The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[thedarkshade]

But isn't tolerance the same as respect?

[Phi for All]

But isn't tolerance the same as respect?

Oh no. There are many different beliefs and while I can tolerate most, there are only a few I respect.

 

I respect the law as a whole but only tolerate certain laws with which I disagree.

 

I tolerate mistakes made by co-workers, but I respect those co-workers who admit their mistakes and work to do better next time.

 

I respect a person's right to believe in the Christian God, and I tolerate that belief when it doesn't directly affect me, but I can't tolerate a fundamentalist forcing their belief in an inerrant Bible on my child.

 

Did I make it clearer or did I stir up the mud?

[pioneer]

Actually there was a huge social experiment, involving hundreds of millions of people, where religion was officially done away with by law, called the Soviet Union. If I recall there were millions of people killed or imprisoned, internally. What happens with no God, humans have to try to play God. Since they can't do a good job, they get paranoid such that everything is a threat including free speech. The economy was geared toward war. The culture had high rates of alcoholism and there was food rationed. But there was still good science. The experiment was reversed, partly due to cultures who reintroduce religion, such as Poland. What we have today are more people living higher degrees of freedom and prosperity, free to be religious or not. There is still a lot of good science.

 

Maybe a good survey is to go into the worse prisons and ask the inmates whether they had God or religion in their life at the time of their crimes. I am not suggesting there are not a lot of good people without religion. But when it comes to the worse humans, it would be interesting to see how the correlation ends up. According to the experts, it must be 90% religious. Let us put their expertise to the test to see if they being paranoid.

 

One of the misunderstandings about pointing to some of the historical atrocities of religion is assuming those responsible, didn't have a worldly agenda apart from religion. It is not always easy to determine if it was the atheist within, setting a personal agenda, using religion like a tool, to achieve the final end. The more by the book people, would not be in a position to fight back, since the fighting may not be in their nature. The final affect would get lumped into religion even if the agenda was not based on religion teachings but on someone deciding to build an empire.

[waitforufo]

No. Respect implies accommodation. Tolerance implies absence of abuse. In a polite society this boundary can be ambiguous. So for example if you have a day set aside for religious observance and I am your employer I give you the day off out of respect. If I tolerate you I make you take a vacation day.

[iNow]

Actually there was a huge social experiment, involving hundreds of millions of people, where religion was officially done away with by law, called the Soviet Union. If I recall there were millions of people killed or imprisoned, internally. What happens with no God, humans have to try to play God. Since they can't do a good job, they get paranoid such that everything is a threat including free speech. The economy was geared toward war. The culture had high rates of alcoholism and there was food rationed. But there was still good science. The experiment was reversed, partly due to cultures who reintroduce religion, such as Poland. What we have today are more people living higher degrees of freedom and prosperity, free to be religious or not. There is still a lot of good science.

 

Maybe a good survey is to go into the worse prisons and ask the inmates whether they had God or religion in their life at the time of their crimes. I am not suggesting there are not a lot of good people without religion. But when it comes to the worse humans, it would be interesting to see how the correlation ends up. According to the experts, it must be 90% religious. Let us put their expertise to the test to see if they being paranoid.

 

One of the misunderstandings about pointing to some of the historical atrocities of religion is assuming those responsible, didn't have a worldly agenda apart from religion. It is not always easy to determine if it was the atheist within, setting a personal agenda, using religion like a tool, to achieve the final end. The more by the book people, would not be in a position to fight back, since the fighting may not be in their nature. The final affect would get lumped into religion even if the agenda was not based on religion teachings but on someone deciding to build an empire.

 

 

Pioneer,

 

You seriously need to watch this and try to learn from the positions shared:

 

http://www.ajula.edu/Content/ContentUnit.asp?CID=1766&u=7037&t=0

 

 

Your logic above is incomprehensible, and based on so many flawed, yet simultaneously accpeted premises that your conclusions are inherently flawed as well.

 

 

The above is the full debate, just under 2 hours long, and worth the watch.

 

 

The much shorter sections of the debate which are specific to your underlying tone about Stalin and Hitler and your negative slant on atheism using them as your props are linked below:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrORCGEumto&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcY5SIfOkEg

[ydoaPs]

pioneer, check out

short video.

[dichotomy]

Science is either proving or disproving religious intuition. Science provides more solid illuminations via math and a growing body of evidence, while religion and art provides a murky starting platform for mans understanding of his environment and existence. IMO.

I would think that the human awareness progression goes something like –unconscious darkness, subconscious darkness, consciousness puzzlement, religion, alchemy, science….. Crude I know, but this is the general idea.

 

It is not always easy to determine if it was the atheist within, setting a personal agenda, using religion like a tool, to achieve the final end.

 

Well if you blindly target the atheist within, you might as well target the power tripper within. You might even be closer to the truth. Scientifically, power and the desire for beauty are the things that really drive man, are they not?

[Realitycheck]

Given the abundancy of places in reality to find God, I honestly believe that most people throughout history who claimed to believe in God, honestly did, without any subconscious atheist hidden in the shadows. It can be very gripping. I see no reason for people to have had any alterior motives.

[pioneer]

pioneer, check out this short video.

 

The video gave some interesting statistics like prison inmates had 90% religious background. It also gave examples of a lot of important thinkers who see themselves atheists. This data is sort of misleading. I would bet most of these thinkers had some type of religious background as children, but somewhere in their life they made a choice to be atheists. The inmates were probably in the same boat, starting with some form of religious training, and making a choice that allowed them to do the opposite of their religious training. Yet both data are not analyzed the same. One needs to make it consistent. If any of these thinkers had any religious training as children, even stemming from their parents stories, they should be lumped religious, just like the inmates. Or we do it the other way around, even if one had religious training, if their final choices led to the opposite, then they need to be called atheists. Data bias is not very scientific.

 

One thing that many people overlook, is a religious book, like the bible, never claims to be a science book. Yet many religious people and many scientists use this angle as part of their position. It is dual irrational. What the bible is, is a documentation of human nature through its early beginning in civilization to about the time of Rome.

 

Some of the laws appear overly strict and even irrational in terms of using a God for enforcement. But from a practical point of view, sometimes one has to look deeper. For example, there were laws against eating shell fish. Those who liked shell fish may have thought this was irrational and cruel. But modern science can now show that shell fish is very perishable without refrigeration. They couldn't give the flock data to make rational choices. But the irrational law turned out to have a rational basis in reality that were later proven correct. Homosexual behavior was not considered valid. Again, modern data can show that this choice of lifestyle has higher mortality rates. Even if we apply evolutionary principles this can take good genes out of the breeding pool. If the idea was to keep your culture healthy, growing and evolving, before good medicine, one needed to trim some of the ego-centric choices that go in the opposite direction in favor of what is best for the herd. The doom and gloom angle may have been politically expedient, sort of like the global warming panic button to get people in motion, making use of mother earth mythology.

 

I am of the opinion that ancient people were not us with old clothes. Their minds worked differently. They were less rational and more irrational and impulsive. The writings of Socrates were the exception and not the rule. Who had books or time to read but a smaller select group. The approach taken may have been the best approach for that time based the global demographics. The atheists, in some ways, by trying to reduce the impact, is throwing out the baby with the bath water. After already having done most of these same things and having figured out some things just don't work, we are trying to repeat the past.

 

For example, religion may preach marriage. If we compare the data between marriage and all the cutting edge alternatives, that were done thousands of year ago, the data shows this cutting edge leads to more physical, emotional and psychological problems both directly and indirectly. Yet science will ignore the science because it will give the wrong signal. The baby was clean, but that could create the impression that the irrational bath water is clean.

 

The Romans had their god or goddess of orgies. This is not new. But maybe 20 years ago it was rationalized as a new state of the art. There is a lot of recycle going on based on stuff already tried, which led to problems, which was then superseded because it turned out to be regressive. But if religion says this, it often does it in a mythological way, such that that approach is assumed to mean their conclusions were irrational. Therefore, we will take a rational approach, repeat the past, expecting a better result.

 

That is the heart of the matter. The bible often gives practical advice but does it in an irrational way with respect to the modern mind. Because it appears irrational, the practical advice is therefore considered irrational. So we do the same thing, justifying it with books full of reasons, only to end up in a boat that has sailed before. But since this is based on rational reasons, it is still considered modern and rational with the results ignored. It is double irrational being justified with reasons that don't always add up. I am not so much religious as a rationalists that thinks in practical terms. Sometime practical does not always have to stem from reason, but can be based on the synthesis of observation leading to empirical correlation. The problem religion often faces is putting an irrational spin on practical. This helps justify the anti-position leading to rational retro-impracticality.

 

Let me add one final example. Free sex can be fun. But it can also lead to unwanted pregnancy and disease. Cutting edge retro thinking now has to employ science to mop up after it. We invent condoms, medications, and abortion to allow the original rationalization to look better than what the raw data would suggest. So now it all looks cutting again with the results appearing optimized. But then we notice secondary affects based on psychological problems and logistical problems such as the rise of poor single mothers with children. We get another mop out and create social programs to clean this up. Now the rational correlation appears good again since the raw data has now be massaged. Back in the old days thousands of years ago they didn't have all these mops. One had to take a path leading to the best results, working under the constraint we don't have a lot of mops to clean up after bad choices. From a capitalist point of view all these mops means jobs and experts, who specializing in cleaning up the mess. Jobs are good with trying to keep these jobs dependant on the experts making new messes.

[iNow]

If you are moving forward accepting that the bible and other such books are the basis of good things, then you must by default also except the bad things. Have you stoned your neighbor today?

 

[lucaspa]

If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color.

 

We can argue whether atheism is a "religion" because atheism does not have liturgy or churches (but it does have dogma), but atheism is a faith.

 

We don't have a word for people who don't believe in astrology like a-astrologists. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in numerology like a-numerologists. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in panspermia like a-panspermists...

 

Apples and oranges. all these are scientific theories and are either accepted or rejected based on scientific data. Theism and atheism are faiths.

 

Maybe... just maybe there is such a word as pertains to theism since they cannot defend their beliefs with evidence,

 

Actually, it's atheism that can't defend itself with evidence. Theists present evidence and atheism says the evidence is invalid. Remind you of another debate? Such as evolutionists presenting data supporting evolution and creationists always trying to poke holes and rejecting the evidence?

 

Why am I supposed to accept someone's belief in god, when I don't simultaneously accept someone's belief that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns?

 

You don't have to "accept" someone's belief in deity as in also think that belief is an accurate reflection of ultimate reality.

 

I think the point is rather that you must o accept that theism can be (altho it isn't always) a rational, reasoned belief based on evidence. (Notice I didn't say "scientific" evidence.) Just as I must accept that atheism can be (altho it isn't always) a rational, reasoned belief (also not based on scientific evidence). I'll leave it to you to figure out what evidence atheism has. Mosts atheists, I've found, haven't a clue.

[PauloChem]

I see a lot of people here have a beef with God. No, don't say you do not believe in God because you don't talk about leprechauns farts, because it is so stupid you don't need to explain or attack that belief.

 

Why am I supposed to accept someone's belief in god, when I don't simultaneously accept someone's belief that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns?

 

Hmm if there is no God then good and evil is relative , you are right you don't need to respect anything, we are just a fluke, we have no goal , and don't start talking about moral law. The moral law is put into us. But if there is no one to put it into us then there is no moral law in us and then all is relative.

 

Of course this is the best example why philosophy fails, because someone will post a better philosophy and beat mine, and so on.

 

But there is one thing that we all have. That is HOPE.

[ParanoiA]

The only potential issue I see with lack of respect for other's beliefs is the idea that we must argue with them and constantly berate their beliefs. I don't believe that's respectful at all.

 

Seems to me you should accept other's beliefs as long as they are keeping it to themselves. I really don't care to defend Gravity or Round Earth with every idiot that doesn't believe it. I didn't ask for it.

 

However, if I'm perpetuating my belief onto others, or if that belief is impacting decision making and behavior that creates some kind of conflict, then I don't see any problem with taking me to task about my beliefs. What I generally see, is anti-religious folks (like myself) charging after religious folk for really no better reason than their personal crusade. That's ever bit as despicable as the religios that knock on my door and tempt my kids on the church bus with candy.

[Phi for All]

The only potential issue I see with lack of respect for other's beliefs is the idea that we must argue with them and constantly berate their beliefs. I don't believe that's respectful at all.

I don't see arguing with another person about beliefs to be disrespectful. To me, an argument goes two ways. But we should all be able to argue without berating the beliefs of others. That *is* disrespectful.

Seems to me you should accept other's beliefs as long as they are keeping it to themselves. I really don't care to defend Gravity or Round Earth with every idiot that doesn't believe it. I didn't ask for it.

To me, this is tolerance. Keep your spirituality to yourself and we can still find plenty to talk about, even be good friends based on other commonalities.

 

And if those beliefs don't fly in the face of a decent amount of reason, I may even respect your beliefs. I have many religious friends who aren't Satanists or creationists and they basically believe in things that aren't completely contradicted by evidence. I can respect that as well as tolerate it.

 

However, if I'm perpetuating my belief onto others, or if that belief is impacting decision making and behavior that creates some kind of conflict, then I don't see any problem with taking me to task about my beliefs. What I generally see, is anti-religious folks (like myself) charging after religious folk for really no better reason than their personal crusade. That's ever bit as despicable as the religios that knock on my door and tempt my kids on the church bus with candy.

Agreed. Except, if I ever saw someone tempting my child aboard a bus with candy, the fact that they're with a church wouldn't stop me from charging after them, dragging every single one of them off the bus, and discouraging them to within an inch of meeting their god.

[ParanoiA]

Oh man, when I was kid, candy was a popular trick. I went to church several Sundays, and they just passed it out on the bus all the way to church and then all the way back home. I didn't give a crap about church, I just wanted the candy. But after a few times that wasn't enough to keep me going either. So boring...

 

When the church bus comes by my house I tell them to keep going and leave my kids alone. I usually have that distrusting-farmer-with-a-shotgun look on my face when I do it. It took years of philosophical and spiritual pondering before I made this decision.

[iNow]

Apples and oranges. all these are scientific theories and are either accepted or rejected based on scientific data. Theism and atheism are faiths.

I suppose you are equivocating with the word "faith." I also have "faith" that gravity will prevent me from floating off my chair into the vacuum of space. I also have "faith" that the airplane will lift from the runway before the tarmac ends. These "faiths" are based in evidence.

 

For you to suggest that my lack of acceptance in imaginary friends is a "faith" is like suggesting that a lack of acceptance that Care Bears control the globe's petroleum infrastructure is "faith." It's not the same use.

 

Think of the word "theory," and how it differs in science versus commom parlance. That's the same thing I'm driving at here with your use of the word "faith."

 

Atheism is simply a lack of belief. If people choose to act on that atheism and attempt to spread the concept of rational thinking and falsifiability, then that is seperate from their lack of belief.

 

 

Actually, it's atheism that can't defend itself with evidence.

They don't have to. They are not claiming that something is there, so the onus is not on them to prove anything.

 

 

Theists present evidence and atheism says the evidence is invalid.

That's because it's not evidence, it's anecdote.

 

 

I'll leave it to you to figure out what evidence atheism has. Mosts atheists, I've found, haven't a clue.

 

More anecdote, but I encourage you to look above. The onus is not on one who challenges the claim to provide evidence for it. The theists make the claim, and have no evidence. This is why I speak of purple unicorns and leprechauns. They are just as easily inserted in the place of "god," and the dialog is unchanged.

 

Theists don't believe in Thor, they don't believe in Zeus, they don't believe in Apollo or Paseidon, they don't believe in 99.9% of all of the gods which have ever been invented by humans, so they are atheists too.

 

I just choose to go one god further, and for whatever reason am inclined to show the weaknessness in the position of those who don't. This inclination has nothing to do with the fact that I've chosen not to believe and everything to do with the harm I see being done by those who do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see a lot of people here have a beef with God.

 

<...>

 

if there is no God then good and evil is relative , you are right you don't need to respect anything, we are just a fluke, we have no goal , and don't start talking about moral law. The moral law is put into us. But if there is no one to put it into us then there is no moral law in us and then all is relative.

No, not really. God doesn't exist, so there's nothing really there with which I can have a problem at all. It's the people who use this fairy tale as social manipulation and acceptance of atrocity that I have a "beef" with. Additionally, to suggest that I am an immoral person because I don't believe the same things they believe is rather insulting, and has no basis in reality.

[Mr Skeptic]

Atheism is simply a lack of belief. If people choose to act on that atheism and attempt to spread the concept of rational thinking and falsifiability, then that is seperate from their lack of belief.

 

A lack of belief in a god is weak atheism or weak agnosticism, and they are the only ones who don't make claims about the supernatural. I prefer the term agnostic, as they do not get confused with the strong atheists (who do make a metaphysical claim that they cannot prove, namely that there is no god). When called to support their claim, there is little in the way of evidence that they might give.

 

They don't have to. They are not claiming that something is there, so the onus is not on them to prove anything.

 

Not always true; if someone rejects a claim that everyone else believes, they are expected to give some proof that the claim is false. Since much of the world believes in some god or another, claiming that there is no god would be a minority claim.

 

From a science point of view, though, Occam's Razor does give the edge to those refusing to believe in an entity in the absence of evidence of its existence.

[pioneer]

Here is a different way to look at God. If you look at God as an abstract concept, it encompasses all the extremes, at the same time. Relative to math, this God abstraction is the original basis for the concepts of infinity and point. Relative to the human mind, this abstraction create an abstract anchor, that goes way beyond finite limitations, i.e., infinity. To even think about approaching those abstract limits one needs to go beyond themselves or finite limitations. It is this beyond themselves that is often characteristic of religion. It creates extremes in human behavior from the extreme darkness that is sprinkled in history, to extreme self sacrifice, to extremes of motivation, extreme art, etc. It is the abstract anchor at infinity that help the mind, heart push the limits of finite.

 

Taking away the God concept is sort of like taking away the concept of infinity from math. Infinity is not easy to prove, since if you ever got there, it would not be infinity. We need to have faith that it exists. Even if it doesn't exist in terms of real proof, this extreme anchor parameter for the mind, has had a very significant impact on science and math. If we decided to be consistent across the board, since it is an abstract concept unable to be proven, we need to get rid of it, even this will mess up math. We would need to substitute infinity for only the extreme finite we can measure. Beyond that it is not provable. If don't have infinity, we may settle on a number and retire. If we keep it, it motivates us to keep pushing further trying to reach it. God is 3-D abstraction that sets mental infinity not just in math, but for all the extremes including human nature. It has lasted and continues to last because this abstract anchor pulls the mind beyond trying to find infinity in the world around us.

[Phi for All]

For you to suggest that my lack of acceptance in imaginary friends is a "faith" is like suggesting that a lack of acceptance that Care Bears control the globe's petroleum infrastructure is "faith." It's not the same use.

I see where lucaspa is coming from here. Atheism is a lack of belief... in a supernatural being. Since this being is unobservable and therefore outside scientific measurement, ANY belief or lack thereof must be based on faith. Your unicorns and Care Bears haven't declared that they will not show themselves directly the way the Abrahamic God has.

 

If we're talking just about belief/lack of belief in a god that is inherently supernatural (and nothing else regarding specific religions or texts or claims), then it's all faith-based until that god puts Himself back among the observable phenomena.

[iNow]

I agree. Let me make an addendum.

 

While I cannot prove 100% that there is no god, my confidence level is high and I express my position using 99.9% certainty.

[Mr Skeptic]

I agree. Let me make an addendum.

 

While I cannot prove 100% that there is no god, my confidence level is high and I express my position using 99.9% certainty.

 

That does seem like a good way to put it.

[ParanoiA]

Is there not a third state?

 

Belief = No (Atheism)

Belief = Yes (Theism)

Belief = I don't know (??)

 

If "belief = I don't know", then even though I have declared no choice due to lack of sufficient information to determine belief, I still, technically do not believe in god. However, that is not faith based. In fact, it's complete absence of faith either way. So what am I?

[Mr Skeptic]

Is there not a third state?

 

Belief = No (Atheism)

Belief = Yes (Theism)

Belief = I don't know (??)

 

If "belief = I don't know", then even though I have declared no choice due to lack of sufficient information to determine belief, I still, technically do not believe in god. However, that is not faith based. In fact, it's complete absence of faith either way. So what am I?

 

That would be weak atheism or weak agnosticism. Strong agnosticism would be, "I don't know and there will never be enough evidence to tell"

[ParanoiA]

That would be weak atheism or weak agnosticism. Strong agnosticism would be, "I don't know and there will never be enough evidence to tell"

 

Well I don't mean to be pedantic, but isn't "there will never be enough evidence to tell" a faith based statement?

 

I'm thinking, "I don't know, as long as there is not enough evidence to tell".

[Phi for All]

While I cannot prove 100% that there is no god, my confidence level is high and I express my position using 99.9% certainty.

This is exactly the way I feel about the deities of ALL organized religions. It's the possibility that there may just be a higher power that can manipulate the forces of the universe in ways that would make it seem like a god that keeps my certainty a bit lower than yours. I reserve the 99.9% certainty for supposedly omnipotent beings who will care enough to roast us for not being sheep.