychology to know that the sense of "truth" I feel is a byproduct of the physical pathways that I process information through, and thus, could be experienced by each person in really any circumstance. Dawkins doesn't present this in his work. He understands only one interpretation of reality, and generalizes this accross individuals, as if the unique contexts which produced his brain were the most proper, or "truthiest".

To me, this is as bad as what religions do, in fact, imho, it is the worst thing that religions do.

(I hope that makes sense, I'm really sketchy and trying to abbreviate some weird opinions of mine) I see where you are coming from, though I am not sure if that is actually an attribute that I see in Dawkins. It is true that he gets painted 8and perhaps paints himself) as a radical, no other possibility atheist, but everything I read and especially what I saw in videos of him, gave the impression to me that he, quite to the contrary, is very thoughtful and aware of other possibilities.

I assume you don't mean to suggest that knowledge of the reasons behind the certainty we feel should stop us from supporting a topic altogether?

Originally posted by Digi
Not gonna argue this, since it's going to be more frustrating than productive. Your post was a generalization based on a hunch. There's like 2 sentences in the post, so I don't need to spell it out for you. It wasn't a statement of absolute fact, but it makes the rationale behind it no less absurd.

You'll likely clarify yourself to make it seem much more reasonable, and I have no doubt that we'd come to some sort of agreement about it after playing semantics for a few posts.

Someone isn't falling for it anymore...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Like what statements?

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

Its things like this that bug me. Dawkins is quick to point out the flaws of organized religion. I agree with him there are many. The problem is most of these are endemic to systems (governments, corporations, even science itself) and not religion in particular. Dawkins actively characterizes religion and faith and then dismisses it.

Referring to people to adhere to religion as "delusional" is way over the line. Yes, some of them are. But all of them are not. Dawkins consistantly sacrifices enlightened understanding of science for firebrand athiesm.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
As a professor of evolutionary sceince, basing alot of his rebuttals for religious explainations on his Darwinian and other sciences, Id say he fits the very definiotion of a man who knows what he is talking about.

I disagree. I don't doubt any of Dawkin's advancements in evolutionary theory. I've mentioned before a lot of them are great (though like hsi views on religion he has a bit of a totalitarian view on the dominance of his ideas). He knows his science, he doesn't know religion. Thus he can't construct a good a dialogue on the relationship between the two.

Dawkins' problem is that science doesn't directly contradict religion. By claiming it does so, he simply CREATES confilct between the two. He is British and doesn't understand a lot of the work that goes on between science and religion here in the US (I'll claim we're more adept at this because we actually deal with large parts of the population (even majorities) that actively deny evolution in any form). He ends up damaging more than he explains.

Science has disproved aspects of religion (if one can ever disprove anything) and I'll agree with that. However, LOGIC, not science are the only mental exercises (and the ones I use) to contradict principles like God. Science can provide evidence, but on these matters, it can't get us from A to C...only A to B. This is progress no doubt, but its not an achievement...and Dawkins clearly thinks his work is such an achievement. I'ver heard him say so in person.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
But in an age where Religion has so much power in politics and worldpower, it really should be able to stand up to Dawkins level scrutiny, I feel....and it doesnt.

Frankly...I dont feel religion doesn't have any more power than it had...and it probably has less. There are always nutters, religion is constantly in a state of decline and revival. Some aspects fo religion endure, but a lot of the dogma and details have fallen to the wayside over the years.

...and religion has never stood up to stcrutiny...Dawkins aside.

Heheheheheheheh I wont argue that.

There are parts of the world where religion is VERY MUCH in control.

And he does, I admit speak out on how he'd personally like so see the role of religion reduced, but he doesnt impose his stuff on folks.
So the totalitarian tag may be a little loose fitting here.
And you wont find anything as totalitarian as the highest levels of organised religion.

Why dont people run for presidential office as known athiests?

What about the attempts of the UN to pass a prisonable blasphemy law..?

The catholic church....Mafia/Institutional Paedophilia.

The perpetuation of the Palestinian and Israeli conflict.
There were talks of introducing Sharia law in the UK.

Religion is permeated into all the contriolling political institutions at an almost genetic level now..

God told George Bush to invade Iraq.
And blesses exclusively the united states of America.

Zionism.

They teach creationism in schools.

The biggest superpower in the world cannot seem to tell church from state.

They use religion to get hijackers to fly planes into buildings.

Its this blind faith of "next life rewards" promised by religion, that caused the WTC to fall.

