Richard Dawkins is awesome.

[AssButt.]

He's basically the world's best athiest. He seeks to dispel the notion that religion is harmless, and can in fact be quite dangerous, not to mention irrational. The following is the first part of a documentary he did entitled "Root of All Evil?" (although he did not choose this title, and in fact, dislikes it) which talks about religion as a self-perpetuating delusion. He has also written an essay which compares religion to a virus of the mind, which is very interesting. (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html)

Part 1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=x6XXiwZ3GZk)

Part 2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=qKgihd3lIo8)

Part 3 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=T6YNvxhz_0c)

Part 4 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zkCr89egH-s)

Part 5 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=kW-Mh0KBw28)

[Radiance]

Religion also has positive applications, in a business sense. Agreed upon standards to be used by all within a society. Spend less on security, business dealings are frequently more honest and up front so you have to worry less about price, often if someone believes you share their same religion they are (edit: often) willing to be more cooperative with you in terms of dealings. Its not all negative even for an athiest.

edit: That solves it, i'm putting that teapot in orbit around the sun and creating a religion based on it. :DDDDD

[Angelyne]

I never really understood the general "omg religion isn't rational" argument. Religion/mysticism/God aren't supposed to be rational. And neither are humans for that matter. If you're going to swear off everything irrational, might as well swear off love and sex while you're at it.

[Radiance]

But love an sex are rational... sex is rationally required to perpetuate the human race, love is the chemical reward you get for pursuing that act. Dead serious, if you knew the chemicals released at various stages of "love" you could produce it. Evidence of this is how some people begin and end relationships quickly, they have formed an addiction to the chemicals released at the first stage of a relationship.

Edit: Also, the entire purpose of religion/mysticism/god are to explain the unknown, it -is- supposed to be rational, its purpose is to educate masses to a certain truth.

[Angelyne]

But love an sex are rational... sex is rationally required to perpetuate the human race, love is the chemical reward you get for pursuing that act. Dead serious, if you knew the chemicals released at various stages of "love" you could produce it. Evidence of this is how some people begin and end relationships quickly, they have formed an addiction to the chemicals released at the first stage of a relationship.

The human race doesn't need sex or love to procreate. There is absolutely no rational reason for us to continue having sex nor to even bother with love.

And please, if sex were as rational as we'd like to believe, we wouldn't have a massive AIDS epidemic, furries and bizarre sex fetishs, and sex-related drama. It would solve or at least relieve a lot of problems if some people simply stopped fucking.


Edit: Also, the entire purpose of religion/mysticism/god are to explain the unknown, it -is- supposed to be rational, its purpose is to educate masses to a certain truth.

Who says that explanation has to be rational?

The whole concept of faith is to believe in something without any evidence, which in and of itself is irrational. Taking the atheist stance that there is no higher power requires faith--of which there is no evidence to prove or disprove that belief--thus making atheism irrational.

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

The human race doesn't need sex or love to procreate. There is absolutely no rational reason for us to continue having sex nor to even bother with love.



Who says that explanation has to be rational?

The whole concept of faith is to believe in something without any evidence, which in and of itself is irrational. Taking the atheist stance that there is no higher power requires faith--of which there is no evidence to prove or disprove that belief--thus making atheism irrational.

That's some good logic, so because you can't disprove god, it's irrational to not believe in him? that is just the worst logic ever. You're saying, regardless of what you think, it's not rational, because everything requires faith.

Funny thing, i don't need faith to not believe in god, infact, i need the exact opposite i need to have no faith to not believe in god, i need instead to actually form my own opinions based on experience instead of stories. That is perfectly rational, instead of making a lifestyle choice based on something someone was told by their grandad's uncle's bestfriend's neighbour's hairdresser's grandma's pet wedge of cheese, i make a lifestyle choice based on *gasp* real life. How crazy would that be? if we all believed that what we actually could see was true instead of what we can't see is true.

I'm intrigued though by your notion of no sex =/= no procreation. How does this work, is it more of a handsy process? IMO, there's no rational reason for you make such a stupid suggestion. The best i can imagine you're talking about would be in vitro fertilisation, the very notion of this having a real practical application of replacing the normal method to produce such high numbers of offspring, is quite unbelievable. The fact that it actually costs anything automatically elimates it as an alternative to the good old method of insert penis, recieve baby.

[JapaneseLever]

People can keep their own religion, but just keep it to yourselves.

I never tell people I'm athiest unless directly asked, and when people preach to me I make it clear that I don't want to listen.

Richard Dawkins has it right, I think. Read the book and was pleased with logic, but it's not something you should use to try and persuade someone from their own beliefs, just like I wouldn't want them to do to me...

[amg]

Richard Dawkins is an arrogant blowhard. He's right, of course, but his debates devolve after one or two lines to "You're telling me that [blank]. But [blank] is so ridiculous! How can you possibly believe [blank]!?" The religions he's attacking follow texts that are filled to bursting with contradictions taht can only be reconciled by ignoring them. His point, that religions are misleading at best and harmful at worst, can easily be made, and indeed can be made better, without departing from a diplomatic tone. Dawkins acts in an inflammatory manner to provoke a reaction that makes it seem as if he's under attack. He's the Anne Coulter of outspoken atheism. He's the worst.

[Kwiz]

Richard Dawkins is an arrogant blowhard. He's right, of course, but his debates devolve after one or two lines to "You're telling me that [blank]. But [blank] is so ridiculous! How can you possibly believe [blank]!?" The religions he's attacking follow texts that are filled to bursting with contradictions taht can only be reconciled by ignoring them. His point, that religions are misleading at best and harmful at worst, can easily be made, and indeed can be made better, without departing from a diplomatic tone. Dawkins acts in an inflammatory manner to provoke a reaction that makes it seem as if he's under attack. He's the Anne Coulter of outspoken atheism. He's the worst.

Thank you. This is probably the most comprehensive and practical criticism of Dawkins I've seen.

[SlickWilly440]

Here is a link to the second episode of the 2 part series called: The Root of All Evil? Episode 2: The Virus of Faith

http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/root_of_all_evil2.htm

[Pierrot le Fou]

Richard Dawkins is an irrational fuckhead with an agenda and a massive chip on his shoulder.

The fact is that God cannot be proved or disproved, as he/she/it is beyond the scope of regular physics, and therefore couldn't be proved or disproved within the scope of our knowledge.

