Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?

[Atom]

It's a codification of a kind of behaviour, which may be objectively moral or immoral.

The point is that its quite obviously different to mere superstition.

The Church was the focal point of the Community and it lay down a clear set of foundations. By going off on tangents into homosexuality and alike is to miss the point. There isnt any point in getting involved in a moral quagmire or you may as well ask why people generally get married in Church, whether we need marriage anyway...I'd suggest that once you become secular the codes break down and the structure of society breaks down alongside it.

You may as well say..why bother bringing up children within a marriage..why not make it suggest that a single parent is just as good. And thats what people..esp. secular people believe..but the results are disastrous.

Now to suggest that religion means anti-gay is another sleight of hand..it presupposes that all people who arent Atheist exist purely by cherry picking passages out of the Bible and adhering to them. That isn't so..religion has existed in the Western World without the stoning to death of homosexuals etc..the truth is that its only on here that people are rabidly atheistic..the vast majority have some belief in moral codes and live by them with the tacit knowledge that they are related to some sort of Spirituality.

 

[Atom]

So you see religion as a codification of moral behaviour?

Yes..which should evolve with the times.

I think a lot of the rituals - whilst harmless on the whole - are merely symbolic but they add something of value to life. The ceremonial, the rituals are primarily a binding of the Family..and this broadens out into a feeling of community. Hence the Golden Rule..which is not to think only of yourself and your 'selfish genes'.

;-)

 

[francois]

Hence the Golden Rule..which is not to think only of yourself and your 'selfish genes'.

I'm just guessing... you haven't read the book, have you. (The Selfish Gene)

 

[Atom]

True!

Is it essential reading matter.

I never read 'A Brief History of Time' either..mainly because its of no consequence.

 

[S.A.M.]

True!

Is it essential reading matter.

I never read 'A Brief History of Time' either..mainly because its of no consequence.

You should read both, because they are very good books and especially if you intend to refute the authors assumptions

 

[Oli]

I never read 'A Brief History of Time' either..mainly because its of no consequence.

If you haven't read it how do you know it's of no consequence?

 

[GeoffP]

The point is that its quite obviously different to mere superstition.

How? In what practical or functional way?

The Church was the focal point of the Community and it lay down a clear set of foundations. By going off on tangents into homosexuality and alike is to miss the point. There isnt any point in getting involved in a moral quagmire or you may as well ask why people generally get married in Church, whether we need marriage anyway...I'd suggest that once you become secular the codes break down and the structure of society breaks down alongside it.

A few homosexual marriages, by their "missing the point" (and whose point?), are going to break down society?

You may as well say..why bother bringing up children within a marriage..why not make it suggest that a single parent is just as good. And thats what people..esp. secular people believe..but the results are disastrous.

This I can agree with, because there are statistics to support it. But do single parents choose to be single at some significant frequency, or do they become single parents through no fault of their own?

Now to suggest that religion means anti-gay is another sleight of hand..it presupposes that all people who arent Atheist exist purely by cherry picking passages out of the Bible and adhering to them. That isn't so..religion has existed in the Western World without the stoning to death of homosexuals etc..the truth is that its only on here that people are rabidly atheistic..the vast majority have some belief in moral codes and live by them with the tacit knowledge that they are related to some sort of Spirituality.

Then why be concerned if a few homosexuals are "missing the point"?

 

[francois]

I only mentioned that because from the way you were talking about 'selfish genes' it appeared you didn't understand what is meant by selfish genes. I'd recommend you read the book.

First, you should know that there's a difference between genes and people. Genes act selfishly. People, rather, act selfishly and altruistically. Ants, termites and bees act very altruistically (in terms of bodies). Their genes drive them to behave that way, as is true for humans and all other organisms on this planet.

The selfish gene view was put forward as an explanation from Dawkins for why organisms behave the way they do, that is to say, why they behave selfishly and altruistically. It is not saying "Nature is selfish and so that's how you should be." That's not only not the message, but it's an incorrect statement. Nature isn't inherently selfish--only the fundamental units of nature--genes--are selfish. It is not dictating morality. That's not what science does. It just tries to explain things. That's it.

