Why agnosticism fails

Flamed Diving

Zillah wrote: »

Do you believe in God?

Pancakes.

Zillah

Flamed Diving wrote: »

In my opinion, Dawkins has turned as many people away from science as he has attracted.

That's not an opinion, it's baseless conjecture.

He seems to think that evolution disproves God and explains the creation of life

Science disproves the existence of the vast majority of Gods, including Yahweh as portrayed in the Bible, and it has a pretty good explanation for the origin of life, though they're still working out the details.

He thinks that those who simply don't believe in God should hate religion and ridicule the religious.

No he's never said that. He advocates a far less hysterical version of what you said though.

Arrogance of the highest order, and misguided.

There's only so many ways to tell someone you think what they believe and hold dear is complete gibberish -- I'm not sure any of them would not be perceived as arrogant. As for misguided...time shall tell.

Zillah

Shane_C wrote: »

1: thats totally wrong, an agnostic doesn't believe in anything, god or not

Dude, if you don't believe in God then you're an atheist.

Now I can tell you're going through some 19 year old rebellion thing that's making you strongly opposed to accepting a label from the man, man, but for simplicities sake why not just go with it?

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

No you come on drkpower (get a name that sounds like a name!). It's not irrelevant nomenclature, you're equating offensive/argumentative atheists with the kind of people who build Creationist museums and fly planes into buildings! They're nothing alike and I'll call you on it if you conflate them..

Deep breaths, Zillah....
I didnt say that it was irrelevent nomenclature. I asked you not to get "caught up in it" as it was clear from our conversation what I meant by the term "extreme". If you prefer "vocal", thats fine but we both know in what context I was using the term.

Zillah wrote: »

Seriously what alternate dimension did you fall into? Did you fail to notice the part when our constitution references God as the ultimate authority? Where judges have to take a religious oath? Where kids can be denied entry to a school for not being baptised? Where we just got a brand new BLASPHEMY law?.

And the above was posted in response to my suggestion that religous belief is all but irrelevent to those who enter politics in Ireland, why...?! Come on, you can do better than that.

Zillah wrote: »

Honestly it's like they've managed to pull the wool over your eyes and you don't even notice how ridiculous it is to have this cult interfere in so many aspects of our society.

Any time you want to ask me a question Zillah, go right ahead, but dont tell me what I believe is ridiculous when you dont know what I believe. I find most of the issues you mention above ridiculous. Mind you, most of them are of little practical effect but that is a secondary issue.

However, on the substance, I want them removed. Many atheists who pay lip service to these issues seem merely content to abuse, patronise and ridicule which damages the agenda of those of us who actually want them removed. That is my whole point but you dont seem to get it.

Flamed Diving

Zillah wrote: »

That's not an opinion, it's baseless conjecture.

Maybe, but he would be the last person I would recommend to popularise science, from amongst his peers.

Zillah wrote: »

Science disproves the existence of the vast majority of Gods, including Yahweh as portrayed in the Bible, and it has a pretty good explanation for the origin of life, though they're still working out the details.

He said evolution, as I stated above. This above quote is meaningless in the context of our conversation. I already know the status of sciences explanation/s for the origin of life, I have been posting about this on here for years.

Zillah wrote: »

No he's never said that. He advocates a far less hysterical version of what you said though.

His idea of atheism is far too radical for my taste. He gives atheists a bad name.

Zillah wrote: »

There's only so many ways to tell someone you think what they believe and hold dear is complete gibberish -- I'm not sure any of them would not be perceived as arrogant. As for misguided...time shall tell.

There is a difference between showing someone why you think they are an idiot, and telling them. The forum charter might say something to that effect.

Shane_C

Zillah wrote: »

Dude, if you don't believe in God then you're an atheist.

Thats the biggest problem in atheism: you are so black and white.
Its almost like......a religion.

Now I can tell you're going through some 19 year old rebellion thing that's making you strongly opposed to accepting a label from the man, man, but for simplicities sake why not just go with it?

The heat may follow, I don't care, I'm not taking personal abuse....I'm out

Flamed Diving

Zillah wrote: »

Dude, if you don't believe in God then you're an atheist.

Wrong. The clue is in the capital 'G'.

CerebralCortex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

His idea of atheism is far too radical for my taste. He gives atheists a bad name.

