Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

In this section, you can talk relaxedly about everyday matters, and also engage in more serious discussions. Please try to keep this place accessible to everyone and write your posts in English.
Message
Author
User avatar
No‘am
Posts: 614
Joined: 12 Jun 2003 19:47
Location: 42/13, Mt. Scopus/ rivertown, Western Galillee
Contact:

Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#1 Post by No‘am » 09 Oct 2010 15:09

One of the funnier things I saw recently :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m35PbEVI9Lo
Male me marem putatis? Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo

イン ウィーノー ウェーリタース

User avatar
Orodaran
Posts: 5412
Joined: 17 Aug 2002 21:59
Location: Hall of the Mountain King
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#2 Post by Orodaran » 09 Oct 2010 17:44

"I hope you get hit by a church van tonight and you die slowly" :lol:

Not THAT fun, but it indeed made me smile when he took an exagerate breath of air mid-sentence to simulate the evident hate-ridden fast "speech" of the one writing the mail.


Anyway, all of those hate mails are different ways to say "Fuck you for daring to suggest I should think about my faith". I've come to the realization that the weaker is someone's faith, the angrier they get when challenged to question it.

And by weaker I don't mean not really being a believer, but just having grown up with a kind of religion stuck in the head and never, ever giving a second thought about it. Some people react when their faith is challenged the exact same way a kid would react to an older boy that tells him that Santa doesn't exist: "Shut up you're wrong and I know it!".
"There's a time when a man needs to fight and a time when he needs to accept that his destiny's lost, the ship has sailed and that only a fool will continue. The truth is I've always been a fool"
~~~~~~~~~~~~
A slight call afar is tempting me, like a whisper sweet or an awful scream; I cannot ignore what I've always been, I'm leaving again - one last time? in my little kingdom I can be what I really wanted to be... The wanderer

----------------------
BG news (if you're lazy to check the site) :: You're on Facebook? Look at my photos from concerts, travels and more :: Oh, and since you're at it, check my photos also on 500px

User avatar
End Of An Era
Posts: 5872
Joined: 11 Apr 2004 00:56
Location: here, duh!

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#3 Post by End Of An Era » 10 Oct 2010 09:54

i but i DO believe in Santa!! :D In a month or so, he'll be in the mall and he brings me presents on christmas eve and he does that EVERY YEAR!! :D

how's that for credibility over some superdude in/on the skies who promises loads of fun only after you die? :?

User avatar
Orodaran
Posts: 5412
Joined: 17 Aug 2002 21:59
Location: Hall of the Mountain King
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#4 Post by Orodaran » 10 Oct 2010 11:18

Well, actually there's not much of a difference.

Image
"There's a time when a man needs to fight and a time when he needs to accept that his destiny's lost, the ship has sailed and that only a fool will continue. The truth is I've always been a fool"
~~~~~~~~~~~~
A slight call afar is tempting me, like a whisper sweet or an awful scream; I cannot ignore what I've always been, I'm leaving again - one last time? in my little kingdom I can be what I really wanted to be... The wanderer

----------------------
BG news (if you're lazy to check the site) :: You're on Facebook? Look at my photos from concerts, travels and more :: Oh, and since you're at it, check my photos also on 500px

User avatar
End Of An Era
Posts: 5872
Joined: 11 Apr 2004 00:56
Location: here, duh!

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#5 Post by End Of An Era » 10 Oct 2010 11:24

i never seen god, i have seen santa :P

User avatar
Gandalf de Grijze
Posts: 13919
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 18:01
Location: Dutchielandia
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#6 Post by Gandalf de Grijze » 10 Oct 2010 20:40

End Of An Era wrote:i but i DO believe in Santa!! :D In a month or so, he'll be in the mall and he brings me presents on christmas eve and he does that EVERY YEAR!! :D

how's that for credibility over some superdude in/on the skies who promises loads of fun only after you die? :?
actually it is Sinterklaas who comes in about a month or so.. ;):P

SATANKLAAS!!!!!!!
Hansi 24-09-2010 wrote:It's always good to be back in the United States Of The Netherlands
Check out my photography at Steemphoto.com

User avatar
End Of An Era
Posts: 5872
Joined: 11 Apr 2004 00:56
Location: here, duh!

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#7 Post by End Of An Era » 10 Oct 2010 20:45

well, since it's an international forum i decided to stick with the figure most people know :P

User avatar
Gandalf de Grijze
Posts: 13919
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 18:01
Location: Dutchielandia
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#8 Post by Gandalf de Grijze » 10 Oct 2010 20:47

NO

we should promote Satanklaas, he's evil and brings people to hell!! that is awesome!!
Hansi 24-09-2010 wrote:It's always good to be back in the United States Of The Netherlands
Check out my photography at Steemphoto.com

User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#9 Post by Desert_Storm » 11 Oct 2010 21:47

Orodaran wrote:Well, actually there's not much of a difference.
Yeah, there's really no intelligent adult who would ever consider a supernatural being a reasonable option to include in his weltanschauung, not even speaking of "believing" in one, and there certainly never was. Truly, all people in history believing in some kind of god were complete morons.
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

User avatar
Orodaran
Posts: 5412
Joined: 17 Aug 2002 21:59
Location: Hall of the Mountain King
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#10 Post by Orodaran » 11 Oct 2010 21:51

