Richard dawkins and the slayers of god

[Tormod]

Thanks for clearing that up. Not a big issue, I just didn't get the statement to fit in with your other posts.

[Stargazer]

Sorry if I'm reading you wrong, Dave, but is this your opinion or are you quoting someone. Science is of course not a set of beliefs and as such is incomaparable to religion when it comes to HOW this comfort is brought to the individual.

Exactly. It's very annoying when people say that religion and science are somehow two things on equal level and equal terms. It's blindingly obvious that's not true, and I wish people could just stop saying it.

 

Also, to ME, science can be very comforting for the mind. Learning about new discoveries, for example, can give me tremendous joy. As can great achievements - when Huygens landed on Titan I felt a real surge of satisfaction and comfort!

That's what I mean, too. To have tools (science, never religion) to reveal the nature of this universe, that's better than to make something up and decide it's the truth because it would feel good if it was the truth. But maybe some people don't want to see the truth?

 

But, that said, I do not agree with Freethinker that religion is unable to give people comfort - nor that religious people cannot provide people with something that brings comfort. That is a generalization which is quite unnecessary.

It may give comfort, but it's doing so with something that's not anchored in reality, and that's what I definitely turn against. Fiction is good and enjoyable, but fiction is fiction.

[IrishEyes]

To have tools (science, never religion) to reveal the nature of this universe, that's better than to make something up and decide it's the truth because it would feel good if it was the truth. But maybe some people don't want to see the truth

 

I thought that science didn't have anything to do with TRUTH. I thought that was what religion was - a search for truth. I thought that science revealed facts, not truth. Didn't I just read that somewhere, less than a week or so ago? Again, 10 rep points if someone can find it and post it.

[Tormod]

I think we need to allow some semantic differences here. The search for "truth" in science is a search for knowledge and understanding, whereas the "Truths" in religion are provided by the religion itself.

 

But I do agree that there is no such thing as absolute truths in science. Fact and truth is not the same thing.

[Freethinker]

ok if the gloves are off then allow me to be brutally honest here. my post has an intentionally provocative title that is factually accurate.

1) what gloves? Interesting that you had to be confronted with demands for supporting facts before you would bother being honest (which you yourself admit)

 

2) yes the title was obviously intentionally provocative, that was my very point. It showed strong prejudicial bias intended to mislead.

 

3)where is "factual accuracy" in claiming a god exists that could be "slayed"? Perhaps you need a better understanding of what "factually accurate" means.

richard dawkins does believe religion should be erraticated from society.

Dawkins, like most reputable scientists, are against the blanket accenptance of psudeoscience and antiquated superstitions. Yes he does tend to be more aggressive in his attacks against it.

are there children here that i need to coddle with placating language or can i just get to the point of the matter?

Interesting that you would rag on Dawkins about his (as you claim) intentions to NOT "coddle (children) with placating language". And then use this exact approach yourself in the other direction. Once more we find the attempt to discriminate against ONE POV. Yes we have "children" both as visitors and active posters that are likely in the age range of the child you were so concerned about Dawkins exposing science to. We expose them to this scientific approach all the time. This IS a Science site after all.

my mentioning about the program i watched was to give perspective on my QUESTION about the issue

Again, that was exactly my point. You created a thread based on intentional emotional manipulations with the goal of utilizing prejudical thought processes to establish your point rather than factual data.

 

I requested factual data and your reply, which is no suprise, does not even attempt to provide any. Instead you put your efforts into increasing the promotion of the prejudical process.

and was in no way the fundamentalist...

YOUR term not MINE. At no point did I even suggest a fundamentalist approach. In fact my assertion was completely to the contrary. That the problem is acceptance at the level of the general public.

 

And once more your efforts are to drag the discussion away from even acknowledging the request for you to provide factual support for your admitted intentionally provocative claim. Muchless providing any.

nightmare scenario you dreamed up

Let's see, YOU ADMIT to using an intentionally provocative approach and then accuse ME of dreaming it up? Ya OK then!

(possibly because you came into this thread with your own personal bias).

