paloalto on 16/1/2007 at 09:17
It simply isn't possible to objectively pull out every thread of positive and negative aspects of religion in the past and present.The argument will always devolve back to your prejudices.
Scots Taffer on 16/1/2007 at 09:23
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Get your head out of the sand, that might help.
So what? When you consider 79% would vote for a gay president, then you'll understand atheists are the most discriminated against minority in the USA. When George HW Bush can come out with statements like "This is one nation under God, I don't even think atheists should be considered citizens", maybe that doesn't worry you, but then it doesn't affect you, does it?
Heh, that's the Stronts I know and love. I ask for some evidence beyond your vagueries of "NO WAR IF RELIGION WAS GONE" and "THERE ARE MEEELLIONS OF FUNDIES OUT THERE PROVING A THREAT TO MY EXISTENCE", and I get back "I am rubber, you are glue". Classic debating.
Anyway, as for your "most discriminated against minority" that's just the most laffo statement you've ever made in your history on these forums I think. So aethiests can't ride on the bus? Aethiests can't be a part of local or national government? Athiests can't vote?
Whose head is in the sand here, exactly?
I can understand that you're miffed that the majority of the world are Christians, but I'm miffed that half the world are idiots. We all have our lots in life.
Chimpy Chompy on 16/1/2007 at 09:38
Well then: let's ask the American atheists here. Do you guys feel you are "the most discriminated against minority" in your country?
scumble on 16/1/2007 at 10:03
Well, I suppose atheists have a tendency to consider religion as "the enemy". This idea that the world would be great without religion is sedictive, but to be honest it's no better as an idea that the converse idea that if everyone was a Muslim (say) the world would be great, and this is something I've heard from the guy at one of my local indian (pakistani) takeaway.
On another note, Dawkins is probably a bit like a modern Bertrand Russell, given that he referred to religion as "a dragon to be slain" in Why I am Not a Christian.
To perhaps augment scots' point, which I have more sympathy with, I'd say that while the tendency to evil is a threat to humanity at all levels, it's particularly bad when combined with a concentration of power. After seeing what a number of national "leaders" have been able to do in the 20th century in combination with overly nationalist philosophies, it seems the greatest threat humans face is giving far too much power to a handful of people, religious or otherwise. Power just amplifies the flaws people have in the first place, such that someone with just a vague tendency in the wrong direction can produce a number of "evil" results.
If Bush and his pals can get into the position of mobilising the most ludicrously overgrown military organisation in the history of humanity quite easily, it's not surprising that bad things happen. I can easily imagine Stronts in power of the same apparatus making war on theocracies to purge the world of religion, the War on Religion and Ignorance. I don't assume that I'd manage that much better with the ability to unleash a gigantic killing machine relatively easily with the right PR guys to come up with a noble sounding rationale that might trick The Nation (and me in denial by that stage) into thinking it was for the "Common Good". You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs...
Vivian on 16/1/2007 at 10:08
You can with a freezer, a dental drill, a syringe and a bit of patience
Thirith on 16/1/2007 at 10:24
Note that I'm basing the following on interviews with Dawkins and articles about him rather than having read his books; I find his arrogant, smug rhetoric rather offputting even when he makes points that are worth considering.
Anyway: If I'm not mistaken, Dawkins says that the moderate, liberal Christians are as much of a problem, because they (by sheer force of numbers) give support to the far-out fundie idiots. I.e. many Catholics have sex before marriage, use condoms, might even think that homosexuality is okay (as long as it doesn't walk up to them and give them a blowjob :p); yet the Pope has whatever power he has because he represents, at least theoretically, such a large group.
The problem I have with this approach is that by taking such an absolute, arrogant stance, Dawkins fucks up any chance he may have at convincing even moderate, liberal Christians of his points. He preaches in a way that insults everyone who doesn't agree with him to begin with. (Dawkins: "You're stupid, superstitious idiots - join me!") Whether God exists or not, I'd say that you've got more of a chance of changing the church by undermining dogmatism from the inside than trying to destroy the institution from the outside. Any changes for good in organised religion need support from , or need to be initiated by, moderate members of the group in order to succeed. Dawkins fails in terms of Realpolitik, fashioning himself into the sort of prophet who isn't heard by the people who should listen to him - and either that's what he wants or he's got a rather dumb way of going about converting people to atheism.
Chimpy Chompy on 16/1/2007 at 10:33
Yeah. There's no doubt that bad things are done in the name of organised religion, and I'd agree the power of the Christian church in the US looks a little scary (at least to us Euros).
But if this Dawkins chaps is going to take such a hardline stance against any kind of belief, however moderate, there's a big risk it's just going to make people pass his arguments off as ranting and hyperbole.