Oh I didn't know there was different versions?

ChocolateSauce

Flamed Diving wrote: »

2) Arrogance is merely fear with an attitude.

I'm not so sure about that. That is certainly a view I've never encountered before. I've always thought of arrogance as being sure you're right and letting people know about it.

3) Atheism need not be anti-theist or anti-religion. This, if anything, is my problem with Dawkins.

That's why I like him;).

drkpower wrote:

Sure, being a vocal atheist might still be problematic for many politicians but I think that is less to do with the politician not believing in God but more to do with the view that many have about atheism; a view I believe is solidified by the attitudes of many "extreme" atheists, which is pretty much my point.

IMO, the problem with atheism and politicians is nothing short of the fact that in most countries the system, by virtue of the electorate, is heavily weighted against people who are simultaneously thinking, intelligent and honest, not because of extreme atheists who point out stupidity when they see it.

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

Deep breaths, Zillah....
I didnt say that it was irrelevent nomenclature. I asked you not to get "caught up in it" as it was clear from our conversation what I meant by the term "extreme". If you prefer "vocal", thats fine but we both know in what context I was using the term.

But the real issue is that you were using this one term for two distinctly different groups of people. It's not irrelevant, it's an entirely disingenuous way of responding to my point.

And the above was posted in response to my suggestion that religous belief is all but irrelevent to those who enter politics in Ireland, why...?! Come on, you can do better than that.

You're the one who narrowed it to political election, I started this point referring to religious influence in society in general. Don't move the goalposts.

Any time you want to ask me a question Zillah, go right ahead, but dont tell me what I believe is ridiculous when you dont know what I believe. I find most of the issues you mention above ridiculous. Mind you, most of them are of little practical effect but that is a secondary issue.

Er, I didn't say anything about what you believe. Anyway, you can trivialise it all you want, but saying that religion no longer has a dominant position in the world is patently false, even on our own little island it's in our constitution and running our school. Not even touching on the super-Christian power house that is the US or the festering-Islamic-nightmare that are parts of the Middle East.

However, on the substance, I want them removed. Many atheists who pay lip service to these issues seem merely content to abuse, patronise and ridicule which damages the agenda of those of us who actually want them removed. That is my whole point but you dont seem to get it.

I get your point, I just disagree with it. I've explained why.

Shane_C wrote:

Thats the biggest problem in atheism: you are so black and white.

No I speak English where words have specific meaning.

Flamed Diving

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Oh I didn't know there was different versions?

What I mean is there are people who choose to be atheists, but don't see themselves as anti-religious, by default. There are those who are atheists who see their position as anti-religious, and who are quite active about it. The range of popular atheist authors (four horsemen) out there would seem to neatly provide the spread.

dvpower

Flamed Diving wrote: »

In my opinion, Dawkins has turned as many people away from science as he has attracted.

That's a strange opinion. If you were starting from The God Delusion, then you'd have a point (that I'd still take issue with). But he's been knocking out popular science for decades.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

He seems to think that evolution disproves God and explains the creation of life (in those awesome video where he attacked schoolchildren)

Whatever about his style, he does know his evolution. I'm pretty certain that he wouldn't say that evolution disproves God, but I'm sure you'd agree that evolution badly damages the arguement for God.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

He thinks that those who simply don't believe in God should hate religion and ridicule the religious.

And I'm fairlly certain he doesn't think that.

Flamed Diving

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that. That is certainly a view I've never encountered before. I've always thought of arrogance as being sure you're right and letting people know about it.

Well, you can be confident and do that, without being so vitriolic. I guess it's about delivery. This has nothing to with my statement that Atheism as a POV is arrogant, btw. Different story.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

That's why I like him;).

Well, obviously. But I strongly disagree with the notion.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

IMO, the problem with atheism and politicians is nothing short of the fact that in most countries the system, by virtue of the electorate is heavily weighted against people who are simultaneously thinking, intelligent and honest, not because of extreme atheists who point out stupidity when they see it.

Atheism has a system?

ChocolateSauce

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Atheism has a system?

I meant the electoral systems of nations, sorry if I wasn't clear.

Zillah

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What I mean is there are people who choose to be atheists, but don't see themselves as anti-religious, by default. There are those who are atheists who see their position as anti-religious, and who are quite active about it. The range of popular atheist authors (four horsemen) out there would seem to neatly provide the spread.

