• Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI
    821 replies, posted
[QUOTE=P13 B01;21306328]I think I'll lay out one of the cases for strong atheism: Premise 1: Irrationality is bad. Premise 2: A belief in a God is irrational. Conclusion 1: A belief in a God is bad. Then, based on that conclusion: Premise 3: A belief in a God is bad. Premise 4: We should try to reduce the amount of bad things in this world. Conclusion 2: We should try to reduce the amount of belief in a God. Ok, so first for the bits few people would disagree on. I think we can all agree that premise 4 is true, though perhaps there are some who are much more apathetic than the norm. I'm not going to try to argue to those people. Premise 3 depends on conclusion 1, which in turn depends on premises 1 and 2. So if we assume that premise 4 is correct (which most of us do), then it is just about establishing whether you believe premises 1 and 2 are. If you believe premise 1 and 2 to be right, then conclusion 2 is right. Well, for premise 2, the primary arguments are that there has been no evidence, as well as the omnipotence/omniscience paradox (can God know the future, yet still be powerful enough change it), or the benevolence/omniscience/omnipotence/evil paradox (Epicurus put it so much better than I could - just google him). Religious people often talk about 'Faith', and acknowledge that it is not a rational thing. Most religious people would agree with premise 2 (after all, if it [i]were[/i] rational, no faith would be required to get into heaven). For premise 1, which is the most subjective of the statements, I would say that rationality has lead to science, which has advanced humanity more than any other feature. Irrationality is what justifies the suicide bombers, the abusive husbands, child abusers and so forth. Irrationality can, I accept, lead to positive outcomes, such as giving money to charity because you believe it will net you a place in heaven. The point, however, is that rationality can also bring these positives, in the example given, donating money to charity because you do not feel their position in the world is fair. Rationality does not, however, justify genocide. Thus irrationality on the whole is bad.[/QUOTE] The only possible way you could fault that is that sometimes people rely on religion to get them through hardship - e.g. Granny isn't gone forever, but looking at me from Heaven vs. Oh no there's no such thing as Heaven granny is gone and one day I will go to oh no oh no I can't cope with this what's the point in anything anymore oh my god
The current pope looks like a bat. Bring back the old one.
Richard Dawkins can fire some heavy shit. If you've ever read "The God Delusion" you'll change your perspective about religion.
[QUOTE=P13 B01;21306328]Irrationality can, I accept, lead to positive outcomes, such as giving money to charity because you believe it will net you a place in heaven. The point, however, is that rationality can also bring these positives, in the example given, donating money to charity because you do not feel their position in the world is fair. Rationality does not, however, justify genocide. Thus irrationality on the whole is bad.[/QUOTE] So why do we have to label irrationality as a whole as bad? Isn't that's just stereotyping in a sense? I just don't like making huge generalizations like that. I think it's worse than being irrational about a lot of things.
[QUOTE=Zemog;21303438]Well, evolution is survival of the fittest. We have eliminated that with rules, morals and ethics. Thus (almost) no more evolution.[/QUOTE] No. You don't understand how evolution works at all, or at least it seems that way. The lack of a highly discriminating form of natural selection doesn't mean we don't evolve.
