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

[S.A.M.]

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:

No its not what "I" think; its what is proved by objective analysis of data.

Take any data on unrestrained violence or deliberate violence, especially the kind that directly involves profit in terms of power or monetary gain. You'll find that those individuals who are willing to engage in such behaviour are more likely to be secular in outlook, more educated and have a philosophy without any moral absolutes; as such they feel no compulsion to follow any rules whatsoever, and are willing to sacrifice others (or in extreme cases, even themselves) for what they perceive as the common good.


Hence their selection of such options is based on cold clear logical thinking; they deny the human factor, which is why most of them are uncomprehending of why they fail to achieve their goals. What they fail to account for, is that other people are illogical and will behave in ways not predicted by rational thought.

 

[Xev]

No its not what "I" think; its what is proved by objective analysis of data.

Take any data on unrestrained violence or deliberate violence, especially the kind that directly involves profit in terms of power or monetary gain. You'll find that those individuals who are willing to engage in such behaviour are more likely to be secular in outlook, more educated and have a philosophy without any moral absolutes; as such they feel no compulsion to follow any rules whatsoever, and are willing to sacrifice others (or in extreme cases, even themselves) for what they perceive as the common good.

Because your assertion constitutes evidence.
According to a study by Boston University medical school, 95% of the American population thinks that Xev would make a great Supreme Overlord of the US, that she owns everyone at Tekken4 and that 20 percent of every paycheck should be donated to the "get Xev massively high" fund.
Cite your studies, and please, no crazy Christian propaganda this time.

 

[GeoffP]

Keep dreaming.

I would be such a good supervillain. In the summer we would make meat hats.

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.

Maybe one could say it was objective from a mutual altruism perspective.

Giant lazer? Is that Chinese for giant razor?

You insult the trading partners of the Great Reader? Blasphemy!

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.

Objectively correct for our species. We tend to object when people grind up children, if only for the notion that someone else might want to do that to ours. As for weak children, I suppose the "Spartan argument" could be made objectively; still, there is surplus in our societies and it is hard to be certain what a given individual is made of until their time comes round (in example I offer Claudius, a club footed stutterer). Also, quantifying value for suboptimals might lead to a qualified valuing of all individuals (rather than actions) which could be a slippery slope indeed.

 

[S.A.M.]

Some evidence for consideration and how it is generally ignored in the media:

1. Washington's conspiracy theory rejected

2. Common Myths about al-Qaida Terrorism

3. The educated terrorist

4.Murderous trail of the one-time playboy who turned to terror

5. TraCCC speaker debunks terrorist stereotypes

6. Education and Terrorism

7. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

8. Poverty and Terrorism: Revisionist Perspectives

9. Speaker says terrorists are normal people

10. What makes bombers tick?

 

[S.A.M.]

Objectively correct for our species. We tend to object when people grind up children, if only for the notion that someone else might want to do that to ours. As for weak children, I suppose the "Spartan argument" could be made objectively; still, there is surplus in our societies and it is hard to be certain what a given individual is made of until their time comes round (in example I offer Claudius, a club footed stutterer). Also, quantifying value for suboptimals might lead to a qualified valuing of all individuals (rather than actions) which could be a slippery slope indeed.

And this theory is based on...

 

[Xev]

I would be such a good supervillain. In the summer we would make meat hats.

99 percent of the world's population says that my Holland superpower would defeat you.

Maybe one could say it was objective from a mutual altruism perspective.

It all boils down to your prime assumptions.

Objectively correct for our species. We tend to object when people grind up children, if only for the notion that someone else might want to do that to ours.

The "golden rule." Tends to work well in various computer simulations, is very widespread among diverse societies and ages.

 

[Xev]

Some evidence for consideration and how it is generally ignored in the media:

1. Washington's conspiracy theory rejected

2. Common Myths about al-Qaida Terrorism

3. The educated terrorist

4.Murderous trail of the one-time playboy who turned to terror

5. TraCCC speaker debunks terrorist stereotypes

6. Education and Terrorism

7. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

8. Poverty and Terrorism: Revisionist Perspectives

9. Speaker says terrorists are normal people

10. What makes bombers tick?

I told you that I agreed - why are you belaboring the point instead of validating your more difficult assertion that athiests/secular people are more likely to commit crimes?

 

[S.A.M.]

I told you that I agreed - why are you belaboring the point instead of validating your more difficult assertion that athiests/secular people are more likely to commit crimes?

Hey, you wanted the studies, right? Here they are. Its the people who are educated, secular and want a better life for themselves (in the here and now, rather than some nebulous afterlife, who are the terrorists of today)

I am basing my conclusions on the evidence that in all the terrorists studied, the driving force is to improve their present conditions; which infers that they are more likely to be less religious.

 

[Xev]

Hey, you wanted the studies, right? Here they are.

I asked for studies proving your assertion that athiests/agnostics are more likely to commit crimes of "unrestrained violence." I stipulated wayyyy back that suicide bombers may be more secular in outlook than people who aren't.

I asked for an apple and you've given me a hamburger.

 

[S.A.M.]

I asked for studies proving your assertion that athiests/agnostics are more likely to commit crimes of "unrestrained violence." I stipulated wayyyy back that suicide bombers may be more secular in outlook than people who aren't.

I asked for an apple and you've given me a hamburger.

Then you answered your own question.

 

[Xev]

Then you answered your own question.

So now suicide bombing is a crime? You no longer support the jihad? The U.S should be in Iraq? Isreal is a legal state?
That disappoints me. I thought you were the special jihad girl.

 

[iceaura]

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)

Dawkins is not arguing that the seekers of power are motivated by religion. He is arguing that theistic religion loans them justification for violence, and thereby aids and abets their recourse to violence. He asserts that theistic belief commonly, in practice, justifies and predisposes to violence, because it creates allegiance to arbitrary authority and is not answerable to reason. That is why the alleged "basic tenets of any religion" don't matter here - consistency with them (consistency in general) would require the elevation of reason above faithful obedience (aka "submission").

Most violence is not terrorism as commonly labeled. The oppression of women would come under the heading of "violence", in Dawkins's argument.

2. Meme : complete nonsense, assigning a philosophical construct with biological attributes; makes a mockery of empiricism and confuses people

Just as sensible as similar vaguely defined words - heuristics and metaphors such as "cause", "force", "chance" - and nothing to do with empiricism. People do get confused, but that's OK - the continual confusion around the word "cause" exhibited by many theists when discussing Darwinian theory does not make the word complete nonsense, or useless.
I don't see how any confusion allegedly exhibited by francois stems from the word "meme", btw.

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

A mistake of Dawkins's actual argument. He is arguing that God is not a scientifically valid construct, against people who are arguing that It is. That's different. Unless you are arguing that God is a scientifically valid construct ? Scientific credentials are not involved, just argument.

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?)

Applying a particular approach of reason to some existing establishments of theistic belief, is what he is doing, with the evidence and tools he has at hand from his intellectual background. Something wrong with that?

 

[S.A.M.]

So now suicide bombing is a crime? You no longer support the jihad? The U.S should be in Iraq? Isreal is a legal state?
That disappoints me. I thought you were the special jihad girl.

I think anyone who thinks blowing themselves up can resolve anything should at least have the courtesy to do it in private.

 

[S.A.M.]

Dawkins is not arguing that the seekers of power are motivated by religion. He is arguing that theistic religion loans them justification for violence, and thereby aids and abets their recourse to violence. He asserts that theistic belief commonly, in practice, justifies violence, because it creates allegiance to arbitrary authority and is not answerable to reason. That is why the alleged "basic tenets of any religion" don't matter here - consistency with them (consistency in general) would require the elevation of reason above faithful obedience (aka "submission").

Blah blah blah

ie not supported by evidence, merely fantasy.

The rest has already been argued ad nauseum; I don't see how repeating myself can make it clearer.

 

[iceaura]

The rest has already been argued ad nauseum; I don't see how repeating myself can make it clearer.

Arguing these matters would not be repeating yourself.

 

[S.A.M.]

Arguing these matters would not be repeating yourself.

It would if the basic premise is seen differently; in my experience Dawkinists tend to confuse memes and genes as reflective of each other. Perhaps this is due to the misuse of memetics as an allegory for gene function and selection, but it is still a disservice to the field.

Apart from that, I have long realised that he has contributed heavily to the conspiracy theories that revolve around Muslims; as a Muslim who is constantly on the receiving end of such nonsense, I find his work not only abusive to people like myself but also conducive to making these stereotypes more widespread and embedded in society. In fact, he does to me what he claims theists do to science; create false truths by promoting his idea of "evidence", one that ignores all empirical evidence to date.

 

[Xev]

Then you answered your own question.

Okay, but here's what you said:

Take any data on unrestrained violence or deliberate violence, especially the kind that directly involves profit in terms of power or monetary gain. You'll find that those individuals who are willing to engage in such behaviour are more likely to be secular in outlook, more educated and have a philosophy without any moral absolutes; as such they feel no compulsion to follow any rules whatsoever, and are willing to sacrifice others (or in extreme cases, even themselves) for what they perceive as the common good.

I asked for you to verify this, you gave me data on suicide bombers.
Now how does a suicide bomber profit in terms of power or monetary gain?!

 

[S.A.M.]

Okay, but here's what you said:

I asked for you to verify this, you gave me data on suicide bombers.
Now how does a suicide bomber profit in terms of power or monetary gain?!

Terrorism is about power; where its not suicide terrorism, it is to a great extent about money (civil conflicts are great for unbalanced power equations). (its not only about suicide bombers, btw, just what I got in a quick search, there is lots more info on terrorism alone)

Besides for the frustrated educated secular man with no presumed options, martyrdom is a blast; he gets more attention than he could have ever dreamed of.:shrug:

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Open letter to sanity

Dear sanity,

I just read the first chapter of God Delusion because it is for free.

http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion

Oh, what a nasty piece of work. Remind me never to bother reading the entire book. If I want to have a bitter read I will just read some posts on a 'science' [sic] forum. Fits right up the brown alley of this forum I would say: pretentious bollocks.

I thank the non-existing lord that I didn't waste my money on that book.

yours truly,

spuriousmonkey

 

[S.A.M.]

Actually the second half of the book is better than the first half