Dawkins on the Late Late Show

im_invisible

ok, so dawkins just dismissed the fact that praying works (sick people in hospital, etc.), and said that just because it worked, dosnt mean its real, i would argue that the fact that it does work, makes it real. i mean, what is god, if not an unexplained force of good in the world?

no religion is the one true one, but religion does have a place as a way of explaining god, and a way of helping us cope with life

anyone read 'his dark materials' trilogy by philip pullman, if not, ill put in a

, it says that god only came into existance when humans became aware of themselves, and the world around them (about 30,000 years ago), i'd agree with that, to a certain extent

but then youve got the question of where did life come from, what was the very first 'cell' and how did it come into existance

its a sad state of affairs when i couldnt be bothered reading any of the comments before, but like a lot of people ive got my veiws, and i dont think theyll be changed by anything thats posted up here. (unless its ground-breakingly revalationary)

lazylad

Webmonkey wrote:

Just had an idea there, wouldn't it be a good idea to get a few students together at colleges and set up an Atheism Society. Don't think there are many there but if it started up i'm sure people would come out and join.
Just a thought I had there.
I certainly think a lot of people are afraid to say they are Atheists in fear of being judged as a 'bad person' or something by those people who use their religion to judge people - eg. A person the devil is in or something.

I certainly think that believing in something that has no evidence what so ever is being Narrow Minded and Gullible to what they read in a fairy tail book. Do I dislike these people, like them less than other people I know are atheists? No, i respect them a lot but that doesn't mean I don't think they are narrow minded or what ever.

My 2c.

What about not argueing over atheism or religion? Why all these labels?

lazylad

pH wrote:

Because my freedoms are curtailed every day by 'followers' of Sky Gods telling me how to behave in my personal life because their God 'narrated' some texts to a half mad desert nomad centuries ago.

I really couldn't care what behaviour your 'God' expects of you, and if you want to follow some set of rules that you believe he laid down, then fine, I think you have and absolute freedom and right to live your life by those rules.

God thinks you shouldn't eat Pork? Drink alcohol? - fine don't.
No sex before marriage? No divorce? - Fine by me, obey your God.
God doesn't want you to bare your head - great.

But this is never ever enough, you believers are never happy with accepting and abiding by God's laws in your lives, you seem far more interested in making sure that others are living by his rules, and being punished if they're not. You'd think this all powerful God would be more than capable of handling his own punishment on the day of judgement, and wouldn't need your efforts here on earth.

Once again in Ireland, we see what appears to be a very sensible law making it not a criminal offence to have sex at 16, now probably not going to happen because the catholic bishops have weighed in.

The more people in this country who openly say "I'm an atheist, and these men in frocks are not speaking for me", the less power they have.

This is religion used as a reason to appear morally justified and as if butter wouldn't melt. Unfortunately if you are Atheist do you believe religion is stopping getting the age of consent down to 16? Is that what you want? Is that the world you'd like. If there wasn't an institution maybe the world would come to a point where people didn't care about age of consent? Maybe legalise sado masochism while your at it? Religion disagrees to murder and violence, yet let he without sin cast first stone.
Many Atheists would love a world of total freedom to do what you want without any moral obligation. It's a cold festiveless mentality that strips the world of its right to religious beliefs and evolutionary safety(eg evolution wouldn't include those with genetic defects as viable to procreate). Atheism is cold and clinical, not somebody I want to marry.

Dave!

im_invisible wrote:

ok, so dawkins just dismissed the fact that praying works (sick people in hospital, etc.), and said that just because it worked, dosnt mean its real, i would argue that the fact that it does work, makes it real. i mean, what is god, if not an unexplained force of good in the world?

He dismissed it because praying invokes positive thought, and positive thought has an effect on your health. Thus praying has not been proven in and of itself to affect sickness -- positive thought has. It's bad science to say otherwise.

And you're changing the definition of god, too.

im_invisible wrote:

no religion is the one true one, but religion does have a place as a way of explaining god, and a way of helping us cope with life

That's great, doesn't make it true though.

im_invisible wrote:

anyone read 'his dark materials' trilogy by philip pullman, if not, ill put in a

, it says that god only came into existance when humans became aware of themselves, and the world around them (about 30,000 years ago), i'd agree with that, to a certain extent

Haven't read it, but I imagine if that's true it's because once we became aware of the world around us, we became mystified by it. Religion explains it all. That's until science comes along and explains it properly.

I'm not sure who's side you're on, since you're adding to the atheists' argument.

im_invisible wrote:

but then youve got the question of where did life come from, what was the very first 'cell' and how did it come into existance

I don't know, neither do you. You're just forcing a deity onto it to make yourself feel better. I'm content not knowing for the time-being, until science is able to explain it.

im_invisible wrote:

its a sad state of affairs when i couldnt be bothered reading any of the comments before, but like a lot of people ive got my veiws, and i dont think theyll be changed by anything thats posted up here. (unless its ground-breakingly revalationary)

Well you'll never know if it's revolutionary unless you read it

Dades

lazylad wrote:

Many Atheists would love a world of total freedom to do what you want without any moral obligation. It's a cold festiveless mentality that strips the world of its right to religious beliefs and evolutionary safety(eg evolution wouldn't include those with genetic defects as viable to procreate). Atheism is cold and clinical, not somebody I want to marry.

lazylad you are cruising for a banning.
Ignorant blanket statements are not welcome here, or anywhere.