Similarly, the theory of evolution seeks to explain why the world is the way it is and by what processes it came to be. The survival of the fittest/strongest. It's not saying "This is how nature is, and so we should exterminate the weak." It is not dictating morality. It's just explaining biology.

You're not alone here and many people get confused by this. They're often afraid of science and what it might discover. For example, some people are afraid of the consequences of learning about racial differences. People are actually afraid of the fact that human groups differ from one another. Some deny that the differences even exist--absurd. And suppose that scientific analyses reveal that, say, that one group of humans in fact has a much smaller brain than others, as well as lower IQ, everyone is quick to throw the words racism everywhere their whim says it is okay.

I think the reason these people are so sensitive to these things is because they think it's going to or ought to change how we treat people who actually differ. Which is bunk. Everybody is different from one another, we all have different intellectual abilities, skills, weaknesses and strengths. That doesn't change our notions of equality and fairness.

What science discovers and how we ought to behave are two entirely different things.

 

[S.A.M.]

First, you should know that there's a difference between genes and people. Genes act selfishly.

Umm, ooookaaaaay *backs away slowly*

 

[GeoffP]

I agree with francois on this point. It's an explanatory system, not a recommend lifestyle.

 

[iceaura]

Give up on starting to criticise Dawkins assertions? Give me a break.

That is quite similar to your alleged criticisms of Dawkins - all attitude, no content.

None of the theists here have bothered to deal with what Dawkins is actually saying. Which is maybe OK, if the thread topic - whether somebody (presumably an atheist) likes "how" Dawkins "represents atheism" - were being adhered to closely.

But that disappeared early, under the unanswered (so far) observation that Dawkins does not "represent atheism" in any broad manner.

The question should be directed more at theists, where we find that they do not understand atheistic thought and are not paying close attention to the content of Dawkins's attacks on theistic religion. They appear to be dealing from a particular tradition of theistic representation of "atheism" or "secular thought", that does better at illustrating Dawkins's assertions about theistic influence on thought and behavior than it does at criticising or responding to them.

We have, for example, the assertion that human morality depends on belief in a god.

So: do the theists here like how Dawkins "represents atheism" ?

 

[Xev]

That which harms others; or harms them at a rate greater than that at which net gain is provided to society.

I don't think you can describe that as objectively moral or immoral: all morality is ultimately axiomatic, and all one needs to do is to refuse the assumption that "harming others" is bad.

 

[Xev]

Which means nothing, if you look at George Bush, how people project themselves is related to how they view themselves, rather than how they think they are viewed by others.

Give up on starting to criticise Dawkins assertions? Give me a break.

How about you start doing so, rather than running about calling him names?

 

[GeoffP]

I don't think you can describe that as objectively moral or immoral: all morality is ultimately axiomatic, and all one needs to do is to refuse the assumption that "harming others" is bad.

In which case I flip the switch and activate the giant "la-zer" aimed at the earth which I've mounted on the moon just for such an ethical emergency and promptly ransom you all for one miiiiillion dollars.

I think in the context of survival and well-being, harm is ultimately quantifiable on numerous axes, but that doesn't mean they don't have some sum of coefficients or even multiplicative value. For example: death is multiplicative - a 0 vs. 1 coefficient of "goodness". Stealing someone's ice cream isn't binary in that way, but more quantitative.

 

[S.A.M.]

How about you start doing so, rather than running about calling him names?

[drama queen on]

Ok lets list the complaints I have about his assertions (in no particular order of importance)

1. Religion and violence : polemic. Why? Ignores all evidence that terrorism is dominated by the secular and educated; that war and violence is about power and requires ignoring the basic tenets of any religion, that atheist leaders have been equally if not more violent than theist ones (ie, the underlying thread is power rather than religion)

2. Meme : complete nonsense, assigning a philosophical construct with biological attributes; makes a mockery of empiricism and confuses people who start assigning the biological constructs with philosophical attributes (ie look at francois telling us about genes that act selfish)

3. God as a scientifically invalid construct; duh, yeah, anyone want to test faith empirically? You can test the claims made by theists if they are empirically testable but use absence of evidence on an unfalsifiable construct (which is scientifically invalid) is a misuse of scientific credentials

4. All of the above used as a platform for "an oasis of clear thinking" (ie platform of atheist evangelism- ie wtf are you doing mixing science with religion?)

