Battle of the New Atheism

[Dark Moth]

Well, it seems I misread the article.  The article is what says "religion is evil", not Dawkins.  But still, by saying what he's saying, he's implying that atheists are more intelligent than religious people, and I disagree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The articles author concludes the article by disagreeing with Dawkins and the other people in it.

 

 

Dawkins is simply stating that if you want to believe in God you are going on pure faith, nothing else. In that regard, he says, it's just as easy to believe if Thor or faeries.

 

As for the intelligence argument, well, you disagreeing doesn't mean you're right. For what it's worth, the author disagrees with Dawkins and doesn't dispute his statement of intelligence here. So one can assume the opinion isn't unjustifiable. It could be wrong, but it's not outright crazy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know. I was a little too hasty in my posting and ended up drawing the wrong conclusion. :"> Wouldn't be the first time it happened. Those whom the article is referring to, those that think religion is 'evil', need to cool down.

 

As for intelligence, that's fine. I know it doesn't make me right, but I'm just disagreeing.

 

And just to clarify, the whole 'inquisition' reference was a joke.

Edited October 27, 2006 by Dark Moth

[kumquatq3]

I think it is more accurate to say that he is implying that atheists are more open minded and more accepting of new ideas than those who follow religion.  Such as an atheist would be more open to the idea that Homosexuality is a natural aspect, for not only is it in the presence of Homo Sapiens but also in other primates and lower animal forms, while the religious individual will see Homosexuality as wrong and evil merely on the basis of scripture written more than a thousand years ago where they lacked the understanding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not sure he disagrees with this, but I don't think he says this in the article.

 

He might argue that the "open mindedness" is due to respecting reason and not having a set of predefined virtues.

 

 

Also, he isn't advocating war or anything:

Dawkins is the inventor of the concept of the meme, that is, a cultural replicator that spreads from brain to brain, like a virus (Me: not nessasrily a bad thing tho, if you have read his books). Dawkins is also a believer in democracy. He understands perfectly well that there are practical constraints on controlling the spread of bad memes. If the solution to the spread of wrong ideas and contagious superstitions is a totalitarian commissariat that would silence believers, then the cure is worse than the disease. But such constraints are no excuse for the weak-minded pretense that religious viruses are trivial, much less benign.

[Sand]

Religion in of itself is not evil, but those who use religion for their own selfish desires and practice close-minded conservatism lead to a path that is only destructive for themselves and others.

[kumquatq3]

Would all the more religious people here please point out what's the difference between believing that God exists and believing that Zeus, or Thor, or whoever exists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As Dawkins pointed on on his Colbert show appearance, we're all Atheist.

[Dark Moth]

Would all the more religious people here please point out what's the difference between believing that God exists and believing that Zeus, or Thor, or whoever exists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As Dawkins pointed on on his Colbert show appearance, we're all Atheist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

?

[Sand]

I'm not sure he disagrees with this, but I don't think he says this in the article.

 

I am just taken what I have read and applying it on a single issue.

[kumquatq3]

Would all the more religious people here please point out what's the difference between believing that God exists and believing that Zeus, or Thor, or whoever exists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As Dawkins pointed on on his Colbert show appearance, we're all Atheist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you believe in Zeus?

[Dark Moth]

No. But that does not make me atheist. So what's his point?

[Sand]

If God is just as mythological as Zeus, and you do not believe in Zeus, following logic you do not truly believe in God.

 

I think that is the point. A bit of a stretch if you ask me, for it requires the assumption that God is mythological.

Edited October 27, 2006 by Sand

[Surreptishus]

Check the etymology of atheist.

Edited October 27, 2006 by Surreptishus

[Sand]

atheism

(ā

Edited October 27, 2006 by Sand

[Dark Moth]

If God is just as mythological as Zeus, and you do not believe in Zeus, following logic you do not truly believe in God.

 

I think that is the point.  A bit of a stretch if you ask me, for it requires the assumption that God is mythological.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a flawed concept though. I do not believe in Zeus, but I still believe in a god. That does not make me atheist. If I were atheist, I would not believe in any god at all.

Edited October 27, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Pidesco]

Would all the more religious people here please point out what's the difference between believing that God exists and believing that Zeus, or Thor, or whoever exists.

 

 

WELL?