Two Words: Mass Delusion
[QUOTE=P13 B01;21306328]I think I'll lay out one of the cases for strong atheism: Premise 1: Irrationality is bad. Premise 2: A belief in a God is irrational. Conclusion 1: A belief in a God is bad. Then, based on that conclusion: Premise 3: A belief in a God is bad. Premise 4: We should try to reduce the amount of bad things in this world. Conclusion 2: We should try to reduce the amount of belief in a God. Ok, so first for the bits few people would disagree on. I think we can all agree that premise 4 is true, though perhaps there are some who are much more apathetic than the norm. I'm not going to try to argue to those people. Premise 3 depends on conclusion 1, which in turn depends on premises 1 and 2. So if we assume that premise 4 is correct (which most of us do), then it is just about establishing whether you believe premises 1 and 2 are. If you believe premise 1 and 2 to be right, then conclusion 2 is right. Well, for premise 2, the primary arguments are that there has been no evidence, as well as the omnipotence/omniscience paradox (can God know the future, yet still be powerful enough change it), or the benevolence/omniscience/omnipotence/evil paradox (Epicurus put it so much better than I could - just google him). Religious people often talk about 'Faith', and acknowledge that it is not a rational thing. Most religious people would agree with premise 2 (after all, if it [i]were[/i] rational, no faith would be required to get into heaven). For premise 1, which is the most subjective of the statements, I would say that rationality has lead to science, which has advanced humanity more than any other feature. Irrationality is what justifies the suicide bombers, the abusive husbands, child abusers and so forth. Irrationality can, I accept, lead to positive outcomes, such as giving money to charity because you believe it will net you a place in heaven. The point, however, is that rationality can also bring these positives, in the example given, donating money to charity because you do not feel their position in the world is fair. Rationality does not, however, justify genocide. Thus irrationality on the whole is bad.[/QUOTE] Good post, but premise 3 is the premise that has to be argued the most. While a belief in god isn't bad inheritly, a belief in a god who tells you to do things IS bad because that will lead places. There are stages of irrationality, and as you pointed out, and others have pointed out, irrationality may be bad, but it depends on how irrational you are. Believing in a god, while irrational, won't hurt anyone until you think that god is giving you signs. Hence, only organized religion is bad. [editline]09:16AM[/editline] [QUOTE=JaegerMonster;21307811]No. You don't understand how evolution works at all, or at least it seems that way. The lack of a highly discriminating form of natural selection doesn't mean we don't evolve.[/QUOTE] Artificial selection is still selection hence evolution still moves us in a direction. Evolution doesn't however mean that we get better, just that we change.
Am I the only one who thought of Beowulf when reading the title? [B]I will kill your monstah[/B] [img]http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_02/beowulf2SCPE2507_468x322.jpg[/img]
[URL="http://www.cubeupload.com"][IMG]http://www.cubeupload.com/files/d12000dawkins.jpg[/IMG][/URL] "Brb, fucking up the Catholic church! :smug:" Dawkins is so bloody badarse! :v:
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;21307778]So why do we have to label irrationality as a whole as bad? Isn't that's just stereotyping in a sense? I just don't like making huge generalizations like that. I think it's worse than being irrational about a lot of things.[/QUOTE] If I say "murder is bad", am I stereotyping? Am I making a huge generalisation? Because there are contexts in which murder is not bad, for example in self defence. If that's too strong an example, take "envy is bad" - perhaps a envious person will strive harder to achieve what they lack. The point is that both envy and murder are things which we should discourage (and CERTAINLY not encourage). However, perhaps there are other ways in which we could get the benefits of envy and murder without the problems. For instance, a desire to fulfill one's potential could also cause a person to strive harder, without the bad feelings of envy. Incapacitation may still save my life without the problem of having taken someone else's. Thus we should encourage attempts to fulfil one's potential or to incapacitate, rather than be envious or murder. I put forward the idea that we can still have the benefits of irrationality (comfort, purpose etc), without having the problems (the suicide bombers etc), if we become more rational. Even if you argue that we [i]completely lose[/i] all the benefits of irrationality, I would say it is worth it for the loss of the problems. I would submit that the problems of irrational thinking far outweigh the benefits.
[QUOTE=Herr Sven;21309185][URL="http://www.cubeupload.com"][IMG]http://www.cubeupload.com/files/d12000dawkins.jpg[/IMG][/URL] "Brb, fucking up the Catholic church! :smug:" Dawkins is so bloody badarse! :v:[/QUOTE] It seems to me that all religious activists are uneducated people, terrorist or similar. All atheist activists are highly educated middle-aged men with awesome accents. It's just a stereotype, I know... but :iia:
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;21305422]How about massive riots in the streets of almost every country, and possible atheist lynching.[/QUOTE] fuck me you're paranoid
[QUOTE=Jenkem;21288554] Because men would like to think their great, great, great, great grandfather crawled out of a slime pit spawned by random chance rather than be responsible to a higher power.[/QUOTE] Came from slime, became MEN!! Yeah, that's more awesome then a nonexisting god.