Dawkins attacks blind faith and encourages reason and logic.
He conceeds that religion is comforting, as a value, but not true.
Which is fair enough.


What Dawkins doesnt understand about hardcore faith organisations, he learns. That he is friends with Hitchens and Hitchens is the guy with the superior understanding of religious history/ability to lock horns with even the most fanatical of believers and expose them in their own backyard.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Why dont people run for presidential office as known athiests?

Because most people are not atheists and most people won't vote for people that are very different from them. Atheists also have reputations as jerks.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
What about the attempts of the UN to pass a blasphemy law?

That never passed . . .

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
The perpetuation of the Palestinian and Israeli conflict.

You mean that conflict that's much more complex than simple religious differences?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
There were talks of introducing Sharia law in the UK.

That never passed . . .

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Religion is permeated into all the contriolling political institutions at an almost genetic level now..

So is the ability to see, for much the same reason.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
God told George Bush to invade Iraq.
And blesses exclusively the united states of America.

Zionism.

They teach creationism in schools.

They use religion to get hijackers to fly planes into buildings.

Its this blind faith of "next life rewards" promised by religion, that caused the WTC to fall.

All fair points.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Dawkins attacks blind faith and encourages reason and logic.
He conceeds that religion is comforting, as a value, but not true.
Which is fair enough.

What Dawkins doesnt understand about hardcore faith organisations, he learns. That he is friends with Hitchens and Hitchens is the guy with the superior understanding of religious history/ability to lock horns with even the most fanatical of believers and expose them in their own backyard.

On the other hand he seems quite happy to characterize faith for his own purposes.

Sure. They have this because the religious are the governing power.
So of course the atheists are jerks.

That they tried to pass that law was dangerous enough.

That conflict is of course, bigger than just religion in its origin, for sure, its just endlessly perpetuated by the religious argument.



Certain faiths, yes. Blind ones.

Reasonable, evidence based faith is something that he is in favour of.

Heres some Hitchens.... worth hearing the man out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjscqKv3240&NR=1

This is good. "Why religion poisons everything"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1lTR8V90qU

I actually think that its less religion that "poisions everything" and more ignorance and intolerance...qualites expressed by all factions of people, including many athiests (re Dawkins, Hitchens).

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
The biggest superpower in the world cannot seem to tell church from state.
OMG! 4REALZ?!

This is the sort of ignorance that I'm referring too.

Originally posted by Ordo

Referring to people to adhere to religion as "delusional" is way over the line. Yes, some of them are. But all of them are not. Dawkins consistantly sacrifices enlightened understanding of science for firebrand athiesm.


Why is it "way" over the line? I'm a Theist and I can still admit that my belief in god is not based on physical evidence and his existence can't be proven. So wouldn't that fit the dictionary definition of "delusional"?--a persistent belief despite evidence.

----

On your last post: Hitchens may be intolerant and beligerent, but he's not ignorant. I own God is not Great, and he definitely knows his history. Dawkins is a celebrated scientist and that's apparantly his only forte, because Hitchens totally whoops him in relgious history and scriptural knowledge. Hitchens knows the Bible, Koran and Bhagavad Gita like the back of his hand.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why is it "way" over the line? I'm a Theist and I can still admit that my belief in god is not based on physical evidence and his existence can't be proven. So wouldn't that fit the dictionary definition of "delusional"?--a persistent belief despite evidence.

Er, yeah.

Delusion is belief when evidence contradicts you. Faith is belief when there is no evidence one way or another. If you've been given what you consider valid evidence that God doesn't exist and still believe that's delusion.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Atheists also have reputations as jerks. Thank you, I've worked so hard at it

Originally posted by Bardock42
but everything I read and especially what I saw in videos of him, gave the impression to me that he, quite to the contrary, is very thoughtful and aware of other possibilities.

Actually this is kind of correct. I saw him in person and he described himself like this.

On a scale (of I think it was) 0 to 7, 0 being god definitively exists and 7 being god definitively does NOT exist, he claimed he was a 6. I would claim the same.

However, this personal description of himself (which he has obviously repeated) is often at odds with some of his other statements which seem from more of the perspective of a 7.

I've thought about how to take this, is he just covering his arse? is he really serious about being a 6? I don't know what that answer is, but I have found him too clumsy to distinguish between the two in a good number of his arguments. You're right that everyone perceives him as a 7. That is part of his problem.

he has successful ones (I'm obviously athiest and we have to agree on some basic SOMETHING lol). However, if he spent more time making the teapot argument, we'd be better off that with his current attitude.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why is it "way" over the line? I'm a Theist and I can still admit that my belief in god is not based on physical evidence and his existence can't be proven. So wouldn't that fit the dictionary definition of "delusional"?--a persistent belief despite evidence.