I didn't say that believing in a god is like believing in Santa; I just pointed out that there's not much difference between the two figures :wink:
"There's a time when a man needs to fight and a time when he needs to accept that his destiny's lost, the ship has sailed and that only a fool will continue. The truth is I've always been a fool"
~~~~~~~~~~~~
A slight call afar is tempting me, like a whisper sweet or an awful scream; I cannot ignore what I've always been, I'm leaving again - one last time? in my little kingdom I can be what I really wanted to be... The wanderer

----------------------
BG news (if you're lazy to check the site) :: You're on Facebook? Look at my photos from concerts, travels and more :: Oh, and since you're at it, check my photos also on 500px

User avatar
Joost
Posts: 3799
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 17:54
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#11 Post by Joost » 11 Oct 2010 22:05

Well yeah, the most caricatural conception of God possible indeed has quite a few similarities with Santa.

But to take this comparison seriously is both naïve and quite disrespectful to religious people who, more often than not, have a much less caricatural conception of God than a 'bearded man with a book containing information on who's good and who's bad'.

And this is, ultimately, what bothers me so much about Dawkins. His critique of religion is neither insightful nor enlightening, and ultimately he's (in this sense, that is! I do acknowledge he did some pretty great and innovative work on meme theory and the likes!) just an atheist preaching to the converted.

Not that I want to promote the aforementioned hatemail or bigotry of any kind, but this was more intended as a quick footnote...
You charge each other for the time and breath it takes to say 'good morning',
But the truth is slowly dawning -- things are getting out of hand,
We all pursue our shattered dreams along the roads to our own ruin --
Watch our empires sink and wash away like castles made of sand.
And so cast off the lies that are your lives and find the truth within.
-- Martin Walkyier

Also, Balrogs have wings.

::.: Homepage .::. last.fm .::. Facebook .::. Flickr :.::

User avatar
ThePKH
Posts: 1288
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 19:22
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#12 Post by ThePKH » 11 Oct 2010 22:53

Isn't any sort of a god a caricature of the much more complicated reality to begin with? A cheap argument to end all arguments. An answer to all how's and why's, except to those concerning the birth and existance of the god in question.
I still am the terror that flaps in the night!

User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#13 Post by Desert_Storm » 11 Oct 2010 23:08

Orodaran wrote:I didn't say that believing in a god is like believing in Santa; I just pointed out that there's not much difference between the two figures :wink:
... What pretty much makes the whole theism concept incredibly stupid (especially regarding the "not believed in by intelligent adults" part), doesn't it? ;)
Anyway, all of those hate mails are different ways to say "Fuck you for daring to suggest I should think about my faith"
They probably are. Though you have to admit that Dawkins himself is neither very innovative nor very intelligent in his believer-bashing, intellectuals have been doing that over and over again since (if I remember correctly) Celus started it in the second century A. D., and moreover, they have had much better arguments for their positions (that I'm not arguing here). I think putting a hypothetical God behind the big bang (if there really was one) or outside space-time that seems to be curved up like some n-dimensional ball (if I understand the physicists right) is as intelligent as leaving that "space" "empty", looking at some stuff we observe probably even more, from a scientific point of view, and I have hardly seen any scientist who contradicted that (because scientists normally know what belongs inside their field and what not). Therefor, when Dawkins stops talking about biology (where he seems to be quite an expert) and goes on jabbering about metaphysical concepts, he stops being an expert (hence it's called meta-physics, as in past, beyond even though the etymology of the word goes a little different) and becomes a more or less ordinary human being that accuses people of intolerance and arrogance, while he himself is one of the most intolerant and arrogant writers I've ever read a book from.
Some quick notes on the issue to end with:
- there may be enough philosophical reasons for preferring nothing "behind" the big bang or whatever instead of a God, I was talking about scientific ones
- some (or many) people believing in something without any (good) reasons doesn't make the idea they belief in stupid. E.g. Go ask people on the streets if they belief in gravity or general relativity and ask them for their reasons for doing so. Afterward, ask yourself if you would find these theories so convincing if your reasons to believe in them were the ones they just gave you.
- It's a far way from (mono)theism as a concept to Christianity, Judaism or Islam
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

Led Guardian
Posts: 2440
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#14 Post by Led Guardian » 11 Oct 2010 23:36

Desert_Storm wrote:
Orodaran wrote:Well, actually there's not much of a difference.
Yeah, there's really no intelligent adult who would ever consider a supernatural being a reasonable option to include in his weltanschauung, not even speaking of "believing" in one, and there certainly never was. Truly, all people in history believing in some kind of god were complete morons.
This is an example of a retarded atheist argument. Every time I hear something like this I cringe to think that I am associated with that. There are actually intelligent people who believe in a god of some sort, and stating otherwise is absurd. There are professors at good universities who are experts in there fields who still believe in a god, and they certainly cannot be accused of being unintelligent. And remember too that while we do not see proof of the existence of a god, this negative cannot be decisively concluded. That's why I say that the most intellectually proper position is agnosticism.
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#15 Post by Desert_Storm » 11 Oct 2010 23:44

ThePKH wrote:Isn't any sort of a god a caricature of the much more complicated reality to begin with? A cheap argument to end all arguments. An answer to all how's and why's, except to those concerning the birth and existance of the god in question.
I've never seen any serious theist using God as a "cheap argument to end all arguments". To some it was the thing that made most sense for them, after having thought through many other ideologies. Others were convinced of their opinion since they started thinking about it. But out of the long tradition of theistic (specifically Christian) apologetics, I have never read of one without doubt. Starting from the new testament, almost everybody confronted with the basic idea of Christianity was a skeptic and remained one after making it their faith.
I've read a good deal of Christian writers, some of the "classic" ones and some of the bestselling ones (maybe not today's bestselling ones, but the ones from twenty or fifty years ago), and I've hardly ever come across a single one who hasn't questioned his believes many times and never ceased doing that. I got that a lot from the Dawkins, the Hitchens' and the whole bunch of the "new" atheists, though. I have heard the I/We don't know thousands of times, be it in science, when none of the available theories seems to match with what is observed, be it in religion, when a believer has no more answers when facing the countless objections from philosophical, moral, or ethical directions, but never heard I something like that from a man like Dawkins. Are not them the people who declare their dogmas as the ultimate answers where no objections are valid? Are not they the ones who "end all arguments", labeling everything that doesn't agree as stupid, childish, ridiculous? When Dawkins was asked if he ever had ever head a guest with a clever or interesting argument from "the other side", his answer was a simple "no", followed by standing ovations from the "American Atheists" community. That's what I would call cheap and arrogant. That's what I would call a over-simplified answer to a reality much more complicated than we can understand. Dawkins is included in "we". He doesn't have all the answers either. But he is one who act like he did.
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#16 Post by Desert_Storm » 11 Oct 2010 23:47

Led Guardian wrote:
Desert_Storm wrote:
Orodaran wrote:Well, actually there's not much of a difference.
Yeah, there's really no intelligent adult who would ever consider a supernatural being a reasonable option to include in his weltanschauung, not even speaking of "believing" in one, and there certainly never was. Truly, all people in history believing in some kind of god were complete morons.
This is an example of a retarded atheist argument. Every time I hear something like this I cringe to think that I am associated with that. There are actually intelligent people who believe in a god of some sort, and stating otherwise is absurd. There are professors at good universities who are experts in there fields who still believe in a god, and they certainly cannot be accused of being unintelligent. And remember too that while we do not see proof of the existence of a god, this negative cannot be decisively concluded. That's why I say that the most intellectually proper position is agnosticism.
I trust that you wrote that as a general statement and not as an answer to my post that was clearly ironic (or at least I thought it was :wink: ). But well, I got your other post about how crazy Mike Portnoy is wrong, too, so maybe we just have problems to catch each others irony :)
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

User avatar
Joost
Posts: 3799
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 17:54
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#17 Post by Joost » 12 Oct 2010 00:09

ThePKH wrote:Isn't any sort of a god a caricature of the much more complicated reality to begin with? A cheap argument to end all arguments. An answer to all how's and why's, except to those concerning the birth and existance of the god in question.
Not really. Neither the various forms of pantheism (admittedly, that's hardly representative of religion in general), nor the various mystical currents in the well-known religions (Gnosticism in Christianity, Kaballah in Judaism, Sufism in Islam), nor non-Western religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism or Taoism, have much to do with a God that is 'an answer to all how's or why's'. God as a big-bearded daddy having answers to all how's and why's in his holy book, as worshipped by creationists and their ilk, is much less a common manifestation of religion than people in the West are generally led to believe.
You charge each other for the time and breath it takes to say 'good morning',
But the truth is slowly dawning -- things are getting out of hand,