Crucifix

im_invisible wrote:

ok, so dawkins just dismissed the fact that praying works (sick people in hospital, etc.), and said that just because it worked, dosnt mean its real, i would argue that the fact that it does work, makes it real. i mean, what is god, if not an unexplained force of good in the world?

This thread might interest you.

lazy lad wrote:

Maybe legalise sado masochism while your at it?

When was this made illegal? Surely for consenting parties they can get up that if they want.

Dades

im_invisible wrote:

anyone read 'his dark materials' trilogy by philip pullman[/spoiler]

I have a signed hardback copy of the trilogy - there are my all time favourite books.

pH

lazylad wrote:

This is religion used as a reason to appear morally justified and as if butter wouldn't melt. Unfortunately if you are Atheist do you believe religion is stopping getting the age of consent down to 16?

I believe that yes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1967820,00.html

Is that what you want? Is that the world you'd like.

I would prefer that 16 year old children had sex with no one, I would strongly advocate education to that effect, I believe strongly however that if 2 16 year old children were to 'have sex' neither should go to jail.

If there wasn't an institution maybe the world would come to a point where people didn't care about age of consent? Maybe legalise sado masochism while your at it?

I'm not sure it is illegal, if 2 consenting adults want to inflict pain on each other then I see no reason to stop them.

Religion disagrees to murder and violence, yet let he without sin cast first stone.

I agree, where people's actions have direct effects on other (innocent) members of society then we need laws to protect them. What we don't need is the morality police, punishing people for breaking 'laws' send from God.

Many Atheists would love a world of total freedom to do what you want without any moral obligation.
It's a cold festiveless mentality that strips the world of its right to religious beliefs and evolutionary safety(eg evolution wouldn't include those with genetic defects as viable to procreate). Atheism is cold and clinical, not somebody I want to marry.

No one is talking about curtailing anyone's rights to religious beliefs. I strongly believe that however wrong I believe you are, you have a total right to worship your God and live by any additional morale code your God has provided for you.

What I am talking about is curtailing the believers' ability to force others to live by their morale codes.

Scofflaw

Webmonkey wrote:

Just had an idea there, wouldn't it be a good idea to get a few students together at colleges and set up an Atheism Society. Don't think there are many there but if it started up i'm sure people would come out and join.
Just a thought I had there.
I certainly think a lot of people are afraid to say they are Atheists in fear of being judged as a 'bad person' or something by those people who use their religion to judge people - eg. A person the devil is in or something.

Atheists Anonymous, then.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Webmonkey

Scofflaw wrote:

Atheists Anonymous, then.

cordially,
Scofflaw

haha

Myksyk

Schuhart wrote:

But Gerard Casey seemed to have a point on the use of the world 'probably' in the book in the context of life on other planets. Its not as if there's stacks of evidence, so a word like possibly (as Casey suggested) would look to be more appropriate. Richard Dawkins did seem to squirm on the hook on that point, almost as if inside his head he could recognised it as a slip up - but he still didn't concede that there's hardly evidence that turns 'possibly' into 'probably'. That's a potential black mark, although I'll reserve judgement until I've read the book and seen exactly what he says and his evidence.

I was frustrated when Casey made this argument, which seemed either naive or mischievous. Dawkins answered it poorly too.

The point is that Casey was making a comparison between religious faith and Dawkins 'faith' in the probability of other life on other planets. The comparison is entirely bogus.

Religious faith means believing (i.e. without doubt and without hope of changing your mind) in something which has never been witnessed and is completely and wholly supernatural. Comparing this to the perfectly reasonable hypothesising of the scientist about the statistical 'probability' of life (which we know exists on at least one planet) and about which we have no vested interest (if it does it does, if it doesn't it doesn't) is a vacuous argument which looks good on the surface but has no substance whatsoever. I guess it impressed the masses and Dawkins' stumbling answer didn't help. To give him the benefit of the doubt I think he was so taken aback by the inanity of the comparison that he just blustered a bit. That said, this particular type of comparison is common in public debates about religion/atheism and perhaps we should expect him to expect it and have a reasonable answer for it.

Schuhart

Zillah wrote:

Life is far less fragile than it might seem, it just needs to be in an environment where its ancestors developed.

Pragmatically, that all makes sense to me. I would expect the sheer scale of the universe to mean that even if only one in a million potential stars has a suitable mix for life, and in only one in a million of them does that suitable mix actually produce life, that’s enough to guess that somewhere in the universe there’s life. (Plus isn't there a divergence in thought between EO Wilson and some other guy about whether intelligent life is a more or less likely outcome of evolution).

However, you’ll understand that before this can be turned into a reliable statement that enables us to say ‘probably’ with any authority, there has to be some systematic evaluation of that pragmatic statement. It’s not as if SETI has found our immediate surroundings to be swimming in broadcasts of the equivalent of ‘Home and Away’ from the Crab Nebula.

Maybe this has been done systematically and convincingly. I can recall seeing some programme on TV about this a while ago (Arts graduate, hence the cheery vagueness about all this stuff). If I recall, they were suggesting the ‘fertile’ band that the planet needs to orbit in would be quite tight. They also ran up against a couple of pure judgement calls – one was the chance that a intelligent life might destroy itself – nuclear war being the concern of the time; global warming might be now. (Yes, that means life would have been produced - otherwise how could it fight a war. But you get the main point.)