[kumquatq3]

No.  But that does not make me atheist.  So what's his point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're going to literal with it. He mean your "atheistic" towards other gods.

 

There isn't much to it other than he wants you to remember that. I think he sees it as helping to disarm the argument and make it less personal. After all, if you don't belief in someone else's gods, how offended can you be when someone doesn't believe in yours?

Edited October 27, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Sand]

There is no difference for you cannot prove one to exist over the other, Pidesco.

 

It is like which god exists, God or Vishnu? Ask a Christian, he would say God exists and Vishnu doesn't. Ask a Hindu and he might say both exists for they are aspects of the same being. Or something like that.

Edited October 27, 2006 by Sand

[Dark Moth]

No.  But that does not make me atheist.  So what's his point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're going to literal with it. He mean your "atheistic" towards other gods.

 

There isn't much to other than he wants you to remember that. I think he sees it as helping to disarm the argument and make it less personal. After all, if you don't belief in someone else's gods, how offended can you be when someone doesn't believe in yours?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He said 'we're all atheist', not that we're 'atheistic' towards other gods. Besides, I'm not sure 'atheistic' would be the right word to use in that situation. Exclusive maybe, not atheistic. Atheism implies the absence of the belief in any god whatsoever.

 

And I'm never offended when someone says they don't believe in God. I don't agree with it, but I'm not offended.

Edited October 27, 2006 by Dark Moth

[kumquatq3]

Hit youtube, the comment needs context

 

 

And I'm never offended when someone says they don't believe in God.  I don't agree with it, but I'm not offended.

 

You're in a elite club

Edited October 27, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Pidesco]

There is no difference for you cannot prove one to exist over the other, Pidesco.

 

It is like which god exists, God or Vishnu?  Ask a Christian, he would say God exists and Vishnu doesn't.  Ask a Hindu and he might say both exists for they are aspects of the same being.  Or something like that.

 

 

Then why are Zeus and Thor generally considered to be fictional characters whereas as God is not? More to point why is it considered offensive to criticize someone for believing in God, but not for believing in Thor?

Edited October 27, 2006 by Pidesco

[Sand]

It is due to the population. If Thor had as many followers as God then all those people more than likely be offended if you tell them that their god is fictional, and have the numbers to do something about it.

 

Millions of irate Thorites would be a sight to see.

Edited October 27, 2006 by Sand

[Dark Moth]

Then why are Zeus and Thor generally considered to be fictional characters whereas as God is not? More to point why is it considered offensive to criticize someone for believing in God, but not for believing in Thor?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many people consider the Biblical God to be a fictional character. "

 

But if you really want to know, the answer is simple: there is really no longer a widespread active belief in either god. Population, as Hades said.

Edited October 27, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Pidesco]

Which means the fundamental truth of a religion depends on one thing alone: the number of people that believes in it. And thus, religion is all statistical bollocks. :D

[taks]

i think it should be noted that saying "intelligent = non-religious" is NOT the same as saying "religious = non-intelligent." if A then B does not imply if B then A. this is an "affirmation of the consequent" fallacy. sort of like saying all squares are rectangles therefore all rectangles must be squares.

 

i personally view the "studies" that were posted earlier as i view all statistical studies: with skepticism. not that they are wrong (and i'm not offering analyses), but many are easily going to be biased by an unrepresentative sample (another logical fallacy, btw). conduct the same polls at st. louis university, for example, and you'll see bias in the other direction (guessing, obviously).

 

do i doubt that those at the high end of the IQ spectrum are less religious? no, but i must admit, i didn't always feel that way (though i have been an atheist for most of my life, and all of my adult life). i just don't use these selective studies to formulate my opinions on the matter, that's all.

 

taks

[taks]

uh, this would be the modus tollens form of affirmation of the consequent. technically, then, i should have stated "if A then B does not imply if not A then not B."

 

taks

Edited October 27, 2006 by taks

[Sand]

Which means the fundamental truth of a religion depends on one thing alone: the number of people that believes in it. And thus, religion is all statistical bollocks. :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And statistics can be manipulated. Remember that.

[Dark Moth]

Which means the fundamental truth of a religion depends on one thing alone: the number of people that believes in it. And thus, religion is all statistical bollocks. :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really. " That is not the only reason. Probably the biggest yes, but not the only.