We all pursue our shattered dreams along the roads to our own ruin --
Watch our empires sink and wash away like castles made of sand.
And so cast off the lies that are your lives and find the truth within.
-- Martin Walkyier

Also, Balrogs have wings.

::.: Homepage .::. last.fm .::. Facebook .::. Flickr :.::

User avatar
Joost
Posts: 3799
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 17:54
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#18 Post by Joost » 12 Oct 2010 00:14

Desert_Storm wrote:I have heard the I/We don't know thousands of times, be it in science, when none of the available theories seems to match with what is observed, be it in religion, when a believer has no more answers when facing the countless objections from philosophical, moral, or ethical directions, but never heard I something like that from a man like Dawkins. Are not them the people who declare their dogmas as the ultimate answers where no objections are valid? Are not they the ones who "end all arguments", labeling everything that doesn't agree as stupid, childish, ridiculous?
Exactly... and they miss the underlying philosophical discussion (about positivism, and the variety of arguments in favour of or against it; it's a more subtle discussion than most people are inclined to think) completely. In that sense, they're doing nothing but preaching to the converted: telling people who are already convinced of the merits of positivism (their arguments don't work otherwise) that the scientific method is superior. Jolly gosh.
Desert_Storm wrote:When Dawkins was asked if he ever had ever head a guest with a clever or interesting argument from "the other side", his answer was a simple "no", followed by standing ovations from the "American Atheists" community. That's what I would call cheap and arrogant. That's what I would call a over-simplified answer to a reality much more complicated than we can understand. Dawkins is included in "we". He doesn't have all the answers either. But he is one who act like he did.
I know exactly what you mean, and yes, this kind of stuff has really annoyed the heck out of me too (and I'm definitely not religious in any traditional sense of the word)...

Some years ago, I read Dawkins' The God Delusion, and while I thought it was -- at least at times -- a fun read, I can hardly imagine how a book like this would ever convince anyone of anything.
You charge each other for the time and breath it takes to say 'good morning',
But the truth is slowly dawning -- things are getting out of hand,
We all pursue our shattered dreams along the roads to our own ruin --
Watch our empires sink and wash away like castles made of sand.
And so cast off the lies that are your lives and find the truth within.
-- Martin Walkyier

Also, Balrogs have wings.

::.: Homepage .::. last.fm .::. Facebook .::. Flickr :.::

User avatar
Joost
Posts: 3799
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 17:54
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#19 Post by Joost » 12 Oct 2010 00:40

Desert_Storm wrote:- there may be enough philosophical reasons for preferring nothing "behind" the big bang or whatever instead of a God, I was talking about scientific ones
Well, at some point (soon enough after you start tinkering with the foundations of science and the scientific method!) you enter a grey area between science and philosophy. And when you use an appeal to Ockham's Razor to prefer the 'nothing' hypothesis over the 'God' hypothesis, you are essentially just using a bit of philosophy that has been canonicized into scientific practice.

Another issue, however, is the question how to (philosophically) interpret scientific knowledge. If I, wearing my scientist's hat, have come to the conclusion that the "no God"-hypothesis is the best one according to 'the scientific method', or otherwise concluded that there is no evidence for God's existence, basically two things will happen. The first thing is that, as a scientist, and working scientifically, I will not be entitled to resort to the concept God in any argument. Even if I have had a first-hand experience of mystical union with God at some point, the understanding of this experience will be simply 'out of reach' for me as a scientist, simply because it is not externally testable or reproducible.

The second, and more subtle, thing, is the question whether I should conclude the statement "God does not exist" out of the above statement. Personally I believe the answer to this question is "No, I shouldn't", and a part of my reason to believe this is that, for me, spirituality has a lot to do with direct experience (ideally, but in practice rarely, independent from any intellectual framework), whereas science has to do with understanding reality from a certain (materialistic-realistic) philosophical framework. But a positivist (and despite not being an adherent, I do think there are sensible arguments in favour of positivism) would claim otherwise, as he'd claim that scientific knowledge is, under all circumstances, the most reliable form of knowledge.
You charge each other for the time and breath it takes to say 'good morning',
But the truth is slowly dawning -- things are getting out of hand,
We all pursue our shattered dreams along the roads to our own ruin --
Watch our empires sink and wash away like castles made of sand.
And so cast off the lies that are your lives and find the truth within.
-- Martin Walkyier

Also, Balrogs have wings.

::.: Homepage .::. last.fm .::. Facebook .::. Flickr :.::

Led Guardian
Posts: 2440
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#20 Post by Led Guardian » 12 Oct 2010 06:52

Desert_Storm wrote:
Led Guardian wrote:
Desert_Storm wrote: Yeah, there's really no intelligent adult who would ever consider a supernatural being a reasonable option to include in his weltanschauung, not even speaking of "believing" in one, and there certainly never was. Truly, all people in history believing in some kind of god were complete morons.
This is an example of a retarded atheist argument. Every time I hear something like this I cringe to think that I am associated with that. There are actually intelligent people who believe in a god of some sort, and stating otherwise is absurd. There are professors at good universities who are experts in there fields who still believe in a god, and they certainly cannot be accused of being unintelligent. And remember too that while we do not see proof of the existence of a god, this negative cannot be decisively concluded. That's why I say that the most intellectually proper position is agnosticism.
I trust that you wrote that as a general statement and not as an answer to my post that was clearly ironic (or at least I thought it was :wink: ). But well, I got your other post about how crazy Mike Portnoy is wrong, too, so maybe we just have problems to catch each others irony :)
That could very well be, because I thought you were being serious here just like you thought I was being serious there. Of course, it doesn't help that I've heard people make that argument seriously before. So as a general statement it stands, but just not in reference to you. :)
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

Led Guardian
Posts: 2440
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#21 Post by Led Guardian » 12 Oct 2010 07:10

Joost wrote:
Desert_Storm wrote:- there may be enough philosophical reasons for preferring nothing "behind" the big bang or whatever instead of a God, I was talking about scientific ones
Well, at some point (soon enough after you start tinkering with the foundations of science and the scientific method!) you enter a grey area between science and philosophy. And when you use an appeal to Ockham's Razor to prefer the 'nothing' hypothesis over the 'God' hypothesis, you are essentially just using a bit of philosophy that has been canonicized into scientific practice.

Another issue, however, is the question how to (philosophically) interpret scientific knowledge. If I, wearing my scientist's hat, have come to the conclusion that the "no God"-hypothesis is the best one according to 'the scientific method', or otherwise concluded that there is no evidence for God's existence, basically two things will happen. The first thing is that, as a scientist, and working scientifically, I will not be entitled to resort to the concept God in any argument. Even if I have had a first-hand experience of mystical union with God at some point, the understanding of this experience will be simply 'out of reach' for me as a scientist, simply because it is not externally testable or reproducible.

The second, and more subtle, thing, is the question whether I should conclude the statement "God does not exist" out of the above statement. Personally I believe the answer to this question is "No, I shouldn't", and a part of my reason to believe this is that, for me, spirituality has a lot to do with direct experience (ideally, but in practice rarely, independent from any intellectual framework), whereas science has to do with understanding reality from a certain (materialistic-realistic) philosophical framework. But a positivist (and despite not being an adherent, I do think there are sensible arguments in favour of positivism) would claim otherwise, as he'd claim that scientific knowledge is, under all circumstances, the most reliable form of knowledge.
Science (as it is practiced by scientists, and not as it is believed to be by many on both sides of the faith debate) would never conclude "God does not exist." For one, it is impossible to prove a negative. Also, no scientific theory is an absolute definition of reality; it is simply the model that best explains it based on the knowledge that we have at the point that it is made. A scientific theory is not meant to be held as absolute truth, and thus a scientist would say "The evidence does not support the conclusion that God exists," not "God does not exist." So I'd say that science is in that way positivist, as it makes only conclusions that are based on what is known. Now, it moves away from this when you get into areas like theoretical physics, but this is acknowledged as being not at all certain. It is scientists attempting to explain that which cannot be so readily tested, but with the knowledge that it is less certain for that.

As a side note, I'm not exactly sure what you were arguing, so this post might be contradicting you or agreeing with you. It's late and I'm not really sure. Just let me know if what I was saying actually had anything to do with your post, alright? :)
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

User avatar
Joost
Posts: 3799
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 17:54
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#22 Post by Joost » 12 Oct 2010 08:17

Led Guardian wrote:Science (as it is practiced by scientists, and not as it is believed to be by many on both sides of the faith debate) would never conclude "God does not exist." For one, it is impossible to prove a negative.
But science may in fact conclude: "The 'no God'-hypothesis is the current best hypothesis". And a postivist may conclude "God does not exist" from there.
Also, no scientific theory is an absolute definition of reality; it is simply the model that best explains it based on the knowledge that we have at the point that it is made. A scientific theory is not meant to be held as absolute truth, and thus a scientist would say "The evidence does not support the conclusion that God exists," not "God does not exist."