In the end, the sheer vastness of the Universe meant that, however low they set the probability of intelligent life evolving and surviving, it produced a positive result. That might be enough to go on – but I’m just registering the doubt at the moment to see if he actually footnotes that statement to some reliable source.

Myksyk wrote:

this particular type of comparison is common in public debates about religion/atheism and perhaps we should expect him to expect it and have a reasonable answer for it.

I agree the comparison is not identical, and a reasonable response is possible. We know life evolved here, so a natural consequence is to speculate if it evolved elsewhere. We don’t know if there’s a god here, so assuming there must be one somewhere in the universe is quite a different proposition.

However, I think what’s at issue is if, sometimes, statements are made based on judgement calls rather than evidence. Once judgement and intuition comes into the picture, it is quite hard to distinguish it from faith.

DaveMcG wrote:

Religion explains it all. That's until science comes along and explains it properly.

I’d agree with that perspective that religion is essentially about people making sense of their environment, reflecting that their intellect had developed to an extent that raised these questions in their minds.

Kwekubo

im_invisible wrote:

but then youve got the question of where did life come from, what was the very first 'cell' and how did it come into existance

Read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. I read it last December in preparation for interviews for medical school; little did I suspect how profoundly it would alter my views on the nature of life and religion.

Sangre

lazylad wrote:

Many Atheists would love a world of total freedom to do what you want without any moral obligation. It's a cold festiveless mentality that strips the world of its right to religious beliefs and evolutionary safety(eg evolution wouldn't include those with genetic defects as viable to procreate). Atheism is cold and clinical, not somebody I want to marry.

Hmm, and here was me thinking that all the charity work I've done is because I'm a warm and fuzzy person inside.

A side note regarding S&M, consent isn't a defence to serious assault except where public policy allows e.g. boxing or surgery.

Myksyk

However, I think what’s at issue is if, sometimes, statements are made based on judgement calls rather than evidence. Once judgement and intuition comes into the picture, it is quite hard to distinguish it from faith.

It may be hard for some to distinguish these but that is there failing as they are completely different. An absolutely essential part of the scientific process is the inital (and ongoing) process of speculation and creativity. All good science begins with observation leading to speculation which directs the type of observations you might want to make next or the type of data you want to collect. This is not faith. There is no 'belief' here in the religious sense of the word.

People of religious faith are not proclaiming their conviction in the statistical probability of something. They are not proclaiming an objective stance where they are happy to abandon the idea if the data doesn't come in to support it. What they have is Faith. Conviction without evidence ... and in no need of evidence.

Scofflaw

lazylad wrote:

Many Atheists would love a world of total freedom to do what you want without any moral obligation. It's a cold festiveless mentality that strips the world of its right to religious beliefs and evolutionary safety(eg evolution wouldn't include those with genetic defects as viable to procreate). Atheism is cold and clinical, not somebody I want to marry.

Ah, the old arguments. Why not, after all - they smell so ripe? You are thinking of Social Darwinism, I'm afraid. No-one needs to assist evolution - and in any case we appear to have evolved to take care of those with genetic defects.

As for the "festiveless" - not at all. After all, any day could be your last.

coldly and clinically,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Myksyk wrote:

It may be hard for some to distinguish these but that is there failing as they are completely different.

I’m not convinced the distinction is necessarily that clear. I’d distinguish between two situations. One is someone using intuition to suggest that a certain proposition is true. They then go off and prove it. Intuition might be what set them on that course, but they don’t expect you to take their assertion on trust.

The second situation is using intuition as a pragmatic tool to identify what seems reasonable in a situation. Life on other planets seems a reasonable example of this – we just trust that the universe is so large it must contain more monkeys with typewriters than you can shake a stick at. That’s actually not a million miles away from the theist claiming his proof of God is the order in the universe. They are both conviction without evidence, just using intuition to make an inference.

When we mention statistical probabilities in this context, I suppose what on my mind is where is the sample coming from. Fair enough, if we test a hundred light bulbs and calculate from that the chance of how many will be faulty in a batch of a thousand. But if all we have is a sample of one, then its hard to see how a probability can be worked out.

Bear in mind, this is a question that can be settled very satisfactorily simply by pointing to a reasonable systematic evaluation. If that exists, the whole point falls as the ‘probably’ statement is then reasonably sound. If we can’t point to such an evaluation, then Dawkins has reason to be defensive.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

I’m not convinced the distinction is necessarily that clear. I’d distinguish between two situations. One is someone using intuition to suggest that a certain proposition is true. They then go off and prove it. Intuition might be what set them on that course, but they don’t expect you to take their assertion on trust.

The second situation is using intuition as a pragmatic tool to identify what seems reasonable in a situation. Life on other planets seems a reasonable example of this – we just trust that the universe is so large it must contain more monkeys with typewriters than you can shake a stick at. That’s actually not a million miles away from the theist claiming his proof of God is the order in the universe. They are both conviction without evidence, just using intuition to make an inference.

When we mention statistical probabilities in this context, I suppose what on my mind is where is the sample coming from. Fair enough, if we test a hundred light bulbs and calculate from that the chance of how many will be faulty in a batch of a thousand. But if all we have is a sample of one, then its hard to see how a probability can be worked out.

