Menu Bar
Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
The session was titled "The Design of Life," and the TED audience was probably expecting remarks about evolution's role in our history from biologist Richard Dawkins.
Instead, he launched into a full-on appeal for atheists to make public their beliefs and to aggressively fight the incursion of religion into politics and education.
Scientists and intellectuals hold very different beliefs about God from the American public, he says, yet they are cowed by the overall political environment.
Dawkins' scornful tone drew strongly mixed reactions from the audience; some stood and applauded his courage.
Others wondered whether his strident approach could do more harm than good.
Dawkins went on to publish The God Delusion and become perhaps the world's best-known atheist.
Instead, he launched into a full-on appeal for atheists to make public their beliefs and to aggressively fight the incursion of religion into politics and education.
Scientists and intellectuals hold very different beliefs about God from the American public, he says, yet they are cowed by the overall political environment.
Dawkins' scornful tone drew strongly mixed reactions from the audience; some stood and applauded his courage.
Others wondered whether his strident approach could do more harm than good.
Dawkins went on to publish The God Delusion and become perhaps the world's best-known atheist.
Apr 23, 2007 8:41 AM
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Enjoying this clip so far, but I always run up against the same problem with Dawkins - the way he characterizes religion is so foreign to my own religious faith.
By: Ratster
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
What I would say to Dawkins is anyone who believes they can settle the debate as to the existence and nature of a supreme being, a debate that has been going on throughout human history, is the one who is delusional. There is nothing that I could possibly say that would convince a devout atheist that God exists, and there is nothing he could say to me to convince me of the contrary. This is simply because there is no proof either way, if there were proof that God didn't exists, many years ago religious people would have gone the way of flat Earthers or conspiracy theorists. No one on either side of the debate has the definitive answer and that's why the debate will continue. In the mean time we must respect the beliefs of the other guy, because in the end, we both look at the same universe and draw different conclusions and each side has to make a leap of faith whether to believe or not believe.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
"This is simply because there is no proof either way, if there were proof that God didn't exists [sic], many years ago religious people would have gone the way of the flat Earthers or the conspiracy theorists."
In a scientific experiment, if you have no data, you begin with the hypothesis "There is no correlation between X and Y," or "Z does not exist." This is called the null hypothesis. As there is no empirical evidence of a god, the null hypothesis is "God does not exist." In any experiment, the null hypothesis is never proven; it is something to be disproven. This is a huge part of the scientific method. The burden is on people who disagree with the null hypothesis to supply enough evidence and data to disprove it. While you may argue that this does not prove that a god does not exist, it is the same argument that is used against the existence of ghosts, fairies, unicorns, etc.
Further, statistics show that religious people are going the way of "flat Earthers and conspiracy theorists." There are more atheists and agnostics now than ever before.
On a side note, please make sure you watch and understand these clips before commenting on them. Dawkins cited statistics, and even had a pie chart to show how there are more atheists now than ever, and he also spoke about how atheists don't need to disprove god.
In a scientific experiment, if you have no data, you begin with the hypothesis "There is no correlation between X and Y," or "Z does not exist." This is called the null hypothesis. As there is no empirical evidence of a god, the null hypothesis is "God does not exist." In any experiment, the null hypothesis is never proven; it is something to be disproven. This is a huge part of the scientific method. The burden is on people who disagree with the null hypothesis to supply enough evidence and data to disprove it. While you may argue that this does not prove that a god does not exist, it is the same argument that is used against the existence of ghosts, fairies, unicorns, etc.
Further, statistics show that religious people are going the way of "flat Earthers and conspiracy theorists." There are more atheists and agnostics now than ever before.
On a side note, please make sure you watch and understand these clips before commenting on them. Dawkins cited statistics, and even had a pie chart to show how there are more atheists now than ever, and he also spoke about how atheists don't need to disprove god.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
You speak of science, but in order to make a study of the existence of God scientifically one would have to be able to do a certain number of impossible things. First of all, a quantitative definition of God would have to be determined. With the multitude of faiths in the world today, coming to a consensus of what God is would not be possible. Without a definition of God, gathering data regarding God's existence is not possible either. One would also have to determine, as part of this definition, where God could exist and therefore where to test for evidence. Going by your example of unicorns, we have a definition of unicorns, horses born with a horn on their forehead. We also know where, according to legend, such beings live, on dry land on Earth and usually in temperate areas. Since we can observe such areas and we know what we are looking for, unicorns can be disproved. Philosophy, not science, is the proper method to use to analyze the possibility of a higher power. Accordingly, using philosophy or religion to analyze a scientific question would not be proper. It would be as if one were using a ruler to measure mass, or a balance to measure length. Each of these tools is valid, but only when used for their proper purpose.
While there are more more atheists than before , they are still a vast minority. According to a non-biased study published in the 2005 Encyclopædia Britannica only 2.3% of people in the world consider themselves atheists. There are 11.9% of people who don't consider themselves religious, however this is not the same as being an atheist or agnostic. Some of these people may not affiliate with an organized dogma, or may just not care about religion one way or the other. We also must consider that a number of the 2.3% of people that consider themselves atheists do so because of some personal reasons that do not have to do with an actual introspection as to the existence of God. Some of these people may call themselves atheists because they have some sort of quarrel with a church, they want to associate themselves with the liberal atheist intellectuals, or they want to rebel from the religious teachings of their parents. The number of people who have actually looked into the issue and decided for themselves (i.e. not just taken the view of Dawkins or some atheist professor they liked) is probably closer to 1.5%. So no, religious people are not going the way of flat Earthers and conspiracy theorists.
"Dawkins . . . even had a pie chart."
Ross Perot had pie charts too.
While there are more more atheists than before , they are still a vast minority. According to a non-biased study published in the 2005 Encyclopædia Britannica only 2.3% of people in the world consider themselves atheists. There are 11.9% of people who don't consider themselves religious, however this is not the same as being an atheist or agnostic. Some of these people may not affiliate with an organized dogma, or may just not care about religion one way or the other. We also must consider that a number of the 2.3% of people that consider themselves atheists do so because of some personal reasons that do not have to do with an actual introspection as to the existence of God. Some of these people may call themselves atheists because they have some sort of quarrel with a church, they want to associate themselves with the liberal atheist intellectuals, or they want to rebel from the religious teachings of their parents. The number of people who have actually looked into the issue and decided for themselves (i.e. not just taken the view of Dawkins or some atheist professor they liked) is probably closer to 1.5%. So no, religious people are not going the way of flat Earthers and conspiracy theorists.
"Dawkins . . . even had a pie chart."
Ross Perot had pie charts too.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
"Philosophy, not science, is the proper method to use to analyze the possibility of a higher power." Rickhatman, you've said it all in this sentence. I'm very much a Theist, but I must give Dawkins his props; he is very eloquent and makes excellent logical and sincere conclusions from his stance and arguments, but he is certainly no metaphysician.
By: Bravado
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Sorry if this comes off as rude, as most of my arguments do. Bad habit of mine.
First, I'm going to agree with most of your first argument. Science has no data regarding any kind of supernatural being. That being said, you seem to have determined a number of characteristics about this entity who's very existence is in question. Before you determine that it is some kind of metaphysical entity without spatial extension, you must determine that it is. Any definition that precedes the determining of its object's existence is going to be meaningless and arbitrary. The definition of a unicorn, as a horse-like quadriped with a horn on its head, lacks any bearing on anything in reality, sparing the made-up stories we have about it. Therefore, saying that science cannot determine the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural being because science cannot measure these arbitrary characteristics you have already applied to it, is a fallacy.
Second, anyone who has put any effort into studying ancient, modern and contemporary philosophy will tell that that philosophy is certainly not the way to go about proving the existence of any kind of supernatural being. I'm finishing up my degree in philosophy myself, and every philosopher who attempts to prove the existence of a god or any supernatural entity, from Descartes to Kant to all their contemporaries, have provided arguments that are all untenable. Religion also does not supply a good "method," as it posits the existence of a supernatural entity from the get-go, rather than undergo any kind of rigorous proof.
On a slight tangent, philosophy has a lot to say about science, and science has a lot to say about philosophy. Neuroscience is making a lot of philosophical arguments null and void, while the scientific method itself is completely philosophical in nature. Moreover, philosophy, properly done (which it rarely is), is as scientific as a mathematical proof.
And now, on to the statistics: In one of the most advanced nation on the planet, atheism and agnosticism are both on the up-and-up. This is most probably due to a society that allows for free-thinking, open debate, and, well, atheism. There are so many places on this planet where being an atheist is simply not allowed. These places indoctrinate their people from birth; it's no wonder that they're slower to catch up. I'm not saying that there's going to be an overnight change, but there's been a slow trend, and as countries modernize and liberalize, I feel confident that this trend will pick up. Of course, this is speculation, based on the statistics in one country.
As for the Ross Perot quip, I'm not sure what your point is. Lots of people use pie charts. Are they all as silly as Ross Perot? I'm pretty sure you're not being fair to Mr. Dawkins. My point was that you seemed to ignore even the visual aid in order to make your statement.
First, I'm going to agree with most of your first argument. Science has no data regarding any kind of supernatural being. That being said, you seem to have determined a number of characteristics about this entity who's very existence is in question. Before you determine that it is some kind of metaphysical entity without spatial extension, you must determine that it is. Any definition that precedes the determining of its object's existence is going to be meaningless and arbitrary. The definition of a unicorn, as a horse-like quadriped with a horn on its head, lacks any bearing on anything in reality, sparing the made-up stories we have about it. Therefore, saying that science cannot determine the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural being because science cannot measure these arbitrary characteristics you have already applied to it, is a fallacy.
Second, anyone who has put any effort into studying ancient, modern and contemporary philosophy will tell that that philosophy is certainly not the way to go about proving the existence of any kind of supernatural being. I'm finishing up my degree in philosophy myself, and every philosopher who attempts to prove the existence of a god or any supernatural entity, from Descartes to Kant to all their contemporaries, have provided arguments that are all untenable. Religion also does not supply a good "method," as it posits the existence of a supernatural entity from the get-go, rather than undergo any kind of rigorous proof.
On a slight tangent, philosophy has a lot to say about science, and science has a lot to say about philosophy. Neuroscience is making a lot of philosophical arguments null and void, while the scientific method itself is completely philosophical in nature. Moreover, philosophy, properly done (which it rarely is), is as scientific as a mathematical proof.
And now, on to the statistics: In one of the most advanced nation on the planet, atheism and agnosticism are both on the up-and-up. This is most probably due to a society that allows for free-thinking, open debate, and, well, atheism. There are so many places on this planet where being an atheist is simply not allowed. These places indoctrinate their people from birth; it's no wonder that they're slower to catch up. I'm not saying that there's going to be an overnight change, but there's been a slow trend, and as countries modernize and liberalize, I feel confident that this trend will pick up. Of course, this is speculation, based on the statistics in one country.
As for the Ross Perot quip, I'm not sure what your point is. Lots of people use pie charts. Are they all as silly as Ross Perot? I'm pretty sure you're not being fair to Mr. Dawkins. My point was that you seemed to ignore even the visual aid in order to make your statement.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
The question of "is" is self-evident. Call it God or "Is", same metaphysical reality. This is where metaphysics and all philosophy begins, so to do philosophy is to already accept the premise of something that exists.
I have studied philosophy all my adult life in several disciplines (if bolstering reputation is necessary). Decartes through to Kant, while very influential upon the world and thinking, were hardly the glory of this discipline. In fact, they are largely responsible for the farce philosophy has become and can be ignored as a serious venue unless you are studying mathematics or the history of philosophy (I will admit, however, the immediate above is my own opinion). As is often said, all philosophy is a footnote after Plato. The whole God question is not so much a question of proof as a quesiton of being. If you look for proof, you are missing the forest for the trees. This is not an affirmation that God must be taken on blind faith, but that "God" or whatever you call It is as intuitive as existence. Unless of course "intuition" is faith, which is a question that has just occured to me now lol.
I have studied philosophy all my adult life in several disciplines (if bolstering reputation is necessary). Decartes through to Kant, while very influential upon the world and thinking, were hardly the glory of this discipline. In fact, they are largely responsible for the farce philosophy has become and can be ignored as a serious venue unless you are studying mathematics or the history of philosophy (I will admit, however, the immediate above is my own opinion). As is often said, all philosophy is a footnote after Plato. The whole God question is not so much a question of proof as a quesiton of being. If you look for proof, you are missing the forest for the trees. This is not an affirmation that God must be taken on blind faith, but that "God" or whatever you call It is as intuitive as existence. Unless of course "intuition" is faith, which is a question that has just occured to me now lol.
By: Bravado
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I think you're giving far too much credence to Plato and discounting far too many incredible thinkers who have changed the world in profound ways. Almost all the modern sciences owes their origins to philosophy, or at least to philosophers, and not necessarily to Plato, who, incidentally, supported slavery (at least theoretically). That being said, I intuit existence every moment that I am conscious, but I have never intuited god. That is, unless we're using different definitions of "intuit" or "god," which seems highly likely.
If you're willing to stretch a little, intuition can be interpreted as faith. We take all our intuitions for granted, but they can be illusory, i.e. mirages and hallucinations, but I digress.
If you're willing to stretch a little, intuition can be interpreted as faith. We take all our intuitions for granted, but they can be illusory, i.e. mirages and hallucinations, but I digress.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
No need to apologize. When people with strong personal faiths such as you and I are on opposite sides of an issue semblances of rudeness may come off when there are really none intended. I hope you feel the same of my arguments.
Regardless of the characteristics applied to an argument, one cannot rule out the existence of something scientifically without being able to collect data about it. To say that something cannot possibly exist, without properly observing its environment, is just not scientifically correct. Also, another key aspect of science is the ability to be open minded about things. I'm not saying scientists should necessarily believe in a higher power, but one should be open to all possibilities. There are new discoveries that occur every day and if scientists were to say that something were impossible just because it hadn't yet been proved, such discoveries would not be made.
Regarding unicorns, once again, while the concept of a unicorn is a fantasy story the existence of an animal with said characteristics is provable (or disprovable) through science. When we can define something and observe the environment that it is supposed to exist in, then we can determine whether or not it exists. As far as determining a definition before knowing its existence, theoretical physics (such as quantum theory) does that all the time. Black holes were postulated long before evidence of them was observed. The way an object behaves as it approaches the speed of light is something we have hypothesized on before suitable tests were created to observe such behavior. Speaking of theoretically physics, Stephen Hawking once said, "It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief." Hawking is an agnostic in that he believes that while the concept of God is possible, it is not provable scientifically and that is an a skeptical yet open minded attitude that one would expect one of the greatest living scientific minds to hold.
As far as philosophy and religion, there are a number of philosophers out there who do not believe in God, but there are also a great deal who do. The late Soren Keirkegaard is a prime example of the latter. Of course, he is not alone, but he is one of the more prominent examples. For philosophy students, there are plenty of conflicting views on morality, religion, and a many number of other topics to such an extent that one simply must find one they agree with. An atheist philosopher would be more of a follower of Satre or one of his cohorts than Kierkegaard or his followers.
I do agree that philosophy does use some scientific methods, logic is quite the mix of the two. However there are some things that science cannot answer. The question of why (not simply causation but a deeper meaning) is something that is unanswerable with scientific methods. Even philosophers and theologians will have trouble answering why sometimes but that does not mean that question is not a valid one.
As far as the growth of atheism, to assume that all or the majority of atheists choose that faith because they are free-thinking and have listened to open debate is as false an assumption as claiming that all Christians chose that faith because they believe in the Bible as opposed to other reasons such as wanting to belong to a church or in order to fit in with social norms. Also, many people believe that change is intrinsically good and would become choose atheism because it is seen as the "modern and liberal" way to see things. While change can be good, it is not always and proponents of modernism and liberalism often work on the false assumption that it is. It is true that many nations do not allow atheism, but there are many nations that do not allow religion as well. In China, for example, the Communist regime persecutes religious people such as Christians and as China modernizes religious tolerance will certainly follow and more people will find religious faith.
My point with the Perot comment was that you seemed to put so much emphasis on the fact that Richard Dawkins employed pie charts as evidence to his validity. I meant that just because someone can make a pie chart does not mean their statistics are valid.
I'm sure you or someone else will post another comment contradicting mine and I will post one contradicting yours and the argument will continue until this story leaves the front page or one or both of us develops a real life (I think the front page scenario will play out first, at least in my case). But I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend a great deal of time in an unresolvable debate. No matter what discoveries or research I did, there is no final word I could issue to you or another strong atheist that would convince you that God exists. Just the same, no argument could convince me or another strongly religious person that God doesn't exist. Each of us has heard all the opposition's arguments and nothing you or Richard Dawkins is saying is not that new, just as my arguments are not something that some Bible thumper hasn't already tried to convince you of. The one thing I'll end on is the fact that there is no proof as to the existence of God at least not while we are around to tell about it. The only people who know for sure whether religious people are right are the dead. Someday when I die, I will either be greeted by the God I have believed in all my life or it will be the end of everything. This is a point that Cicero would have agreed with. But the point is the debate has been going on for thousands of years among millions of people and it would be the epitome of hubris for anyone, atheist or religious, to believe that he or she could settle such an argument. Long after you, I, and Richard Dawkins are long gone, people will still debate the existence of God. And it is for that reason that I (most likely) will not be responding to any further comments on this subject. That and I have a great deal of history to study, so if there is a debate on American Civil War tactics, let me know.
Regardless of the characteristics applied to an argument, one cannot rule out the existence of something scientifically without being able to collect data about it. To say that something cannot possibly exist, without properly observing its environment, is just not scientifically correct. Also, another key aspect of science is the ability to be open minded about things. I'm not saying scientists should necessarily believe in a higher power, but one should be open to all possibilities. There are new discoveries that occur every day and if scientists were to say that something were impossible just because it hadn't yet been proved, such discoveries would not be made.
Regarding unicorns, once again, while the concept of a unicorn is a fantasy story the existence of an animal with said characteristics is provable (or disprovable) through science. When we can define something and observe the environment that it is supposed to exist in, then we can determine whether or not it exists. As far as determining a definition before knowing its existence, theoretical physics (such as quantum theory) does that all the time. Black holes were postulated long before evidence of them was observed. The way an object behaves as it approaches the speed of light is something we have hypothesized on before suitable tests were created to observe such behavior. Speaking of theoretically physics, Stephen Hawking once said, "It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief." Hawking is an agnostic in that he believes that while the concept of God is possible, it is not provable scientifically and that is an a skeptical yet open minded attitude that one would expect one of the greatest living scientific minds to hold.
As far as philosophy and religion, there are a number of philosophers out there who do not believe in God, but there are also a great deal who do. The late Soren Keirkegaard is a prime example of the latter. Of course, he is not alone, but he is one of the more prominent examples. For philosophy students, there are plenty of conflicting views on morality, religion, and a many number of other topics to such an extent that one simply must find one they agree with. An atheist philosopher would be more of a follower of Satre or one of his cohorts than Kierkegaard or his followers.
I do agree that philosophy does use some scientific methods, logic is quite the mix of the two. However there are some things that science cannot answer. The question of why (not simply causation but a deeper meaning) is something that is unanswerable with scientific methods. Even philosophers and theologians will have trouble answering why sometimes but that does not mean that question is not a valid one.
As far as the growth of atheism, to assume that all or the majority of atheists choose that faith because they are free-thinking and have listened to open debate is as false an assumption as claiming that all Christians chose that faith because they believe in the Bible as opposed to other reasons such as wanting to belong to a church or in order to fit in with social norms. Also, many people believe that change is intrinsically good and would become choose atheism because it is seen as the "modern and liberal" way to see things. While change can be good, it is not always and proponents of modernism and liberalism often work on the false assumption that it is. It is true that many nations do not allow atheism, but there are many nations that do not allow religion as well. In China, for example, the Communist regime persecutes religious people such as Christians and as China modernizes religious tolerance will certainly follow and more people will find religious faith.
My point with the Perot comment was that you seemed to put so much emphasis on the fact that Richard Dawkins employed pie charts as evidence to his validity. I meant that just because someone can make a pie chart does not mean their statistics are valid.
I'm sure you or someone else will post another comment contradicting mine and I will post one contradicting yours and the argument will continue until this story leaves the front page or one or both of us develops a real life (I think the front page scenario will play out first, at least in my case). But I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend a great deal of time in an unresolvable debate. No matter what discoveries or research I did, there is no final word I could issue to you or another strong atheist that would convince you that God exists. Just the same, no argument could convince me or another strongly religious person that God doesn't exist. Each of us has heard all the opposition's arguments and nothing you or Richard Dawkins is saying is not that new, just as my arguments are not something that some Bible thumper hasn't already tried to convince you of. The one thing I'll end on is the fact that there is no proof as to the existence of God at least not while we are around to tell about it. The only people who know for sure whether religious people are right are the dead. Someday when I die, I will either be greeted by the God I have believed in all my life or it will be the end of everything. This is a point that Cicero would have agreed with. But the point is the debate has been going on for thousands of years among millions of people and it would be the epitome of hubris for anyone, atheist or religious, to believe that he or she could settle such an argument. Long after you, I, and Richard Dawkins are long gone, people will still debate the existence of God. And it is for that reason that I (most likely) will not be responding to any further comments on this subject. That and I have a great deal of history to study, so if there is a debate on American Civil War tactics, let me know.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Heh, these posts have a nasty habit of getting exponentially longer as the debate goes on, and so I'll skip the point-by-point and give the cliffnotes version of my argument: Since there is an infinite number of things that do not exist, the burden cannot possibly fall upon science to prove the nonexistence of everything that exists. The burden therefore falls upon those who claim that X does exist to in fact prove that X exists. I personally don't think that it's sufficient that people are trying to prove that god exists, but that's personal.
Best of luck with your *cringe* history.
Best of luck with your *cringe* history.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
woot!! finally submited something that wasnt total crap!
By: raubhi
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
He mentions the correlation between intelligence and secularism a lot. I now dread the coming of the coffee shop atheist.
By: Wondahboy
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
PLEASE can somebody tell me the name of the music that plays during the BMW Hydrogen 7 car advert at the end. It sounds a lot like a song from the animatrix.
Anyway i agree with the majority of what Dawkin's says but i still think its ignorant to completely rule out any possibility of a creator, Especially when the theory of evolution still cant explain how such complex molecules in life come about by chance.
But really all i care about is that music, so plz post name of the song here and also send a reply to dark_whitty@hotmail.com
Thnx
Anyway i agree with the majority of what Dawkin's says but i still think its ignorant to completely rule out any possibility of a creator, Especially when the theory of evolution still cant explain how such complex molecules in life come about by chance.
But really all i care about is that music, so plz post name of the song here and also send a reply to dark_whitty@hotmail.com
Thnx
By: Dark_Whitty
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
if you listen to his section on non-theism and tooth fairy agnosticism you'll note that these viewpoints place the likelihood of god on par with the likelihood of no god.
also take a look into the impossibility of proving a negative.
also take a look into the impossibility of proving a negative.
By: bryan
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
If you had read his book, The God Delusion (which you clearly haven't), Dawkins doesn't *completely* rule out the possibility of God, but rather argues for the reduction of the probability of his existence to almost nothing. One chapter in Dawkins' book reads "Why There Almost Certainly is No God". It's a good read and I highly recommend it.
For all the previous talk of philosophy, I have a few notes I'd like to add. The results of philosophy, when compared to the results of science, are very poor. Philosophy in the traditional sense that I'm familiar with contributes nothing in the way of tangible application. If anything, philosophy serves to enrich a person's thought capacity and understanding of distant, mental exercises. Science, however, is bounded only the technology we use to practice it and is nie infinitely applicable.
As Dawkins has illustrated in his book and as we've seen throughout history, philosophy does nothing to substantiate the existence of a God because even after the alleged philosophical proofs of God, we still don't know whether he or it exists and we yet remain at square one.
Thinking scientifically, we must fail to reject the null hypothesis and assume God doesn't exist, because absent any proof, we absolutely cannot make a claim, scientifically speaking. The burden of proof doesn't lie on athiests, but rather those of religious persuasion.
For all the previous talk of philosophy, I have a few notes I'd like to add. The results of philosophy, when compared to the results of science, are very poor. Philosophy in the traditional sense that I'm familiar with contributes nothing in the way of tangible application. If anything, philosophy serves to enrich a person's thought capacity and understanding of distant, mental exercises. Science, however, is bounded only the technology we use to practice it and is nie infinitely applicable.
As Dawkins has illustrated in his book and as we've seen throughout history, philosophy does nothing to substantiate the existence of a God because even after the alleged philosophical proofs of God, we still don't know whether he or it exists and we yet remain at square one.
Thinking scientifically, we must fail to reject the null hypothesis and assume God doesn't exist, because absent any proof, we absolutely cannot make a claim, scientifically speaking. The burden of proof doesn't lie on athiests, but rather those of religious persuasion.
By: Overmann
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
You're a lot better at explaining these things than I am. Well said.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
First of all, no one thought the earth was flat, the majority thought it was round and some thought it to be pear shaped lol.
I'm a lapsed catholic, and went to a catholic school, and it no point were we forced to believe in creationism. Infact evolution was taught freely. Believe it not, my religious education teacher said that "they used the saying of god creating the world in 6 days (resting on the 7th) as simplifying the explanation of how the world came to be." He beileved this to be true because, he finds it hard to believe that they knew that there were 52 weeks in a year.
Dawkins attacks religion quite harshly i feel, and i think he should have a little respect for people who believe in religion. Although i can see why he did as many wars were/are caused by religion. I feel strongly about this because in Glasgow were i live there is alot of bigotry between catholic and protestants for some reason. I believe in a God but choose not to follow religion because of this narrow mindedness. I believe that GOD gave us free will to do as we feel right. And that all people were created equally, so by this logic of the bible, i do not see why athiests are attacked, and considered non-citizens, or why religion should be brought into political debate, As preying on this majority of people to get votes is not the sign of someone who actually wants to use his/her policies to make the country a better place. It sickens me to know that some one would do this to get phenomenal power for the people.
In short there are some things i do agree with Dawkins and some i do not, and he should not attack someones beliefs.
I'm a lapsed catholic, and went to a catholic school, and it no point were we forced to believe in creationism. Infact evolution was taught freely. Believe it not, my religious education teacher said that "they used the saying of god creating the world in 6 days (resting on the 7th) as simplifying the explanation of how the world came to be." He beileved this to be true because, he finds it hard to believe that they knew that there were 52 weeks in a year.
Dawkins attacks religion quite harshly i feel, and i think he should have a little respect for people who believe in religion. Although i can see why he did as many wars were/are caused by religion. I feel strongly about this because in Glasgow were i live there is alot of bigotry between catholic and protestants for some reason. I believe in a God but choose not to follow religion because of this narrow mindedness. I believe that GOD gave us free will to do as we feel right. And that all people were created equally, so by this logic of the bible, i do not see why athiests are attacked, and considered non-citizens, or why religion should be brought into political debate, As preying on this majority of people to get votes is not the sign of someone who actually wants to use his/her policies to make the country a better place. It sickens me to know that some one would do this to get phenomenal power for the people.
In short there are some things i do agree with Dawkins and some i do not, and he should not attack someones beliefs.
By: D3NIS
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I'm fairly certain that Dawkins' barbs were not meant for people like yourself and your religious education teacher. That being said, I can completely understand why lots of people would simply write Dawkins off as a prick. I feel like he's overemphasizing a lot of the "prejudice" against atheists. I've never really encountered anyone intolerant of my views, but I've also grown up in New England, home of the skeptics.
Side question: What exactly is TED?
Side question: What exactly is TED?
By: i8ursandwich
Re: TED
Taken from their website (www.ted.com):
"TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from those three worlds. Since then its scope has become ever broader."
Click the 'TED Talks' media player, and it'll take you to the 'Talks' page of the TED website. =)
"TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from those three worlds. Since then its scope has become ever broader."
Click the 'TED Talks' media player, and it'll take you to the 'Talks' page of the TED website. =)
By: groovy_K
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Dunno why i'm back here, but its about the unicorn thing. I was just told by a mate of mine who laughed at this unicorn mentioned by a man who studies evolution. The unicorn being a horse with a horn, that maybe it did exist and it evolved into a horse, because it had no use for the horn lol.
This popped into his head because we were listening to the radio and apparantly they've discovered kryptonite, thats right i said it, they've discovered kryptonite, superman's weakness lol. Sadly its not green and glowing which would be cool, its only a white powdery mineral lol
This popped into his head because we were listening to the radio and apparantly they've discovered kryptonite, thats right i said it, they've discovered kryptonite, superman's weakness lol. Sadly its not green and glowing which would be cool, its only a white powdery mineral lol
By: D3NIS
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Krypton, atomic number 36, was discovered in 1898. It's solid form is a white crystalline substance with a face-centered cubic structure which is common to all the "rare gases." It is used for fluorescent lighting.
Jadarite is a white, powdery, non-radioactive monoclinic mineral. Jadarite's chemical formula is very close to the formula invented for the fictional chemical kryptonite in the 2006 film Superman Returns.
In regards to the Dawkins/God argument, I'm glad it's stayed so civil, if a little irrational. Excellent posts, sandwich.
Jadarite is a white, powdery, non-radioactive monoclinic mineral. Jadarite's chemical formula is very close to the formula invented for the fictional chemical kryptonite in the 2006 film Superman Returns.
In regards to the Dawkins/God argument, I'm glad it's stayed so civil, if a little irrational. Excellent posts, sandwich.
By: TheInquisitor
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Due to the comment system used here, I have to split up my comments into several parts. Please reply to my final comment if you plant to respond.
I'm going to do what Dawkins is incapable of doing, and actually speak objectively here.
I love it how he ignores the massive percent of scientists and intellectuals who do profess one religion or another.
He talks of people deluding themselves, but deludes himself in assuming that he and everyone who agrees with him is 'sophisticated' and that everyone who disagrees is not.
Many atheists are idiots. As are many 'religious' people. And there are many incredibly intelligent 'religious' people, Dawkins. If you'd stop being so full of yourself, and so stuck in your ideas that you start failing to look at the evidence (which is ironically exactly what you accuse all Christians of doing), you'd see that.
I would also like to remind Dawkins that both Newton and Galileo were Christian and both stated that they were heavily inspired in all their work by "the word of God".
Is Dawkins stating that two of the greatest minds in history who both revolutionized science in their findings are unintelligent and unsophisticated?
If religion is so corrosive to science, perhaps Dawkins is claiming they were lying when they stated they were inspired by the Bible?
I also find it rather amusing how he makes the ignorant mistake of just saying "evolution" to cover all of the many theories of Darwin, including both the proven and the disproven, and all revisions to those and new theories that have evolved from those.
I also find this statement rather interesting: "Don't be fooled. Intelligent design is the same argument the creationist have been using since Darwin, just with a new name."
I don't get it. How is this a bad thing?
Darwin supporters must change their arguments every few years every time new facts surface that proves one hypothesis or another incorrect (don't get me wrong, I applaud these people for accepting when something is wrong and moving on to new ideas; can't say the same of the American school system which has been teaching the same outdated hypotheses and theories for the last thirty years). This isn't how the scientific method works. You do not continue looking for facts to prove a predetermined idea. The facts are supposed to point to an undeniable result, one of which is not being attempted to prove if it has already been disproven.
I also find it interesting that he calls Kenneth Miller a Christian. First off, he's Roman Catholic and does not call himself a Christian.
Secondly, I question calling him either Christian or Catholic. After all, he does not believe in the Bible whatsoever, and therefore cannot be of this faith.
Also, he makes the common and incredibly ignorant mistake of bunching all 'religion' into one little ball.
He quotes Douglas Adams stating "Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call 'sacred' or 'holy'. What it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you are not allowed to say anything bad about'."
He certainly can not be speaking about Christianity. Perhaps the Islamic beliefs and those Roman Catholic beliefs of the middle ages. However, Christianity and the Bible both strongly encourage testing. And you'll find nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Do not test the science of the Bible."
I like it when he compares the two bills.
For America, it's "In God We Trust".
I suppose he's saying that for England its "In Darwin We Trust".
Now, you can debate all day about the existence of God, but why on earth would you want to put your trust in a man whose theories were, while revolutionary, either incredibly full of holes or incorrect, later updated by other great minds?
I'd also seriously like to question his "higher intelligence" = "not religious".
This is absurd.
It is a study done without study, and all results are predetermined.
Some of the greatest minds in history were religious, or at least, deistic. I'm not denying that there were great atheistic minds alike, but this statement is ridiculous.
He also nearly stated that these results were inconclusive and inaccurate. Then he goes on to state that he would like such a study committed and financed by those present.
The problem with such a study is that you can never accurately determine such a thing.
What is intelligence? Well, perhaps you can go by IQ. If their data turns out not in the atheist's favor, they will either try a new audience to interview, and come up with some other way to determine intelligence. Perhaps they'd turn to those who have had the highest educations. If this doesn't come to their favor, they'll simply say it is not an accurate way of determining such intelligence. Maybe they'll use the numbers of atheistic or religious scientists employed at certain universities or members of certain scientific orders. Of course, it will be their choosing which universities and scientific orders.
My points is, eventually, they'll find a way to get poll results and surveys and studies to reflect what they want them to reflect.
Just like many of these creationist polls and studies and surveys do in "proving atheism results in drugs and sex" and whatnot.
Both sides go about it incredibly wrong.
And because atheists choose to elect atheists into the National Academy of Sciences proves nothing aside from biased voting.
Especially since the NAS requires you agree with them, and any scientists who have opposing views, no matter how brilliant, are excluded.
It would be like creating a club within your school, calling it a club full of intelligent people, and only inviting in your friends along with one or two of your enemies. Then creating a survey (conducted by you of course), in which you took the amount of your friends and enemies in your club to see which was the majority (despite inviting in your friends as a majority intentionally). Then parading around the school for the next year telling everyone that your group of friends were the "top", the "cream of the crop", and the "most intelligent."
I'm going to do what Dawkins is incapable of doing, and actually speak objectively here.
I love it how he ignores the massive percent of scientists and intellectuals who do profess one religion or another.
He talks of people deluding themselves, but deludes himself in assuming that he and everyone who agrees with him is 'sophisticated' and that everyone who disagrees is not.
Many atheists are idiots. As are many 'religious' people. And there are many incredibly intelligent 'religious' people, Dawkins. If you'd stop being so full of yourself, and so stuck in your ideas that you start failing to look at the evidence (which is ironically exactly what you accuse all Christians of doing), you'd see that.
I would also like to remind Dawkins that both Newton and Galileo were Christian and both stated that they were heavily inspired in all their work by "the word of God".
Is Dawkins stating that two of the greatest minds in history who both revolutionized science in their findings are unintelligent and unsophisticated?
If religion is so corrosive to science, perhaps Dawkins is claiming they were lying when they stated they were inspired by the Bible?
I also find it rather amusing how he makes the ignorant mistake of just saying "evolution" to cover all of the many theories of Darwin, including both the proven and the disproven, and all revisions to those and new theories that have evolved from those.
I also find this statement rather interesting: "Don't be fooled. Intelligent design is the same argument the creationist have been using since Darwin, just with a new name."
I don't get it. How is this a bad thing?
Darwin supporters must change their arguments every few years every time new facts surface that proves one hypothesis or another incorrect (don't get me wrong, I applaud these people for accepting when something is wrong and moving on to new ideas; can't say the same of the American school system which has been teaching the same outdated hypotheses and theories for the last thirty years). This isn't how the scientific method works. You do not continue looking for facts to prove a predetermined idea. The facts are supposed to point to an undeniable result, one of which is not being attempted to prove if it has already been disproven.
I also find it interesting that he calls Kenneth Miller a Christian. First off, he's Roman Catholic and does not call himself a Christian.
Secondly, I question calling him either Christian or Catholic. After all, he does not believe in the Bible whatsoever, and therefore cannot be of this faith.
Also, he makes the common and incredibly ignorant mistake of bunching all 'religion' into one little ball.
He quotes Douglas Adams stating "Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call 'sacred' or 'holy'. What it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you are not allowed to say anything bad about'."
He certainly can not be speaking about Christianity. Perhaps the Islamic beliefs and those Roman Catholic beliefs of the middle ages. However, Christianity and the Bible both strongly encourage testing. And you'll find nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Do not test the science of the Bible."
I like it when he compares the two bills.
For America, it's "In God We Trust".
I suppose he's saying that for England its "In Darwin We Trust".
Now, you can debate all day about the existence of God, but why on earth would you want to put your trust in a man whose theories were, while revolutionary, either incredibly full of holes or incorrect, later updated by other great minds?
I'd also seriously like to question his "higher intelligence" = "not religious".
This is absurd.
It is a study done without study, and all results are predetermined.
Some of the greatest minds in history were religious, or at least, deistic. I'm not denying that there were great atheistic minds alike, but this statement is ridiculous.
He also nearly stated that these results were inconclusive and inaccurate. Then he goes on to state that he would like such a study committed and financed by those present.
The problem with such a study is that you can never accurately determine such a thing.
What is intelligence? Well, perhaps you can go by IQ. If their data turns out not in the atheist's favor, they will either try a new audience to interview, and come up with some other way to determine intelligence. Perhaps they'd turn to those who have had the highest educations. If this doesn't come to their favor, they'll simply say it is not an accurate way of determining such intelligence. Maybe they'll use the numbers of atheistic or religious scientists employed at certain universities or members of certain scientific orders. Of course, it will be their choosing which universities and scientific orders.
My points is, eventually, they'll find a way to get poll results and surveys and studies to reflect what they want them to reflect.
Just like many of these creationist polls and studies and surveys do in "proving atheism results in drugs and sex" and whatnot.
Both sides go about it incredibly wrong.
And because atheists choose to elect atheists into the National Academy of Sciences proves nothing aside from biased voting.
Especially since the NAS requires you agree with them, and any scientists who have opposing views, no matter how brilliant, are excluded.
It would be like creating a club within your school, calling it a club full of intelligent people, and only inviting in your friends along with one or two of your enemies. Then creating a survey (conducted by you of course), in which you took the amount of your friends and enemies in your club to see which was the majority (despite inviting in your friends as a majority intentionally). Then parading around the school for the next year telling everyone that your group of friends were the "top", the "cream of the crop", and the "most intelligent."
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I also find it interesting that he points out that the highest offices in the American government are basically reserved for those who proclaim religious beliefs.
Yet, in the same sentence, he calls America the greatest nation in the world.
Despite those centuries of heavily religious leaders?
I think the facts in this case do more to disprove his overall point than to aid it.
His entire argument in this segment "These political positions are barred to the intelligent and honest" relies entirely on George W Bush. The applause he received at this point was also thanks to Mr Bush.
I suppose this man is saying that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and forty other presidents were neither intelligent nor honest.
I beg to differ.
Yet, despite America being, in his own words, "the greatest nation in the world", he wants to change the way things have been for the past centuries.
Mr Dawkins, sir, I just one thing to say to you.
"If it ain't broken, don't fix it."
Of course, Mr Dawkins is very whiny and persistent about this point because things are not his way.
While I wait for the next segment to load, I'd like to address a part of Dawkin's opinion on atheism and religion.
Dawkins seems to think that atheism will make the world a better place.
I have never seen atheism make someone a better person than they were previously. However, I have seen many people who were greatly benefited when they took up a set of beliefs. And I'm not just talking about Christianity. I've seen people become better people from other religions as well.
This is a poor argument I know, and thus why I do not use it often.
However, I'd like to point out that, while certain religions are dangerous (because of their violent teachings- won't name any names though), many religions greatly benefit people these days (and don't bring up "crusades" crap- I'm talking about modern day people, not seriously confused soldiers who hadn't even read the centerpiece of their religion).
Also, by claiming there is not even the slightest proof of God's existence, Dawkins is denying hundreds of thousands of historical accounts, or passing the incidences ascribed to the supernatural within these accounts as "merely coincidence".
In which case, Dawkins believes in a force of coincidence so powerful, that it might almost be considered a supernatural force itself.
One of numerous, for instance. Charles Grandison Finney in the mid 1800s praying for rain in a place that had experienced a phenomenally long drought, and rain pouring down in gushes within minutes after his prayer. You could deny this event, but then you'd be denying the account of thousands of witnesses, who all agreed on every detail of the event.
And this is no Bible-time or pre-middle age miracle, in which you might question the authenticity. This is a recent event, happening less than two hundred years ago.
And might I remind you this is only one of numerous ones that I could name.
I am just presenting this fact for your considering. Supernatural or super coincidence?
I'm not here to argue the existence of God, however, and will continue addressing Dawkin's statements.
I also find the remarks of him and Sagan (who he quotes) rather ignorant.
Saying that "no religion" appreciates the "grandeur" of the "bigger" universe of "wonder".
I should say, my good man, pull out your Bible.
You'll find many people in there discuss the vastness, the wonder, the enormousness, the grandeur of all "creation".
In fact, that is one of the arguments very often used to prove the existence of God (the complexities and wonder of the vast universe). Which, humorously enough, Dawkins also discussed.
However, Dawkins always ignores what he said before when it comes to making another absurd statement.
"My god is a little god and I want him to stay that way"?
Absurd. The Bible claims that God is infinite, all-powerful, and a God of science.
At this point, I'd like to recommend you all, including Dawkins, read Isaac Newton's "Mathematical Principles of Natural Science". It addresses this and the "religion corrodes science" that Dawkins mentioned earlier.
And tell me, Dawkins, that you don't claim to be more intelligent that Isaac Newton, do you? Are you of greater intellect than the man often credited as being one of or the greatest scientists of all time?
As for his September 11 remark, I heartily agree. There is no respect in my heart or mind for all these millions of Muslims who look proudly on such an event, who honor such an event, who support such an event.
Unfortunately, Dawkins feels that, in his closing remarks, bunching all the religions together and then associating them with a terrible and disastrous event is a good way to get your point across.
Perhaps many of the unsophisticated and unintelligent minds present at this event might applaud that statement, but it really quite foolish, ignorant, and incredibly unobjective and unfair.
In short, most of Dawkin's claims are poppycock. His arguments are poorly laid out and he is very poor at speaking his ways in a convincing manner. He angers too easily, and worse, he is incredibly arrogant.
If anyone read all that without getting pissed that I disagreed with their hero (who they only revere because he's as irrational and easily aggravated as they), and logically considered all I said, you have my respect.
But please don't respond unless you have.
And, for the record, there's nothing I hate like someone picking out one portion of your all writings and addressing that alone as if it's enough to disprove everything you've said.
Yet, in the same sentence, he calls America the greatest nation in the world.
Despite those centuries of heavily religious leaders?
I think the facts in this case do more to disprove his overall point than to aid it.
His entire argument in this segment "These political positions are barred to the intelligent and honest" relies entirely on George W Bush. The applause he received at this point was also thanks to Mr Bush.
I suppose this man is saying that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and forty other presidents were neither intelligent nor honest.
I beg to differ.
Yet, despite America being, in his own words, "the greatest nation in the world", he wants to change the way things have been for the past centuries.
Mr Dawkins, sir, I just one thing to say to you.
"If it ain't broken, don't fix it."
Of course, Mr Dawkins is very whiny and persistent about this point because things are not his way.
While I wait for the next segment to load, I'd like to address a part of Dawkin's opinion on atheism and religion.
Dawkins seems to think that atheism will make the world a better place.
I have never seen atheism make someone a better person than they were previously. However, I have seen many people who were greatly benefited when they took up a set of beliefs. And I'm not just talking about Christianity. I've seen people become better people from other religions as well.
This is a poor argument I know, and thus why I do not use it often.
However, I'd like to point out that, while certain religions are dangerous (because of their violent teachings- won't name any names though), many religions greatly benefit people these days (and don't bring up "crusades" crap- I'm talking about modern day people, not seriously confused soldiers who hadn't even read the centerpiece of their religion).
Also, by claiming there is not even the slightest proof of God's existence, Dawkins is denying hundreds of thousands of historical accounts, or passing the incidences ascribed to the supernatural within these accounts as "merely coincidence".
In which case, Dawkins believes in a force of coincidence so powerful, that it might almost be considered a supernatural force itself.
One of numerous, for instance. Charles Grandison Finney in the mid 1800s praying for rain in a place that had experienced a phenomenally long drought, and rain pouring down in gushes within minutes after his prayer. You could deny this event, but then you'd be denying the account of thousands of witnesses, who all agreed on every detail of the event.
And this is no Bible-time or pre-middle age miracle, in which you might question the authenticity. This is a recent event, happening less than two hundred years ago.
And might I remind you this is only one of numerous ones that I could name.
I am just presenting this fact for your considering. Supernatural or super coincidence?
I'm not here to argue the existence of God, however, and will continue addressing Dawkin's statements.
I also find the remarks of him and Sagan (who he quotes) rather ignorant.
Saying that "no religion" appreciates the "grandeur" of the "bigger" universe of "wonder".
I should say, my good man, pull out your Bible.
You'll find many people in there discuss the vastness, the wonder, the enormousness, the grandeur of all "creation".
In fact, that is one of the arguments very often used to prove the existence of God (the complexities and wonder of the vast universe). Which, humorously enough, Dawkins also discussed.
However, Dawkins always ignores what he said before when it comes to making another absurd statement.
"My god is a little god and I want him to stay that way"?
Absurd. The Bible claims that God is infinite, all-powerful, and a God of science.
At this point, I'd like to recommend you all, including Dawkins, read Isaac Newton's "Mathematical Principles of Natural Science". It addresses this and the "religion corrodes science" that Dawkins mentioned earlier.
And tell me, Dawkins, that you don't claim to be more intelligent that Isaac Newton, do you? Are you of greater intellect than the man often credited as being one of or the greatest scientists of all time?
As for his September 11 remark, I heartily agree. There is no respect in my heart or mind for all these millions of Muslims who look proudly on such an event, who honor such an event, who support such an event.
Unfortunately, Dawkins feels that, in his closing remarks, bunching all the religions together and then associating them with a terrible and disastrous event is a good way to get your point across.
Perhaps many of the unsophisticated and unintelligent minds present at this event might applaud that statement, but it really quite foolish, ignorant, and incredibly unobjective and unfair.
In short, most of Dawkin's claims are poppycock. His arguments are poorly laid out and he is very poor at speaking his ways in a convincing manner. He angers too easily, and worse, he is incredibly arrogant.
If anyone read all that without getting pissed that I disagreed with their hero (who they only revere because he's as irrational and easily aggravated as they), and logically considered all I said, you have my respect.
But please don't respond unless you have.
And, for the record, there's nothing I hate like someone picking out one portion of your all writings and addressing that alone as if it's enough to disprove everything you've said.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I'm not going to respond to your points here, as that would take forever. The examples you bring up don't apply to Dawkins' arguments and the conclusions you draw do not follow from your premises. You are either blatantly misinterpreting his statements or blatantly misunderstanding them. I hope it to be the latter. I've read through everything, and in two posts, both which had to be abbreviated on the front page, you made about two valid points. And please don't preface with "I'm going to speak objectively," when you blatantly aren't. If you'd like a point-by-point, I'd be more than happy to supply it via PM, later tonight.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Sure, man. My points probably have a number of flaws.
Would be happy to her your detailed opinion.
Would be happy to her your detailed opinion.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I don't see Dawkins as arrogant, though I can see why many people of religious persuasion do. Personally I feel he's trying to persuade the human race to give up religion because, indeed, it breeds too many conflicts and we've already demonstrated throughout all of human history that universal tolerance of alternate beliefs is improbable if not impossible. United under science and a banner of lack of belief we can do such wonderful things that are unfortunately impossible as is.
By: Overmann
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
In my previous comment I said that I would abandon further arguments on this subject. However, I will keep with that decision in that I won't argue the existence of God here as that is an argument that no side can win. That being said, I think I can argue against the idea of giving up religion.
Overmann, I do not intend to offend you in the following comment so please do not take it personally if you feel that I did. It is certainly not intentional.
Religion has led to conflicts, I accept that argument as true. However, it is not the only major source of conflicts. Ethnic differences and economic disparity are but two of the multitude of factors that lead to conflict. Communist societies attempted to eliminate the religious and economic factors of conflict and failed miserably at maintaining peace through those methods.
Human beings, by our very nature, will find things to fight about no matter the circumstances. While I hate to refer to South Park as an academic source, if you've seen the episode that featured Richard Dawkins and Cartman's trip to the future, you'll remember that even in a future where people have abandoned religious belief they still find things to fight about. Once again, while I'm not claiming South Park to be an academic resource, the basic philosophical claim made by Trey and Matt in the episode was valid and comically presented.
Who is to say that a world devoid of religious belief would devote itself to science and the improvement of the human condition? Such a world could be inhabited by people seeking to fulfill their own greed and necessarily interested in scientific discovery.
There is also the false supposition that convincing humanity to abandon religious belief will be any more possible than convincing humanity to tolerate the beliefs of others. While tolerance is a very difficult thing to achieve, it is the best method to reduce conflict. Tolerance of other people regardless of belief, race, sexual orientation is the key to reducing conflict. While universal tolerance probably is impossible, people seeking to reduce conflict should be preaching tolerance as opposed to elimination of the source of conflict. To go by the same logic, sex is a source of conflict, men fighting over women people's anger towards those of other sexual orientations, and since it is a source of conflict sex should be eliminated. One could argue that a segregated community should be selected to maintain the procreation of the human species, while the rest of humanity is castrated to prevent them from having sex and that would prevent conflict. That whole scenario is similar to that in "Brave New World" which by the way is a good read if you haven't taken the chance to look it over. I have many friends who are either agnostic or atheist as well as friends who have other different religious views than myself. However, we all agree to tolerate each other's beliefs and that is how we avoid conflict in that area. Personally, I see Richard Dawkins as someone who is intelligent, well spoken and basically well meaning, however I do not agree with his beliefs. I also see any man as arrogant who claims to have the solution to all the world's problems, no matter what their religious persuasion is.
Overmann, I do not intend to offend you in the following comment so please do not take it personally if you feel that I did. It is certainly not intentional.
Religion has led to conflicts, I accept that argument as true. However, it is not the only major source of conflicts. Ethnic differences and economic disparity are but two of the multitude of factors that lead to conflict. Communist societies attempted to eliminate the religious and economic factors of conflict and failed miserably at maintaining peace through those methods.
Human beings, by our very nature, will find things to fight about no matter the circumstances. While I hate to refer to South Park as an academic source, if you've seen the episode that featured Richard Dawkins and Cartman's trip to the future, you'll remember that even in a future where people have abandoned religious belief they still find things to fight about. Once again, while I'm not claiming South Park to be an academic resource, the basic philosophical claim made by Trey and Matt in the episode was valid and comically presented.
Who is to say that a world devoid of religious belief would devote itself to science and the improvement of the human condition? Such a world could be inhabited by people seeking to fulfill their own greed and necessarily interested in scientific discovery.
There is also the false supposition that convincing humanity to abandon religious belief will be any more possible than convincing humanity to tolerate the beliefs of others. While tolerance is a very difficult thing to achieve, it is the best method to reduce conflict. Tolerance of other people regardless of belief, race, sexual orientation is the key to reducing conflict. While universal tolerance probably is impossible, people seeking to reduce conflict should be preaching tolerance as opposed to elimination of the source of conflict. To go by the same logic, sex is a source of conflict, men fighting over women people's anger towards those of other sexual orientations, and since it is a source of conflict sex should be eliminated. One could argue that a segregated community should be selected to maintain the procreation of the human species, while the rest of humanity is castrated to prevent them from having sex and that would prevent conflict. That whole scenario is similar to that in "Brave New World" which by the way is a good read if you haven't taken the chance to look it over. I have many friends who are either agnostic or atheist as well as friends who have other different religious views than myself. However, we all agree to tolerate each other's beliefs and that is how we avoid conflict in that area. Personally, I see Richard Dawkins as someone who is intelligent, well spoken and basically well meaning, however I do not agree with his beliefs. I also see any man as arrogant who claims to have the solution to all the world's problems, no matter what their religious persuasion is.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Considering the number of mass crimes and wars many Atheists are responsible for, it's rather foolish to assume that a world full of Atheists will solve all our problems.
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I don't see where atheism is meant to solve problems, and certainly not ALL problems.
But really, if you want to stack up atrocities, Religion has been a source of endless strife in human history. In fact, just about every large-scale elective horror can be attributed to two principle motivations: greed and/or religion.
Perhaps there's only a single prime motivation, and religion is just another tool in the service of greed.
But really, if you want to stack up atrocities, Religion has been a source of endless strife in human history. In fact, just about every large-scale elective horror can be attributed to two principle motivations: greed and/or religion.
Perhaps there's only a single prime motivation, and religion is just another tool in the service of greed.
By: loqi
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
And Atheists have never done anything wrong, right?
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
It's true that Stalin and Pol Pot were avowed atheist. But their horrors were not motivated by their atheism.
The Crusades, on the other hand, were entirely predicated on religion. As were the Inquisition, the American genocides, the anti-Jewish pogroms throughout the world, the pro-Jewish ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the recent anti-Muslim pogroms in India, the violent Islamic revolutions in Iran and Afghanistan, the 9/11 attacks, and so on.
Of course, most of these events were really motivated by power grabs, but religion is used as the central organizing principle. The ordinary people who carry out these atrocities claim to be motivated by their personal religious views.
Religion is how a ruthless person can convince a naive person to hack children to death with farm tools.
The Crusades, on the other hand, were entirely predicated on religion. As were the Inquisition, the American genocides, the anti-Jewish pogroms throughout the world, the pro-Jewish ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the recent anti-Muslim pogroms in India, the violent Islamic revolutions in Iran and Afghanistan, the 9/11 attacks, and so on.
Of course, most of these events were really motivated by power grabs, but religion is used as the central organizing principle. The ordinary people who carry out these atrocities claim to be motivated by their personal religious views.
Religion is how a ruthless person can convince a naive person to hack children to death with farm tools.
By: loqi
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Indeed your comment is long, but I am going to do my best to respond to every argument you make. hopefully my comment wont be nearly as long or repetitive as your own. I'm referring to every individual paragraph as a "point" with "I am actually going to do what Dawkins is incapable of doing…" being the first. This is a sirect refutation of squeakytoads statements and should be read as a companion to it, since i often referr to it without directly quoting it.
1. Your very first statement is both subjective and a lie. You do not evaluate Dawkins objectively and you never will. It is not a shortcoming on your part, I am not objective either, it is a fact. It is simply impossible to argue, at any level, without being subjective. Indeed the only thing that can be truly objective is evidence. Of which, over the next few points, you provide precious little.
2. This, and many of the following arguments is basically an argument from intelligence, "that because 'x' is of legendary intelligence, whatever he believes must be correct, or at least should be preferred over 'y' who is considerably less intelligent." This itself is a silly argument because there are many intelligent people who believe absurd things. Do you trust them? No. Dawkins also acknowledges that there are intelligent people who are believers in god, he mentions one in the first few minutes. Kenneth Miller, an impassioned critic of intelligent design, who is also a practicing roman catholic. Dawkins actual argument is that the majority of atheists are well educated. Not that all scientists are atheists. Pay attention. You also mention "evidence" but give none, and then say that Dawkins should view it, like the Christians. Im sorry, but if you take a good look at intelligent design, you would notice that it refutes, or ignores, this "evidence" which according to you Christian scholars are so passionately reviewing.
3. first see 2, but as a more direct rebuttal, calling forth geniuses from the past (as you will do later) is to place their beliefs out of perspective. If Newton and Galileo had professed to be atheists during their time they would have been risking their lives. In fact Galileo did risk his life when he supported heliocentric theory, which the all mighty (and supposedly scientific and accepting) christian church disagreed with. Furthermore, if Newton and Galileo had access to the scientific wealth we had today, such as our understanding of chemistry, or the fossil records, there is no proof that they would have maintained their belief in god. So what if they were inspired by the bible?
4. you do not mention any of these other theories specifically, additionally I think it would have been quite boring for his audience for him to laboriously mention every single one of Darwin's theories and discuss them before coming to a conclusion that would satisfy you.
5. it is a bad thing because Intelligent Design passes itself off as a new theory when it is not, Dawkins is calling attention to this.
6. Yes I think we should move on from ignorant theories that continue to override our culture with false information. Can you please tell me specifically which of Darwin's "incorrect" theories you are talking about. By the way, Darwin's core argument, that species are created by a process known as natural selection, has never been disproved.
7. This is an ad hominem attack on Kenneth Miller. First Roman Catholics are Christians because they accept Jesus Christ as their saviour. That makes them Christians. Second how do you know Kenneth Miller doesn't believe in the bible? Have you talked to him? Can you direct me to a source where Miller says he doesn't believe in the bible?
8. "Christianity is a retarded faith for retarded people." Are any Christians who read this offended? I would be. Christianity is not accepting of principles which counter what it perceives as fact. If this were true there would be no argument for Intelligent Design. Actually there would be no debate between science and Christianity at all as Christians would be so accepting. Christianity's inability to mesh with scientific thoughts is Dawkins argument, that blind faith, which is celebrated by religions, is a bad thing.
9. In Britain the pound just mentions the Queen. No British coins or notes mention God. Your pal Newton's theories were updated by great minds like Einstein. do you still believe in the THEORY of Gravity? I don't personally trust Darwin, or believe in him, ive never met him. But I find his conclusions on the origin of natural things to be sound and convincing.
10. see 2 again, Dawkins claims that atheists are more likely to be educated people, not that all educated people are atheists. And what you're actually saying is that the conclusions of any study would not satisfy you. This doesn't mean that such a study should never be undertaken, or that whatever its claims are should be automatically void.
11, 12. Starting a cult where you accept Christ as your saviour is like starting your only little club at school but refusing admittance to anyone who disagrees with you. Actually people who disagree with you are to be shunned and even killed once you are able to influence the legal system. You would then parade your club to new cultures about how your ideas are the best, and how anyone outside of this club is ignorant and foolish.
All arguments and stances are vulnerable to belittling. Unfortunately when you use this tactic you aren't doing it ironically.
13. They are, public admittance of atheism is akin to political suicide. You might as well run under NAMBLAs banner. America can be a great country even with shortcomings like an overly Christian government. I don't see how this invalidates Dawkins argument. Dawkins was probably mentioning the history of scientific innovation that America has cultivated as to why it is a great country. Defining a country solely by its leaders is silly, especially a country where the law-making bodies are independent of the head of state.
14. No it does not. See 13. Running for office as an atheist in the United States would destroy your chances of winning. Many members of the American government may be atheists privately, but admitting it would effectively prevent any hope of re-election. Dawkins did not say that any of those presidents were ignorant, nor did he even imply that. You are guilty of the same generalizations that you accuse Dawkins of.
I think this is important. First you misinterpret Dawkins argument, that intelligent people are generally atheists, as, people who are not atheists are not intelligent. Then you try to extend this false argument to claim that Dawkins feels that many Christian minds through history are therefore, dishonest, mean, stupid, and bad people. im sure Dawkins thinks very highly of Newton, and Lincoln, even if he thinks their religious beliefs are absurd.
1. Your very first statement is both subjective and a lie. You do not evaluate Dawkins objectively and you never will. It is not a shortcoming on your part, I am not objective either, it is a fact. It is simply impossible to argue, at any level, without being subjective. Indeed the only thing that can be truly objective is evidence. Of which, over the next few points, you provide precious little.
2. This, and many of the following arguments is basically an argument from intelligence, "that because 'x' is of legendary intelligence, whatever he believes must be correct, or at least should be preferred over 'y' who is considerably less intelligent." This itself is a silly argument because there are many intelligent people who believe absurd things. Do you trust them? No. Dawkins also acknowledges that there are intelligent people who are believers in god, he mentions one in the first few minutes. Kenneth Miller, an impassioned critic of intelligent design, who is also a practicing roman catholic. Dawkins actual argument is that the majority of atheists are well educated. Not that all scientists are atheists. Pay attention. You also mention "evidence" but give none, and then say that Dawkins should view it, like the Christians. Im sorry, but if you take a good look at intelligent design, you would notice that it refutes, or ignores, this "evidence" which according to you Christian scholars are so passionately reviewing.
3. first see 2, but as a more direct rebuttal, calling forth geniuses from the past (as you will do later) is to place their beliefs out of perspective. If Newton and Galileo had professed to be atheists during their time they would have been risking their lives. In fact Galileo did risk his life when he supported heliocentric theory, which the all mighty (and supposedly scientific and accepting) christian church disagreed with. Furthermore, if Newton and Galileo had access to the scientific wealth we had today, such as our understanding of chemistry, or the fossil records, there is no proof that they would have maintained their belief in god. So what if they were inspired by the bible?
4. you do not mention any of these other theories specifically, additionally I think it would have been quite boring for his audience for him to laboriously mention every single one of Darwin's theories and discuss them before coming to a conclusion that would satisfy you.
5. it is a bad thing because Intelligent Design passes itself off as a new theory when it is not, Dawkins is calling attention to this.
6. Yes I think we should move on from ignorant theories that continue to override our culture with false information. Can you please tell me specifically which of Darwin's "incorrect" theories you are talking about. By the way, Darwin's core argument, that species are created by a process known as natural selection, has never been disproved.
7. This is an ad hominem attack on Kenneth Miller. First Roman Catholics are Christians because they accept Jesus Christ as their saviour. That makes them Christians. Second how do you know Kenneth Miller doesn't believe in the bible? Have you talked to him? Can you direct me to a source where Miller says he doesn't believe in the bible?
8. "Christianity is a retarded faith for retarded people." Are any Christians who read this offended? I would be. Christianity is not accepting of principles which counter what it perceives as fact. If this were true there would be no argument for Intelligent Design. Actually there would be no debate between science and Christianity at all as Christians would be so accepting. Christianity's inability to mesh with scientific thoughts is Dawkins argument, that blind faith, which is celebrated by religions, is a bad thing.
9. In Britain the pound just mentions the Queen. No British coins or notes mention God. Your pal Newton's theories were updated by great minds like Einstein. do you still believe in the THEORY of Gravity? I don't personally trust Darwin, or believe in him, ive never met him. But I find his conclusions on the origin of natural things to be sound and convincing.
10. see 2 again, Dawkins claims that atheists are more likely to be educated people, not that all educated people are atheists. And what you're actually saying is that the conclusions of any study would not satisfy you. This doesn't mean that such a study should never be undertaken, or that whatever its claims are should be automatically void.
11, 12. Starting a cult where you accept Christ as your saviour is like starting your only little club at school but refusing admittance to anyone who disagrees with you. Actually people who disagree with you are to be shunned and even killed once you are able to influence the legal system. You would then parade your club to new cultures about how your ideas are the best, and how anyone outside of this club is ignorant and foolish.
All arguments and stances are vulnerable to belittling. Unfortunately when you use this tactic you aren't doing it ironically.
13. They are, public admittance of atheism is akin to political suicide. You might as well run under NAMBLAs banner. America can be a great country even with shortcomings like an overly Christian government. I don't see how this invalidates Dawkins argument. Dawkins was probably mentioning the history of scientific innovation that America has cultivated as to why it is a great country. Defining a country solely by its leaders is silly, especially a country where the law-making bodies are independent of the head of state.
14. No it does not. See 13. Running for office as an atheist in the United States would destroy your chances of winning. Many members of the American government may be atheists privately, but admitting it would effectively prevent any hope of re-election. Dawkins did not say that any of those presidents were ignorant, nor did he even imply that. You are guilty of the same generalizations that you accuse Dawkins of.
I think this is important. First you misinterpret Dawkins argument, that intelligent people are generally atheists, as, people who are not atheists are not intelligent. Then you try to extend this false argument to claim that Dawkins feels that many Christian minds through history are therefore, dishonest, mean, stupid, and bad people. im sure Dawkins thinks very highly of Newton, and Lincoln, even if he thinks their religious beliefs are absurd.
By: accident
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
15, 16. No he does not. Dawkins wants to make America more like it should be, with freedom for expression about religious beliefs. America was NOT founded as a "Christian nation." It was founded as a free nation. That is the first amendment to the American Constitution, that "congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, the American government, does not, nor should it, favour any religion or religious beliefs in its lawmaking process. The system is broken, Ten Commandments in courtrooms? Court battles about the Intelligent Design vs Evolutionary Theory? Passing laws that respect an establishment of religion is illegal. A legal system that violates its own law is broken. And Dawkins seeks to fix it.
17, 18, not arguments
19. There is also an important discrepancy that Dawkins notices but you do not. There is a difference between being 'religious' and believing that there is in fact an entity in the sky, or all around us, that simultaneously listens to millions of different prayers, is all powerful and all knowing, and decides to consciously affect our lives, but then leave no discernable evidence that he has done so, for whatever his mysterious reasons may be. Being religious, and believing in God are two separate things. having a devout faith in the aforementioned entity i think is silly. but working to protect and foster an idea (being religious) is not. I am religious about my atheism.
20. Dawkins is indeed denying those accounts. Just like he would deny any account he thought absurd or contradictory to fact. We have terms for people who believe in things that didnt happen. they are simply mistaken, or more pejoratively crazy, insane, or mentally deranged. Walking home when i was six i became terrified that a trash bin was breathing because of the noise when i walked by it. of course it wasn't breathing, it was the wind. but if i had told you that i heard Jesus breathing in a trash bin would that make my account more believable?
21, 22, 23. Coincidence, Im sure Finney prayed alot for rain during the drought, why this one time? if no one were praying is it still an act of god? What about aztecs sacrificing children for rain? why did it rain then? did Finney try sacrificing children to gt rain? Finney had good timing. wow you can name numerous other accounts of coincidence involving religious beliefs. I too can name numerous other accidents or improbable events, but that does not make them acts of god, even if the people involved were praying.
24. All religions are absurdly anthropocentric. Mankind created in the image of God? for thousands of years, during the time the bible was written, people believed "creation" to be simply the earths surface, and the sky (which was also heaven). the bible makes no mention or appreciation of the vastness of the universe as a whole, of which our earth occupies a less than inconspicuous part. See 3 because the church had to suppress the idea that the heavens did not orbit around "creation." (heliocentrism) an idea which that a devout christian Galileo was persecuted for.
25. not an argument, are you dissing Dawkins god? you know thats mean
26. Really? i think that's pretty absurd, see 19, the bible also says the world was created in a week, about 6000 years ago. It also says that you should sacrifice a bull every Friday, stone adulterous women, and that it is acceptable to sell your daughter into slavery. do you believe that? A God of Science? Science is about asking questions, if you ask questions about God, you are doomed to damnation.
