Richard Dawkins

Turtwig

Zulu wrote: »

Diplomacy is an art from,

Well this thread has been moving so fast it's been impossible to keep up with. However, this I cannot let go by me. Diplomacy is indeed an art, it is a way of telling someone to go to hell in such a way, that s/he looks forward to the trip.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Can you summarise?

It's about the gradual historical secularization of MLK Jr., the unhistorical relegation of his faith from a pivotal role in his life and the driving influence is his choice to do what he did. She talks about the impression she had growing up that the faith of MLK Jr. was really, in some way, just a tool that was used as a means to an end. She went on an investigation - interviewing many of his friends and fellow rights protesters in the process - to see how true this was.

drkpower

lmaopml wrote: »

As drkpower says...

There is an argument, for which I have some sympathy though (an argument made by Dawkins also, AFAIK..), that all religious people (even if they are secularists), provide a supportive matrix within which intolerant religon and fundamentalists prosper and that they should be sidelined/criticised/ridiculed also. They are the benign government that harbours Al-Quaeda, if you like, and that benign government should be treated harshly.


This is fundamentalist garbage imo, and not something I would like to see in a fair and just society with open choice and learning...It’s the opposite of rational. It's 'weird' Science....
Unfortunately his ‘ideology’ along with his political agenda, seems to have seeped into the heart of Atheism though....

As I said, I dont fully agree with this argument for a number of reasons. But it is miles away from being fundamentalist garbage.

Errant belief systems can come in many forms, and gradients. The average English local gentlemens club might only lightly, and privately, poke fun at 'pakis' and 'nig-nogs'; while the National Front beat them up in the streets. But does the fact that the gentlemen's club does it quietly, and doesn't overtly hurt anyone while doing it, mean we should 'respect' (or not criticise) their views?

Surely there is a good argument that not confronting people with 'mildly' errant/offensive/incorrect views, helps to create an atmosphere within which the dangerous extremes can prosper? That is essentially what Dawkin's is saying.

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

Thats fair enough, but it doesn't apply to me (and I doubt my opinion is that unique).

So can you give me examples of where you felt he was being arrogant?

Zulu wrote: »

Thats your opinion, I don't agree, but there you go.

then I suppose we're just approaching it from totally different perspectives. When I see someone like Theroux I feel sorry for the people he's talking to because he's pretty much just taking the piss out of them. If you think someone has said something ridiculous I think you should tell them so and explain why. If no one ever tells them they're being ridiculous they'll go through life with everyone too "polite" to say anything and instead just laughing at them behind their back. Confronting people when they say something ridiculous might not make you friends but afaic it's a hell of a lot more honest than the alternative. Pretending that you have respect for someone's position to lull them into a false sense of security so you can, as Malty says, tell them to go to hell in such a way as to make them look forward to the trip is just manipulative imo

Zulu wrote: »

Religion is a belief, paedophilia isn't.

Also, you made the leap that I felt "it is ok to "aggressively" change the personal beliefs of a pedophile". I never said or suggested that - you did.

Actually, having read back over the post:

Zulu wrote: »

Firstly, you attempted to create this pedophilia straw-man.
Secondly, I never said I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I read "wouldn't" as "would". Sorry about that

lmaopml

drkpower wrote: »

As I said, I dont fully agree with this argument for a number of reasons. But it is miles away from being fundamentalist garbage.

Errant belief systems can come in many forms, and gradients. The average English local gentlemens club might only lightly, and privately, poke fun at 'pakis' and 'nig-nogs'; while the National Front beat them up in the streets. But does the fact that the gentlemen's club does it quietly, and doesn't overtly hurt anyone while doing it, mean we should 'respect' (or not criticise) their views?

Surely there is a good argument that not confronting people with 'mildly' errant/offensive/incorrect views, helps to create an atmosphere within which the dangerous extremes can prosper? That is essentially what Dawkin's is saying.

Only when one of most respected of the Gentlemen makes it the 'norm' by writing a book, and creates an ideology for the masses...

I'm sorry, but that's the way I see it really.....I've experienced it too as a fairly moderate Christian, ( and even more as RC :eek: ) the prejudice is palpable sometimes...

I don't see why we feel the need to polarize everything....

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry about that

No worries.

drkpower

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't see why we feel the need to polarize everything....

Is that why you called Dawkins' argument in this respect, 'fundamentalist nonsense'......:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's about the gradual historical secularization of MLK Jr., the unhistorical relegation of his faith from a pivotal role in his life and the driving influence is his choice to do what he did. She talks about the impression she had growing up that the faith of MLK Jr. was really, in some way, just a tool that was used as a means to an end. She went on an investigation - interviewing many of his friends and fellow rights protesters in the process - to see how true this was.