Me, have a personal bias?

 

Ya OK, I admit I have a personal bias. And as my personal bias is very different from the general population I can see how obvious the other personal bias is. You know, the one you chose to use in an intentionally provocative manner.

and unless you saw the program yourself maybe you should not be so sure of the 'factual' elements involved. so what if richard dawkins has credentials, does this mean that what he is stating is somehow gospel? this is actually a critical thinking error [appeal to authority] not sound reasoning.

OK, so since I did not see the program myself, it is not safe to assume that as eminent and highly respected of a Scientist and Author as Richard Dawkins is, that he would stick to "'factual' elements". OK, please show us specifically where Dawkins deviated from "the 'factual' elements involved" in his presentation of "the example of a bottom dwelling fish to show how the universe is not the result of design". (Why do I bother asking for PROOF?, We know you won't show any)

 

Now, as to your failed attempt to apply Fallacies of Argumentation as an excuse.

 

Argumentum ad verecundiam The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#authority

 

IOW, it is NOT the fallacy of Argumentum ad verecundiam (The Appeal to Authority you claim I used, while YOU were the one to provide the name) when the person actually IS an authority on the specific subject matter. It is only a fallacy if the person is used as support for something they have no specific authority in.

 

If Dawkins, as an acknowledge expert Zoologist (Assistant Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley, Professor of Zoology, Oxford University, 1989 Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University.) can't be used for support in discussion of "the example of a bottom dwelling fish to show how the universe is not the result of design", who can? (Names please)

as far as your other comments are concerned, maybe you should have read more of this thread before you began

If you had bothered to read my post (much less "more of this thread before you" replied), you would have seen that I had read the entire thread to that point and addressed not only your original post, but ALL the posts after it.

your elaborate digression from the fundamental point which is for us to have a rational discussion about a PHILOSPHICAL issue.

MY "digression from the ... rational discussion about a PHILOSPHICAL issue"? You mean the discussion YOU ADMIT to using an intentionally provocative approach to?

 

At what point does asking for PROOF for unsupported claims become "digression from the ... rational discussion about a PHILOSPHICAL issue"?

i am not religious in any way shape or form and so you cannot make my question seem like an invalid argument by mocking the manner in which it was delivered. ;)

??? Interesting how you want to distance yourself from religion when you are so EXTREMELY adamant about the need for it! To go so far as to STATE that "unless people begin to alter themselves radically through genetic experimentation i think this will remain the case." and to say *I* was "mocking the manner in which it was delivered" when you yourself admit to being intentionally provocative.

[motherengine]

atheism is the condition of being withour theistic beliefs [when we are born we have no theism correct stargazer] and alternatively the disbelief in or denial of deities [when you know about god and descide it does not exist it is atheism] -wikipedia. can we all agree on this definition at least? why is the defender of faith demonized so often by those who claim to be of scientific mind? i have not demonized atheism at all or even so much as implied it was a negative thing. if you have never heard of god you are ignorant of god you do not KNOW god does not exit. this is what i am trying to get at here. richard dawkins is not some poor little scientist that i am beating in the head with a bible. he has written work [the blind watchmaker] clearly with the intention to attack religious concepts. i am not talking about how awful atheism is and i am not sorry that emotions have been colored by what i thought was a more interesting post title than 'religion and science'. this forum is subtitled with the amusing aside, 'i think therefore i argue'. so then how about an argument that is not destracted by how i am writing what i am writing and concentrates on the issue without letting emotions get in the way of reason. SOME atheists believe that everyone should view the world as they do (where have i said all atheists?) and that religion should be upsurped by a new belief. how about some intelligent discourse concerning why this is a positive thing. or are we not done trying tearing apart language skills yet?

[Freethinker]

Notice once more how this works. Mom comes here making "intentionally provocative " claims about religion and efforts to eleimate it from society while not providing the first bit of factual support. Then when challenged he makes MORE claims:

sorry but if you can see nothing positive in religion than your thinking is quite narrow minded in my view.

and when asked quite specifically and directly for ANY support what so ever, instead of actually showing there is ANY substance behind these baseless claims, we get everything but. Instead they keep trying to change the subject, lest they actually have to admit to themselves they have nothing to offer (We already know it)

freethinker are you actually asking me to prove to you that religion has positive attributes for individuals?