Bear in mind, this is a question that can be settled very satisfactorily simply by pointing to a reasonable systematic evaluation. If that exists, the whole point falls as the ‘probably’ statement is then reasonably sound. If we can’t point to such an evaluation, then Dawkins has reason to be defensive.

Hmm. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the Drake Equation yet. In a modified form, this encompasses the following variables:

(number of stars in the Milky Way) = 100 billion
(fraction of stars that have planets) = c. 50% recent estimates
(number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life) = say 0.1
(fraction of those planets where life actually evolves) = say 1 in a million

This gives you an estimate for "life evolving" of about 5,500 planets in our galaxy alone.

The full Drake Equation goes on to estimate the chance of intelligent life, communicating, and existing at the same time as us, but the estimation involved becomes more and more a matter of taste.

The shorter version above will do for approximating the chances of any form of life, even if it's very simple. The estimates for the figures above can be firmed up a bit as planet detection methods get better - it should get easier, in particular, to put a figure on the average number of planets in the habitable zone.

A lot rides on that final figure. There are those who reckon that life will always evolve given the right conditions, in which case the number of planets with life in our galaxy suddenly jumps to 5.5 billion. Equally, there are those who reckon it's virtually impossible (trending off towards Special Creation, of course).

If you don't buy Special Creation, then there is a non-zero probability of life getting started on any planet that supports it - of which we are the proof. Given a non-zero probability, the Universe is so huge that it overwhelms even a large improbability of life.

Estimated number of galaxies: 125 billion
Estimated stars per galaxy: 50 billion
Estimated total stars: 6250000000000000000000

So, using the same figures as above, but plugging in the figure for all stars in the Universe this time, we can do a very rough calculation to show a possible 343,750,000,000,000 (343 trillion) planets with life on them, if the chance of life starting on a hospitable planet is 1 in a million.

To put it another way round, if we are to be the only planet in the Universe with life on it, then the chance of life starting must only be somewhere around 1 in 343,750,000,000,000,000,000 (1 in 343 quintillion). This figure would also apply to life on Earth, of course. Given the things life on Earth is known to have survived, this seems ludicrously low.

As far as I can see, then, the chances of us being the only life-bearing planet in the Universe are exactly the same as the above - one in 343 quintillion.

You can safely say, then, that the chances of Earth being the only life-bearing planet in the Universe are literally astronomically low, unless of course Special Creation is correct.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Myksyk

Schuhart wrote:

That’s actually not a million miles away from the theist claiming his proof of God is the order in the universe. They are both conviction without evidence, just using intuition to make an inference.

But 'proof' of God is simply not the same as 'belief' in God.

The Faithful believe God exists. There is no doubt. Proof is not an issue. They require no evidence (this actually defines Faith). They may be very happy if someone were to prove he exists but it is not a requirement. They may have built up rational arguments based on facts about the world (complexity etc) to bolster their position or to convince you or I but again these are not necessary and are, in important ways, redundant when one has Faith.

Believing that there is probably life on other planets is a completely different use of the word belief (and I believe that this comes down to obviously different uses of the words 'faith' and 'belief'). Here it obviously signifies, not a conviction, but a speculation. The degree of confidence expressed in the speculation (i.e possibly, probably) will depend on certain data already existing (the existence of life as a reality on one planet, the existence of billions of galaxies, quintrillions of star systems etc). There is no fundamental committment to this type of belief. It could be wrong. In fact for it to be right absolutely requires that evidence is produced at some stage. One can never say, in the meantime, that life definitely exists on other planets.

Not so for the Faithful. They say God definitely exists. No data required. No proof needed. No argument.

Dawkins does not have faith in life on other planets in the same way that the religious have Faith that there is a God. To compare the two types of 'belief' or 'faith' is glaringly bogus.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

As far as I can see, then, the chances of us being the only life-bearing planet in the Universe are exactly the same as the above - one in 343 quintillion.

That post answers the point at issue - thanks.

Myksyk wrote:

Not so for the Faithful. They say God definitely exists. No data required. No proof needed. No argument.

The particular issue address here is now resolved. However, I think its overstating the case to say that the theist position is 'no data required'. Many theists go into elaborate 'proofs' of their position (I'd have in mind here things like all the energy spent identifying 'scientific miracles' in the Quran i.e. suggestions that the text might reflect an understanding of the material universe in advance of its time.) Others are not very definite that God exists, or that he gives a toss if he does. There is a distinction in the quality of faith not being caught here.

Tim Robbins

DaveMcG wrote:

Hey folks,

anyone catch this? It's still on as I type, but I doubt it will be when you read this.

What did ye think of it? I have to say I'm shocked by the extremely religious response from the audience and texters.

I'm very disappointed with Dawkins' "performance" tonight, I have to say. It probably wasn't helping the way Pat was moderating the discussion, but Richard also appeared very lacklustre too. Considering he is the face of modern Atheism

Why are you shocked? Most people in Ireland are theists / Catholics what do you expect them to say to a militant atheist who can't debate very well?