Like I said, Dawkins is:

1 - An atheist.
2 - A firm secular advocate.
3 - A proponent of scientific/sceptical thinking.

For some reason you keep insisting that when he does 2 or 3 it is some how 1 and therefore reflects badly on you.

He's not saying atheism and his other passions are the same thing, you're the one conflating them.

I'm using the word "conflate" a lot. Stop conflating everything everybody!

Flamed Diving

dvpower wrote: »

That's a strange opinion. If you were starting from The God Delusion, then you'd have a point (that I'd still take issue with). But he's been knocking out popular science for decades.

Of course, but his popularity has risen exponentially since that book, as has his polarising style.

dvpower wrote: »

Whatever about his style, he does know his evolution. I'm pretty certain that he wouldn't say that evolution disproves God, but I'm sure you'd agree that evolution badly damages the arguement for God.

No, unfortunately he did, in that Darwin (of all things) programme he made, you know, the one where he decided to turn it into a soapbox. Attenboroughs was so much better, now there is a likeable atheist.

dvpower wrote: »

And I'm fairlly certain he doesn't think that.

Maybe not, he certainly seems to evoke it in his work.

Flamed Diving

Zillah wrote: »

Like I said, Dawkins is:

1 - An atheist.
2 - A firm secular advocate.
3 - A proponent of scientific/sceptical thinking.

As are many atheists. So they are all homogenous? Or is it overly simplistic to categorise individuals this way. I find that Dawkins represents and delivers all of the above in the wrong way.

Very simple.

Ok, bedtime!

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

But the real issue is that you were using this one term for two distinctly different groups of people. It's not irrelevant, it's an entirely disingenuous way of responding to my point..

Stop flogging this dead horse; I already said that "vocal" is fine and that it was what I meant. You are being childish. And if it was such an issue why didnt you take me up on it when I first used the term "extreme atheist" in a post (twice!!). Was it not objectionable then or has it just become more convenient to persist with a red herring now......!?!

Zillah wrote: »

You're the one who narrowed it to political election, I started this point referring to religious influence in society in general. Don't move the goalposts...

Grow up Zillah - or at least read the thread and try to be honest. The following was the first reference political election....oh look, you said it.

Yes it is. We still have pro-religious laws in effect, coming out as an atheist is often political suicide, especially in the US.

Zillah wrote: »

Er, I didn't say anything about what you believe. Anyway, you can trivialise it all you want, but saying that religion no longer has a dominant position in the world is patently false, even on our own little island it's in our constitution and running our school.

Wrong; Religon doesnt have that dominance. Our government allows this improper influence in our laws, schools and constitution. Religon has precious little real power and influence left. All it takes is for most right-minded atheists, agnostics and religous secularists to organise and lobby and these things would change quickly.

But for a number of reasons, including the negative opinion many have atheism/secularism because people of your persuasion, this has yet to happen on any organised basis and the fall in the Church's position and influence is more to do woth their own ineptitude/crimes and the occasional forward thinking politician rather than the actions of secularists/atheists themselves.

Zillah

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ok, bedtime!

How I envy you. I must stay up for another 5 hours or so.

drkpower

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

IMO, the problem with atheism and politicians is nothing short of the fact that in most countries the system, by virtue of the electorate, is heavily weighted against people who are simultaneously thinking, intelligent and honest, not because of extreme atheists who point out stupidity when they see it.

That isnt entirely clear?
Are you saying that the electorate is weighted against people who are simultaneously thinking, intelligent and honest.....?
I and most people I know try and vote for politicians of this ilk (if we can find them).
You might clarify how you have come to this view.

ChocolateSauce

drkpower wrote: »

Wrong; Religon doesnt have that dominance. Our government allows this improper influence in our laws, schools and constitution. Religon has precious little real power and influence left. All it takes is for most right-minded atheists, agnostics and religous secularists to organise and lobby and these things would change quickly.

But for a number of reasons, including the negative opinion many have atheism/secularism because people of your persuasion, this has yet to happen on any organised basis and the fall in the Church's position and influence is more to do woth their own ineptitude/crimes and the occasional forward thinking politician rather than the actions of secularists/atheists themselves.