[QUOTE=Handsome Pete;21297591]This would be fucking amazing. Guess what? Richard Dawkings invented the meme! It's a totally different thing than to what we're used to here on the internets, but you get what I'm saying. Who knows, maybe we'd call them Internet Klapyas if it weren't for him.[/QUOTE] He came up with a name for a concept. Great. OK guys, from now on when you shove a USB stick up a sheep's jacksy it's called twelshing. Boom I'm a scientist.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;21313745]He came up with a name for a concept. Great. OK guys, from now on when you shove a USB stick up a sheep's jacksy it's called twelshing. Boom I'm a scientist.[/QUOTE] I guess Richard Dawkins never invented and displayed programs that demonstrated evolution on a small scale, or anything else significant he did. Oh wait, you're just a guy that bashes everything from a point of ignorance.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;21313745]He came up with a name for a concept. Great. OK guys, from now on when you shove a USB stick up a sheep's jacksy it's called twelshing. Boom I'm a scientist.[/QUOTE] He sort of pioneered the entire concept of memetics back in the 70s - the idea that thoughts (or rather, certain configurations of neural links) propagate and evolve like living organisms and can loosely be thought of as life - so, say a catchy tune is a better meme than a really hard to remember tune since it's easier to spread, and when people remember it they've duplicated the neural links in the first person so the meme has sort of produced offspring. It's really interesting!
[QUOTE=Splurgy;21307633]The only possible way you could fault that is that sometimes people rely on religion to get them through hardship - e.g. Granny isn't gone forever, but looking at me from Heaven vs. Oh no there's no such thing as Heaven granny is gone and one day I will go to oh no oh no I can't cope with this what's the point in anything anymore oh my god[/QUOTE] That would be a appeal to consequence of belief wouldn't it?
[QUOTE=lazyguy;21313745]He came up with a name for a concept. Great. OK guys, from now on when you shove a USB stick up a sheep's jacksy it's called twelshing. Boom I'm a scientist.[/QUOTE] what are you doing?
[QUOTE=JDK721;21314466]what are you doing?[/QUOTE] Twelshing.
Richard dawkins is such a troll
[QUOTE=lazyguy;21313745]He came up with a name for a concept. Great. OK guys, from now on when you shove a USB stick up a sheep's jacksy it's called twelshing. Boom I'm a scientist.[/QUOTE] You're an idiot.
[QUOTE=The golden;21315572]Better than sticking his hands down a boys pants.[/QUOTE] Says you
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21314449]That would be a appeal to consequence of belief wouldn't it?[/QUOTE] No, I'm not saying "Believe in God just in case!" - it's more people don't like to deal with their own mortality. It can plunge you into existential angst and not everyone who enters existential angst (aka the Nietzsche Blues) comes out of it intact. If, instead of killing yourself because you've realised you and everyone you know and love are complex biological machines who will one day just stop, you make up a fairy story and get on with your life, that's maybe a better option.
[QUOTE=P13 B01;21306328]I think I'll lay out one of the cases for strong atheism: Premise 1: Irrationality is bad. Premise 2: A belief in a God is irrational. Conclusion 1: A belief in a God is bad. Then, based on that conclusion: Premise 3: A belief in a God is bad. Premise 4: We should try to reduce the amount of bad things in this world. Conclusion 2: We should try to reduce the amount of belief in a God. Ok, so first for the bits few people would disagree on. I think we can all agree that premise 4 is true, though perhaps there are some who are much more apathetic than the norm. I'm not going to try to argue to those people. Premise 3 depends on conclusion 1, which in turn depends on premises 1 and 2. So if we assume that premise 4 is correct (which most of us do), then it is just about establishing whether you believe premises 1 and 2 are. If you believe premise 1 and 2 to be right, then conclusion 2 is right. Well, for premise 2, the primary arguments are that there has been no evidence, as well as the omnipotence/omniscience paradox (can God know the future, yet still be powerful enough change it), or the benevolence/omniscience/omnipotence/evil paradox (Epicurus put it so much better than I could - just google him). Religious people often talk about 'Faith', and acknowledge that it is not a rational thing. Most religious people would agree with premise 2 (after all, if it [i]were[/i] rational, no faith would be required to get into heaven). For premise 1, which is the most subjective of the statements, I would say that rationality has lead to science, which has advanced humanity more than any other feature. Irrationality is what justifies the suicide bombers, the abusive husbands, child abusers and so forth. Irrationality can, I accept, lead to positive outcomes, such as giving money to charity because you believe it will net you a place in heaven. The point, however, is that rationality can also bring these positives, in the example given, donating money to charity because you do not feel their position in the world is fair. Rationality does not, however, justify genocide. Thus irrationality on the whole is bad.[/QUOTE] I respect all of your points which I agree with for the most part. I accept that you are an atheist and that you have every right to be and that it makes you no less of a person. I also wish that [b]you[/b] respect my choice to believe in God and Christianity, with all of its contradictions and stupidities. I support Gay rights and marriage, abortion, and obviously I do not support child molestation, and I know that a lot of it contradicts what I believe. But I don't care, and I want the hope that Life After Death gives me. So I hope that you can accept me.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;21315998]I respect all of your points which I agree with for the most part. I accept that you are an atheist and that you have every right to be and that it makes you no less of a person. I also wish that [b]you[/b] respect my choice to believe in God and Christianity, with all of its contradictions and stupidities. I support Gay rights and marriage, abortion, and obviously I do not support child molestation, and I know that a lot of it contradicts what I believe. But I don't care, and I want the hope that Life After Death gives me. So I hope that you can accept me.[/QUOTE] I accept you.