Congradulations! You are capable of comprehending a direct request for factual support. So what factual proof do you have to offer?

how about you prove to me that atheism has such attributes.

NOTHING! NADDA! ZILCH! ZERO!

 

Just the tired old red herrings. Them stinky old fish. As if asking a question instead of answering one will hide your lack of factual support.

where exactly is the proof that religion causes violence as opposed to influencing it?

How many biblical passages do you need to see? How many historical examples do you need to see? Are you ignorant of them or just hiding?

 

So are you wasting all of our time here or can you actually provide factual support for your so far totally empty obfuscations?

[Stargazer]

I thought that science didn't have anything to do with TRUTH. I thought that was what religion was - a search for truth. I thought that science revealed facts, not truth. Didn't I just read that somewhere, less than a week or so ago? Again, 10 rep points if someone can find it and post it.

Yes it is about revealing facts, and describing the truth as close as possible. Obviously, these truths are temporary, as they can be changed. I have absolutely no idea why you're saying that religion is about finding the truth. Whatever could you mean? That statement is puzzling to say the least. Exactly how successful do you expect religion to be in revealing the truth about nature, if it does not work like science?

[Stargazer]

I think we need to allow some semantic differences here. The search for "truth" in science is a search for knowledge and understanding, whereas the "Truths" in religion are provided by the religion itself.

Truth in a religious sense could come from anywhere, rarely from reality. How that could lead one closer to the truth is impossible to understand.

 

But I do agree that there is no such thing as absolute truths in science. Fact and truth is not the same thing.

The accepted and wellfounded factbased theories that describe nature are "scientific truths" that could change tomorrow... based on new observation of reality.

[IrishEyes]

Simmer down, both of you, or I will be forced to throw the wet-blanket of CLOSED THREAD over this little flame war.

 

mother engine, I don't know if it will make a differnce or not, but Freethinker is equally discerning of most every post that he reads, so I hope you don't feel it is a personal attack. Many times, here and in his regular life, he has been exposed (sometimes VERY unintentionally) to the personal bias of others to his POV. While this is NOT an excuse, or a free pass for him to behave in a negative manner, it IS an explanation.

 

Freethinker, as usual, your examination of the posts have been exhaustive, no one can say anything to the contrary. I will not even attempt to say that your responses have been incorrect. What I will state is that there is a possibility that you have carried this one a bit too far. mother engine was looking for a discussion. He used a title that he knew others would find interesting, and hopefully join. YOU have done the same on many occasions, even going so far as trying to draw ME in (Teach your children well... comes to mind). Of course, most of us have done the same. Why spend so much time on that? Move on. Either address his questions/comments, or choose not to answer.

 

Both of you, knock off the thinly-veiled attempts to discredit each other. Get on with the discussion!

[Stargazer]

atheism is the condition of being withour theistic beliefs [when we are born we have no theism correct stargazer] and alternatively the disbelief in or denial of deities [when you know about god and descide it does not exist it is atheism] -wikipedia.

You're talking about strong atheism, I hear.

Either way, do you really think that there's so much reason to believe in your particular favourite god, that to say "there is no god" is a long shot?

 

if you have never heard of god you are ignorant of god you do not KNOW god does not exit.

If you have never heard of the Invisible Pink Unicorn you are ignorant of her, and you do not KNOW the IPU does not exist.

 

How does that sound?

 

this is what i am trying to get at here. richard dawkins is not some poor little scientist that i am beating in the head with a bible. he has written work [the blind watchmaker] clearly with the intention to attack religious concepts.

No, he's a well respected scientist that knows what he's talking about regarding his fields.

 

i am not talking about how awful atheism is and i am not sorry that emotions have been colored by what i thought was a more interesting post title than 'religion and science'. this forum is subtitled with the amusing aside, 'i think therefore i argue'. so then how about an argument that is not destracted by how i am writing what i am writing and concentrates on the issue without letting emotions get in the way of reason.

I'm pleased to no end that you have suddenly decided to do this 180 and promote reason! Bravo, I say.

 

SOME atheists believe that everyone should view the world as they do (where have i said all atheists?) and that religion should be upsurped by a new belief. how about some intelligent discourse concerning why this is a positive thing. or are we not done trying tearing apart language skills yet?

Please never say that atheism is a belief. So many religious people still say it as if they believed that atheism is a belief - but they are wrong, and it's so obvious that I'm starting to believe that while some people simply does not know what it is, there must be a lot of people who simply lie about atheism to win cheap points in debates.

[Tormod]

No, he's [Richard Dawkins] a well respected scientist that knows what he's talking about regarding his fields.

 

Well, yes, but not respected by all. And certainly controversial.

[motherengine]

freethinker how old are you? all you have done is reinterpret what i have written in a way that allows itself for attack. you have not even tried to support your own claims, rather you are just attacking mine. unless you have something intellegent to say about the actual issue at hand i see no reason to let you distract me with digressions any further. if if somehow makes me a bad debater to want to stick to the subject instead of defend the manner in which i write about it than shame on me.

 

for the sake of debate some final thoughts:

 

i- i have been honest all along. brutally honest means not having to be polite about a sensitive issue. but my knuckles are getting bloody to no end so enough.

 

2- i am not religious and this is a fact. i have great sympathy for those i know of who are religious (and humble in their faith) yet have to endure the constent mockery of something that means alot to them by people, some of which claime to be freeminded in their views.

 

3- i don't have the time or energy, or even the desire to dismantle every problem in what you have written so unfortunately you will come off as a far more qualified thinker on this issue to an impressionable mind despite the fact that you have really said nothing intellegent at all about it. you have only broken down flaws in my own writing [dawkins is talking about how there is no god to a child/i use the word coddle when defending myself from your obvious attempt to discredit my views by dicrediting the admittedly sometimes flawed way i express them (i guess i am human after all...whatever) and so i contradict myself linguistically and so i am a fool and so my views are ridiculous. the only thing that really bothers me is that your skills as a dissector of language will probably prevent alot of people from the seeing vacantness of your argument.

 

4- dawkins picked up a fish with eyes on the top of its head and explaned how intellegent design could not have cause this development because the fish was a bottom dweller and therefore the positioning of its eyes clearly had evolved this way in response to its habits and position. this is a ridiculous argument from a scientific standpoint. even if one admits that the fish has evolved this way how does this refute the concept of intellegent design. who is to say the life was not designed at the atmoic level and then let loose to evolve as it would through natural occurance? dawkins argument is misleading as it only shows how the fish may have evolved without the aid of intellegent design if one ASSUMES what intellegent design had in mind to begin with. happy?

[Freethinker]

Hey guys! Cut mother engine SOME slack, okay? It's quite acceptable to pose a question without being thrown into a deep well and then get a ton of rocks dumped on top of you.

It wouold help if they didn't pose the question to someone they just pushed down the well while throwing rocks at them. He admitted to intentionally provoking us. I responded in kind. You know, my "When in Rome..."

[motherengine]

How many biblical passages do you need to see? How many historical examples do you need to see? Are you ignorant of them or just hiding? -freethinker quote

 

these historical examples people just love to throw in christian's faces are only proof of the influence the bible has had on violent minds or minds already corrupted by political power. what about the millions of people who are christian and are not out burning and killing and what of those who have been persecuted and killed because they do believe? but then i guess i am only mentioning these things because i am a closet christian here to bash atheists around with my empty obfuscations that just wastes all your time. maybe people do not realize it but christian bashing has become quite in vouge these days and instead of defending it maybe i am just concerned because it is not as overt as physical violence but it is every bit as repugnant to me. i was trying to have a civilized conversation here.

[Freethinker]

No, it's not up to motherengine to show positives that cannot be gotten elsewhere, only that there are positives.