To say that God threrefore doesn't exist with certainty is fucking stupid. I know he claims he's not an atheist, but he is. He's a cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt.

Believe God exists? Great.
Believe God doesn't? Great.

But you can't prove it either way. Either one is an irrational conclusion. The rational conclusion is, "I have no proof either way, so I'll just act as if there is no God until something gives me proof one way or the other."

Really simple.

Yet everyone decides to be a prick who wants to put down religion and call it irrational, while having their head so far up their own ass that they can't detect the irony in their own statement.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Richard Dawkins arguments are the same I've seen before again and again.

I'm still waiting for an atheist to come up with something original or at least something that makes me sway my faith make me actually think.

I haven't really looked too much into him, but from what I can tell is that he's an outspoken arrogant blowhard.

Are religions harmful? Duh. I'll even admit that and anyone in the world should be able to admit that. I also believe they can be good for people in a practical and moral sense as well. Not just Christianity, but several other religions as well.

Buddhism comes to mind.

[Kfisher]

Richard Dawkins is an irrational fuckhead with an agenda and a massive chip on his shoulder.

The fact is that God cannot be proved or disproved, as he/she/it is beyond the scope of regular physics, and therefore couldn't be proved or disproved within the scope of our knowledge.

To say that God threrefore doesn't exist with certainty is fucking stupid. I know he claims he's not an atheist, but he is. He's a cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt.

Believe God exists? Great.
Believe God doesn't? Great.

I'm gonna hav'ta co-sign with PLF on this one. He's right in saying God can neither be proved nor disproved, as God is beyond scientific evidence. However, some of the stuff preached by religious authorities definitely can. I mean, c'mon... Even if I consider myself to be a Christian, I'm not going to agree with everything they force down my throat just because they say it's what is right. It's just a matter of logic over faith.

But you can't prove it either way. Either one is an irrational conclusion. The rational conclusion is, "I have no proof either way, so I'll just act as if there is no God until something gives me proof one way or the other."

Really simple.

This part I don't agree with. While I respect PLF's opinion, my idea would be more like "I have no proof either way, but I believe in God to be on the safe side".

(Yeah, I know I might get blasted for that idea. But hey, nobody can agree 100% on everything, right?)

Yet everyone decides to be a prick who wants to put down religion and call it irrational, while having their head so far up their own ass that they can't detect the irony in their own statement.

Amen to that, brother.

[Pierrot le Fou]

This part I don't agree with. While I respect PLF's opinion, my idea would be more like "I have no proof either way, but I believe in God to be on the safe side".

(Yeah, I know I might get blasted for that idea. But hey, nobody can agree 100% on everything, right?)
Entirely irrational.

There is a magical invisible incorporeal chimpanzee that is waiting to harm your mother if you step on a crack on the sidewalk a certain number of times. Therefore, to be on the safe side, you should believe in the magical invisible incorporeal chimpanzee and not step on cracks in the sidewalk.

These are equivalent notions. Both are irrational.

[Mittens]

I love this thread.
I'm 100% behind PLF.
Believing in god to be 'on the safe side' just sounds like you're living your life in fear. To hell with wasting what short of a life anyone has by living it in constant fear of an unproven force.

[Ceirnian]

Seeing as it can be a comfort and not a fear...

[Karthak]

Richard Dawkins is an arrogant blowhard. He's right, of course, but his debates devolve after one or two lines to "You're telling me that [blank]. But [blank] is so ridiculous! How can you possibly believe [blank]!?" The religions he's attacking follow texts that are filled to bursting with contradictions taht can only be reconciled by ignoring them. His point, that religions are misleading at best and harmful at worst, can easily be made, and indeed can be made better, without departing from a diplomatic tone. Dawkins acts in an inflammatory manner to provoke a reaction that makes it seem as if he's under attack. He's the Anne Coulter of outspoken atheism. He's the worst.
Calling him the Anne Coulter of atheists seems rather too extreme.

[Mittens]

Seeing as it can be a comfort and not a fear...

You cant say that there isn't an element of fear in it either.
I mean come on, eternal damnation?

[Ceirnian]

Sigh time to get into this (cut version)

Let's make an example with the law shall we?

Now to the average law abiding citizen jail is a good thing. It keeps away bad people who do mean things. A person who lives their life normally and abides the law has nothing to fear, in fact they more than likely take comfort knowing that wrong doing will be punished. There may be a few moments in their life where they fear the law (driving without their registration for instance. Not the biggest crime but it will more than likely make you nervous of getting caught) however these are few and far between. Do these few acts make you fear the law? Certainly to an extent, but nothing that should cause you to live your life in constant paranoia.

Same thing applies to religion for the most part. Just because one believes 'eternal damnation' exists (depending on the religion) doesn't mean you become some crazed paranoid shell of your former self. It's easy enough to follow a few rules unless you are deadset on breaking them. Even by making a few mistakes you aren't instantly condemned.

This mindset applies more to the people who believe in god 'to be safe' I feel, though it may apply to others. Going to leave it at that unless this turns into a worthwhile debate.

[Beowulf]

Dawkins is nothing more then the atheist Pat Robertson. Anyone who goes around saying that only they know the truth is instantly full of shit in my book.

[Karthak]

Dawkins is nothing more then the atheist Pat Robertson. Anyone who goes around saying that only they know the truth is instantly full of shit in my book.

Has he ever actually said that only he knows the truth? (or something similar to that. If so, please quote)

[stsparky]

I am all for stealing the crutches of the mentally unfit. Which is why I prefer E.O Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson) to Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins).

“ ...Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when asked how the world might have changed, Dawkins responded:
‘Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!’
In January 2006, Dawkins presented a two-part television documentary entitled The Root of All Evil?, addressing what he sees as the malignant influence of organised religion in society. Critics said that the programme gave too much time to marginal figures and extremists, and that Dawkins' confrontational style did not help his cause; Dawkins rejected these claims, citing the number of moderate religious broadcasts in everyday media as providing a suitable balance to the extremists in the programmes. He further remarked that someone who is deemed an "extremist" in a religiously moderate country, may well be considered "mainstream" in a religiously conservative one. ...”

I can explain my views on GOD easily - but it's no one else's business to know.

[Roxie]

Richard Dawkins is an arrogant blowhard. He's right, of course, but his debates devolve after one or two lines to "You're telling me that [blank]. But [blank] is so ridiculous! How can you possibly believe [blank]!?" The religions he's attacking follow texts that are filled to bursting with contradictions taht can only be reconciled by ignoring them. His point, that religions are misleading at best and harmful at worst, can easily be made, and indeed can be made better, without departing from a diplomatic tone. Dawkins acts in an inflammatory manner to provoke a reaction that makes it seem as if he's under attack. He's the Anne Coulter of outspoken atheism. He's the worst.

agreed.

And who ever said Religion was harmless? Did I miss that press release? Did everyone forget the inquisition, the Salem witch trials, hetic etc..?

[Kaji]

It's not as though it's only ever caused evil, however. It's like how some people like to focus only on those black people who steal car radios and rape white women. It happens, but it's far from all they ever do.

[Roxie]

It's not as though it's only ever caused evil, however.
And that's not what I said, nor did I hint at it.
I've just never, ever heard someone call religion "harmless"

[RoxFontaine]

There's no proof of God?

Let's see him create a man. From nothing but elements.

[Exeter]

I saw Dawkins in person once. The man is fairly intelligent, and I do agree with a lot of his points, but ultimately he's the same as any outspoken religious zealot, just playing for the other team.

If you can call it a team, anyway. I never understood why an atheist would want to band together with like-minded people to discuss atheism. Seems kind of silly.

I've always kind of felt that the burden of proof ought to be on the folks that believe in the magical invisible entity in the sky. I've never been to Zimbabwe, for example, but there's enough evidence that it exists that I don't question it; I can talk about Zimbabwe existing without any doubts. On the other hand, I've never met a deity, and have never seen any evidence whatsoever to suggest that one exists, so until that changes my beliefs are pretty clear.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Militant Atheism is a bane and people who advocate being cocks about their belief in the lack of a God are absolute miserable human beings.

[Trump]

I cannot prove or disprove God. I believe in God because I want to and I choose to.

I could care less about religion, and atheism (in that form) is just another religion. His religion is just as detrimental to society as what he complains about.

[seiji]

I think this (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/godfuse.html) is germane.

[stsparky]

Maybe the above link is okay. I get evangelistic dickheads in my face every day. I've got SGI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soka_Gakkai_International) idiots, various quasi-church going suicide-killer cultists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant) running amok here as well as phonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_Jesus) who pretend they were once Jews but now are Gentiles. So my tolerance is low. I won't go to their level unless they provoke me. I have different approaches (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/handbook/s_refuting.html) to the different types. My favorite is whispering loudly to angry people that the so-called "Jew" trying to force pamphlets on everyone isn't even circumcised and can't be an ex-Jew.

Why? Because we have to deal with this crap (http://www.paulasays.com/articles/on_anti-semitism/2007_by_country/usantisemitism.html) here in the USA.

“... Mason replied in front of the federal court in Manhattan where he accepted the apology, "
"There's no such thing as a Jew for Jesus. It's like saying a black man is for the KKK. You can't be a table and a chair. You're either a Jew or a gentile." ...”

[RandomPasserby]

Just a quick question to you all Dawkins haters, where exactly has he said that religious people should be killed, prosecuted or discriminated against etc. or blame religious people for all the missfortunes of the world like you claim (that is exactly what calling him atheist's Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter etc. is)?

[Pierrot le Fou]

Just a quick question to you all Dawkins haters, where exactly has he said that religious people should be killed, prosecuted or discriminated against etc. or blame religious people for all the missfortunes of the world like you claim (that is exactly what calling him atheist's Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter etc. is)?
First of all, I haven't said that of him.

Second of all, even if he hadn't said such things, would that make him right?

[RandomPasserby]

Oh, you are a hater, PLF? Sorry then that I group you together with the others.

But, anyway, even if he is wrong (what is wrong in wanting children to not be taught false stories as a fact?), does that make it right to say that he is on the same level as the most hate preaching extremists in "the free world"? He is really moderate when compared to most religious figures.

[Beowulf]

But, anyway, even if he is wrong (what is wrong in wanting children to not be taught false stories as a fact?), does that make it right to say that he is on the same level as the most hate preaching extremists in "the free world"? He is really moderate when compared to most religious figures.
Your right. Comparing religion to viruses and calling it the "Root Of All Evil" is totally justified and wasn't at all extreme.

Young children also take all stories as fact, and need to be told that they aren't real. Thus his want to not tell them "false stories" would mean that we would have to eliminate all fairy tales, children's stories, and television shows.

[RandomPasserby]

Your right. Comparing religion to viruses and calling it the "Root Of All Evil" is totally justified and wasn't at all extreme.

"Root Of All Evil?" is a question, not a statement. So it isn't extremist view yet, so don't jump to conclusions. And do you deny that religions don't/haven't spread similarly to viruses/bacteria (by human contact, usually the "victim" is unaware or doesn't even want to be "infected")? He choose attention creating but still describing words for the titles of the books which is common as hell (btw. how would you sum into one word the way religion spreads?).
Also, if offenses as small as that would make him a extremists, there is a christian church (I mean the big churches like catholic, lutherian, protestant etc.) on this planet that isn't extremist because of the various things they compare or even set next to murder and rape. Moderate people are allowed to use extreme words sometimes.

Young children also take all stories as fact, and need to be told that they aren't real. Thus his want to not tell them "false stories" would mean that we would have to eliminate all fairy tales, children's stories, and television shows.
That's a straw man, we are talking about mainly teenagers here.

[Jetsetlemming]

To those who believe in God, Dawkins is doing the exact opposite: Trying to get people to believe false stories, pseudo-scientific fairy tales about how something THEY ALL KNOW is perfectly real and present doesn't exist. Dawkins doesn't have any right to try to tell anybody what's right, or try to challenge anyone else's beliefs in favor of his own. Nobody has any other superiority on the matter, and to claim you know the absolute truth of the matter is no less of an irrational belief than a belief in God.

[RandomPasserby]

Now "science and religion are on the same level!" is an argument I know I can't win.

[Jetsetlemming]

There's a difference in believing in science and not believing in anything unscientific. Just think about all the irrational, unscientific us humans do, like believing in love, honor, putting other people before ourselves, and just morality in general.

[Ichisan]

Richard Dawkins is an arrogant blowhard. He's right, of course, but his debates devolve after one or two lines to "You're telling me that [blank]. But [blank] is so ridiculous! How can you possibly believe [blank]!?" The religions he's attacking follow texts that are filled to bursting with contradictions taht can only be reconciled by ignoring them. His point, that religions are misleading at best and harmful at worst, can easily be made, and indeed can be made better, without departing from a diplomatic tone. Dawkins acts in an inflammatory manner to provoke a reaction that makes it seem as if he's under attack. He's the Anne Coulter of outspoken atheism. He's the worst.

I don't think his arguments are particularly deep in these programs - he's much more impressive and persuasive when he's talking about evolution - but it's obvious he's not being arrogant. As a scientist, he's used to telling it exactly as he sees it and used to people who disagree arguing rationally without getting upset.

His idea that religion is a mental virus is interesting and I hope to see it developed more in the rest of this series.

[RandomPasserby]

There's a difference in believing in science and not believing in anything unscientific. Just think about all the irrational, unscientific us humans do, like believing in love, honor, putting other people before ourselves, and just morality in general.
Now I'm not following you, got a link where I could read moar about what you mean?
edit: actually, on that believing in love-part, do you mean this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=tcL717h_vCs)?

[Ichisan]

Richard Dawkins is an irrational fuckhead with an agenda and a massive chip on his shoulder.

The fact is that God cannot be proved or disproved, as he/she/it is beyond the scope of regular physics, and therefore couldn't be proved or disproved within the scope of our knowledge.

To say that God threrefore doesn't exist with certainty is fucking stupid. I know he claims he's not an atheist, but he is.

Wow, you're saying Dawkins is the one with a chip on his shoulder? What's got you so wound up?

You can't have watched the program or read the document because he damn well states very clearly that he is an atheist and he also addresses the point about it not being disprovable that there is no God.

Many people, agnostics, take the view that it is impossible to either prove or disprove God's existence, so confess ignorance. In Dawkins' version of atheism, you don't claim proof (no-one could) but you do state that you don't believe in God because why pussyfoot around the issue? You could equally well say "Well, it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of Buddha so I'm agnostic on that. And it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of Aphrodite so I'm agnostic on that.", and so on ad infinitum. Yet obviously we don't bother being wishy-washy about all these other postulated gods or other entities (Dawkins mentions Bertrand Russell's teapot), so why, if we value intellectual consistency and honesty, make an exemption for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

[Pierrot le Fou]

Because I already stated that the only rational approach is to say "I don't know for certain if they exist or not, but considering the lack of proof, I will go about my life as if they don't exist."

Actively speaking out against a belief in the divine is absolutely irrational. Entirely irrational. Just as irrational as those who speak out for it.

I have never met an outspoken atheist who knows more than me about religion. I've met solely a handful of atheists who know about more than a smidgen of Christianity. Yet these people love to make broad sweeping statements about religion and the divine as if they know what they're on about, when it shows a clear lack of insight.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

And when people like you say that I am the one with a chip on my shoulder because I'm obviously anti-Dawkins, it's because you don't fucking understand. I despise intolerance. Utterly. I dislike Hare Krishnas, Mormons, Catholic Missionaries, and militant atheists equally. Because they all take their unfounded unprovable beliefs and try to thrust them on others. It's absolutely moronic.

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT. When it comes to those things which are metaphysical, we cannot ever prove or disprove them, so believe what you want and you'll never be proved wrong. But the second that you and your loudmouth try to tell me what to believe is the second I tear you a second asshole for being presumptuous enough to think that you know what I want/need/believe better than I myself do.

Live and let live, jackass.

Dawkins doesn't. He's a prick. He's as bad as the people he denounces. People who support him can fuckoff equally thanks.

[SlickWilly440]

^
Well Said:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Beowulf]

That's a straw man, we are talking about mainly teenagers here.
My arguments a straw man? Bullshit, you're the one putting up straw men and the above quote is an excellent example. Teenagers are perfectly able to decide things for themselves and are perfectly able to distinguish fact from fiction.

[AssButt.]

Because I already stated that the only rational approach is to say "I don't know for certain if they exist or not, but considering the lack of proof, I will go about my life as if they don't exist."

Actively speaking out against a belief in the divine is absolutely irrational. Entirely irrational. Just as irrational as those who speak out for it.

I have never met an outspoken atheist who knows more than me about religion. I've met solely a handful of atheists who know about more than a smidgen of Christianity. Yet these people love to make broad sweeping statements about religion and the divine as if they know what they're on about, when it shows a clear lack of insight.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

And when people like you say that I am the one with a chip on my shoulder because I'm obviously anti-Dawkins, it's because you don't fucking understand. I despise intolerance. Utterly. I dislike Hare Krishnas, Mormons, Catholic Missionaries, and militant atheists equally. Because they all take their unfounded unprovable beliefs and try to thrust them on others. It's absolutely moronic.

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT. When it comes to those things which are metaphysical, we cannot ever prove or disprove them, so believe what you want and you'll never be proved wrong. But the second that you and your loudmouth try to tell me what to believe is the second I tear you a second asshole for being presumptuous enough to think that you know what I want/need/believe better than I myself do.

Live and let live, jackass.

Dawkins doesn't. He's a prick. He's as bad as the people he denounces. People who support him can fuckoff equally thanks.

I can see where you're coming from, and I understand. However, there is an error in your presumptions. You said that some things are "metaphysical" and can never be proved or disproved; well, that isn't entirely correct. The creation of the world, the weather, how humans are born, etc. -- these things were at one time in the realm of the metaphysical. Yet scientific advances continue to push back metaphysical explanations for everyday phenomena. Sure, we don't know what exactly happened at the beginning of the universe right now, but is self-defeatist and arrogant to think that we can never know. If that were true, cosmology and theoretical would cease to exist, and without them, we wouldn't have half the technological achievements we enjoy today. Any moral principle that preaches ignorance on such things is extremely irrational.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I can see where you're coming from, and I understand. However, there is an error in your presumptions. You said that some things are "metaphysical" and can never be proved or disproved; well, that isn't entirely correct. The creation of the world, the weather, how humans are born, etc. -- these things were at one time in the realm of the metaphysical. Yet scientific advances continue to push back metaphysical explanations for everyday phenomena. Sure, we don't know what exactly happened at the beginning of the universe right now, but is self-defeatist and arrogant to think that we can never know. If that were true, cosmology and theoretical would cease to exist, and without them, we wouldn't have half the technological achievements we enjoy today. Any moral principle that preaches ignorance on such things is extremely irrational.
Every time someone says this, I roll my eyes.

Metaphysics cannot be proven using physical laws. Now unless we're able to become metaphysical beings (which is a mind-boggling proposition in and of itself, as it would make the metaphysical physical), then we're not going to be able to prove any metaphysics.

Science can only go so far.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theroem states that in any system complex enough to do simple arithmetic, there will be statements which are true within the system but cannot be proven and/or statements which are false within the system but can't be disproven. We cannot prove anything, just as we will never be able to list all the laws of mathematics. There are things which are true but we can't prove scientifically, and things which are false that we can't disprove.

We can always dig deeper, and understand more, but we will never be able to prove the reason behind that original 'why?'

Science is limited. Any scientist worth their pay should tell you that.

[erbiumfiber]

Who is the French philosopher/mathematician who basically said he believed in God just in case there is a God (the insurance plan)? I thought it was Descartes but he was all about proving the existence of God (among other things- I had to write a paper about his belief that the soul is physically located in the pineal (sp?) gland...).

Anyway, I'm a huge believer in insurance (I am overinsured in both life and health categories, "just in case.").

If I believe in God and I'm wrong, I won't really know as I'll be dead and won't be knowing about much at that time.

Anyway, spend time in Catholic school and being raised strict Catholic and you'll find it hard to give up on God as an adult...

[Pierrot le Fou]

Pascal's Gambit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager) (or wager).

The criticism is that if Gods are vindictive and you worship the wrong one, you're worse off than if you were a non-believer. Among many.

And the criticism of Descartes (as told by Nietzsche) is essentially that Descartes says "Cogito Ergo Sum" (I think therefore I am), but using 'Cogito' (the first-person form of 'to think') pre-supposes the existence of 'I' making the statement useless. The fact that there is thought does not indicate the existence of 'I' absolutely at all, and that Descartes should have minded his language.

[Ichisan]

Because I already stated that the only rational approach is to say "I don't know for certain if they exist or not, but considering the lack of proof, I will go about my life as if they don't exist."

Actively speaking out against a belief in the divine is absolutely irrational. Entirely irrational. Just as irrational as those who speak out for it.

Now that I read your post again I think your position vis-a-vis the existence of God is similar to Dawkins' (and mine): you say "I don't know for certain if they exist or not, but considering the lack of proof, I will go about my life as if they don't exist" and he says "I don't believe in God" (not "There is no God!"!).

So as far as that goes you're not so different but then of course Dawkins views religion as actively pernicious, not because he thinks he can disprove God's existence but because the consequences of faith are sometimes destructive. He also finds the idea of faith intellectually curious because the more evidence and the more reasons there are against it, the stronger and better it is (seemingly); but the main objection is that this can lead to a denial of science and to violence.

Personally I tend to agree with him, but I also think ideologies - also belief systems - can be as bad or even worse. The track record of fascism and communism speaks for itself.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Dawkins is a cunt because he somehow believes that religious systems are worse than other systems for whatever reason. Combat ideologies? Pointless. Newton was a Christian, and he was a pretty good scientist. Descartes was a Christian, and he was a pretty good mathematician.

Combat ignorance. And Dawkins' stance is one of ignorance. So fuck him. And the people who defend bigotry and ignorance by supporting him.

[Roxie]

....I agree.....with PLF.

[Psychochink]

....I agree.....with PLF.

*ticks off his checklist of 'signs of the apocalypse'*

[erbiumfiber]

Pascal's Gambit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager) (or wager).

The criticism is that if Gods are vindictive and you worship the wrong one, you're worse off than if you were a non-believer. Among many.


Ah, Pascal. Well I got the nationality and profession right.

Anyway, Catholicism (currently) believes that you can be a good non-believer (having not been exposed) or believer in other religions, and, as long as you lived a good, moral life, you can get into Catholic heaven. So I'm just hoping that other (non-Catholic) gods feel the same way. I'll take my chances.

I was going through Mormon conversion (to a point, I just wanted to know more about the religion) and asked them a lot of questions, and they actually had some good answers. I said that I lacked faith but was searching for ways to have more faith and they said that the search for more faith was an act of faith itself. I liked that answer. I can see why they get a lot of converts. (The founder of the company I worked at was a Mormon and I was very curious).

Mostly I feel any religion is OK if it teaches that you should be decent to other people, care for the poor and sick, etc. It seems that most religions, when they haven't been perverted by wingnuts, teach these basic principles.

The thing that is the dilemma for me is that I don't really want eternal life (but, of course, I don't want eternal damnation). Eternity is, well, eternal. Living forever is pretty scary. I'm easily bored and might run out of things to do with eternity. So the motivation for belief is not there for me (eternal life).

[stsparky]

... Catholicism (currently) believes that you can be a good non-believer (having not been exposed) or believer in other religions, and, as long as you lived a good, moral life, you can get into Catholic heaven. So I'm just hoping that other (non-Catholic) gods feel the same way. I'll take my chances. ...

Not true anymore. We've got 'Hitler Youth' Pope Benedict on the job now.

[Jetsetlemming]

Anyway, Catholicism (currently) believes that you can be a good non-believer (having not been exposed) or believer in other religions, and, as long as you lived a good, moral life, you can get into Catholic heaven. So I'm just hoping that other (non-Catholic) gods feel the same way. I'll take my chances.

The last protestant church I was in preached that as well, specifically mentioning jews, who can apparently accept Jesus after death but before being "judged" to get into heaven. I guess by seeing him in the line to the gates or something.

[Kaji]

Eh, if it were "join or die", you'd have probably joined as a young boy as well. Not like he stayed with it or took an active role in it.

As to the doctrine in question, Limbo was officially done away with under John Paul II. Originally it was stated that those who were never exposed to Christ's message or those children who were aborted/died before being baptized would go there as opposed to being sent to Heaven (for lack of acceptance of salvation through Christ) or Hell (for those who actively reject him). As I recall, the current stance is that all who would have otherwise been placed in Limbo will go to heaven.

[bubbles]

Dawkins is a cunt because he somehow believes that religious systems are worse than other systems for whatever reason. Combat ideologies? Pointless. Newton was a Christian, and he was a pretty good scientist. Descartes was a Christian, and he was a pretty good mathematician.

Combat ignorance. And Dawkins' stance is one of ignorance. So fuck him. And the people who defend bigotry and ignorance by supporting him

If you're going to take that stance... then we're in for one hell of a cluster fuck.
Fuck religious fundamentalists, who act like douchebags based on mistranslated ridiculous tomes, and condemn 99% of the world to eternal damnation. A stance of ignorance if ever I heard one.
Fuck religious wafflers and agnostics, who don't have the tenacity of spirit to take a stand one way or another. Oh noes, just because there is a hypothesis that has no means of being proven or denied, I will stay in the middle because... you never know. (A human foibled god doesn't fucking exist, so strike me down in bolts of Zeus powered lightning. )
Fuck everyone who dares to take some sort of stand in a highly illogical argument and wants to make some noise about it.
Fuck atheists for being douches about what douches religious types have been.


The problem is that right now there may be some screaming from all sides, but the church(es) traditionally has had the biggest fucking voice in all the yelling. (not to mention those loud as hell bells). There will always be nuts on both ends of the continuum. I wouldn't put Dawkins in the same class as Falwell or <douchebag>, but only because he has some valid fucking points to make that aren't being discussed by the bourgeois right now. I wish more people like Scientologists, Mormons, the Armish, hell, even Zoroastrians would make some more noise about what they believe. I can't stand a monosaturated debate.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/60/Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherents_by_Religion.png/800px-Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherents_by_Religion.png
Honestly - I look forward to a god living up to all that kind of hype.

[Jetsetlemming]

Honestly - I look forward to a god living up to all that kind of hype.
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/4332/buddyjesushz3.jpg

[Pierrot le Fou]

People who are quietly religious, who don't proselytize, who don't push their beliefs on others, who don't feel the need to voice their insecurities with their own faith most certainly aren't ignorant. Neither are atheists who find no reason to believe, and quietly go through their life not believing.

It's the people with loud mouths and strong beliefs who need to piss off.

[bubbles]

Dogma jesus creeps the fuck out of me. Son of the burger king, if you ask me. http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061010/061010_burgerking_hmed_11a.hmedium.jpg Now that's some tasty fucking religious epiphany.

People who are quietly religious, who don't proselytize, who don't push their beliefs on others, who don't feel the need to voice their insecurities with their own faith most certainly aren't ignorant. Neither are atheists who find no reason to believe, and quietly go through their life not believing.

It's the people with loud mouths and strong beliefs who need to piss off.

People who are as above are no good in creating change though. It's always the whackos who make society 'evolve', by and large(for better or worse). It's all very well being neutral and mute... it's possibly the least douchebag thing to do. But if you look at the world and you don't like what you see, the more motivated individuals out there like to make a ruckus. Yes, it can get to be a bit of a pain, especially if gawd told you the hoemoesektuals will bring on terrorism. But it's doing something. Why should a 'debate' of religion be any less colourful than a debate on politics?

[AssButt.]

Every time someone says this, I roll my eyes.

Metaphysics cannot be proven using physical laws. Now unless we're able to become metaphysical beings (which is a mind-boggling proposition in and of itself, as it would make the metaphysical physical), then we're not going to be able to prove any metaphysics.

Science can only go so far.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theroem states that in any system complex enough to do simple arithmetic, there will be statements which are true within the system but cannot be proven and/or statements which are false within the system but can't be disproven. We cannot prove anything, just as we will never be able to list all the laws of mathematics. There are things which are true but we can't prove scientifically, and things which are false that we can't disprove.

We can always dig deeper, and understand more, but we will never be able to prove the reason behind that original 'why?'

Science is limited. Any scientist worth their pay should tell you that.

Science isn't inherently limited, first of all. Such questions as the meaning of life are outside of science, sure. But God's existence doesn't have anything to do with metaphysics. Supposedly, he created the world and, depending on your views, he had some direct hand in things around the time of the Old and New Testament. It would be ignorant to say that his existence could never be proved, ever. If his existance can never be proved, then he cannot leave evidence of his existance, and without anything that can be conclusively determined to be divine, there would be no point in believing in him. If Jesus hadn't performed miracles, nobody would give two shits about him. But he allegedly did, and that's why there's this whole religion about him.

The problem with metaphysics lies within the fact that there is no evidence of anything beyond the physical world. And as long as something lies within the physical world, it must obey physical laws.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Science isn't inherently limited, first of all. Such questions as the meaning of life are outside of science, sure. But God's existence doesn't have anything to do with metaphysics. Supposedly, he created the world and, depending on your views, he had some direct hand in things around the time of the Old and New Testament. It would be ignorant to say that his existence could never be proved, ever. If his existance can never be proved, then he cannot leave evidence of his existance, and without anything that can be conclusively determined to be divine, there would be no point in believing in him. If Jesus hadn't performed miracles, nobody would give two shits about him. But he allegedly did, and that's why there's this whole religion about him.

The problem with metaphysics lies within the fact that there is no evidence of anything beyond the physical world. And as long as something lies within the physical world, it must obey physical laws.
I'm not very polite. I should try harder. Maybe later.

In the meantime, if you're going to be a daft ignorant cunt about religion, could you at least try not to drag science down with you? There are many thousands of religions out there. You're going to sit there and tell me that God can be proved because the Bible says stuff?

And then you go on to tell me that science isn't 'inherently' limited, it just can't prove anything in metaphysics because science only applies to things that obey the physical laws -- which the divine need not do.

Great job there, champ. Look like a complete and total dunce on both counts! Awesome!

Now will you please educate yourself or shut the fuck up? Thanks.

[Kfisher]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/60/Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherents_by_Religion.png/800px-Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherents_by_Religion.png

What exactly is the difference between "non-religious" and "atheist"?

[Exeter]

What exactly is the difference between "non-religious" and "atheist"?

They might be agnostic, believe in a deity but don't follow any particular religion, or simply not want to label themselves as atheists. The term atheist has such a negative connotation in most instances that I can't say as I'd blame them.

[Karthak]

They might be agnostic, believe in a deity but don't follow any particular religion, or simply not want to label themselves as atheists. The term atheist has such a negative connotation in most instances that I can't say as I'd blame them.
Why does the term atheist have a negative connotation?

[RandomPasserby]

My arguments a straw man? Bullshit, you're the one putting up straw men and the above quote is an excellent example. Teenagers are perfectly able to decide things for themselves and are perfectly able to distinguish fact from fiction.
Actually, to my understanding, we were talking about teaching (young earth) creationism in "science" classes even if I didn't mention it before this (I took it granted that you understood that). Teenagers aren't able to decide themselves if their teachers are lying to them when proving (young earth) creationism right and science generally wrong. USA's millions of young earth creationists are a proof of that.
I agree that teenagers can decide which is better supported by evidence if they are neutral religion wise and get presented by all real evidence from both sides. That just doesn't happen ever (okay, I have been taught both sides in a way).

[Pierrot le Fou]

What exactly is the difference between "non-religious" and "atheist"?
Atheists are religious in the sense that they hold unprovable assumptions despite a lack of proof, and have decided their 'faith.'

[RandomPasserby]

Atheists are religious in the sense that they hold unprovable assumptions despite a lack of proof, and have decided their 'faith.'
Nice, I bet you know what atheist literally means though.

Kfisher, in theory/in classification there is no difference but militant agnostics and militant theists think that unless a non-believer/atheist stays quiet about his/her views on the universe and smiles and gives positive feedback about religions when they are mentioned, the non-believer/atheist is a religious fanatic who's faith is "atheism".

[Pierrot le Fou]

Nice, I bet you know what atheist literally means though.

Kfisher, in theory/in classification there is no difference but militant agnostics and militant theists think that unless a non-believer/atheist stays quiet about his/her views on the universe and smiles and gives positive feedback about religions when they are mentioned, the non-believer/atheist is a religious fanatic who's faith is "atheism".
And I bet you know what Christianity means? Or maybe not. Because atheists seem to confuse belief in the divine with religion with Christianity more often than not.

If an atheist brings up, without prompting, their belief in the lack of a God (and it is just that, a belief), it's just as foolhardy and rabid as a Christian who brings it up unprompted.

Trying to somehow take the high road because your belief is 'different' as it has no God is like stating that you shit is beautiful because you don't eat corn. It's absolute bollocks, and you should be laughed out of any group of thinkers with logic like that.

Unfortunately, atheists tend to be about as insular and defensive of each other than many Catholics I know, let alone the broad brush they paint everyone from Pat Richardson to Jesse Jackson with.

[RandomPasserby]

Are you an agnostic or what, plf? I just want to know how you can be that much of a prick and still claim that atheists are the pricks on this issue. Seriously, I just pointed out that you probably know the a means not and theist means religious in ancient language x (greek or latin) thing. Now you are stating that I/atheists have a belief that is like mine/their shit is beautiful...

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

I think he means that people who are devout atheists are just as bad as people who are devout Christians - people who feel the need to spread their beliefs and that their beliefs are best. It doesn't matter what the belief is, but just that the people who feel the need to argue with everybody about what they believe in and feel the need to not only convert others but feel superior over others who don't share the same beliefs are pricks.

There's nothing wrong with being either a Christian or an athiest per se, but don't act like your belief is best and preach it to everybody within hearing distance.

[ruaidhri]

Ok, I'll comment, mostly because I'm bored.

I do not have faith in any God. I wish I did; but, I don't. I am neither Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other religion. I respect and try to follow the moral code of Christianity because that was my upbringing. I've always believed it far easier to be nice than nasty.

I hold nothing against people with faith. I don't even care if they want to spread the faith and approach me. I would politely tell them that I'm not interested and expect them to leave me alone.

I also hold nothing against people without faith (I'm one). I don't even care if they have "faith" that there is no God and try to convince me that they're right. Again, I would politely tell them that I'm not intersted and expect them to leave me alone.

Am I an Atheist? Absolutely not! Mostly, I'm a wannabe. Why? Because, I believe true faith has it's benefits here on earth because a road map offers comfort when traveling.

[Exeter]

Why does the term atheist have a negative connotation?

Atheists are more often than not equated to godless heathens, in my experience. Most religious people seem more comfortable with agnosticism than they are atheism.

I was raised without any religious influence or background whatsoever, and I grew up being asked by all sorts of people how I could possibly have any sense of morality or decency, where I thought I'd go when I'd die if not heaven or hell, and so on. I even had a classmate in the first grade tell the teacher on me because I didn't believe in God, as though he honestly expected me to be punished for my transgressions. Apparently that'll happen when I die, though, but I digress.

Unfortunately in the case of religion, it's the most vocal members of any group that define it. The religious folks who mind their own business and are respectful of other faiths (or lack thereof) are in the same boat as the atheists or agnostics who have no interest in criticising religion.

I consider myself an atheist because I'm fairly certain there is no higher power. It just doesn't make much sense to me, and I'm not going to be wishy-washy about it. But do I find myself needing to identify with other atheists, or criticize religious folks? Not even remotely. I cringe anytime someone considers atheism a religion, not because they're wrong but because many atheists do indeed treat it as such, even if they'd never admit to it. Seems ridiculous to me to identify with someone who shares your lack of belief in something.

[AssButt.]

On a whole, fanatical atheists are much less dangerous than fanatical religious people. Richard Dawkins is about the most fanatical you can get, and he's a British scientist who wrote a few books. Compared to, say, all the Christians who lobby to take away rights for homosexuals, all the Muslims who are into suicide bombing, the Crusades, etc. I don't recall any fanatical atheists who actively deny human rights to certain members of the community based solely on their lack of belief in God.

[Campion]

On a whole, fanatical atheists are much less dangerous than fanatical religious people. Richard Dawkins is about the most fanatical you can get, and he's a British scientist who wrote a few books.

So books aren't dangerous then? I only ask because some on the side of atheism might look at the Bible or the Q'uran and disagree with this sentiment. Hell, even if we excepted these two books as being anomalies some could argue that Karl Marx and his communist manifesto have a thing or two to answer for.

I don't recall any fanatical atheists who actively deny human rights to certain members of the community based solely on their lack of belief in God.

The only way for someone to actively deny human rights in a modern society as far as I am aware is to get such requirements passed into law, making the controlling and dominant structure the legal system and not religion.


Campion.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Are you an agnostic or what, plf? I just want to know how you can be that much of a prick and still claim that atheists are the pricks on this issue. Seriously, I just pointed out that you probably know the a means not and theist means religious in ancient language x (greek or latin) thing. Now you are stating that I/atheists have a belief that is like mine/their shit is beautiful...
Oh dear.

Here you go asking me if I understand what atheism/theism actually mean, and I assumed you actually understood!

Theism is the belief in a God.
Atheism is the belief in no God.

Religious comes from 'religio' or 'reverence (for the gods)' which, well, is quite different.

Believing in the existence of the divine, and having reverence for them are two VERY different things. On the other hand, believing in the non-existence of the divine, and despising the concept of the divine are two VERY different things.

People like you who sit around and talk about the 'evils' of religion generally believe the two are interchangeable. They are most certainly not.

Let's say, for instance, I am an areligious theist. I believe that something metaphysical is responsible for the physical universe as we know it. I do not worship or revere said metaphysical concept/entity, nor do I believe that it's conscious or will respond to us humans. This is in no way a contradiction, and doesn't fit into your shitty little duality.

Furthermore, you will NEVER be able to prove me wrong. The best you can do is to argue that I don't actually believe in a God because what I just described is far too distant from the Christian/Muslim/Jewish conception of a God.

As you can see, the two are NOT interchangeable, and arguing that 'theist' means 'religious' is to have a grave misunderstanding about what the fvck religion is, and what the divine is.

It's like saying that Socialists are all Nazis, because the Nazis were socialists. It's ignoring the fact that the two are related, but not interchangable in the slightest.

As far as what my religious/theistic beliefs are, since you asked, I'm areligious but not an atheist.

On a whole, fanatical atheists are much less dangerous than fanatical religious people. Richard Dawkins is about the most fanatical you can get, and he's a British scientist who wrote a few books. Compared to, say, all the Christians who lobby to take away rights for homosexuals, all the Muslims who are into suicide bombing, the Crusades, etc. I don't recall any fanatical atheists who actively deny human rights to certain members of the community based solely on their lack of belief in God.
You're right. Stalin was just a great bundle of joy. Mao was all giggles. Splendid!

"All the Muslims that are in to suicide bombing"? Are you fucking nuts? There are a billion-plus Muslims in the world. There are just as many Christian terrorists (Ireland anyone? Basque separatists?) as there are Muslim ones.

Stop being an ignorant shithead. If you're going to hold an opinion, at least make it an intelligent one.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

"Live and let live" doesn't work with most religions' ideologies, though. I believe Dawkins when he proposes that if you treated religion with the skepticism and inquiry demanded by science, it would fall apart.

However, I think he falls prey to a kind of thinking that goes something like, if only everyone were like me, then we could have peace/solve our problems/be happy. You know, it's not a stretch to say that fundie christians and terrorists (and John Lennon, what did you think that song "Imagine" was about?) all think that, in one way or another.

[Campion]

"Live and let live" doesn't work with most religions' ideologies, though. I believe Dawkins when he proposes that if you treated religion with the skepticism and inquiry demanded by science, it would fall apart.

If you treat Dawkins with the skeptisism and inquiry demanded by science his arguments fall apart as well. Dawkins uses poor rhetoric like an addict uses cocaine.



Campion.

[Karthak]

There is something (well, many things actually) that I find amusing about the US. They say that their country is the freest in the world, etc etc, with freedom of religion and freedom to not believe in a higher being inscribed into the constitution and everything...and yet, if you're an atheist, there is no way in hell you will get elected to a public office in America. Hell of a paradox, if you ask me.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

There is something (well, many things actually) that I find amusing about the US. They say that their country is the freest in the world, etc etc, with freedom of religion and freedom to not believe in a higher being inscribed into the constitution and everything...and yet, if you're an atheist, there is no way in hell you will get elected to a public office in America. Hell of a paradox, if you ask me.


Not really. Freedom of religion means that if I applied for a job, the guy hiring me couldn't discriminate againts me if I was some religion he didn't like.

But politics and elections are completely different. It's not just the U.S. - people all over the world mostly vote with their hearts and gut instincts. If the majority of the U.S. is Christian and considers Christianity to be a major part of their lives, then they will vote for whoever is the most Christian. It would be discriminatory if they told someone who was Jewish or Muslim that he or she couldn't run at all.

[Jetsetlemming]

And there is an atheist US Representative, and plenty who are not openly, outright religious and don't bring up the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark

[bubbles]

Wow, one 'out of the closet' atheist out of the entire bunch is entirely proportional to the population.
And the quasi-religion listed in his wiki is just a church structure with the same lip-service as any other.
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g186/hellib/galvotefor.gif

When you have a fucked up 2 party state, and the candidates need support from backers, and the backers will only support someone they think has a chance of winning (and getting kickbacks from), then maybe only ones who conform to certain public images -(God bless america!!!) will get in.

bah, library closing. Will edit this later.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

Wow, one 'out of the closet' atheist out of the entire bunch is entirely proportional to the population.
And the quasi-religion listed in his wiki is just a church structure with the same lip-service as any other.
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g186/hellib/galvotefor.gif

When you have a fucked up 2 party state, and the candidates need support from backers, and the backers will only support someone they think has a chance of winning (and getting kickbacks from), then maybe only ones who conform to certain public images -(God bless america!!!) will get in.

bah, library closing. Will edit this later.


I'm not saying our government is perfect - I'm just saying that there is a big difference between not being allowed to do run versus being unlikely to win.

[Angelyne]

Atheists will never get elected to prominent positions simply because despite a few loud individuals (e.g. Dawkins), they have zero organization. The religious fundies are successful at swaying politics not because of their numbers, but because they have the organization to rally support--both financially and at the polls--for certain candidates. You'd think that for being such "enlightened" vocal bastards, the atheists would at least make some serious attempt at organizing for precisely this reason.

Because think about it from a politician's perspective: why bother wooing a few isolated atheists when you have entire religious groups as a captive audience? To launch a political campaign is expensive, and you're going to get nowhere in your career you only have a handful of atheist donors to draw upon for support. This is exactly why Pete Stark continues to claim membership at a Unitarian church despite being an atheist.

[Ichisan]

Atheists will never get elected to prominent positions simply because despite a few loud individuals (e.g. Dawkins), they have zero organization.

Well obviously, because atheism isn't an organisation, a movement, religion, ideology or any other body. It's simply a statement of non-belief and the reasons for that non-belief are very diverse.

I guess the above should be and probably is obvious but it sometimes seems as if certain Christians regard atheists as a cohesive group of anti-Christian people. Dawkins isn't helping remove that image I guess. :)