[QUOTE=JDK721;21316594]I accept you.[/QUOTE] Thanks. I wish the rest of the world was as accepting of everyone.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;21315998]I respect all of your points which I agree with for the most part. I accept that you are an atheist and that you have every right to be and that it makes you no less of a person. I also wish that [b]you[/b] respect my choice to believe in God and Christianity, with all of its contradictions and stupidities. I support Gay rights and marriage, abortion, and obviously I do not support child molestation, and I know that a lot of it contradicts what I believe. But I don't care, and I want the hope that Life After Death gives me. So I hope that you can accept me.[/QUOTE] You're p. cool, but you don't fit the definition of a Christian. You believe in the Christian god, doesn't look like you follow their teachings any further than that however. So why mislabel yourself? Just say you're a theist who rejects the teachings of organized religion. That's highly respectable. I have nothing but the utmost respect for people who can practice spirituality (whether it be prayer, ritual, meditation, whatever) personally.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;21315998]I respect all of your points which I agree with for the most part. I accept that you are an atheist and that you have every right to be and that it makes you no less of a person. I also wish that [b]you[/b] respect my choice to believe in God and Christianity, with all of its contradictions and stupidities. I support Gay rights and marriage, abortion, and obviously I do not support child molestation, and I know that a lot of it contradicts what I believe. But I don't care, and I want the hope that Life After Death gives me. So I hope that you can accept me.[/QUOTE] I [b]do[/b] respect the fact that you have the freedom to make a choice. I [b]do not[/b] respect the idea that you should be free from criticism for making that choice. I hope that you accept that this source of hope that you have got from your religion comes bundled with the legitimisation of the extremists. I hope that some day you can find one of the many rational sources of hope that do not come with this baggage. I would also question your idea that you have a choice to believe in God. Either you do or you don't, it's not something you can change on a whim. If I say "I have a mind-reading dragon in my dining room", either you believe me or you don't. With no extra information, you can't suddenly switch from belief to non-belief or vice versa. Even if I said "The mind-reading dragon in my living room will solve the world's problems and give you $1000 if only you believe in him", you still can't choose to believe, no matter how much you want to. You can PROFESS to believe, but the mind-reading dragon would know you don't. Same goes for God.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;21315998]I respect all of your points which I agree with for the most part. I accept that you are an atheist and that you have every right to be and that it makes you no less of a person. I also wish that [b]you[/b] respect my choice to believe in God and Christianity, with all of its contradictions and stupidities. I support Gay rights and marriage, abortion, and obviously I do not support child molestation, and I know that a lot of it contradicts what I believe. But I don't care, and I want the hope that Life After Death gives me. So I hope that you can accept me.[/QUOTE] Me and this guy think the same way, I want to shake your hand so god damned hard.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21316646]You're p. cool, but you don't fit the definition of a Christian. You believe in the Christian god, doesn't look like you follow their teachings any further than that however. So why mislabel yourself? Just say you're a theist who rejects the teachings of organized religion. That's highly respectable.[/QUOTE] Agree with this. Most of the Christians are anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc. That's why I despise them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.