You're joking right? Religion has tremendous power in most places, it's just that in the west it isn't always combined with the law. Here in Ireland, a somewhat irreligious nation, religion runs the schools, owns billions and billions of euros worth of property, gets away scot free with decades of rape and violence against children, gets air time on our state run media, and has many powerful people in government defending it. I could go on and describe the power it has in the middle east, but that would take a while...

Being an atheist was political suicide long before people like Dawkins and Zillah became vocal. It's suicide because they don't trust people who aren't as ignorant as they are, not because they've been insulted. They wouldn't vote for an atheist even if he was one of the ones who really does respect religion.

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

Stop flogging this dead horse; I already said that "vocal" is fine and that it was what I meant. You are being childish. And if it was such an issue why didnt you take me up on it when I first used the term "extreme atheist" in a post (twice!!). Was it not objectionable then or has it just become more convenient to persist with a red herring now......!?!

Ugh.

Ok.

What I am protesting is this: You used the term "extremists" to refer both to vocal atheists and religious fundamentalists, at the same time, as though they were equal. You can call them terror-birds and zombie-raptors for all I care, just don't present them as if they're the same thing.

Grow up Zillah - or at least read the thread and try to be honest. The following was the first reference political election....oh look, you said it.

I find it hilarious that you're becoming belligerent in a thread wherein you attempt to argue that belligerence is self defeating.

You'll notice in the piece you quoted that I also referred to "pro-religious laws", meaning I wasn't specifically speaking about political election, and so you pointing out that I was addressing something other than election as though it was irrelevant was quite pointless. You're the one trying to act as if the topic was purely about election, not I, don't criticise me for straying over a line that exists only in your head.

Wrong; Religon doesnt have that dominance. Our government allows this improper influence in our laws, schools and constitution. Religon has precious little real power and influence left. All it takes is for most right-minded atheists, agnostics and religous secularists to organise and lobby and these things would change quickly.

Heh.

- Religion is not dominant in our society.
- Religion does, however, have improper influence in our laws, schools and constitution.
- To remove this dominance 'improper influence' we need to have most right minded atheists, agnostics and religious secularists organise and lobby to remove the 'improper influence' that definitely cannot be considered 'dominance'.

Awesome.

But for a number of reasons, including the negative opinion many have atheism/secularism because people of your persuasion

Can you actually support this or is it a fancy sounding, but baseless, assumption?

ChocolateSauce

drkpower wrote: »

That isnt entirely clear?
Are you saying that the electorate is weighted against people who are simultaneously thinking, intelligent and honest.....?
I and most people I know try and vote for politicians of this ilk (if we can find them).
You might clarify how you have come to this view.

I am saying exactly that. I came to this conclusion because a person who is both intelligent and thinking is not going to be a theist, by my definition, and if they expected to get elected in the US, they'd lie about it.

Zillah

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I am saying exactly that. I came to this conclusion because a person who is both intelligent and thinking is not going to be a theist, by my definition, and if they expected to get elected in the US, they'd lie about it.

*Cough*

Barack Obama

*cough*

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

I find it hilarious that you're becoming belligerent in a thread wherein you attempt to argue that belligerence is self defeating.

You'll notice in the piece you quoted that I also referred to "pro-religious laws", meaning I wasn't specifically speaking about political election, and so you pointing out that I was addressing something other than election as though it was irrelevant was quite pointless.

No; I am becoming irritated because you accused me of changing the goal posts. Then I clearly show that you were the one who mentioned "election", yet you wont just say 'oh yeah, you're right' and move on!! Disappointing.

Zillah wrote: »

- Religion is not dominant in our society.
- Religion does, however, have improper influence in our laws, schools and constitution.
- To remove this dominance 'improper influence' we need to have most right minded atheists, agnostics and religious secularists organise and lobby to remove the 'improper influence' that definitely cannot be considered 'dominance'.

Awesome.
.

Improper influence is not dominance, Zillah. You are floundering.

Zillah wrote: »

Can you actually support this or is it a fancy sounding, but baseless, assumption? .

How do you want me to support it?
Do you question that the 'arrogance' of many atheists turns moderates off Athesit Ireland and other such organisations? Do you question that many moderates were turned off Athesit Irlenad by their proposed reaction to the blasphemy law?
Lack of popular support is precisely why Atheist Ireland/Humanists etc are not an effective lobby.