Dawkins is not the face of modern atheism, he may be the face of militant atheism.
A subsection of atheism.

lazylad

Well Dawkins is kind of a selfish man himself, imagine how somebody dying of lung cancer in hospitals who's last hope is the afterlife and their faith when they hear his trash on tv! Do you think it's fair? Religious arguments at least left you with a choice to believe or not to believe in what you were brought up as but Atheism is saying to people dying "your dying, that's it, goodbye". Sounds like Ann Robinson on the Weekest link. And I'm not surprised Dawkins is English either, English people don't tend to be as warm hearted as the Irish so that's why there were many reactions from the audience you "humans" would classify as silly.
And for the man who said two consenting adults could have sadomasochistic activities together well you have to think when laws are laws, people get an inch and tend to take a mile. If you legalise something that society regards morally wrong, people will take advantage of that. I don't agree with your disgusting view on what should be accepted.
You people don't relise if society becomes light on everything that "adults should have choice to do", eventually society will become so corrupt we won't be safe anymore. Think about it. How many murders were in Ireland in the 1950's and how many in 2006 so far? Think about it. I only speak for Ireland so keep that in mind.
The last thing I would advise anyone to do is listen to an English man on this. We are not English, we are Irish yet Atheists are looking up to this man. Would a world without national culture and identity be better place to live? What about if every country lost its accent and we all spoke a universal language? My point is religion gives us our individual beliefs. An atheist is nothing more than someone with no religion. Just like warm water without instant coffee powder. Would you drink warm water every morning before work everyday or would you like a choice of coffee in it? Would you think that because you don't believe in God or aspects of religion that the word would be a better place? If so explain what the world would be like without religion?
And first of all, from judging the posters who are atheist here, you seem to be a lot less "fun" and "imaginative" than the general poster on this boards. Atheists don't put themselves across in a good way or maybe they can't help it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

BURN!!!!

Crucifix

lazylad wrote:

Well Dawkins is kind of a selfish man himself, imagine how somebody dying of lung cancer in hospitals who's last hope is the afterlife and their faith when they hear his trash on tv! Do you think it's fair? Religious arguments at least left you with a choice to believe or not to believe in what you were brought up as but Atheism is saying to people dying "your dying, that's it, goodbye". Sounds like Ann Robinson on the Weekest link. And I'm not surprised Dawkins is English either, English people don't tend to be as warm hearted as the Irish so that's why there were many reactions from the audience you "humans" would classify as silly.
And for the man who said two consenting adults could have sadomasochistic activities together well you have to think when laws are laws, people get an inch and tend to take a mile. If you legalise something that society regards morally wrong, people will take advantage of that. I don't agree with your disgusting view on what should be accepted.
You people don't relise if society becomes light on everything that "adults should have choice to do", eventually society will become so corrupt we won't be safe anymore. Think about it. How many murders were in Ireland in the 1950's and how many in 2006 so far? Think about it. I only speak for Ireland so keep that in mind.
The last thing I would advise anyone to do is listen to an English man on this. We are not English, we are Irish yet Atheists are looking up to this man. Would a world without national culture and identity be better place to live? What about if every country lost its accent and we all spoke a universal language? My point is religion gives us our individual beliefs. An atheist is nothing more than someone with no religion. Just like warm water without instant coffee powder. Would you drink warm water every morning before work everyday or would you like a choice of coffee in it? Would you think that because you don't believe in God or aspects of religion that the word would be a better place? If so explain what the world would be like without religion?
And first of all, from judging the posters who are atheist here, you seem to be a lot less "fun" and "imaginative" than the general poster on this boards. Atheists don't put themselves across in a good way or maybe they can't help it.

Why the inverted commas around human?
Why shouldn't we listen to an Englishman? We're all the children of God here, no?
Finally what a sweeping generalization. Do you expect the atheism and agnosticism forum to really portray the imaginitive fun side of people?

lazylad

By the way, Ireland is better to live now than 1950's but because societies morals are becoming less off a priority, and individual choices are becoming more accepted think of the conflict. Nobody all has the same views, that's why we have laws and laws and morals need to be strict to keep everyone on a similar understanding. If there was no faith, people would not value human life as more than just born eat and die. There is no real value on life any more than a dog in that case! You are all nothing, just flesh! So if faith in the value of life other than just being human, why not just wipe out a few extra dogs and humans to get rid of our global warming problem? After all what's the value in being human we are just here to be born, eat, reproduce and die? No meaning in anything after, so why are people valuable other than their intelligence and life? Faith did put more than the conventional value on human life itself! We are all equally loved; even if its not true its nice to believe in it right? Or maybe for Atheists believing we're all here and that's it. I know of people who would feel noting to live for in life who would like to think they are loved by a higher power. That's not delusional, its making their life more comfortable. Don't dismiss peoples so called silliness. You are a bunch of cynics. Let me guess the typical boards Atheist profile: middle aged, lonely, not and never was attractive, average or above average intelligence, little respect for people in general, angry at their society being happy.
I'm just asking really. People have the right to give their views.

lazylad

Crucifix wrote:

Why the inverted commas around human?
Why shouldn't we listen to an Englishman? We're all the children of God here, no?
Finally what a sweeping generalization. Do you expect the atheism and agnosticism forum to really portray the imaginitive fun side of people?

On a different level, would you imagine people that get a kick out of pain to be warm hearted friendly people?
Fine listen to an Englishman. Inverted commas just define what species we are, instead of being a dog and a cat to which inevitably we are equal to 100%. They are born equal and die like us too. Why not destroy films atheists don't agree with like "all dogs go to heaven"? Of course that was one of my favourite films growing up but why have it if heaven doesn't exist yet it made me feel good?

lazylad

Can any scientist prove we are not dreaming our life?

