For those of us who have moved passed step one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa82GQWmvDM

4/10/2009 7:32:51 PM

[passed]

4/10/2009 7:57:51 PM

I inch closer everyday ever since I rejoined Grace Community Church.

4/11/2009 12:18:30 AM

watch to 0:23

I'm fine thanks

4/11/2009 3:23:12 AM

Not going to watch because Richard Dawkins is to atheism as Willy Nilly is to other stuff: he argues his point as though it is infallibly, unquestionably right, and if you disagree he discards your point of view out of hand.

If I remember correctly, I'm taking this description of Willy's argumentative style from his own description, more or less. Maybe I'm thinking of someone else. I drink too much. At this point, as a conservative of any kind, it's either booze or poisoned kool aid. Cut me some slack.

[Edited on April 11, 2009 at 3:47 AM. Reason : ]

4/11/2009 3:45:03 AM

You sound just like Ted Haggard did in the movie that clip was taken from. OMG he uses evidence and logic to make his point! What an asshole!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316&ei=XWrgSYjBNabOqALXuLSCBg&q=Richards+Dawkins

Is the full video that the clip was taken from.

4/11/2009 6:44:30 AM

^^ I just watched it and got that exact impression.

4/11/2009 9:42:34 AM

It's just a rehash of Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy.

4/11/2009 10:51:09 AM

Quote :

"OMG he uses evidence and logic to make his point! "

Yeah, that's what I said.

He's made a career out of arguing as definitively and unassailably true something that cannot possibly be proven. He can be an atheist, and he can use logic and reason to support his atheism, and I've got no problem. But...

He's an insanely arrogant, self-important prick. His style annoys me immensely. So I'm not going to watch his fucking clip.

4/11/2009 12:19:10 PM

Quote :

"It's just a rehash of Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy."

Dawkins just popularizes Hume and Russell anyway.

Of course the idiots that read his shit and get their minds blown don't know this since they're clueless.

4/11/2009 12:27:20 PM

Quote :

"He's made a career out of arguing as definitively and unassailably true something that cannot possibly be proven. "

One of his main arguments against religion is your argument against him. You evidently don't understand his message, since he isn't saying that he is 100% sure there is no God. What he does argue is that there is no proof of any God, and that there is no religion on earth that can provide any evidence what so ever that there is. He is, you know, being a scientist, and asking for any sort evidence. Since there is no evidence, he makes the conclusion that religion is man made, thus there is no Jewish, Christian, or Muslim God, nor any other gods.

That clip came towards the end of a 2 hour long documentary, so it is taken somewhat out of context. That is basically his conclusion, which is suppose to be assertive.




He is far and away no more arrogant than any preacher, priest, mullah, rabbi etc. If you actually read him and listen/watch him debate, you would realize he isn't arrogant at all. But he gets incredibly exasperated because you can't have a reasonable discussion with someone who relies on faith alone to support their ideas.

Quote :

"Dawkins just popularizes Hume and Russell anyway. Of course the idiots that read his shit and get their minds blown don't know this since they're clueless."

Whose the idiot? I know, I'll jump to generalizing and stereotyping people at random, that makes me smart! If you read any of Dawkins books he always cites where his ideas come from. That clip was a made for TV documentary, and yeah it is trying to "popularize" critical thinking about religion. But anyone who learns anything from watching him I guess is a clueless idiot.

[Edited on April 11, 2009 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2009 12:51:42 PM

I think there's probably confusion over definitions when it comes to the agnostic/atheist debate. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Agnostic refers to what you know, or can know, and atheism refers to your position on a specific claim: the existence of God. I'd consider myself an agnostic atheist; I don't think there's any reason to believe in God, especially as described in the bible or other holy books. However, I don't claim to have absolute certainty, and I don't think there's any way to really know for sure. Just because some guys made up a cool story a couple thousand years ago doesn't make God worth believing in.

Quote :

"Not going to watch because Richard Dawkins is to atheism as Willy Nilly is to other stuff: he argues his point as though it is infallibly, unquestionably right, and if you disagree he discards your point of view out of hand."

He really doesn't argue his point this way. The only people that argue this way are religious people. A Christian will usually agree that everyone that doesn't "accept Jesus Christ" is not going to heaven, aka roasting in hell for all eternity. Jesus said that, in the bible, so if you don't believe that...you shouldn't really call yourself a Christian. Point is, Dawkins isn't making any outlandish claims that you have to believe on pure faith.

I'd like you to pick out just one argument he makes with a premise that requires you to believe something unreasonable. His only point in this clip is to say that there's no more reason to believe in Jesus than to believe in any conceivable thing that we can't confirm in the real world. And that's a damn good point.

Quote :

"He's an insanely arrogant, self-important prick. His style annoys me immensely. So I'm not going to watch his fucking clip."

That's because he's coming out and saying that what you believe in is bullshit. I'm not surprised that you would be upset. If you made an honest effort to get at the truth, and somehow knocked down the mental barrier that prevents you from thinking critically about religion, you'd come to the same conclusion. Religion doesn't deserve any kind of revered status, and is subject to the same logic and reason that we use for anything else in the world.

Quote :

"Dawkins just popularizes Hume and Russell anyway. Of course the idiots that read his shit and get their minds blown don't know this since they're clueless."

Isn't it a good thing that he's popularizing it? The more people start thinking about the subject of religion, the better. Otherwise, we're going to be fighting against retarded social conservatives for another 100 years. The masses aren't going to pick up Hume and Russell on their own, but it wouldn't hurt them to understand some philosophical concepts.

4/11/2009 2:32:13 PM

Quote :

"He's an insanely arrogant, self-important prick. His style annoys me immensely."

I think the perception that he is "insanely arrogant" and "self-important" is a direct result of his style. If you listen to what he says, then he is not really out of the "mainstream" of prominent atheists. It just so happens, he says them in very proper British way and is eloquent and unflinching.

4/11/2009 4:04:48 PM

While it's true Dawkins is a prick about these things, that wasn't always true.

What changed his mind?

The death threats against him and his family, the personal attacks, the smear campaigns, and religious terrorism.

4/11/2009 6:35:16 PM

Dawkins really can sound like a pompous prick, in many ways like any old teenager who's decided to not believe in God does. But seriously, it's not his fault.

I appreciate the work that Richard Dawkins does. He is being the bad guy so that we can make progress on a issue that society is terribly lagging in. He's right about the bottom line and you all already knew it: we do not give equal treatment to the non-religious while we'll let religions demand stupid shit.

Like anyone who campaigns for such things, Dawkins has thought out his approach. If you listen to what he says, nothing is unreasonable. His focus is much more on equal treatment versus spreading his beliefs. Spreading Atheistic beliefs, of course, effectively equates to tearing down everyone else's beliefs and we don't like it (kneejerk reaction). In this society, you can't celebrate being Atheist, but you can for any other religion. It's difficult to speak of it in the public discourse.

I'm definitely not in the same camp he is theologically or socially, but I appreciate the work he does to establish more equality in society that spans both the religious and nonreligious. We've focused too much on the former.

[Edited on April 11, 2009 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ]

4/11/2009 6:54:39 PM

I just converted a few months ago after having a long argument with a friend (who is christian) and then reading the God Delusion.

Dawkins can be a dick sometimes, but so what? Doesn't he have the right?

4/11/2009 8:00:11 PM

Quote :

"Isn't it a good thing that he's popularizing it? The more people start thinking about the subject of religion, the better. Otherwise, we're going to be fighting against retarded social conservatives for another 100 years. The masses aren't going to pick up Hume and Russell on their own, but it wouldn't hurt them to understand some philosophical concepts."

Of course it is, but all of the smugsters that eat this shit up think they're hot shit and know all about RATIONALITY and LOGIC and SCIENCE. They need to clean the p'zone grease off of they fingers and open some classics.

Quote :

"He's made a career out of arguing as definitively and unassailably true something that cannot possibly be proven."

Worth pointing out he made a career out of biology, not out of religion books.


[Edited on April 11, 2009 at 8:34 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2009 8:31:44 PM

^ that's true. He's been writing easy-to-read biology books since the 70s.

Quote :

"He's made a career out of arguing as definitively and unassailably true something that cannot possibly be proven."

maybe, but that's because his stance is the absence, or negative of a proposition. He's arguing with people who claim that God, and usually their particular brand of God, "definitively" exists - something for which they can show zero evidence or proof of. Therefore, he has the upper hand in the argument. They are making a claim they cannot back up with any evidence - all he has to do is stand back and say "please show me."