ChocolateSauce

Zillah wrote: »

*Cough*

Barack Obama

*cough*

The thought had crossed my mind. I'm convinced H. Clinton is an atheist. Faith I guess you could call it!

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

I dunno dude, there is something to be said for hostile ridicule.

No, there isn't; there's really no merit in it. It confirms the worst stereotypes about atheists and gains the gentle atheists no listeners.

Zillah wrote: »

Not really, no. For a couple of reasons. Fundamentalist religious people are never a good counterpart to vocal atheists due to their inherent immunity to reasonable discussion. Second of all at the very least we'd need to be in a society dominated by atheists who suppress and discriminate against the religious for centuries, and have a small amount of religious people speaking out against such tyranny.

I thought you believed that all religious people are immunte to reasonable discussion.

Atheists have not been suppressed for hundreds of years. Religious discrimination of the past was directed mostly at other religious groups. Moreover it doesn't have much to do with religion today.

Zillah wrote: »

No you come on drkpower (get a name that sounds like a name!). It's not irrelevant nomenclature, you're equating offensive/argumentative atheists with the kind of people who build Creationist museums and fly planes into buildings! They're nothing alike and I'll call you on it if you conflate them.

Equating people who build museums with people who fly planes into buildings is ridiculous.

They have an answer and ignore anything to the contrary, whereas an atheist such as myself considers evidence, then forms conclusions, which is the essence of reasonable discussion.

Could have fooled me.

Seriously what alternate dimension did you fall into? Did you fail to notice the part when our constitution references God as the ultimate authority? Where judges have to take a religious oath? Where kids can be denied entry to a school for not being baptised? Where we just got a brand new BLASPHEMY law?

Maybe you've been in Canada too long. This morning I saw an ad for some spa out west with a holiday package called "seven deadly sins". That wouldn't be tolerated in society dominated by the catholic church. You can walk around most Irish towns and cities without the church being pushed in your face. All in all it's a pretty secular place. You are merely highlighting the anomalies to that.

drkpower

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

You're joking right? Religion has tremendous power in most places, it's just that in the west it isn't always combined with the law. Here in Ireland, a somewhat irreligious nation, religion runs the schools, owns billions and billions of euros worth of property, gets away scot free with decades of rape and violence against children, gets air time on our state run media, and has many powerful people in government defending it. I could go on and describe the power it has in the middle east, but that would take a while...

Being an atheist was political suicide long before people like Dawkins and Zillah became vocal. It's suicide because they don't trust people who aren't as ignorant as they are, not because they've been insulted. They wouldn't vote for an atheist even if he was one of the ones who really does respect religion.

No; I am quite serious.
Religon is allowed to run schools. The Government could change it tomorrow and the public, by and large, wouldnt give a damn.
They purchased their own property.
They did not get away scot free; every religous abuser is just as open to the criminal justice system as any non-religous.

And what are you talking about re: atheism being political suicide before Dawkins. Religous profession/belief really has not been an issue in electoral politics in this country for many years - in many ways, it is remarkable in that way. We've had loads of elected protestants, jews and muslims going back decades. Lack of belief isnt a problem.

Fair enough on the financial side and I dont defend the piss-poor deal Woods/Ahern struck. But remember the deal was struck so that abuse victims did not have to give evidence in court and so that their claims would not be struck out on Statute of Limitations grounds, so it was in the financial naievity of the deal that the Gov messed up, not in doing the deal.

Húrin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I am saying exactly that. I came to this conclusion because a person who is both intelligent and thinking is not going to be a theist, by my definition, and if they expected to get elected in the US, they'd lie about it.

That's a stunningly ignorant and culturally prejudiced statement. Do you think that most of the people who created the concepts that built up our civilisation, including science, such as Aristotle, Aquinas and Descartes, were pretty much idiots because they were not atheists?

Zillah wrote: »

There's only so many ways to tell someone you think what they believe and hold dear is complete gibberish -- I'm not sure any of them would not be perceived as arrogant. As for misguided...time shall tell.

THere are many ways. However, atheists who attempt to understand where religious people are coming from are so rare that all atheists get branded as "arrogant". They judge all people by their own standards, as if everyone should see things their way.

ChocolateSauce

Hurin, I'm gonna have to disagree there...there is something to be said for hostile ridicule.