27. what does Newton address and how? telling me to read some random text is not an argument, also see 2. And when does Dawkins claim he is more intelligent than Newton? and what if he is? how can you tell or even measure this? im not claiming that he his, but Dawkins certainly knows more about biology than Newton ever did, does that make him more intelligent?
28, 29. Congratulations, you dont like people who attacked America in the name of God. what if they were devout Christians? would that make their attack more acceptable? You are trying to criticize Dawkin's generalization of religion. But september 11th was a religiously motivated attack, and Dawkins is criticizing religion. just because it wasnt your personal religion does it mean the argument isnt valid.
30. Perhaps many of the unsophisticated and unintelligent minds this thread might applaud your statements, but they are really quite foolish, ignorant, and incredibly unobjective (the actual word is "subjective")and unfair. This is not an argument and neither is your statement
31. Dawkins is clearly an excellent speaker, not to mention an accomplished author. You are foolish, subjective, and unfair.
32, 33. Dawkins is not my hero, but he is far more convincing than you are. I dont much care for your respect because judging from your writings you honestly doesnt seem very intelligent or articulate. I have met your ridiculous stipulation to refute every single one of your statements instead of just a few. This is not out of respect for you, but because all of your points are easily refuted. Finally, your "for the record statement" makes you a hypocrite if you truly embrace it.
17, 18, not arguments
19. There is also an important discrepancy that Dawkins notices but you do not. There is a difference between being 'religious' and believing that there is in fact an entity in the sky, or all around us, that simultaneously listens to millions of different prayers, is all powerful and all knowing, and decides to consciously affect our lives, but then leave no discernable evidence that he has done so, for whatever his mysterious reasons may be. Being religious, and believing in God are two separate things. having a devout faith in the aforementioned entity i think is silly. but working to protect and foster an idea (being religious) is not. I am religious about my atheism.
20. Dawkins is indeed denying those accounts. Just like he would deny any account he thought absurd or contradictory to fact. We have terms for people who believe in things that didnt happen. they are simply mistaken, or more pejoratively crazy, insane, or mentally deranged. Walking home when i was six i became terrified that a trash bin was breathing because of the noise when i walked by it. of course it wasn't breathing, it was the wind. but if i had told you that i heard Jesus breathing in a trash bin would that make my account more believable?
21, 22, 23. Coincidence, Im sure Finney prayed alot for rain during the drought, why this one time? if no one were praying is it still an act of god? What about aztecs sacrificing children for rain? why did it rain then? did Finney try sacrificing children to gt rain? Finney had good timing. wow you can name numerous other accounts of coincidence involving religious beliefs. I too can name numerous other accidents or improbable events, but that does not make them acts of god, even if the people involved were praying.
24. All religions are absurdly anthropocentric. Mankind created in the image of God? for thousands of years, during the time the bible was written, people believed "creation" to be simply the earths surface, and the sky (which was also heaven). the bible makes no mention or appreciation of the vastness of the universe as a whole, of which our earth occupies a less than inconspicuous part. See 3 because the church had to suppress the idea that the heavens did not orbit around "creation." (heliocentrism) an idea which that a devout christian Galileo was persecuted for.
25. not an argument, are you dissing Dawkins god? you know thats mean
26. Really? i think that's pretty absurd, see 19, the bible also says the world was created in a week, about 6000 years ago. It also says that you should sacrifice a bull every Friday, stone adulterous women, and that it is acceptable to sell your daughter into slavery. do you believe that? A God of Science? Science is about asking questions, if you ask questions about God, you are doomed to damnation.
27. what does Newton address and how? telling me to read some random text is not an argument, also see 2. And when does Dawkins claim he is more intelligent than Newton? and what if he is? how can you tell or even measure this? im not claiming that he his, but Dawkins certainly knows more about biology than Newton ever did, does that make him more intelligent?
28, 29. Congratulations, you dont like people who attacked America in the name of God. what if they were devout Christians? would that make their attack more acceptable? You are trying to criticize Dawkin's generalization of religion. But september 11th was a religiously motivated attack, and Dawkins is criticizing religion. just because it wasnt your personal religion does it mean the argument isnt valid.
30. Perhaps many of the unsophisticated and unintelligent minds this thread might applaud your statements, but they are really quite foolish, ignorant, and incredibly unobjective (the actual word is "subjective")and unfair. This is not an argument and neither is your statement
31. Dawkins is clearly an excellent speaker, not to mention an accomplished author. You are foolish, subjective, and unfair.
32, 33. Dawkins is not my hero, but he is far more convincing than you are. I dont much care for your respect because judging from your writings you honestly doesnt seem very intelligent or articulate. I have met your ridiculous stipulation to refute every single one of your statements instead of just a few. This is not out of respect for you, but because all of your points are easily refuted. Finally, your "for the record statement" makes you a hypocrite if you truly embrace it.
By: accident
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
I'm not going to argue your points except to clarify points 15 and 16. The first amendment to the constitution was put in place by the founding fathers to guarantee the freedom to hold and express religious beliefs in a public discourse if they see fit. While atheists are protected in arguing against religion, religious people are also protected to express their beliefs. Accordingly, the Constitution did not and should not have the purpose of removing religion from the public discourse. Also, in the context that the constitutional framers would have seen it, the establishment clause had to do with a state church as the Anglican Church had been in England. The phrase "wall of separation of church and state" appears no where in the Constitution and derives itself from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. When taken in its context it, this proposed separation had much more to do with protecting religion from government rather than the opposite. The first amendment does grant freedom of religion to all, this is true. However it should be noted that a great number of the founding fathers such as George Washington, Patrick Henry, John Jay, James Madison (possibly), and many others were members of various Christian denominations and a good deal of these men had strong religious faith as expressed in their writings, George Washington being a prime example. It is also true that some of the other founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin had dubious religious beliefs best dubious as deists (that is people who believe in a higher power, but do not feel that power interacts with humanity). It should also be noted that none of the major founding fathers were avowed atheists, although this belief system had been around for a while and was avowed by philosophers, such as Baron d'Holbach, whose writings would have been available to many of the well-educated founders. So while I'm not explicitly disagreeing with your statement, I felt I should include my historical knowledge in a clarification and further explanation of the topic of the founding of America and the role religion played in it.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
It may be that the founding fathers intended the 1st Amendment to be used to guarantee the freedom to hold and express religious views. The 1st Amendment does this by forbidding congress from passing any law that would favor any religion, or denounce any religion. This essentially forbids the government of the United States of America to have any particular religious leanings. It is a country without a faith, and is therefore not legally, nor founded as, a "Christian Nation." This idea has been strongly tested in recent years as legislation with strong religious leanings has been introduced. Intelligent Design? the TerriSchiavo case? Bush vetoing the Stem Cell Bill? testing Roe vs Wade? all of these have obvious religious, and mostly Christian, motives and should therefore not be favored by Congress according to the text of the 1st Amendment.
As to the religious beliefs of the founding fathers themselves. Many founding fathers were deists, as you mention. A fairly weak religious stance. It is notinconceivable to argue that today they might be atheists. However, pulling historical figures out of their time to support your religious belief is fallacious because, very simply, the times were different then. Even if atheism was an accepted theory at that time, it was still a very fringe belief held publicly only by radicals or philosophers. For respected colonial aristocrats to be public atheists would have certainly been unusual. Not the least because atheism wasassociated with, and still is to some degree, immoral behavior, crime, and substance abuse.
As for the more overtly religious you mention Washington in particular and i feel the need to add a rebuttal. George Washington's religious beliefs have been difficult for scholars to identify. Conflicting accounts exist as to the extent of his religious belief and what, exactly he believed in. This has been made more difficult because Washington never left any writings, private or otherwise, that directly laid out his own thoughts on the subject of religion, and according to Thomas Jefferson he resented the label of "Christian." There is no doubt however, that he was a steady church goer and a strong fan of religious toleration. If you have any more doubt as to how the founding fathers saw religious leanings of their country i offer you Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted under Washington, signed by John Adams and ratified by the Senate in 1797:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
As to the religious beliefs of the founding fathers themselves. Many founding fathers were deists, as you mention. A fairly weak religious stance. It is notinconceivable to argue that today they might be atheists. However, pulling historical figures out of their time to support your religious belief is fallacious because, very simply, the times were different then. Even if atheism was an accepted theory at that time, it was still a very fringe belief held publicly only by radicals or philosophers. For respected colonial aristocrats to be public atheists would have certainly been unusual. Not the least because atheism wasassociated with, and still is to some degree, immoral behavior, crime, and substance abuse.
As for the more overtly religious you mention Washington in particular and i feel the need to add a rebuttal. George Washington's religious beliefs have been difficult for scholars to identify. Conflicting accounts exist as to the extent of his religious belief and what, exactly he believed in. This has been made more difficult because Washington never left any writings, private or otherwise, that directly laid out his own thoughts on the subject of religion, and according to Thomas Jefferson he resented the label of "Christian." There is no doubt however, that he was a steady church goer and a strong fan of religious toleration. If you have any more doubt as to how the founding fathers saw religious leanings of their country i offer you Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted under Washington, signed by John Adams and ratified by the Senate in 1797:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
By: accident
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
As I said earlier, I wasn't disagreeing with you on your point about the founding fathers, I just wanted to clarify. I've discussed philosophy with a philosopher friend of mine, and I've studied some science, but I am first and foremost a historian.
I do see your point about Terri Schiavo and Stem Cells, personally I opposed the governmental positions on both of those and I myself am a Christian. So much of this stuff is up to personal interpretation. I believe that God wants us to learn about our world and how to help one another and stem cell research is a part of that. But my religious beliefs are not the subject of my argument here so I move on.
I also agree with you in that in the more politically tolerant climate of today some of the deists might "come out of the closet" as atheists. I would like to emphasize that while deism is not a strong religious stance in that they have no stated dogma or ceremony they do have a belief in a higher power. If the founders that were deists were alive today, they would probably describe themselves as "spiritual, but not religious".
There are conflicting reports as to Washington's religious beliefs as you stated. Jefferson, as you stated, downplayed Washington's Christianity however his daughter Nelly Custis-Lewis claimed that he was a Christian. Dr. Peter Lillback published a book in 2006 called George Washington's Sacred Fire that states Washington was definitely a Christian. I have yet to read that book as of yet, so I cannot attest to its quality as a historical work. Of course, scholars on both side of the debate tend to have an agenda. Christians want the greatest American on their side, and non-religious people want him on their side as well and with the variety of conflicting primary sources he is up for grabs.
Regarding the Treaty of Tripoli, you are right, the founders did not see the United States as a country just for Christians. It should be noted that in the context of the treaty, it was worded as such to emphasize that America was not involved in that conflict as some sort of holy war against Muslims but about piracy. So it is correct that America was not founded with a constitutional foundation in Christianity, however, the idea that people should be able to worship God in any way they choose (or not at all if that is their choice) is central to America. The idea that religion is a negative influence would be foreign, even to our less religious founders. But once again, I wasn't disagreeing with you in your post accident but I decided to clarify the position of the founding fathers. So many historical events and characters are shrouded in mystery because of the conflicting primary sources that we have on them.
I do see your point about Terri Schiavo and Stem Cells, personally I opposed the governmental positions on both of those and I myself am a Christian. So much of this stuff is up to personal interpretation. I believe that God wants us to learn about our world and how to help one another and stem cell research is a part of that. But my religious beliefs are not the subject of my argument here so I move on.
I also agree with you in that in the more politically tolerant climate of today some of the deists might "come out of the closet" as atheists. I would like to emphasize that while deism is not a strong religious stance in that they have no stated dogma or ceremony they do have a belief in a higher power. If the founders that were deists were alive today, they would probably describe themselves as "spiritual, but not religious".
There are conflicting reports as to Washington's religious beliefs as you stated. Jefferson, as you stated, downplayed Washington's Christianity however his daughter Nelly Custis-Lewis claimed that he was a Christian. Dr. Peter Lillback published a book in 2006 called George Washington's Sacred Fire that states Washington was definitely a Christian. I have yet to read that book as of yet, so I cannot attest to its quality as a historical work. Of course, scholars on both side of the debate tend to have an agenda. Christians want the greatest American on their side, and non-religious people want him on their side as well and with the variety of conflicting primary sources he is up for grabs.
Regarding the Treaty of Tripoli, you are right, the founders did not see the United States as a country just for Christians. It should be noted that in the context of the treaty, it was worded as such to emphasize that America was not involved in that conflict as some sort of holy war against Muslims but about piracy. So it is correct that America was not founded with a constitutional foundation in Christianity, however, the idea that people should be able to worship God in any way they choose (or not at all if that is their choice) is central to America. The idea that religion is a negative influence would be foreign, even to our less religious founders. But once again, I wasn't disagreeing with you in your post accident but I decided to clarify the position of the founding fathers. So many historical events and characters are shrouded in mystery because of the conflicting primary sources that we have on them.
By: rickhatman
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
1. Agreed. It was stupid of me to say. No one can speak entirely objectively.
2. I disagree. Dawkins, throughout this entire thing, was trying to make the statement that atheists are more intelligent.
And even were his argument "the majority of atheists are well educated", this would be the stupidest statement I've ever heard.
I have met hundreds upon hundreds of atheists who were total idiots. As far as students go, those who call themselves atheists are generally the lowest scoring.
I know this is not always the case, but I have met so many overwhelmingly unintelligent, uneducated atheists that it would be ignorant to say "the majority of atheists are well educated".
3. So what if they were inspired by the Bible? Well, it proves Dawkin's whole "religion is corrosive to science" arguement false. Some religions are, including that of the church of that day.
4. Ah, but see, it's all in the wording. He is stating that the intelligent design groups "refuse to accept the teachings of Darwin." Quite the contrary, many of his theories have been accepted by them. I picked up a creationist Biology text the other day that had an entire section on microevolution and and organism's ability to adapt. They even talked about how "masterfully Darwin destroyed the ideas of the immutability of species".
Dawkins states it this way to make it sound as if they refuse all of Darwin's theories, to make these groups look flat out stupid.
5. I don't recall anyone stating that Intelligent Design was anything new. It's a concept that's been around for quite some time. They've made some revisions though. For instance, they've removed many sections of their arguements and added new ones, based on overwhelming evidence to the contrary of their earlier arguments. In the first half of this century, they were claiming that every currently existing species has been around since the beginning of creation and has not changed whatsoever. This idea has been removed, as it is absurd and ignores the facts. This is no different than what every new decade of Darwinism does. Unfortunately, as I stated, they're still teaching many outdated ideas in the school system, which seriously needs to be addressed. For the record, before you start going ballistic and claiming I want creationism taught in schools, no, I do not. I do not want any religious beliefs taught in the public school system for many reasons.
6. Of course it hasn't been disproved. New species do arise by the process of natural selection. However, I'm not going to ramble off about which of his many various theories (many of which are taught in schools) are incorrect. Especially since most intelligent Darwin supporters agree many of his arguements are outdated or proven false, and have thus removed them or modified them.
7. He does not believe in the Biblical account of creation whatsoever (not even as figurative), and does not believe various events in the Bible. The Bible itself states that every word of it is true, and thus to disbelieve part of it is to disbelieve all of it. The Bible states these things to make sure people like Miller can't pick and choose, calling themselves Christian to make their arguements seem to carry more weight.
8. You keep saying I don't point out any specifics in my statements. In which cases does Christianity deny absolutely proven evidence with no evidence to the contrary? And please don't be ignorant and point out things done by the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages or refer to some of those retarded creationist proffessors who have no idea what they're talking about.
Also, you don't really address my statement with this one. You just thought saying "Christians are retarded" would cover it. As I said, Christianity and the Bible both strongly encourage testing. And you'll find nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Do not test the science of the Bible."
9. Indeed. I wasn't implying anyone trusts in him. I just thought this was a pointless segement of video.
10. No, what I'm saying is that such a study would have to be carried out objectively by neutral members (or at least an equal balance of members from all sides of this arguement). What I'm saying is that a study like this could probably not be taken properly, as with most studies by both atheists and religious, creationist and evolutionists, the results always seem to come out in their favor. Why? Because both sides don't want their study to prove against them, and therefore do whatever it takes to make their surveys point to the results they have predertimend and desired. This is human nature. But thank you for putting words into my mouth.
11, 12. Ah, "shunned and killed". Reffering othe middle ages and crusades again, are you? Aren't we intelligent today? Maybe I should jump on the bandwagon and pick out every bad thing done by anyone who claims to be atheists in all history and use that as an example every freakin time I open my mouth.
Btw, didn't Jesus teach loving others? Giving them your stuff? Caring for them no matter what they believed? Turning the other cheek?
And, yes, Christian salvation is exlusive to those who believe in Jesus Christ as their savior. But no one's marching around saying that all any better than everyone else for this. Well, maybe someone is, but that person is clearly contradicting themselves.
13. Hmm... I don't really see how I can argue that. The country is dominantly Christian, and therefore they want their leaders to share their beliefs. I'm not stating that as a good thing or a bad thing. It's just the way it is. See, the thing is, that used to always mean someone of integrity (almost always). After these past few administrations, it is no longer the same. Calling yourself Christian is only a political move these days. Unfortunately, politics within the US and most other countries have become so corrupt as of this last half a century that it's gotten to the point of absurdity. I agree with Dawkins on the point that something has to change.
14. Hmm... I don't know, I'll have to ask him how he feels about this issue.
And I agree, many politicians are atheists only claiming to be Christians to get the public vote. However, such people, who are willing to publicly lie like that just to get a few votes, are not the kind of people of integrity I'd want leading the nation.
Yes, perhaps it is political suicide to name yourself Atheists, but that is because the majority of America is Christian and wants Christian leaders. And this is a democracy, may I remind you. The majority of the people should get to decide what they want in a leader. Whether it is a good choice or not.
Or are you saying that democracy is a bad thing now?
2. I disagree. Dawkins, throughout this entire thing, was trying to make the statement that atheists are more intelligent.
And even were his argument "the majority of atheists are well educated", this would be the stupidest statement I've ever heard.
I have met hundreds upon hundreds of atheists who were total idiots. As far as students go, those who call themselves atheists are generally the lowest scoring.
I know this is not always the case, but I have met so many overwhelmingly unintelligent, uneducated atheists that it would be ignorant to say "the majority of atheists are well educated".
3. So what if they were inspired by the Bible? Well, it proves Dawkin's whole "religion is corrosive to science" arguement false. Some religions are, including that of the church of that day.
4. Ah, but see, it's all in the wording. He is stating that the intelligent design groups "refuse to accept the teachings of Darwin." Quite the contrary, many of his theories have been accepted by them. I picked up a creationist Biology text the other day that had an entire section on microevolution and and organism's ability to adapt. They even talked about how "masterfully Darwin destroyed the ideas of the immutability of species".
Dawkins states it this way to make it sound as if they refuse all of Darwin's theories, to make these groups look flat out stupid.
5. I don't recall anyone stating that Intelligent Design was anything new. It's a concept that's been around for quite some time. They've made some revisions though. For instance, they've removed many sections of their arguements and added new ones, based on overwhelming evidence to the contrary of their earlier arguments. In the first half of this century, they were claiming that every currently existing species has been around since the beginning of creation and has not changed whatsoever. This idea has been removed, as it is absurd and ignores the facts. This is no different than what every new decade of Darwinism does. Unfortunately, as I stated, they're still teaching many outdated ideas in the school system, which seriously needs to be addressed. For the record, before you start going ballistic and claiming I want creationism taught in schools, no, I do not. I do not want any religious beliefs taught in the public school system for many reasons.
6. Of course it hasn't been disproved. New species do arise by the process of natural selection. However, I'm not going to ramble off about which of his many various theories (many of which are taught in schools) are incorrect. Especially since most intelligent Darwin supporters agree many of his arguements are outdated or proven false, and have thus removed them or modified them.
7. He does not believe in the Biblical account of creation whatsoever (not even as figurative), and does not believe various events in the Bible. The Bible itself states that every word of it is true, and thus to disbelieve part of it is to disbelieve all of it. The Bible states these things to make sure people like Miller can't pick and choose, calling themselves Christian to make their arguements seem to carry more weight.
8. You keep saying I don't point out any specifics in my statements. In which cases does Christianity deny absolutely proven evidence with no evidence to the contrary? And please don't be ignorant and point out things done by the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages or refer to some of those retarded creationist proffessors who have no idea what they're talking about.
Also, you don't really address my statement with this one. You just thought saying "Christians are retarded" would cover it. As I said, Christianity and the Bible both strongly encourage testing. And you'll find nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Do not test the science of the Bible."
9. Indeed. I wasn't implying anyone trusts in him. I just thought this was a pointless segement of video.
10. No, what I'm saying is that such a study would have to be carried out objectively by neutral members (or at least an equal balance of members from all sides of this arguement). What I'm saying is that a study like this could probably not be taken properly, as with most studies by both atheists and religious, creationist and evolutionists, the results always seem to come out in their favor. Why? Because both sides don't want their study to prove against them, and therefore do whatever it takes to make their surveys point to the results they have predertimend and desired. This is human nature. But thank you for putting words into my mouth.
11, 12. Ah, "shunned and killed". Reffering othe middle ages and crusades again, are you? Aren't we intelligent today? Maybe I should jump on the bandwagon and pick out every bad thing done by anyone who claims to be atheists in all history and use that as an example every freakin time I open my mouth.
Btw, didn't Jesus teach loving others? Giving them your stuff? Caring for them no matter what they believed? Turning the other cheek?
And, yes, Christian salvation is exlusive to those who believe in Jesus Christ as their savior. But no one's marching around saying that all any better than everyone else for this. Well, maybe someone is, but that person is clearly contradicting themselves.
13. Hmm... I don't really see how I can argue that. The country is dominantly Christian, and therefore they want their leaders to share their beliefs. I'm not stating that as a good thing or a bad thing. It's just the way it is. See, the thing is, that used to always mean someone of integrity (almost always). After these past few administrations, it is no longer the same. Calling yourself Christian is only a political move these days. Unfortunately, politics within the US and most other countries have become so corrupt as of this last half a century that it's gotten to the point of absurdity. I agree with Dawkins on the point that something has to change.
14. Hmm... I don't know, I'll have to ask him how he feels about this issue.
And I agree, many politicians are atheists only claiming to be Christians to get the public vote. However, such people, who are willing to publicly lie like that just to get a few votes, are not the kind of people of integrity I'd want leading the nation.
Yes, perhaps it is political suicide to name yourself Atheists, but that is because the majority of America is Christian and wants Christian leaders. And this is a democracy, may I remind you. The majority of the people should get to decide what they want in a leader. Whether it is a good choice or not.
Or are you saying that democracy is a bad thing now?
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
15, 16. Yes, but at the same time, the United States is a democracy, of the people, for the people, and by the people. As for Ten Commandments in the court room and religious teachings in the class room, I firmly agree that neither belong. I believe that history, which I study with great interest, proves that separation of Church and State is neccessary. Religion should not control the government. The people should. And in this case, the majority of these people want things this way. Whether I disagree or not, I cannot argue. That is democracy.
17, 18. Alright, then. If you say so.
19. Ok.
20. There is a difference between one six year old and thousands of adults, may I remind you.
You're claiming that those thousands of people were all insane (in which case it's a wonder they all agreed on the same account) or mistaken (I don't see how you can be mistaken about rain pouring down minutes after a guy prays, but ok...)?
If you went into court and brought several thousand people to testify to the same event, and they all agreed seperately without any contradictions, the court would rule that what they have said is fact.
Just because a ton of people who weren't there claim they're all insane or liars does not mean such an event did not happen.
How is absurd or contradictory to fact? Fact is the observable and the true. What has been witnessed and verified.
These events ARE the facts. This IS the evidence.
Most of your arguements are valid, but this is excessively ignorant.
21, 22, 23. Ah, you don't know the historical account of this event apparently. Finney gathered up all the farmers, settlers, and people (many of incredibly reputable character) from miles around, brought them to one spot on one day, prayed for rain, and within minutes of this single prayer it began to rain.
To deny this event is to say that you (just one person, and one who wasn't there) is right, and these thousands (who were actually there) are wrong.
And you claim creationists ignore the facts...
24. Your statement here is invalid as you have obviously not read the Bible. Within this statement you deny things stated in the Bible.
25. I chuckle.
26. Oh really? The digit "6,000" doesn't even appear in anything I've read.
But good luck putting words in God's mouth.
Apparently, you haven't read the Bible. Those were laws to the Israelites which Jesus Christ said changed after his coming. In case you don't remember, one of the most famous stories of Jesus was when he kept the mob from stoning the adulterous woman.
As for the "acceptable to sell your daughters into slavery", read the context.
27. Can't fit all his text here. Sorry.
28, 29. "Hey, Mom, one of the chairs you bought has a broken leg." "Well throw them all away, honey. If one's bad they all have to be."
30. Actaully, no one's applauding my thread. And don't be a hypocrite.
31. You too, darling.
32, 33. But I respect you notheless... somewhat... A bit... very slightly...
17, 18. Alright, then. If you say so.
19. Ok.
20. There is a difference between one six year old and thousands of adults, may I remind you.
You're claiming that those thousands of people were all insane (in which case it's a wonder they all agreed on the same account) or mistaken (I don't see how you can be mistaken about rain pouring down minutes after a guy prays, but ok...)?
If you went into court and brought several thousand people to testify to the same event, and they all agreed seperately without any contradictions, the court would rule that what they have said is fact.
Just because a ton of people who weren't there claim they're all insane or liars does not mean such an event did not happen.
How is absurd or contradictory to fact? Fact is the observable and the true. What has been witnessed and verified.
These events ARE the facts. This IS the evidence.
Most of your arguements are valid, but this is excessively ignorant.
21, 22, 23. Ah, you don't know the historical account of this event apparently. Finney gathered up all the farmers, settlers, and people (many of incredibly reputable character) from miles around, brought them to one spot on one day, prayed for rain, and within minutes of this single prayer it began to rain.
To deny this event is to say that you (just one person, and one who wasn't there) is right, and these thousands (who were actually there) are wrong.
And you claim creationists ignore the facts...
24. Your statement here is invalid as you have obviously not read the Bible. Within this statement you deny things stated in the Bible.
25. I chuckle.
26. Oh really? The digit "6,000" doesn't even appear in anything I've read.
But good luck putting words in God's mouth.
Apparently, you haven't read the Bible. Those were laws to the Israelites which Jesus Christ said changed after his coming. In case you don't remember, one of the most famous stories of Jesus was when he kept the mob from stoning the adulterous woman.
As for the "acceptable to sell your daughters into slavery", read the context.
27. Can't fit all his text here. Sorry.
28, 29. "Hey, Mom, one of the chairs you bought has a broken leg." "Well throw them all away, honey. If one's bad they all have to be."
30. Actaully, no one's applauding my thread. And don't be a hypocrite.
31. You too, darling.
32, 33. But I respect you notheless... somewhat... A bit... very slightly...
By: squeakytoad
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
Im answering any points that you refuted,
2. Dawkins argument IS that atheists are more intelligent. He cites his "43 studies" to that effect. He is trying to prove that atheism is a belief that is more common among intellectual individuals. Neither I, nor you, can argue this point effectively. neither one of us has real examples to draw from, "I have met hundreds upon hundreds of atheists who were total idiots. As far as students go, those who call themselves atheists are generally the lowest scoring." is not an argument. You cant prove it and frankly, i dont believe you.
3. You ignored my point about pulling great historical minds out of context. as for your argument, it really doesnt matter. lots of terrible crimes were "inspired" by the bible as well, does this make them divine or exceptional? Nor does "biblical inspiration" prove Dawkins wrong. Dawkins argues that in religions blind faith is not only acceptable, it is highly desirable. Believing that is fundamentally unscientific. Science teaches us not to be satisfied with our answers. Religions teaches us that we should be satisfied, and to continue searching when you already know the answer (that god did it) is tantamount to heresy. This is why religion is corrosive to science. Need i remind you the original sin was questioning gods judgment?
4. Intelligent design groups do refuse the teachings of Darwin. They believe that all complex organisms on this planet were "created" instead of "naturally selected." This is the most important part of the debate and why intelligent design is wrong. Micro-evolution is just icing on the cake. Again, you cannot expect Dawkins to delve into single theory postulated by Darwin and discuss it, he generalizes because he has an audience and has a time limit.
5, 6. see 4, intelligent design ignores the premise of the orgins of species by claiming that complex organisms were "designed." if you would refute this there would be no difference between evolution and intelligent design. I dont see how i was ever going ballistic, or where i claimed you wanted ID taught in schools. I actually worded my first rebuttal carefully because i wasnt even sure you were christian, Im only refuting your arguments because they are wrong.
And until you finally point out which of Darwins theories are wrong and where they are being taught i cant argue with you. i cant refute something that doesnt exist.
7. You still dont offer proof that Kenneth Miller says, "i dont believe in the bible" The bible is a contradictory and incredibly confusing document. Not only that, but you, and every other chrisitan picks and chooses beliefs from the bible. this has more to do with changing social norms than with matters of theology, but that does not make it any less true. For example, do you, as a Christian, believe it is a sin for women to wear the clothing of men? because there are a hell of alot of sinners out there.
8. I dont see how pointing out idiot theologians is ignorant, you were all too happy to talk about the brilliant ones. I dont even need to bring up the medieval catholic church when we have a great one today, telling african men that condoms are sinful(thereby increasing the spread of HIV), or teaching third world citizens that "poverty is a blessing!" In the end, both these groups are christians as well. also, see 3. Religion does not allow questioning. Period. actually, maintaining your faith in the face of overwhelming evidence is considered a heroic action. My quoted statement was anattempt to point out that christians dont like to be criticized, obviously you sank to the lower level. As to your assessment that both the bible and Christianatily encourage testing. No, they do not, instead they encourage absolute and unwavering belief in god. to question your belief is to question god and that is sinful. Or perhaps they encourage testing your faith, but they only expect that this will strenghten you faith in god, not that you will actually believe those silly tests.
10. Again, whatever compromise they come up with, no matter how diversified their board or their method of study, some people, including you, will not be satisfied. Rest assured, the scientists will not care. But if the Templeton foundation can fund a study determining the effects of prayer on healing, NationalAcademy of Science should be able to study the correlation between measured intelligence and religious belief.
11, 12. Actually i was referring to the colonial expansion period, but it can be modern day missionaries if you'd like. My real objective was pointing out that your argument was nothing more than belittling Dawkins idea. since you haven't refuted this I would have to assume i succeeded. trying to goad me with "Ah, 'shunned and killed'" or questions like, "Arent we intelligent today?" come off to me as really immature, which for me takes credence away from what you have to say. and ive met a lot of self righteous Christians who think they are better than me. Ive been asked plenty of times where my morals come from. (as apparently all morals come from god) PS If you want a good evil atheist try Stalin, hes very popular.
13. You concede then that your original point, that Dawkins was contradicting himself, was incorrect as i find no mention of it here. And yes, something does have to change. I dont expect politicians to be standard bearers of honesty but when lying about your religious beliefs is required for public office there is something wrong.
14. Your last statement in this point almost made me laugh. Im surprised you havent mentioned Nazis yet. Regardless, I cannot refute that 160 million Americans are christian, nor did i say that all lawmakers should be atheists. but Dawkins points out that statistically speaking there are more secular citizens than jewish citizens. Dawkins also questions this, why is the jewish lobby so powerful? Small powerful lobbies should not be directing our political system, religious or otherwise.
Or are YOU saying that democracy is a bad thing now?!?!
you probably voted YES on AIDS and NO on Children
15.16 Of course you can argue! that is what active citizenship is all about. Democracy says that you have a right to be heard. Democracy is not the tyranny of the majority, religion should not control the government and as a citizen of the United States you should protect the Constitution and refuse religion in government. Dont just slouch around and say, "oh well, its democracy!"
2. Dawkins argument IS that atheists are more intelligent. He cites his "43 studies" to that effect. He is trying to prove that atheism is a belief that is more common among intellectual individuals. Neither I, nor you, can argue this point effectively. neither one of us has real examples to draw from, "I have met hundreds upon hundreds of atheists who were total idiots. As far as students go, those who call themselves atheists are generally the lowest scoring." is not an argument. You cant prove it and frankly, i dont believe you.
3. You ignored my point about pulling great historical minds out of context. as for your argument, it really doesnt matter. lots of terrible crimes were "inspired" by the bible as well, does this make them divine or exceptional? Nor does "biblical inspiration" prove Dawkins wrong. Dawkins argues that in religions blind faith is not only acceptable, it is highly desirable. Believing that is fundamentally unscientific. Science teaches us not to be satisfied with our answers. Religions teaches us that we should be satisfied, and to continue searching when you already know the answer (that god did it) is tantamount to heresy. This is why religion is corrosive to science. Need i remind you the original sin was questioning gods judgment?
4. Intelligent design groups do refuse the teachings of Darwin. They believe that all complex organisms on this planet were "created" instead of "naturally selected." This is the most important part of the debate and why intelligent design is wrong. Micro-evolution is just icing on the cake. Again, you cannot expect Dawkins to delve into single theory postulated by Darwin and discuss it, he generalizes because he has an audience and has a time limit.
5, 6. see 4, intelligent design ignores the premise of the orgins of species by claiming that complex organisms were "designed." if you would refute this there would be no difference between evolution and intelligent design. I dont see how i was ever going ballistic, or where i claimed you wanted ID taught in schools. I actually worded my first rebuttal carefully because i wasnt even sure you were christian, Im only refuting your arguments because they are wrong.
And until you finally point out which of Darwins theories are wrong and where they are being taught i cant argue with you. i cant refute something that doesnt exist.
7. You still dont offer proof that Kenneth Miller says, "i dont believe in the bible" The bible is a contradictory and incredibly confusing document. Not only that, but you, and every other chrisitan picks and chooses beliefs from the bible. this has more to do with changing social norms than with matters of theology, but that does not make it any less true. For example, do you, as a Christian, believe it is a sin for women to wear the clothing of men? because there are a hell of alot of sinners out there.
8. I dont see how pointing out idiot theologians is ignorant, you were all too happy to talk about the brilliant ones. I dont even need to bring up the medieval catholic church when we have a great one today, telling african men that condoms are sinful(thereby increasing the spread of HIV), or teaching third world citizens that "poverty is a blessing!" In the end, both these groups are christians as well. also, see 3. Religion does not allow questioning. Period. actually, maintaining your faith in the face of overwhelming evidence is considered a heroic action. My quoted statement was anattempt to point out that christians dont like to be criticized, obviously you sank to the lower level. As to your assessment that both the bible and Christianatily encourage testing. No, they do not, instead they encourage absolute and unwavering belief in god. to question your belief is to question god and that is sinful. Or perhaps they encourage testing your faith, but they only expect that this will strenghten you faith in god, not that you will actually believe those silly tests.
10. Again, whatever compromise they come up with, no matter how diversified their board or their method of study, some people, including you, will not be satisfied. Rest assured, the scientists will not care. But if the Templeton foundation can fund a study determining the effects of prayer on healing, NationalAcademy of Science should be able to study the correlation between measured intelligence and religious belief.
11, 12. Actually i was referring to the colonial expansion period, but it can be modern day missionaries if you'd like. My real objective was pointing out that your argument was nothing more than belittling Dawkins idea. since you haven't refuted this I would have to assume i succeeded. trying to goad me with "Ah, 'shunned and killed'" or questions like, "Arent we intelligent today?" come off to me as really immature, which for me takes credence away from what you have to say. and ive met a lot of self righteous Christians who think they are better than me. Ive been asked plenty of times where my morals come from. (as apparently all morals come from god) PS If you want a good evil atheist try Stalin, hes very popular.
13. You concede then that your original point, that Dawkins was contradicting himself, was incorrect as i find no mention of it here. And yes, something does have to change. I dont expect politicians to be standard bearers of honesty but when lying about your religious beliefs is required for public office there is something wrong.
14. Your last statement in this point almost made me laugh. Im surprised you havent mentioned Nazis yet. Regardless, I cannot refute that 160 million Americans are christian, nor did i say that all lawmakers should be atheists. but Dawkins points out that statistically speaking there are more secular citizens than jewish citizens. Dawkins also questions this, why is the jewish lobby so powerful? Small powerful lobbies should not be directing our political system, religious or otherwise.
Or are YOU saying that democracy is a bad thing now?!?!
you probably voted YES on AIDS and NO on Children
15.16 Of course you can argue! that is what active citizenship is all about. Democracy says that you have a right to be heard. Democracy is not the tyranny of the majority, religion should not control the government and as a citizen of the United States you should protect the Constitution and refuse religion in government. Dont just slouch around and say, "oh well, its democracy!"
By: accident
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
"Human beings, by our very nature, will find things to fight about no matter the circumstances. While I hate to refer to South Park as an academic source, if you've seen the episode that featured Richard Dawkins and Cartman's trip to the future, you'll remember that even in a future where people have abandoned religious belief they still find things to fight about. Once again, while I'm not claiming South Park to be an academic resource, the basic philosophical claim made by Trey and Matt in the episode was valid and comically presented."
Oh, you even know the names of the creators of South Park. You like that show? I couldn't really give a shit for it, nor the point you raise. It doesn't pertain to anything I said. Nowhere did I give the notion that universal atheism would halt the practice of war. Get a clue, huh?
"Who is to say that a world devoid of religious belief would devote itself to science and the improvement of the human condition? Such a world could be inhabited by people seeking to fulfill their own greed and necessarily interested in scientific discovery."
A society devoid of religion, superstition, and irrationality would necessarily turn to science for sound explanations of phenomenon. If people only realized how completely ridiculous it is to believe in something so ambiguous, irrational, and intangible as a God, let alone going to war for one, we'd shed those beliefs and accept that we're all just human beings living on a lonely planet in an ever-expanding, ever desolate plane of time and space. It's not that we lack compassion for one another; merely that that compassion is barred, by religion, from developing further.
"There is also the false supposition that convincing humanity to abandon religious belief will be any more possible than convincing humanity to tolerate the beliefs of others."
That is a matter of opinion, seeing how no grand campaign for atheism has as of yet been attempted.
"To go by the same logic, sex is a source of conflict, men fighting over women people's anger towards those of other sexual orientations, and since it is a source of conflict sex should be eliminated. One could argue that a segregated community should be selected to maintain the procreation of the human species, while the rest of humanity is castrated to prevent them from having sex and that would prevent conflict."
That point stinks of bullshit. Sexual reproduction is a necessity for the survival of our species and doesn't even remotely compare to religion, seeing how sex is a physical act and religion a prevalent belief system. Do you see the flaw in your logic?
"I also see any man as arrogant who clai
Oh, you even know the names of the creators of South Park. You like that show? I couldn't really give a shit for it, nor the point you raise. It doesn't pertain to anything I said. Nowhere did I give the notion that universal atheism would halt the practice of war. Get a clue, huh?
"Who is to say that a world devoid of religious belief would devote itself to science and the improvement of the human condition? Such a world could be inhabited by people seeking to fulfill their own greed and necessarily interested in scientific discovery."
A society devoid of religion, superstition, and irrationality would necessarily turn to science for sound explanations of phenomenon. If people only realized how completely ridiculous it is to believe in something so ambiguous, irrational, and intangible as a God, let alone going to war for one, we'd shed those beliefs and accept that we're all just human beings living on a lonely planet in an ever-expanding, ever desolate plane of time and space. It's not that we lack compassion for one another; merely that that compassion is barred, by religion, from developing further.
"There is also the false supposition that convincing humanity to abandon religious belief will be any more possible than convincing humanity to tolerate the beliefs of others."
That is a matter of opinion, seeing how no grand campaign for atheism has as of yet been attempted.
"To go by the same logic, sex is a source of conflict, men fighting over women people's anger towards those of other sexual orientations, and since it is a source of conflict sex should be eliminated. One could argue that a segregated community should be selected to maintain the procreation of the human species, while the rest of humanity is castrated to prevent them from having sex and that would prevent conflict."
That point stinks of bullshit. Sexual reproduction is a necessity for the survival of our species and doesn't even remotely compare to religion, seeing how sex is a physical act and religion a prevalent belief system. Do you see the flaw in your logic?
"I also see any man as arrogant who clai