49 replies to this topic

[Antonius Maximus]

I myself am a fan of old "dawky", but many are confronted by his exuberant way of expressing his distaste in religion and especially children growing up with religious teachings and the subsequent labeling of them as a "Christian or Muslim" child. In one interview he claims that this is wicked and almost child abuse and indoctrination. Feel free to discuss Richard Dawkins (if you don't know him look him up on Youtube) in general.

[nip]

Atheist militance, read: having a combative character and an anti-religious, consolidated opinion, is rare these days. Go with the flow - do not scandalize, rule #1 even for some alleged non-believers. I'm grateful for the audible and enlightening voices of Dawkins, Hitchens, Onfray and others at presence and prior to them (Meslier, d'Holbach, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Le Mettrie, Helvetius), for not howling with the degenerated and mislead pack.

Anyway I see Dawkins more as an evolutionary biologist than outspoken Atheist, I have the feeling that he is just reduced to 'this particular book' he wrote. I agree with him on child abuse: the neuronal system of a child is both physical and psychologically unfinished and easily led (the simple reasons while someone below 18 isn't fully legally competent by law in western countries) - a child soldier is the cruelest kind of a soldier, a child who knows nothing about ethics and morals and who didn't learn to reason, just to kill, a remote-controlled and obedient little zombie. Yes! it is abuse of and a crime against children teaching them religion and contaminating their innocent minds with transcendental excrements. Children must be tought how to think, not what to think.

No drugs, no guns and no religion for kids or they'll fuck up!

[Chyros]

nipthecat, on 10 Nov 2009, 20:22, said:

Atheist militance, read: having a combative character and an anti-religious, consolidated opinion, is rare these days.

You're missing some, I gather. One thing I've noticed over the years is that though religious people are accused of being militant, atheists in practice turn out to be just as militant on average, if not more. Though I'm both bred and educated as atheist, myself, I try not to be militant about it myself.

Reason: as I've posted before on FS, I consider religious people who try to convince or even force their beliefs on others to be, well, bad people. Same kind of goes for atheists IMO. It's different, but not exactly better. Dawkins is a good example. His main points are that there is no "evidence" for theism, and therefore that it's not "true", but religion is deeper than that. Even as an atheist I'm very much aware that religion holds a much deeper purpose for many people. He is also right that a lot of people are "being led astray" because this DOES take place, however, only an absolute minority of people are in a position to which this applies. In the end, people generally NEED religion.

As the ancient Greeks themselves said, if the gods hadn't already existed, people would've conjured them up, inevitably.

EDIT: the children issue requires more talk, though. In my opinion, forcing a belief on a child as happens more than just often, is mental rape. It's well-known that children take much to what their parents tell them. By forcing a belief on their children, parents don't leave a choice on them, and that in my opinion is utterly unacceptable, cf. Jesus Camp which is by the way an excellent documentary on this issue and very well worth watching for people interested in this subject.

Edited by Chyros, 10 November 2009 - 21:22.

[Warbz]

I remember from watching the Jesus Camp documentary one minister says something along the lines of 'They are so usable.'
I think it's disgusting.

The world would be a better place with more people like 'Dawky', not just the fact he is so anti-religion, but because he is so knowledgable about the subject also.

EDIT: Also there's about in the documentary, quite early on where the minister talks about children being trained in Islamic camps to use weapons and 'it's no surprise they are so willing to lay down their own lives for the cause of Islam' she then goes on to say she'd like to see children that were that devoted to the Christian cause and willing to lay down their lives. Christian terrorists?

Edited by W!, 10 November 2009 - 21:44.

[SquigPie]

Dawkins is an intelligent man, no doubt. But as nihilistic and misogynistic as I am, I can't imagine a world without a God, wither as a non-existing symbol, a true, all-loving God, or a psychotic asshole that alot of people make him out to be.

I simply think that humanity cannot guide itself, theres alot of people who can no doubt, but the fact is that most people simply need something as a guideline, or something to look up too, something to give them hope.

I think that thing is religion.

Edited by Bearholder, 11 November 2009 - 08:52.