Maybe this shows my bias but when I'm asking if something could have happened without religion I ask: is there anything inherent in this particular religion that can't be found anywhere else?

And when you're approaching the situation from the perspective that the religion the person was following is in fact false, that any inspiration from the bible is inspiration from a great but nonetheless human man and that any supportive force they felt moving them on is an equally natural phenomenon, a function of the human brain....well it's hard to find much of anything that can't have happened without it

People find inspiration and motivation they never knew they had in all manner of things and, while religion can be one of those things, it's not the only one and the overriding factor for me is that I think it's false. People often make the point to me that it shouldn't matter if religion is true or not as long as it helps people and if all it did was help people and it did something that could not be reproduced somewhere else I might agree with them but that is not the case.

lmaopml

drkpower wrote: »

Is that why you called Dawkins' argument in this respect, 'fundamentalist nonsense'......:rolleyes:

Yes, in this respect...The 'idealogy' I find disturbing...

all religious people (even if they are secularists), provide a supportive matrix within which intolerant religon and fundamentalists prosper and that they should be sidelined/criticised/ridiculed also. They are the benign government that harbours Al-Quaeda, if you like, and that benign government should be treated harshly.

is fundamentalist and over reactionary imo...and encourages society to polarize.

drkpower

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, in this respect...The 'idealogy' I find disturbing...

all religious people (even if they are secularists), provide a supportive matrix within which intolerant religon and fundamentalists prosper and that they should be sidelined/criticised/ridiculed also. They are the benign government that harbours Al-Quaeda, if you like, and that benign government should be treated harshly.

is fundamentalist and over reactionary imo...and encourages society to polarize.

Dont you see the delicious irony in that statement?;)

lmaopml

LOL! No!


Edit:

The suspense is killing me....

drkpower

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, in this respect...The 'idealogy' I find disturbing...

all religious people (even if they are secularists), provide a supportive matrix within which intolerant religon and fundamentalists prosper and that they should be sidelined/criticised/ridiculed also. They are the benign government that harbours Al-Quaeda, if you like, and that benign government should be treated harshly.

is fundamentalist and over reactionary imo...and encourages society to polarize.

Doesn't believing in a particular entity which has an interest in 'saving' you, while believing that other people who believe in a similar entity, are wrong, and may well be punished for their beliefs, strike you as, perhaps encouraging society to polarize.....?

lmaopml

ohh pml...

Right, I see were your going....:D

..but the 'entity' that is interested in saving Christians doesn't tell us to hate or deal harshly with anybody, in fact, the opposit. We don't always live up to that mind you, which I'll give ye

This...

all religious people (even if they are secularists), provide a supportive matrix within which intolerant religon and fundamentalists prosper and that they should be sidelined/criticised/ridiculed also. They are the benign government that harbours Al-Quaeda, if you like, and that benign government should be treated harshly

....is not quite the same.

I see more irony in the use of the word 'fundamentalists' in this statement itself...

drkpower

lmaopml wrote: »

ohh pml...

Right, I see were your going....:D

..but the 'entity' that is interested in saving Christians doesn't tell us to hate or deal harshly with anybody, in fact, the opposit. We don't always live up to that mind you, which I'll give ye ...

Ah yes, the entity will deal with the non-believer harshly himself, right? So thats ok then.....:eek:

lmaopml wrote: »

This...

all religious people (even if they are secularists), provide a supportive matrix within which intolerant religon and fundamentalists prosper and that they should be sidelined/criticised/ridiculed also. They are the benign government that harbours Al-Quaeda, if you like, and that benign government should be treated harshly

....is not quite the same.

I see more irony in the use of the word 'fundamentalists' in this statement itself...

Why is it fundamentalist to criticise a viewpoint which you find to be entirely without logical or scientific foundation, and which can, in some people's minds, lead to violence?

Is it fundamentalist to disagree loudly, firmly with a political view that you disagree with strongly? Or should we stay silent to avoid polarisation?

lmaopml

I don't think anybody says you should stay silent as a group at all....


....They'd have some job wouldn't they keeping you silent..:pac:...anyway diversity is never going away one way or the other, but we have to share this island too...

I just think that society itself has already changed so much, ( and not down to Dawkins ) to the peacemakers....

...his ideology is going backwards not forwards, and strangely ironic in that he gathers his followers by writing a book that they defend so valiantly...

drkpower

lmaopml wrote: »

...his ideology is going backwards not forwards, and strangely ironic in that he gathers his followers by writing a book that they defend so valiantly...