4/11/2009 9:12:40 PM

yes, but if he tries to claim that God does not exist, then, he, too, must provide evidence.

4/11/2009 9:16:12 PM

is he really claiming that?

4/11/2009 9:20:44 PM

in his many books he lays out as much evidence as possible for that proposition.

But in the end, that's an impossible task. you know that. just like we can't prove there are no pink unicorns that farts Skittles.

4/11/2009 9:20:44 PM

eggxactly.

4/11/2009 9:25:55 PM

Quote :

"yes, but if he tries to claim that God does not exist, then, he, too, must provide evidence."

When somebody makes an existence claim, it's their responsibility to provide the evidence. Dawkins' position is basically "I will not believe in the absence of proper evidence" which is a pretty reasonable stance.

If you look at Hume's writings, he outlines that there's NEVER a proper amount of evidence for the belief in miracles and the supernatural since you'd need an arbitrarily high amount of it to explain an arbitrarily unlikely event (anything that suspends natural law).

4/11/2009 9:32:03 PM

and it is all fine and dandy to take that stance. BUT, to take the stance that there is no God requires just as much evidence as taking the stance that there is a God

4/11/2009 9:46:27 PM

Existence requires a single piece of evidence. There's no amount of evidence that can prove non-existence.

That's why the person showing existence has an easier job. You just have to be a proper piece of evidence. This means that when somebody can't give you a scrap of it (in the case of ESP too, for instance) it makes their "obvious" existence claim dubious.

4/11/2009 9:49:43 PM

he doesn't take that stance.
He claims he is a 6 on his own 7-point Atheist scale. He believes there is no god, and he's pretty sure one doesn't exist. But he's not dumb enough to say "God does not exist" without the qualification that that's his belief.

and anyway, no - unless faced with evidence of the contrary, he is under no obligation to take any stance other than the null-hypothesis on anything.

4/11/2009 9:50:28 PM

How the fuck do you define a null-hypothesis on the God question? It really depends on who you are.

4/11/2009 9:57:20 PM

the null-hypothesis on god is the same as it is on unicorns and big-foot: it/he/they don't exist, unless evidence exists to the contrary

4/11/2009 10:11:21 PM

and that hypothesis is as equally unprovable as the hypothesis that God exists

4/11/2009 11:15:42 PM

all hypotheses are unprovable.

can you move on now?

[Edited on April 11, 2009 at 11:23 PM. Reason : e]

4/11/2009 11:22:35 PM

j.l. mackie ftmfw

4/11/2009 11:28:57 PM

^^^ why should we assume that we can't prove God exists?
Maybe if your definition of god is "an undetectable being" then that's unprovable, but when looking for evidence of a god, why should we assume off the bat that detecting him is impossible or unprovable?

[Edited on April 11, 2009 at 11:36 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2009 11:35:02 PM

the only people more annoying than no-way-i'm-wrong christians are no-way-i'm-wrong athiests
so this should be a fun thread

4/12/2009 1:03:29 AM

Most atheists are not saying "there's no way I'm wrong." This whole idea of a person being an atheist on blind faith just seems like a myth created by Christian apologists. You don't see atheists going around claiming that they have absolute certainty of the non-existence of God. They're simply saying there's no evidence for it. None at all. But if you have evidence for the existence of God, specifically the God as described in the bible, or any other God, post it in this thread. Or, if you can't do that, provide a coherent definition of God.

4/12/2009 2:23:07 AM

Quote :

"You don't see atheists going around claiming that they have absolute certainty of the non-existence of God. "

Um, yes you do. If they arn't 100% sure there isn't a god, then they wouldn't be an atheist. That would be agnostic.

4/12/2009 8:33:03 AM

^ no - not to get into too much semantics here, but it really depends on your definition of atheism.

There is a difference between saying "I don't believe there is a god", "There is no god", and "i'm not sure if there is a god". The first two statements could be considered atheism, the last agnostic.

Atheism means "a-theistic", i.e. "without god." You can be "without god" without declaring definitively "there is no god." "I don't believe in god" is a legitimate atheistic viewpoint because it comments on what the person believes, but it makes no factual claims ("there is no god") and it's not wishy-washy agnosticism ("i'm not sure")

4/12/2009 8:39:03 AM

^^You can believe something without being 100% sure. By that definition, everyone would be agnostic (or crazy).

[Edited on April 12, 2009 at 9:11 AM. Reason : aawerawr]

4/12/2009 9:11:24 AM

Seems you guys fail to understand Agnosticism in of itself. Its not a wishy washy, I'm not sure kind of thing. Its an assertion of being without knowledge and relies on logic solely. Atheism as much of its proponents like to think is not based on logic, it is a presumptive conclusion on an unknowable entity. Therefore it fails at logic more so than any faith based religion ever could, being that faith respresents itself as so - a faith.

4/12/2009 9:18:48 AM

yes, the teapot is an unknowable entity.

4/12/2009 9:29:41 AM

back at you

till atheism can physically unprove or come up with something better then expect that teapot to continue on its merry way

4/12/2009 9:32:10 AM

Quote :

"Atheism means "a-theistic", i.e. "without god." You can be "without god" without declaring definitively "there is no god.""

4/12/2009 9:33:31 AM

No, it means unbelief in god specifically. A (without, none) theism (belief in atleast one or more dieties).

Know this, atheism will never be agnosticism as much as you try to sugar coat it. You're mixing oil and water.

4/12/2009 9:38:48 AM

How is the lack of belief a failure of logic? Serious, wtf?

4/12/2009 9:40:13 AM

beliefs of the divine nature stem from the metaphysical. Logic is a device that can only be used in the physical. Therefore if a = belief and b = logic, a cannot be substituted for b or vice versa. Does that help

[Edited on April 12, 2009 at 9:44 AM. Reason : pretty cut and dry]

4/12/2009 9:42:30 AM

I disagree with you on that definition. Belief can be about any proposition, physical or metaphysical.

ok, now that you've changed it, I think the real issue is the definition of belief, whether it implies a person is absolutely certain of something (which is impossible and thus a useless definition) or thinks something is most likely to be true. I'm using the latter.

[Edited on April 12, 2009 at 9:48 AM. Reason : .]

4/12/2009 9:46:25 AM

Not to be to picky about syntax here, but yes, you can believe in something based in the physical such as - "I believe there is a squirrel in those woods over there."

Which would be fine, but what comes with such a belief comes with the ability to be proved wrong. I can scan with heat signiture technology and know definitively. Since there may not be a squirrel in that certain section of the woods thats where logic in the form of hypothesis and theory, a' la science steps in. You cant gage metaphysical subjects the same way because they are undefined and do not adhere to the same steps of the scientific process.

[Edited on April 12, 2009 at 10:01 AM. Reason : thats why people dont praise bigfoot : )]

4/12/2009 9:58:46 AM

A 100% metaphysical (as in no contact with the physical world) god would be a pretty useless, boring concept too.

So God certainly can and could step in, prove he exists, and make all atheists look like fools. And the belief that he doesn't exist is proven wrong. How is that different from the squirrel?

4/12/2009 10:36:57 AM

the squirrel is already a cataloged organism of the planet Earth. In comparison to god one is defined and the other is not. Again logic does not mix with faith, you can have both sure, but you cant mix them. Pick your poison.

The squirrel doesn't come down from the tree and say, "HERE I AM, FUCK YOU I'M A SQUIRREL" now does he. This doesn't make me less interested that theres a squirrel in my midst. It works the same way when I see pictures of distant galaxies and ask myself "why?" Maybe this so called boring god wants us to step out and find him. Maybe we are the ones that are boring, ever thought about that.

[Edited on April 12, 2009 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

4/12/2009 10:59:29 AM

ok ok, jesus guys, cut it out.
Can't atheists and agnostics just come together and focus on what's important - destroying modern religion as we know it!?

4/12/2009 11:08:43 AM

From reading scripture, personally, I never thought Jesus wanted to be diefied. But thats another discussion I dont want to get into. When it comes to the grating idealogies or worn out religions and the idea of an anthropogenic god I usually take it all with a grain of salt. There's still philosophy and morals to be taken from, not to mention history which is very important. Sooner or later all these old religions will be taken as the metaphors they represent and nothing more. I'm with you, the sooner the evangelists and Islamic matyr generations die out the better.

[Edited on April 12, 2009 at 11:17 AM. Reason : matyr*]

4/12/2009 11:16:44 AM