Battle of the New Atheism

[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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

man, i must've had too much coffee today. modus tollens form of "denying the antecedent."

 

sorry folks. ignore my ignorance.

 

taks

Edited October 27, 2006 by taks

[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

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

 

What else then? Aside from actual, factual proof I don't see what can affect the establishment of a religion as true or not.

[astr0creep]

Saying "religion is evil" is like saying "guns kill people".

 

I'm Atheist, my philosophy is live and let live. I can respect believers but I will call them stupid ignorants, mostly out of spite, if they don't respect that I don't believe what they do. That includes Jehova's Witnesses knocking on my door on sunday morning.

 

Many actions are taken based on religion that seem completely retarded to Atheists like me. The riots after the Mohamed drawing are one of them. But most religions have very good values that are well worth following and promoting, like "Love thy Neihbor"(sp, sorry I'm French) or sharing one's good fortune.

 

Can anyone explain to an ant how come we need to pay taxes? This is the same as us trying to explain(TO OURSELVES!) how the universe exists.

 

It's impossible.

[kumquatq3]

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.

 

100% correct.

 

Did anyone argue that?

 

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).

 

Actually, there was studies comparing ivy league to state schools and you are correct.

 

At those schools religious beliefs were much more common than at Harvard. However, that was the point.

 

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.

 

The studies, while they all could be biased or wrong, aren't "selective" as a whole. Anymore than any statistic study.

[kumquatq3]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The article touches apon this (not Dawkins, they interview 4 people):

Slade rejects those who might once have been his allies: agnostics and liberal believers, the type of people who may go to church but who are skeptical of doctrine. "Moderates give a power base to extremists," Slade says. "A lot of Catholics use condoms, a lot of Catholics are divorced, and a lot don't have a particular opinion about whether you are homosexual. But when the Pope stands up and says, 'This is what Catholics believe,' he still gets credit for speaking for more than a billion people."

[Hurlshort]

I would say, based on my low IQ observation of the world, there are a lot more agnostics than atheists among the educated folks on our planet. Also, most of the people I know who are adamant about their being no God are blinded by that belief, just like religious folks. Being open to anything seems brighter than putting all your eggs in one methodological basket.

[kumquatq3]

I would say, based on my low IQ observation of the world, there are a lot more agnostics than atheists among the educated folks on our planet.  Also, most of the people I know who are adamant about their being no God are blinded by that belief, just like religious folks.  Being open to anything seems brighter than putting all your eggs in one methodological basket.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I disagree. If you're running off reason, then you are "open" by definition, it's whatever makes the most sense (obviously, to the amount humanity allows). I don't dispute there is no chance that god exists, however the odds are VERY low imo, and there for I don't believe. As, to me, that's blind belief.

 

I'm open to peoples ideas, just don't expect blind faith.

 

Obviously though, if someone is combative and dismissive, then they are not open. This is far different than someone who questions.

Edited October 27, 2006 by kumquatq3

[taks]

Did anyone argue that?

yes, actually, dark moth did... well, kinda. it wasn't meant to be directed at any one person anyway, it was more of a "btw, keep this in mind" sort of statement.

 

Actually, there was studies comparing ivy league to state schools and you are correct.

 

At those schools religious beliefs were much more common than at Harvard. However, that was the point.

wow, i guessed right. not a difficult assumption to make, however. i think i was simply making explicit that which you did not. quite frankly, your list was so freaking long that i only skimmed it anyway.

 

The studies, while they all could be biased or wrong, aren't "selective" as a whole. Anymore than any statistic study.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, yes, they are simply because they are not random in the population. i.e. they're selective because they are either a) at very specific schools or b) from very specific groups. as you have noted, studies at ivy league schools show the opposite. so, for a study to be "not selective," i would argue that the should randomly pick schools, then perform a study. even then, there is selection bias by looking at only colleges, rather than population at large.

 

for example, the mensa study. is the lack of religion due to their intelligence, or simply because the types of things that appeal to mensans do not appeal to religious people in general?

 

taks

[kumquatq3]

uh, yes, they are simply because they are not random in the population.  i.e. they're selective because they are either a) at very specific schools or b) from very specific groups.  as you have noted, studies at ivy league schools show the opposite.  so, for a study to be "not selective," i would argue that the should randomly pick schools, then perform a study.  even then, there is selection bias by looking at only colleges, rather than population at large.

 

However, they are not all college based studies, that just the first section of what I posted. Obviously there is almost always another way to take the data. There will always be that 1-10% uncertainty of correlation.

 

for example, the mensa study.  is the lack of religion due to their intelligence, or simply because the types of things that appeal to mensans do not appeal to religious people in general?

 

Of course, if thats the case, then why don't those things appeal to religious people. What is the difference between the two. Obviously unsupported, but worth asking.

[taks]

However, they are not all college based studies, that just the first section of what I posted. Obviously there is almost always another way to take the data. There will always be that 1-10% uncertainty of correlation.

no, but the were all (at least most that i scanned) some select group of one sort or another, which was more the point i was making. technically, even stating only 1-10% is difficult to do without more detail.

 

Of course, if thats the case, then why don't those things appeal to religious people.  What is the difference between the two.  Obviously unsupported, but worth asking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

correct, it is a question worth asking. that's why i always approach such studies with skepticism. i don't have answers, nor enough data to draw a reasonable conclusion. i don't know why, btw, mensa would not appeal to religious people. i do know that some religious groups forbid joining rotary-like organizations. some people in general don't want to be associated with anything that requires selective membership.

 

taks

[kumquatq3]

correct, it is a question worth asking.  that's why i always approach such studies with skepticism.  i don't have answers, nor enough data to draw a reasonable conclusion.  i don't know why, btw, mensa would not appeal to religious people.  i do know that some religious groups forbid joining rotary-like organizations.  some people in general don't want to be associated with anything that requires selective membership.

 

Selective membership? Then they would be part of Mensa or the big three religions

 

Skepticism is all well and good. Especially if it is declaring an absolute. However, eventually you have to ask yourself if something is likely correct or incorrect or you get nowhere. Like those Royal Bank of Scotland commercials.

 

Just so were clearly, if these studies are correct or incorrect, I'm not arguing that I am more intelligent (or less) than individuals that do believe. I'm not saying, look at me, I'm so smart for not believing. I was defending points raised by the article.

Edited October 27, 2006 by kumquatq3

[taks]

oh, i understood your meaning... at least, everything you've said since the post with the list in it. i don't recall you ever made any value judgements on the list anyway. neither did i, other than i am skeptical. but you've read enough of my comments over the years to know that i usually am with such things. i'm an equal opportunity skeptic of sorts.

 

i'm not making any intelligence judgements on you, me or anyone else, either. as for the article points, i suppose where i differ is that i'm 100% certain. i.e. i don't agree with dawkins.

 

there was a debate a while back where someone posted a similar list, though with less detail, and it turned into a flame war. i remember being accused of something because i was defending those with religion in their lives. my comment was that religion seems to transcend intelligence (i have my reasons for why that would be, btw). whoever the argument was with did not even realize that i was a non-believer. that argument actually attempted to make the claim that "if you are smart, you do not believe and vice-versa." it were teh funny.

 

taks

[Musopticon?]

I was going to write something like "oh, so now atheism has martyrs, a strong braintrust to preach their belief(since what else it is?) and their cause is against an old-fashioned and conservative system of belief. Gee, just like back in 40 AD.", but I realised how stupid that would be. What's the use?

 

I have no argument to or for, since I still sorta think myself as a fairly liberal believer. And why fight over the internet anyway? Really, the language barrier isn't helping either. So, all you are going to get from me is a question(s):

 

Consider that I'm a believer, yet I don't really take the bible seriously, Enuma-Elish is abut as believable as it, I also don't view the old-fashioned and fairly high-horse church system as all that good. I still believe in god(s ), an entity that's good and poweful and watchful. Freud would probably tell that I'm lost without a daddy. :D So, how does the New Atheism profile me, what should I do and and how?

[kumquatq3]

Consider that I'm a believer, yet I don't really take the bible seriously, Enuma-Elish is abut as believable as it, I also don't view the old-fashioned and fairly high-horse church system as all that good. I still believe in god(s ), an entity that's good and poweful and watchful. Freud would probably tell that I'm lost without a daddy. :D So, how does the New Atheism profile me, what should I do and and how?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Having no grounds to speak to it, nor have I even gotten Dawkins new book yet, I'll give it a shot (also, I note some import differences between Dawkins and the other profiled, so I'm going by how the article defines the "movement". Rather than any one guy):

 

My guess? You're more against them than with them. Maybe even "worse" than the hardcore believer, depending on how you spin it.

 

From the articles perspective: At best you give power to the religion you believe in. You may have no problems with gays or condoms, but when your church speaks against them, it's credited with having you in it's numbers. They don't say: "There is X amount of Catholics/Christians in the word and X% of them are partial believers". You may not want to stone gays, but you help give power to those that do.

 

The worst case scenario would be that you "understand" but choose to be ignorant. You see the flaws, you see the problems with it all (article, remember) and you choose to "kinda" believe anyways. So they may argue that you are worse than those that believe out of ignorance or stupidity, because you get it, but believe out of fear, blind hope, or something else. I suppose it's viewed sorta like hearing gun shots outside and hearing someone screaming for help, but instead of helping, you just pull down the shades and ignore it. ....Good men do nothing and all that

Edited October 27, 2006 by kumquatq3

[taks]

i'm not sure i understand the concept of "new atheism." are they redefining the term atheist?

 

i've always felt that atheists just don't believe, nor accept the possibility of belief.

 

agnostics, on the other hand, are trying to back door their way in to good graces should they be wrong about not believing. i.e. "hey god, i always said you _might_ exist, i just never saw any proof until now!"

 

taks

[kumquatq3]

i'm not sure i understand the concept of "new atheism."  are they redefining the term atheist?

 

i've always felt that atheists just don't believe, nor accept the possibility of belief.

 

It's more about how you approach believers than anything. Same "disbelief"

 

Still, I'd be hard pressed to lump all the guys in the article together.

[Sand]

i'm not sure i understand the concept of "new atheism."  are they redefining the term atheist?

 

i've always felt that atheists just don't believe, nor accept the possibility of belief.

 

agnostics, on the other hand, are trying to back door their way in to good graces should they be wrong about not believing.  i.e. "hey god, i always said you _might_ exist, i just never saw any proof until now!"

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am wondering where you would classify a person who knows God exists but chooses not to worship the bugger. :ph34r:

[kumquatq3]

I am wondering where you would classify a person who knows God exists but chooses not to worship the bugger.  :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"In Deep ****"

[Dark_Raven]

i'm not sure i understand the concept of "new atheism."  are they redefining the term atheist?

 

i've always felt that atheists just don't believe, nor accept the possibility of belief.

 

agnostics, on the other hand, are trying to back door their way in to good graces should they be wrong about not believing.  i.e. "hey god, i always said you _might_ exist, i just never saw any proof until now!"

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am wondering where you would classify a person who knows God exists but chooses not to worship the bugger. :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A fool.

[Sand]

Why a fool? Would you worship something that you disagreed with?

[kumquatq3]

Why a fool?  Would you worship something that you disagreed with?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, if she's hot, wouldn't be the first time! :D

 

 

Can I get a zing?

Edited October 27, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Sand]

Lusting God?

 

That just strikes me as... odd.

[kumquatq3]

Lusting God? 

 

That just strikes me as... odd. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

who said god, you didn't

 

mmm....supermodels

[Dark_Raven]

I don't worship anything or believe in some creator deity.

[Sand]

I don't worship anything or believe in some creator deity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just an odd question, if you got undisputed proof that God exist, like he pops in Says "Hi" would you worship him or would you tell him "Oh, you do exist. Now go away."