----

On your last post: Hitchens may be intolerant and beligerent, but he's not ignorant. I own God is not Great, and he definitely knows his history. Dawkins is a celebrated scientist and that's apparantly his only forte, because Hitchens totally whoops him in relgious history and scriptural knowledge. Hitchens knows the Bible, Koran and Bhagavad Gita like the back of his hand.

1. Dictionary definitions suck. They are inadequate. People like Hitchens and Dawkins often equate this "delusion" with a lack of mental faculties or even mental illness. I wont deny that some people that are religious are delusional, but I feel that most aren't. Blanket calling them delusional to me is counterproductive. I often equate it to Bush's use of the terms "terrorism" or "Islamic facism/extremism." Its just a false analysis driven by shallow facts, broad generalizations, and an accusatory ideology.

Anyway, on the last part. I'd simply say that just because you understand religious books, doesnt mean you understand religion. There is a lot more to that system, that mentality, than texts.

Originally posted by Ordo
I actually think that its less religion that "poisions everything" and more ignorance and intolerance...qualites expressed by all factions of people, including many athiests (re Dawkins, Hitchens).


OMG! 4REALZ?!

This is the sort of ignorance that I'm referring too. he deannounces it regularly.

That you had to leap on that so aggressively says alot about your position in relevance to objectivity on the matter, sir.

May I suggest that you at least read the book before attacking it/Hitchens and especially myself...?

Thanks.

Have a nice day.

Perhaps you are right that Dawkins is more an atheist for European issues. Maybe he is harmful in the, obviously more severe split, in the US.

Originally posted by Ordo
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

Its things like this that bug me. Dawkins is quick to point out the flaws of organized religion. I agree with him there are many. The problem is most of these are endemic to systems (governments, corporations, even science itself) and not religion in particular. Dawkins actively characterizes religion and faith and then dismisses it.

Referring to people to adhere to religion as "delusional" is way over the line. Yes, some of them are. But all of them are not. Dawkins consistantly sacrifices enlightened understanding of science for firebrand athiesm.
I think that the distinction between religious and scientific zeal (or zealotry in service of any other organization) is that religious zealotry can never be rationally supported. The problem, present in many other edifices, is inherent to religion. There is are (presumably) rational arguments for (and against?) communism, capitalism, Wal-Mart, democracy, taxes, moral relativism, moral absolutism, cultural imperialism and what have you. Religion has no such argument. By its own volition, Religion has no rational argument.

It is this glaring weakness in the religious opinion that Dawkins seeks to attack.



I don't think I disagree with any of this, except that you seem to be downplaying science's utility in an argument against religious faith. If someone believes in God 'because (H)e answers prayers' then science can ascertain if the prayers are answered. Science can validate (not) the claims made in Genesis. In so far as Yahwe is a personal God, then science is one of the greatest foes of religion.


My classmates were taught ID as a 'valid alternative' to evolutionary biology because the Diff. Bio teacher is a religious man. To sell the influence of religion in America short would be unwise, especially in the 'red states' where religion is strongest. (Texas, here's looking at you. Nebraska isn't great either.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Perhaps you are right that Dawkins is more an atheist for European issues. Maybe he is harmful in the, obviously more severe split, in the US.

Fair play.

Thats where Hitchens comes in, he has lived in the US since 1982 and has been made a full citizen and is often on tv/ taking place in debates over there..

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Fair play.

Thats where Hitchens comes in, he has lived in the US since 1982 and has been made a full citizen and is often on tv/ taking place in debates over there.. Though he seems much more head on, really. Dawkin's always struck me as a thoughtful...more gentleman like atheist really, perhaps with a little offensive rhetoric. But Hitchens, he's a right dick...funny though, at times, and he does make a lot of sense often.

so much to say in the thread, but so little time, only thing I wanted to add quickly:

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Er, yeah.

Delusion is belief when evidence contradicts you. Faith is belief when there is no evidence one way or another. If you've been given what you consider valid evidence that God doesn't exist and still believe that's delusion.

delusional beliefs cannot be cultural and must cause persistent problems in a person's life.

