SD on 20/12/2007 at 15:28
Quote Posted by paloalto90
Professor Dawkins supposed cure for the supposed disease is based on fear
How exactly? His cure for supserstitious tomfoolery is education in reason, logic, science and all those other worthy, sensible things that are responsible for our advancement into civilisation. I think you'll find it's religion that rules through fear: fear of a big guy watching and judging you, fear of not getting into Heaven, fear of not being a good little sheep following the herd.
Quote:
and the side effects would be a great limit on individual liberties and the exercise of free will.
Clear nonsense. Especially since religion is the biggest current threat to individual liberty on the planet.
Stitch on 20/12/2007 at 15:34
Quote Posted by SD
His cure for supserstitious tomfoolery is education in reason, logic, science and all those other worthy, sensible things that are responsible for our advancement into civilisation.
This is why Dawkins is a load of horseshit, for the record.
SD on 20/12/2007 at 15:48
You don't think education works? Or is it not enough on its own?
Thirith on 20/12/2007 at 15:59
Quote Posted by SD
Especially since religion is the biggest current threat to individual liberty on the planet.
SD, do you make a distinction between religion and organised religion in this? Or do you feel that both are huge threats to individual liberty?
In any case, looking at places such as present-day Russia under Putin, I honestly feel that the wish of certain individuals to have power, and to exercise this power over others, is the biggest threat to individual, or indeed any, liberty - whether it expresses itself in (organised) religion, politics or any form of demagoguery.
Muzman on 20/12/2007 at 15:59
Quote Posted by SD
Is he though? I hear this all the time, and I must confess, I hear nothing from him that suggests he's anything but humble. He's never professed to have all the answers, he's never labelled religious people stupid or inferior. Where does this impression come from?
He says all that but he's frequently been a ferocious and rude combatant within science (he's not alone in this, of course). Him and Pinker were, for a while, trying to beat down any disagreement with their version of evolutionary principles and got into some nasty (in an upperclass snobby sort of way) spat with Stephen Jay Gould, among others, which I seem to recall resulted in implying he was clouded in his views by virtue of being a left wing Jew.
Both Dawkins and Pinker seem to be trying to be a lot nicer these days, it looking like they've noticed they might want people outside of science listen to them besides fad non-fiction devourers and ruthless Social Darwinist motherfuckers.
paloalto90 on 20/12/2007 at 16:20
Quote Posted by SD
You don't think education works? Or is it not enough on its own?
Forced education?Does this mean denying the parents the right to raise their children to be taught in a religious sense if they want.
The white smocked ones have a great ability to wear a mask of intellect and reason while pushing it's own tomfoolery.
Hear we have what appears to be a father with a history of violence who uses the guise of his own religion as a way of justifying it and some are ready to scuttle the rights of someone to practice their religion at all.
paloalto90 on 20/12/2007 at 16:43
Quote Posted by Kaleid
He's not out to destroy religion, he is a realist enough to understand that it will never happen. And the exercise of the free will cannot happen as long as religion is indoctorinated on people, often against their own wishes and self interest.
As always, the religious have more work to do:
(
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2218406,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=10)
A parent raising their child is indoctrination?
Except for a small violent faction of Islam where is this supposed indoctrination taking place against their wishes and free will.Are adults being thrown into prison camps and forced to watch the Ten Commandments over and over again.Does an adult even have to join any religion?
Now when the old Soviet Union was confining and imprisoning people and physically torturing them to confess against others or to deny their freedom and turn them into good communists this was in fact indoctrination.
Stitch on 20/12/2007 at 16:55
Quote Posted by paloalto90
Forced education?Does this mean denying the parents the right to raise their children to be taught in a religious sense if they want.
Right now I'm willing to settle for forced education on proper punctuation and spelling.
SD: my basic beef with the new breed of hard atheists is their inability to recognize the difference between "there is no concrete evidence of god" and "there is no god."
paloalto90 on 20/12/2007 at 17:20
Quote Posted by Stitch
Right now I'm willing to settle for forced education on proper punctuation and spelling.
SD: my basic beef with the new breed of hard atheists is their inability to recognize the difference between "there is no concrete evidence of god" and "there is no god."
I thnk u undrstood the ?s.
Is this the definition of a multiple post?
fett on 20/12/2007 at 17:32
Quote Posted by Raven
fett - please tell me that in your 20 years experience you studied widely and so have a firm grip of the Catholic (and for the record - the widest spread, and greatest in number Christian Community) theology?
Yes, I actually had three semesters specifically on the Roman Catholic church, and as for the (Vanilla) Catholic (which here means 'universal') Church, it is part and parcel of church history which was a dominating part of my study. Though I largely taught Protestants, a big part of my theology classes were taken up with trying to explain to them why the Roman Catholic church is RIGHT about church tradition and authority, but (I believe) biblically wrong in their reasoning/foundation for the existing hierarchy. Toward the end, I was actually considering converting.
But them I realized I was just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. My problem is not with the internal consistency of the theology - It works great in a bubble. It just doesn't stand up to the rigors of actual human experience.
Stitch - I guess that's what bugs me about Dawkins too, and also why this new breed of Atheism smacks of the same arrogance as Religious Fundamentalism. I just could never articulate it, but you're exactly right.