[Warbz]

Bearholder, on 11 Nov 2009, 8:50, said:

Dawkins is an intelligent man, no doubt. But as nihilistic and misogynistic as I am, I can't imagine a world without a God, wither as a non-existing symbol, a true, all-loving God, or a psychotic asshole that alot of people make him out to be.

I simply think that humanity cannot guide itself, theres alot of people who can no doubt, but the fact is that most people simply need something as a guideline, or something to look up too, something to give them hope.

I think that thing is religion.

It's sad that most people will let someone else lead them via an imaginary friend. If they were taught to think for themselves as children they wouldn't be in that state.

Edit: Typo.

Edited by W!, 11 November 2009 - 11:24.

[Chyros]

W!, on 11 Nov 2009, 12:15, said:

Bearholder, on 11 Nov 2009, 8:50, said:

Dawkins is an intelligent man, no doubt. But as nihilistic and misogynistic as I am, I can't imagine a world without a God, wither as a non-existing symbol, a true, all-loving God, or a psychotic asshole that alot of people make him out to be.

I simply think that humanity cannot guide itself, theres alot of people who can no doubt, but the fact is that most people simply need something as a guideline, or something to look up too, something to give them hope.

I think that thing is religion.

It's sad that most people will let someone else lead them via an imaginary friend. If they were tought to think for themselves as children they wouldn't be in that state.

Heh, though I like the analogy, god is anything but a friend - god himself in the old testament pretty much admits that he is a total bastard and that the people should live in fear so that they won't sin. Some people kind of need to have this put in place to prevent them from sinning.

[General]

If some atheist insisting on religions are the source of evil and wars, then he/she is not different than those religious persons; since he/she already confront and criticize someone else's beliefs in a ' harsh ' way, that only leads more fighting, religion is not something to discuss and criticize on, its faith, its about ' believing ', as a believer can't visually show proof of their God, an atheist can't prove there is no God beyond this ' vast universe ' .

Though I respect and agree with some of Richard Dawkins' points, its literally pointless to confront religions, as its mostly about ' blind faith ' and most person follow religions that way and its hard to find a person who consciously follow his/her religion.

[SquigPie]

The meaning of life, or what it means to be human is simple:

To question.


To be answered isn't important, whats important is to question.

Weither or not God is imaginary isn't really that important, whats important is that we find some way to discuss things without the use of violence and manipulation.

And weither or not god is all-loving or assholic.

God is indescribable, I think, he doesn't thrive on human emotion such as love, hate or fear. He is eminense, malevolent and benevolent.

Do I believe in the Bible? I don't know, I believe it to be a guideline, not a law, in my eyes Jesus came to us as "our next, the weak and the needfull" so when he said "believe in me, for I am the way" he meant "help the poor, be good to people, forgive and love. ROW ROW FIGHT THA POWAH!"

I see myself as a christian, and as a religious person.

And as an aspiring writer, one of my primary rules when writing stuff is: "NEVER PREACH! People who write stuff for the sake of telling people, how to live their lives, are no better than those who write for the money and the fame. Never write one characters opinions as better than anothers".

Thats why I dislike stuff like Narnia (classic fantasy though) and His Dark Materials.

[Golan]

I still dislike the general anti-theism en vogue today. If someone's got a conclusive reasoning for disproving a religion, there's absolutely no problem for me if he speaks out against it. However, dismissing religion on principle is a no go for me. It's the same bullshit that theist freaks come up with. Just because the others are wrong doesn't mean that you are right.

W!, on 11 Nov 2009, 10:15, said:

It's sad that most people will let someone else lead them via an imaginary friend. If they were taught to think for themselves as children they wouldn't be in that state.

'cause forcing people not to be forced to anything is the way to go!

[Warbz]

Gabriel Angelos, on 11 Nov 2009, 11:37, said:

An atheist can't prove there is no God beyond this ' vast universe '.

That argument has been discounted many times over. The responsibilty for for proof lays with the person making the claim as one cannot prove a negative.

Imagine one day someone tells you that there is a very small teapot orbiting the sun. There's no reason why they've reached this conclusion, they've just decided to tell you that its there. Its so small and far away there is no possible way of seeing it, its impossible to locate or get near to, but still, this person insists it is there.


http://en.wikipedia....sell%27s_teapot

[Golan]

While this might be true when talking about a specific god (say the Christian one), the general statement "There is no god" is a claim just like "There is a giant noodle monster orbiting the sun". Just because the existence of a sum of specific gods (up to the sum of all gods of all religions) cannot be proven, this does not in return "proof" that there is no god.

[Warbz]

Golan, on 11 Nov 2009, 18:00, said:

While this might be true when talking about a specific god (say the Christian one), the general statement "There is no god" is a claim just like "There is a giant noodle monster orbiting the sun". Just because the existence of a sum of specific gods (up to the sum of all gods of all religions) cannot be proven, this does not in return "proof" that there is no god.

True, but a logically minded person would make their decisions based on fact not a book that was written by someone who had heard the story from a friend who says he had a friend that saw Jesus, as is the case with most Testament books iirc.

Edited by W!, 11 November 2009 - 18:04.

[Golan]

W!, on 11 Nov 2009, 18:03, said:

Golan, on 11 Nov 2009, 18:00, said:

While this might be true when talking about a specific god (say the Christian one), the general statement "There is no god" is a claim just like "There is a giant noodle monster orbiting the sun". Just because the existence of a sum of specific gods (up to the sum of all gods of all religions) cannot be proven, this does not in return "proof" that there is no god.

True, but a logically minded person would make their decisions based on fact not a book that was written by someone who had heard the story from a friend who says he had a friend that saw Jesus, as is the case with most Testament books iirc.

Yes indeed. A logically minded person would see the fact that there isn't proof for the existence of God (any god) just as well as there isn't proof for the inexistence of God (every single god). Neither Theists nor Atheists adhere to both facts.

Edited by Golan, 11 November 2009 - 18:10.

[SquigPie]

The difference between Russel's teapot and God, is that the teapot is just that. A teapot orbiting the sun, while God is not just a question about something that "either is there or isn't there".

The question of God is a question about life, why are we here? Why do we breathe? when did the step between life and death happen? The question of the teapot is merely a question about weither there is a teapot orbiting the sun, while the question of God is a question about the cause of life, death, and everything.

A world were everybody are forced atheists are no better than a world filled with forced christians, or muslims or whatever you can imagine.

Thats why I love this planet! Its filled with everything. instead of a plate with rice, its a plate with rice, ketchup, pizza, spaghetti, pommes frites, ananas, applepie and yeah, a good deal of shit too, but you can always sort the shit out and eat the rest.

Life would be boring if we all had the same opinion about life, death and everything.

Edited by Bearholder, 11 November 2009 - 18:29.

[Warbz]

I wouldn't be so bothered if Christians weren't trying to force their crap into the education system.

[Golan]

So because a small portion of Christians is publicly showing that they don't know shit about the world possibly created by God, you feel it's adequate to force crap back at all Religions?

[SquigPie]

Damn Golan, how can you always end up saying the stuff the rest of us wanna say?


I agree with Golan, I often get called out on it when I generalise, so I'll call you out on it as well.

We're not all like that.

[General]

W!, on 11 Nov 2009, 20:03, said:

True, but a logically minded person would make their decisions based on fact not a book that was written by someone who had heard the story from a friend who says he had a friend that saw Jesus, as is the case with most Testament books iirc.

I've seen not a single logical enough explanation for the evolution of vegetables and fruits ? Can u give some to me ? No or Yes ? If Yes , how you should give it to me, by the way you learned from others ? Thats how it works, even though belief is not related to logic; still all religious person will think their belief is the most logical one, so there is no point to discuss it, if you wish to discuss it at all, just show your proofs and start observing the reaction of the believer, if he/she begins to think about it instead of responding you in an illogical manner; keep up with it, if not; just leave him/her there and look at your own business, thats what I learned from the religious discussions I had in past.