The belief in God is HIGHLY cultural, and for most people causes them no problems, thus, belief in God is not delusional. Hell, its hardly psychological.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dawkin's always struck me as a thoughtful...more gentleman like atheist really, perhaps with a little offensive rhetoric. But Hitchens, he's a right dick...funny though, at times, and he does make a lot of sense often.

Same here. Anyone with that kind of agenda is going to rub people the wrong way, regardless of how nice they go about it. But yeah, Hitchens is a dick a lot of the time. Doesn't mean I can't agree with him, but Dawkins is at least putting on a better facade of civility. Which is why I never really understood the hatred people have for him. Dislike his message, disagree with it, whatever. But why hate him personally?

Originally posted by Digi
Same here. Anyone with that kind of agenda is going to rub people the wrong way, regardless of how nice they go about it. But yeah, Hitchens is a dick a lot of the time. Doesn't mean I can't agree with him, but Dawkins is at least putting on a better facade of civility. Which is why I never really understood the hatred people have for him. Dislike his message, disagree with it, whatever. But why hate him personally? People who hate are afraid. Their belief systems are fragile, and it's more important to be "right" than to remember what's more important: mutual respect so that differences can be discussed with civility.

Then again...the Pope just has to breathe and it offends half the Globe.

Originally posted by inimalist
so much to say in the thread, but so little time, only thing I wanted to add quickly:



delusional beliefs cannot be cultural and must cause persistent problems in a person's life.

The belief in God is HIGHLY cultural, and for most people causes them no problems, thus, belief in God is not delusional. Hell, its hardly psychological.

Cultures believed the earth to be flat once.

Cultures believed that each day a sun god that went across the sky in a canoe, diedand was reborn.

The argument that mass belief in a delusion validates it, is not one I'd recognise.

A faith that says to accept whatever befalling you, and you'll be alright in the afterlife is a dubious one.

A very sincere belief in this sort of mumbo jumbo caused the death of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11 and if the subsequent wars are a consequence, then add the lives lost in Afghanistan and Iraq to that list.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Then again...the Pope just has to breathe and it offends half the Globe.

Because he his head of a massively corrupt system that covers up its institutionalised paeodophila, and has mafia links..and makes bizarre statements juxaposed against these facts deserved of the reaction that he gets half the time..?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Cultures believed the earth to be flat once.

Cultures believed that each day a sun god that went across the sky in a canoe, diedand was reborn.

The argument that mass belief in a delusion validates it, is not one I'd recognise.

A faith that says to accept whatever befalling you, and you'll be alright in the afterlife is a dubious one.

A very sincere belief in this sort of mumbo jumbo caused the death of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11 and if the subsequent wars are a consequence, then add the lives lost in Afghanistan and Iraq to that list.

no, see, what it means is that, if you grow up in a culture where you are taught the world is flat, it isn't delusional, because there is no way for you to know better.

And really, nationalism kills more than religion, so you might as well be an anarchist too

Originally posted by inimalist
And really, nationalism kills more than religion, so you might as well be an anarchist too

And wanting things motivates most violence so you should try out a lobotomy

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And wanting things motivates most violence so you should try out a lobotomy

I think the problem starts with oxygen and moves from there

we need like, atmospheric anti-oxidants

Originally posted by inimalist
I think the problem starts with oxygen and moves from there
Damn photoautotrophs.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, see, what it means is that, if you grow up in a culture where you are taught the world is flat, it isn't delusional, because there is no way for you to know better.

And really, nationalism kills more than religion, so you might as well be an anarchist too

Then its merely a second hand delusion you have, in that scenario.
It didnt make it true.

Nationalism is no powderpuff either though, I agree.
Dunno about more than religion though as often they are interlocked.

Originally posted by inimalist
And really, nationalism kills more than religion, so you might as well be an anarchist too


...or libertarian. According to my friends who enjoy razzing me for my political opinions, it's the same thing.



But yeah, I'll insert a "state is the new idol..." paraphrase to support this general line of thinking. I love my country but it's hard being a nationalist when I see the absolutely stupid lengths it is taken to sometimes.

Originally posted by Digi
...or libertarian. According to my friends who enjoy razzing me for my political opinions, it's the same thing.

Well, libertarianism incorporates some anarchists...

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Then its merely a second hand delusion you have, in that scenario.
It didnt make it true.

believing something that is untrue is NOT a delusion

really, come on man

It is, Im afraid.

"A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. Psychiatry defines the term more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, apperception, illusion, or other effects of perception."

Thats also the sense in which Dawkins means it.

