Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?
- Thread starter francois
- Start date
In other words he's not wrong, just rude. Rude isn't wrong. If you lot think he's wrong, show how.
If he's not wrong, show how.
e.g. 1. "Religious faith discourages independent thought" Prove this.
2. "Morality stems from the selection of altruistic genes through human evolution." Prove this.
In fact, just show me an altruistic gene.
3. " I am a scientist and I believe there is a profound contradiction between science and religious belief" Duh? what about atheism and science?
4. "Creationists argument boils down to complexity of universe; biologically this requires an even more complex creator"..."Darwinian evolution is so elegant because it explains complexity through step by step simplicity...blah blah" Anyone see a contradiction here?
Last edited:
If he's not wrong, show how.
Kadark. Sandy. IAC. The establishment of a deity-inspired set of rules and regulations by definition curbs independence.
Kin selection indicates a preference for 'altrustic' donation of fitness to kin. So altruism among related individuals probably isn't altruistic. Yet, this is where indeed I differ from Dawkins a little. Some of human behaviour specifically is not altruistic - human aid work in Iraq strikes me as a little atruistic, but also stupid. The risk of death increases; yet there's a group protection applied to the system that allows - through taxation and redistribution - people to take stupid risks unnecessarily, making the human system a bit unfair since it's bounded by a deceptive anti-selective insurance. It would be more reasonable for you to show me a truly altruistic gene, since Dawkins' position is that atruism just forms a narrow look at a ESS.
Scientific assay requires no theistic (non-natural) input. Ergo, science cannot be contradictory with atheism, by definition.
Mao, Stalin, Hitler, the Kung-Pao chicken in North Korea. Ooh all atheists are sadistic mass murderers who like to dress in military outfits.
Look again buster, apply the scientific method. Falsifiability anyone?
I still don't see the evidence that Dawkins is not wrong. Show me the money
It does require falsifiability (unless the atheists have redefined science); by definition, an atheist who ignores empriricism is as ill equipped to deal with science as an theist who does the same.
Where is number 4?
How in hell could it mean that? I specifically stated that spirituality is considered recognition of the real.SAM said:
Not proof, evidence, is what you can get for that. For example: the treatment of "heretics" by Christian and Muslim and Mormon ecclesiastical authority whenever - absolutely whenever - that ecclesiastical authority has had the secular power to treat "heretics" as it chooses.SAM said:
In the first place, that's an odd quote that phrases very poorly the evolutionary theory involved (altruism does not encomnpass all of morality, certainly, nor are culture-specific human behaviors inherited). Context? Otherwise: Again, not proof but evidence. We have altruism in many beings, not just humans, and in all the simpler ones where culture and genetics can be separated it is carried genetically.SAM said:
What about it?SAM said:
Apparenlty you do, which means you have misunderstood the whole argument. It's the single step feature of the creation that requires the complexity.SAM said:
I watched the videos. Pretty thin for content - as are most videos. I wasn't prepared, by the advance descriptions or the reviews in general, for the generally calm tone, or the approach of "hung by their own rope" - it's the first time I'd seen Dawkins talk, and aside from the occasional backlit hero pose he seemed like a reasonable guy who could use a sense of humor.
He concentrated on the Abrahamic religions, which may explain the continuing muddle of "theisim" and "religion" if all his critics are letting him define the issues for them. His comparison of Haggard's church to the Nuremburg rallies was apt, actually, as well as provoking - and listening to Haggard I suddenly realized where the odd and continual "attack the atheist as arrogant" response has its origin.
You said:
iceaura said:
I took that to assume that spirituality is flawed in its recognition of the real (real what, btw?)
Its not whenever, wherever. e.g. Islamic authorities have always allowed for disparate opinions, which is why so many contradictory or at least dissenting opinions on Islam are taught by all Islamic scholars, why there is Fiqh that questions the legal and moral interpretations of the Quran. In Muslims at least, it has ALWAYS been politicians who have abused their authority, not the recognised religious establishments.
Its a quote from one of his interviews, presumably explaining the positive morality shown by theists on occasion.
Richard Dawkins said:
e.g. he also says:
RD said:
Has it been shown to be an intelligent choice among primates, rather than instinct?
Who said it is a single step feature? Most religions I know, including Islam, consider creation an ongoing process, one that has no beginning or end.
Pretty much...
Was it unsubstantiated do you think? "You are stupid" is hardly a step in the right direction.
Last edited:
The mistake is to see religion and reason as polar opposites. They are not. In fact, reason is intrinsic to the religious tradition.
The Bible provides a picture of a rational Creator and an orderly universe — which, accordingly, provided the template for the exercise of reason and the development of science. intrinsic to tradition is the belief in the concept of truth, which gives rise to reason. But our postreligious age has proclaimed that there is no such thing as objective truth, only what is ‘true for me’.
Its a captialist concept...give me more to choose from and I will therefore be happier.
Give me a facelift and I will become younger and live longer.
When he was talking about the 'Selfish Gene' he was holding a mirror up to the tawdry, self seeking nature of modern life.
The Bible provides a picture of a rational Creator and an orderly universe — which, accordingly, provided the template for the exercise of reason and the development of science. intrinsic to tradition is the belief in the concept of truth, which gives rise to reason. But our postreligious age has proclaimed that there is no such thing as objective truth, only what is ‘true for me’.
Its a captialist concept...give me more to choose from and I will therefore be happier.
Give me a facelift and I will become younger and live longer.
When he was talking about the 'Selfish Gene' he was holding a mirror up to the tawdry, self seeking nature of modern life.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Maybe, but reasoning can be flawed.
Can you prove that ?
How does that follow ?
Sounds like you are denying evolution ?You misunderstand the difference between reason and wisdom. Reason has always been the servant to Wisdom and to be Wise you have by definition to be less egotistical and self absorbed.
I realise that this may be difficult for people nowadays, you Geoff are struggling but fortunately nowhere near to the extent to in which Stryder is...here is a man who is fast disappearing up his own fundament.
Seriously..humility is a sign of wisdom. Pure pseudo intellectualism and reason for its own sake are as nothing because they emanate from pure unadulterated individualistic egotism. If you don't know the difference then I despair for the lot of you.
I'm an old hand when it comes to forums and SAM is head and shoulders above the lot of you..one look at Stryders silly avatar is enough to turn the stomach...yo man, me is cool and makes like a robot..lol buzz off man! I could eat you for breakfast..ask for my website and I'll give you an audience.
In complete comparison..she is humble but unruffled...the rest of you sound like a pitiful rabble in comparison.
Maybe, but reasoning can be flawed.
Can you prove that ?
How does that follow ?
In your case..yes.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yes what ?
For an excellent review on the role of knowledge in Islam
http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Tri...4371347?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187028241&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Tri...4371347?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187028241&sr=8-1
Then, in the very same post no less, you go on to say:
Doesn't seem very humble to me. By your own rationale, that is one sign of wisdom you apparently lack.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
:bravo:
Yes I did win and anyone on any forum I've been on knows full well that I ALWAYS win.
<< you quote some random thing >>
Er..well don't whine to me, go whine to Space.com and NASA.
Assertion is not proof. And I quoted nothing. And you fail.
Of course it is. So are we all, human.SAM said:
In their place, with certain restrictions.SAM said:
That's how the Catholics ran the Spanish Inquisition, too - it was always the politicians who carried out the dirty work. The religious establishment kept its hands clean. The Pope never burned a single witch.SAM said:
What difference would that make?SAM said:
And no complex steps? That's not what the Islamic fundies who criticize Darwinian evolution say, in their criticism.SAM said:
It was not substantiated by anything I saw in the Dawkins-edited video of the encounter. And it was a joke, coming from Haggard - or any other megachurch fundie.SAM said:
Unfortunately, not this universe, but some other. Can we safely assume, then, that the Creator is the same for our universe as well as the Bible's ?billy said:
Except until the religious establishment held sway, they did not allow the politicians to abuse their power (like the Ayatollah declaring fatwa against nuclear weapons in Iran, though how much influence he has is debatable)
Are you saying the ability to distinguish right and wrong is not a choice?
There are idiots everywhere
As a general comment it was true, but that is beside the point.
To use your own argument: are all these atheists running around killing everyone? Athiests don't all have the same coda and especially not that about killing people or being mean to religious types; yet religion breeds - inherently - the contempt of other explanatory systems. As an atheist, I can take or leave religion as I choose without any need to convert anyone or oppress anyone for not converting.
No - you show me by detecting an altruistic gene that isn't related to kin-preference or selection. Show me the magic.
And so far, there is no demonstrated requirement for a god to be either responsible for cosmological or evolutionary phenomena; your appeal to falsifiability is a subtle plea to unknowningness - that we cannot demonstrate "no-God", so that there must be one, who does and makes all things. This is silly - we can demonstrate no necessity for a god, and Ockham's Razor then dictates we take the simplest explanation. We might as easily posulate that leprechauns or unicorns exist, because we have no evidence to the contrary; but rather, it is the lack of evidence for their existence that makes us reject the concept.
No. It's a progression from citing magic to citing stepwise process. A car on the outside might look miraculous to a man who believes in giant bloodthirsty badgers; yet it functions via a subtle series of physical and chemical reactions.
I do not think that this really qualifies as a meme, does it? A meme implies a more widespread distribution of the idea.
SAM:
Does it matter? The point was (as I understand it) to demonstrate that morality is not dependent on religion. Even various models in game theory will demonstrate the value of acting according to the "golden rule."
GeoffP:
The establishment of any set of rules and regulations curbs independence. Logic curbs independence. The scientific method curbs independence. The rules of perspective curb independence.
A truely creative mind can work around or within constraints; science, math and art would be fairly impossible without them.
The problem with religious constraints is not that they exist, but that they cannot be questioned or challenged the way that the rules of science and art can be. Boylei, for instance, questioned the assumption of classical geometry that parallel lines never meet. Doing so, he "discovered" non-Euclidean geometry.
Religions generally forbid such inquiries into the reasons for their rules. Therein lies the difference.
However, S.A.M points out:
The last sentence seems to be a bit of a special plead - it's not us, it's the politicians who are using our faith for political gain. This doesn't addresss the issue of why religion has been so vulnerable to such abuse, but it's certainly interesting.