Webmonkey

Calm down lazylad, 3 posts in a row - there is such thing as the edit button

Anyways, you think that being an atheist is:

You are a bunch of cynics. Let me guess the typical boards Atheist profile: middle aged, lonely, not and never was attractive, average or above average intelligence, little respect for people in general, angry at their society being happy.

How dare you judge me or us like that. I am an Atheist but that doesn't make me a bad person or anything you describe there.
I happen to be a well like person, I am extremly obliging. I always go out of my way to help others. I respect people so much, more than myself.
My grandmother is extremly religious , like a nun and she wouldn't be the most honest person at times.

How can you put a label on Athiests like that?

Crucifix

lazylad wrote:

Why not destroy films atheists don't agree with like "all dogs go to heaven"? Of course that was one of my favourite films growing up but why have it if heaven doesn't exist yet it made me feel good?

What? I hate to make a sweeping generalization of my own, but I would say the amount of atheists and agnostics who believe in such censorship is very low. Censorship by religions would probably be far more common, such as with the Life of Brian.

Dave!

Tim Robbins wrote:

Why are you shocked? Most people in Ireland are theists / Catholics what do you expect them to say to a militant atheist who can't debate very well?

Dawkins is not the face of modern atheism, he may be the face of militant atheism.
A subsection of atheism.

I'm shocked because I didn't realise the level of religosity that the Irish public have. I personally don't know anyone who goes to mass on a regular basis, for instance. Most people seem to be Roman Catholic on paper (and in the Census), but haven't really given it much thought, it was just a default position. And the Census is skewed anyway, as I think a thread in this forum showed -- the parents in the house fill in the Census, and everyone is Roman Catholic.

But when provoked by a 'militant atheist', the religosity really becomes evident in the general public. Shocking.

edit:

IGNORE LAZYLAD -- he's a troll. He will be banned shortly. Just don't respond to his posts.

lazylad

Webmonkey wrote:

Calm down lazylad, 3 posts in a row - there is such thing as the edit button

Anyways, you think that being an atheist is:


How dare you judge me or us like that. I am an Atheist but that doesn't make me a bad person or anything you describe there.
I happen to be a well like person, I am extremly obliging. I always go out of my way to help others. I respect people so much, more than myself.
My grandmother is extremly religious , like a nun and she wouldn't be the most honest person at times.

How can you put a label on Athiests like that?

Emm was I referring to you? The above was your point that you can be religious and dishonest? OK point taken.
No, I have a degree in belief that as humans are smarter than rats that there must be something smarter than humans too, maybe that's what people with faith who say they feel good for no apparent reason can sense. A force unmeasuarble to humans. I have noticed that some very scientific people are cold and emotional and of course exceptions. Science as you well know doen'st know everything. Science basically denies everything until proven and since Dawkins mentioned about the world being flat and everybody believing it well how else were scientists and people going to prove it etc without exploring? We have not explored afterlife and may never get there after death. Maybe death is a process of change from what makes us individual into a different form of energy that is beyound human understanding and too advanced for science to ever creat a theory about. Maybe there are forms of energy we can't account for. Maybe its a design of our possible creaters from galaxies away to keep us from knowing but they make us aware of their presence. Anyway anything is possible, and as a deep deep thinker about things, I believe in chaos. I believe some people live in chaos others are organised but neither will fully understand each other.

lazylad

DaveMcG wrote:

I'm shocked because I didn't realise the level of religosity that the Irish public have. I personally don't know anyone who goes to mass on a regular basis, for instance. Most people seem to be Roman Catholic on paper (and in the Census), but haven't really given it much thought, it was just a default position. And the Census is skewed anyway, as I think a thread in this forum showed -- the parents in the house fill in the Census, and everyone is Roman Catholic.

But when provoked by a 'militant atheist', the religosity really becomes evident in the general public. Shocking.

edit:

IGNORE LAZYLAD -- he's a troll. He will be banned shortly. Just don't respond to his posts.

Banned for what? Banned for what?

I'm saying respect everybodies views. And I'm saying we can't prove anything. Science is only so far. The universe is a mystery and full of possibilities yet we haven't proven or explored enough about the universe matter and energy and who knows. We are part of it and maybe we are more than organic carbon and energy plus chemicals. Many chemicals can't think like we can life as I know it is amazing and more than life and death.

pH

Tim Robbins wrote:

Why are you shocked? Most people in Ireland are theists / Catholics what do you expect them to say to a militant atheist who can't debate very well?

Dawkins is not the face of modern atheism, he may be the face of militant atheism.
A subsection of atheism.

I call your pejorative and raise you wikipedia. Your trolling isn't even original.

The phrase militant atheist is usually used as a pejorative by critics when discussing those people who are more outspoken than the general population on subjects which explicitly or implicitly promote atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant

Dades

Goodbye lazylad.

One too many ignorant generalisations voiced.

I'll consider unbanning you in a week if you PM me with a convincing reason, and a promise to be less ignorant of the subject you are ranting about.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

I call your pejorative and raise you wikipedia. Your trolling isn't even original.

The phrase militant atheist is usually used as a pejorative by critics when discussing those people who are more outspoken than the general population on subjects which explicitly or implicitly promote atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant

Hmm. And when the term is used by an atheist?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> And when the term is used by an atheist?

...about as often as "materialistic evolution" is used by biologists. Just another piece of name-calling, really, I think.

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. And when the term is used by an atheist?

cordially,
Scofflaw

If the person/group being referred to is organising in a military structure, or advocating military action or violent struggle then the term would be accurate.

Calling Dawkins 'militant' is pure mudslinging, unless you can refer me to where he is indeed calling for atheists to take to the streets.

Sangre

Thing with broadcasting in Ireland is, by law, they have to present a balanced and impartial programme, this means that Dawkins always has to deal with someone on the other side of the fence, something which from what I've heard, he clearly doesn't excell at.

Schuhart

Sangre wrote:

Dawkins always has to deal with someone on the other side of the fence, something which from what I've heard, he clearfully doesn't excell at.

We have quite an amount of evidence to support that proposition.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

If the person/group being referred to is organising in a military structure, or advocating military action or violent struggle then the term would be accurate.

Calling Dawkins 'militant' is pure mudslinging, unless you can refer me to where he is indeed calling for atheists to take to the streets.

mil·i·tant (mĭl'ĭ-tənt) pronunciation
adj.

1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.

Would you not consider Dawkins the latter? I think most atheists would, although I admit I can't be sure whether it's just book marketing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

lazylad wrote:

maybe that's what people with faith who say they feel good for no apparent reason can sense. A force unmeasuarble to humans. I have noticed that some very scientific people are cold and emotional and of course exceptions. Science as you well know doen'st know everything. Science basically denies everything until proven and since Dawkins mentioned about the world being flat and everybody believing it well how else were scientists and people going to prove it etc without exploring? We have not explored afterlife and may never get there after death. Maybe death is a process of change from what makes us individual into a different form of energy that is beyound human understanding and too advanced for science to ever creat a theory about. Maybe there are forms of energy we can't account for. Maybe its a design of our possible creaters from galaxies away to keep us from knowing but they make us aware of their presence.

Maybe maybe maybe.

True. There's all sorts of stuff we don't understand. So lets not all go 'round making up answers then, shall we?

(I know he's banned but I felt like responding to that.)

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

Goodbye lazylad.

One too many ignorant generalisations voiced.

I'll consider unbanning you in a week if you PM me with a convincing reason, and a promise to be less ignorant of the subject you are ranting about.

don't ask him to make promises you know he can't keep:D

schuart wrote:

we have quite a bit of evidence for that

disagree, Dawkins is poor when the envoiroment is poor that is he only weakness as far as I can see, he becomes exhausted from people like the woman who on the late late suddenly declares 'it's a miracle'.
He was much more cohesive on Paxman, the Q&A at the pittsburgh(i think) womans uni, the atheist tapes etc.
Just watched an interview on bbc news, he was great, but he has to roll out the same arguments
i.e
faith is based on believing something without having any evidence
if you use god to explain creation you are left with the more difficult job of explaining god
if god is outside of logic then anything goes
religon doesn't give us morals although we cherrypick some from various holy books

and on and on and on

poor old dawkins

Schuhart

stevejazzx wrote:

Dawkins is poor when the envoiroment is poor that is he only weakness as far as I can see, he becomes exhausted from people like the woman who on the late late suddenly declares 'it's a miracle'.
He was much more cohesive on Paxman, the Q&A at the pittsburgh(i think) womans uni, the atheist tapes etc.

Which is pretty much what we're saying. He's fine debating with people who agree with him or at least approach issues in the same way as he does. He's hopeless at taking on people hitting him with a different perspective - even if they make the kind of argument that can be anticipated.

If he's serious about trying to reach those people, then he really needs to spend some time reflecting on how to respond to the kind of 'religion works for me on a daily basis' kind of argument that is just out there. At some level we have to accept that religious belief has been and still is a perfectly normal human feature. You have to start from where people are, not where you want them to be.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Which is pretty much what we're saying. He's fine debating with people who agree with him or at least approach issues in the same way as he does. He's hopeless at taking on people hitting him with a different perspective - even if they make the kind of argument that can be anticipated.

To an extent I sympathise, particularly if I've been on the Creationist thread...some of the thinking the other side uses is very curved, if not downright knotted.

Schuhart wrote:

If he's serious about trying to reach those people, then he really needs to spend some time reflecting on how to respond to the kind of 'religion works for me on a daily basis' kind of argument that is just out there. At some level we have to accept that religious belief has been and still is a perfectly normal human feature. You have to start from where people are, not where you want them to be.

Start from where people are, not where you want them to be - the opposite is the mark of the ideologue, who cannot understand why people aren't already where they want them to be (unless of course they have been deluded/brainwashed). This is the kind of thing I find troubling about 'militant atheism' - it smells like another ideology: one that cannot encompass the idea of faith except as a delusion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

This is the kind of thing I find troubling about 'militant atheism' - it smells like another ideology: one that cannot encompass the idea of faith except as a delusion.

And possibly his use of the word "Delusion" immediately puts people on the defensive. He automatically becomes somebody to disagree with rather than someone to hear out.

Tim Robbins

DaveMcG wrote:

I'm shocked because I didn't realise the level of religosity that the Irish public have. I personally don't know anyone who goes to mass on a regular basis, for instance. Most people seem to be Roman Catholic on paper (and in the Census), but haven't really given it much thought, it was just a default position. [/B]

I don't think it "religosity" but more spirituality most people feel.
I know a lot of people that don't go to the RC anymore but still believe in God and feel some spirituality and of course if they are female 90% want to get married in a Church.

I think this is a very complex, personnel issue. Faith / Spirituality does give people a lot of hope, even it is a delusion or a myth. Dawkins doesn't seem to be sensitive to that fact, life is tough for most people (Check out the amount of people on prozak these days). People see him as someone who is arrogant and low on empathy and compassion.

Ultimately people want something that will help them get through their life irrespective of whether it is correct or incorrect which is entirely separate issue.

As an atheist, I find it really annoying when fundies preach to me, so I guess it goes both ways, i.e. non-atheist people don't like to be preached at by militant atheists who are unaware of their personnel circumstances i.e. their need or reasons to believe.

Also, as someone with interest in debating, I think he lost that debate. He contradicted himself and refuted some points by saying he wasn't interested.

The atheists in the audience spoke better if you ask me.

stevejazzx

Schuhart wrote:

Which is pretty much what we're saying. He's fine debating with people who agree with him or at least approach issues in the same way as he does. He's hopeless at taking on people hitting him with a different perspective - even if they make the kind of argument that can be anticipated.

Well Paxman never agrees with anybody, in fact as I'm sure you're aware he is excellent at taking a contrary position. Also, at the womens Uni he was excellent in shooting down the ridculous arguments proposed. There was no bumbling mediator (Pat Kenny, Turbidy etc) and Dawkins was allowed a measured platform to communicate his ideas.
Obviously I am supporter of Dawkins, nevertheless I am trying to look at this as evenly as possible and I still don't find that Dawkins is weak when conversing with regualr people. He is often rushed and interupted, this seems to be the main problem.
The Atheist was correct earlier when he identified that use of the word 'Delusion' insults people and they automatically take up a contrary position to him and simply are not open to change. Dawkins has in the past pussyfooted around the idea of the destructive nature of religon but recently has decided that he would tackle the issue head on. The approach he's making is deliberately challenging because massaging the senstivities of peoples delirious beliefs is clearly unproductive, unstimulating and unchallenging. His current aganda is to honestly state his real genuine belief upfront and back it up with hard logic.

schuart wrote:

If he's serious about trying to reach those people, then he really needs to spend some time reflecting on how to respond to the kind of 'religion works for me on a daily basis' kind of argument that is just out there. At some level we have to accept that religious belief has been and still is a perfectly normal human feature. You have to start from where people are, not where you want them to be.

Dawkins is not trying to save the world. There is no need or indeed obligation from his part to belittle his fine arguments by accepting the trivial needs of desperate people who can't function without a regimented faith based diety guiding thier existence. Dawkins should be(IMO) arguing and debating with people of stature capable of fully understanding his postion.
It would be a very backward world if brilliant people are obliged by societal norms to dismantle their intellgence everytime they encounter ignorance. In my opinion the obligation lies on ordinary people to reach a level where they can converse with People like Mr. Dawkins in a constructive way. How many people in that audience do you think had a working understanding of Darwinian evolution? Probably 5%, yet each of them felt more than qualified to disregard it as evidence of existence. As a biologist/scientist why does Dawkins have to come to the level of these people, surely they are the ones obliged to get somewhere closer to his, for if this is not the case then what we are saying is that
'the intellectual indequacies of the popular masses dictates how we treat the process of debate'
Also I don't think you can claim that deconstructing the complexities of complex arguments it is the only way to reach such people, as the process of deconstructing those complexities ruins ones argument. For example Dawkins would probably love to show the whole audience a 6 hour video demonstration of Darwinian Evoultion, scientific testimony, fossil dating, cosmology, moleclular function, dna etc etc all the vastly complex things which cause him to be an atheist but he can't get anywhere near such things during a 20 minute debate and quite frankly, who could?

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

t would be a very backward world if brilliant people are obliged by societal norms to dismantle their intellgence everytime they encounter ignorance.

.dluow ti oS

yllaidroc,
walffocS

stevejazzx

litrealist a quite you're

btw you've put the comma in the wrong place

Zombrex

Dawkins problem is that he gets angry and flustered when debating with stupid people how have nonsense arguments. Which, on some level is to be expected. The problem is, most people are stupid people (when it comes to debating science), so he is always going to get peoples backs up.

For example, I remember Dawkins on I think it was the Last Word or NewsTalk, debating with an idiot from the Indo. The idiot (can remember his name) kept saying that God had to exist because we are here, aren't we, as if it was simple logic - We are here, God made us, therefore God exists.

Dawkins seemed to have no real ability to calmly pointout that this is such a stupid argument as to be little more than nonsense. So he just got angry, and it looks (to the indo idiot at least) that Dawkins had no response. In fact he did have a response, his response was that the Indo guy was talking bullsh*t, but this didn't come across well.

So Dawkins can argue with intelligent people who either accept or don't accept his points. The problem he has is arguing with lay people, because he has trouble pointing out that not only the argument is flawed but the actual way they are debating is illogical to the point of nonsense.

Sometimes I think he is too intelligent for his own good, in that he seems to have trouble understanding a lay persons argument and as such has trouble understanding how to counter the argument in a way that the lay person will also understand.

He should pop over to the Creationists thread in Christianity Forum if he wants a bit of practice countering nonsense arguments