Not hatefully spitting the word like the delusional are evil schizos or something, merely that the god hypothesis is wrong.

No additional judgements made.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
It is, Im afraid.

"A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. Psychiatry defines the term more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, apperception, illusion, or other effects of perception."

Thats also the sense in which Dawkins means it.

Not hatefully spitting the word like the delusional are evil schizos or something, merely that the god hypothesis is wrong.

No additional judgements made.

That's a terrible definition of delusion. You can never know what will be shown "untrue" in the future nor should you be judging things by the future in the first place.

Blame wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

I think that there is a great deal that we are certain about in the universe that we know is not delusional.

Hold a cup out in front of you out of a window.

Release your grip on it.

Its my non delusional belief that the cup will fall towards the earth.

Its non delusional because its reasonable faith I have that is based on 99.something% predicable, workable, tested theory.

If I believed, no matter how sincerely in my heart, believing all day long that when you release the cup that a god would show to save the cup, in the face of pretty much all evidence offered to the contrary.... then I'd be delusional.

DEFINITION WAR!

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Blame wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

I think that there is a great deal that we are certain about in the universe that we know is not delusional.

Hold a cup out in front of you out of a window.

Release your grip on it.

Its my non delusional belief that the cup will fall towards the earth.

Its non delusional because its reasonable faith I have that is based on 99.something% predicable, workable, tested theory.

If I believed, no matter how sincerely in my heart, believing all day long that when you release the cup that a god would show to save the cup, in the face of pretty much all evidence offered to the contrary.... then I'd be delusional.

I don't disagree with that. My contention is with the use of "delusional" to simply mean "wrong" which mischaracterizes the word and adds a completely unneeded loaded word into the conversation.

Originally posted by Digi
DEFINITION WAR!

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
It is, Im afraid.

"A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. Psychiatry defines the term more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, apperception, illusion, or other effects of perception."

Thats also the sense in which Dawkins means it.

Not hatefully spitting the word like the delusional are evil schizos or something, merely that the god hypothesis is wrong.

No additional judgements made.

I'm sorry, when I use proper medical terms, I attempt to use them properly

If your argument is that yourself and Dawkins use the term delusion in an incorrect fashion, then I agree with you

If you want to get into the linguistic side of it, defining delusion in the terms you are is both redundant and hypocritical. Post-modernism would basically show that all belief and knowledge is then delusional, as perceptions of truth are relative.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
If I believed, no matter how sincerely in my heart, believing all day long that when you release the cup that a god would show to save the cup, in the face of pretty much all evidence offered to the contrary.... then I'd be delusional.

for something to be a valid mental health issue, it must make a person incapable of living independently in society (re: cause persistant problems in the individual's life). Your belief about that cup does not, thus it is not a delusion.

The proper psychiatric term would be: opinion.

Ahhhh. I think thats where our misunderstanding seems to be stemming from.

Im not talking about the belief, even a delusional belief as having any medical connotations/connections.

Like you say: People believed a lot of wrong things over time.... were they loonies..? Probably not in a lot of instances....
(Once it was proved otherwise, however, the loonies would still continue in their belief unabated.)


If the 1st guy told to jump from the ledge because a sky alien would catch him, maybe there was the slightest possibility it could happen, so fair play.

He hits the ground.




The 2nd guy should know better.. Probably represents the sky-alien's more hardcore supporters and surely his demise would mark the end of all sky-alien safety net attempts.























As the 4th guy hits the floor we start to think...WTF.
These must be the last of the morons in society. "Ok. Fair enough.
There cant be anyone else that dumb or mascochistic left now."
















As the 40th becomes one with the pavement, (and all the previous jumpers) we must start to question the minds of those that jump beyond that point, imo.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, when I use proper medical terms, I attempt to use them properly

If your argument is that yourself and Dawkins use the term delusion in an incorrect fashion, then I agree with you

If you want to get into the linguistic side of it, defining delusion in the terms you are is both redundant and hypocritical. Post-modernism would basically show that all belief and knowledge is then delusional, as perceptions of truth are relative.

All saves addressing the point at hand. I guess.

There is a big difference between 'non-medical' and incorrect.

Originally posted by inimalist
for something to be a valid mental health issue, it must make a person incapable of living independently in society (re: cause persistant problems in the individual's life). Your belief about that cup does not, thus it is not a delusion.

The proper psychiatric term would be: opinion.







I disagree. Opinion is opinion, IE "God creted the earth in 7 days, a few thosand years ago." with no evidence.