You miss the point. Believers like to claim that praying provided some physiological positive result for them, say cured their cancer. That is a claim of a positive effect. But can they PROVE it was because of the proactive intervention of the entity they prayed to? Or are they falsely assigning a positive outcome to an actually non-causal agent? In which case they can not PROVE an actual positive result "because of" their religion.

 

What I was asking for proof of was a situation, event, ... that can actually be shown to be directly related to religion. As such, any example they can provide needs to be examined to see if it is actually BECAUSE of religion, or just an event that happened and is being falsely assigned to religion.

 

I have a headache. I lie down, relax and pray to god for it to go away. My headache goes away. Was it because I laid down and relaxed or because god stepped in an took it away? While there are pople that will claim that their god did it, they can not PROVE it. And Ockham's Razor shows why it is a fallacy to make the god claim for it.

 

So I was trying to save us all some time. To stop us from having to explain each and every time such non-causal claims are tossed around.

 

If as Mom claims, there are so many advantages, it would be easy to find at least ONE CLEAR UNAMBIGUOUS one. One that is not, can not be supplied via some more efficient, more directly related cause. Something that religion can hang it's hat on exclusively or at least primarily.

 

Sorry if this causes too many problems. That no such example can be found (or exists!)

While I know you have a bias against religion, especially christianity,

Ah but see... If I was asked to supply ONE example/ proof of how harmful relgion is, I would have trouble narrowing the extensive list down. Funny how that works!

even you must admit that sometimes, christians do good things, and that sometimes, the various churches do good things.

The question is NOT whether good people do good things. The question is where is the specific motivation coming from. What part of their personal philosophy is most responsible for the specific action?

 

e.g. a Christian kills a witch.

 

It is easy to go to the source of Christian Morallity and validate that it was a prime motivator for this action. (Exodus 22:18)

 

but what if that source contradicts itself on an issue? "eye for an eye", "turn the other cheek". Then no matter which way the person goes they can CLAIM to be following the bible, but they had to make a choice OUTSIDE of Christianity and selectively support it from the bible. It can no longer be claimed that their action was primarily BECAUSE of Christianity as Christianity supports either way.

 

So when a claim is made, in this case that religion is RESPONSIBLE for positive actions, the example has to be shown to be primarily if not uniquely because of religion. Not just that someone that calls themselves religious did it.

To say that there is absolutely nothing good about organized religion is argumentative and rude.

OK, as I said, it is simple them. PROVE IT! Show us specific examples of actions that would not be done if religion did not exist. Show us specifically where religion ADDS to the already altruisitc nature of the human race.

 

e.g. "soup kitchens". In order for it to be PROVEN that religion can claim an advantage here requires showing that religion can do this better than any other method. That the existence of religion IMPROVED it. Or makes it exclusively possible.

 

Not just that some churches have soup kitchens.

Motherengine started this thread to show that religion can be comforting,

And we are all waiting for him to do so. That's why I keep asking.

don't try and argue that it's not because I've been comforted by it, and that science rarely is, and for some people cannot be comforting.

1) your desire to assign a particular event to a particular cause does not mean it is so. (see headache above)

 

2) it is simple bifurcation to claim that either we have religion or science as the only two ways a person can have a philsophy which can provide comfort.

 

And if my child had been hit by a car while crossing the street and lying there in pain, I know which call I would make for comfort! It would be to MEDICAL SCIENCE and SECULAR EMT services.. And I doubt that a single one of you would call your minister first! And if you did, you should be arrested for child abuse!

[motherengine]

i cannot figure out what is more bizarre, the fact that freethinker has done absolutely nothing but manipuate a question into a ****size contest or that the editor of the thread has ignored this and even suggested that this guy's negative (the when in rome excuse is invalid because my post title was not meant to insult anyone and in reading my actual post i think this is painfully evident) deconstructive attack on the post is in anyway a viable argument concerning the issue initially addressed. if you close this thread, do it because the post is bad, not because some confrontational person has come on it mugging for the 'i'm smarter than you are' intellectual of the year award.