Thirith on 16/1/2007 at 10:43
His aim seems to be to be right rather than to achieve anything, which makes me doubt his motives. As far as I'm concerned, you can be right and still try to achieve something, but in order to do that you have to drop some of the arrogance, and that clearly doesn't seem to be his thing. While his aims are very different, and while his IQ is clearly on a different scale from GWB's, Dawkins still goes for the same "You're either with us or you're against us" rhetoric that marks him as an idiot in my books. I subscribe much more to the sort of thinking that Salman Rushdie advocated up to and including The Satanic Verses: Doubt is productive and creative. Absolute certainty is sterile and dangerous.
SD on 16/1/2007 at 11:50
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
Heh, that's the Stronts I know and love. I ask for some evidence beyond your vagueries of "NO WAR IF RELIGION WAS GONE" and "THERE ARE MEEELLIONS OF FUNDIES OUT THERE PROVING A THREAT TO MY EXISTENCE", and I get back "I am rubber, you are glue". Classic debating.
First off, I never said "no war if religion was gone", so stop putting words in my mouth. Secondly, you clearly have no idea of the religious climate in the USA; do your own research, or even better do what I did and live there for a while. And thirdly, I don't know where you get the idea that I'm solely referring to Christian fundamentalism anyway. I'm as concerned (and probably more directly threatened) by Islamic fundamentalism.
Quote:
Anyway, as for your "most discriminated against minority" that's just the most laffo statement you've ever made in your history on these forums I think. So aethiests can't ride on the bus? Aethiests can't be a part of local or national government? Athiests can't vote?
Well, last time I looked everyone was allowed to ride the bus and vote, but we're not talking about civil rights here anyway. I'm talking about the fact that someone who is openly atheist cannot realistically have any hope of being elected to office, simply because someone who doesn't believe in God in the USA is generally seen to be A Bad Person - so much so that the president can come out and say that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens, and nobody bats an eyelid (imagine the uproar if he said that blacks or Jews shouldn't be considered citizens).
Quote:
I can understand that you're miffed that the majority of the world are Christians, but I'm miffed that half the world are idiots. We all have our lots in life.
I'm not miffed that the majority of the world are Christians, I'm miffed that millions of people want to tell me how I can and cannot live my life, and I'm miffed that they use superstitious nonsense to justify it.
Quote Posted by scumble
I can easily imagine Stronts in power of the same apparatus making war on theocracies to purge the world of religion, the
War on Religion and Ignorance.
I'd happily see an end to religion, but if you think for one moment I'd wage war to see those ideologies purged from the planet, then you clearly don't understand atheism/humanism, or liberalism for that matter. Purging rival ideologies from the world through force is something that is associated with the religious, not the non-religious.
Quote Posted by Thirith
If I'm not mistaken, Dawkins says that the moderate, liberal Christians are as much of a problem, because they (by sheer force of numbers) give support to the far-out fundie idiots.
And he's right - Scots_Taffer's posts in this thread are proof of it. Scots doesn't appear to think that I should be concerned when the most powerful man in the world says atheists should have no rights. I don't think he understands that when the fundamentalists have finished the likes of me off, the moderates like him are next on the list.
Quote Posted by Thirith
His aim seems to be to be right rather than to achieve anything, which makes me doubt his motives.
His motive is to educate. And I don't find him anywhere near as arrogant as you do, the man just has a healthy disrespect for superstition in general, whether it be ghosts, fairies, goblins or God.
Quote:
Doubt is productive and creative. Absolute certainty is sterile and dangerous.
So it's dangerous to be absolutely certain that the Earth goes around the Sun?
Thirith on 16/1/2007 at 12:00
Stronts: Don't be silly. Absolute certainty about something that you quite simply can't be certain about - that's what I'm talking about here. I'm not saying that one should doubt natural laws such as thermodynamics or gravity. Practically by definition, the question of God is one of metaphysics, not physics. Look at that as a cheap copout if you wish.
You obviously don't see that Dawkins is out to antagonise those who believe, but frankly, I see that as a failure on your part to even consider any validity in the others' perspective. As I said: Dawkins may be right, and you by extension, but if he wants to educate he's doing a dodgy job of it.
Whether the idea of God is delusional or not, even if God is simply a powerful fiction: you don't dismantle a powerful fiction by telling those people who subscribe to that fiction that they're all stupid. And that's why his point about Thor, the flying spaghetti monster etc. is flippant only - none of these fictions are very powerful. As I said, that's no proof for God's existence, but Dawkins is naive if he thinks that powerful fictions can be destroyed by saying in a strident voice: "You're worshipping a fiction!"
Out of interest: Why are you a vegetarian?