Science backs the facts.
It disputed the above stated opinion.

Ive already shown that mental illness is not what Im talking about.

Well yeah, the most powerful president/prime minister in the world were starting wars cause' god' told him to, nutters on planes fly those planes into buildings for virgins in the afterlife, when there was a movement to get creationalism was taught as fact in schools, when the UN was trying to pass a blasphemy law that would, if passed, be a predecessor to heresy laws...

When people are nearly killed because of a cartoon, when a religious institution is a center of paedo activity yet the practitioners, protected by 'holy men' , claim piousity... when religion is used constantly as a lever for starting wars, attacking groups that refuse to play ball....

The role it plays with politicians/power, and the way that people get to live their lives cherry picking from a book to suit their own agenda. When people live in fear of judgement 24/7 because of a belief/fear system that is self perpetuating and all pervasive...?

When you believe that there is a being watching you all day, watching you shit, sleep, shag and even think, you're under complete control of a way of thinking based on no evidence, with a lot of evidence saying that the history of the universe is not definitely not the way it was said to have happened in any organised religion... ?

If that doesnt qualify as delusional in the non medical sense....and in the sense posted, then nothing is.

How can anyone argue that Religion doesnt affect them...? Or that it isnt a control device used to mitigate horrors that otherwise would be abhorent to other men...? Or that blind faith doesnt do damage to your every level of existance..?



"Even if if its comforting, does it make it anymore true..?"

The argument that religion is valid because of cited merits of its occasionally comforting attributes to some of its followers...is not a convincing one.
You might argue that thats fine as long as their religious beliefs arent allowed to affect others.

don't you think using needlessly divisive terms like "non-medical" delusional would lead to more of the problems you associate with religion rather than solving them?

This is to amusing....

Originally posted by Bardock42
I see where you are coming from, though I am not sure if that is actually an attribute that I see in Dawkins. It is true that he gets painted 8and perhaps paints himself) as a radical, no other possibility atheist, but everything I read and especially what I saw in videos of him, gave the impression to me that he, quite to the contrary, is very thoughtful and aware of other possibilities.

I assume you don't mean to suggest that knowledge of the reasons behind the certainty we feel should stop us from supporting a topic altogether?


I think I'm having trouble explaining myself. I'm not critical of Dawkins for his conviction, in fact, I would paint myself as someone who would be more prone to checking themselves into a mental institution rather than accepting supernatural explanations to events. It is rather that he is convinced that the patterns and routines which created his cognitive sense of what is true is the only and proper way of knowing, as if other people could be "reasoned with" to completely redefine what the physiological experience of truth is.

Not to mix convos, but I think Sadako may also share this mind set. It isn't that people don't accept that they might be wrong, which frankly I feel is more often lip service than anything, but the dismissal of the real experiences that people have had that lead them to be religious as being nothing but "delusion", or of no significance. It dismisses other forms and ways of knowing, which might not produce material results in the world, but are of formative importance to individuals. Defining what should be personally significant through only materialistic terms may be more "logical", or such other anthropic concepts, however, it is not how the majority of the people on the planet experience the world. My feelings, and Sam Harris echos this to some extent, are that these experiences are hugely important, not because they mean supernatural things are real, but because they help us understand how other people construct what is real.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
As the 40th becomes one with the pavement, (and all the previous jumpers) we must start to question the minds of those that jump beyond that point, imo.

do you really think this is comparable to major religions?

you might be referring to the fringe minority of cults and the minority of their followers, where mental illness often plays a major role in their behaviour. Often these are more social issues, and might not be technical "disorders", but things like no support net or loneliness.

Like, I just think your whole conception of how people understand what is true is off. You aren't born with "I know what is true based on material science" parts of your brain. What makes logical sense to you only does so because the previous experiences in your life have created physical information processing channels that interpret all incoming stimuli in that way.

For instance, when an event happens and your body enters an aroused state, your brain develops a story for the arousal based on available stimuli and previous experience. This all happens prior to conscious knowledge of the arousal, so when "you", the conscious you, experience it, you already have a story for why you are experiencing it.

This story comes from your memory. So when you see an event, the cause you attribute comes from a bank of possible causes stored in your mind. If one of those is "God", because that is what you were taught as a child and has thus become a physical part of how stimuli are processed in your brain, that doesn't make someone delusional, it means they interpret how to attribute causality in a different way, which leads them to understand the universe in a different way than you. Their way is no less valid simply because it doesn't conform to your view.