New Atheism’s fatal arrogance: The glaring intellectual laziness of Bill Maher & Richard Dawkins

[cbayer]

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/09/new_atheisms_fatal_arrogance_the_glaring_intellectual_laziness_of_bill_maher_richard_dawkins/

SATURDAY, MAY 9, 2015 08:30 AM MDT

For all their eloquence, New Atheists show little interest in understanding how believers really think or feel

SEAN ILLING


Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins (Credit: HBO/Janet Van Ham/Reuters/Chris Keane/Photo montage by Salon)

Atheism has a storied history in the West. From the irreverent Voltaire to the iconoclastic Nietzsche, the godless have always had a voice. But the New Atheists are different. Religion, they argue, isn’t just wrong; it’s positively corrosive. If you’ve heard people like Bill Maher or Lawrence Krauss speak in recent years, you’re familiar with this approach.

New Atheism emerged in 2004 as a kind of literary and social movement. Led by such luminaries as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, New Atheism became part of the zeitgeist, a well-timed reaction against religious fundamentalism. The New Atheists are notoriously pugilistic. In print or on stage, they never run from a fight. Whatever you think of their tactics, they’ve succeeded at putting fanatics and moralizers on the defensive – and that’s a good thing.

But there’s something missing in their critiques, something fundamental. For all their eloquence, their arguments are often banal. Regrettably, they’ve shown little interest in understanding the religious compulsion. They talk incessantly about the untruth of religion because they assume truth is what matters most to religious people. And perhaps it does for many, but certainly not all – at least not in the conventional sense of that term. Religious convictions, in many cases, are held not because they’re true but because they’re meaningful, because they’re personally transformative. New Atheists are blind to this brand of belief.

It’s perfectly rational to reject faith as a matter of principle. Many people (myself included) find no practical advantage in believing things without evidence. But what about those who do? If a belief is held because of its effects, not its truth content, why should its falsity matter to the believer? Of course, most religious people consider their beliefs true in some sense, but that’s to be expected: the consolation derived from a belief is greater if its illusory origins are concealed. The point is that such beliefs aren’t held because they’re true as such; they’re accepted on faith because they’re meaningful.

more at link

[shenmue]

1. The meme that all believers are violent or controlling is ridiculous

[cbayer]

2. I haven't really seen that meme.

But I have seen the member that all believers are delusional and brainwashed, and that's ridiculous, imo.

[Brainstormy]

3. Seriously?

"If a belief is held because of its effects, not its truth content, why should its falsity matter to the believer?"

Seriously?

[cbayer]

4. Making the author's point there, brainstormy.

[phil89]

5. It's unbelievable people

act as if that's an acceptable way to live. Irrational beliefs are behind just about every bad thing that's ever happened. The author of the article is trying to make some truly bizarre points.

[cbayer]

8. Also making the author's point.

Dogmatic beliefs about other's dogmatic beliefs are also bad, and generally illogical in and of themselves.

Employing empathy and actually trying to understand others is much more challenging than just calling them irrational and bizarre.

While the easy way might be personally gratifying, it is intellectually lazy.

[phil89]

9. They are

by definition irrational if they are faith based beliefs, words do mean things. Can you demonstrate why it would be helpful to empathize and support irrational beliefs?

[cbayer]

10. No, they are not irrational by definition.

Why don't you tell me what definition you are using here and what makes religious beliefs irrational. Were there evidence to the contrary, you might have a point. But there is not.

Religious beliefs are based on faith and do not require evidence. That's what they are by definition.

You are the poster child at this point for what this author is saying, though I suspect others will give you a run for your money. The world would be a much better place if people could empathize and support others, even if they don't share their beliefs..

The biggest reasons for one to take the position you espouse are to feel superior to others and spare oneself the effort of really trying to understand those that see the world differently.

Intellectually lazy, as the author states.

[phil89]

11. You're in the

mindset that it's rational to believe something if it can't be disproven. It's silly. Rational means based on or in accordance with reason or logic. You should know that.

Faith is belief without evidence, and belief without evidence is... You guessed it, irrational. I am still waiting for a reason to support irrational beliefs. Despite your attempts at mind reading, I take this approach because I care about whether what I believe is true or not true. I don't think adults who believe myths and fables are true should be encouraged. It's rational to wait for evidence before believing outrageous claims. I've tried to understand belief in untestable invisible beings... It doesn't make any sense. Hope this helps.

[cbayer]

12. Religious belief has nothing to do with rationality. It can't be judged using that measure.

That's the whole point.

There are other things that also fall into that category. Love, hope, fear, wishes. These things are not silly and not everything can be rational.

I know what rational means. I honor and respect your rejection of faith, but you are not in a position to judge those that embrace faith. Your position is not superior or more correct. It is not more rational because you have just about as much evidence to reject belief as someone else has to embrace it.

If something doesn't make sense to you, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to others.

Why the need to judge and insult them? Is it ok to judge and insult those that don't believe?

[skepticscott]

55. Answer your own question, cbayer

you mock creationists, you mock Mormons, you mock Scientologists, you rip on religious "extremists" of all stripes, despite having no evidence whatsoever to PROVE that their version of things isn't true. Which, according to you, makes their version every bit as valid as yours.

And do tell us about how belief in Santa Claus, unicorns and leprechauns is just as correct as not believing in them

[rock]

87. OK, let me jump in here

I don't like disagreeing with you cbayer (and I usually don't) but it seems to me that you're making the better case for phil89. Those things you mention, "love, hope, fear, wishes" are not truth-bearing entities, but of course, you can lie about them. Now religion purports to be true and rational. If it did neither, I wouldn't have any complaints about it.

[cbayer]

89. Does religion purports to be true and rational? I'm not so sure.

Those that claim that it is true bear the burden of proving that. But most just say they believe and acknowledge that their belief is based on faith and not evidence.

How does religion claim to be rational? I don't think that is a word that has any bearing when it comes to religious belief. That is not to say that it is irrational, just that the concept is irrelevant.

I think religion is not a truth-bearing entity…. and you can lie about it as well, lol.

[rock]

90. As usual you have a tight grip on logic

So it comes down to: if religions only sold their wares as parables (illustrations of their principles), I wouldn't hold any animosity toward them. But most believers are awfully thin-skinned about that particular point.

[cbayer]

92. While I agree that there are believers that are literalists, I think most

are not.

I also don't think most believers are selling their wares, parables or not.

So there would be a very large group that should not create any animosity in you, yes?

It is highly likely that they are on your side.

Always nice talking with you rock.

[rock]

95. Yes, a big majority do not offend me at all (most are NOT literalists)

Nice talking to you too.

[cbayer]

109. Glad to know that.

Some are offended by the mere existence of believers, but I didn't think you were one of them.

Hope to see you around again.

[AlbertCat]

136. While I agree that there are believers that are literalists,

All are if they fall for the premise that there is anything supernatural... like a god, or "other ways of knowing".

[cbayer]

140. Lol, let's talk about what literalists are, then you can carry on with you proselytizing.

Generally when we talk about literalists, we are talking about those that take their holy books literally.

The definition you have put forward is not one that is generally connected with literalism.

[trotsky]

143. "those that take their holy books literally"

How much of one's holy book can one take literally before you label them a literalist?

Is it a 100% or nothing deal with you, or what?

[Warren Stupidity]

168. Indeed we should talk about that, as you get it wrong.

Although you are not alone, as there is a general misunderstanding outside of the evangelical/fundy theological world about what *they* mean by biblical literalism.

These two paragraphs from the introduction in wiki sum up the confusion and its resolution:

Biblical literalism is a term used differently by different authors concerning biblical interpretation. It can equate to the dictionary definition of literalism: "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense",[1] where literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical".[2] This approach often obscures the literary aspects and consequently the primary meaning of the text.

Alternatively, the term can refer to the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).[3] It does not necessarily lead to complete agreement upon one single interpretation of any given passage. This Christian fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture is used extensively by fundamentalist Christians,[4] in contrast to the historical-critical method of liberal Christianity. Those who relate biblical literalism to the historical-grammatical method use the word "letterism" to cover interpreting the Bible according to the dictionary definition of literalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

When fundies talk about literalism they do not mean what you think they mean. They are interpreting the bible, just as is everyone else, they just do it the *right* way.

[skepticscott]

100. Um yes...

Every religion, every religious denomination has things that they hold to be true (or course, many of them contradict each other, which is why there are so many to begin with, but that's another story).

When religious people say "I believe X", quite obviously they are saying "I believe X to be true". Trying to argue that the two are somehow separate is just silly sophistry. No one means "I believe X is false" when they say "I believe X", now do they?

And yes, all sorts of religious "scholars" and "theologians" have put forth what they consider to be rational, logical arguments for the existence of god and for thinking of and worshipping him in a certain way. They want very badly for their version of religion to at least appear to be rational and try very hard to make that happen. It's only when the facts blow up in their face that they beat a hasty retreat to the fallback position: "Evidence doesn't matter, I just have faith".

[Warren Stupidity]

210. Oddly the use of the phrase "it is true that"

In front of "I believe X" adds no new information.

For example "I believe horses are green" and "it is true that I believe horses are green" are identical statements. In fact "horses are green" and "it is true that horses are green" are also identical. They are both false assertions about horses.

An assertion of belief or facts is of course an assertion that some statement (of belief or fact) is true. Anyone claiming otherwise is either dishonest or naive.

[Maedhros]

204. If I follow the Christian tenet to "Love one another"

am I being irrational?

[bvf]

6. Seriously.

It's all they have, except for the "New Atheist" bullshit.

[Dawson Leery]

7. +1,000,000,000

[Jim__]

13. "And religion has to be resisted because there are genuine societal costs."

... And religion has to be resisted because there are genuine societal costs. One can draw a straight line between religious dogma and scientific obscurantism or moral stagnation, for example. ...

