SD on 16/1/2007 at 22:38

---

Yes, I'd agree that nationhood is a fiction, a human construct But as to whether it's really essential (which is what you said, that we all need some fictions to live our lives by), I doubt it very much, I don't think we need nations in the way that we need food and water. I certainly see myself as a citizen of the world and a member of the human race, over and above any regional labels I might apply.

So far as your question, why should the nationhood fiction be allowed to persist and the God fiction not, it's a good question. I agree that nationhood is potentially dangerous, and maybe at some enlightened time in the future, we will do away with the concept entirely, but for the time being it is useful and cannot be replaced by anything else. This is where I would argue it differs from religion. I don't believe religion is necessary at this moment in human history, and I believe the negatives of religion far outweigh the positives. I think its time is up, frankly.

And so far as the evolution of monogamy is concerned, I can't possible sum up such a monstrous topic here. Wiki has a decent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Monogamy) summary of the topic. You can take it from me though that at this moment in time, monogamy is useful, at the very least in a cultural sense.

SD on 16/1/2007 at 23:05

---

It has a lot to do with that jay, yeah. If you're trying to protect a defenceless baby from wolves and lions, then it's far, far better to have two parents on good terms doing that than a single parent. Although we're still only scratching the surface :)

Illuminatus on 16/1/2007 at 23:48

---

Saints above, it seems every few months someone discovers Dawkins and goes trigger happy affirming their atheism by stamping on the beliefs of others. A friend of mine went through this exact same phase a year ago and now no one takes him seriously anymore. Strontium Dog (or if you’ll allow me to call you so, Dawkins’ Rottweiler) a lot of people here have made a lot of good points already and so I just want to address the central point in your reasoning.

I’m not going to discuss religion’s usefulness here, because that has nothing to do with your initial argument. You came to talk about how Dawkins “brilliantly debunks the existence of God with science”, and the error in his judgment (and, by proxy, yours) is already included in that statement. Two words: category mistake. Skip down to the last 3 paragraphs if that’s all you want to talk about. Let’s leave aside the part about being cured of religion (reminds me a little of a priest asking a group how they were cured of homosexuality).



Then why are you telling people here how they should or should not live their lives? Why can’t you accept that what works for you may not work for them?

You, sir, are in Preach Mode, and the supreme irony is that you are more dogmatic in your atheism than any of the Christians here are in their faith:









Do you see why the only difference between you and an arrogant priest is the cross?




The only thing worse than expecting religion to solve all your problems (as some Christians do) is expecting a lack of religion to solve all your problems (as Dawkins does). The root of all evil is and always has been a refusal to acknowledge the other side’s position. So ask yourself, what have you been doing in this thread so far?

This problem does not lie solely in religion; it’s part of human nature. Bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance can be manifested in all cultural institutions, and you’re trying to attack a single branch on a tree that has many, many veins of ignorance. The Holocaust’s eugenics program perverted science just like modern fundamentalism perverts faith. There are as many secular examples of ignorance as there are religious, among them this very thread: you, an atheist, are being intolerant of other people’s beliefs.


And now for the real point of this post: category mistakes. When you treat two things that belong in different categories as if they belong in the same category (by assuming that a property of one is a property of the other), you are committing a serious scientific error. Someone who believes that "I put my signature on the paper" means the same thing as "I put my cup on the paper" is guilty of committing a category mistake. A signature is a concept, a cup is an object.

Someone who believes that "scientific beliefs must be falsifiable to have meaning" means that "religious beliefs must be falsifiable to have meaning" is also committing a category mistake. By treating God’s existence as a scientific hypothesis that can be proved or disproved, you are holding religion up to the same standards as science. Forget your Aquinas, religion is not grounded in reason: it is outside of science’s jurisdiction. You are trying to criticize a novel using math equations.



Well it’s either because you’re a genius or because your reasoning is flawed. I’d tell you to try taking your “head out of the sand”, like you’ve suggested to others before, but I think this is a case of confusion more than ill intent on your part. Let’s just summarize one obvious truth: science asks “how”, and religions asks “why”. Until you stop treating them as part of the same system, you’re stuck in Category Mistake Land, where nothing makes sense and everyone looks at you funny.

jay pettitt on 17/1/2007 at 00:18

---

I certainly don't advertise my atheism. Fortunately I live in a liberal society and I can fit next to liberal religious types as a liberal atheist reasonably comfortably.



I wasn't really trying to relate the uniquely long dependency of human offspring and lack of claws in such away - but fair point anyway. Rather that our general biology (weak and dependent - but thoughtful and communicative) and general sociology fit nicely. We'd be unlikely able to compete, let alone carve out a niche and become successful, if we weren't highly social animals. A bit like ants really, but with cars.

SD on 17/1/2007 at 00:26

---

Watch the documentary I linked to. In part 1 a group of atheists talk about how difficult life is for them, how if they "come out" as atheists they could lose their jobs, be driven out of their homes. They're unlucky enough to live near a major evangelical church you see; one of these "fringe" fundamentalist groups that has about 30 million members in the USA (or about 10% of the population).


George HW Bush (Bush Sr) said this in 1987. It's a fair bet he hasn't changed his mind since though.


So you don't think we're under threat from fundamentalists? You do have newspapers in Queensland don't you? You surely at least must have seen, say, (http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html) this page, right? Does that not scare you?



I'm not being dogmatic or preachy. I'm not telling anyone what to think, I'm telling them to think (and in some cases, how to think; religion isn't big on people questioning what they're taught, in case you hadn't noticed). There's a big difference.


Religion is a facilitator for bigotry, ignorance and intolerance. Atheism isn't. Maybe you need me to tell you why, but I would hope you'd be intelligent enough to work it out on your own.


Beyond horse shit. This is, like, elephant shit. I'm not intolerant, I willingly allow people of all beliefs to have their say - I'm a liberal politician for crying out loud, it's at the core of what I believe in. That doesn't mean I can't disagree, and it doesn't mean I can't present evidence of my own to counter their beliefs.


So you're saying the virgin birth is scientifically possible, and we shouldn't question it? The earth was created in 6 days; we shouldn't question it? Adam and Eve were the first humans, and they existed 6000 years ago; we shouldn't question it? These are scientific questions with scientific probabilities, whether you like it or not.

Oh, and so far as keeping science and religion separate, I'm sure you'll be against intelligent design being taught in schools, right? Or is it just science that isn't allowed to step on religion's toes, and not vice versa?


That's a gross simplification, generally used by people who have only a basic grasp of the subject. Again, if you need me to explain why, I'll happily do so.



I have no problem with Christmas being called Christmas or Easter being called Easter, and pretty much all atheists I know would say the same. That said, I can sort of understand why an atheist might (and I see no evidence for it except what you just wrote) oppose such holidays, and that is to put the atheist cause into people's minds. I mean, if they at least know we're here and we have a voice, they might start listening to what we say, even if we have to make grand, silly gestures like opposing the term "Christmas" to get attention.