Gah!

[/drama queen off]

 

[Xev]

In which case I flip the switch and activate the giant "la-zer" aimed at the earth which I've mounted on the moon just for such an ethical emergency and promptly ransom you all for one miiiiillion dollars.

Keep dreaming.

I think in the context of survival and well-being, harm is ultimately quantifiable on numerous axes, but that doesn't mean they don't have some sum of coefficients or even multiplicative value. For example: death is multiplicative - a 0 vs. 1 coefficient of "goodness". Stealing someone's ice cream isn't binary in that way, but more quantitative.

I agree with you, I've toyed with the idea of a logically consistant ethical system for some time. I simply took objection to the objective of such a system being treated as objectively correct.

 

[S.A.M.]

In which case I flip the switch and activate the giant "la-zer" aimed at the earth which I've mounted on the moon just for such an ethical emergency and promptly ransom you all for one miiiiillion dollars.

Giant lazer? Is that Chinese for giant razor?

I think in the context of survival and well-being, harm is ultimately quantifiable on numerous axes, but that doesn't mean they don't have some sum of coefficients or even multiplicative value. For example: death is multiplicative - a 0 vs. 1 coefficient of "goodness". Stealing someone's ice cream isn't binary in that way, but more quantitative.

Objective morality is like subjective science. Irrationality is the only reason people want to save starving children rather than grind them up as fertilizer. Rats and mice routinely eat their babies if they are born weak; thats rational morality.

 

[Xev]

Ok lets list the complaints I have about his assertions (in no particular order of importance)

Progress.

1. Religion and violence : polemic. Why? Ignores all evidence that terrorism is dominated by the secular and educated; that war and violence is about power, that atheist leaders have been equally if not more violent than theist ones (ie, the underlying thread is power rather than religion)

The last has been refuted multiple times: asserting it again won't make it correct.
Dawkins' argument is not that religion causes violence, it's that religion allows violence: the supernatural justification for harming others is there, the supernatural justification for death is there.
He's asking how we'd live if we didn't believe in an afterlife. Would we be as willing to kill?
I think it's a valid argument.

2. Meme : complete nonsense,

Why?

assigning a philosophical construct with biological attributes;

Then you've misread him.

makes a mockery of empiricism and confuses people who start assigning the biological constructs with philosophical attributes (ie look at francois telling us about genes that act selfish)p

So he's wrong because he anthropomorphisizes?

3. God as a scientifically invalid construct; duh, yeah, anyone want to test faith empirically?

Agreed. Different domains. God is not within the domain of logic, empiricism, science or even sense.

4. All of the above used as a platform for "an oasis of clear thinking" (ie platform of atheist evangelism- ie wtf are you doing mixing science with religion?)

I agree to a point - Dawkins argues for rationality, but rationality alone will solve nothing.

 

[S.A.M.]

Progress.



The last has been refuted multiple times: asserting it again won't make it correct.
Dawkins' argument is not that religion causes violence, it's that religion allows violence: the supernatural justification for harming others is there, the supernatural justification for death is there.
He's asking how we'd live if we didn't believe in an afterlife. Would we be as willing to kill?
I think it's a valid argument.

Then you are as adept as he is at ignoring the evidence.:shrug:

I think people would be much more willing to be selfish and kill others for profit if there was no accountability, and if they believed that this was all there was. And this is proved by what is actually happening in secular societies today.

 

[Xev]

Then you are as adept as he is at ignoring the evidence.:shrug:

I think people would be much more willing to be selfish and kill others for profit if there was no accountability, and if they believed that this was all there was.

Okay, so I'm "ignoring all the evidence" and "all the evidence" is basically "what S.A.M thinks?"

So your opinion now constitutes evidence? Talk about being arrogant. :shrug: