Battle of the New Atheism

[Blank]

All myths have some basis in fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nah, that's just a myth.

[Dark_Raven]

Yes. My point is that, perhaps, some years from now (100, 500, 5000?), we won't need religion because we've gone beyond it. It's just an idea, I'm not saying it's true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's something that should have happened a long time ago, but it is slowly progressing that way. Religion is no longer a key factor in many peoples lives these days.

[Dark_Raven]

All myths have some basis in fact.

 

Carry on. :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They make good stories.

[Sand]

I don't really care if it plays a key role in people's lives today or not. My beef is in our government. There are certain individuals in the government, both on the state and federal level, is using religion to dictate policy instead of doing what is right for th people as a whole such as the people who want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, stop the embryotic stem cell research, and imposing Intelligent Design in the classroom. Only a secular democratic government can be fair to all those being govern.

[Nartwak]

You mean like you telling Hurlshot that the story is only a metaphor?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's the problem with nonliteral interpretations? Don't freak out when somebody puts something forth that's more than a fundamentalist strawman for you to tilt at.

Edited October 28, 2006 by Nartwak

[Hurlshort]

The Huns, and the Mongols later on, placed little importance on religion. Both of these groups had advanced military techniques, and were able to conquer other civilizations. But they were also both absorbed by those very civilizations that they conquered. The argument can be made that strength of religion was a major reason that these civilizations, such as China and India, were able to hold out against an invading culture.

 

Basically, can anything win out against religious fervor?

[WITHTEETH]

A nuclear bomb

Edited October 29, 2006 by WITHTEETH

[Pop]

A nuclear bomb

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It'd probably strengthen religious fervor, not weaken it. When people are scared for their lives, a metaphysical world is comforting. We could all die at any moment. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a paradise waiting for us? To many, it's a choice between that and nihilism.

 

The Huns, and the Mongols later on, placed little importance on religion. Both of these groups had advanced military techniques, and were able to conquer other civilizations. But they were also both absorbed by those very civilizations that they conquered. The argument can be made that strength of religion was a major reason that these civilizations, such as China and India, were able to hold out against an invading culture.

 

Basically, can anything win out against religious fervor?

You may be misattributing what makes those cultures weak over time. Nomadic barbarian cultures generally do 3 things: raid, trade or stay. That is, if a sedentary culture is weak, barbarians will raid and steal what the sedentary culture has. If a sedentary culture is strong, they'll trade with it. If the sedentary culture is weak, but wealthy in land and resources, they'll invade and then stay. The etruscans in Italy are a good example of barbarians staying. The mongols and huns were generally inclined towards the first option, because of their superior military tactics.

 

But those invading cultures and their traditions were comparitively weak in their staying power compared to those they invaded, not necessarily because of religion, but because of more practical considerations, such as forms of writing and language. Oftentimes those things did concern themselves with religion. By all accounts, the Jews have been an oppressed culture for 3000 years and counting, but they kept their identity generally gestalt, because they taught all their children Hebrew and placed emphasis on memorization of the Torah, and this never changed. Nomadic, raiding cultures didn't have much use for written history and cultural identity, as they had oral traditions they relied upon. When circumstances in which the people lived changed, so did their traditions, and they were eventually washed out. Thus the staying power of a culture has probably less to do with religion in and of itself and more with the way in which it's conveyed.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Pop

[Dark Moth]

A nuclear bomb

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Total annihilation in other words. Or genocide, if you will. Either way, that still would not eliminate it. You would always have extremists, many of whom do not fear death. Such a thing might only strengthen it by provoking outrage.

 

In actuality, the only thing that could possibly defeat a bad idea is a better idea. To convert your enemy, not kill him (a la 1984).

[Colrom]

In the US it has widely been studied:

 

STUDIES OF STUDENTS...snip

 

STUDENT BODY COMPARISONS...snip

 

STUDIES OF VERY-HIGH IQ GROUPS...snip

 

STUDIES Of SCIENTISTS...snip

 

can't say he doesn't have backing

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You should source this. I have seen it before as a matter of fact - but I don't remember where.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Colrom

[Dark_Raven]

A nuclear bomb

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The survivors would worship the bomb aka The Masters cult in Fallout.

[Krookie]

You can't look to video games for answers in every situation.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Krookie

[Dark_Raven]

Ah just like god idols.

 

Priest: All mighty one, save us from damnation! We repent all thee sins! Give us a sign! A sign of any design! I hear a voice in my head, it must be our god! Yes! He says you must sacrifice your wealth to our church! Repent now, save yourselves from damnation! Give away your monetary wealth and be saved!

[Krookie]

Of course you cannot look to a priest in every situation.

 

One must look to themselves to answer everything, and can only ask for guidance from religion.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Krookie

[Atreides]

Lol I watched South Park's Hell on Earth last night. I found the touch where the church leaders tried to get into the party with their naked boys pretty funny.

[Pop]

Of course you cannot look to a priest in every situation.

 

One must look to themselves to answer everything, and can only ask for guidance from religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So... you're an intuitionist?

[WITHTEETH]

Of course you cannot look to a priest in every situation.

 

One must look to themselves to answer everything, and can only ask for guidance from religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So... you're an intuitionist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here are two types of branches in philosophy to gain knowledge

Empiricist

1. philosophy philosophical belief regarding sense-derived knowledge: the philosophical belief that all knowledge is derived from the experience of the senses 2. application of observation and experiment: the application of observation and experiment, rather than theory, in determining something

 

rationalist

1. the belief that thought and action should be governed by reason

2. reason as source of truth: the belief that reason and logic are the primary sources of knowledge and truth and should be relied on in searching for and testing the truth of things

 

Empiricists We believe we are born with an empty slate, the best way to gain knowledge is to experience it through our 5 senses. An example of empiricists are scientists, since science is based on our senses, observance and experiment. Its simply statistics collected from what we sense.

 

Rationalists believe that knowledge is best acquired though the mind apriori. Some believe that they are born with a full slate of knowledge: knowing everything before hand, which explains why theists don't rely on their 5 senses for truth, and that is their rationalization for god; they innately know god.

 

Krooki seems to be the later.

[Krookie]

Let's see if I can help you guys see what I see.

 

I believe in God, and Jesus Christ. I believe that our evolution was only guided by a God. I believe that you cannot ask a God to do things for you. You can only ask for guidance. That is was Religion is. Guidance.

 

Without guidance, what would the Human race be?

 

We would be nothing. And not just guidance from Religion. Guidance from teachers, from family members, from friends, from just about everything. The Human race would not be able to function together had we not guided each other through every obstacle that has been thrown at us.

 

Guidance is what I look to religion for. I don't look to it for hope, for an escape, for something to blame.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Krookie

[Calax]

Just going to point out that if the pope called for a crusade the average IQ for the world would jump after the crusade got demolished. I sincerly doubt that any highly intelligent person who referred to themselves as deeply religious would decide that, because an old [loner] who had a funny hat in rome said to kill stuff in the holy land, they would join a crusade.

 

Whereas 100 years ago, the church was the end all be all of the world. If you fought them you were well and truly screwed because of the uprising by the faithful.

Edited October 29, 2006 by metadigital

[Pop]

It's more than a little prejudicial to think that catholics would jump into a crusade when the Pope wills it, these days. Popes no longer have that power. Not now, in the post-enlightenment, post-reformation world, where there aren't kings to excommunicate, or landed nobles looking to curry favor with the church. There's no political leverage.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Pop

[kumquatq3]

I believe in God, and Jesus Christ. I believe that our evolution was only guided by a God.

 

I'm kinda curious here, how so? Because, on the surface, it's not evolution if it is "guided" by god (tho I'm prolly getting your meaning wrong).

[kumquatq3]

You mean like you telling Hurlshot that the story is only a metaphor?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's the problem with nonliteral interpretations? Don't freak out when somebody puts something forth that's more than a fundamentalist strawman for you to tilt at.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nothings "wrong" with it. I'm fine with it if their all metaphors. Wasn't the point of that post either.

 

However, if all the miracles if the stories are just metaphors (Jesus rising from the dead is really a metaphor for the religious spirit being renewed or something) than what are you really left with? And is it still sacred? If it's all metaphors, do the metaphors end, and the faith begin at some point?

Edited October 29, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Pop]

I believe in God, and Jesus Christ. I believe that our evolution was only guided by a God.

 

I'm kinda curious here, how so? Because, on the surface, it's not evolution if it is "guided" by god (tho I'm prolly getting your meaning wrong).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm somewhat confused as well. I read it as a non-interventionist viewpoint. God is the creator, but he doesn't have any direct influence on the way things happen. He wound it up and let it go.

[Hurlshort]

I believe in God, and Jesus Christ. I believe that our evolution was only guided by a God.

 

I'm kinda curious here, how so? Because, on the surface, it's not evolution if it is "guided" by god (tho I'm prolly getting your meaning wrong).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm somewhat confused as well. I read it as a non-interventionist viewpoint. God is the creator, but he doesn't have any direct influence on the way things happen. He wound it up and let it go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was my impression of Krookie's post as well. Evolution does not disprove that there was a Creator. Even Darwin claimed to be more of an agnostic than an atheist.

[kumquatq3]

That was my impression of Krookie's post as well.  Evolution does not disprove that there was a Creator.  Even Darwin claimed to be more of an agnostic than an atheist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Evolution is simply incompatible with certain religions, at least, the as far as the leaders of those religions would argue.

 

As for Darwin, he was "agnostic" like Einstein. While he was unsure about a "god", maybe even outright believing in some sort of god (again, possibly in a far different way than many might take that), they seemed to be fairly sure that the "God" of the bible (hence the religion) was off. Darwin in reply to a letter: "I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God". They, however, were not against faith in general. At least, not to my understanding of it. Anyone see it another way?

 

Along those lines, as an atheist, I have no beef with the "god" of Einstein, a sort of force that kicked everything off but doesn't watch mankind and isn't "active" in our day to day lives. Likely not omni-potent either. The general spirituality that means you just think there is something grander than ones self (essentially animism) isn't what I see as what Dawkins is talking about.

Edited October 29, 2006 by kumquatq3