There are probably genuine societal costs to just about any ideology or belief system that you care to cite. Socialism? What about the possible societal costs due to decreased incentive for individual innovation? Capitalism? What about the possible societal costs due to lopsided self-interest - e.g. climate change denialism among people with a large financial interests in fossil fuels?

I'm not sure resistance to the entire belief system is the best approach. Resistance to particular beliefs that lead to particular harmful effects may be a better approach.

[cbayer]

14. My takeaway is that the author would agree with you.

His position is that since religious has the potential for real societal costs and since it is not going away, it needs to be challenged and kept in check.

That would be true for other kinds of ideology, as you point out.

What I see him saying is that simply criticizing and making fun of religion and the religious is not sufficient. He then advocates for encouraging the good things that religion and the religious do.

But you can't do that if you adamantly refuse to see any of the good.

That seems to be the bottom line of this article.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Voltaire on Christianity:

Jesuit-educated, he began writing clever verses by the age of 12. He launched a lifelong, successful playwriting career in 1718, interrupted by imprisonment in the Bastille. Upon a second imprisonment, in which Francois adopted the pen name Voltaire, he was released after agreeing to move to London. There he wrote Lettres philosophiques (1733), which galvanized French reform. The book also satirized the religious teachings of Rene Descartes and Blaise Pascal, including Pascal's famed "wager" on God. Voltaire wrote: "The interest I have in believing a thing is not a proof of the existence of that thing." Voltaire's French publisher was sent to the Bastille and Voltaire had to escape from Paris again, as judges sentenced the book to be "torn and burned in the Palace." Voltaire spent a calm 16 years with his deistic mistress, Madame du Chatelet, in Lorraine. He met the 27 year old married mother when he was 39. In his memoirs, he wrote: "I found, in 1733, a young woman who thought as I did, and decided to spend several years in the country, cultivating her mind." He dedicated Traite de metaphysique to her. In it the Deist candidly rejected immortality and questioned belief in God. It was not published until the 1780s. Voltaire continued writing amusing but meaty philosophical plays and histories. After the earthquake that leveled Lisbon in 1755, in which 15,000 people perished and another 15,000 were wounded, Voltaire wrote "Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne" ("Poem on the Lisbon Disaster&quot : "But how conceive a God supremely good/ Who heaps his favours on the sons he loves,/ Yet scatters evil with as large a hand?"

Voltaire purchased a chateau in Geneva, where, among other works, he wrote Candide (1759). To avoid Calvinist persecution, Voltaire moved across the border to Ferney, where the wealthy writer lived for 18 years until his death. Voltaire began to openly challenge Christianity, calling it "the infamous thing." He wrote Frederick the Great: "Christanity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world." Voltaire ended every letter to friends with "Ecrasez l'infame" (crush the infamy — the Christian religion). His pamphlet, "The Sermon on the Fifty" (1762) went after transubstantiation, miracles, biblical contradictions, the Jewish religion, and the Christian God. Voltaire wrote that a true god "surely cannot have been born of a girl, nor died on the gibbet, nor be eaten in a piece of dough," or inspired "books, filled with contradictions, madness, and horror." He also published excerpts of Testament of the Abbe Meslier, by an atheist priest, in Holland, which advanced the Enlightenment. Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary was published in 1764 without his name. Although the first edition immediately sold out, Geneva officials, followed by Dutch and Parisian, had the books burned. It was published in 1769 as two large volumes. Voltaire campaigned fiercely against civil atrocities in the name of religion, writing pamphlets and commentaries about the barbaric execution of a Huguenot trader, who was first broken at the wheel, then burned at the stake, in 1762. Voltaire's campaign for justice and restitution ended with a posthumous retrial in 1765, during which 40 Parisian judges declared the defendant innocent. Voltaire urgently tried to save the life of Chevalier de la Barre, a 19 year old sentenced to death for blasphemy for failing to remove his hat during a religious procession. In 1766, Chevalier was beheaded after being tortured, then his body was burned, along with a copy of Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary. Voltaire's statue at the Pantheon was melted down during Nazi occupation.

“Atheism is the vice of a few intelligent people.

There are no sects in geometry.

The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.

Sect and error are synonymous.

Common sense is not so common.”

—Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, 1764

https://ffrf.org/news/day/famous-freethinkers-secular-stars/spotlight/item/14664-voltaire

Oh, yeah, arguing that religion is "positively corrosive" is, like, totally different from Voltaire.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe ...

... that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Richard Dawkins quoting Douglas Adams, in his dedication of "The God Delusion" to Adams.

Dawkins doesn't reject wonder. He just rejects supernatural claims about the things in the world that inspire wonder. Try a biology book by him, such as The Ancestor's Tale.

[cbayer]

18. Sure it's enough. It's enough for Dawkins and for you and for

many others.

He can reject all the supernatural claims he wants and he can see wonder in his own unique way.

But that is not what this is about. This is about understanding that some people have a much different take and taking the time to understand why that is, instead of just dismissing everything that doesn't jive with your own world view.

It's about understanding the Dawkins not believing in the fairies at the bottom of the garden is as legitimate as believing in the fairies.

[skepticscott]

19. And that pretty much sums up your whole take on reality, cbayer

not believing in the fairies at the bottom of the garden is as legitimate as believing in the fairies.

[beam me up scottie]

24. "not believing in the fairies...is as legitimate as believing in the fairies"?

[Warren Stupidity]

73. So the next time you object to the tooth fairy

analogy this claim of yours will be a bit of a problem. Or not. Intellectual honesty is generally lacking from the Defenders of the Faith here.

[beam me up scottie]

17. ooooooooo, TWO big scary pictures of atheists this time.

That's twice as effective as your last Gnu Atheist!!1! hit piece, cbayer.

And still just another boring example of the Courtier's Reply.

[rug]

21. Do you mean the "hit piece" on atheists by atheist Adam Lee?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/

[beam me up scottie]

23. The condescending twit who said women were too intimidated by old white men to become atheists?

Yes, that one.

Someone's sure intimidated by Dawkins, and it ain't we wimmenfolk.

OOGA BOOGA!!!

[rug]

26. Are you confusing him with Rebecca Watson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Watson#Elevator_incident

[immoderate]

20. Fatal arrogance??!! Methinks...

But it is fun figuring out how to apply "existential" to a non-existent being.

--imm

[cbayer]

22. Hmmm, methinks...

it might be the height of arrogance to claim that something is non-existent without any evidence of that being the case.

[immoderate]

25. Yes, it would be...

If things that don't exist actually existed. Maybe I'm not existential enough.

--imm

[cbayer]

27. Exactly. If you know for sure, then you are right to say so.

But if you express a definitive position that you are right without evidence, that might just be arrogant.

[immoderate]

28. I know nothing "for sure," but I don't have to be arrogant to know there are things that don't exist

--imm

[cbayer]

29. Do you know that no gods exist?

Or is that just a belief?

[immoderate]

39. As well as it can be known.

Similar to the way I know there can be no square circles, or terminal digits to pi, or omnipotent beings.

--imm

[cbayer]

41. As well as it can be known that one does exist.

You believe. You don't know.

[immoderate]

45. I know what "make believe" is.

Things like fairies, Snow White, god, the Mad Hatter, and Captain America have similar properties, and they are all not real. You say I can't know this. That's because there are limits to knowledge. But I know these things exist in people's imaginations.

--imm

[cbayer]

46. You have things that you think are "make believe" and others have a different list.

Unless you have evidence that something does not exist when someone else (in fact, the vast majority of people on earth) believes that it does, you can't call it make believe.

Well you can, but it's not a rational position to take.

Do you consider yourself gnostic when it comes to the existence of god? Do you think that everything that is believed by others but not by your is simply a result of their imagination?

Are you sure?

[immoderate]

53. I know that the vast majority have beliefs that are clearly prohibitive.

They absolutely can't all be right. But they could all be wrong.

It also means something that when you look for evidence where you should logically expect to find it, and it's not there.

I am as sure as I can be. The universe appears as there is no intervention by a 'celestial being.' Otherwise it would work better.

--imm

[cbayer]

62. They might all be wrong, and so might you.

You are as sure as you can be and believers are as sure as they can be.

Be happy that you have found the place that makes sense to you and think about being happy for those that have found their own place, even if it is really different than yours.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. When the similarities between God and Santa Claus are pointed out, a lot of believers take offence

as if they're not both benevolent beings that watch over the world and reward the good via supernatural means, that have no evidence for their existence, just a long line of tales. They seem happy in calling Santa 'make believe', though. Can we look forward to you saying that's "not a rational position to take"?

[cbayer]

74. I can't imagine why people take offense when they are told that their belief in god

is just like a belief in Santa or leprechauns. I just don't get it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. Do you think it's a rational position to say leprechauns are made up?

[cbayer]

84. I think your making comparisons between leprechauns and god is a big part of the problem.

It is as dismissive as it can get.

Instead of doing that, you should be asking the questions "Why is the belief in god different than the belief in leprechauns?" and "Why am I so hellbent on painting believers as idiots?".

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. You are not answering a question about your own posts here

You said one shouldn't criticise a belief unless one can prove it wrong. So, Santa, leprechauns and everything else: is it a rational position to say they are made up? You say it's not rational to say God, Allah, Vishnu or Thor (because we have to apply this to any god people have ever believed in) are made up; is it also not rational to say Santa is made up?

[cbayer]

88. Where did I say that?

You can criticize beliefs all you want. What I said is you can't say definitively that something does not exist unless you have evidence it doe not exist.

When you compare god to santa and leprechauns and whatever else you want, you only do it to denigrate those that believe in god, to make them appear foolish. Go ahead, but it is not they that look foolish.

The point is not whether one argument is more or less rational than the other. The point is in how you use the comparison to dismiss, even though you have no more evidence than a believer does.