Given that this mini-conversation began by me saying that I didnt fully agree with Dawkins' position, you picked a funny moment to suggest that Dawkins has 'followers' who defend his book so valiantly.

lmaopml

Sorry drkpower, I didn't mean it as a slight on you at all....

just a general observation.

I'm a pacifist mostly

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Who cares about that though?

Well a lot of people apparently. It is quite difficult to be an atheist when so much of societies notions about things is geared towards religious thought.

lmaopml wrote: »

I can also see why it looks like a new religious movement to those of faith, who wouldn’t when it’s clear that there is an agenda, and a devout following

Well to be honest I think that is just a drummed up effort to make Dawkins and co look like hypocrites by claiming they are a religion that attacks religion.

Anyone who thinks what Dawkins is talking about is a religion, as opposed to simply, as you say, a political or philosophical movement, isn't paying attention.

lmaopml wrote: »

...... however, perhaps Atheists tend to look on it as a ‘political’ movement more so...? Am I right?

I would look on it as a philosophical movement with political aspects (such as the rights of non-religious people)

Dawkins himself calls it conscious raising, which I think its well

It isn't a religion, not because this is good and all religion is bad but simply because it isn't, not under any definition of religion I've ever come across.

lmaopml wrote: »

That he - not unwittingly, encourages prejudice with his methods, on the false premise that you cannot be seriously interested in Science and have faith

How does that cause prejudice?

lmaopml wrote: »

Last time I checked nobody ‘owned’ Science!!

No, but science is defined. It is easy to see if a view is or is not scientific. Religious views aren't, they are testable to a scientific standard, they aren't falsifiable, they aren't capable of being modeled

Dawkins issue is how can someone who views so much of what they think they know about things through an unscientific lense (such as personal revelation) really be interested in or understand science.

The answer "Well God isn't a question for science" just highlights that the person doesn't really get the point of science. You don't divide the world up into things that are or are not for science and then continue to happily accept the things that aren't for science as if you had established them to a scientific standard.

That misses the point of science.

It would be like saying that the best way to measure a distance from one point to the next is with a laser pointer except when you are measuring the size of my bedroom, they you can just guess.

All the problems with personal assessment that science attempts to address through empirical measurement and falsifibility don't just disappear because you apply your mind to a question that cannot be answered scientifically

All the same issues remain and thus the answers are as unreliable as if you applied personal assessment to the atom or formation of stars.

God is actually a question for science, and the answer is we don't know.

It is the same answer as when we ponder about M-theory or what happened before the big bang. We can't test it so it is just speculation.

So when science says that and people Ok, I accept that, but I'm going to ignore that and pretend I do actually know because of personal assessment, the very thing science tries to remove, it is hard not to think that the person is not interested in science.

Which is fine, there isn't a law that saws you have to do things this way, but it is silly then for people to get indignant that this is pointed out to them.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Well a lot of people apparently. It is quite difficult to be an atheist when so much of societies notions about things is geared towards religious thought.



Well to be honest I think that is just a drummed up effort to make Dawkins and co look like hypocrites by claiming they are a religion that attacks religion.

Anyone who thinks what Dawkins is talking about is a religion, as opposed to simply, as you say, a political or philosophical movement, isn't paying attention.


I would look on it as a philosophical movement with political aspects (such as the rights of non-religious people)

Dawkins himself calls it conscious raising, which I think its well

It isn't a religion, not because this is good and all religion is bad but simply because it isn't, not under any definition of religion I've ever come across.


How does that cause prejudice?


No, but science is defined. It is easy to see if a view is or is not scientific. Religious views aren't, they are testable to a scientific standard, they aren't falsifiable, they aren't capable of being modeled

Dawkins issue is how can someone who views so much of what they think they know about things through an unscientific lense (such as personal revelation) really be interested in or understand science.

The answer "Well God isn't a question for science" just highlights that the person doesn't really get the point of science. You don't divide the world up into things that are or are not for science and then continue to happily accept the things that aren't for science as if you had established them to a scientific standard.

That misses the point of science.

It would be like saying that the best way to measure a distance from one point to the next is with a laser pointer except when you are measuring the size of my bedroom, they you can just guess.

All the problems with personal assessment that science attempts to address through empirical measurement and falsifibility don't just disappear because you apply your mind to a question that cannot be answered scientifically

All the same issues remain and thus the answers are as unreliable as if you applied personal assessment to the atom or formation of stars.

God is actually a question for science, and the answer is we don't know.

It is the same answer as when we ponder about M-theory or what happened before the big bang. We can't test it so it is just speculation.

So when science says that and people Ok, I accept that, but I'm going to ignore that and pretend I do actually know because of personal assessment, the very thing science tries to remove, it is hard not to think that the person is not interested in science.

Which is fine, there isn't a law that saws you have to do things this way, but it is silly then for people to get indignant that this is pointed out to them.

In the Gospel records it points out that upon hearing the report that Jesus was risen form the dead the disciples did not believe it (with the possible exception of John). So they went to the tomb themselves to verify the claim by examining the tomb, is that using the scientific method?

Rev Hellfire

Soul Winner wrote: »

So they went to the tomb themselves to verify the claim by examining the tomb, is that using the scientific method?

Can it be independently verified.
I mean its a bit like saying the bible is fact because it says so in the bible.

Soul Winner

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Can it be independently verified.
I mean its a bit like saying the bible is fact because it says so in the bible.

Well think of it this way, the tomb must have been empty because if it wasn't then the first thing that would have been done to stop a bunch of guys preaching that somebody rose from the dead would be to produce the body. That surely makes sense yes? If that had actually happened in those early days of the preaching it would have been impossible for the apostles to convince anyone that not only was Jesus risen from the dead but that He was God incarnate to boot. So with the absence of any historical evidence that the body had been produced in this way we must infer that the tomb was in fact found empty.

Now we must explain how it got empty.

If the disciples stole the body then they were liars who made the whole story up. But as we explained earlier there a very few historian both secular and Christian who think the disciples didn't genuinely believe what they preached, which means that they might have been deluded but they were not lying. So they at least didn't steal the body.

Who else? The Jewish leaders?

For one, why would they have stolen the body? And if they did they would have produced it in an instant and destroyed the preaching of the resurrection of this Jesus whom they had crucified. They above all would have produced the body and yet there is not one single shred of any evidence in history that this happened.

The Romans might have stolen the body but they too would have produced it in order to appease the Jewish authorities and to keep order. If the Jewish leaders were influential enough to prevail upon the Roman authorities to have Christ crucified and to have a seal put on His tomb they would have been influential enough to have the Romans produce the body if in fact they had stolen it. So it wasn't them, and if it was, where is the evidence in any historical text? The Christian movement is scoffed at in many secular texts but the claim that the corps of Jesus was paraded through the streets to shut up his stupid apostles is never made and had that happened this would have been recorded.

So who else had the vested interest and courage to steal the body? If there were any others then were they friend or foe? If friend, then why didn't they tell the apostles? And where is the evidence from history? If foe then why didn't they produce the body? And if they did, again where is the evidence for this? There isn't any. So if the tomb was in fact found empty then were did the body go? The tomb was empty and this must be explained because Christianity could not have gotten off the ground in the very city where Christ was crucified had there been a corpse rotting in that tomb. Impossible!!!

The absence of any historical source which claims that the body of Jesus was publicly paraded through the streets of Jerusalem in order to put a stop to this dangerous new movement is a very good indication that it never took place. And if it didn't take place then the question must be asked: Why didn't it take palce? Because the body was gone, they were simply not able to do it. So where did the body go?

If you have a better explanation than the resurrection (which was the original explanation) which changed the apostles from a bunch of faithless cowards to brave faithful martyrs then I'm all ears and would love to see whatever historical evidence you have to back it up.

bnt

How did this thread get to 32 pages without someone using the S-word? * It's that or the boards search index is out of whack ... while I generally agree with him, I can't help thinking that The God Delusion was RD's "retirement plan", and it's no coincidence it came out in the year that he turned 65. Good thing we atheists don't have "leaders", or get all our ideas from one book, eh? :pac:

* "strident"

Soul Winner

bnt wrote: »

How did this thread get to 32 pages without someone using the S-word? * It's that or the boards search index is out of whack ... while I generally agree with him, I can't help thinking that The God Delusion was RD's "retirement plan", and it's no coincidence it came out in the year that he turned 65. Good thing we atheists don't have "leaders", or get all our ideas from one book, eh? :pac:

* "strident"

In case you don't know, the Bible is not one single book, its a collection of books.

bnt

Soul Winner wrote: »

In case you don't know, the Bible is not one single book, its a collection of books.

I'll remember that the next time someone invites me to read "The Good Books", then. Not that I'd want to read it/them again - the first time was quite enough, thank you.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you have a better explanation than the resurrection (which was the original explanation) which changed the apostles from a bunch of faithless cowards to brave faithful martyrs then I'm all ears and would love to see whatever historical evidence you have to back it up.

This has been shown to you countless times. You were specifically asked to explain why this is any different to any other religion or cult where the followers were/are so changed by their beliefs.

e.g. Why would people claim Muhammad ascended into heaven ? all someone would have to do to falsify this claim is to produce the body.

You have made this argument before and to be honest its very boring because you refused to listen to the answers.

This is exactly the same as claiming the bible is true because the bible says so. Or rather, the bible is true because the bible says so and no one else (at the time) said differently.

People can make the same argument for every holy book ever written by any religion.

prinz

monosharp wrote: »

This is exactly the same as claiming the bible is true because the bible says so. Or rather, the bible is true because the bible says so and no one else (at the time) said differently.

People can make the same argument for every holy book ever written by any religion.

Like much of ancient history. Funny how other things aren't called into question on this basis however.

Bobeagleburger

I enjoy Dawkins work tbh.

He's a very intelligent man (unlike some that blindly dismiss his arguments) and some of his books are fascinating.

PDN

rarnes1 wrote: »

I enjoy Dawkins work tbh.

He's a very intelligent man (unlike some that blindly dismiss his arguments) and some of his books are fascinating.

Hey, great way to save us all this big long thread! Let's just dispense with discussion and label each other as blind. Then those who blindly follow Dawkins can agree to disagree with those who blindly dismiss his arguments.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Like much of ancient history. Funny how other things aren't called into question on this basis however.

They are, all the time. :rolleyes:

For example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer#Life_and_legends

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

In the Gospel records it points out that upon hearing the report that Jesus was risen form the dead the disciples did not believe it (with the possible exception of John). So they went to the tomb themselves to verify the claim by examining the tomb, is that using the scientific method?

Depends on what they were verifying.

They could certainly verify the tomb was empty. It is easy to make a theoretical model of an empty tomb and then test this model through experiment. An model of an empty tomb is one without a body, and you verify this by testing that the tomb didn't have a body. Which they did.

The issue becomes when they conclude from that that he has risen.

"He has risen" is a hypothesis, an untested theory. To become a scientific theory it has to be test and be able to be tested in a manner that is falsifiable.

In science you never actually test that a theory is true, you test over and over and over that it isn't false, and if you have done that enough time you build confidence that it is accurate.

In order to do this you must be able to actually test that it is false, ie it must be falsifiable.

That doesn't mean it must be false, just that it must be possible that it can be demonstrated to be false if it is.

The theory of the empty tomb is easily falsifable. A prediction of an empty tomb is that there isn't a body in it. If you go to the tomb and see there is a body in the tomb you have just falsified your theory, and you start again from the theory of the not empty tomb.

In order for a resurrected Jesus to be considered a scientific model the detalis of the model must be falsifiable. This is harder than you would think, so perhaps it is better to not start with such a difficult theory and focus on something easier to test.

Ignore the idea that Jesus is resurrected, and start small. Jesus was dead and is not living.

That is a theory that is testable to a scientific standard, it is falsifiable because each part of that model make predictions about what should happen if it was true (if Jesus was dead he should not have a working heart, or blood, or brain etc)

So you can test this (hyopthetically assuming we were around back then). Measure his body to assess that he is dead and then measure his body afterward when he is alive to see if you can demonstrate your theory wrong.

If you do that enough times and you find you can't then you can say your model of Jesus dead then alive is pretty accurate. You haven't proven it is true, you have just had a lot of trouble proving it is wrong.

So you can say you have established that Jesus was dead and is now alive. The next thing to try and test is how that happened.

That is when things get pretty non-scientific. You can say God did it, and that would be your hypothesis. But what is the falsifiable test to demonstrate that God didn't do it? Remember in science you are not looking to make a test that shows God did do it, you are looking to make lots and lots of tests to show that he didn't do it, and if your theory survives these test you can be confident that he probably did do it, because every time you test your theory and you don't demonstrate it wrong it is more likely to be correct.

The problem is I can't think of one, I would be very interested if anyone else can.

So you are left with the problem that if you can't test that God didn't do it you can't build up an idea of how confident you are, scientifically, that God did do it

You can simply accept he did, but that is pointless from a scientific point of view, since you could just be wrong. It is no better than a guess.

So scientifically testing the claim of a resurrection (an hypothesis) fails pretty soon in the process.

Again, as I said to lmaopml, people can say they don't care, which is fair enough, but that is basically saying that we are going to simply ignore all this stuff in science. Which is hard then to put together with the idea that they are not ignorant of science.

I don't know how people reconcile that with the fact that you don't ignore it when you are actually doing science (and thus produce useful things like a working theory of electricity)

They seem to not understand the reason they don't ignore that when doing science, and thus are happy to throw out science when it is inconvenient.