[Golan]

Come on, that's a bit unfair. In contrast to many religions, science does not claim to explain (in the sense of giving a reason) the world we live in - it simply describes it, up to the point where it breaks the bounds of describing a single element and coming up with a theory that links several details into one theory. Asking science (mind you, not even atheism) for "an explanation for XYZ" and attacking/denouncing it for failing this is kind of a hollow argument. The correct behavior for a scientist in such a situation is to offer you a beer and try figuring out a better theory with you.
Incidentally, the goal of both science and many religions is very similar, yet the approach is almost the exact opposite. While science analyses reality and then deduces a theory, religion offers a theory which is then used to "see" reality. Yet, while we undeniably don't fully know reality thus allowing for great leeway in describing it, the important thing is that both science and religion have to face reality as the ultimate test.
Also, showing that a specific scientific theory is wrong or arguable does not "protect" opposing religious theories from being disproved. The current ToEs can surely be contested, especially when trying to describe evolution over a very long timespan, but many of the facts that have been discovered in its synthesis undeniably disprove many religious theories. Eat dinosaurs, Adam and Eve!

Speaking of religious theories, I'm still waiting for a theist's explanation for quantum tunneling.

Bearholder, on 12 Nov 2009, 9:29, said:

Damn Golan, how can you always end up saying the stuff the rest of us wanna say?

It's more productive than trolling.

Edited by Golan, 12 November 2009 - 10:44.

[General]

Golan, on 12 Nov 2009, 12:43, said:

Come on, that's a bit unfair. In contrast to many religions, science does not claim to explain (in the sense of giving a reason) the world we live in - it simply describes it, up to the point where it breaks the bounds of describing a single element and coming up with a theory that links several details into one theory. Asking science (mind you, not even atheism) for "an explanation for XYZ" and attacking/denouncing it for failing this is kind of a hollow argument. The correct behavior for a scientist in such a situation is to offer you a beer and try figuring out a better theory with you.
Incidentally, the goal of both science and many religions is very similar, yet the approach is almost the exact opposite. While science analyses reality and then deduces a theory, religion offers a theory which is then used to "see" reality. Yet, while we undeniably don't fully know reality thus allowing for great leeway in describing it, the important thing is that both science and religion have to face reality as the ultimate test.
Also, showing that a specific scientific theory is wrong or arguable does not "protect" opposing religious theories from being disproved. The current ToEs can surely be contested, especially when trying to describe evolution over a very long timespan, but many of the facts that have been discovered in its synthesis undeniably disprove many religious theories. Eat dinosaurs, Adam and Eve!

Speaking of religious theories, I'm still waiting for a theist's explanation for quantum tunneling.

Then, why some people such as Richard Dawkins insisting on disproving religions, If I were atheist; I'll certainly not give a damn about other religions, I'll just live my life the best way I can, why should I get stressed with discussing a subject which noone will make a deal on, this is all pointless, religious persons must look at their own business and atheists to their own, I say this in a different way not in racist means, I mean no need to disprove each other, this is pointless, what will an atheist gain in the end anyway ? I can understand religious ones as they are seeking for ' Heaven ' and fear ' Hell ' but whats about atheists ?

Edited by Gabriel Angelos, 12 November 2009 - 11:44.

[Chyros]

Gabriel Angelos, on 12 Nov 2009, 13:43, said:

[...] what will an atheist gain in the end anyway ? I can understand religious ones as they are seeking for ' Heaven ' and fear ' Hell ' but whats about atheists ?

Freedom of choice?

[General]

Chyros, on 12 Nov 2009, 18:05, said:

Gabriel Angelos, on 12 Nov 2009, 13:43, said:

[...] what will an atheist gain in the end anyway ? I can understand religious ones as they are seeking for ' Heaven ' and fear ' Hell ' but whats about atheists ?

Freedom of choice?

You get me wrong I think I will say it more precisely :

Religious person + preaches and bring another person to their religion : They think they won heaven

Atheist person + preaches and makes another person lose their religion : What they gain ?

[BeefJeRKy]

Atheists don't do it for gain.

[General]

JRK, on 12 Nov 2009, 18:44, said:

Atheists don't do it for gain.

I know, and I ask : for why or what ? Just to prove themselves to be right againist a person who doesn't even care about an opinion which not includes ' God ' concept in it ?