It's a silly game that does little other than make the author's point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. #46:

"Unless you have evidence that something does not exist when someone else (in fact, the vast majority of people on earth) believes that it does, you can't call it make believe.

Well you can, but it's not a rational position to take. "

So, again, is it a rational position to call Santa make believe? Why would people get pissed off with comparisons of gods to Santa and leprechauns if they didn't think the latter two are make believe?

[cbayer]

97. So, you have just shown clearly that I did not say this:

"You said one shouldn't criticise a belief unless one can prove it wrong." I said you can't call it make believe unless you have evidence.

If someone insists to you that Santa is real, feel free to debate forever with them.

If someone insists to you that god is real, feel free to debate forever with them.

But your comparisons serve the sole purpose of denigrating the person who believes. It's not about pissing someone off, though that may be your intention, it's about the intellectual laziness of mocking their beliefs instead of acknowledging that their position is as valid as your own.

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. I'm not going to mollycoddle people with evidence-free beliefs about supernatural beings

You don't do it with Santa Claus, though you still won't admit that; because you don't want to admit you have a double standard. You give god believers 'respect' and insist their myth is as valid as reality, but you don't do that with leprechauns, or Xenu. You're quite happy laughing at Scientology, and not saying "it's just as valid".

[cbayer]

116. And that right there says it all.

Sad, really, but whatever floats your boat, muriel. The world is yours to judge.

[muriel_volestrangler]

121. No, it's not 'sad', it's freedom of speech and thought, and quite liberating

Religion is not an idea that has to be treated with kid gloves; it should be examined, the same way we examine astrology, ghosts, homeopathy, capitalism, communism or string theory. We judge those; and if there's no evidence for them, or they are inconsistent, or they produce bad results for people we can say the alternatives are more valid.

[trotsky]

123. "The world is yours to judge."

Damn.

[phil89]

154. But you JUST said

belief in fairies is as legitimate as non belief in fairies. Same thing with Santa. Can you ever stop contradicting yourself? If both are legit, why would the comparison be offensive?

[cbayer]

157. Edited

I did say that they were equally legitimate in response to the Douglas Adams quote above.

My general point is that without proof of something existing or not existing, taking a definitive stance that it does or does not exist is not legitimate. You can say you believe or don't believe, but you would bee foolish to say it is or isn't.

If someone approaches you with the position that fairies exist, you can try to disprove them wrong. You may be successful, depending on what they describe.

If someone approaches you with the position that god exist, you can try to disprove them wrong, but you will fail.

And no, because I rarely say that I hold the truth, I will from time to time contradict myself as I learn new information.

That ok with you?

[AlbertCat]

165. I will from time to time contradict myself as I learn new information.

Try regular ways of knowing instead of other ways of knowing. You'll get superior results!

[cbayer]

167. I do use regular ways of knowing and don't know about other ways.

I am able to incorporate new data and change my position, which appears to be something you really struggle with.

Your dogmatic position when it comes to religion appears immutable, so you may want to try regular ways of knowing instead of closing yourself off to any different perspective. You'll get superior results!

BTW, that was one of the weakest uses of snark I have ever seen you make, and that's saying something.

[AlbertCat]

203. don't know about other ways.

You'll just say anything...anything at all....won't you? You think we don't have memories?

[cbayer]

206. We? I know that y'all have memories, but they are often very distorted.

The "other ways of knowing" is not from me. Unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary, y'all may have to drop that one from your playbook.

Well, you won't, but you should.

My goodness. Sometimes this all feels so Jim Jonesy. Don't drink the kool-aid, Albert.

[Warren Stupidity]

170. Oh so you realized you'd painted yourself into a very uncomfortable corner with your

claim regarding faeries and now you are desperately trying to row that boat back to shore.

Good luck with that.

It's about understanding the Dawkins not believing in the fairies at the bottom of the garden is as legitimate as believing in the fairies.

What you said.

Now about santa?

[tkmorris]

47. However arrogant you might deem that to be

It is INFINITELY less arrogant than claiming that a thing does exist despite an utter lack of evidence that it does.

[beam me up scottie]

48. There's a meme for that:

[cbayer]

59. I would deem them both arrogant.

INFINITELY might be a bit much, but I have little tolerance for people that make gnostic claims on either side.

[mr blur]

30. Still, never mind, eh?

What drivel.

[Binkie The Clown]

31. OMFG! How sad that we don't want to share their delusions.

And that makes us intellectually lazy? Give me a break.

Like it takes an intellectual giant to believe the nonsense peddled by religion that is in direct contradiction to observed reality. Rigorous evidence of evolution or believe some comic fairy tale about how the universe was created. Which is lazy? Study the evidence and come to a reality-based conclusion, or skip the evidence (they use big words, and the books are so heavy) and jump straight to the fairy tale our Sunday school teachers told us when we were six years old? Which is lazy? eh?

[rug]

32. "New Atheists show little interest in understanding how believers really think or feel"

"Rigorous evidence of evolution or believe some comic fairy tale about how the universe was created."

A rigorous examination of the evidence leads me to conclude the OP is accurate.

[cbayer]

34. And it's so nice that there are those that are willing to jump in and give glaring

examples of exactly what the author was describing.

Some people never fail to come through.

[Fumesucker]

37. I had a fairly extensive religious education in Christianity anyway..

And I've been surrounded by Christians for all my life, many of those Christians are more than eager to share how they think and feel about their faith, indeed getting them to occasionally shut up about it is one of my more quixotic wishes.

On the other hand very few people beyond my immediate family (and not even all of those) know I'm an atheist, letting people know that still engenders enough hostility that I keep my lips very firmly sealed virtually all the time.

[rug]

38. Hostility is a very nasty thing.

[Leontius]

51. Exactly on target

His post is a perfect example of the intellectual laziness of many atheists.

[XemaSab]

120. On Sun May 10, 2015, 06:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Exactly on target
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=197196

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling another poster (binkie the clown) as well as a group of posters/humans (atheists) as being intellectually lazy is a personal attack. It's also bigoted towards Atheists and should be rightfully hidden if it was a slam against a religion, or race, or sexual orientation.

Please hide this nasty and snide remark.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun May 10, 2015, 06:57 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: He didn't actually comment on the poster, but rather on the post, plus it's directly relevant to OP.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seriously? If this offends the alerter they really should not be on the Internet, never mind hanging out on DU.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The truth hurts.

Atheists need to step up their game.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cbayer]

33. I fear you missed the whole point.

It's not about sharing anyone else's beliefs at all.

It's about understanding why and how they see things differently than you.

It's intellectually lazy to read an article like this and come away with some shallow statement about sharing "delusions".

Thanks for making the author's point.

[immoderate]

43. Do psychologists need to share delusions to understand them?

Do beliefs change reality? Why can't delusions be deeply understood?

--imm

[cbayer]

44. I fear that you don't understand what a delusion is.

Delusions are beliefs that are firmly held despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Religious beliefs are not delusions, by definition, because there is generally no clear evidence to the contrary.

A good psychologist will be very interested in exploring the beliefs of a patient and must do so to really determine whether they are delusions or not.

Assuming that what a patient believes is a delusion without trying to understand what they are thinking is intellectually lazy and likely to lead to some really big mistakes.

[immoderate]

52. In a clinical setting, I would approach appropriately.

I wouldn't want to upset somebody who thinks, say, that god is trying to kill them. Could that qualify as a delusion?

You don't need any special handling do you? Let's stipulate you're not a patient.

Do you think that anything, that cannot be contradicted by clear evidence, cannot be determined a delusion? Fairies? Leprechauns? Loch Ness Monster? Chem trails? Can you prove that people can't be fooled?

Try this. Can all the gods people believe in actually exist, since their god's existence precludes the existence of other gods, in most cases?

--imm

[cbayer]

63. Do you have the credentials to determine what is and is not delusional.

I'm going to guess no.

I have no opinion on whether all the gods people believe in exist. I just think they have the right to believe what they want and you have the right to not believe what you want and you are in no way superior to them, nor them to you.

It's really not that hard. Your position is valid and you don't have to dismiss everyone else for it to be so.

[skepticscott]

56. Hogwash

The religious belief that the earth is less than 10,000 years old is firmly held by many people, despite having clear and abundant evidence to the contrary. It's a delusion, cbayer. By YOUR definition. The religious belief that bread and wine turn into actual flesh and blood during communion is similarly a delusion, by your definition. There are hundreds more.

We have only your declaration that religious beliefs are not delusions, a declaration that you continue to cling to, despite abundant and clear evidence to the contrary. And we all know what that makes it.

[LTX]

215. "Do beliefs change reality?"

Yes.

[immoderate]

218. Please continue...

--imm

[LTX]

236. Examples abound.

Placebos and nocebos are one such. As are beliefs ensconced in systems of morality and law, which have both the fortunate and unfortunate effect of changing the reality of people upon whom the ramifications of those systems are imposed.

Furthermore, a very large part of "reality" is a product of subjective sentient perception and related manipulation of non-sentitent materiality. The "reality" of both are rather dramatically changed as a consequence.

[immoderate]

238. We are using different concepts of reality.

I am talking about something that is external. You are talking abut perceptions, which are subjective.

--imm

[LTX]

239. You lost me.

What do you mean by an "external" reality? The external reality of, say, rocks that were quarried (with the consequential alteration of the external reality of the environment from which the rocks were obtained) to build a bridge (or cathedral, or monument, etc.) that a given group of people believed was necessary or aesthetically pleasing (which in turn altered the external reality of the environment in which the construction occurred)? Or perhaps the external reality of a jail cell now occupied by an individual incarcerated based on a group belief that x (say, drug possession) is criminally sanctionable (a rather distinct external reality change for the incarcerated individual). Or perhaps the external behavior of an individual whose pain or delusional behavior is altered by a placebo? Or perhaps you are talking about local realism as it relates to separated particles?

[immoderate]

240. The reality I refer to is: that which is not altered by perception.

Realize that "reality" embraces several different definitions. You are on the edge of solipsism. Nothing to be gained there.

--imm

[LTX]

241. Well, I'm really perplexed now.

If reality is that which is not altered by perception, then you are essentially defining reality as exclusive of sentient life forms. Indeed, what you seem to be dismissing as "mere" perception is at the heart of the observer problem. I would, of course, agree that if no sentient life existed, there would be no alteration of reality through perception (or, as a subset of perception, belief). But sentient life does exist, so that seems like a rather pointless proposition.

As an aside, do you believe that the colors you perceive are real?

[immoderate]

242. Is infrared real?

--imm

[LTX]

243. Certainly.

The electromagnetic spectrum is quite real, as is visible radiation. But back to my (nominal) aside -- do you believe that the colors you perceive are real?

[immoderate]

244. In this context I would say "no."

Color perception is a subjective experience. In your frame, colors are not real to a blind person. Yet the electromagnetic spectrum persists. Maybe we can find a different word, that we can agree upon, to express the notion of a "reality" that doesn't depend on who is viewing it. Suggestions?

Maybe DU should start an "equivocation" group so people have a venue to argue about what words mean.

--imm

[LTX]

245. LOL! I like the idea of an equivocation group.

I would disagree somewhat with your statement that colors are not real. You and I objectively know that the light waves we optically gather and neurologically translate have no intrinsic color, and that color is a perception phenomenon, but that does not alter (for me at least) the enjoyable reality of the colors I perceive. I guess that is a kind of microcosm of our diverging definitions of reality. I have no suggestions at the moment for alternatives, but a more granular grouping of words for "reality" is a rather interesting idea.

[immoderate]

246. For some people "reality" means Obama is a Muslim.

Does that comport with your view?

--imm

[LTX]

248. That's a pretty good example of the need for definitional gradations.

Depending on the conviction of the belief, "reality" may indeed be that the President is a Muslim for such an individual, just as the "reality" of a sociopath is amorality. The belief itself would not change the religious affiliation of the President, but it has the capacity for altering external realities if, say, such an individual chooses to extend that belief into an attack on the President. In such a case, belief would indeed change reality.

That said, there is obviously a distinction between phenomenological effects of perception (for example, the effects on particle spin by measurement, or the physical effects of a placebo) and non-phenomenological effects of firmly believed but covert abstractions.

I still have no suggestions for alternative terms.

[edhopper]

35. atheists

Dawkins, Denney, Pinker, Harris etc...
Often talk about why believers think as they do.
Believers just don't like their speculation s and conclusions.

Sorry if they don't take believers feelings and other ways of knowing at face value.

[cbayer]

36. This article addresses a subgroup.

Aren't you going to use that completely dismissive phrase "fee-fee's"? That would exemplify exactly what the author is talking about.

It's not about taking anything at face value. It's about understanding that other's think differently, experience the world differently and hold different beliefs, and then trying to understand why that is the case, as opposed to ridiculing and completely dismissing them as something less than yourself.

Arrogant is exactly the right word to describe how some people, including Dawkins, view the perspective of others.

The article actually give Harris credit for being intellectually rigorous when it comes to this.

[Fumesucker]

40. How could we *not* know what theists "think and feel" about their religion?

It's not like they don't talk about their religion constantly, there are entire cable networks dedicated to letting us know how theists think and feel about their religion(s).

It used to be that the frequencies below 92 MHz on the FM dial were dedicated to non profit radio and tended to be Public Radio and the occasional college radio station, now those same frequencies are inundated by religious broadcasters who spend almost all their time telling us how they think and feel about their religion.

[cbayer]

42. You are surrounded by people that talk about it all the time, as you have said many times.

But there are many who never talk about it and whose answers might surprise you, if you ever bothered to ask.

If you only rely on the bible thumpers and christian radio, you are sure to get a very narrow view or a caricature of the christian.

Then you run the risk of assuming that all christians are just like that.

It would be like someone assuming that the caricature of an atheist was a true reflection of atheists. That's the reason you find it dangerous to say who you are.

A little do unto others might go a long way here.

[Fumesucker]

50. I have asked some of the Christians I know "What if you had never met another Christian?"

"Would you then still be a Christian?"

No one I've ever asked that of will give me a straight answer, yes or no.

I suspect I'd get the same evasions if I were to ask a Muslim if they would still be Muslim if they had never met another Muslim.

Even those who "know" who I am often say things to me I feel are very insulting, I can't recall ever being called a "Good person" by any of them but "Good Godly Man" or "Good Christian Woman" are common phrases used around me by people who know I'm neither Godly nor a Christian. About 90% of the time I attribute it to just being utterly clueless about the feelings and perspectives of others, the other 10% of the time I'm more cynical.

It's like after 9/11, all the public utterances of grief and remorse in America never mentioned atheists, it took Tony fracking Blair to finally say "People of all faiths and no faith at all" were in pain in a public memorial at the National Cathedral. After about three or four days the absence of atheists in these public grief sessions became glaring to me and I started watching for mentions.

[cbayer]

61. That's a gotcha question.

You expect a certain answer, then accuse people of evasion when they don't give you the answer you want.

Who can answer that question? And what difference does it make anyway?

I'm sorry you are insulted and no one says you are a "good person". It's your misfortune to live where you do, but it's not the fault of every believer that you have met or might meet at some point.

[Fumesucker]

67. It's a question taken straight from my own personal experience

If that makes it a "gotcha" question then my life has been one big "gotcha" since about the age of twelve or so when I realized I didn't really believe the same as everyone else around me evidently did.

[cbayer]

77. Since your experience is that you are a non-believer even though you hadn't been

exposed to non-believers, the answer to your question should be obvious, no?

People find their own paths, even if there is no one there to guide them.

[Fumesucker]

124. How come no one ever answers the question in a straightforward manner then?

I think the answer is obvious, of course the vast majority of Christians would not be Christians if they had never met a Christian.

[cbayer]

127. I would guess because they don't know the answer.

It's a hypothetical. I was just pointing out that you could make an assumption based on your personal experience.

If you think the answer is obvious and you know the answer, why ask?

Data doesn't really jive with your "obvious" conclusion, though. A lot of people change religions or change from religious to non-relgious and vice versa.

[edhopper]

49. I think

Dawkins et al fully understand what motivations people have in religious beliefs.

You want everyone to be left alone with those beliefs. Others think their feelings are immaterial when talking about the basis of the beliefs.

"It's true for them" just doesn't cut it.

[cbayer]

60. Oh, please. Dawkins et al has no idea what motivates people who

have religious beliefs.

The arrogance is in thinking your know without even asking.

Yes, I do think people should be left alone with their beliefs, unless they are harming others. Just the way I think people should be left along with their non-beliefs.

Why is that a problem?

It's true for them fully cuts it. It's not true for you fully cuts it too.


Or is your position that beliefs should be challenged but lack of beliefs shouldn't be?

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. Dawkins coined the word 'meme' while discussing why people hold beliefs, about 40 years ago

and has written extensively on the subject ever since.

The second half of the book begins by exploring the roots of religion and seeking an explanation for its ubiquity across human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product – a misfiring of something useful"[21] as for example the mind's employment of intentional stance. Dawkins suggests that the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, can explain how religions might spread like "mind viruses" across societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion#Religion_and_morality

"Or is your position that beliefs should be challenged but lack of beliefs shouldn't be?"

Do we challenge each other on our non-belief that our minds are controlled by seventy-dimensional beings that entertain themselves by creating worlds like ours as soap operas? That the universe started 78 hours ago and there has never been a 'Tuesday', and any idea of yours that there has been is an attempt by your mind to account for the strange state of affairs it observes? There are infinitely many beliefs we lack, and we don't challenge them.

[cbayer]

79. Dawkins made up a lot of stuff, but what he didn't do was actually study

believers to try and understand why they believe. That's what he should have down, being a scientist and all.

He's developed hypotheses, but has never tested them.

Your lack of belief is not more sacrosanct or immune from questioning than someone's belief. The arrogance of saying one has the superior position without really understanding why others hold a different position is what this article is about and is exemplified in this thread.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. Dawkins has gone out of his way to engage

theists in discussions about belief.

In fact Dawkins is quite famous for his public debates with prominent theist, for example Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

He is also of the opinion that atheists should engage in dialog about belief with theists.

Other than the fact that you and the op are just making shit up, you have a valid point.

[phil89]

104. You keep pointing

to the article as if it's some kind of conclusive peer reviewed study and then playing "gotcha" when you feel someone fits the description of something in the article. Who cares? It's one person's rather prissy,poorly supported opinion. It means nothing that someone is an "example" of something the author is talking about. It's his opinion. Do you seriously not understand that?

[cbayer]

107. Heavens no. It's an opinion piece and doesn't claim to be anything other than that.

It bears absolutely no resemblance to a conclusive peer reviewed study.

What I am responding to is those that extrapolate this article from the very small subgroup which it talks about to all atheists. He is very specific about he who is talking about, and one need not look very far to see shining examples of that subgroup right here.

You may disagree with him, but you apparently care, as you have chosen to participate in the discussion.

I'm going to bet that if you understand something, I probably understand it just as well.

[guillaumeb]

54. Nice, provocative post.

And yes, the same people do prove the accuracy of the observation.

I have never heard an atheist give a convincing explanation as to how they are certain that there is no creator. Some few will say that they are willing to believe in a creator "if they see convincing evidence". If that is so they are not true atheists, they are conditional atheists. Other atheists are as absolutely certain that there is no creator as theists are that there is a creator. And both sides truly believe that they are correct. Both atheists and theists believe without proof. Sounds like two competing faiths to me.

Some scientists might talk about the big bang theory of existence. I am no scientist, but my perception is that the big bang was a giant explosion that created the known universe. Said explosion caused everything to expand outward from the explosion center. If this is so, where did the matter come from that exploded? Was it created, or did it always exist?

Some here will talk about the non-existence of a creator because they cannot imagine a creator. Can an ant imagine the creator of a building? Does the ant even recognize that a building is a constructed object? If there is a creator, what leads any human to feel that they have the capacity to perceive the creator?

If anyone here is omniscient please speak up and I will direct my questions to you, but until I meet such a person I will continue to have faith.

[Act_of_Reparation]

57. "I have never heard an atheist give a convincing explanation as to how they are certain...

...that there is no creator."

[cbayer]

65. Ah, the calling someone's point a fallacy fallacy.

It takes nerve to actually answer the question, but nothing to call it a logical fallacy.

[Act_of_Reparation]

105. Ah, the calling a fallacy a fallacy fallacy.

You're obviously confused.

The poster posed a question based upon a misrepresentation of their opponents' position. I thought that pointing out the exact sentence in which the fallacy was made along with a fairly comprehensive definition of that fallacy would leave little question as to the mistake the poster had made. Obviously, I overestimated my audience's grasp of logic more than somewhat.

Well, allow me to put it (even more) simply:

[div style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; font-size: 20px; color:coral;"]I am not certain there is no creator, nor am I aware of anyone who claims to be certain that there is no creator. It seems to me the poster is either addressing atheists who don't post here, or they are just as confused as you. In either case, there's little point answering a question based upon faulty assumptions. I have neither the time nor the inclination to follow that particular rabbit down its hole.

[cbayer]

108. "You're obviously confused". Thank gawd that you are hear to 'splain things to me.

Of course you overestimated your audiences grasp of logic. Our brains are minuscule compared to yours.

BTW, is your attacking someone as confused and unable to grasp simple logic a logical fallacy? I believe it may be.

But, to answer you, there are actually people who post here that claim there is no creator and do so with a great deal of certainty. The fact that you haven't seen them or are unaware of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Kind of like god.

You've already followed the rabbit down the hole, and you got to use big red letters when you went.

[Major Nikon]

126. Don't you see?

You are obligated to argue with gibberish, because if you simply explain why it's gibberish then you are the one committing the fallacy because of reasons I can't fully articulate without committing a fallacy myself.

[cbayer]

128. Gibberish? You deem my responses gibberish?

At least have the guts to say so directly to me instead of around me.

[Major Nikon]

134. No

I call fallacies gibberish.

[cbayer]

135. I think calling things fallacies instead of actually countering them amounts to gibberish.

I guess that makes us even.

[Major Nikon]

137. One certainly can't argue with that kind of logic

[Warren Stupidity]

171. Do you understand what a fallacy is and why if a claim is based on fallacious logic that is

sufficient grounds for dismissing it?

Or is that gibberish to you?

[Act_of_Reparation]

130. I know, right?

If this was an intentional, deliberately constructed rhetorical trap, I'd say the poster is an evil genius of FOX-like standards.

Too bad incompetence is a more plausible explanation.

[cbayer]

131. Evil genius of Fox-like standards? But you think I'm probably just incompetent?

I'm not sure whether to be insulted or really insulted.

What's with you two talking about me instead of to me? Are you feeling so defeated that you need someone to hold your hand?

[trotsky]

133. Too funny!

Loving every minute of this.

[beam me up scottie]

169. I have to agree - Hanlon's razor.

[guillaumeb]

94. Avoidance and evasion.

Now I am certain that YOU are not the omniscient one to whom I should address my questions.

[Act_of_Reparation]

106. Neither is anyone else.

Try asking better questions next time.

[cbayer]

110. You must be confused. That was a perfectly good response.

Not being able to answer a question doesn't mean the question is not good.

Is that a logical fallacy?

[beam me up scottie]

58. Yes, atheists are so arrogant.

[cbayer]

64. IMO, no one can give a convincing explanation for either the existence or lack of existence

of deities. Those that take a definitive stand either way are foolish and driven by their need to be right and better than the "other".

Faith is fine. Those that reject it personally are fine. Those that reject everyone else who has it are weak.

[Fumesucker]

68. What about those who reject everyone else who *doesn't* have faith?

Are they "weak" also?

Because they are a lot more common in this society than the ones you wrote of.

[cbayer]

80. Being a lot more common does not equate with being a lot worse.

Rejecting people for their beliefs or lack of beliefs is equally wrong. Its' a lazy and weak position based on prejudice and the inability or lack of interest in finding out who others are.

[Warren Stupidity]

78. Or tooth fairies, or Easter bunnies or unicorns

or Harry fucking potter.

And as you have embraced the existence of fairies up thread as equally plausible to the obvious fact that they are imaginary beings you cannot wriggle out of this.

But why stop there? The creationists make elaborate claims that explain away all evidence of evolution, so in your dishonest agnosticism their theory of a God created world is as equally valid as the standard cosmology the standard geological model and the theory of evolution.

[Major Nikon]

186. The same can be said for Russell's teapot

...or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[cbayer]

192. Yes, the same can be said. So what?

[Major Nikon]

195. Exactly

[Major Nikon]

125. Shifting the burden of proof seems to be a popular tactic among believers

It never really amounts to anything better than an argument from ignorance, but that doesn't seem to stop them.

[guillaumeb]

153. Is shifting the burden of proof

any worse than demanding proof of the unproveable?

[Major Nikon]

175. Yes

[cbayer]

160. OMG, you have made my day!

You have yet again dismissed another position as a logical fallacy.

You have some many tools in your tool belt that you can use to not actually respond to what someone has said.

Do you have the big chart pasted up over your computer for easy reference?

[trotsky]

162. I think you need this.

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/

Logical fallacies are a real thing. If you want to, you can go attack Purdue University, or any other college that has posted pretty much the same thing. It is so odd seeing you get vicious about this; you're totally in the wrong here.

[Warren Stupidity]

172. it seems cbrayer thinks pointing out a logical fallacy is some sort of insult.

Odd. Not surprising, but odd.

[Major Nikon]

201. Using a logical fallacy is an insult

If you do so knowingly you are insulting the intelligence of your audience. If you do so unknowingly you are insulting your own intelligence.

[beam me up scottie]

173. Not to mention atheists aren't "shifting the burden of proof".

We're pointing out that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Such a simple concept.

[Major Nikon]

174. You are wrong because the moon is made of blue cheese

[cbayer]

176. More substantive responses.

When you've got nothing, turn to snark. At least it's amusing.

[Major Nikon]

177. Failing to address my argument is a fallacy

[Humanist_Activist]

211. You seem to know more about atheists than atheists do, but I'm not a "true atheist"...

according to you, so I guess that doesn't count.

[cbayer]

216. Sort of like some non-believers seem to know more about believers than believers do, but

I'm not a "true non-believer" according to many around here so I guess that doesn't count.

The whole article is about people assuming that they know more about others than the others in question know about themselves.

It's arrogant and intellectually lazy, isn't it.

[Humanist_Activist]

253. I don't think anyone here is claiming you are not a "true non-believer", just that you...

are aggravating in giving religion and theological arguments far too much unwarranted respect, and you seem to revere the idea of religion, even if you don't follow any yourself.

[cbayer]

254. Oh, no. People have frequently said I am not a true non-believer.

They have gone so far as to say I am a liar and I that I am intentionally misleading.

I'm not a nonbeliever that fits their specific mold, and since that mold is extremely narrow, I'm not the only only one that doesn't fit.

I wil give religion and theological arguments as much respect as I want, and I will decide if it is unwarranted or not.

It galls some people that I give it any at all, let alone that I see many aspects of it as very positive and very worth supporting, even though I don't follow any myself.

I also support GLBT rights, and I'm not GLBT. I also strongly support immigrants, although I am not an immigrant.

[Humanist_Activist]

255. I'll give an example of what I'm talking about, in this thread, we have...

guillaumeb make a post that, quite literally, doesn't apply to 99% of the atheists that exist. Indeed, its a post that is more or less full of strawmen, and who jumps to his defense, you. Why?

He could be making honest mistakes, but his problem is assuming far too much of atheists, while misconstruing our lack of belief.

[cbayer]

256. I don't give a shit what guillamubed has said.

He seems like a nice enough person and someone who speaks in good faith.

I jump to his defense because i think he is being unfairly attacked.

Do I not have the right to do that?

Never speak of atheists as "our" or "we" unless you really are representing some group. You are not.

Enough of this useless, divisive us vs. them. You don't speak for 99% of anyone, and neither do I.

[Humanist_Activist]

257. The point is that he propped up a strawman atheist, who isn't even close to representative...

of most atheists for the sole purpose of knocking it down and claiming some superiority. He also mixes up scientific questions as religious ones.

[guillaumeb]

217. I used the term "conditional atheist".

What I "know" about atheists is limited to what any individual atheist says about a topic. My comments are about the tendencies of "some" atheists to over generalize.

I am still waiting for an answer to my question about what preceded the big bang, and where the matter that exploded came from.

[Humanist_Activist]

228. That's a scientific question, and the answer is, we don't know.

I don't see how that is relevant to theological discussions, God isn't an answer.

[beam me up scottie]

229. That is the difference between scientists and creationists.

One group isn't afraid to say they don't know and the other claims they know it all.

[Humanist_Activist]

252. What's infuriating is that this answer isn't enough, they want us to claim to know it all.

Because that is what the religious do, they try to frame it as a big mystery, but really, they really do know all the answers, at least according to them.

The question doesn't even make sense to ask of just atheists anyways, its a scientific question, not a religious one. Religion has no answers about the nature of the universe, its all assumptions, hope and superstition. What claims are made about the universe and the structure of it are invariably wrong, and the rest is God of the gaps arguments.

[Yorktown]

66. This article isn't making any point. But one passage is very funny.

That passage is a riot:

{Atheists} talk incessantly about the untruth of religion because they assume truth is what matters most to religious people. And perhaps it does for many, but certainly not all – at least not in the conventional sense of that term. Religious convictions, in many cases, are held not because they’re true but because they’re meaningful

It's so funny it deserves to be broken down:

{Atheists} talk incessantly about the untruth of religion

Could it be because the 'holy' books are demonstrably full of mistakes and untruths?

{Atheists} assume truth is what matters most to religious people.

the word 'most' is a red herring. Atheists are making the assumption truth matters.
Would the author care to subscribe to the statement that truth does not matter to religious people?

{Atheists} talk incessantly about the untruth of religion because they assume truth is what matters most to religious people. And perhaps it does for many, but certainly not all – at least not in the conventional sense of that term.

Let's go further and grant the word 'most'.
Is the author saying that for some religious people, there are things which trump truth?
The word 'trump' is key, otherwise the author's sentence would be pointless.

Religious convictions, in many cases, are held not because they’re true but because they’re meaningful

This one is a beauty.
If the convictions held are true and meaningful, absolutely nobody would object, and the sentence is useless.
If the author means some people hold convictions which are untrue but meaningful, the problem is obvious.

A remarkably laughable article.

[Cartoonist]

71. By laughing at it, you prove his point.

That's what the believers say.

[cbayer]

75. Believers say that. Non-beleivers say that. The author is an atheist he he says it.

Oops!

This thread is rife with people proving his point. The intellectually sanctimonious among us are all beating their chests in this thread.

They are, of course, superior in every way.

[Yorktown]

119. No. I just laugh at the demonstrable lack of logic of his assertions.

If I say "Unicorns exist, and only idiots will laugh at that statement"

someone laughing at the statement does not prove he is an idiot.

It proves my statement was wrong. As are those of this article.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. The Comfort Of Religion And The Purpose Of Life

[Boomer]

81. I guess I'm an Old Atheist

I don't tend to talk about being an atheist, I don't argue for atheism or against religion.

I just don't believe.

Just like I don't do lots of other things, like play sports or paraglide. And since I don't do them, and I'm not particularly interested in them, I mostly don't think about them either. When I read articles like the OP, mostly I'm just puzzled that anyone has the energy to talk so much about a void. It's like talking about sports when you don't even like sports. If you're not an atheist, why do you care what atheists think? And if you're atheist, don't you have better things to do with your time than talk about things you don't believe?

I'll debate laws or behaviors that people try to force on me that I feel are not applicable to me. I will argue in favor of separation of church and state. But those are issues that apply to everyone, not just atheists. Any single set of beliefs forced on a population is being forced on many other religious factions too; atheists are just collateral damage.

[cbayer]

82. You are a typical atheist, imo.

The people highlighted in this article really don't spend a lot of time talking about their lack of beliefs. They do, however, spend a lot of time talking about believers. They are on a crusade, have a mission, have discovered the one way.

And they've made nice fortunes doing just that.

Separation issues are important to believers and non-believers and something we can all get behind.

[edhopper]

86. If a local sports team

wanted to build a large stadium using a billion dollars in tax payer money, would you still not talk about?

Would you think about why people are obsessed with sports and willing to spend the time and treasure on this when other problems are ignored to be immaterial?

If you thought sports was a detrimental influence to your community, would you still not talk about it?

[cbayer]

91. Is there a religious group in your community using a billion dollars

in tax payer money to build something? How is religion a detrimental influent in your community?

There are, in fact, many people obsessed with sports who spend their time and resources on it while ignoring other problems. I don't identify with them but how they spend their time and resources is really none of my business, and I'm not going to advocate for the elimination of sports. Why are you so concerned about whether people have religious beliefs or not?

[edhopper]

96. I was addressing the analogy Boomer used

you have taken it literally.
And my response was for boomer anyway.

There is this though;

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/05/20/208151/kentucky-tax-break-creationis-theme-park/

[cbayer]

98. You weren't making a comparison? Odd post, then.

FWIW, Kentucky did not give the theme park the tax breaks that they sought, and even if they had, it wasn't anywhere near a billion dollars.

http://time.com/3694802/ken-ham-genesis-kentucky-lawsuit/

[edhopper]

99. The point was

that you missed, was religion does influence what happens around you, just as the sports industry does.

He ignores sports because it doesn't matter to him. He might not care about game stats, but he should care about how sports affects to his community.

[cbayer]

101. Of course religion has an influence, but when you resort to such hyperbole,

it only diminishes the degree of influence you claim it has.

Probably about as much as sports in most communities - upsides, downsides, but not really a big deal.

[edhopper]

102. You underestimate the influence

of both.

[cbayer]

103. You sometimes overestimate the influence of both.

And sometimes I think you fail to see that both can be positive forces in a community.

[edhopper]

111. I know they can

doesn't make anything about religion true, just because some good comes out of it.

And doesn't excuse the harm.

[Warren Stupidity]

112. hyperbole like "atheism's fatal arrogance"?

or some other sort of hyperbole?

[trotsky]

129. "It's hyperbole, something frequently used when debating or having a discussion."

That's how you defended yourself when you accused someone else of "proposing genocide."

The double standards just never end, do they? OK for you, not OK for others. Fucking unreal.

[beam me up scottie]

164. Wanting to put catholic hospitals out of business = PROPOSING GENOCIDE???

Thank the FSM Heddi was around to smack the stupidity out of that batshit insane accusation.

There are a lot of apologists who slander religious critics on DU but that was hands fucking down the absolute lowest thing I've ever seen one do.

[trotsky]

183. And then to turn around and attack someone else for using "hyperbole"...

when you're on record accusing another DUer of supporting genocide.

I really don't get it. What terrible behavior.

[beam me up scottie]

190. When you can't refute your opponents argument it's best to lie about their motives.

Obviously atheists who want poor people to go without health care are the ones in the wrong here.

Not the catholic apologists who excuse the RCC's war on women.

[Freelancer]

114. Fatal Arrogance?

Last edited Sun May 10, 2015, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)

First, let me say that I'm not a true atheist, but I am atheist-adjacent. I don't pretend to be able to reference this or that classical argument.

You wrote:

Atheism has a storied history in the West. From the irreverent Voltaire to the iconoclastic Nietzsche, the godless have always had a voice. But the New Atheists are different. ...

Okay, that's already inaccurate. Only recently have the "godless" had a voice. Voltaire and Nietzsche spoke their minds and got published instead of being stoned or burned -- admittedly an improvement. The "storied history" you refer to must be the vast number of unbelievers who were tortured into recanting and/or put to death in the 18+ centuries before them.

... But the New Atheists are different. Religion, they argue, isn’t just wrong; it’s positively corrosive. If you’ve heard people like Bill Maher or Lawrence Krauss speak in recent years, you’re familiar with this approach.

Later on you lament the banality of atheistic arguments, yet here you decry the most vocal among them for being firebrands. Which is it?

... New Atheism emerged in 2004 as a kind of literary and social movement. Led by such luminaries as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, New Atheism became part of the zeitgeist, a well-timed reaction against religious fundamentalism. ...

You're taking as a given that there is an organized movement -- a 'New Atheism', and that Maher and Krauss and Dawkins are titular (love that word) heads of it -- that they get together and compare notes (between bouts of maniacal laughter no doubt). That's just your assumption. In actuality, what you perceive as an emergence more probably coincides with the swelling number of people finding a voice on the internet in the decade or so leading up to the millennium -- discovering that they were not alone in their questioning of organized religion, and becoming emboldened to take a stand more in keeping with their internal compass. People haven't been led to atheism by the likes of Bill Maher. Those figures rode the swell of interest that came up beneath them.

... The New Atheists are notoriously pugilistic. In print or on stage, they never run from a fight. Whatever you think of their tactics, they’ve succeeded at putting fanatics and moralizers on the defensive – and that’s a good thing.

Atheist speech and many of the people uttering it have held back for a long time. That it should come out with some force shouldn't be surprising. It's exasperation mixed with pugilism. Many have had enough of the discrimination against them and people like Maher know that.

But there’s something missing in their critiques, something fundamental. For all their eloquence, their arguments are often banal. Regrettably, they’ve shown little interest in understanding the religious compulsion. They talk incessantly about the untruth of religion because they assume truth is what matters most to religious people. And perhaps it does for many, but certainly not all – at least not in the conventional sense of that term. Religious convictions, in many cases, are held not because they’re true but because they’re meaningful, because they’re personally transformative. New Atheists are blind to this brand of belief.

Most non-religious people don't expect religious people to ever get over it. They just want religion reigned-in, so they can function in their daily lives without getting any on them. They'd like to get past the discrimination, so that an atheist might run for office in the Midwest someday without their non-belief being held against them. To that end, they are for shrinking religion to a manageable size. Facts should have done that. Facts have forced the religious to retreat and re-entrench over and over, to the point where it has arrived at the 'what has truth got to do with it' position you espouse. Unfortunately, as knowledge has forced repeated re-entrenchments of religion, it has also opened avenues for mass-indoctrination of vulnerable people by religion through television and the internet.

It’s perfectly rational to reject faith as a matter of principle. Many people (myself included) find no practical advantage in believing things without evidence. ...

Really? Because it sure seemed like your whole post was about how there IS advantage to believing without evidence, and that Atheists can't grasp that.

... But what about those who do? If a belief is held because of its effects, not its truth content, why should its falsity matter to the believer? Of course, most religious people consider their beliefs true in some sense, but that’s to be expected: the consolation derived from a belief is greater if its illusory origins are concealed. The point is that such beliefs aren’t held because they’re true as such; they’re accepted on faith because they’re meaningful.

As sweet as it is to see children all excited about Santa, or the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, it would be equally sad to know someone who, at age 32, still believes in those things. It would be jeez scary, in fact. Today, we have tens of millions of people tuning in to one televangelist or another. There is no disclaimer at the start of the show stating that the material contained may be fictitious and entirely for entertainment value -- that the parables being read may have been invented to guide listeners to some emotional realization. People tune in to know God's truth. They want the preacher to tell them that climate change is a lie, that gay marriage causes earthquakes and Ronald Reagan will rise again.

Few Atheists would deny access to religion by those who find solace, emotional support, or catharsis there. Those are its strengths. Most Atheists WOULD deny religion the right to steer. And it desperately wants to steer. Without knowledge, that's positively corrosive.

[cbayer]

117. This isn't my post. It's a cut and paste of an article posted elsewhere.

You are responding to someone who is highly unlikely to ever read that, but thanks for taking the time to read it so carefully.

Welcome to the religion group.

[Freelancer]

118. Okay

Sorry for misunderstanding.

[gcomeau]

115. That entire article is infuriatingly hilarious.

I mean really? This author wants to accuse Maher and Dawkins and the like of being intellectually lazy and not really trying to understand how believers think... and then declares that the way believers really think is that they do not care if their beliefs are true?


Oh really?


I have yet, in my entire life, to encounter a single Christian who doesn't care if God or Jesus actually exist. But if there is some huge population of believers out there who are of that opinion by all means, someone point me at them. I would *love* to have a chat with them.


Until then, pretty sure it's this author who is the one who is too intellectually lazy to bother understanding how believers actually think. I mean for fuck's sake, he includes Harris in his list. Harris the guy who interrupted his education in philosophy and neuroscience to travel to India to spend years studying meditation with Hindus and Buddhists... is too intellectually lazy to try to understand "how believers think".


What a jackass.

[trotsky]

122. Seriously?

Muslim extremists kill over cartoons. The world's largest Christian church and its leadership say homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered."

But naw, the REAL problem is that a couple of atheists don't fully appreciate the depths of religious belief.

Thanks for the Monday morning laughs!

[AlbertCat]

132. Let's see.... One's a top notch scientists, and one's a comedian.

Let's lump them together to criticize their "intellectual laziness".

Oh the irony!


"New Atheism emerged in 2004 as a kind of literary and social movement. " Actually, "new atheism" is just old atheism, but had to speak up as religion started poisoning the well to the point that it couldn't be ignored anymore. Still is.

"why should its falsity matter to the believer? " Talk about intellectually lazy!

Because it's a lie. And truth is needed to solve problems for real. Otherwise, you're just prolonging and amplifying the problem.

[cbayer]

138. How very true! Neither of them is a religious scholar or even has any education

whatsoever in the field of religion, but both claim to have broad expertise and are making their fortunes out of condemning it.

It that's not intellectual laziness, I don't know what is. It is indeed ironic.

Glad you have put forward a personal definition of "new atheism". We better get to letting everyone know.

It's a lie!!! I, AlbertCat, have the truth. I know the one way. Follow me and all will be revealed. You will be saved from just prolonging and amplifying the problem! See the light!

[AlbertCat]

139. Neither of them is a religious scholar

Because you must be a expert tailor to comment on the Emporer's new clothes.

[cbayer]

141. Say what? You really should have some expertise if you are going to

put yourself out there as an expert.

You are an expert trailer, right? Or am I getting you confused with someone else.

If I start pontificating about the quality of some clothes, I think you might find that rather off-putting, as I have no expertise whatsoever….. particularly if I say I see no clothes at all.

[trotsky]

142. What's your theological expertise, cbayer?

How are you qualified to make all the criticisms of others?

OHHH that's right. Double standards.

[Major Nikon]

144. Many religious experts are athiests

Their field of study has to do with the history, impact, and philosophy of religion, not whether there actually is a big sky daddy.

[cbayer]

145. I never said someone had to be a believer.

I understand that many religious experts are atheists, but these two have had no education in the history, impact or philosophy of religion.

Oh, so cool! You got "big sky daddy" in there. Give yourself a free roll.

[Major Nikon]

146. What you've failed to do is explain how this is at all relevant

It's like saying one can't proclaim the sky is blue without a degree in colorimetry.

[cbayer]

147. One can proclaim the sky is blue without being a colorimetrist,

but trying to explain why it is blue is a whole different story.

Maher and Dawkins can squawk all day long about how religion is bad, but neither has the expertise to really provide anything significant to substantiate that. It's just opinion, and pretty uninformed opinion at that.

But they have convinced quite a few people that they really know what they are talking about.

It's very lazy, and it's particularly lazy for the guy who is actually a scientist.

But it sells.

In case you are having trouble following along, I was responding to a post that made some ridiculous assertion that one was a top notch scientist and the other a comedian, and that it was ironic to lump them together and then say they were intellectually lazy. My response was that they basically say the same thing, even though neither has the real credentials to substantiate their supposed expertise. Now, that's ironic.

[Major Nikon]

148. Hardly

Explaining why the sky is blue is just not that complicated.

Theology isn't a hard science and academic theologists do not concern themselves with whether religion is good or bad for society. Furthermore if your argument had any merit, it could just as easily be used to negate any opinion you've expressed regarding religion.

[cbayer]

149. Perhaps, but religion is very, very complicated.

It's so complicated that people feel they can pontificate about it and get away with it because no one really has definitive answers.

There are many academicians who concern themselves with the impact of religion on society, politics, communities and individuals.

Of course, my argument has no merit. I'm sure that there is a logical fallacy for that position, as there usually is when someone completely dismisses someone else's POV. It's also intellectually lazy.

I express my POV on religion, but never claim to be an authority or have expertise. OTOH, the people profiled in this article do much more than just express their POV. They publish books, make movies and give highly paid performances to push their dogma. They proselytize without any authority, just like your run of the mill fundamentalist preacher.

Speaking of the sky being blue, I'd put money on this - if I said the sky was blue, you would say it's orange.

[trotsky]

150. "when someone completely dismisses someone else's POV"

You mean like what you do to Maher, Dawkins, et al?

Oh wait, I keep forgetting - OK for you, not for anyone else.

[Major Nikon]

178. You either believe in something or you don't

It's not that complicated.

[cbayer]

179. Judging from this response, you think that belief or non-belief constitute

the entirety of religion.

Wow, this is worse than I thought.

[Major Nikon]

181. Strawman

[gcomeau]

231. So is the plot of "Primer".

Which doesn't make it difficult to conclude with confidence it's fiction, due to the time travelling boxes and all... and that anyone who gets all wrapped up in its complexities and forgets the fiction part is doing something wrong.

[beam me up scottie]

166. cbayer claims to be trained as a scientist but said this about fairies:

not believing in the fairies at the bottom of the garden is as legitimate as believing in the fairies.

Someone isn't qualified to be discussing the difference between science and make believe and it's not Dawkins.

[AlbertCat]

152. Experts

Like I have to learn Klingon to understand Worf.


No I don't, because he's make-believe.... like god!

[cbayer]

156. Oh, gobsmacked am I.

You have compared religion to Klingon.

That is so cool.

I'm waiting for the announcement of your Nobel Prize for having disproven god. Will you send me an invite?

[phil89]

158. The field of religion?

that is funny.

[cbayer]

159. What's funny about it phil?

[Major Nikon]

209. Lots of things

[cbayer]

213. Cute. Really overused, but cute.

But I don't see how that responds to your statement that the field of religion is funny.

Could you clarify?

[Major Nikon]

221. Sure

[HassleCat]

151. Interesting Choice of Name

New atheism? Is that the name "New Atheists" gave themselves, or did somebody slap that label on them? Anyway, I think they're more combative because they're tired of religious beliefs being written into law at the same time the people as a whole are losing interest in religion and becoming more secular.

[pinto]

155. If that's it, they really ought to join others making the case to those who make the laws -

Local government, State legislatures, Congress, etc. etc. I think that would be a more effective use of their well-known, highly public voices.

Ranting about or belittling those who hold some sort of religious point of view is pointless in the bigger picture. Legislation, though, affects everyone. It would be a better use of their place in the media limelight, imo.

[cbayer]

161. Is this the first time you are hearing this?

I think some of their combatively does arrive from what you describe. They've also discovered a market, but the alienation that ensures from their attitude may not always lead to the desired results.

[trotsky]

163. LMAO

"They've also discovered a market, but the alienation that ensures from their attitude may not always lead to the desired results."

Strange that you don't apply that very same logic to the pope. Nope, you only hate the dreaded New Atheists. Not the guy who says gender theory is like Nazi propaganda, and that marriage equality is "from Satan." You don't give a shit about the fallout or alienation from his attitude - in your book, he is a swell guy.

[Major Nikon]

180. New Atheism doesn't mean you have to be combative towards religion

It simply presents that the "God Hypothesis" is valid and can be tested and dismissed.

[cbayer]

182. Yet another definition that is not generally shared.

I've never heard this particular definition. Where did you get it?

Do you think the "god hypothesis" is valid and can be tested and dismissed? Has that happened or is it just a theoretical construct? Who came up with the hypothesis? Is it a movement? Who are the leaders?

[Major Nikon]

184. I could ask you the same question about your definition

The difference being mine just isn't that hard to find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

[cbayer]

191. Isn't hard to find? You have to dig down pretty deeply in that wiki link

to find even the single mention of the "God Hypothesis" and it isn't any part of the definition.

It's under "perspective" and seems to relate only to a single hypothesis put forward by Dawkins. Of course Dr. Dawkins, who is actually an accomplished scientist, put that hypothesis forward but didn't even pretend to use an actual scientific method to test it.

In fact, the basic definition given in your wiki link is this:

a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

That pretty much puts to bed your contention that "New Atheism doesn't mean you have to be combative towards religion", doesn't it.

Hey, it's your link.

[Major Nikon]

194. It's actually in the very first sentence

So if one was too lazy to read that far down, all they need to know can be found straight away.

New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."[1]

[cbayer]

196. Now I'm getting concerned.

Nothing in this excerpt, which is the excerpt that I provided to you, bears any resemblance to the definition that you gave.

New Atheism doesn't mean you have to be combative towards religion

It simply presents that the "God Hypothesis" is valid and can be tested and dismissed.

Where in the excerpt do you see anything about the "God Hypothesis"?

[trotsky]

197. "Concerned"? About what?

Are you trying to insinuate something about Major Nikon? The definition given is in the link provided. Your vicious attack here is really unwarranted.

Besides, aren't you the same person who lashes out at anyone who tries to use the label "atheist" on you, by simply using the basic definition of "someone who does not believe in gods"? Why do you get to insist on the definitions you use on others?

WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARDS? No wonder you struggle to be taken seriously.

[Major Nikon]

199. Neither is the word "combative" anywhere in the link

Yet you still insist on using it without your own reference. Very telling that.

[cbayer]

205. You are the only person that has used combative in this entire thread.

It's interesting getting to know you. Not as challenging as I would have hoped, but interesting none the less.

[Major Nikon]

208. This was hard...

I think some of their combatively(sic) does arrive from what you describe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218197077#post161

[cbayer]

214. You are right.

Double bonus: You were able to completely avoid answering the question about the God Hypothesis and the definition of atheism.

If this were dodge ball, you would definitely win.

[Major Nikon]

220. This was even harder...

You failed to provide anything which even remotely suggests New Atheists are required to be "combative[ly]", which was kinda your assertion to begin with and I took exception.

So regardless of what game you want to call it, you lost.

Just sayin'

[cbayer]

222. Oh, no. I lost!?!?!? How will I go on?

From your wiki link which provides a definition of new atheism (that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the one you offered):

"religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises

I guess we can parse words, but I'm going to say that the statement that religion should be "countered, criticized and exposed" might be equated to being combative. But if you don't like that word, maybe we can agree on another? What would you suggest?

[Major Nikon]

223. And yet you do go on

...I'm going to say that the statement that religion should be "countered, criticized and exposed" might be equated to being combative....

Perhaps if you're Bill O'Reilly. Meanwhile in the world most call reality, not so much.

But if you don't like that word, maybe we can agree on another? What would you suggest?

"countered, criticized and exposed"

That was hard, BTW.

[cbayer]

224. Did you just compare me to Bill O'Reilly?

Ok, will use "countered, criticized and exposed".

Now are you going to 1) address the issue of your definition of new atheism being about the God Hypothesis or 2) post another silly .gif and/or make a personal attack.

I'm putting my money on #2.

[Major Nikon]

225. I pointed out "countered, criticized and exposed" might sound like an attack on religion to BillO

If you want to spin that into a personal attack, it certainly speaks volumes.

With that, you should add a 3rd option:



Cheers!

[trotsky]

237. Truly a delightful subthread to follow.

Thank you, Major Nikon.

[rug]

185. What is the test?

[Major Nikon]

187. God

[rug]

188. So, what's the test for God?

[Major Nikon]

189. Take your pick...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

Or you can certainly present your own.

[rug]

193. No, I'll take yours, the "God Hypothesis".

I'll take either Dawkin's "God Hypothesis" in chapter one of The God Delusion or Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis. They do, after all, claim to be scientific tests for the hypothesis of God. The Wikipedia list simply contains much older philosophical arguments.

So. let's go with science. Produce either Dawkins' or Stenger's test.

[Major Nikon]

198. Take whatever you want

If your google is broke I'm not going to help you.

[rug]

200. So are the books.

There's as much science there applied to disproving God as there is in a deck of Tarot cards.

I'll just dismiss this statement now:

It simply presents that the "God Hypothesis" is valid and can be tested and dismissed.

[Major Nikon]

202. Dismiss whatever you want

Seems to be the intellectual equivalent of "god works in mysterious ways", but if it feels good go for it.

[rug]

207. As you have produced no evidence of a "test", I will.

It's the only rational thing to do.

[Yorktown]

212. Can you present any evidence proving a God?

And I don't think Dawkins ever said 'God' can be disproved.

Any more than the flying teapot orbiting Mars can be disproved.

[rug]

219. The poster did.

Citing Dawkins and/or Stenger.

Since you're not making that claim, I won't ask you to produce the test.

[Yorktown]

230. You're not answering my question.

But I suppose it's easier playing logical sniper than to get your feet wet with a stance?

[rug]

232. If you need arrows, here they are.

If you cannot produce a test for God, it cannot be proven or disproven.

I'll use smaller words next time.

[Yorktown]

233. Agreed. Then why bother?

If you cannot produce a test for the flying teapot, it cannot be proven or disproven.

But I can prove the multiple errors and contradictions of the different 'holy' books.
Which is a solid indication the three monotheisms and hinduism are quack.

And yes, thanks for keeping to everyday words. Makes things easier for peasants like me.

[rug]

234. Precisely. Which is why I questioned the claim.

[Jane Austin]

226. Bill Maher

is startlingly ignorant when it comes to Christianity.

He is forever invoking the Old Testament when ragging on Christianity.

[cbayer]

227. He's even more ignorant when it comes to Islam.

[Yorktown]

235. says the person who hasn't read the Quran

[nil desperandum]

247. Belief

If a belief is held because of its effects, not its truth content, why should its falsity matter to the believer?

Because living a life based on a falsity is a waste of your most precious resource, your mind and your life.

Conventional wisdom and belief has never been changed through quiet acceptance of established belief.

Only uncomfortable challenge has accomplished such things.

Whether it's the earth being flat, leeches curing disease, or taxation without representation change is created through loud and/or violent challenge to the status quo.

[cbayer]

249. I don't agree that it is a waste of your most precious resource - your mind and your life.

There are many things that are not falsifiable that may in fact be the most precious resources in your life. Love, hope, empathy may all be those things.

What makes your life precious may not apply to other, so the statement you make may only apply to you.

Change occurs due to many things, including beliefs that are based on faith and not on proof. In fact, I might offer that those kinds of beliefs may be the most powerful agents for change there are.

[nil desperandum]

250. Change

most significant change didn't occur because of religion but because of those who dared oppose that religion often at the risk of their own lives.

Astronomy and challenging the notion of the earth as center of the universe was a dangerous business once. Galileo was certainly aware of the dangers of challenging the religious belief at that the time.

I might be wrong but I think from your words you tend to see belief as it exists to provide comfort to people searching for meaning. Consequently you often see that benefit it provides to many, and how that might inspire those who believe into activism based on those core principles. I understand and respect that viewpoint.

I believe the difference between us is that I tend to see it as a mechanism of control often misused by those whose primary function is defined as caring for their flock when they are instead of trying to control that flock. Consequently I tend to see where the church fails its' believers and how those people become disillusioned and then perhaps are worse off because their belief system is revealed for what it truly is, a falsity.

Living a lie is living a lie regardless of the perception of good or the feeling of good some might get from it. I am not certain that anyone will change their mind based on a Bill Maher type rant, more likely those who believe will be irritated and in all probability dismiss the rant as without merit instead of considering the value of the content even if somewhat hostile. I don't try to be confrontational if I discuss this with someone face to face, but I don't shy away from honesty regarding my views either.

There is no god, there is no santa claus, there is no fairy forest with elves and woodfolk prancing about. We are a cosmic accident of chemistry, we can be as noble or as awful as we choose. Most of humanity is controlled through some mechanism or another, for most of our existence it was religion due to our ignorance of the reality of our own existence. Eventually religion will be considered in the same vein as the views of ancient peoples who thought a chariot run by a god moved the sun and moon across the sky. That day is coming, it will arrive eventually and prior to that be accompanied by much discomfort for those who are unable to separate their desire to have a purpose beyond this life and their unwillingness to accept that we will cease to exist when we die.

The curse of a insightful, intelligent brain is that we don't want this to end. We want to experience this life forever, in our desire to believe we are more than just a lucky combination of chemicals we search for that reason of our existence and when we don't find it we make it up to suit our ideal view of why we might be here.

It's why we also tend to ignore most of what our various religions tell us and just enjoy the parts we like, because it's easy and it fits our theme of being created to enjoy this existence and prepare for an even better one to come.

Challenging those core components requires some confrontational aspect, especially as we tend also to maintain a relative herd mind with respect to god(s)...I can't have you believing in a different god or gods because that alters my perception and that's unacceptable, nor can I have you tell me my god exists as a figment of the imagination because that strikes at the core of my belief.

Confrontation has always been necessary for change, it's true of religion and it's true of politics and governance. Respecting the status quo never changed one worthwhile thing in the entire history of mankind.

[cbayer]

251. Change occurs as a result of opposing religion?

Well, maybe sometimes, but it also has come from pushing forward with religion at your back.

Your interpretation of what i say is off the mark, but feel free to ask me anytime, I would be glad to share with you.

Religion is not going away. There are too many advantages, too many deep roots and always the possibility that there is truth there. It will change, but it won't go away, no matter how badly you wish for it.

Making definitive statements about the existence of god(s) is a foolish endeavor. Believing in a god or god(s) is only living a lie if you know it's not true. You may believe that, but you do not know.

Religion is so much more than just wanting an extension on life. Your views on religion are you own and a reflection of your own experiences, hopes and understanding. Your big mistake is in extrapolating that to others then saying your truth is the truth.

I think there are as many concepts of god as their are people, including non-believers. Every single one may be false or every single one bay to true.

Who are you to decide?

Your philosophy is, well, your philosophy. It does not represent science and is not have any data to support it.

What is your field, by the way?