Of course scientific knowledge (at least in the empirical sciences, mathematics is quite a different beast altogether, although even there empiricism is a tenable philosophy) is not absolute, but that does not prevent scientists from speaking in absolute terms. A scientist would say (to name a very obvious example of a theory everyone agrees on) that gravity is a force pulling us towards objects with mass, and present this as certain knowledge, despite all of the caveats that hold even in this case. Likewise, a result from the special theory of relativity is often paraphrased as "we found out there is no æther" -- a negative result that is often presented with certainty. In a sense, too, science is about degrees of understanding/knowledge (and, despite the big role of statistics in scientific practice, I don't think this ever has been put into a philosophical framework satisfactorily), and when that degree of understanding is just high enough, people just tend to start talking in terms of absolute certainty. Personally I think this is just understandable and it definitely isn't terribly wrong.
So I'd say that science is in that way positivist, as it makes only conclusions that are based on what is known.
This is not really what the term positivism means, philosophically. It is a set of philosophical beliefs that hold that science, and the scientific method, are either the only, or the best way of understanding the underlying reality.
Now, it moves away from this when you get into areas like theoretical physics, but this is acknowledged as being not at all certain. It is scientists attempting to explain that which cannot be so readily tested, but with the knowledge that it is less certain for that.
In the end, theoretical physics still is an empirical science, it's just a few levels of abstraction further away from our daily reality. And of course, theoretical physics depends on experiments that may be increasingly tricky or difficult to perform, and/or which depend on building huge subterranean tunnels costing billions upon billions of dollars.
As a side note, I'm not exactly sure what you were arguing, so this post might be contradicting you or agreeing with you. It's late and I'm not really sure. Just let me know if what I was saying actually had anything to do with your post, alright? :)
I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me, but I'm sure I am disagreeing with you on at least a few points. ;)
You charge each other for the time and breath it takes to say 'good morning',
But the truth is slowly dawning -- things are getting out of hand,
We all pursue our shattered dreams along the roads to our own ruin --
Watch our empires sink and wash away like castles made of sand.
And so cast off the lies that are your lives and find the truth within.
-- Martin Walkyier

Also, Balrogs have wings.

::.: Homepage .::. last.fm .::. Facebook .::. Flickr :.::

User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#23 Post by Desert_Storm » 12 Oct 2010 22:54

Joost wrote:
Desert_Storm wrote:- there may be enough philosophical reasons for preferring nothing "behind" the big bang or whatever instead of a God, I was talking about scientific ones
Well, at some point (soon enough after you start tinkering with the foundations of science and the scientific method!) you enter a grey area between science and philosophy. And when you use an appeal to Ockham's Razor to prefer the 'nothing' hypothesis over the 'God' hypothesis, you are essentially just using a bit of philosophy that has been canonicized into scientific practice.
I see how it's a common dogma in science, but when/where is it's relevance in scientific practice? (as a question, not as an accusation)
Aren't any possible supernatural beings whatsoever per definition outside of science? To simplify: Science is pretty much telling us what the laws of the universe are, but not why they are there, who "made" them (if they were made) and so on. How can the "nothing" hypothesis then be of any use in scientific practice, when it's only speculations outside of our (scientific) reach?
Another issue, however, is the question how to (philosophically) interpret scientific knowledge.

This question is interesting enough, especially when looking at what philosophers were once and what they are nowadays. In very early days, philosophy was pretty much everything man thought or measured about nature, and a little later, philosophers at least knew about the general progressions and discoveries in, say, astronomy and physics. Nowadays, each of those subjects is so complicated and "deep" that you have to be a specialist to just know what discoveries
are currently made, and what theories are preferred to explain them (not only in physics), let alone understand them. Everything we learn in schools and even in universities is a little outdated. There's hardly a chance for philosophy to keep up with this, and therefor I think there are many scientific "facts" that have massive implications for philosophical theories, but they aren't taken account of. One example might be the implications the uncertainty principle has on determinism.
If I, wearing my scientist's hat, have come to the conclusion that the "no God"-hypothesis is the best one according to 'the scientific method', or otherwise concluded that there is no evidence for God's existence, basically two things will happen. The first thing is that, as a scientist, and working scientifically, I will not be entitled to resort to the concept God in any argument. Even if I have had a first-hand experience of mystical union with God at some point, the understanding of this experience will be simply 'out of reach' for me as a scientist, simply because it is not externally testable or reproducible.
That would be the correct behaviour, just as would be not to resort the philosophical concept of atheism in any scientific argument. I was quite shocked to see how some fundamentalists attacked the evolutionary theory with "religious" arguments, and then called a 6000 year old earth science. How very disappointed was I to see some of the leading popular biologists, supposedly smart people, to do the same thing and back up their theories with their personal believes (atheism) and the other way round.
But it simply seems to be human nature. It seems that one can't simply put up the "science hat" (what a wonderful term :) ) and do unbiased research without letting any personal believes affect them. One cannot even put down his scientific believes and do research unaffected by them, as shown in hundreds of experiments that showed what a theory predicted but were highly erroneous, without anybody paying notice to that. Or the other way around, calculations that made sense being neglected or put aside because they don't fit in with the current theory (but later turn out to be the right ones). Seems like we see what we want to see, and that to a much higher (and very disturbing) degree than we generally assume or accept.
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

Led Guardian
Posts: 2440
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#24 Post by Led Guardian » 12 Oct 2010 23:04

Joost wrote:But science may in fact conclude: "The 'no God'-hypothesis is the current best hypothesis". And a postivist may conclude "God does not exist" from there.
That is basically rephrasing what I already said, minus the bit about what a positivist would conclude, so we are in agreement there.
Of course scientific knowledge (at least in the empirical sciences, mathematics is quite a different beast altogether, although even there empiricism is a tenable philosophy) is not absolute, but that does not prevent scientists from speaking in absolute terms. A scientist would say (to name a very obvious example of a theory everyone agrees on) that gravity is a force pulling us towards objects with mass, and present this as certain knowledge, despite all of the caveats that hold even in this case. Likewise, a result from the special theory of relativity is often paraphrased as "we found out there is no æther" -- a negative result that is often presented with certainty. In a sense, too, science is about degrees of understanding/knowledge (and, despite the big role of statistics in scientific practice, I don't think this ever has been put into a philosophical framework satisfactorily), and when that degree of understanding is just high enough, people just tend to start talking in terms of absolute certainty. Personally I think this is just understandable and it definitely isn't terribly wrong.
I am not saying that it is wrong to state things definitely, I am just saying that science makes such statements with the unstated "to the best of our knowledge." So we are not disagreeing here either.
This is not really what the term positivism means, philosophically. It is a set of philosophical beliefs that hold that science, and the scientific method, are either the only, or the best way of understanding the underlying reality.
Thank you for the clarification. However, that still sounds like the basic philosophy of science to me. Although maybe that is what you are saying.
In the end, theoretical physics still is an empirical science, it's just a few levels of abstraction further away from our daily reality. And of course, theoretical physics depends on experiments that may be increasingly tricky or difficult to perform, and/or which depend on building huge subterranean tunnels costing billions upon billions of dollars.
Yes, but it deals with things like M-theory, which has been criticized for being impossible to test (at least at the present). This puts it a bit outside the realm of positivism, because it has not been tested empirically (unless it has since the last time I read something about it).
I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me, but I'm sure I am disagreeing with you on at least a few points. ;)
As it turns out, I don't think we were disagreeing about much after all. :wink:
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

User avatar
Bender B. Rodriguez
Posts: 1942
Joined: 06 Oct 2003 15:13
Location: Anywhere but the "Sanctuary"..because i'm banned from that place (Santiago de Chile)

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#25 Post by Bender B. Rodriguez » 12 Oct 2010 23:09

heh.
☢ ☢ ☢ all hail the deathweed ☢ ☢ ☢

User avatar
t.a.j.
Posts: 1459
Joined: 18 Aug 2002 23:29
Location: where ignorant armies clash by night
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#26 Post by t.a.j. » 13 Oct 2010 04:21

What Science has to do with God.
An exclamation in three medium and one long sentence, including one example.
by t.a.j.

Science, as we all know, looks at the world as we experience it, either directly, or mediated through measuring devices. God is an object of scientific inquiry insofar as it has a measurable influence in the world as we experience it.
If your god does not have a measurable influence in the world as we experience it, then it is beyond scientific inquiry, but if you want your god to have a measurable influence, that is, if you want to say that it makes a difference to the world as we experience it whether or not a god, as you imagine it, exists, then the god you imagine, much like the Higgs-Bosons Higgs imagined, is a possible object for scientific inquiry.
One example: If the god you imagine implies that prayers to heal the sick work, you're not very likely to be right.

As an aside, negative statements can easily be proven. Consider the statement that I am currently not naked on the lawn of the white house. The problem lies not with the negativity, but with the generality. Turn around the sentence "There is no god" to see this: For all things, which exist, none of them is god. To verify this, one would need to check all the things ever existing for their godness. Similar positive statements have the same difficulty. "All men are mortal" is not truly confirmed until all men ever have lived and died.
But luckily for everyone, no one has to prove that no gods exist. I for one do not consider it unlikely that at least a few of the ways people imagine gods to be have or had things corresponding to them. What is under suspicion are much more specific statements such as "About 2000 years ago, near ancient Jerusalem, a person by name of Jesus of Nazarene (or rather some Arameic version of that name) was crucified and resurrected from the dead and did a some things afterwards." The details vary. And whether that is the case or not is a question of historical science.

As a further aside, about the only person among those "four horsemen" of atheism that I would endorse is Daniel Dennet. But then again, that was obvious. Dawkins does indeed not offer very good arguments and is purposefully offensive to boot. But, and that is something to keep in mind, he is fighting a battle against modern, mostly American religiousity, with all its extreme but mainstream expressions, such as creationism and creation "science". That is the battlefield for which he writes and that is a battle not won by argument, but by rhetoric. And The God Delusion is just that.

And finally, I believe that beyond all those considerations about positivism and science, the real problem for most religion is not science. It is morality. If you've ever read the bible or the quran, you will quickly see how reprehensible the whole thing is and how little it has in common with current moral sentiments, theories or questions. Think about such things a women's rights, gay rights, environmental protection, the use of rape as a strategy, oppression and liberty or even drugs. I shudder to think of people who seek to find good advice on how to behave in these regards in those books. Or in the Eddas for that matter. One answer to this, would of course be to found a new religion. A look at Wicca or any other less populous esoteric movement. That's just what is being done.
http://www.gedichtblog.de
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway.
They say that life's a game, then they take the board away.
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
Then leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret...


Still the goddamn Batman.

User avatar
t.a.j.
Posts: 1459
Joined: 18 Aug 2002 23:29
Location: where ignorant armies clash by night
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#27 Post by t.a.j. » 13 Oct 2010 04:33

And a remark of the use of the expression "god".

I don't believe in any god. But I can imagine a good many. I have studied ancient myth, read parts of the Edda, learned about various variations of Buddhism, the massive plethora of gods and practices that we call Hinduism, I read the Tao De Ching and a bit about Taoism, about Confucianism, which is hardly concerned with gods, and just got a book on Shintoism. Add to that growing up in a very Catholic place, reading bibles, the quran, and finally a good amount of philosophy of religion. Not to mention asking people about their religious ideas. I have a fair set of concepts that I could take any mention of god to refer to. But how am I to know which one you actually meant? Possibly one I've never heard about.
So really, to say that god does not exist, is rather meaningless as long as you don't specify what you mean when you say god. Or God.
Just take at one clarification: Zeus does not exist. Or how about "Isthar does not exist."? Or "Ammaterasu does not exist."? How about that?
http://www.gedichtblog.de
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway.
They say that life's a game, then they take the board away.
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
Then leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret...


Still the goddamn Batman.

Led Guardian
Posts: 2440
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#28 Post by Led Guardian » 13 Oct 2010 05:20

How about "No God or gods exist" to cover all of the above. That is what is meant here, I would say. A good post by the way. If it had not been late and I had taken a moment to consider it, I could have come up with a dozen instances of a provable negative. :? However, I still maintain that disproving God (at least one as all-encompassing yet nebulous as the Judeo-Christian God) is not possible, as it is always possible that anything that happens is done through the power of this omnipotent force. Or that one started everything and then took a step back and let things proceed on their own. But fortunately, as you said, the burden of proof is not on those who assert that there is no god (of any kind).
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

User avatar
t.a.j.
Posts: 1459
Joined: 18 Aug 2002 23:29
Location: where ignorant armies clash by night
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#29 Post by t.a.j. » 13 Oct 2010 09:49

Led Guardian wrote:How about "No God or gods exist" to cover all of the above. That is what is meant here, I would say.
That's not a way out of the problem. It might also be false. Again: What is and what isn't a god. What do you mean to talk about. I guess the issue is less severe here.
Let me say that of course, we do not usually demand such clarity from our everyday concepts. We usually just talk as if everyone meant the same thing. Be we do require it in both philosophy and science. In particular when we want to talk about something highly invented or imagined. Like god or a boson.
A good post by the way.
Thanks.
If it had not been late and I had taken a moment to consider it, I could have come up with a dozen instances of a provable negative. :? However, I still maintain that disproving God (at least one as all-encompassing yet nebulous as the Judeo-Christian God) is not possible, as it is always possible that anything that happens is done through the power of this omnipotent force.
Clearly. It's also possible that we all live in a computer simulation. According to some philosophers, that one is almost certain, even.
But that is not necessarily a question of science. As long as whatever the metaphysics of the world are, they provide a high degree of reliability and stability, everything is fine. And it seem, judging by the successes of science & technology (such as this forum), that they do. But let me repeat my point. The question is whether god makes a difference to the empirical world or not. If everything were the same, whether there was a god or not, then you don't need god to explain anything. You describe the stable patterns of nature and that's it.
One variety of this is the deistic concept god you described:
Or that one started everything and then took a step back and let things proceed on their own. But fortunately, as you said, the burden of proof is not on those who assert that there is no god (of any kind).
http://www.gedichtblog.de
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway.
They say that life's a game, then they take the board away.
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
Then leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret...


Still the goddamn Batman.

User avatar
Cerbere
Posts: 1500
Joined: 08 Feb 2009 07:34

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#30 Post by Cerbere » 15 Oct 2010 02:04

t.a.j. wrote:"About 2000 years ago, near ancient Jerusalem, a person by name of Jesus of Nazarene (or rather some Arameic version of that name) was crucified and resurrected from the dead and did a some things afterwards." The details vary. And whether that is the case or not is a question of historical science.
The problem with the New Testament is that the majority of it was written at least a hundred years after Jesus' death. Not to mention it was all compiled much later (and possibly changed) and then when it was translated into English, under King James, it was changed to more suit them. Unless you've even read the original(ish) Latin version, basing your beliefs on the bible makes no sense.

Led Guardian
Posts: 2440
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 21:08
Location: Somewhere less cliché than far beyond

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#31 Post by Led Guardian » 15 Oct 2010 03:31

Cerbere wrote:
t.a.j. wrote:"About 2000 years ago, near ancient Jerusalem, a person by name of Jesus of Nazarene (or rather some Arameic version of that name) was crucified and resurrected from the dead and did a some things afterwards." The details vary. And whether that is the case or not is a question of historical science.
The problem with the New Testament is that the majority of it was written at least a hundred years after Jesus' death. Not to mention it was all compiled much later (and possibly changed) and then when it was translated into English, under King James, it was changed to more suit them. Unless you've even read the original(ish) Latin version, basing your beliefs on the bible makes no sense.
Small correction: the original was in Greek.
'Nowhere has this renunciation of man's transience been more joyous or uplifting than in the medium of airport carpets.'

User avatar
t.a.j.
Posts: 1459
Joined: 18 Aug 2002 23:29
Location: where ignorant armies clash by night
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#32 Post by t.a.j. » 15 Oct 2010 07:17

Cerbere wrote:
t.a.j. wrote:"About 2000 years ago, near ancient Jerusalem, a person by name of Jesus of Nazarene (or rather some Arameic version of that name) was crucified and resurrected from the dead and did a some things afterwards." The details vary. And whether that is the case or not is a question of historical science.
The problem with the New Testament is that the majority of it was written at least a hundred years after Jesus' death. Not to mention it was all compiled much later (and possibly changed) and then when it was translated into English, under King James, it was changed to more suit them. Unless you've even read the original(ish) Latin version, basing your beliefs on the bible makes no sense.
Let me help you with that.
The problem with the new testament is that it consits of a wide variety of sources, cobbled together some three and a half centuries after the first of them was written. Those sources represent only a minor part of the material circulating among religious groups calling themselves christian during the late roman empire. Those groups held vastly different beliefs. Some of them were politheistic, some were gnostics, some were jews and that's not yet the extend of it. And for those things we have historical evidence, unlike for even the existence of Jesus as imagined by the new testament.
Please note, that the oldest texts of the NT, the letters of St.Paul, show the least familiarity with Jesus or his teachings and acts as reported by the gospels. Think about it for a moment. St. Paul, ealiest of christian writers, who, if anyone, should have learned about Jesus first hand, from fresh memory, from people taught by Jesus himself, seems to know nothing about any moral teachings or acts. This is implied by not refering to any of those things as reported in the gospels in his letters, even if doing so would have been beneficial for his arguments.
This at least implies that the earliest of christian sources was unfamiliar with the gospel stories. Paul didn't know what the Jesus of the gospels did. Instead, he says only those things about him as can be interpreted from jewish wisdom literature of the old testament. Namely, that he was the messiah, son of god, prophesized, descended from King David and the Christ. Also a lot of platonic influence.
I conclude from this that it is quite likely, that Paul did not write in temporal vicinity to the earthly ministry of Jesus. I'm willing to extend this and say flat out that I don't think that there ever was one Jesus of Nazarene even halfway adequately described by the new testament. But that latter part is less important. I just means that if Paul was further removed from the life of Christ than just a couple of years, then so much the worse for the gospel writers.
http://www.gedichtblog.de
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway.
They say that life's a game, then they take the board away.
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
Then leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret...


Still the goddamn Batman.

SomeEurosHateAmerica
Posts: 46
Joined: 23 Jun 2008 20:42

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#33 Post by SomeEurosHateAmerica » 15 Oct 2010 09:11

Desert_Storm wrote:
Orodaran wrote:I didn't say that believing in a god is like believing in Santa; I just pointed out that there's not much difference between the two figures :wink:
... What pretty much makes the whole theism concept incredibly stupid (especially regarding the "not believed in by intelligent adults" part), doesn't it? ;)
Anyway, all of those hate mails are different ways to say "Fuck you for daring to suggest I should think about my faith"
They probably are. Though you have to admit that Dawkins himself is neither very innovative nor very intelligent in his believer-bashing, intellectuals have been doing that over and over again since (if I remember correctly) Celus started it in the second century A. D., and moreover, they have had much better arguments for their positions (that I'm not arguing here). I think putting a hypothetical God behind the big bang (if there really was one) or outside space-time that seems to be curved up like some n-dimensional ball (if I understand the physicists right) is as intelligent as leaving that "space" "empty", looking at some stuff we observe probably even more, from a scientific point of view, and I have hardly seen any scientist who contradicted that (because scientists normally know what belongs inside their field and what not). Therefor, when Dawkins stops talking about biology (where he seems to be quite an expert) and goes on jabbering about metaphysical concepts, he stops being an expert (hence it's called meta-physics, as in past, beyond even though the etymology of the word goes a little different) and becomes a more or less ordinary human being that accuses people of intolerance and arrogance, while he himself is one of the most intolerant and arrogant writers I've ever read a book from.
Some quick notes on the issue to end with:
- there may be enough philosophical reasons for preferring nothing "behind" the big bang or whatever instead of a God, I was talking about scientific ones
- some (or many) people believing in something without any (good) reasons doesn't make the idea they belief in stupid. E.g. Go ask people on the streets if they belief in gravity or general relativity and ask them for their reasons for doing so. Afterward, ask yourself if you would find these theories so convincing if your reasons to believe in them were the ones they just gave you.
- It's a far way from (mono)theism as a concept to Christianity, Judaism or Islam
I've never seen a more egregious abuse of parentheses in my life.

SomeEurosHateAmerica
Posts: 46
Joined: 23 Jun 2008 20:42

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#34 Post by SomeEurosHateAmerica » 15 Oct 2010 09:15

t.a.j. wrote:And a remark of the use of the expression "god".

I don't believe in any god. But I can imagine a good many. I have studied ancient myth, read parts of the Edda, learned about various variations of Buddhism, the massive plethora of gods and practices that we call Hinduism, I read the Tao De Ching and a bit about Taoism, about Confucianism, which is hardly concerned with gods, and just got a book on Shintoism. Add to that growing up in a very Catholic place, reading bibles, the quran, and finally a good amount of philosophy of religion. Not to mention asking people about their religious ideas. I have a fair set of concepts that I could take any mention of god to refer to. But how am I to know which one you actually meant? Possibly one I've never heard about.
So really, to say that god does not exist, is rather meaningless as long as you don't specify what you mean when you say god. Or God.
Just take at one clarification: Zeus does not exist. Or how about "Isthar does not exist."? Or "Ammaterasu does not exist."? How about that?
t.a.j., have you read John Hick? If not, I highly recommend him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick

User avatar
t.a.j.
Posts: 1459
Joined: 18 Aug 2002 23:29
Location: where ignorant armies clash by night
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#35 Post by t.a.j. » 15 Oct 2010 11:02

I know John Hick and find him to be a rather curious kind of apologetic. He is certainly a smart man with a good mind, but his reinterpretation of the gospel stories seem driven more by the desire to salvage them, then by acute analysis. Furthermore, I of course find fault with the question "What did the historical Jesus teach/believe?" simply because I doubt that the description "historical Jesus" refers to anything.
I also have a massive problem with his approach to the problem of evil, also mentioned in that wikipedia article. Why? Because it implies the following: For any a and any b, if a raped b, the reason why a was raped by b, was so that a could experience spiritual development. And that seems to imply that our moral judgement that b raping a was an evil act on part of b is not ultimately warranted. B was after all, doing a a favor.
I've seen worse versions of that kind of thinking, but this is bad enough.
http://www.gedichtblog.de
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway.
They say that life's a game, then they take the board away.
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
Then leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret...


Still the goddamn Batman.

User avatar
Cerbere
Posts: 1500
Joined: 08 Feb 2009 07:34

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#36 Post by Cerbere » 15 Oct 2010 20:07

Led Guardian wrote:
Cerbere wrote:
t.a.j. wrote:"About 2000 years ago, near ancient Jerusalem, a person by name of Jesus of Nazarene (or rather some Arameic version of that name) was crucified and resurrected from the dead and did a some things afterwards." The details vary. And whether that is the case or not is a question of historical science.
The problem with the New Testament is that the majority of it was written at least a hundred years after Jesus' death. Not to mention it was all compiled much later (and possibly changed) and then when it was translated into English, under King James, it was changed to more suit them. Unless you've even read the original(ish) Latin version, basing your beliefs on the bible makes no sense.
Small correction: the original was in Greek.
Oh yeah.

User avatar
Andreas
Posts: 4533
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 18:09
Location: Potsdam, Germany

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#37 Post by Andreas » 15 Oct 2010 20:12

I think those people who send this guy hatemail actually fail to see the point of what christianity is all about...

User avatar
t.a.j.
Posts: 1459
Joined: 18 Aug 2002 23:29
Location: where ignorant armies clash by night
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#38 Post by t.a.j. » 15 Oct 2010 20:30

Andreas wrote:I think those people who send this guy hatemail actually fail to see the point of what christianity is all about...
And what would that be?
http://www.gedichtblog.de
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway.
They say that life's a game, then they take the board away.
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
Then leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret...


Still the goddamn Batman.

User avatar
Andreas
Posts: 4533
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 18:09
Location: Potsdam, Germany

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#39 Post by Andreas » 16 Oct 2010 00:36

Love God above all (but since lots of you guys aren't into that sort of thing, the next one would appeal to you better) and love other people as if they are yourself. Hatemail expresses a lack of the second part.

User avatar
Orodaran
Posts: 5412
Joined: 17 Aug 2002 21:59
Location: Hall of the Mountain King
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#40 Post by Orodaran » 16 Oct 2010 00:41

Or they simply express a lack of security when their opinions and views are challenged.

Humans have a sort of "mental racism" towards everyone who disagree with them. It runs at all levels, look for example all around internet forums how people can bitch and whine and fight over a favorite album or song. And the more the issue become important (politics and religion), the more the different points of view are likely to be perceived as a threat, and reacted upon accordingly.

Who disagrees with your political views implies that your ideas of how your nation where you live and to whom your pay your taxes is wrong. Therefore he's an "enemy".
Who disagrees with your religious views implies that what you believe in is false. Therefore he's an "enemy".

The more one is insecure or, on the other hand, fanatic about his ideas, the more he'll feel threatened by those who don't think like them.

It runs at every level - on internet forums you tend to side with those who like your same music and movies, on a train blocked in the middle of nowhere you side up with those who speak your same language (in a situation where everyone is unknown to each other), and when there's an alien invasion you side with your fellow human race :P
"There's a time when a man needs to fight and a time when he needs to accept that his destiny's lost, the ship has sailed and that only a fool will continue. The truth is I've always been a fool"
~~~~~~~~~~~~
A slight call afar is tempting me, like a whisper sweet or an awful scream; I cannot ignore what I've always been, I'm leaving again - one last time? in my little kingdom I can be what I really wanted to be... The wanderer

----------------------
BG news (if you're lazy to check the site) :: You're on Facebook? Look at my photos from concerts, travels and more :: Oh, and since you're at it, check my photos also on 500px

User avatar
t.a.j.
Posts: 1459
Joined: 18 Aug 2002 23:29
Location: where ignorant armies clash by night
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#41 Post by t.a.j. » 16 Oct 2010 06:22

Andreas wrote:Love God above all (but since lots of you guys aren't into that sort of thing, the next one would appeal to you better) and love other people as if they are yourself. Hatemail expresses a lack of the second part.
That view is emblemic for a certain branch of christianity, but of course other people put different emphasis. But even letting this stand, we can ask what it amounts to.
Does not "Love God above all" mean nothing without saying which god to love? Since we speak about christianity, the answer is clear: The god of the Bible. With all his monstrousness and barbarity. Love one who commands genocide and mass rape? Love one who commits innocents to eternal suffering? Love one who preaches guilt without action, that is original sin? Love a pitiless and cruel mass murderer?
And given other christian beliefs, what does "Love thy neighbor" amount to? Preachiness and mission, for the best thing you can do for anyone is to turn them into a christian. If that is love, it is the possessive love of the chronically jealous. Haughtiness and passive aggressiveness, all the while believing to be morally superior. Spreading the fear of god and hell, that most insidious psychosis, against which no confrontation therapy is possible.
http://www.gedichtblog.de
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway.
They say that life's a game, then they take the board away.
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
Then leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret...


Still the goddamn Batman.

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#42 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 16 Oct 2010 11:00

Yeah, there's really no intelligent adult who would ever consider a supernatural being a reasonable option to include in his weltanschauung, not even speaking of "believing" in one, and there certainly never was. Truly, all people in history believing in some kind of god were complete morons
Conveniently ignoring the irony in your post for a second, I would say this is a quite pointless attempt to rationalize something that cannot (and perhaps should not) be rationalized in the first place. By rationalizing faith you are reducing it to a caricature of its essence, because a factual foundation has never been part of religion in the first place.

Indian author Salman Rushdie put quite an interesting view on this matter in his 1988 novel The Satanic Verses, when he wrote: "What is the opposite of faith? Not disbelief. Too final, certain, closed. Itself is a kind of belief. Doubt."
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

User avatar
Andreas
Posts: 4533
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 18:09
Location: Potsdam, Germany

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#43 Post by Andreas » 16 Oct 2010 15:05

Desert_Storm wrote:Truly, all people in history believing in some kind of god were complete morons.
No matter how hard I try, I cannot consider this a compliment...

User avatar
End Of An Era
Posts: 5872
Joined: 11 Apr 2004 00:56
Location: here, duh!

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#44 Post by End Of An Era » 17 Oct 2010 13:24

Desert_Storm wrote:Truly, all people in history believing in some kind of god were complete morons.
most of the people not believing too :P

User avatar
The Rider Of Rohan
Posts: 3361
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 15:30
Location: Iron Hils 90210
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#45 Post by The Rider Of Rohan » 17 Oct 2010 15:11

Andreas wrote:
Desert_Storm wrote:Truly, all people in history believing in some kind of god were complete morons.
No matter how hard I try, I cannot consider this a compliment...
I think he meant to be sarcastic.
spamel wrote:
Sleeping Dragon wrote:i just don't understand what's so wrong with being a woman...
Periods.

User avatar
ThePKH
Posts: 1288
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 19:22
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#46 Post by ThePKH » 18 Oct 2010 19:34

Heh. What sceptics fail to achieve, the religious lunatics do by themselves.

Last tuesday night there was a debate on gay rights on Finnish TV2 titled "homoilta" (gay night). People and media got really into it and now we're seeing record-high numbers of people leaving the state lutheran church. Most of them through web-based eroakirkosta.fi site that provides an easy way to part with the church. Usually each day maybe 150-200 people leave the church. Since last tuesday we've had a few thousand each day and it's picking up with each new day producing a new record. In little less than a week, more than 24000 people have decided to do so. On average, an adult Finn pays around 300 euros a year in church tax, so it's easy to see what it means for the church in terms of money (more than 7 million euros / year at the moment).

I don't think too highly of the church, but the best thing about this is to see that people are ready and willing to protest when faced with opinions that belong to the past.

Number of people who've left the lutheran church of finland since airing of the homoilta tv-debate:
http://eroakirkosta.fi/static/ek-tilastot/ylea2.html

Numbers for last three days. (light gray: day before yesterday, dark gray: yesterday, red: today. pink dotted line (ennuste) is the estimated number for today)
http://eroakirkosta.fi/static/ek-tilastot/tanaan.html

edit: links added.
I still am the terror that flaps in the night!

Hansi Smurf
Posts: 454
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 22:22
Location: Central Park, Winnipeg, Canada

Santa Claus

#47 Post by Hansi Smurf » 18 Oct 2010 21:46

Once, when I lived at 39-161 Langside, I was sitting, reading, as usual in them days, when a voice in my forehead, said: "Santa Claus is coming to town", or something very similar. I looked up from the book I was reading, most likely a New Jedi Order Book, or some other Space-Fantasy, and wouldn't you know it! A mass of flashing, yellow lights danced before my real vision, and a bunch of pots n' pans in the kitchen, impossibly and mysteriously, crashed down from their stack, making a very loud clattering!

By now, very used to just such nonsense, I ejaculated, here, a paraphrase of my feelings towards all of the Invisble Landscape, then, and now: "Screw you, Santa Claus! If you really existed, you'd of shown yourself personally, AND, I'd have recieved free naked chicks for Christmas, ever since I could cum! Fuck you!"

God!?! I hate you. And you can't even admit that I'm wrong, without getting even more hate-mail, than ever! Beat it, you bum! You and all your solipsistic "there's no such thing as IQ, nor SpaceShip Earth from pole to pole" types, are all just about to be ethnically-cleansed, and removed from Our Spirit World, forever! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Santa Claus and Jesus? I hate 'em! Robert Pickton, and the Montreal Massacerer? I love 'em! Fuck you, you fucking husband/john/pimp faggots! "Leave! Hulk! Alone!"

We, the Atheist Bean Counting White Racists? We Alone Rule!

Vreeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!! (the sound of yer very end, fags!)

:mrgreen:

(admittedly, the Legislative Assemblymen and Women of the Third Eye, have all, "aye-ayed", and, "here-hered", the end of the Rape & Consent Laws, so just consider the above, all gibberish! Soon, Boob'll be back in my gentle, kind, and healthy, arms!)

PS: Just like ta add, that killing women IS wrong: for Pickton or the Montreal Massacerer, for them ta kill wombs in what ARE atheist, bean-counted, monogamously-procreating countries, such as ALL of the United Nations are? It really fags the place up, BIG-TIME! :|

But: "I've never killed a woman before, but I know how it feels!"? (Iron Maiden - Sanctuary)
Well, its sentiment like that, that I, the seemingly, civily-eugenisized body, can empathize with! (and I mean that, Empathize, and only Empathize!)

So let's just all hope that TV News, is, mere psychology, or Canada, especially, is gonna be missing a LOTTA wives for the husbands these days! :cry:

Peace.

Hansi Smurf
Posts: 454
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 22:22
Location: Central Park, Winnipeg, Canada

Rape and Consent?

#48 Post by Hansi Smurf » 19 Oct 2010 19:05

Pickton? He hates not bending the knee and not being sanctified by bigger-thans!

Same with the Montreal Massacerer, too, huh, BUM?

It is a shame when sex-driveless males are allowed for to cum, since without exposure to sociopathic-sex, they never did cum, not at all! Not even a wet-dream!

Being a stand-up guy, like Pickton? it's just like being someone who's uncomfortable with spaying or neutering their family pet, Man!

It's high time that biologically sex-driven wumbfullerers, join together, for to sentence all of the rest of the speeched-males to death-by-cremator! 2000 degrees farenheit! (Still no degrees, nor fractions signs? WTF?)

Leave! Hulk! Alone! (Hulk takes Betty an just has her! That's it! No Geek Talk! Just real wumbfullering, in real Creation!)

Let's all just say it again, one more time, Universally, for to provide the Reader, for a clean-looking end to the post, huh?

Leave! Hulk! Alone!

User avatar
Desert_Storm
Posts: 784
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:13
Location: Zürich/Vienna
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#49 Post by Desert_Storm » 20 Oct 2010 21:59

The Rider Of Rohan wrote:
Yeah, there's really no intelligent adult who would ever consider a supernatural being a reasonable option to include in his weltanschauung, not even speaking of "believing" in one, and there certainly never was. Truly, all people in history believing in some kind of god were complete morons
Conveniently ignoring the irony in your post for a second, I would say this is a quite pointless attempt to rationalize something that cannot (and perhaps should not) be rationalized in the first place. By rationalizing faith you are reducing it to a caricature of its essence, because a factual foundation has never been part of religion in the first place.

Indian author Salman Rushdie put quite an interesting view on this matter in his 1988 novel The Satanic Verses, when he wrote: "What is the opposite of faith? Not disbelief. Too final, certain, closed. Itself is a kind of belief. Doubt."
That's exactly my point. And that's exactly what I think when I read Dawkins. Too final, certain, closed. Not only a kind of believe, but rather something towards fanaticism.
Andreas wrote:
Desert_Storm wrote:Truly, all people in history believing in some kind of god were complete morons.
No matter how hard I try, I cannot consider this a compliment...

No matter how hard I try, I cannot take someone seriously who not only fails to see the irony in this completely ridiculous sentence, but also chooses not to read the following post, where I clearly state that I was being ironic, or actually, rather cynical.
I, too, am a neat guy. And I, too, am just a love machine
Also, a stupid europeoid with snake primitive language

spamel
Posts: 586
Joined: 04 Sep 2009 16:05
Location: Sheffield

Re: Richard Dawkins (biologist/atheist speaker) hatemail

#50 Post by spamel » 20 Oct 2010 22:56

I believe all religion is a crutch for a person to haul themselves up on, instead of facing the reality that we are alone and there is no omnipotent being. I don't doubt there is life elsewhere in the universe, I think it would be naive to dismiss the possibility. A God though, big flowing beard and sees all? I doubt it. I also hope not, otherwise he's seen me in the shower and that pisses me off! lol!
My mother in law is a Balrog, and I'm telling you, she has wings!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests